CHESSIE CIRCLE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

City of Toledo Metroparks of the Toledo Area

University of Toledo Wood County Park District

Wood County Port Authority

April 2013

i  

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Background ................................................................................................................................. 3

3. Case Statement ............................................................................................................................ 4

4. Vision, Goals, and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 5

5. Corridor History .......................................................................................................................... 6

5.1 Chessie Circle Trail ............................................................................................................... 6

5.2 Nasby Tower ......................................................................................................................... 7

5.3 The Clinton Secondary .......................................................................................................... 7

6. Design Standards And Branding ................................................................................................. 9

6.1 Basic Requirements ............................................................................................................... 9

6.2 Path Types ........................................................................................................................... 11

6.2.1 Open Space Shared Use Path........................................................................................ 11

6.2.2 Off-Road Shared Use Path ........................................................................................... 12

6.2.3 Shared Road Path and On-Road Shared Lane .............................................................. 12

6.2.4 Sidepaths ....................................................................................................................... 12

6.3 Bridges ................................................................................................................................ 13

6.4 Trail Heads and Trail Access .............................................................................................. 13

6.4.1 Car Parking ................................................................................................................... 15

6.4.2 Bicycle Racks ............................................................................................................... 15

6.4.3 Kiosks ........................................................................................................................... 16

6.4.4 Water Fountains ............................................................................................................ 16

6.5 Key Path Locations/Points of Interest ................................................................................. 17

6.6 Mow Pads ............................................................................................................................ 17

6.7 Vegetative Buffers ............................................................................................................... 18

6.7 Restricting Motor Vehicle Traffic ....................................................................................... 20

7. Detail Design Standards ............................................................................................................ 21

7.1 Elements of Path Design ..................................................................................................... 21

7.2 Design Speed ....................................................................................................................... 23

7.2.1 Minimum Curve Radii .................................................................................................. 24

ii  

7.2.2 Stopping Sight Distances .............................................................................................. 24

7.3 Cross Slope .......................................................................................................................... 24

7.4 Grade ................................................................................................................................... 25

7.5 Drainage .............................................................................................................................. 25

7.6 Obstacle-Free Area .............................................................................................................. 26

7.7 Railings and Fencing ........................................................................................................... 26

7.7.1 Safety Railing ............................................................................................................... 27

7.7.2 Split Rail Fence ............................................................................................................ 28

7.7.3 Privacy Fence ............................................................................................................... 28

7.7.4 Safety Fence ................................................................................................................. 29

7.8 Path Marking ....................................................................................................................... 29

7.9 Signs .................................................................................................................................... 30

7.9.1 Warning Signs .............................................................................................................. 30

7.9.2 Regulatory Signs........................................................................................................... 31

7.9.3 Directional Markers ...................................................................................................... 31

7.9.4 Route Signs ................................................................................................................... 32

7.9.5 Kiosks ........................................................................................................................... 32

7.9.6 Trail Information .......................................................................................................... 33

7.9.7 Identification Markers .................................................................................................. 33

7.9.8 Way Finding Markers ................................................................................................... 34

7.9.9 Mileposts ...................................................................................................................... 34

7.9.10 Assurance Stickers ...................................................................................................... 35

7.10 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 35

7.10.1 Mid-Block Crossings .................................................................................................. 36

7.10.2 Off Road Shared Path and Sidepath ........................................................................... 37

7.10.3 Signalized Crossings .................................................................................................. 37

7.10.4 Shared Use Path/Shared Use Path and Walkway Crossings ...................................... 38

7.10.5 Railroad Crossings ...................................................................................................... 38

7.13 Drainage and Manhole Requirements ............................................................................... 39

8. Chessie Circle Trail Implementation ........................................................................................ 40

8.1 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................. 40

iii  

8.2 Funding Sources .................................................................................................................. 40

8.3 Mechanisms to Encourage Trail System Development ...................................................... 41

8.3.1 Joint Development Techniques .................................................................................... 41

8.3.2 Promotion of Bicycling as an Alternative Transportation Mode ................................. 41

8.4 Security Concerns Regarding Multi-Use Paths ................................................................... 43

8.4.1 Adjacent Land Owner Security Concerns .................................................................... 43

8.4.2 Path User Security Concerns ........................................................................................ 43

9. COORDINATION OF PATH IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................. 45

9.1 Segment One – Wood County Port Authority, Metroparks of the Toledo Area, and Wood County Park District .................................................................................................................. 46

9.1.1 Wood County Port Authority – Maumee River Rail Bridge ........................................ 46

9.1.2 Metroparks of the Toledo Area – Maumee River to Glanzman Road .......................... 47

9.1.3 Wood County Park District – Maumee River Road to the W.W. Knight Nature Preserve ................................................................................................................................. 47

9.2 Segment Two – University of Toledo and City of Toledo .................................................. 47

9.2.1 University of Toledo – Bancroft Street to Oakwood Avenue ...................................... 48

9.2.2 City of Toledo – Jackman Road to Kenwood Boulevard ............................................. 48

9.2.3 City of Toledo – Kenwood Boulevard to Bancroft Street ............................................ 49

9.3 Segment Three: University of Toledo Campus Interconnects ............................................ 49

9.4 Project Milestones and Completion Schedule ..................................................................... 49

iv  

Appendix Appendix A – Chessie Circle Trail Access Point Attributes

Appendix B – Chessie Circle Trail Pedestrian Signal Control

Appendix C – Chessie Circle Trail Conceptual Cost Estimate

v  

List of Figures Figure 1 Chessie Circle Trail Future Multi-Use Path ...............................................................2

Figure 2 Open Space Shared Use Path. ....................................................................................11

Figure 3 Off Road Shared Use Path .........................................................................................12

Figure 4 Bicycle Parking ..........................................................................................................15

Figure 5 Bicycle Parking Signage ............................................................................................15

Figure 6 Kiosks ........................................................................................................................16

Figure 7 Water Fountain ...........................................................................................................16

Figure 8 Path Jointing...............................................................................................................17

Figure 9 Mow Pads...................................................................................................................18

Figure 10 Vegetative Buffer #1 ..................................................................................................19

Figure 11 Vegetative Buffer #2 ..................................................................................................19

Figure 12 Vegetative Buffer #3 ..................................................................................................20

Figure 13 Planning and Design Manuals ...................................................................................21

Figure 14 Standard Pavement Width..........................................................................................22

Figure 15 Standard Pavement Section........................................................................................23

Figure 16 Path Cross Slope ........................................................................................................25

Figure 17 Obstacle Free Area .....................................................................................................26

Figure 18 Safety Railing Detail ..................................................................................................27

Figure 19 Property Fencing ........................................................................................................28

Figure 20 Privacy Fence .............................................................................................................28

Figure 21 Safety Fence ...............................................................................................................29

Figure 22 Warning Signs ............................................................................................................30

Figure 23 Regulatory Signs ........................................................................................................31

Figure 24 Directional Markers ...................................................................................................31

Figure 25 Kiosks ........................................................................................................................32

Figure 26 Information Signs.......................................................................................................33

Figure 27 Identification Markers ................................................................................................33

Figure 28 Way Finding Markers ................................................................................................34

Figure 29 Milepost Markers .......................................................................................................34

Figure 30 Bicycle Route Assurance Sticker ...............................................................................35

Figure 31 Conflicts at a Sidepath Intersection ...........................................................................37

Figure 32 Acute Angle Bikeway / Railroad Crossing ................................................................38

Figure 33 Chessie Circle Trail Map ...........................................................................................51

 

1  

1. INTRODUCTION A consortium of partners has undertaken the development of an urban multi-use hike and bike path to facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians and cyclists within the region’s transportation network. The principal goal of this plan is to link employment zones, residential, recreational areas, schools, parks, shopping, restaurants, major transit connections, and other public facilities that form the fabric of the region. A map of the corridor and ownership of the corridor segments is shown on Figure 1. It is not anticipated that the entire corridor will be developed at one time. Therefore, this plan is intended to coordinate the construction of individual path sections that will become integrated into a larger regional system when completed. Once the corridor is fully developed, residents and visitors alike will have greater commuter hiking and biking opportunities as a viable mode of transportation. Development of Chessie Circle Trail began with the October 31, 2011 purchase of 11.6 miles of CSX rail right of way to preserve the right-of-way for future public use as a rail to trail. The rail corridor extends from Laskey Road to the Maumee River in Toledo and from the Maumee River to Bates Road in Wood County. The value of the purchase was $6,571,534. The purchase was made possible by a consortium of local stakeholders that came together to acquire the property using a combination of local contributions and designated federal transportation funds. Consortium members included the Trust for Public Land, Metroparks of the Toledo Area, University of Toledo, City of Toledo, Wood County Park District, Wood County Port Authority, and Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG). Portions of the right of way were assigned to specific consortium members including Metroparks of the Toledo Area, University of Toledo, City of Toledo, Wood County Park District, and the Wood County Port Authority. These five entities are subsequently referred to as the Contracting Parties.

2  

Figure 1: Chessie Circle Trail Future Multi-Use Path

3  

2. BACKGROUND Federal funds were used for the purchase of the right of way from Laskey Road to River Road in Lucas County, and River Road to Bates Road in Wood County. Local contributions, primarily from the Toledo Metroparks, and the Wood County Park District were used to purchase the property between River Road in Lucas County and River Road in Wood County. The Maumee River rail bridge was conveyed directly by CSX to the Wood County Port Authority and this part of the corridor transaction did not involve the use of federal funds. When the corridor was purchased, there was a federal stipulation that the corridor be put to use in 20 years. There was also a requirement that a Coordinating Committee be established with the following completed by December 31, 2021:

1. Prepare a plan with milestones, interim dates, and details for development of the corridor including identified sources of funding for development.

2. Prioritize path sections that may be completed. 3. Conduct regular planning meetings with the various public agencies. 4. Develop portions of the corridor for public use as a multi-purpose path subject to the

availability of necessary grant funds for path development.

This development plan is intended to comply with the first two items listed above. This plan is also prepared per the Deed Restrictions and Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Contracting Parties in October, 2011.

4  

3. CASE STATEMENT Pedestrian and bicycling are healthy, low cost travel options that are available to nearly everyone. Since walking and biking emit no pollution, they effectively move people from one place to another without adverse environmental impacts. Surveys show that people support development of multi-use paths because they make neighborhoods safer and friendlier, save on motorized transportation costs, provide ways to get routine physical activity, and reduce transportation-related environmental impacts, emissions, and noise. Multi-use paths increase the flexibility of the transportation system by providing additional mobility options, especially for short-distance trips that are too close to drive. Multi-use paths are particularly effective in combination with transit systems, that when used together, each expands the range of the other transportation mode. There are several reasons why federal transportation funds were specifically designated in 2005 for the purchase and subsequent development of this corridor as a multi-use path. Unique Opportunity

Acquisition of 11.6 miles of linear right-of-way for public use is a rare and exceptional opportunity. Few communities can acquire similar property once a network of surface streets and highways has been established in a well-developed urban area.

Environmental Awareness Northwest Ohio is home to a unique combination of natural resources in terms of fresh

water, parklands, wetlands, and a habitat for birds and plants. A major, well-used path such as this increases awareness of these resources.

Commuting Options The corridor is a linear right of way that provides an opportunity to connect several

residential, retail, industrial, and recreational areas. It is also close to several schools, health care facilities, and university campuses. It will provide a safe and affordable commuting opportunity for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Healthy Lifestyle

In northwest Ohio, many people at public meetings note lack of facilities for walking and cycling compared to other areas of the country. Development of the Chessie Circle Trail will increase the opportunity for a healthier lifestyle.

Because the corridor is in the middle of populated areas, many people will have quick access for exercise and recreation right in their own neighborhood.

5  

4. VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES The vision, goals, and objectives of this Plan are outlined below:

Provide a north-south spine connecting the corridor to trails already developed in adjacent Metroparks, Park Districts, Cities, and Townships. Several local pedestrian and bike facilities exist within the city and county but they are not interconnected. One of the objectives of the TMACOG long range transportation plan is to link regional and local pedestrian/bicycle facilities to form a cohesive and continuous trail system for the region.

Allow all users to access key destinations along the corridor including employment zones, residential, recreational areas, schools, parks, shopping, restaurants, major transit connections, and other public facilities that form the fabric of the region.

Enhance and provide access to the linear greenways along the corridor. Major creeks and flood plain areas provide access to areas that are aesthetically superior to the urban environment of arterial streets. These green areas provide natural east-west linear corridors that do not require path users to compete with city street traffic. The Chessie Circle Trail provides connecting opportunities to many of these existing greenways including Ottawa River, Swan Creek, and the Maumee River.

Encourage and promote pedestrian and bicycle activities in addition to promoting cycling as a viable alternate mode of transportation in a balanced urban transportation system.

