We gratefully recognize the Town of Dedhams dedicated Planning and Environmental Departments staff,
including Richard McCarthy, Town Planner and Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator, each of whom
helped to guide this feasibility study effort. Their commitment to the town and its open space system will
yield positive benefits to all as they seek to evaluate projects like this potential rail trail.
Special thanks to the many representatives of the Town of Dedham for their commitment to evaluate the
feasibility of the Heritage Rail Trail. We also thank the many community members who came out for the
public and private forums to express their concerns in person. The recommendations contained in the
Heritage Rail Trail Feasibility Study represent our best professional judgment and expertise tempered by
the unique perspectives of each of the participants to the process.
June 2017
Page | 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. Key Considerations
9. Conclusion
Page | 2
Introduction and Background
Weston & Sampson was selected through a proposal process by the Town of Dedham to complete a
Feasibility Study for a proposed Heritage Rail Trail in Dedham, Massachusetts. A previous report from
2014, Dedham Greenway Concept Plan, by Rails to Trails Conservancy outlined general information about
rail to trail projects and offered initial considerations of strategies to overcome existing barriers to a
cohesive and continuous trail as well as opinions of probable cost.
While this information was a good start, the community requested a more in-depth look at what it would
take to address site-specific concerns along this particular corridor and include current estimates of
probable cost based on recently publicly bid projects in Massachusetts. Weston & Sampson has reviewed
the initial study and included some relevant information and findings from that document to provide
context and a cohesive summary of what will be required to construct the 1.33-mile rail trail currently
being considered.
It must be stated that most things are technically feasible given unlimited time and money. The question
is not one of ability to make this trail a reality, it is instead a determination of the value of the result in
light of the resources required to get there. The following study outlines those resources and as well as
the engineering considerations required to build a Heritage Rail Trail in Dedham.
The proposed Dedham Greenway from the Boston City Line to Dedham Square in Massachusetts would
create a 1.33-mile public green space along a former railroad corridor. This concept plan investigates the
opportunities and constraints affecting the proposed greenway and sets out design concepts that can be
utilized by the community for the next phase of implementation.
Greenways are one of the few practical strategies that have emerged as an antidote to the problems of
loss of open space, uncontrolled growth and fragmented communities; there are multiple ways that trails
and greenways can help build more livable communities. Greenways and trails are designed to produce
real, tangible benefits that can be summarized by four major outcomes:
Resource conservation: Greenways preserve precious open space, which is crucial to the long-term
livability and sustainability of a neighborhood or region.
Health and recreation: Greenways promote public health by creating safe opportunities for
individuals and families to engage in physical activities, such as walking and bicycling.
Community revitalization: In both urban neighborhoods and rural communities, greenways
encourage economic and community revitalization by stimulating small business creation and
improving community quality of life.
Alternative transportation: While originally created for recreation, thousands of bicycle
commuters now use greenways and trails to get to work, thereby reducing traffic congestion and
air pollution while building physical activity into their daily lives.
In addition to these tangible outcomes, greenways also produce important intangible benefits. When the
opportunity to build a new greenway arises, something remarkable often happens in a community.
Page | 3
Individuals, state and local government, the private sector and community-based groups unite in the
common purpose of building a greenway. Greenway building is community building.
Project Goals
The goals of this study are to define design alternatives for the greenway and to propose additional steps
required to proceed to the design and construction stage of the project.
A site walk was held along the entire corridor so that site specific concerns and observations could be
made and documented. 800 post cards were sent via registered mail to both direct and indirect abutters
asking what they would like to see on the trail. Overall, we have had contact and feedback from hundreds
of abutters and Dedham residents, all of which has informed the findings of this study. The following table
lists the formal meetings:
DATE MEETING
03.19.16 Kick-off Meeting
04.29.16 Site Walk w/ MAPC
05.17.16 First Public Meeting
06.06.16 Dedham Abutter Meeting: Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending
06.09.16 Dedham Abutters Meeting
06.15.16 Dedham School Committee
07.19.16 Dedham Abutters Meeting: Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending
10.04.16 Rail Trail Site Walk w/ Abutters
Through the course of this study it has become clear that this potential rail trail has both strong supporters
and strong objectors. A series of letters to the editor in the Dedham Transcript have articulated both
perspectives. The residents of Dedham, in particular the direct and indirect abutters, are passionate about
this topic. Two organized groups have emerged around the potential rail trail project; Friends of the
Heritage Rail Trail and Dedham Tax Payers for Responsible Spending. It is worth noting that The Friends
of the Heritage Rail Trail raised funds to allow for additional meetings with consultants and outreach to
abutters. A mailing survey was sent to all direct abutters and all abutters within 300 of the rail corridor.
The results of this mailing are as follows:
Page | 4
Total # of Responses: 150 out of 433 (35%)
Direct Abutters: YES = 14, NO = 37 out of 144 (YES = 10% vs NO = 26%, DID NOT RESPOND =
64%
300 Abutters:
Total:
The summary of existing conditions findings can be found in Appendix B. In general, the existing rail bed
is in relatively good condition in that it is mostly stable with minimal signs of erosion. In areas where the
surfaces are compacted, currently used informally by pedestrians, or paved through previous efforts the
path is fairly passable and largely accessible for able-bodied pedestrians.
There are several lengths of former rail bed that are impassible in their current condition. They include
steep slopes up to Mount Vernon Street (where there was previously an underpass) and zones of
volunteer vegetative growth that is incredibly dense and hard to navigate. At River Street, a bridge that
spanned the roadway was removed due to large trucks being unable to make safe passage below leaving
the bridge abutments but little else.
There are a few locations where existing slopes exceed universally accessible limits of 5% for a sloped
walkway and 8.33% for a ramp with handrails. These areas can be regraded while being mindful of the
surrounding vegetation that is to be protected. Some of the existing trees need pruning or removal simply
because they have reached the end of their useful life. Removals will be kept to a minimum to maintain
existing screening between the rail bed and abutters.
Page | 5
Rail Corridor Segments
To succinctly and effectively describe both existing conditions and proposed requirements for a Rail Trail
facility in this location we have broken the overall 1.33-mile corridor into a series of smaller segments.
These segments are also used to describe a phased implementation strategy that allows for incremental
construction projects should full funding not be available all at once.
The rail bed has been divided into the following segments:
Page | 6
Segment A East Street to tennis courts (including Mt. Vernon Street)
Existing conditions of Segment A include a well-worn surface through densely vegetated woodland and
limited exposure to abutters. The biggest challenge of this section is the crossing of Mount Vernon Street.
There was a former underpass for the railway use that was removed because of dangerous roadway
conditions and poor sight lines for drivers. When the underpass was filled a new road was installed with
a better curvature to support driver sight lines and traffic safety. Current conditions at the existing rail
bed elevation looking at Mount Vernon Street are shown on the following page.
Page | 7
Segment B Tennis courts to high school field parking lot
Segment B has fairly level grades but a widely varying set of existing conditions for abutting uses and
access. The path right-of-way is very close to abutting residences on the south side of the corridor. To the
north there is less pressure due to recreational uses and parking lots. As the corridor moves to the east
you encounter an existing roadway that provides access to the Avery Elementary School as well as parking
lots for school use. The corridor was repurposed as a public road when the school was built and while a
usage agreement was drafted specifically to allow a future Rail Trail to be built, there is resistance to
putting a Rail Trail through the center of an active school complex due to existing traffic congestion at
drop off and pick up as well as student safety concerns during the school day. This segment ends as the
street turns south and a worn path that generally follows the existing former rail bed picks up.