Provide the opportunity for the urban area to access regional bikeways located east and west of the metropolitan area–specifically, the Wabash Cannonball to the west and the North Coast Inland Trail to the east.

Increase safety for both pedestrians and cyclists through the implementation of an educational and informational process to inform motorists, pedestrians and cyclists about the region’s network of hike and bike trails.

Provide a barrier free environment that is accessible to all potential users including those that are physically challenged.

Foster inter-jurisdictional planning between the partners. Maximize the efficiency in the pursuit of funding by collaborating on an inter-

jurisdictional basis. Create an additional regional emphasis on paths that would allow the partners to compete

for regional recreational grant opportunities. To identify and consider key crossing points between partners, so that uniform

interconnecting points can be established, and so that points of intersection can be determined and constructed by each partner.

Establish uniform standards for design and construction of all path segments so that a sense of consistency is maintained as one travels the entire length of the corridor.

Promote the design of context sensitive improvements that provide a safe facility for both the user and the surrounding community, and to ensure that project segments are built in harmony with adjacent land uses, preserving important environmental, historic and aesthetic features of the area.

Produce a path development plan that is endorsed and ratified by all the partners, and that can serve to guide long range path planning for the entire corridor.

6  

5. CORRIDOR HISTORY 5.1 CHESSIE CIRCLE TRAIL

The Chessie Circle Trail formerly referred to as “the backside” of the Toledo Terminal Railroad (TTRR) has played a significant role in the city’s rich rail history. Construction on the TTRR began in 1902 when a group of roughly 10 railroad companies worked together to form the nation’s first complete beltline. Formally named the Toledo Terminal Railroad, the beltline formed a loop within the city that allowed trains from surrounding railways to connect and transport freight to businesses located along the beltline. Corporations such as Libbey Glass, General Mills, and Owens Corning relied heavily on the delivery of goods via the TTRR. Over 170 rail cars per day delivered freight that supported the city’s booming industry. As time went on, rail companies merged and traffic decreased as revenue generated from local businesses along the beltline declined. Eventually, the primary Class I rail company that had a need for TTRR was C&O which became the Chessie System and finally CSX. CSX purchased the TTRR due to its connection to their Michigan rail system and the east or “front” side was CSX’s only access to Toledo’s automobile industry. In 1982, a derailment on the Upper Maumee River Bridge caused damage to the bridge which the railroad elected not to repair. Following the bridge derailment, CSX determined that the east or “front” side of the corridor could handle the reduced traffic flow and the loop was never complete again. Norfolk Southern (NS) also had customers that could only be accessed via the west or “backside” so CSX leased that portion of the TTRR to NS. Once the Conrail sale was consummated in 1999, NS no longer needed the “backside’ as they could serve their Maumee customers via their newly acquired Conrail track. Eventually, CSX chose to abandon the west side of the rail line in 2010 and lease a segment of the former “backside” to NS. With the declining use of the “backside” evident, TMACOG undertook studies to evaluate the best use for the abandoned railway in the 1980’s and soon the Westside Corridor was chosen as the new working name for “backside”. Analysis showed that the Westside Corridor was a critical connector linking Toledo with areas south and west of the city. Not only were there many rail junctions along the line but the corridor was also in close proximity to schools, industry, city parks and regional metroparks. In addition, TMACOG studies also identified the benefits of taking the Westside out of rail service, which included eliminating at-grade rail crossings along the corridor and the possibility of more efficient routing of rail traffic through the region. TMACOG concluded that over time the Westside Corridor could be repurposed for a type of transit other than rail. Following acquisition of the property from CSX in October 2011, a Coordinating Committee was established that subsequently oversaw the preparation of this Development Plan. As this Plan was being prepared, the committee deliberated on a name that would establish a separate identity and brand for future trail improvements. The name “Chessie Circle Trail” was selected to reflect the CSX heritage of the corridor and the fact that the Toledo Terminal Railroad was developed as a circular rail loop serving businesses located both east and west of the Maumee River.

7  

The proximity to schools, workplaces, and city parks make the Chessie Circle Trail a fitting location for a multi-use hike and bike trail. Children and adults can use the pathway for travel to school, work, and recreation destinations. Additionally, the 11.6 mile corridor will one day connect to Ohio’s existing trails which would link Toledo to cities such as Cleveland and Columbus. Once it is developed, the Chessie Circle Trail will be a prime place for residents and visitors to enhance their health and enjoy Toledo’s many attributes. 5.2 NASBY TOWER

Just west of Norfolk Southern’s Airline Yard stands the Nasby Tower that was erected in 1922 as an industrial switching tower. Trains travelling along the east-west Chicago to Buffalo line were routed into the beltline by signal tower operators who worked track switches and signals to guide the trains and prevent collisions. There were many towers stationed along the length of the Chessie Circle Trail that controlled the crossover or “switching” of trains from tracks that connected to the TTRR. Nasby Tower still contains original switching equipment and is a reminder of railway management before the days of remotely operated high tech computers which replaced the signal tower operators. The TMACOG Pedestrian & Bikeway Committee has worked to save the Nasby Tower from demolition so that it could one day be used as a public rest area or an interpretive site that would educate trail users about the rich history of the TTRR. 5.3 THE CLINTON SECONDARY

There is a deep history associated with the Clinton Secondary. It was part of the Erie & Kalamazoo, the first railroad to operate west of the Allegheny Mountains (western Pennsylvania). In front of the Toledo Amtrak station at the Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza, there is an historical marker about this railroad. The marker notes:

“Begun in 1832, the line was completed by 1836. Its rails were made of oak topped with thin iron strips. Horses pulled small rail cars the 30 miles between Toledo and Adrian Michigan. In July 1837, a steam locomotive replaced the horses.

From the Erie & Kalamazoo’s simple beginning, Toledo’s great rail system developed. By 1900, thirteen railroad companies operated from Toledo’s terminals and port facilities, making it the third largest rail center in the United States.”

For years the Erie & Kalamazoo was known as "The Old Road." It was part of the New York Central System and supported a large business base in its heyday. As trucks began to eat into the railroad's business, the line lost its importance and customers. Today, it supports only one business, the Michigan Elevator Exchange facility in Ottawa Lake, Michigan, just north of Sylvania, Ohio. Concurrent with the Chessie Circle property acquisition in 2011, track and switches in Norfolk Southern’s Airline Yard (near Hill and Fearing) were modified to expand intermodal access to the yard without interfering with rail traffic on the mainline Chicago to New York tracks. Also, the Airline track and switch modifications improved movement of trains northerly to Detroit and grain elevator facilities located in Ottawa Lake, Michigan. As a result of the Airline Yard

8  

improvements, the Norfolk Southern track between Vulcan and Airline junctions known as the Clinton Secondary was removed from service. It is expected this section of track will one day be formally abandoned and when this occurs, connectivity to the Chessie Circle Trail from the main campus of the University of Toledo and Scott Park campus will be available.

9  

6. DESIGN STANDARDS AND BRANDING The corridor is to be developed as a shared use rail-trail or rail-with-trail consistent with the Vision, Goals, and Objectives of this Plan. The corridor development will also allow for the installation, maintenance, replacement, use and operation of public utilities such as electric, water, sewer, fiber optic, cable, and telephone lines. Except for underground utilities, all plans and specifications for trail development and other approved uses must be submitted to and approved by the Chessie Circle Coordinating Committee. The path will be signed and allow multi-use by pedestrians, in-line skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, cyclists, and other non-motorized users. The open space path is to be as accessible and visible as possible for the following reasons:

Path visibility improves public safety Emergency vehicle access Maintenance crew access

It is the intent of this Plan, that uniform standards be applied for all sections of the corridor so that when adjoining sections of the corridor are completed and connected, the experience of the path user will be consistent and transparent as to ownership. 6.1 BASIC REQUIREMENTS

The path is to be normally opened from dawn until dusk. The path is not to be open to hunting or motorized vehicles except motorized devices specifically designed for and used by a person with a physical disability or authorized service and security vehicles. Where grade separations are necessary between a path and a roadway or railroad, bridges are to be provided versus underpass or tunnel. The path is to be constructed to AASHTO and ODOT specifications applicable at the time of construction. The path shall be designed to allow maintenance and emergency vehicles to use them without doing damage to the pavement or bridges. The path design and construction shall comply with City and County standards for erosion. As the corridor is being developed on a former rail bed, the finished surface of the path will typically be located above the 100-year flood plain limit. With respect to drainage, low water crossings will be permitted on small drainages swales where large volumes of water will not undermine the path. The path is not the only recreational use that can be developed in the corridor. Criteria to be adopted by the Chessie Circle Coordinating Committee will require developers (public or private,) who desire to restrict the alignment of paths to provide an alternative right-of-way or

10  

easement for the construction of a 16 foot (desirable) with minimum 12 foot wide path to ensure continuity and connectivity of the regional trail system as proposed in this plan. It is critical to the overall intent and success of this plan that the key element of this corridor, the primary open space shared use path (rail-trail and rail-with-trail), is continuous and separated from vehicular traffic and major streets and thoroughfares to ensure that it offers the safest and most environmentally diverse cycling, walking and running experience.

11  

6.2 PATH TYPES

Several common terms are used interchangeably to refer to multi-use paths such as trails, rail-trails, paths, bike lanes and similar. However, there are distinctions and for this Plan, differing types of multi-use paths are listed as follows:

Open Space Shared Use Path – A path physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic with an independent right-of way. Shared use paths may be used by pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users.

Off-Road Shared Use Path – Again, a path physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier but located within the highway right-of-way.

Shared Road – A roadway that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel. This may be an existing roadway, a street with wide curb lanes, or a road with paved shoulders.

Shared Lane – A roadway lane that is open to bicycle travel and vehicular use. Sidepath – A shared use path located immediately adjacent and parallel to a roadway. Rail-Trail – A shared use path built within the right-of-way of a former railroad. Rail-with-Trail – A shared use path built within the right-of-way of an active railroad.

As the Chessie Circle Trail was a former rail right of way (with a portion still active), the subsequent discussion in this plan focuses on standards to be used to plan, design, and construct shared use paths as rail-trails and where appropriate rail-with-trails. 6.2.1 OPEN SPACE SHARED USE PATH

Open space shared use paths are considered a beneficial amenity to any community (Figure 2). They are by design, intended to provide a different experience than shared lane, shared road, or sidepath facilities. Shared use paths are generally intended for two-way travel, and include different surfaces and conform to specific standards. Examples of this type of path are the University Parks, Wabash Cannonball, Slippery Elm, North Coast Inland Trails, and several of the Metropark multi-purpose paths.

Figure 2: Open Space Shared Use Path

12  

6.2.2 OFF-ROAD SHARED USE PATH

Off-Road Paths are pedestrian and bike facilities located within the street right-of-way (Figure 3). They are basically an extra wide sidewalk designed to accommodate the higher travel speeds of cyclists and skaters. These paths are separated from the vehicular traffic by several feet (11 feet is desirable) if sufficient width of the right-of-way or easement is available. They are generally parallel to the curb but can meander around existing trees and landforms. These paths usually connect residential neighborhoods to neighborhood centers, retail, schools and parks. Examples of this type of path can be found along Airport Highway west of Byrne Road and on Sylvania Avenue between Holland Sylvania Road and Talmadge Road in the City of Toledo.

Figure 3: Off-Road Shared Use Path

6.2.3 SHARED ROAD PATH AND ON-ROAD SHARED LANE

On road signed bike routes have been proposed in the region for the serious cyclist who wants to commute via bicycle; or rides for aerobic conditioning. By law, a bicycle is a vehicle and may use any street or surface traveled by a motor vehicle and must abide by all laws pertaining to vehicles using public streets. The surfaces and design standards for the two are quite similar. It is the vehicle size and speed of travel that makes safety a critical issue for cyclists. 6.2.4 SIDEPATHS

Sidepaths are often signed as on-street bicycle lanes. While separating the cyclists from the automobile and truck traffic helps solve the speed differential problem, shared road paths create an even wider set of safety and maintenance problems.  