Page | 8
Segment C High School Field Parking Lot to Fairview Street
Right in this area, east of the parking lot next to the high school field, is where a significant amount of
excess fill from the Avery School construction project was deposited. Many large, mature trees were
removed to accommodate this fill deposition, much to the significant disappointment of immediate
abutters whose backyards and homes that were once screened by mature vegetation are now exposed to
the rail corridor. In addition, the deposition of the fill material was not done in a way that accommodates
universal access. In addition to the materials and uneven surfacing, the slopes of the material along the
ridgeline of the soil berm exceed 5% and must either be re-graded or constructed with handrails and
landings at slopes not more than 8.33% in accordance with Massachusetts Architectural Access Board and
American with Disabilities Act requirements.
This segment of path extends to the Walnut Street Bridge. This bridge creates an underpass condition
along the rail corridor. This area, hidden from view by the bridge and abutments, is understood to
accommodate nefarious activities that the abutters are concerned about. There is visible evidence of
graffiti, drinking, and drug use in this area. Site security and screening of abutters will be critical in this
area.
Page | 9
Segment D Fairview Street to Quincy Street Extension
This corridor alignment runs behind the large warehouse to the north east of the path on Google Maps.
To the southwest of the right-of-way are a series of smaller businesses that have encroached to varying
degrees on the railway property. Once past the long warehouse building there are a few residences that
sit much lower in elevation than the rail corridor. This creates an opportunity for visual access from path
users into peoples private homes including second floor rooms. Several of the abutters have explicitly
brought this to our attention at meetings and on-site walks.
A portion of this segment near the easement at Flanagan Place will require invasive species management
to eradicate sections of Japanese knotweed. During a site walk, residents requested the use of organic
methods of removal due to the proximity of nearby vegetable gardens.
Once you reach River Street you find yourself high above the roadway grades where a former railroad
bridge existed. We understand that this bridge was removed because larger trucks were hitting it on a
fairly regular basis and it was a safety concern. Rugged individuals have been able to navigate down the
top of the abutment structure to River Street, quickly dash across the street between fast-moving cars,
and ascend the eastern abutment structure to continue the walk.
Moving eastward beyond River Street there are several automotive and construction based businesses to
the north of the rail bed. Since the rail bed is considerably higher than the surrounding properties you can
Page | 10
see onto the roofs and into the yards of these businesses with ease. This elevation change may create the
potential for vandals to throw objects onto the businesses below.
To the south of the corridor are single and multi-family residences. Many have fences existing, some with
gates to access the right-of-way now. This segment would end at the Quincy Ave Extension which runs
from Whiting Avenue heading northeast and abuts the railway parcel. Selective tree removal, grading,
pavement and signage would be needed to make a safe and clear connection from this interim Rail Trail
terminus back to the public way. It appears there has been much encroachment at this end of the segment
by abutting businesses. The Town has committed to investigate this further.
Key Considerations:
Following is a summary of key considerations of factors that were reviewed and investigated throughout
the process of this study.
1. Property Ownership
By deed from the MBTA dated June 22, 1999, and recorded in Book 13545, Page 523 (the Deed),
the Town obtained the fee title to the entirety of an abandoned railroad right-of-way known as
the Dedham Secondary Branch (the Rail Corridor or Corridor). Described in the Deed as
Parcel B, the Corridor is 1.3 miles in length, and its boundaries are shown on railroad valuations
plans recorded with the Registry of Deeds and referenced in the Deed. The Deed also granted to
the Town the fee interest in a 6.3-acre parcel of land (Parcel A) now known as Gonzalez
Field. The Towns fee ownership of the Corridor in its entirety was recently confirmed by an April
11, 2017 title report obtained on the Towns behalf by Town Counsel.
Acting on behalf of the Town, the Board of Selectmen accepted the grant of the Rail Corridor for
general municipal purposes pursuant to authorization of the vote under Article 1 of the April 10,
2006 Special Town Meeting. The Selectmen had previously accepted the grant of Gonzalez Field
for active recreation purposes pursuant to authorization of the vote under Article 3 of the April
13, 1998 Town Meeting. It appears that authorization to acquire the Rail Corridor was
inadvertently omitted from the 1998 Town Meeting vote authorizing the acquisition of Gonzalez
Field, thus requiring the further authorization of Town Meeting and acceptance of the Board of
Selectmen with respect to the Rail Corridor in 2006.
Following the Selectmens acceptance of the grant of the Rail Corridor, the Town then transferred
a portion of the Rail Corridor (the School Portion) to the care, custody and control of the School
Department for school purposes by the vote of the April 2, 2008 Town Meeting under Article 38.
Following the transfer of custody of the School Portion, and as part of the construction of the
Avery School, the Superintendent of Schools and the Town Administrator executed a Letter of
Commitment (See Appendix F) identifying the Rail Corridor as a future shared use path that would
eventually connect downtown Dedham with the new elementary school to the Readville
Commuter Rail Station, and committing to maintain a minimum of 50 feet of clearance (no
structures) within the Rail Corridor, together with access through the school driveway and the
Rail Corridor, in order to accommodate the future shared use path.
Page | 11
At present, based on the actions set forth above, the Rail Corridor is owned in its entirety by the
Town, and is held by the Town in part in the care, custody and control of the Board of Selectmen
for general municipal purposes, and in part by the School Department for school purposes, subject
to the Letter of Commitment as it may apply.
There is continued discussion about the use of the railroad right-of-way for the construction of the
Avery Elementary School and a letter of commitment that was drafted in an effort to secure future
access for a rail trail facility in this location. It is important to note the Avery Elementary School was
designed, permitted and constructed just a few years ago which created the challenge of navigating
the rail trail around the school campuses. Further, this challenge was recognized after construction
and a commitment was made to work through this issue (see Appendix F Letter of Commitment).
The current school administration has voiced concerns about the confluence of rail trail users with
students at drop off, pick up, and during the school day. Current conditions have been reported as
congested and chaotic during drop off and pick up. The concern is that the addition of rail trail users
to this area will only further compound existing congestion and compromise student safety. As a
result, the school committee requested a traffic study be completed as part of this feasibility study.
We also recommend a circulation study be completed for key intersections near the elementary,
middle and high schools to provide critical information on the movement patterns in this area
(pedestrian and vehicular) to help make informed planning decisions. The circulation study has been
postponed to allow for the completion of the feasibility study and to better define the scope of the
circulation study.
4. Environmental Conditions of the Site as a former rail bed, there are concerns about potential
environmental issues.
The site is a former rail bed. While careful site characterization must be completed, there is
established precedent for projects of this nature. In fact, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection has even developed guidelines and best management practices (BMPs)
for the conversion of former railroad lines to recreation trails. If final design moves forward, a
Licensed Site Professional should be involved to develop initial site assessment, a soil
management plan, and compliance with the Department of Environmental Protection
requirements.
As part of this study an initial review of environmental reporting both on the site and in the
immediate vicinity was conducted. The findings showed that there are no open cases of
environmental threats in the immediate area and that the site must go through the standard
protocols of a rail to trail project through an LSP, but that no significant environmental events
have occurred on this particular corridor. The summary of our findings is attached in Appendix C.