13  

6.3 BRIDGES

Bridges will be used to allow the path to cross open ditches, streams, and rivers; to provide access to key destinations; to avoid steep slopes and sensitive environmental areas; and provide grade separations such as at the Norfolk Southern Airline Junction rail yard. Where primary, secondary and linking paths cross major roadways, the existing rail bridges should be replaced or used (if in suitable condition) to separate the path from the roadway. The existing rail bridges over I-475, Anthony Wayne Trail, and Bancroft Street will be removed and replaced with new pedestrian and bike bridges. It is the goal of the Chessie Circle Coordinating Committee to remove and eventually replace the existing rail bridge over the Maumee River with a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge. Access by emergency, patrol, and maintenance vehicles shall be considered in establishing design clearances of structures carrying the path. On all bridge decks, bicycle-safe expansion joints and non-slip decking materials shall be used. The “receiving” clear with on the end of a bridge (from inside of rail or barrier to inside of opposite rail or barrier) shall allow 2 feet of clearance on each side of the pathway. A transition zone and warning signs shall be provided where the path width narrows across any bridge. Protective railings, fences, or barriers on either side of the bridge structure shall be as set forth in the railing and fencing section of these standards. 6.4 TRAIL HEADS AND TRAIL ACCESS

Typically, trailheads are associated with regional open space paths rather than off-street paths or on-street routes. The principal reason for this relationship is that open space paths become destinations for recreational users. Users will drive to a convenient access point, park their cars and access the path system, typically doing a loop or an out-and-back run or ride. Once the paths are developed providing access to other parks and regional trail systems, the community can expect not only local residents to use the greenway trails but also residents from surrounding areas will use the paths as well. Therefore, parking is one of the most important elements of a well-designed trailhead. Trail heads for the open space path system should be located in the community or neighborhood parks. In addition to the park locations, optional informal trail head locations could be designated at shared school-park sites that are adjacent to an open space path. Ideally, park sites are preferred for development of trail heads since there would be sufficient room to provide all the primary amenities listed below.

paved car parking bicycle racks kiosks water fountains restrooms

14  

Trail access points should include parking facilities and bicycle racks but may not necessarily include kiosks, water fountains and restrooms. Where the path crosses existing sidewalks, connectivity shall be provided with flush and uniform transitions between differing surfaces. Proposed locations for trail heads and trail access points are shown on the Chessie Circle Trail Map (Figure 33) which has the following features noted:

Ownership of trail segments Proposed trailhead locations Proposed road access locations Proposed parking areas for trail use Proposed sidewalk access locations Points of interest along the trail Corridor mileages for access points along the trail (from north to south) Bridge locations Named rail junctions Nearby schools Nearby bicycle paths and lanes Significant destinations near the trail Parklands near the trail Adjacent railroad trackage rights

Additionally, a data table (Appendix A) lists the attributes of various proposed trail heads and trail access points:

Mileage from south end of trail Presence of sidewalks Responsible jurisdiction Access type ( road, trail, or sidewalk) Nearby cross streets Nearby parks Availability of parking Nearby elementary school Other nearby destinations (shopping, hospitals, universities) Nearby TARTA bus stops Google image of site Availability of restrooms Nearby businesses Location for proposed kiosk Points of interest Nearby recreation destination Nearby high schools

 

15  

6.4.1 CAR PARKING

Parking requirements at trailheads will vary over time. As the trail system becomes more developed offering more options and destinations increases so will demands for parking at trail heads. Locating trailheads in parks or sites adjacent to paths should accommodate most parking needs. Trailhead parking lots should have 10-20 spaces with a minimum of one handicap space. Paths, path amenities, parking and path access will comply with ADA requirements for accessibility. 6.4.2 BICYCLE RACKS

One of the greatest impediments to increased use of bicycles is the lack of convenient and securable bicycle parking at educational, employment, shopping, public facilities, cultural, and residential facilities. Bicycles that are unsecured or improperly secured are an invitation to thieves who know how easily bikes can be converted into cash. It has been estimated that millions of bicycles are stolen each year. This makes bikes the most frequently stolen item in the United States. To encourage more people to use their bicycles as an alternative to automobiles, provisions must be made for secure bicycle parking. An off-street parking City ordinance/County resolution should be developed to include bicycle-parking requirements. Employees and transit commuters typically use long-term bike parking, while short-term bike parking is mostly for customers and clients. A Bicycle Parking Manual section in the ordinance/resolution is recommended that defines the bicycle parking requirements and provides detailed guidelines for the development for bike parking facilities. The Bicycle Parking section should work hand-in-hand with zoning ordinances and off-street parking requirements and should detail the following:

Standards for bike parking construction and access. Bicycle parking devices, e.g., racks, lockers, hitching posts, etc. (Figure 4) Placement and design of bike parking signs. (Figure 5)

Figures 4 and 5: Bicycle Parking Devices and Parking Signage

16  

6.4.3 KIOSKS

Information bulletin boards or kiosks having a trail map with mileage chart should be located near parking areas, water fountains, and restrooms where people have a reason to stop. Locating them at the beginning or end of the path and adjacent to the parking areas is effective where people are stretching or unloading bicycles. These locations are also good for placing the Trail Guidelines and Trail Maps (which should be brief and clearly posted.) Well informed path users are more likely to be courteous and behave safely on multi-use paths. (Figure 6)

Figure 6: Kiosks

6.4.4 WATER FOUNTAINS

Water fountains, faucets, and other water sources should be located on the downhill side of the path to help eliminate water flow across the path that could create a slipping hazard. The water fountains should be “freeze-proof” with a top spigot at two levels per ADA requirements, jug filler for water bottles, and a lower faucet for animals. Water fountains should be located every two to three miles. (Figure 7)

Figure 7: Water Fountain

17  

6.5 KEY PATH LOCATIONS/POINTS OF INTEREST

Path rest stops, overlooks, and scenic areas are examples of path points of interest. These points should be integrated into the path design. Different materials may be used on special areas, depending on its function and location. Transitions between surfaces must be flush and uniform. (Figure 8)

Figure 8: Path Jointing

6.6 MOW PADS

To help minimize trimming during the mowing season, mow pads should be placed around all signs, furniture and water fountains. The pads should be designed so that a tractor can easily

18  

mow around these objects without hitting them. Mow pads shall be poured-in place, reinforced concrete with a broom or non-skid finish. (Figure 9)

Figure 9: Mow Pads

6.7 VEGETATIVE BUFFERS

Buffers of trees and shrubs may be used to separate incompatible land uses, accentuate views, filter noise pollution, and provide valuable habitat for wildlife. The minimum width of vegetative buffers will vary by application. For visual breaks, the vegetative buffer should be no less than 20 feet wide. For noise filtration, the vegetative buffer should be no less than 40 feet wide. The composition of trees and shrubs within each buffer type will vary tremendously and should be composed of a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. Standard details for planting trees and shrubs are shown in Figures 10, 11 and 12.

19  

Planting of Deciduous Trees

Figure 10: Vegetative Buffer #1

Planting of Evergreen Trees

Figure 11: Vegetative Buffer #2

20  

Planting of Shrubs

Figure 12: Vegetative Buffer #3

6.7 RESTRICTING MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC

The routine use of bollards and other similar barriers to restrict motor vehicle traffic is discouraged unless problems with unauthorized vehicles use occur after a path section is developed. Barriers such as bollards, fences, or similar create permanent fixed object hazards to path users. Bollards on pathways are often struck by cyclists and other path users and can cause serious injury. Approaching riders may shield even a conspicuous bollard from a following rider’s view until a point where he/she lacks sufficient time to reach a safe stop. Furthermore, physical barriers do not necessarily prevent motorized traffic from entering the path. People who are determined to use the path illegally will find a way around the physical barrier, damaging path structures and adjacent vegetation. Barrier features can also slow access for emergency responders. The preferred method of restricting entry of motor vehicles is to split the entry way into two sections separated by low landscaping. Each section should be half the nominal path width. Emergency vehicles can still enter if necessary by straddling the landscaping. The approach to the split should be delineated with solid line pavement markings to guide the path user around the split.

21  

7. DETAIL DESIGN STANDARDS This section outlines the design standards and guidelines for proper implementation of a multi-use path consistent with the general requirements of this plan. The issues discussed and the recommendations presented herein should be reviewed carefully as each specific project is designed to ensure that a safe, well-constructed facility is achieved. Shared use path improvements shall be designed and constructed according to nationally recognized and accepted standards such as those published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and ODOT (Figure 13). As with any set of design standards, there will be cases where they cannot be met. In such cases, design exceptions will be necessary in order to implement this plan. The development of the trail shall be consistent with Section D (Use of Corridor) Paragraph 3 (Contiguity) as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the parties. However, any exception should be rare given that the corridor was a former rail right of way in an urban environment with nearly full development. Signs shall be provided to notify path users where these exceptions are located.

Figure 13: Planning and Design Manuals

7.1 ELEMENTS OF PATH DESIGN

The open space shared path facilities are classified as follows:

primary path secondary or linking paths

Primary and secondary paths shall be designed to sustain wheel loads of occasional emergency, patrol, maintenance and other motor vehicles that are expected to use or cross the path. The desired width of the primary path shall be 16 feet with a minimum width of 12 feet as shown on Figure 14. Secondary paths or linking paths shall be a minimum of 8 feet in width, and also have 3 feet grass shoulders.

22  

Figure 14: Standard Pavement Width

Three foot grass shoulders shall be constructed on either side of the asphalt paving. The 3 foot wide shoulder on each side of the path is to ensure proper sight distances to help avoid crashes. The shoulders also serve as a space for bicyclists to use when they are avoiding an accident. The shoulders shall be flush with the path to help eliminate safety hazards and are mowed to keep them in a useful state. All underpasses and bridges shall have a full path width including space for shoulders, existing conditions permitting. Warning devices shall be used where the combined path and shoulder cannot be full width. Reference the ODOT (Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices) for signs to use where these exceptions occur. The clear zone for the primary path shall be 26 feet. This area should be mowed during the summer months. The standard pavement section of the primary and secondary trails shall be as shown on Figure 15. All asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on a compacted stabilized base, and shall extend into the grass shoulders on either side. The surface course on all paths shall be per current applicable pavement standards to provide a smooth riding, skating, and walking surface. The pavement is to be machine laid; soil sterilizers used to prevent vegetation from damaging the pavement.

23  

Figure 15: Standard Pavement Section

Where a path is adjacent to a parallel body of water or downward slopes of 1:3 or greater, safety railing shall be provided in accordance with AASHTO standards. Where the paths run parallel with a linear obstacle, such as a street or drainage ditch, a minimum separation of 6 feet should be placed between the path's hard edge and the obstacle. Utility covers and bicycle-safe drainage grates shall be flush with the surface of the pavement on all sides and designed at an angle of 90 degrees to the direction of travel. Railroad crossings are to be smooth and designed at an angle of 60 to 90 degrees to the direction of travel. Where the shared use path crosses an unpaved road or driveway, the road or driveway should be paved a minimum of 20 feet on each side of the crossing to reduce the amount of gravel scattered onto or along the path by motor vehicles. The pavement structure at the crossing shall be designed to sustain the expected loading at that location.

7.2 DESIGN SPEED

The speed a path user travels is dependent on several factors, including the age and physical condition of the user; type and condition of the user’s equipment; purpose of the trip; condition, location, and grade of the path; prevailing wind speed and direction; and the number and types of other users on the path. From a design and engineering point of view, cyclists fall into two broad categories. The first category is recreational or occasional cyclists who tend to ride at slower speeds of 8-15 mph or slower on level terrain. Generally, they have less road experience and avoid automobile traffic because of a fear of being hit by a car. Slower speed riders prefer residential streets and open space or off road, shared use paths. The second category of cyclists is the experienced rider that can reach speeds up to 30 mph. They generally have more road experience and thus, are more willing to ride on most streets in heavier vehicular traffic. The higher speed riders, like the second group, choose the roads less traveled when they have a choice, but will use the major roads when necessary to get where they want to go. Very fit riders can reach speeds in excess of

24  

30 mph but will typically only ride at such speeds on roads. While paths for the faster riders require stricter design criteria, urban paths have a greater variety of users and frequent conflicts versus rural paths with fewer conflicts that are typically used by recreational cyclists. The goal is to improve the riding and path safety for all cyclists. Therefore, using the design criteria for the generally more experienced bicycle riders recognizing the urban setting, the needs of all cyclists including the slower riders will be met. Considering all of the above, a design speed of 30 miles per hour will provide a safe layout for a bike path provided the pavement width is sufficient to avoid conflicts with pedestrians and slower riders. Designing for a 30 mph speed does not mean that users must or even can ride the path at that speed; however, there are, significant reasons for using the 30 mph figure:

The curves along the path will be gentler, The sight distances will be increased, and Hazardous intersections, maneuvering difficulties, and steep slopes will be reduced. The above effects reduce path accidents and increase user security.