Based on other rail to trail projects completed in Massachusetts, a soil management plan that will
be in full compliance with DEP requirements must be completed. This has been included in the
opinions of probable cost.
5. Access and Egress to the Corridor points of access to a potential rail trail must be established
including parking accommodations.
Multiple points of egress will allow for ease of use and improve site security.
Page | 12
Currently we are proposing potential points of access to a rail trail at East Street, Whiting Avenue
through the high school field parking lot, Quincy Avenue Extension and potentially Aiken Street
with future considerations at Flanagan Place. All points of access will be handicapped accessible.
While a trail of this length and location would see most users coming on foot or bike from the
local neighborhood, there will still be potential users who require vehicular transportation to a
trail facility. To provide a limited number of parking spaces for users in need we suggest a few
spots in the Gonzales Field complex be identified as for use by trail users when a sporting event
is not in progress. Also, spots within the parking lot next to the high school field is open on
weekends and could be used during that time for rail trail parking.
6. Privacy and Security of Abutters there is concern by abutting residents and business owners about
a loss of privacy and increased vandalism.
Certain business properties reported a history of vandalism during the time before the River
Street rail bridge was in place.
Abutters have reported current nefarious activity on the former rail bed including graffiti,
drinking, smoking and marijuana use. The town has been in discussions with the Town Manager
to include costs for fencing for Devaney Oil to meet Homeland Security needs.
At Mount Vernon Street and River Street where an underpass and a bridge were formerly in place
respectively to accommodate the intersection of the rail line and the vehicular roadways. The
possibility of reintroducing these two elements has caused concern for those living in close
proximity of these features perceived to be an attractive nuisance for nefarious behavior.
Elevation of path surface allows for views into some homes
There are also abutters whose homes sit very close to the rail road right-of-way. They have
concerns about people walking in such close proximity to their private residences. Their fears
include a reduction in privacy and security.
We have been made aware that during construction of the Avery Elementary School a large
volume of fill was placed along the path alignment. To make room for this fill several mature trees
were removed. This visually exposed several residences that had previously been enclosed and
screened by this vegetation from the former rail bed.
7. Cost of Construction
Previous estimates were perceived as inaccurate and too low. Some residents are wary of
approving a project that will end up costing much more than people expect.
Opponents have voiced concerns about competing needs within the town and that tax payer
dollars should not be allocated to this project.
Costs have been estimated based on current construction pricing and include soil management
required for the environmental considerations.
Typical annual path maintenance costs in New England are $5,000 / mile which includes mowing
(and landscape maintenance) and trash pickup.
The addition of this path would require an additional 300 man hours / year which equates to 15%
of a full-time employee.
Precedent examples of operation and maintenance costs are included in Appendix D.
Page | 13
It is important to note that additional decisions by the town would need to be made before
determining the municipal entity responsible for maintenance (such as the designated category
of open space.)
The estimates above are based on a minimal-maintenance vegetation strategy. This approach
would use native plantings which, once established, would become part of the surrounding,
existing plant community of the rail corridor. This is a departure from the previously completed
artistic renderings and is in response to feedback provided by the towns Park and Recreation
Department as well as discussions with the Dedham Residents for Responsible Spending.
Each plan segment includes a legend that describes the symbols used to show where interventions will be
made and what kind. Further explanations of those elements as well as images of what this construction
might looks like follow the plans.
Page | 14
Segment A East Street to the tennis courts (including Mt. Vernon Street underpass)
There has been discussion about a potential pedestrian bridge from the start of a proposed rail trail across
East Street to the Gonzales Recreation Field Complex. While this would certainly provide outstanding
pedestrian connectivity we anticipate the cost of construction to be prohibitive. In this location, we have
shown an at-grade pedestrian crosswalk that connects to existing sidewalks along East Avenue up to the
parking area for Gonzales Field where there would be handicapped parking available for trail visitors.
Once across East Street one encounters a fairly steep sloping lawn up to the original rail bed elevation.
This area would be graded to ensure universally accessible egress, excellent visibility for users and public
safety and clear wayfinding and signage identifying the proposed rail trail. The surface would be asphalt
to ensure longevity and ease of maintenance. The initial point of egress where the ramp will be required
will be 6 wide with the full width of 12 being accomplished at the top of the slope.
Selective removal of vegetation will only be completed within the construction access zone along with any
trees that are showing signs of decline or poor health and could potentially be a hazard to trail users in
the future. In some areas, there is poor drainage and stormwater collects into large puddles. These would
be managed through site grading and infiltration of stormwater back into the ground. Connections to
existing storm drain lines will be considered for overflow capacity during a major storm event.
To cross Mount Vernon Street, we recommend an underpass be constructed under the roadway. Formerly
there was an underpass in this location but it was subsequently filled and the roadway lowered. We
anticipate leaving the roadway intact and using a construction technique known as jacking to remove
the fill materials and insert a 10 x 12 concrete structure to support the span and provide pedestrian
access. This new underpass will be lit with security lighting. Security cameras like those used at other
Dedham parks and buildings have also been discussed at this location. The grading and drainage
operations of this effort will be significant as there are several large culverts currently in place to convey
Page | 15
stormwater under Mount Vernon Street. These must be relocated in conjunction with a larger drainage
renovation that will capture stormwater from the west end of the path and connect it into the larger town
system. As an alternative to the underpass, a switch-back pathway may be constructed up the
embankment to connect the rail trail to Mount Vernon Street.
Once past Mount Vernon Street the rail corridor limits are in very close proximity to one residential home
and deck. Given the recreational use to the north of the tennis courts, we are proposing a shift of the path
to hug the northern property line. Between the proposed Rail Trail and the southern property line the
design would call for earthwork that creates berms for screening and evergreen planting. Fencing would
be integrated alongside the path within the planting to ensure path users remained on the path. This area
also holds stormwater during wet periods and detention and conveyance of stormwater will be required
to ensure the path is well-constructed and has longevity in concert with surrounding utilities.
Page | 16
Segment B Tennis courts to high school field parking lot
As you progress to the East along the rail corridor you arrive at the edge of the Avery Elementary School
access drive, the high school and athletic field is to the south of the roadway. This is the interface where
many people, including the school committee, have expressed concern about vehicular congestion, public
and student safety. In response to these concerns we have considered alternative path alignments (shown
in the graphic above) that can be in effect during school hours. Two pathway alternatives were developed
to address concerns during these hours. One option would use signage to instruct path users to bypass
the Avery School access drive and proceed behind the track and field to continue on the rail trail at the
high school field parking lot. Another option, moving west to east on the trail, would direct path users up
a handicap ramp to Mt Vernon Street, to the north of the tennis courts, behind the Dedham Pool Building
and the Avery School, up the ledge past the basketball courts and around the field to continue on the rail
trial at the high school field parking lot. When school is not in session in the evenings, on weekends and
all summer long, path users would be able to ride or walk along the access drive that connects directly
with the railway corridor. The Mount Vernon Street alternative will require an intensive ADA compliant
ramp to provide passage for pedestrians from the rail corridor elevation up to Mount Vernon Street. This
is reflected in the opinions of probable cost. Please see Key Considerations for additional information
related to the Avery Elementary School and usage agreements for a potential rail trail facility. It is
important to note that the school was built on the right-of-way of the rail bed. As a result, there was an
agreement between the town, the school and MAPC for the allowance of a recreational corridor through
the access road.