The following information sets forth the minimum standards for curve radii, vertical curves (hills), lateral clearances on horizontal curves, and stopping sight distances. 7.2.1 MINIMUM CURVE RADII

Designing for a speed of 30 mph and a lean angle of 20 degrees, the minimum radius of curvature shall be 166 feet. 7.2.2 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCES

Stopping sight distances are to be provided to allow users adequate time to see, react, and come to a controlled stop when encountering unexpected conditions. Design of the trail for ascending and descending conditions, vertical curves, and horizontal curves shall be based on the AASHTO standards. Specifically, for ascending and descending conditions, the design shall be based on a total perception and brake reaction time of 2.5 seconds and a coefficient of friction of 0.16 for wet conditions. Path users have a tendency to ride near the middle of the path and typically travel side-by-side on shared use paths. For these reasons, and because of the higher potential for crashes on curves, lateral clearances on horizontal curves should be calculated based on the sum of the stopping sight distances for path users traveling in opposite directions around the curve. Where this is not possible or feasible, considerations shall be given to widening the path through the curve, installing a yellow center line stripe, installing turn or curve warning signs or a combination of these alternatives. 7.3 CROSS SLOPE

Shared use paths must be accessible to people with disabilities. Therefore, the path should have a cross-slope of 2 percent. Greater cross-slopes make it difficult for bicyclists and wheel chair users to maneuver on the path. Smaller cross-slopes hinder path drainage. (Figure 16)

25  

Figure 16: Path Cross Slope

7.4 GRADE

The maximum primary shared use path grade shall not exceed 5 percent, especially on long inclines. Slopes greater than 5 percent are undesirable because the ascents are difficult to climb (causing some bicyclists to wobble left and right) and the descents cause some bicyclists to exceed the speed they are capable of handling. The 5 percent maximum should be a reasonable standard given the path will be developed as a rail-trail or rail-with-trail. Grades on linking or connecting paths shall not exceed 8.3 percent for up to 200 feet, or 10 percent maximum for up to 30 feet. However, in no event shall maximum grades exceed accessibility provisions for shared use paths covered by the American with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act. 7.5 DRAINAGE

The path design shall include methods to avoid water from standing or flowing in streams across the path. Acceptable methods include drainage swales placed on the higher side of down slopes to the path. Using swales will also include culverts designed to handle the water flow, are safe (relative to the path users), and have low maintenance. To assure proper performance, the culverts need to be sloped a minimum of 2 percent.  

26  

7.6 OBSTACLE-FREE AREA

To provide a safer path, an obstacle-free area (clear zone) shall be maintained. This zone shall have no signs, trees or light fixtures, utility poles, etc. located within it. (Figure 17) Any existing condition (e.g., an overpass) within the 12 foot vertical clear space must be signed as to its height. Typically, in any place where people will gather (e.g., parking lots, trail maps, bike parking areas, water-fountains) amenity elements shall be set back from the path edge 25 or more feet.

Figure 17: Obstacle Free Area

7.7 RAILINGS AND FENCING

Several types of railing and fencing will be used along the corridor to separate public and private land uses, provide safety and security between incompatible land uses, and protect path users from potentially dangerous conditions.  

27  

7.7.1 SAFETY RAILING

The standard detail for a safety railing found adjacent to a path to protect path users shall be as shown on Figure 18. Openings between horizontal or vertical members on railings should be small enough that a 6-inch sphere cannot pass through them in the lower 27 inches. For the portion of railing that is higher than 27 inches, openings may be spaced such that an 8-inch sphere cannot pass through them. This shall be done to prevent children from falling through the openings. Where a bicyclist’s handlebar may come into contact with a railing or barrier, a smooth, wide rub-rail shall be installed to reduce the likelihood that a bicyclist’s handlebar will be caught by the railing.

Figure 18: Safety Rail Detail

28  

7.7.2 SPLIT RAIL FENCE

The standard detail for a split rail fence with wire mesh used to delineate public versus private property and property boundaries is shown on Figure 19.

Figure 19: Property Fencing

7.7.3 PRIVACY FENCE

The standard detail where a visual barrier is to be provided between the path and adjacent property is shown on Figure 20.

Figure 20: Privacy Fence

29  

7.7.4 SAFETY FENCE

The standard detail where the path is adjacent to an active railroad track is shown on Figure 21.

Figure 21: Safety Fence

7.8 PATH MARKING

There are several ways to mark the path pavement. A double solid stripe shall be used to indicate a no-passing zone on steep hills, intersections and tight curves. A dashed yellow stripe down the center shall indicate two-way traffic. The paint used in marking the path should be non-skid and reflective. White stripes at the edges of the path are not recommended because they have a tendency to narrow the usable path space. Centerline reflectors (tiles) are also not recommended due to the fact that they create a hazard by acting as miniature speed bumps and are slippery when wet.

30  

7.9 SIGNS

Adequate signs are critical on hike and bike trails to communicate to path users and motorists the appropriate regulatory messages and to warn of potential conflicts. All path signs must conform to the ODOT Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices – Part 9 Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities. There are five basic types of signs in this group:

warning regulatory directional route

In addition, the following informational and non-regulatory signs shall have a consistent and thematic design

kiosks trail information identification markers way finding markers mileposts assurance stickers

The following guidelines shall apply to signage provided on the trail. 7.9.1 WARNING SIGNS

These signs alert path users of a safety threat such as sharp curves, approaching intersections, or steep drop-offs. Typically, these signs are yellow and diamond-shaped with black lettering. (Figure 22)

Figure 22: Warning Signs

31  

7.9.2 REGULATORY SIGNS

Regulatory signs give instructions on path use and etiquette. (Figure 23)

Figure 23: Regulatory Signs

7.9.3 DIRECTIONAL MARKERS

Directional markers use arrows or wording to indicate which direction to travel. These signs are important when multiple paths come together. (Figure 24)

Figure 24: Directional Markers

32  

7.9.4 ROUTE SIGNS

Route identification signs are the main sign type for On-Street bike routes. The following criteria should be used to develop these signs:

Bike route signs shall be W11-1 diamond shaped with color and size conforming to ODOT Uniform Traffic Control Devices (UTCD).

All bike route signage shall be reflectorized. To help minimize the chance of vandalism or damage to the sign, the sign shall

always be oriented vertically. The signs shall always be placed on the right side of the road. If a sign is placed on the left side of the road due to sight line considerations, a duplicate sign is still placed on the right side as that is where vehicle operators expect them to be.

Bike route signs shall be placed wherever the primary path crosses other bike routes and major thoroughfares. Signs shall also be located at the beginning and end of each route.

To confirm that the bicyclist is still on the bike route, signs shall be provided every 0.5 to 1 mile intervals.

7.9.5 KIOSKS

Kiosks shall include a trail map with mileage chart and shall be uniform in style, height and width. They are to be located at trail heads in proximity to the path and readily visible to parking areas. Kiosks shall include boxes giving trail guidelines and trail maps. (Figure 25)

Figure 25: Kiosks

Although kiosks shall be of uniform of style and size, there shall be flexibility in the design of individual kiosks to include logos or other identification related to the individual parties having ownership of the respective corridor right of way. Individual kiosk designs shall be submitted to the Development Committee for review and approval.

33  

7.9.6 TRAIL INFORMATION

These signs typically provide the path user with useful or important information and shall be placed within the first 150 feet of the path. Specific path names, length of the path, and regulations concerning path use are included on information signs. Trail maps and the name of the path should be located at the beginning and end of each path segment. (Figure 26)

Figure 26: Information Signs

7.9.7 IDENTIFICATION MARKERS

These signs identify paths and streets that cross the paths. All intersections and street crossings should have a sign identifying the street for path users and a sign identifying the path for road users. Overhead name blades should be located on underpasses and should include the street name and block number. (Figure 27)

Figure 27: Identification Markers

34  

7.9.8 WAY FINDING MARKERS

Directional markers use arrows or wording to indicate direction of the path. (Figure 28)

Figure 28: Way Finding Markers

7.9.9 MILEPOSTS

Milepost markers indicate distance to destination and location reference on the trail. Mile markers should be located every 0.10 mile. These markers are important to path users, maintenance crews, police, and emergency personnel. (Figure 29)

Figure 29: Milepost Markers

35  

7.9.10 ASSURANCE STICKERS

"Assurance" stickers may be placed on stop and speed limit sign poles that are along bike routes where the route goes straight and a bike route sign is not already planned. The top of the stickers are placed approximately 6 inches below the bottom edge of the stop or speed limit sign. "Assurance" stickers are 3 by 4 inches and are reflectorized. The stickers give assurance to the bike route users that they are still on the right route without adding to sign clutter. As an added benefit, their cost is minimal. Since bike route signs are used at every bike route turn, assurance stickers are only used where the route goes straight. (Figure 30)

Figure 30: Bicycle Route Assurance Sticker

7.10 INTERSECTIONS

The design of intersections between shared use paths and roadways has a significant impact on users’ comfort and safety. Shared path crossings come in many configurations with many variables: the number of roadway lanes to be crossed, divided or undivided roadways, number of approach legs, the speeds and volumes of traffic, and traffic controls that range from uncontrolled to yield, stop, or signal controlled. Intersection design must not only address cross-traffic movements, but also address turning movements of riders entering and exiting the path. Due to the mixed nature of shared use path traffic, the designer shall consider the speed variability of each travel mode and its resulting effect on design values when considering design treatments for path-roadway intersections. The fastest vehicle should be considered for approach speeds (typically the bicyclist and motor vehicle) as these modes are the most likely to surprise cross traffic at the intersection. By contrast, for departures from a stopped condition, the characteristics of slower path users (typically pedestrians) must be taken into account due to their greater exposure to cross traffic. Shared use path crossings at roadways can be broadly categorized as midblock, off road shared path, sidepath, or grade-separated. A crossing is considered midblock if it is located outside of

36  

the functional area of any adjacent intersection. An off road shared path or sidepath crossing occurs within the functional area of an intersection of two or more roadways and typically occurs where the path is parallel to at least one roadway. In some locations, the opportunity exists to prove grade separated crossings where existing rail bridges can be replaced or re-used to separate the path from the roadway or railway. The details for design of the various types of crossings are beyond the scope of this plan. To guide the designer, the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities shall be used as a basis for design. When path and street intersections occur at-grade, traffic control (signal, stop sign, yield sign, etc.) shall conform to ODOT Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 7.10.1 MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS

As the corridor is a former rail right of way, mid-block crossings will be the most typical means of crossing existing streets and roadways. Due to variability of roadway characteristics along the corridor, detailed evaluations and designs for each crossing must be performed. Also, where the path will cross arterial roadways and grade separations are deemed not feasible, raised median islands shall be evaluated in which one or more of the following apply: (1) high volumes of roadway traffic and/or speeds create difficult crossing conditions for path users; (2) roadway width is excessive given the available crossing time; or (3) the roadway is three or more lanes in width. Signs shall be placed outside of the "obstacle-free area". A double-head streetlight in the median or two single head fixtures on each side of the street shall be provided on a four- to six-lane street with a mid-block path crossing. Warning signs (e.g. STOP AHEAD) shall be provided to alert hike and bike path users that they are approaching a street intersection. Sidewalk users shall have “WATCH FOR BIKES” signs placed at eye level to warn of mid-block crossings. The path users shall have a stop sign and stop bar painted at the extended outside sidewalk line. If there is no sidewalk, the stop bar shall be placed at the extended curb line. Rumble strips will be added to the path prior to reaching the roadway crossing to alert path users of an approaching crossing. The use of bollards is discouraged. However, where bollards are installed, they should be the “break away” type and painted with a bright reflective paint for day and night visibility. The bollard in the center should be removable to allow for maintenance and emergency access to the path, but be locked in place to prevent unauthorized vehicles from entering the path. “BIKE CROSSING” signs shall be placed to warn motorists that there is a hike and bike trail crossing. Standard cross walk markings shall be provided to indicate crossing to both motorist and path users.

37  

7.10.2 OFF ROAD SHARED PATH AND SIDEPATH

Path users need to watch for conflicts with vehicles from all four directions. The direction of greatest concern changes with the location from which the user approaches. Although the path users will have a stop sign, the concerns apply to cyclists starting from a stop, as well as those who ignore the stop sign. (Figure 31)

Figure 31: Conflicts at an Off Road Shared Path Intersection

The path should cross this type of intersection at the crosswalk location (which is between the extended curb line and the stop bar for the vehicular traffic). Signs shall be posted on the path to alert users to possible motorists in their blind spots; e.g. “TURNING TRAFFIC TO RIGHT” (on the left side) and “TURNING TRAFFIC TO LEFT” (on the right side). These kinds of conflicts are the most dangerous to the users crossing this type of intersection. “BIKE CROSSING” signs shall be placed on motor vehicle approach directions. Also on this sign shall be the name of the path that crosses the street. 7.10.3 SIGNALIZED CROSSINGS

Since traffic on the shared use path is slower than road traffic, the decision to signalize or not is almost always decided by the volume of road traffic. Where it is determined that a signalized crossing is warranted, pedestrian push buttons shall be provided and mounted on the traffic light standard on the right side of the path. Detector loops shall also be placed in the right side of path pavement and are marked with a painted bicyclist logo. Path buttons and loops shall be included to reduce the intersection light timing changes to a minimum by only being "active" when the path is in use. Signal timing will be adjusted to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the street based on a start up time of 2.5 seconds and a traveling speed of 3 mph. An all-red interval may be required.

38  

Cyclists crossing at this type of intersection are in the most danger from the motorists within their blind spot. Regulatory signs are used on the path to alert users of the possibility of motorists within this zone. These signs read “TURNING TRAFFIC TO RIGHT” and “TURNING TRAFFIC TO LEFT.” Included in Appendix B is a table providing data at major roadway crossings where signalized control should be evaluated. The final location of pedestrian signal controls is to be determined by signal warrant study performed as a part of the detail design development. 7.10.4 SHARED USE PATH/SHARED USE PATH AND WALKWAY CROSSINGS

At an intersection of a shared use path with a walkway, a clear sight triangle extending at least 15 feet along the walkway should be provided. The clear sight line is provided to enable pedestrians approaching the pathway to see and react to oncoming path traffic to avoid potential conflicts at the path-walkway intersection. If a shared use path intersects another shared use path, sight triangles should be provided similar to yield conditions at a path-roadway intersection. However, both legs of the sight triangle should be based on the stopping sight distance of the paths. 7.10.5 RAILROAD CROSSINGS

A smooth, flush surface is also important at railroad crossings. The use of rubber mat crossing materials in new installations and provision of road flare-outs at dangerous angled railroad crossings are also important. Extra wide spots in the road at railroad crossings can allow a cyclist to swing to the right or left as needed to cross the tracks at nearly a right angle. (Figure 32) Flange-way fillers shall be used where train speeds are low and perpendicular crossings cannot be achieved through other techniques. The gap between the road edge and track bed edge shall be repaired or filled as needed to compensate for uneven settling rates. One rail grade separation is anticipated at the Nasby intersection of the primary open space path with the Norfolk Southern Airline Yard.

Figure 32: Acute Angle Bikeway/Railroad Crossing

39  

7.13 DRAINAGE AND MANHOLE REQUIREMENTS

Where storm drainage elements occur, recessed curb inlets are preferred over drain grates. If grates must be used, they must be bicycle- and wheelchair-safe with openings no wider than 1 by 2 inches. Grates and manhole covers should be flush with the surface and be maintained in a flush state when the roadway is resurfaced. After completion of any roadwork (e.g., utility cuts or street repairs), the roadway surface shall be returned to a smooth, flush condition.

40  

8. CHESSIE CIRCLE TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION Over time, it is expected that this corridor will be developed as an open space shared use path for pedestrian and bicycle use. As Norfolk Southern railroad has trackage rights over a section of the corridor and due to limited federal funds available for construction, the entire corridor will not be developed at one time. Rather, sections of the corridor will be developed by the individual contracting parties. As a result, the final location, design, and funding of the path sections will require approval of several contracting bodies. Therefore, an important component of the corridor improvement is a plan that will aid in the orderly development of the path sections to form an integrated system. This implementation plan consists of:

public involvement identification of funding sources identification of mechanisms to encourage trail system development actions to be taken to promote bicycling as an alternative transportation mode addressing security concerns of adjacent landowners and path users

8.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The successful implementation of this plan will require the cooperation and support of many governmental units and agencies. Since the plan addresses recreation and transportation, implementing the plan is not something that can occur without input and cooperation among the contracting parties, knowledgeable resources, and public input. The acquisition process for the corridor was shepherded by TMACOG and incorporated extensive public involvement over an extended period of time including meetings with elected and appointed public officials, partner organizations, public notices, project financing and public informational letters. The development of the trail will incorporate similar steps and processes to be inclusive of the needs and wishes of both the partners and the public. The public involvement process for path sections to be improved will be consistent with the standard state and federal regulatory requirements related to development of transportation projects. 8.2 FUNDING SOURCES

The Contracting Parties have several funding options available regarding funding and implementing of the path system. These sources include:

Federal Transportation Alternative Program Funds Safe Routes to School Program Clean Ohio Funds General Fund Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program Others (ODNR Trail, CDC funds)

41  

Of these alternatives, federal and state grants, and parks revenue supported by voted levies offer the best potential for funding the implementation of the system. Other local funding opportunities could come from the private sector through foundation grants, company grants, individual donors and memberships, service clubs, special events, and fundraisers. To increase the opportunity for grant awards, individual applications for path development funding should be coordinated and endorsed by all the contracting parties. The best strategy would be to apply for the entire reach in each contracting party’s segment with emphasis on linkage to existing trail networks and completion of a regional trail system. 8.3 MECHANISMS TO ENCOURAGE TRAIL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

As mentioned earlier in this plan, each of the Contracting Parties is responsible for the development of the path in their respective section of right of way. In that regard, various mechanisms should be considered and evaluated to encourage this development using both public and private sector resources. These mechanisms should be geared to respond to two broad issues:

Joint development techniques Promotion of bicycling as an alternative transportation mode

8.3.1 JOINT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES

Joint development would entail the use of funds for private development that would also include new public facilities. New services of tax revenue and other benefits are generated through these public-private cooperative agreements. One technique to be considered might be incentive zoning where a developer would be allowed to build at a higher density in return for providing paths, linear parks, etc. 8.3.2 PROMOTION OF BICYCLING AS AN ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODE

There are a number of actions that the contracting partners can take to promote bicycling as an alternative transportation mode. Two actions stand out as having the greatest immediate impact:

Provide for secure and easy-to-use bicycle parking. Develop a comprehensive bicycle education program.

The provision of secure bicycle parking will encourage more people to use their bicycles as an alternative to automobiles. As a separate action to the development of this plan, Bicycle-Parking Regulations should be developed as part of the zoning ordinances of the respective communities. The regulations should include the following sections:

Bicycle parking location requirements – on street and off street. Requirement for bicycle parking signs and racks Number of required short- and long-term bicycle parking spots for each use Maneuvering area requirements for bicycle parking

In addition to the above suggested ordinance, a bicycle parking manual should be developed to guide and regulate the development of parking facilities. The manual would cover the details that

42  

are critical to successful bicycle parking, but at a level of detail that would be inappropriate for a zoning ordinance. The manual is also much more flexible (e.g., more easily changed) than an ordinance. The manual would work hand-in-hand with the ordinance and include the following:

Design and construction standards to include items like pavement standards and the prohibition of adjacent motor vehicle parking overhang.

Pre-approved commercially available short- and long-term bicycle parking devices. (Bike racks and lockers)

Designs for approved bicycle-parking devices for short- and long-term use (e.g. parking racks, lockers, hitching posts, etc.)

Criteria for designing custom bicycle parking devices not already approved. Bicycle parking sign placement and design requirements.

Important to the success of any efforts to encourage bicycle use is the education of both bicyclists and motorists as to their respective rights and responsibilities. Bicyclists must realize they are operating vehicles and that the same rules of the road apply to them as apply to the operators of any other vehicle. The Ohio Department of Transportation has prepared a handbook for the proper training of bicyclists that address these bicyclists' issues. The manual can be reviewed on the ODOT website: http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/bike/streetsmarts/html/index.htm. Another way to educate bicyclists is to offer the Effective Cycling Course, developed by the League of American Bicyclists, and available at www.BikeLeague.org. This course teaches traffic handling skills so that cyclists are able to better communicate with motorists. These communication skills, when combined with an improved respect for the law, make cyclists more predictable and therefore less of a hassle for motorists. The course also teaches bicycle handling skills and bicycle maintenance. Motorists are often not aware that bicyclists have a legal right to use the roads. Many public service video clips, aimed at motorists and bicyclists, are also available from the League of American Bicyclists. A regulatory roadside sign explaining the legal status of bicyclists has proven to be effective in areas where large numbers of bicyclists and motorists are competing for a narrow lane. Education at area schools can have a great impact by addressing the basics:

ride on the right side of the road, use hand signals to communicate, use a light at night, stop at stop signs and red traffic lights, and always wear a bicycle helmet.

The first three of the above basic bicycle safety tips are required by law and should be addressed by police during normal patrol. In most cases, a friendly talk can serve to increase bicyclists' awareness of, and compliance with, the law. Officer discretion will play an important part in the decision to ticket or not; in either case, the goal is to maximize the potential for future compliance and safety.

43  

8.4 SECURITY CONCERNS REGARDING MULTI-USE PATHS

Security concerns regarding multi-use paths center on two broad categories:

The security concerns of landowners adjacent to the paths. The security concerns of path users.

8.4.1 ADJACENT LAND OWNER SECURITY CONCERNS

The landowners adjacent to proposed paths are naturally concerned about security for themselves and their property. They fear the unknown and need facts on the impact that a new path will have. Their concerns are issues such as crime, vandalism, reduced property values and litter. Where an abandoned railroad corridor is involved, adjacent landowners often want the land to revert to their ownership. Statistics available from cities with trail systems show that crime does not become a problem along paths. But the concerns about crime are real and must be addressed from the landowners' point of view. Reported crime climbs when a path first opens because there are now witnesses to currently unreported crime. Paths have proven to be self-patrolling, i.e. the more a path is used the less likely there will be crime. Crimes along paths occur at the same or lower rates as at other locations. Property values remain neutral or increase. After paths are built, adjacent landowners use them and prefer them to what was frequently an unmaintained eye sore before it was constructed. A classic example is the railroad conversion to a path where land owners wanted privacy fences along the frontage, but later installed gates to access the path directly from their property. The best way to handle the security issues is for the contracting partners to be positive and open. It is important to encourage communication and keep everyone informed. Reaching out to landowners (and the general public) heads off rumors and any misinformation that may exist. Each of the contracting parties should be proactive and make certain that everyone hears the good and bad news from their respective communities first. Special efforts are needed to listen to and address the concerns of opponents and help them become allies in support of the proposed project. There are several studies that show the positive impacts of paths, including one by the National Park Service addressing paths along old railroad rights-of-way. Paths bring additional business to a community and also bring recognition to the area as a good place to live. But the best proof of all that paths are desirable is the Wabash Cannonball Trails and local trails in Sylvania Township. These paths have actually drawn development. Developers have built upper end "life style", single-family homes because people would have immediate access to the path. 8.4.2 PATH USER SECURITY CONCERNS

Path users are concerned for their personal safety (accidents and crime) and the safety of their property (theft of bikes, cars, etc.) Safety among the diverse path users is promoted through good design using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards and ongoing maintenance. A wide path, shoulders on both sides, hazard signing, solar powered "911" call boxes in remote locations, intersection traffic control, and a paved surface all contribute to a safer path environment. Maintenance of sight lines and the level grass shoulders contribute to a reduction in accidents and also reduce the hiding places for the criminally inclined. Path user

44  

behavior guidelines on signs along the path and at kiosks at staging areas can also contribute greatly to the smooth interaction among path users. Those who are not path users often quote fear of personal attack as a concern. Those who do use paths do not have this fear because threats to personal safety have been proven to be no more than an occasional problem. Normal neighborhood or street patrol by police officers will address path user concerns about personal attack. Easy access to the path by police, emergency and maintenance vehicles will all contribute to the perception and reality of user and resident safety. Occasional unpaved turn-around spots need to be included in areas where the path is surrounded by vegetation (e.g., don't make a fire truck back out of a wooded area.) The best way to address path user concerns about the safety of their cars while they use the path is to provide sidewalks and make roads bicycle-friendly. This will encourage path users to walk or "drive" their bikes to the paths. Even with bicycle-friendly approach roads and sidewalks, many path users will choose to arrive by motor vehicle and will need parking areas with easy access to the paths. Their parking and security needs can be met by having joint use parking areas where weekday employee parking will allow evening and weekend path user parking. Parking lots that are easily seen from long distances tend to have the fewest problems. If path user car parking is near restaurants, food stores, and other attractions, there will be a double benefit from before-and-after-path use business and further reduced parking area security problems. Bicycle parking should also be installed at path parking areas in order to encourage the maximum spill-over to nearby businesses and to allow users the maximum flexibility. For example, an individual might bike to the path and then walk from the trailhead or bike to the path and then walk to a restaurant for a meal. And last, the path should be separated from vehicular traffic as much as possible using bridges and underpasses where the paths and streets intersect thereby reducing at-grade street crossings and facilitating the free flow of pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

45  

9. COORDINATION OF PATH IMPROVEMENTS The best use of the acquired CSX right of way is the development of an open space shared use path designed for both the commuter and the recreational pedestrian bicycle user. Before the individual path sections can be "bundled" together into a system and targeted for implementation, a prioritization must be developed for each section. Priorities are based on availability of resources, public input, and cost. The order of the section to be improved included the following considerations:

Initial connectivity to as many community facilities as possible, be centrally located, and be very visible to the citizens

Develop sections of the corridor first where the contracting partners have made a financial contribution enabling the corridor acquisition from CSX

Allow the greatest portion of the population located within one quarter mile of the corridor to have access to the path for immediate use

Comply with the federal funding stipulations related to acquisition of the original corridor Connectivity of the University of Toledo Main Campus, Health Science Campus, and

Science and Technology Center Connectivity to existing community and regional parks including Ottawa Park, Jermain

Park, Beatty Park Wildwood Metropark along the Ottawa River, Bowman Park along Shantee Creek, and in the future, Swan Creek Metropark. Location of practical and logical termini of path sections.