Page | 17
Segment B Alternative Mt. Vernon Street to north of Avery Elementary School to high
school field parking lot
An alternative route behind the Avery Elementary School was studied in more detail. Moving west to east,
this alternative route would require a switch back trail or ADA ramp leading up to Mt Vernon Street. The
route would then cross Mt Vernon, pass through the tennis court parking area and subsequently cross
Recreation Road. These crossings would incorporate pedestrian/bike crossing signals. As the path travels
to the north and then east of the pool building, a 6-foot-tall black vinyl chain link fence would separate
the path users from the school property. An intensive ADA compliant ramp would be required to reach
the higher elevations adjacent to the basketball court. The path would then continue along the outer edge
of the rectangular athletic field (requiring ledge removal) before connecting again to the existing rail
corridor.
Page | 18
Segment C High school athletic field parking lot to Whiting Avenue at Fairview Street
Page | 19
Segment D Fairview Street to Quincy Street Extension
This segment runs in close proximity to some residences and due to the rail bed elevations, create
unwanted visual access into peoples homes up to their second floors. A shifting of the path alignment
away from these houses, coupled with re-grading and planting will provide a better buffer and mitigate
privacy concerns in these locations.
Page | 20
Opinion of Probable Cost
From an operational perspective, the town will need to dedicate seasonal and full time staff (as phases
are implemented) to manage the new public open space assets. Based on our research in other
Massachusetts municipalities we have determined that on average this facility will cost the town $7,500
in labor costs each year to operate and maintain in good order. This assumes that the town has all of the
necessary equipment to perform the work (vegetation, pavement, snow management).
Construction estimates are taken from recent bid pricing of comparable projects for publicly bid projects
in Massachusetts.
Page | 21
Page | 22
Conclusion
The prospect of a multi-use rail trail through this part of Dedham has been a polarizing concept amongst
direct and indirect abutters. There are some that are excited by the potential for dedicated pedestrian
and bike connections between homes and the schools as well as opportunities for exercise out of the way
of vehicles. Others see the costs of time and money to be too high given the maximum length of 1.33
miles. Throughout this feasibility study we have engaged with residents on both sides of the issue as well
as many who do not oppose the idea of a Heritage Rail Trail, but want the result to be safe and not have
a negative impact on abutters.
We have concluded that in order to create the Heritage Rail Trail from East Street to the Quincy Street
Extension along the original rail corridor, including an underpass at Mount Vernon Street and a bridge at
River Street, the total cost will be approximately $2,875,000. This price does not include lighting
($550,000) or a bridge to connect the rail trail with the Gonzales Athletic Complex ($3,100,000). The Town
is exploring grant funding as well as inclusion of this project on the Transportation Improvement Program
by MassDOT.
The best implementation strategy includes a phased approach to construction. By selecting smaller
segments of the corridor to be improved over time it disperses construction costs over a longer period
and allows people opposed to the concept of the path to see how a limited section would function as a
pilot program.
Appendices
A Base Plan by Segment
B Site Photos by Segment
C Summary of Environmental Findings from W&S LSP
D Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail Trails by Rails to Trails Conservancy
E Structural Cost Precedents for Bridges and Underpasses
F Letter of Commitment, Board of Selectman
G Direct/Indirect within 300 Abutter Survey Postcard
Page | 23
RAIL TRAIL SHIFT IN RAIL TRAIL ACCESSIBLE PARKING
RAIL TRAIL ON PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS ALTERNATE ROUTE
EXISTING SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
CROSS WALK BERM
N
ALTERNATE RAIL TRAIL ROUTE PLANTING 0 55 110 220
AVERY STREET
TREET
MT VERNON S
CLARK STREET ELMVIEW
ACE PLACE
PL
ELEANOR STREET
CIL
CE
R EET
S ST
ROW
BAR
SEGMENT A
East Street to Tennis Courts (Including Mt. Vernon Street Underpass)
APPENDIX A
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SHIFT IN RAIL TRAIL
HA
SS UE
ZE
A
C EN
LN
SEG H LINE
AV
TC
UT
PL
MEN
AC
C
MAT
E
N STREET
BARROWS E
STREET ELMVIEW PLAC
MT VERNO
WHITING AVENUE
UE SEGMENT B
EN
AV Tennis Courts to High School Field Parking Lot
NG
HITI
W
RAIL TRAIL SWITCH BACK OR ADA RAMP
ROAD
RECREATION
REET ST
MT VERNON
CLARK
STREET ELMVIEW PLACE
WHITING AVENUE
UE SEGMENT B ALTERNATIVE
Mt. Vernon EN
AV Street to North of Avery Elementary School to High School Field Parking Lot
ING
W HIT
RAIL TRAIL EXISTING PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS
HAZ
ELN
UT P
LAC
E
MATCH LINE
SEGMENT D
TREET
WALNUT S
WHITING AVENUE
SEGMENT C
High School Field Parking Lot to Fairview Street
RAIL TRAIL SHIFT IN RAIL TRAIL
MILTO
N STR
EET
LACE
GAN P
MATCH LINE
SEGMENT C
FLANA
N
SIO
EN
XT
TE
EE
TR
YS
ET
INC
RE
QU
ST
R
WHITING AVENUE VE
RI
T
FAIRVIEW
EE
STREET
TR
YS
INC
QU
SEGMENT D
Fairview Street to Quincy Street Extension
SEGMENT A - EXISTING PHOTOS
"11&/%*9#
SEGMENT B - EXISTING PHOTOS
SEGMENT B - ALTERNATE ROUTE BEHIND AVERY - EXISTING PHOTOS
SEGMENT C - EXISTING PHOTOS
SEGMENT D - EXISTING PHOTOS
APPENDIX
APPENDIX C C
85 Devonshire Street, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA 02109
Tel: 617.412.4480
The DEP database was reviewed along with a request for an EDR including Sanborn Maps and historical
aerial photos. The DPE site map is attached. The blue dots represent sites closed with a Class A-2 RAO
(clean but not to background) or Permanent Solution Statement with No Conditions and the green dots
represent sites closed with a Class A-3 RAO which includes and Activity and Use Limitation (AUL). Red dots
represent open sites. The accompanying list with the red highlighted RTNS are the sites located in the
vicinity of the proposed rail trail that have been reviewed.
The EDR will take some time to come in because of the type of search requested.
However, of the 11 DEP sites along the trail, no issues have been found. All 11 RTNS have been either
closed or linked to closed sites. The one big one is the adjacent rail yard. It is closed, but with a deed
restriction. This site is at the end (or beginning) of the proposed rail trail and borders on Quincy Street.
The EDR report and appendices were reviewed. There was limited Sanborn coverage so they were not
helpful. There was a nice library of aerial photos dating back to 1938. There have not been many
significant changes throughout the area over time as it has been primarily residential with some
commercial development. The rail yard has been throughout that timeframe. There was no new
information in the EDR report itself.
Therefore, no significant environmental issues were found along the proposed rail trail with the exception
of the rail yard. There may be some soil management issues along the former rail line itself consistent with
historical use as a rail line and treated timbers. Of course there is always the risk of an undocumented spill
along the rail line itself, however, that is unlikely.
westonandsampson.com
Offices in: MA, CT, NH, VT, NY, NJ, PA, SC & FL
SearchableSites Page 1 of 6
200 m
1000 ft
The search returned 201 results | Search Keywords >> 'DEDHAM' | Data last updated: 08/26/2016
There is a maximum limit of 200 records that can be displayed. You have exceeded the limit. 200 records have been displayed.
Page:1 of 2 Sorted by: Release Address GIS Previous Next
City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical
Files
Select RTN Town Address Location Aid Category Date Status Date Phase Class Type GIS
3-0000003 DEDHAM ALLIED DR DEDHAM PLACE NONE 1986-03-06 DEPNFA 1987-12-16 Files
ALLIED
3-0000795 DEDHAM 1 ALLIED DR NONE 1986-11-12 WCSPRM 1990-05-10 Files
CONTAINER CORP
DEDHAM PLACE
Hazardous
3-0026042 DEDHAM 3 ALLIED DR 42-17-29 N 71-36-22 TWO HR 2006-07-11 RAO 2006-11-03 A1 Files MAP
Material
W
3-0011343 DEDHAM 40 ALLIED DR RTE 128 120 DY 1994-07-21 RAO 1995-09-26 A2 Oil Files MAP
3-0012983 DEDHAM 40 ALLIED DR NEAR RTE 128 120 DY 1995-09-28 RAO 1996-01-16 A2 Oil Files MAP
3-0000902 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR ATLAS OIL NONE 1988-10-15 RAO 1995-06-28 A2 Files
OFF EAST ST EXIT
3-0010345 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR TWO HR 1993-12-22 RAO 1994-02-18 A1 Oil Files MAP
OF 128
3-0014384 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1996-10-22 RAO 1997-10-22 A3 Oil Files MAP
3-0016606 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1998-03-17 RAO 1998-05-08 A2 Oil Files MAP
68-116 ALLIED CUMMINS NORTH PHASE
3-0003152 DEDHAM NONE 1990-07-15 RAO 1996-07-29 Oil Files
DR ATLANTIC II
3-0012993 DEDHAM 75 ALLIED DR NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1995-10-02 RAO 1996-01-26 A2 Oil Files MAP
40 ALLIED ROOFING TAR Hazardous
3-0031063 DEDHAM 120 DY 2012-08-22 RAO 2013-06-13 A2 Files MAP
DRIVE RELEASE Material
3-0023159 DEDHAM AMES ST @ POLE #51/31 TWO HR 2003-09-09 RAO 2003-09-18 A1 Files MAP
3-0028967 DEDHAM 18 AMES ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2009-12-22 URAM 2010-01-08 Oil Files
PHASE
3-0002716 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST MOBIL STATION NONE 1991-10-15 RAO 2011-05-12 C1 Oil Files MAP
V
Oil and
PHASE
3-0021116 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2001-09-28 RAO 2011-05-12 Hazardous Files MAP
V
Material
EXXON MOBIL
3-0023153 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST TWO HR 2003-09-07 RTN CLOSED 2005-04-13 Oil Files MAP
STATION
3-0023994 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2004-06-23 RTN CLOSED 2005-04-13 Oil Files MAP
Oil and
MOBIL STATION
3-0025770 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST 72 HR 2006-03-29 RTN CLOSED 2007-01-26 Hazardous Files MAP
11658 FMLY 01-081
Material
3-0026537 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST MOBIL STATION 72 HR 2007-01-19 RTN CLOSED 2007-03-16 Oil Files MAP
3 AND 5 DENTAL OFFICE
3-0018370 DEDHAM TWO HR 1999-06-04 RAO 1999-06-16 A1 Files MAP
SCHOOL ST BLDG
3-0023068 DEDHAM 2-4 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2003-06-18 DPS 2003-10-28 Files MAP
3-0024795 DEDHAM 2 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2005-04-22 PSC 2015-11-24 PC Oil Files MAP
PHASE
3-0013374 DEDHAM 22 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1996-01-25 RAO 2006-12-04 A2 Oil Files MAP
V
http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016
SearchableSites Page 2 of 6
http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016
SearchableSites Page 3 of 6
http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016
SearchableSites Page 4 of 6
http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016
SearchableSites Page 5 of 6
http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016
SearchableSites Page 6 of 6
http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016
Maintenance Practices
and Costs of Rail -Trails
APPENDIX
APPENDIX D D
CONTENTS
Methodology ..........................................................................7
Administration ....................................................................8
Vegetation Grass, Trees, Herbicides and Invasives! ............9
Surface Repair, Clearing, Snow .......................................14
Drainage ...........................................................................18
Trailhead Amenities...........................................................19
Sanitation .........................................................................21
Signage ............................................................................22
Access Control ..................................................................23
Trail Features ....................................................................24
Other ................................................................................25
Conclusions ..........................................................................27
ABOUT US
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy serves as the national Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
voice for more than 160,000 members and Northeast Regional Office
supporters, 30,000 miles of rail-trails and 2133 Market Street, Suite 222
multiuse trails, and more than 8,000 miles of Camp Hill, PA 17011
potential trails waiting to be built, with a goal of Tel 717.238.1717 / Fax 717.238.7566
creating more walkable, bikeable communities
National Headquarters
in America. Since 1986, we have worked from 2121 Ward Court, NW, 5th Floor
coast to coast, supporting the development of Washington, D.C. 20037
thousands of miles of rail-trails for millions to Tel 202.331.9696 / Fax 202.223.9257
explore and enjoy.
railstotrails.org
TrailLink.com
June 2015
The team wishes to recognize and thank RTC staff and others who contributed to the
accuracy and utility of this report. Thanks to the trail managers and RTC staff who
contributed photos for this report.
This study was made possible by the generous support of the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation,
Community and Conservation Partnership Program.
F
or the past three decades of rail-trail development, In the 10 years that RTCs Northeast Regional Office has
maintenance costs have generally been seen as being tracked technical inquiries, there has been a steady decline
expensive. These expenses, however, have remained in the number of maintenance-related request. There are
largely untracked on a state or national basis. Further, a likely several reasons for this decline. Rail-trail managers
comprehensive breakdown and ranking of maintenance and others share maintenance methods through a variety
priorities did not exist. of networks, in addition to providing direct assistance
to one another. Earlier documents on maintenance best
To better understand this issue, RTC conducted a management practices have also likely been helpful. In
comprehensive survey of trail maintenance costs. Results addition, many individual trails have been combined into
of this study show that, contrary to popular belief, larger systems, thus creating economies of scale. Volunteer
maintenance costs are not as high as many perceive them programs also have grown in size and dependability and
to be. In fact, when taking into account for volunteers, have taken on more responsibility.
this study found that maintenance costs on average range
from $500 to $1,000 per trail mile per year depending on Finally, it is evident that maintenance also has been
surface. deferred.