Access to streams, major creeks, and rivers considering 100 year flood plain areas and environmentally sensitive locations

Provide linkages to existing path facilities already developed along the north south route of the corridor

Linkage of Lucas and Wood County thereby improving attractiveness of the region for economic development

Proximity to businesses and employer locations Location of neighborhood commercial centers Location of existing primary schools, secondary schools and libraries Location of medical health facilities Future connectivity to proposed bike and pedestrian paths Location of existing and potential recreation sites Location of existing major roadways requiring crossing control devices Be on land and along existing roads that has already been purchased by the contracting

partners to avoid delays due to the land acquisition process Negotiation requirements with Norfolk Southern Railway to permit development of a

parallel Path adjacent to their active track from Dorr Street south to the Gould rail junction

Considering the above list, the development of the corridor is broken down into the following segments.

46  

9.1 SEGMENT ONE – WOOD COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY, METROPARKS OF THE

TOLEDO AREA, AND WOOD COUNTY PARK DISTRICT

The corridor section from the W.W. Knight Nature Preserve to Glanzman Road should be completed early in the Development plan. Approximately $2,000,000 of federal transportation funds are available following the purchase of the rail right-of-way for subsequent improvements. The Metroparks of Toledo also has available funding through their capital improvements program and the Wood County Park District has received a $500,000 grant from the Clean Ohio Fund directed to corridor acquisition and improvements. Combined, these financial resources allow for a project of significant scope that is comprised of the following three sections:

Maumee River Rail Bridge Maumee River to Glanzman Road Maumee River to WW Knight Nature Preserve

Each of these sections and the related owner responsible for project implementation is described below. 9.1.1 WOOD COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY – MAUMEE RIVER RAIL BRIDGE

In 2012, the Wood County Port Authority retained the engineering firm of Claude Brown & Associates, with oversight from the University of Toledo - University Transportation Center, to evaluate options for removal and replacement of the existing rail bridge. Based on the findings of the study, the estimated cost to remove the bridge and replace it with a concrete I-beam structure is $9,000,000. As sufficient funds cannot be secured to replace the bridge in the foreseeable future, ODOT and FHWA have advised that it is acceptable to demolish and not replace the existing structure provided there is connectivity of the trail sections in Lucas and Wood counties. This can be accomplished via public right of way and the existing bridge between the City of Maumee and the City of Perrysburg. This bridge includes a multi-use path and thus the purpose and need of the original federal grant to acquire the corridor for development as a multi-use path would still be met. The anticipated demolition of the existing bridge will be completed by calendar year 2016 provided necessary environmental approvals can be secured allowing its removal. Over the long term, it is remains the goal of the Coordinating Committee to replace the existing rail bridge with a pedestrian bicycle bridge over the Maumee River. This recommendation is based on the following:

A new bridge would provide a key link between Lucas and Wood County with high visibility to local and regional residents.

The bridge would provide improved connectivity to share the road bike lanes along River Road in Lucas County and northern Wood County.

A river crossing at this location would leverage present and future investments to construct many individual paths into development of a common regional pedestrian bicycle system. Specifically, replacement of the existing bridge would provide connectivity to future paths into the City of Maumee, southwest to Side Cut Metropark, northwest to Swan Creek Metropark, and westerly to the Wabash Cannonball Trails in Lucas County. In Wood County, future paths into the City of Rossford, southwest to the City of Perrysburg, and easterly to the North Coast Inland Trail that would provide connectivity to the statewide trail system located east and west of the Toledo urban area.

47  

9.1.2 METROPARKS OF THE TOLEDO AREA – MAUMEE RIVER TO GLANZMAN ROAD

This 1.5 mile section of path is scheduled to be improved concurrently with the demolition of the rail bridge over the Maumee River. The Wood County Port Authority and the Metroparks of the Toledo Area are jointly developing a project to construct a trail from the Maumee River to Glanzman Road. This segment is being developed early in the phasing of proposed improvements based on the following:

Access to a developed area of the City allowing immediate use of the Path by a relatively large population

Initial connectivity to community facilities visible to the citizens including several City of Toledo parks, a library, and schools in south Toledo

Funds retained from the Metroparks contribution were set aside for removal of the existing bridge over the Anthony Wayne Trail with the intent that the bridge be replaced as soon as possible as the corridor is developed

Connectivity to the signed share the road bike route along River Road in Lucas County to the Maumee Perrysburg bridge

Provides practical and logical termini of path sections Connectivity to future paths into the City of Maumee, southwest to Side Cut Metropark,

northwest to Swan Creek Metropark, and westerly to the Wabash Cannonball Trails Metroparks contribution of $1,000,000 to the original corridor acquisition

It is expected this section of corridor will be completed by calendar year 2016 concurrently with the removal of the Maumee River bridge. 9.1.3 WOOD COUNTY PARK DISTRICT – MAUMEE RIVER ROAD TO THE W.W. KNIGHT

NATURE PRESERVE

This half mile section of path would provide a natural connection from the nature preserve of the Wood County Park District to the shore of the Maumee River.

Available trail head development with minimal investment Requires only a short segment of path to be constructed in order to get a connection to the

W.W. Knight Nature Preserve to a major river Connectivity to future paths into the City of Rossford, southwest through the City of

Perrysburg, and across the existing bridge the City of Maumee Future connectivity to the North Coast Inland Trail and eventually to Lucas County when

the Maumee River rail bridge is replaced.

It is expected this section of corridor will be completed by calendar year 2016 along with the removal of the Maumee River Bridge and development of the Maumee River to Glanzman Road section of the path in the City of Toledo. 9.2 SEGMENT TWO – UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO AND CITY OF TOLEDO

The northern portion of the corridor can be developed concurrently by the University of Toledo and the City of Toledo with several sections having independent utility. Development of the path on the main campus of the University of Toledo and from Monroe Street north to Bowman Park each would provide connectivity to several existing parks and trails in the area. Once the final section between Bancroft Street and Kenwood Boulevard is completed, a vital link would be

48  

provided allowing access by a large city population to many parks, schools, health care, commercial, and similar assets in the northern metro area. Initial project development efforts have begun for the following three sections:

University of Toledo – Bancroft Street to Oakwood Avenue City of Toledo – Jackman Road to Kenwood Boulevard City of Toledo – Kenwood Boulevard to Bancroft Street

Each of these sections and the related owner responsible for project implementation is described below. 9.2.1 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO – BANCROFT STREET TO OAKWOOD AVENUE

This half mile section of Path will likely be the most highly utilized portion of the corridor and once completed will act as a hub connecting the University Parks Trail, Wildwood Metroparks, and existing paths in Sylvania and western Lucas County. Other considerations include:

Complete a vital link to a planned system of on-campus bike and pedestrian improvements extending from the end of the University Parks Trail, through campus, crossing Douglas Road (Oakwood and Savage Hall), and extending north to Ottawa Park north of Bancroft Street

Provide opportunity for the University to develop improved parking facilities east of Douglas Road and improve safety for students that live off the main campus and cross Douglas Road to attend classes

Improve the appearance of the Bancroft Street entry from the east to the main university campus with the removal of the existing rail bridge and improving the existing Douglas Road bridge over Bancroft Street to convey bicycle pedestrian traffic

Funding by the University has already been authorized to design and construct this section of path

It is expected this section of corridor will be completed over several years beginning in 2014 through 2016. 9.2.2 CITY OF TOLEDO – JACKMAN ROAD TO KENWOOD BOULEVARD

The City of Toledo expects to complete this two mile section of path over several years beginning with placing an initial layer of fine screenings that would allow use of the corridor by pedestrians in 2014 and 2015. When the improved path is completed, it will provide connectivity and access to a developed area of the city allowing use by a relatively large population located within one quarter mile of the corridor. Other considerations include:

This section of the Path is centrally located and would be very visible to the citizens Provide linkages to existing trail facilities already developed in the northern portion of

the corridor. Allow a large segment of the urban population to gain full access to –

o existing and potential community and regional parks including Ottawa Park, Jermain Park, Beatty Park Wildwood Metropark along the Ottawa River, Bowman Park along Shantee Creek, and recreation sites

o businesses and employer locations o neighborhood commercial centers o nearby primary and secondary schools

49  

o the University of Toledo Main Campus, Health Science Campus, and future connectivity to the Science and Technology Center via the Clinton Secondary rail corridor

o major streams, rivers and environmental educational areas Provides practical and logical termini of path sections

As City’s capital improvement funds become available, a permanent paved surface will be installed in future years. 9.2.3 CITY OF TOLEDO – KENWOOD BOULEVARD TO BANCROFT STREET

Development of this half mile section of path should be coordinated with improvements on the Main Campus of the University of Toledo. Benefits to completing this section include:

Construction of his section would complete all portions of the Path in the northern portion of the corridor from Bowman Park to Oakwood Avenue on the University of Toledo campus

Provide connectivity to the existing system of trails within Ottawa Park and leading to Jermain Park

Link the Toledo Hospital to the University of Toledo main campus and enable future trail extensions northeasterly along the Ottawa River

It is expected this section of corridor will be completed by calendar year 2017. 9.3 SEGMENT THREE: UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO CAMPUS INTERCONNECTS

Development of the corridor between Dorr Street and Glanzman Road will require a longer timeline to complete due to the following:

Norfolk Southern has trackage rights to an active rail line over several sections of this reach. Negotiations will be required with NS to allow development of a rail-with-trail in this section

Complications due to a major crossing at Dorr Street in near proximity of Douglas Avenue

There is no estimated date of completion as the outcome of negotiations with Norfolk Southern will determine when the above segments can be developed. 9.4 PROJECT MILESTONES AND COMPLETION SCHEDULE

The approach for improving sections of the corridor by segment is largely based on the availability of sufficient funds for construction. Given the current availability of funding and consensus of the Coordinating Committee, the major milestones and estimated dates of completion of the path improvements by section is shown on the following table.

50  

Project Milestones and Completion Schedule

Corridor Property Negotiation with CSX July 2011 Corridor Property Acquisition from CSX October 2011 Record Deeds November 2011 Establish Coordinating Committee January 2012 Complete Draft Development Plan January 2013 Adopt Development Plan May 2013 Segment One – Wood County Port Authority, Metroparks

of the Toledo Area, and Wood County Park District a. Remove Maumee River Bridge 2016 b. Maumee River to Glanzman 2016

Remove Anthony Wayne Trail Bridge 2012 c. Maumee River to WW Knight Preserve 2016 d. WW Knight Nature Preserve to Bates Future

Segment Two – University of Toledo and City of Toledo a. Bancroft to Oakwood 2014 - 2016 b. Jackman to Kenwood 2014 - 2015 c. Kenwood to Bancroft 2017 d. Temperance Junction to Jackman Future

Segment Three: University of Toledo Campus Interconnects a. Oakwood to Glanzman Future

The actual sequencing of the corridor development may vary depending on funding opportunities from Federal, State, Local, and Institutional sources. Planning level cost estimates for the entire length of the corridor is provided in Appendix C. The cost estimates are broken down by corridor ownership and improved Path section as described above.

LASKEY

SYLVANIA

TREMAINSVILLE

LEW

IS

MONROE

JACK

MAN

SHER

BROO

KE

BELL

EVUE

CENTRAL

KENWOOD

BANCROFT

SECO

R

DORR

NEBRASKA

WEST

WOOD

BYRN

E

AIRPORT

SOUTH

HILL

GLENDALE

SCHNEIDER

DETR

OIT

DETR

OIT

COPLAND

HEATHERDOWNS

BYRN

E

RIVER

OHIO TURNPIKE

RIVER

FORD

WHITE

SIMMO

NS

BATE

S

REYN

OLDS

RICH

ARDS

Norfolk Southern

CoplandPark

ARLINGTONSwan CreekBridge

OttawaPark

Ottawa RiverBridge

I-475Bridge

JackmanPark

Anthony WayneTrail Bridge(Removed)

Maumee RiverBridge

65

Norfolk Southern

Norfolk Southern

Norfo

lk Sou

thern

WillysPark

Ottawa R.

ToledoZoo

Rotar

y Trai

l

LUCASCOUNTY

TELE

GRAP

H

DETR

OIT

MONROE

TALM

ADGE SE

COR

DETR

OIT

MATZINGER

CHERRY

CENTRAL

GREEBBELT PKY

ANGOLA

AIRPORT HWY

BROADWAY

OAK

MIAMI

WOODVILLE

SUMMIT

WESTERN

BUCK

GLEN

WOO

D

LIME C

ITY

TRAC

Y

WALBRIDGE

HUFF

ORD

RIVER

FORD

StranahanArboretum

Pine GlenPark

GrovePatterson

Park

MayfairPark

BennetPark

CorbinPark

AndersonBelt Park

ByrnePark

River RoadPark

DelawarePark

Beverly Park

ROSSFORD

STIC

KNEY

SleepyHollowPark

Tarten GlenPark

HillAvenue

Park

ANTHONY WAYNE TRAIL

NAVARRE

CONANT

WoodlandsPark

StranahanTheater

UPTO

N

TrilbyPark

MANHATTAN

LAGRANGE

DORR

Keil Farm

EASTGATE

DORR

WOODCOUNTY

Airline JunctionIntermodal Terminal

SYLVANIA

BANCROFT

NEBRASKA

SOUTH

LASKEY

CSX

CSX

SterlingPark

SYLVANIA

JEFFERSON

COLL

INGW

OOD

SOUTH

Penta CareerCenter

Signe

d Bike

Route

TOLEDO

HAWL

EY

WestfieldFranklin Park

WestgateShopping Ctr.

Harvard Elem.

Beverly Elem.

CASS

KEY

BERDAN

BENN

ETT

ELEANORDOUG

LAS

CENTRAL

HILL

Norfo

lk So

uthern

Trac

kage

Righ

ts

GLENDALE

DETR

OIT

SouthlandShopping Ctr.

AlroSteel

ParkwayPlaza

LEW

IS

TOLEDO

CSX

CSX

Toledo Museumof Art

Bass ProShops

RIVER

REYN

OLDS

DUSSEL

BANCROFT

MONROE

OHIO TURNPIKE

Maumee River

Swan Creek

TemperanceJunction

NasbyJunction

BatesJunction

VulcanJunction

BROADWAY

Maumee-Perrysburg

Bridge

EvansJunction

HistoricCanal Site

Fifth ThirdField

HuntingtonArena

Fort MeigsMonument

DETR

OIT

AmtrakStation

Miracle MileShopping Ctr.

OwensCommunity

College

RIVER

FRONT

St. Patrick Elem.

795

BERDAN

Gesu Elem.

Toledo EarlyCollege HS

Bennett VentureAcad.

W 1.9 mi

W 0.6 miW 0.5 mi

W 0.4 mi

L 1.1 mi

L 1.4 mi

L 1.6 mi

L 2.1 mi

L 2.4 mi

L 3.0 mi

L 3.4 mi

L 5.1 mi

L 5.3 mi

L 5.5 mi

L 5.8 mi

L 6.3 mi

L 6.8 mi

L 7.0 mi

L 7.7 mi

L 8.0 mi

L 8.3 mi

L 8.9 mi

L 9.7 mi

ANGOLA

W. Toledo YMCA

0.0 mi

DETR

OIT

KENWOOD

WOOD

SDAL

E

Swan

Cr

Ottawa R.

PARK

SIDE

HollywoodCasino

L 0.2 mi

HeatherdownsPark

GLANZMAN

Lucas Co.Rec. Center

& Fairgrounds

Gould Junction

SUPERIOR

Norfo

lk So

uthern

Trac

kage

Righ

ts

St. UrsulaAcad. Ottawa Hills

Jr/Sr HS Ottawa HillsElem.

Whittier Elem.

ArlingtonElem.

KeyserElem.

ElmhurstElem.

MaryImmaculate

Elem.

Notre DameAcad.

WoodlandElem.

St. RoseElem.

Indian HillsElem.

Eagle PointElem.

RossfordJr/Sr HS

Toth Elem.

Wayne TrailElem.

Maumee HS

WinterfieldVentureAcad.

FairfieldElem.

WalbridgeElem.

ANTHONY WAYNE TRAIL

E. BOUNDARY

OrleansPark

CASS

MICHIGAN

CSX

WinterfieldPark

GlenwoodElem.

OREG

ONCrossgatesPark

Fort MiamiPark

University - Parks TrailPa

rksid

e Trai

l

Greenbelt

Bike PathTOLEDO

MAUMEE

ROSSFORD

PERRYSBURG

OTTAWA HILLS

Side CutMetropark

HighlandPark

Audubon IslandPreserve

InternationalPark

WalbridgePark

Toledo BotanicalGardens

WoodsdalePark

PickfordPark

Beatty Park

BurroughsPark

Close Park

BowmanPark

BancroftBridge

WildwoodPreserveMetropark

University of ToledoHealth Science

Campus

University of ToledoScott ParkCampus

SchneiderPark

WW Knight NaturePreserve

Universityof Toledo

Swan CreekMetropark

JermainPark

Start HS

Bowsher HS

Grove PattersonAcademy

Wernert Elem.

ToledoTechnology Acad.

DeVeaux Elem.

McKinley Elem.

LarchmontElem.

Byrnedale Elem.

BurroughsElem.

St. Pius X Elem.

Fort MiamiElem.

Longfellow Elem.

Old OrchardElem.

St. Catherine Elem.

St. Francisde Sales HS

BlessedSacrament Elem.

All Saints Elem.

ToledoHospital

Chessie Circle Trail Map 300 Martin Luther King, Jr. DriveSuite 300, Toledo, Ohio 43604419-241-9155 www.tmacog.org

Toledo Metropolitan AreaCouncil of Governments

OHIO

MICHIGAN

MAPAREA

Lucas Co

Wood Co

Monroe CoLenaweeCo

OttawaCo

SanduskyCo

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles

TrailCorridorPropertyOwners

City of Toledo

Metroparks of the Toledo AreaWood Co. Port AuthorityWood Co. Park District

University of Toledo

Sidewalk AccessParking Areas

Points of Interest

Road AccessTrail Head

Wood Co. Corridor Mileagefrom 0.0 (county line)

W 1.9Lucas Co. Corridor Mileagefrom 0.0 (county line)

L 9.7

Rail/Rail Junctions w/NameCorridor Bridge Locations Parklands

Municipal Boundaries

Significant Destinations

Elementary & High Schools(within 2 miles of path)

Existing Bike Paths, Lanes,or Signed Routes

Railroad Trackage RightsActive Railroad Tracks

Proposed Bike FacilitiesPossible Future Bike Facilities

Source: Ohio Department of Transportation,Lucas County, Wood County, City of Toledo,Metroparks of the Toledo Area, University ofToledo, Wood Co. Port Authority, Wood Co.Park District Map Date: 4/1/2013

51

 

APPENDIX A CHESSIE CIRCLE TRAIL ACCESS POINT ATTRIBUTES  

 

Westside Corridor Attributes

Mile

Sidewalks

Property Owners

Access TypeCross Street

Parks Parking

L‐9.7no

City of ToledoRoad

 accessLew

is and Laskey

Corbin Park

noL‐8.9

yesCity of Toledo

Trail HeadJackm

an Road

Bowman

 Parkyes

L‐8.3yes

City of ToledoSidew

alk accessTrem

ainsvilleClose Park

yesL‐8.0

yesCity of Toledo

Sidewalk access

Sylvania AvenueClose Park

noL‐7.7

yesCity of Toledo

Sidewalk access

Berdan Avenue

Close Parkno

L‐7.0yes

City of ToledoSidew

alk accessMonroe Street

Ottaw

a Parkno

L‐6.8yes

City of ToledoSidew

alk accessCentral Avenue

Ottaw

a Parkno

L‐6.3yes

City of ToledoSidew

alk accessKenw

ood Avenue

Ottaw

a Parkno

L‐5.8yes

University of Toledo

Sidewalk access

Bancroft StreetOttaw

a Parkno

L‐5.5yes

University of Toledo

Trail HeadMarw

ood Avenue

Ottaw

a Parkno

L‐5.3yes

University of Toledo

Sidewalk access

Oakw

ood Avenue

Ottaw

a Parkyes

L‐5.1no

University of Toledo

Road access

Dorr StreetOttaw

a Parkno

L‐3.4yes

University of Toledo

Sidewalk access

Airport Highway

Burroughs Parkno

L‐3.0no

University of Toledo

Road access

Arlington Avenue

Schneider Parkyes

L‐2.7yes

University of Toledo

Sidewalk access

 UT Advanced

 Technology ParkSchneider Park

possibleL‐2.4

yesUniversity of Toledo

Sidewalk access

Glendale Avenue

Schneider Parkyes

L‐2.1yes

University of Toledo

Sidewalk access

Schneider RoadSchneider Park

yesL‐1.6

yesUniversity of Toledo

Trail HeadGlanzm

an Road

Pickford & Beverly Parks

yesL‐1.4

yesMetroparks of the Toledo

 AreaSidew

alk accessSouth

 Detroit and M

edfordPickford

 & Beverly Parks

noL‐1.1

yesMetroparks of the Toledo

 AreaSidew

alk accessCopland

 DrivePickford

 Parkno

L‐0.2no

Wood

 County Port AuthorityTrail Head

River Road (Lucas County)

Ft. Miam

is Parkpossible

W‐0.4

noWood

 County Port AuthorityRoad

 accessRiver Road

 (Wood

 County)WW Knight N

ature Preservepossible

W‐0.6

noWood

 County Park DistrictRoad

 accessFord

 RoadWW Knight N

ature Preservepossible

W‐0.8

noWood

 County Park DistrictTrail Head

East River RoadWW Knight N

ature Preserveyes

W‐1.9

noWood

 County Park DistrictRoad

 accessBates Road

none within

 1 m

ileno

Westside Corridor Attributes

Mile

L‐9.7L‐8.9L‐8.3L‐8.0L‐7.7L‐7.0L‐6.8L‐6.3L‐5.8L‐5.5L‐5.3L‐5.1L‐3.4L‐3.0L‐2.7L‐2.4L‐2.1L‐1.6L‐1.4L‐1.1L‐0.2W‐0.4

W‐0.6

W‐0.8

W‐1.9

Restrooms

BusinessesKiosk

Interest PtRecreation D

estinationHigh School

noyes

noTem

perence JunctionBow

man

 ParkStart High

 Schoolyes

yesyes

N/A

Bowman

 ParkStart High

 Schoolyes

nono

N/A

Bowman

 ParkStart High

 Schoolno

yesno

N/A

Bowman

 ParkStart High

 Schoolno

nono

I‐475 Bridge

none within

 1 m

ilenone w

ithin 1 m

ileno

yesno

I‐475 Bridge

Ottaw

a Parknone w

ithin 1 m

ileno

yesno

N/A

Ottaw

a ParkToledo

 Tech Academ

yno

yesno

N/A

UT Student Rec Center

none within

 1 m

ileno

yesno

Ottaw

a River BridgeUT Student Rec Center &

 Univ. Parks Trail

St Francis High School

nono

yesN/A

UT Student Rec Center &

 Univ. Parks Trail

none within

 1 m

ileyes

nono

N/A

UT Student Rec Center &

 Univ. Parks Trail

none within

 1 m

ileno

yesno

Vulcan Junction

Univ Parks Trail &

 Parkside Blvd Path

Toledo Early College

noyes

noNasby Junction

none within

 1 m

ilenone w

ithin 1 m

ileyes

nono

Swan

 Creek BridgeSw

an Creek M

etro Park &

 Schneider ParkBow

sher High School

nono

noN/A

Schneider Parknone w

ithin 1 m

ileno

yesno

N/A

Schneider Parknone w

ithin 1 m

ileyes

nono

Gould

 JunctionSchneider Park

none within

 1 m

ileno

yesyes

N/A

none within

 1 m

ilenone w

ithin 1 m

ileno

nono

N/A

none within

 1 m

ilenone w

ithin 1 m

ileno

yesno

AWT Bridge‐ Canal

Beverly Park & Toledo

 Country Clubnone

 within

 1 m

ileno

noyes

Old Rail Bridge

none within

 1 m

ilenone w

ithin 1 m

ileno

nono

Evans JunctionBelm

ont Country Clubnone

 within

 1 m

ileno

nono

N/A

Belmont Country Club

none within

 1 m

ileyes

noyes

N/A

Belmont Country Club

none within

 1 m

ileno

nono

Bates JunctionBelm

ont Country ClubRossford

 HS & Penta Career Ctr.