T
he comparisons illustrated in this study are mostly Links to the online survey were sent to approximately
between the 2005 and 2014 findings. The 1996 300 trail management organizations contained in RTCs
study contained too many check all that apply national trails database as of January 6, 2014. Reminders
questions, which resulted in multiple answers and thus to participate were sent to those organizations that did not
participation greater than 100 percent; comparison of the immediately respond.
latter two studies was more reliable, as the answers in each
added up to 100 percent. Further, not all the same trails Of the responding trail management organizations, 95
were surveyed in the three studies. Unfortunately, only indicated that they had a trail maintenance budget. A
including those trails that participated in all three studies follow-up survey to gather more detailed maintenance cost
would have yielded too low a number to be significant. information was sent to these 95 organizations. This was
not an online survey but a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet,
The 2014 study began with a review of the earlier studies with 48 maintenance tasks as rows. Columns captured
to determine which topics required updating. Our labor hours, hourly labor cost, volunteer hours, equipment
technical assistance team provided additional insights of costs, material costs, contracted services and total cost.
the questions they typically are asked. We then did a review
to determine what, if any, recent literature addressed the Many follow-up emails, phone calls and personal pleas
topics of trail maintenance activities and associated cost. were made over several months to encourage participation
in this phase of the study.
We then developed a survey instrument that would collect
as much information as possible regarding the most
important topics. During this process, we realized that
there were different sets of questions for different trail
surface types. This increased the number of questions in
the survey to an overwhelming 195, which could prove
prohibitive to trail managers.
T
he 2005 study indicated that trail group
volunteers performed maintenance tasks on 46 Municipal government
remained nearly the same in the two studies, at 30 percent Federal government
and 34 percent in 2005 and 2014, respectively.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
fell slightly from 34 percent in 2005 to 32 percent in 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
2014.
Figure 4. Tracking by Trail Managers (2014 Survey)
Vegetation
Grass, Trees,
Herbicides and
Invasives!
Mowing Perkiomen Rail Trail, PA.
Sixty percent of detailed cost survey
respondents reported that mowing
was a labor-intensive maintenance
MOWING
activity and a significant component 80
of the annual maintenance budget.
We conducted a correlation 70
y = 0.1019x
R = -0.113
stone or other shoulder materials Figure 5. Correlation analysis shows no relationship between labor
that dont require periodic mowing. hours and length of trails.
The mowing cost for these two trails is fairly close on a per mile basis.
The Heritage Rail Trail has a parallel rail bed along most of its length
that requires herbicide treatment but no mowing. The Lackawanna Trail
allows natural vegetation to grow along the shoulders or has placed
stone shoulders.
We provided a list of 12 tasks to 2014 maintenance survey Volunteers trimming brush, Three Rivers Heritage
respondents when asking about their management of trail- Trail, PA.
side vegetation. More than 90 percent of our respondents
reported that they do litter cleanup, tree pruning, fallen
tree removal, tree removal as a safety issue, and mowing.
Removal of invasive tree species is becoming an On average, respondents said they spent 13.5 hours per
increasingly necessary maintenance task. In the 2005 mile on vegetation management. The cost of vegetation
report, 36 percent of respondents reported invasive species management varied widely, from less than $100 for a four-
removal as an important task; in 2014, almost 93 percent mile trail to more than $55,000 for a 24-mile trail. Much
reported it as a major activity. of this work is carried out by trail management staff or
volunteers, although some trail organizations do contract
In the 2005 survey, about a third of the respondents out this type of work. Volunteers should have some degree
indicated that they used a chemical herbicide to control of training and supervision, especially when working with
vegetation. That percentage increased to 55 percent in the an herbicide.
2014 survey. Seventy-five percent of 2014 respondents
reported that trail maintenance staff has responsibility for
application of the herbicide. This activity was contracted
out by only 14 percent of the respondents.
Tree Removal
Tree removal was a significant maintenance task reported
in our detailed maintenance cost analysis survey. Most of
the reported costs were in excess of $1,000. Forty percent
of the reporting trails indicated that they contracted out
this activity. There are a number of reasons stated for
removing trees. In some cases storms cause tress to block
the trail. In others, a dead tree presents a potential hazard
to trail users and is removed before limbs come crashing
down on the trail.
Asphalt
Maintenance of Non-asphalt Trails
The labor hours and resulting cost of repairs to non-asphalt
trails varied widely among survey respondents. Labor Crushed stone 2005
hours reported for repairs ranged from 0.2 hours per mile 2014
Not only did these costs vary widely across our sample, Figure 6. Predominant Trail Surfaces (2014 Survey)
but they also varied widely from year to year. The major
cause of damage to non-asphalt trails was because of water
erosion, as reported by 55 percent of survey respondents.
Drainage
Maintenance of drainage areas is critical to helping
minimize the damage to both asphalt and crushed stone
surfaced trails caused by water erosion. As we found in the
2005 survey, this activity is primarily carried out manually
with the use of rakes and shovels. In both surveys, this
manual activity was reported by 70 percent or more of the
respondents.
Other
Clearing of drainage swales and culverts
Periodically investing several hundred or even several
Flush with water thousand dollars in maintaining trail drainage systems and
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
culverts can prevent catastrophic damage to a trail when a
major water event occurs.
Figure 9. Drainage Activities (2014 Survey)
Forty-one percent of
respondents to the detailed
cost analysis survey
reported spending staff and
volunteer hours on this
task. A quarter of those
reporting indicated that
this activity was carried out
entirely by volunteers.
Information kiosk
Parking lot just for trail users
Picnic tables/benches
Trash receptacles Between 2005 and
Portable toilet facility
2014, dramatic
Permanent toilet facility
Shared public parking lot changes were made in
2005
Potable water the types of facilities
Shared private/commercial 2014
that trail managers
On street parking
Other provide at trailheads.
Commercial consessions
Telephone
Vending Machines
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Trailheads
Respondents were asked to provide a detailed cost for
several aspects of trailhead maintenance, including
landscaping, toilet facilities and kiosks. For the majority
of those reporting, landscaping at trailheads was carried
out by volunteers. Volunteer hours annually ranged from
as few as eight to as many as 500. The largest cost item
at trailheads was maintenance of restroom facilities. The
lowest cost item was maintenance of informational kiosks
at the trailhead.
Restroom Maintenance Cub Scouts help with litter clean-up on the Heritage
Maintenance of restroom facilities, whether at trailheads Rail Trail County Park, PA.
or along the trail, can be an ongoing annual expense.
Respondents to the detailed cost analysis survey provided
information about maintenance of both permanent
facilities and portable toilets. Costs varied widely. The
Heritage Rail Trail County Park in Pennsylvania has both
permanent and portable toilets at trailheads along the
21- mile trail. Maintenance costs for these facilities were
reported at more than $14,000 a year.
Signage
The 2014 survey revealed that trail managers are increasing
the number and types of signs along trails, which adds to
the need for maintenance. Posted trail identification signs
increased from 75 percent in 2005 to 91 percent in 2014.
More trails have mileage markers as well, an increase from
55 percent in 2005 to 74 percent in 2014. The placement
of interpretive signs has also grown substantially, from
31 percent in 2005 to 57 percent in 2014. All of this
additional signage helps to provide a better trail experience.
However, 76 percent of trail managers reported that their
signs were subject to vandalism.
Repair and Maintenance of Signage Welcome sign, Ashuelot Rail Trail, NH.
Damaged split rail fence along the Pine Creek Rail Trail, PA.
Trail Features
Bridges
A full 88 percent of the trail managers indicated that
they have at least one bridge along their trail. The most
common 61 percent are original railroad bridges.
The second most common type of bridge is new bike/
pedestrian bridges with vehicle capacity. Surprisingly, 43
percent of respondents indicated that their bridges are
not inspected on a regular basis by a certified inspectors
or professional engineers. Fortunately, the number of
trail managers reporting that their bridges are inspected
increased from 33 percent in 2005 to 57 percent in 2014.
The most frequent interval for bridge inspections reported
in 2014 was two to three years, which is a shorter interval
Split rail fencing, Pine Creek Rail Trail, PA. than that reported in 2005.
Contracted Services
Many trail maintenance activities were carried out by trail
management organizations and volunteers. Some, however,
are better performed by outside contractors. In the survey,
activities most commonly reported as being completed by
contractors included tree removal, restroom maintenance,
Other herbicide application, bridge inspections and clearing of
drainage culverts and mowing.
Cleaning-up illegal dumping along the Hanover Trolley Volunteers painting over graffiti.
Trail, PA.
Damage to asphalt trails from tree roots is Invasive species concerns nearly tripled in
significant and growing. importance from 2005 to 2014.
More than 60 percent of asphalt trail managers reported Some invasive species can be disproportionally destructive
tree roots as the major source of trail damage. Clearly, as compared with native vegetation because natural control
more asphalt trails are being built rather than stone dust mechanisms do not exist in their new environment. This
trails (as required by some departments of transportation study found an increase in herbicide use, which is needed
and metropolitan planning organizations); the true to control some invasive species. As a secondary issue,
costs of these facilities needs to be better understood because trail groups rely heavily on volunteers and only
and shared. Replacing asphalt after several years is costly contract out a small percent of herbicide application to
and frequently becomes a rebuild that is often funded professionals, it is logical to question if volunteers are
by Transportation Enhancement (TE) programs or adequately trained. Municipal workers, who would have
Transportation Alternatives Programs (TAP). This costly adequate training, may be doing most of the herbicide
maintenance requirement might be prevented with better application; however, this potential safety issue may
construction standards and possible use of root barriers in warrant further examination.
certain segments of a trail or periodic trenching to cut root
growth. The removal of healthy trees several years after the
trail is built is not the only option.
Summary
Trail managers and local stakeholders often cite the need This study presents a more comprehensive understanding
for dedicated state or federal funding to help pay for trail of rail-trail maintenance, as has been done for other rail-
maintenance. Up to this point, RTC has lacked sufficient trail issues such as construction costs, economic impact
data to make that case effectively to decision-makers at and rails-with-trails. Such an approach enables the rail-trail
the state or federal level. This study was initiated to bring community to focus its limited resources more effectively
some clarity to this issue. Because funding for rail-trails is on addressing the most critical issues.
difficult to secure, over-estimating maintenance costs can
inadvertently give opponents easy leverage to speak against
rail-trail development. In addition, funders often question
if all aspects of any community development project
should be funded by state and federal grants, particularly
maintenance-related costs, which are often perceived as a
local issue.
Volunteers clear storm damage along trail in Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.
Please answer the following questions as completely 5. Who owns the land under the trail? If more than
and accurately as possible. If it is necessary to have one, please indicate an approximate percentage.
more than one person in your organization answer 23% Federal government
different questions based on their personal areas of 43% State government
experience and expertise, please do so. 34% Municipal government
42% County government
Please provide accurate information about the
31% Railroad
person to be contacted if any follow-up information is
9.9% Single private owner
needed.
46% Non-profit entity
1. Please provide you name and contact information 21% Utility
Name 12% Multiple private owners
Title/Agency
Email 6. On a general basis, who PERFORMS maintenance
Phone of the trail? If more than one, please indicate an
2. What is your Trail Name and state: approximate percentage.
Trail name 58% Trail Group Volunteers
State 39% Other volunteer community groups
Mileage (please specify)
13% Individuals with mandatory
community service
ADMINISTRATIVE 4% Federal government
3. What is the trail surrounding Environment (check 21% State government
all that apply): 33% County government
43% Municipal government
37% Rural
12% Non-profit entity (paid staff)
12% Urban
12% Other (specify)
13% Suburban
38% Mixed 7. Do you have a written Trail Maintenance Plan?
4. What are the permitted uses on your trail? (check 40% Yes
all that apply) 60% No
9. What is the annual maintenance budget for this 16. How do you track annual users:
trail? (Average for all respondents that provided a budget.) 54% Do not currently track the number
$66,430 of annual users (Skip to 18)
23% Estimate / guess
9.a. If known, please provide the dollar amounts 16% Manual count
for the following within your maintenance program. 23% Automated counter
(Insufficient data)
17. How many users does your trail have on an
Labor annual basis?
Equipment
Supplies Varied
21. Please indicate any reused or recycled materials 26. At what frequency (in years)?
used in the surface of your trail? 41% Recurring
69% None 27% 3 to 5
1% Tires or other rubber 23% 6 to 10
0% Glassphalt 9% 10 plus
19% Asphalt / pavement milling
2% Coal ash (cinders) 27. Do you have a crack sealing programing?
8% Quarry waste from stone/rock 35% Yes (If yes go to 28)
processing (tailings, etc.)
65% No (If no go to 29)
5% Other (specify)
28. At what frequency (in years)?
22. What is the predominant surface material on
your trail? 78% Recurring
13% 3 to 5
52% Asphalt (Go to 23)
9% 6 to 10
2% Concrete (Go to 35)
0% 10 plus
40% Crushed Stone (Go to 43)
4% Original railroad cinders (Go to 53) 29. What are the major causes of damage to your
4% Dirt / Soil (Go to 59) asphalt surfaced trail?
0% Boardwalk (Go to 65)
5% Other (specify) (Go to 72) 43% Water/erosion
63% Tree roots
20% Vegetation (grass, weeds)
25% Sub surface failure
SURFACE - ASPHALT 44% Frost/freeze cycle
23. Has your trail been repaved or resurfaced since
the original paving construction? 30. Is snow removed from your trail?
32. Does your trail employ pavement markings? 38. Is snow removed from your trail?
(Check all that apply.) 33% Yes fully
51% No (if no skip to 72) 0% Yes partially
49% Yes 67% No
37. What are the major causes of damage to your SURFACE CRUSHED/GRANULAR STONE
concrete surfaced trail?
43. How was trail surface applied?
67% Water/erosion
33% Tree roots 60% Paving machine
0% Vegetation (grass, weeds) 21% Box spreader
0% Sub surface failure 23% Tailgate from dump truck
33% Frost/freeze cycle 11% Bucket spread from loader
33% Other 0% Wheelbarrow or other manual
8% Other (specify)
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 33
APPENDIX A 2014 SURVEY RESULTS
44. Has your trail been re-surfaced since the original 49. What are the major causes of damage to your
construction? crushed stone surfaced trail:
56% Yes (If yes go to 45) 77% Water/erosion
48% No (If no go to 46) 2% Tree roots
2% Vegetation (grass, weeds)
45. At what frequency (in years)? 3% Sub surface failure
17% Frost/freeze cycle
32% Recurring
27% Other (specify)
3% 3 to 5 years
21% 6 to 10 years
44% 10 years or longer 50. How are damages to your trail surface repaired:
32% Grader or other heavy equipment
42% Light duty power equipment
46. How is the surface material compacted?
40% Dragging
14% Not
71% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.)