Westside Corridor Attributes

Mile

L‐9.7L‐8.9L‐8.3L‐8.0L‐7.7L‐7.0L‐6.8L‐6.3L‐5.8L‐5.5L‐5.3L‐5.1L‐3.4L‐3.0L‐2.7L‐2.4L‐2.1L‐1.6L‐1.4L‐1.1L‐0.2W‐0.4

W‐0.6

W‐0.8

W‐1.9

Elementary School

Other D

estinationsTarta Stops

Images

St. Catherine Elementary

Miracle M

ile Shopping Center & General M

otorsno

http://goo.gl/maps/rhZO

Larchmont Elem

entaryMiracle M

ile Shopping Center & General M

otorsyes

http://goo.gl/maps/S5ko

Blessed Sacrem

ent & Longfellow

 Elementary

Miracle M

ile Shopping Centerno

http://goo.gl/maps/G

gpQBlessed

 Sacrement &

 Deveaux Elementary

N/A

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/WkfgV

DeVeaux and M

cKinley Elementary

N/A

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/NNaxZ

McKinley &

 St. Pius Elementary

Toledo Hospital

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/MBDIC

St. Pius & Grove  Patterson

 Elementary

Toledo Hospital &

 Westgate Shopping Center

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/D9xxcOld Orchard

 Elementary

Toledo Hospital &

 Westgate Shopping Center

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/3GBp7

Gesu

 Elementary

UT M

ain Cam

pusyes

http://goo.gl/maps/U

gkUN

Gesu

 Elementary

UT M

ain Cam

pusno

http://goo.gl/maps/Cl3u

none within

 1 m

ileUT M

ain Cam

pusno

http://goo.gl/maps/sRLO

Rnone w

ithin 1 m

ileUT M

ain Cam

pus & Scott Park Cam

pusyes

http://goo.gl/maps/nDS1X

Burroughs Elementary

N/A

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/2egNn

none within

 1 m

ileUT Health

 Science Campus

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/ukCbMnone w

ithin 1 m

ileUT Technology Park

nohttp://goo.gl/m

aps/igPDDByrnedale Elem

entarySouthland

 Shopping Center & W

almart Plaza

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/Y1mb

none within

 1 m

ileWalm

art Plazayes

http://goo.gl/maps/erpzZ

Beverly SchoolN/A

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/NrNlF

none within

 1 m

ileN/A

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/bKuFDnone w

ithin 1 m

ileN/A

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/SYHwC

Fort Miam

i Elementary

N/A

yeshttp://goo.gl/m

aps/n2XRVnone w

ithin 1 m

ileN/A

N/A

http://goo.gl/maps/I3bb

none within

 1 m

ileN/A

N/A

http://goo.gl/maps/Cl92e

none within

 1 m

ileN/A

N/A

http://goo.gl/maps/K2vU

none within

 1 m

ileN/A

N/A

http://goo.gl/maps/IU

XOV

 

 

APPENDIX B CHESSIE CIRCLE TRAIL PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL CONTROL  

 

Chessie Circle TrailPedestrian Signal ControlCompiled August 29, 2012; field review November 5, 2012 with ODOT

LocationCount Date AADT Pedestrian Signal Control

Functional Classification Roads Within 300 ft Addresses Within 300 ft

Jackman 2011 12,500    

Possible in future ‐ initial trail development will occur with trailhead on west side of Jackman in Bowman Park; evaluate in future if trail is extended north and east to Temperance Junction U ‐ Minor Art'l Slater St, Crestwood Rd Jackman Rd (4900, 4925, 4671), 1672 Crestwood

Tremainsville 2011 6,100       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Collector Tremainsville Rd (1921, 1964), 2011 Eastbrook

Sylvania 2009 10,300    

No ‐ counts do not meet warrant, existing lines of sight good; Bellevue within 300 feet of crossing U ‐ Minor Art'l Bellevue Rd Sylvania Ave (2106, 2108, 2045, 2059), 4003 Fitch

Berdan 2004 6,962       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Collector Bellvue Rd, Sherbrooke Rd Sherbrooke Rd (3783, 3803), 3810 Bellvue 

I‐475 2010 95,979     Grade separation U ‐ Interstate

Monroe 2010 15,570    

Yes ‐ traffic counts and width of crossing are key factors; study required due to proximity of both Bellvue and Sherbrooke along with existing signal at Central and Monroe U ‐ Princp'l Art'l Bellvue Rd, Sherbrooke Rd Monroe St (4103, 4106, 4086, 4096)

Central 2010 13,360    

No new signal ‐ revise existing signal at Central/Douglas to add ped actuation; upgrade sidewalk and route path to cross Central adjacent to Douglas  U ‐ Princp'l Art'l Douglas Rd, Letchworth Pw Central Ave (2500, 2553), 3112 Bellvue, 3027 Sherbrooke

Kenwood 2009 4,100      

No new signal ‐ revise existing signal at Kenwood/Douglas to add ped actuation; move stop bar on Kenwood easterly   U ‐ Collector Douglas Rd   Kenwood Blvd(2666, 2670)

Bancroft 2010 9,650       Grade separation U ‐ Minor Art'l Westwood Ave 2657 Bancroft

Criteria for signal control ‐ Warrant 4 ‐ Pedestrian Volume per Ohio Manual of Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD)

Pedestrian Signal ControlCompiled August 29, 2012; field review November 5, 2012 with ODOT

LocationCount Date AADT Pedestrian Signal Control

Functional Classification Roads Within 300 ft Addresses Within 300 ft

Criteria for signal control ‐ Warrant 4 ‐ Pedestrian Volume per Ohio Manual of Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD)

Douglas 2010 12,750    

UT Study ‐ Possibly avoid need for existing crossing by routing path along eastside of Douglas across Oakwood to Dorr; cross Dorr on eastside of Douglas; revise signal on Douglas to add ped actuation; cross Douglas south of Dorr where counts drop: coordinate with future Clinton Secondary trail U ‐ Minor Art'l

Dorr 2010 20,040     Refer to Douglas crossing notes U ‐ Princp'l Art'l Wamba Ave, Bowlus Ave Dorr St (2701, 2740)

Nebraska 2010 6,450       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Collector Elysian Ave, Burbank Sr Nebaska Ave (2740, 2812), 529 Burbank

Hill 2004 19,975    

Yes; study ‐  high counts and width of crossing are key factors U ‐ Minor Art'l Hill Ave (2750, 2815, 2900)

South 2009 1,700       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Local South Ave (2852, 2855, 2918, 2921)

Airport 2007 17,381     Yes; study ‐ high counts meet warrant U ‐ Princp'l Art'l Airport Hwy (2857, 2930, 2931)

Arlington 2010 8,650       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Minor Art'l East Campus Dr

Glendale 2011 17,450     Yes; study ‐ high counts meet warrant U ‐ Minor Art'l Winette Dr, Pennelwood Dr Glendale Ave (2751, 2814, 2820), 1456 Pennelwood

Schneider 2008 4,500       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Minor Art'l Hinsdale Rd Schneider Rd (2610, 2803, 2817, 2827), 1702 Hinsdale

Glanzman 2011 4,050       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Collector Rugby Dr Glanzman Rd (2930, 2952), 2200 Arlington, 3600 Rugby

Detroit 2010 5,520      

No ‐ counts do not meet warrant; route path to cross Detroit north of Medford and cross Medford on west side of Detroit U ‐ Minor Art'l Medford Dr,  Detroit Ave (2808, 3816, 3824)

Copland 2001 1,650       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Local Detroit Ave, Rugby Dr 4022 Rugby, 4101 Detroit

Anthony Wayne Trail 2010 12,970     Grade separation U ‐ Princp'l Art'l

Pedestrian Signal ControlCompiled August 29, 2012; field review November 5, 2012 with ODOT

LocationCount Date AADT Pedestrian Signal Control

Functional Classification Roads Within 300 ft Addresses Within 300 ft

Criteria for signal control ‐ Warrant 4 ‐ Pedestrian Volume per Ohio Manual of Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD)

River Road (Lucas Co) 2011 2,600       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Collector River Rd (4554, 4566, 4567, 4571, 4575, 4576)

River Road (Wood Co) 2009 6,320       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Minor Art'l Ford Rd, Duxbury Ln

White 2008 600          No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Local Ford Rd 

Bates 2011 1,004       No ‐ counts do not meet warrant U ‐ Local Creek Bend Ct 30351 Bates Rd

Notes  1) If a street is repaved prior to construction of the trail, include Chessie Circle ped/bike path in future design & install ped ramps now2) The above locations for pedestrian signal control are preliminary for the purpose of estimating the cost of trail development; actual location of pedestrian signal controls to be determined by study during detail design

 

APPENDIX C CHESSIE CIRCLE TRAIL CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE  

 

Mile Start Mile End

Length (Mi.)

Ownership/Length Limits

Construction Year Items

Length (Mi.)

2011 $$$ Construction Inspection Plans Enviro Testing Permits Bid Total

9.7 8.9 0.8 COT Laskey Road to Bowman Park Future Path 0.8 400,000$ Jackman Signal $ 150,000

$ 550,000 $ 16,500 $ 22,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 624,500$

8.9 7 1.9 COT Bowman Park to Monroe Street 2014 Path 1.9 950,000$ Bowman Park Trail Head 300,000$

1,250,000$ $ 37,500 $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 1,373,500$

7 6.3 0.7 COT Monroe to Kenwood Boulevard 2015 Path 0.7 350,000$ Monroe Signal 150,000$ Central/Douglas Signal Mod 50,000$ Kenwood/Douglas Signal Mod 50,000$

600,000$ $ 18,000 $ 24,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 678,000$

6.3 5.8 0.5 COT Kenwood to Bancroft Street 2017 Path 0.5 250,000$ $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 303,500$

Total City of Toledo Section 3.9 2,650,000$ 79,500$ 106,000$ 100,000$ 20,000$ 4,000$ 20,000$ 2,979,500$

5.8 5.3 0.5 UT Bancroft to Oakwood Avenue 2014 - 2016 Path & Douglas Cantl's 0.5 1,725,000$ Demo Bancroft Bridge 300,000$ Demo Ottawa Bridge 500,000$ UT Trail Head 425,000$ Oakwood Signal Modift'n 75,000$

3,025,000$ $ 90,750 $ 121,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 3,272,750$

5.3 5.1 0.2 UT Oakwood to Dorr Street Path 0.2 100,000$ $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 143,000$

5.1 4.1 1.0 UT Dorr to Hill Avenue Future Path 1.0 500,000$ Dorr Signal Modift'n 100,000$ Dorr Safe Street Addt'n 100,000$

700,000$ $ 21,000 $ 28,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 785,000$

4.1 3.4 0.7 UT Hill to Airport Highway Future Path 0.7 350,000$ Arlington Ave Trail Head 425,000$ Hill Signal 150,000$ Airline Bridge 1,800,000$

2,725,000$ $ 81,750 $ 109,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 2,951,750$

3.4 1.6 1.8 UT Airport to Glanzman Road Future Path 1.8 900,000$ Airport Signal 150,000$ Glendale Signal 150,000$ Rail Crossing 200,000$

1,400,000$ $ 42,000 $ 56,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 1,534,000$

Total University of Toledo Section 4.2 7,950,000$ 238,500$ 318,000$ 125,000$ 25,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$ 8,686,500$

1.6 0.2 1.4 Metroparks Glanzman to River Road 2016 Path 1.4 700,000$ Pickford Park Trail Head 425,000$ AWT Bridge 500,000$ River Road Trail Head 425,000$

Total Toledo Metroparks 1.4 2,050,000$ $ 61,500 $ 82,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 2,229,500$

CHESSIE CIRCLE TRAIL CONCEPTUAL PROJECT ESTIMATE

Mile Start Mile End

Length (Mi.)

Ownership/Length Limits

Construction Year Items

Length (Mi.)

2011 $$$ Construction Inspection Plans Enviro Testing Permits Bid Total

CHESSIE CIRCLE TRAIL CONCEPTUAL PROJECT ESTIMATE

0.2 0.15 0.05 WCPA River Road to Maumee River 2016 Path 0.05 25,000$ $ 750 $ 1,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 62,750$

0.28 WCPA Maumee River Bridge 2016 Bridge Demo 0.28 2,500,000$ Future New Bridge 6,500,000$

9,000,000$ 9,000,000$

0.13 0.4 0.27 WCPA Maumee River to River Road 2016 Path 0.27 135,000$ $ 4,050 $ 5,400 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 180,450$

Total Wood County Port Authority 0.60 9,160,000$ 4,800$ 6,400$ 50,000$ 10,000$ 2,000$ 10,000$ 9,243,200$

0.4 0.6 0.2 WCPD River Road to WW Knight Preserve 2016 Path 0.2 100,000$ WW Knight Trail Head 100,000$

200,000$ $ 6,000 $ 8,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 250,000$

0.6 1.9 1.3 WCPD WW Knight to Bates Future Path 1.3 650,000$ $ 19,500 $ 26,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 731,500$

Total Wood County Park District 1.5 850,000$ 25,500$ 34,000$ 50,000$ 10,000$ 2,000$ 10,000$ 981,500$

Total Project 11.6 22,660,000$ 409,800$ 546,400$ 350,000$ 70,000$ 14,000$ 70,000$ 24,120,200$ Total: 24,130,000$

- Base path construction cost on Wabash (2011 - $413,000/mi) with widening to 16 foot path; use cost of 500,000$ per mile Inspection 3% of construction cost- Traffic control signals 150,000$ each Plans 4% of construction cost- Rail crossing; lights & gate 200,000$ each- Assume adequate R/W, does not include additional R/W costs - Drainage improvements not included, except minor culvert replacement /extensions

WEH 12/27/2012 - Does not include fencing separation from active rail or private property

- Estimate based on Wabash Cannonball Trail, Sections 2A, 2G & 2H 2007 Bid Tabul@ions - Assume LPA projects

- Does not include removal of tracks and ties

Assumptions