38% Steel drum roller (static)
13% Other (specify)
47% Steel drum roller (vibratory)
5% Rubber tired roller
0% Rammer 51. Has your trail been re-graded since the original
7% Vibratory plates construction?
10% Other (specify) 44% Yes (If yes go to 34a)
54% No (If no go to 36)
47. If applicable, please indicate the size of
aggregate used for your trail surface. 52. At what frequency (in years)?
40% Unknown 74% Recurring
10% 1A 4% 2 to 3 years
0% 1B 3% 2A 4% 4 to 5 years
19% 6 to 10 years
0% 2B 2% 2RC
30% AASHTO #10
2% DSA
18% Other (specify) SURFACE ORIGINAL RAILROAD CINDERS
53. How was the surface prepared after removal of
the rails and ties
48. Do you use any type of soil or aggregate binder?
56% Grader or other heavy equipment
97% No 11% Light duty power equipment
3% Yes 33% Dragging
11% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.)
22% Other (specify)
64. At what age / frequency (in years)? 69. How old is the boardwalk segment of your trail?
33% Recurring 23% 1 to 3 years
0% 2 to 3 years 42% 4 to 9 years
33% 4 to 5 years 26% 10 to 20 years
33% 6 to 10 years 10% More than 20 years
68. What is the decking material of the boardwalk? 45% Yes (If yes go to 73a)
54% No (If no go to 75)
6% Wood ( pine, oak, et.) not pressure
treated If yes, please list:
0% Wood (teak, red wood, etc.)
84% Wood pressure treated 74. Who is responsible for herbicide/pesticide
3% Synthetic wood (Trex, application (check all that apply)
NewTechWood, ArmorGuard etc.)
0% Concrete 77% Trail maintenance staff
7% Other 20% Volunteers
14% Contractor
75. Do trees grow along your trail? 79. How are drainage areas kept clear? (Check all
100% Yes that apply.)
0% No 56% Power equipment (backhoe, etc.)
76% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.)
76. If planting new trees, what is the distance 3% Flush with water
between the trees and the edge of the trail? 25% Self-cleaning design
5% Other (specify)
15% 8
7% 10
6% 12
5% 20 PARKING, TRAILHEADS, and SANITATION
7% other?
80. How many trailheads are there along your trail?
77. Please indicate any activities that are performed 5% None
relative to trail side vegetation. (Check all that apply.) 26% 1-3
93% Litter clean-up 28% 3-5
91% Tree pruning 26% 5-10
30% Tree and shrub planting 12% 10-15
90% Tree removal - Safety 4% Other (please specify)
44% Tree removal - Health
93% Tree removal - Fallen 81. Please indicate the features of your trailheads.
26% Tree removal - Aesthetics (improve (Check all that apply.)
view shed)
78% Parking lot just for trail users
92% Mowing
22% Shared private/commercial parking
40% Leaf removal lot
62% Invasive species removal 43% Permanent toilet facility
27% Flower and ground cover planting 83% Information kiosk
3% Other (specify) 31% Potable water
5% Any other commercial concession
78. How is drainage accommodated? (Check all that 3% Telephone
apply.) 43% Shared public parking lot
80% Trail surface is crowned or sloped 45% Portable toilet facility
76% Trail-side drainage channels 17% On-street parking
(ditches, gullies) 61% Trash receptacles
72% Culverts 3% Vending machines
5% Other (specify) 73% Picnic tables/benches
13% Other (specify)
82. What is the primary surface material for your 60% Traffic control for cars at crossings
trailhead parking area(s)? 75% Trail rules and regulations
53% Asphalt 25% Property boundary sign (no
trespassing)
38% Crushed Stone
57% Interpretive signs
0% Cinders
28% Wayfinding on trail
6% Dirt / Soil
20% Wayfinding (off trail)
3% Other (specify)
2% No trail specific signage
12% Other (specify)
83. Is snow removed from your trailhead parking
lots?
86. Do you experience vandalism of your signs?
63% Yes
76% Yes
37% No
24% No
90. Is your trail patrolled by a volunteer or a non- 96. Do you have emergency call boxes on along your
police group (e.g. crime watch)? trail or trailhead?
30% Yes 3% Yes
70% No 97% No
91. Do you have an on-going problem with any of the 97. How is vehicular access to your trail controlled?
following activities on the trail? (Check all that apply.) (Check all that apply.)
49% Dumping 22% Vehicular access is not controlled
12% Crimes against persons 45% Gates
28% After hours use 26% Fixed bollards
17% Trespass 54% Removable bollards
71% Vandalism 11% Other (specify)
21% Crimes against property
22% Other (specify) 98. Do you use fencing along your trail?
64% Yes (if yes go to 99)
92. Are your trailheads lighted? 36% No (if no go to 101)
16% Yes (If yes go to 93)
84% No (If no go to 96)
99. What types of fencing do you use?
18% Chain link
93. During what times?
45% Split rail
75% Dusk until dawn 7% Woven Wire
25% Other 3% Stockade
27% Other (specify)
94. How are the lights controlled? (Check all that
apply.) 100. What is the average height of the fence (in
13% Always on INCHES)?
4% Manual switch 48 most common
25% Clock / timer
75% Light / dark sensor
4% Motion sensor
18% Other (specify)
101. In what areas have you made accommodation 104. What is the deck material on your bridges?
for ADA standards or handicapped accessibility? (Check all that apply.)
78% Parking 74% Wood
50% Restrooms 9% Synthetic lumber
35% Picnic tables 1% Rubber
12% Visitors Center 11% Metal
15% Interpretive areas 16% Asphalt
75% Grade of trail 36% Concrete
61% Grade of access to trail 11% Stone/dirt/cinders
67% Trail Surface Other (specify)
3% Our trail has specific features for
individuals with sight, hearing, or
other impairments. 105. Do you have railings on your bridges?
5% Other (specify) 97% Yes (If yes go to 106)
3% No (If no go to 109)
110. Are your tunnels lighted? 114 Do you paint/stain/treat bridge structures or
40% Yes decks, tunnel/underpass walls, etc?
60% No 45% Yes (If yes go to 115)
54% No (If no go to 116)
111. During what times?
31% 24/7 115. At what frequency (in years)?
61% Dusk to dawn 68% Recurring
8% Other (please specify time of day/ 0% 2 to 3 years
night) 10% 4 to 5 years
23% 6 to 10 years
112. How are lights controlled?
23% Always on 116. How are at-grade crossings of roads controlled?
0% Manual switch (Check all that apply.)
31% Clock / timer 89% Stop sign for trail users
46% Light / dark sensor 17% Yield sign for trail users
0% Motion sensor 17% Traffic signal (red, yellow, green)
Other (specify) 69% Ped /bike crossing sign
17% Stop sign for road users
113. How are the lights powered? 20% Yield sign for road users
92% Municipal power supply 30% Pedestrian crossing signal (walk)
8% Solar 51% Road striping
0% Battery Other (specify)
0% Generator
railtrail@railstotrails.org
railstotrails.org
www.TrailLink.com
B-16-381 9/3/2010
HUGH FARREN PED. BRIDGE Page 1B of 30
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL $3,466,770
SAY $3,500,000
APPENDIX
APPENDIX E E
B-16-381 9/3/2010
HUGH FARREN PED. BRIDGE Page 1A of 30
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL $3,347,343
SAY $3,300,000
APPENDIX F