DOCSLIB.ORG

Waterbury Naugatuck River Greenway Routing and Feasibility Study Waterbury, Connecticut

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Waterbury Naugatuck River Greenway Routing and Feasibility Study Waterbury, Connecticut WATERBURY NAUGATUCK RIVER GREENWAY ROUTING AND FEASIBILITY STUDY WATERBURY, CONNECTICUT FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2010 This project has been funded by a grant from the United Way of Greater Waterbury Waterbury Naugatuck River Greenway Advisory Committee Ronald A. Napoli, Chair Kathleen McNamara, Vice-Chair Kristen M. Bulkovitch Theresa A. Caldarone Kenny Curran Joyce DeCesare Lawrence V. DePillo Samuel Gold Senator Joan V. Hartley John P. Lawlor, Jr. John Murray Miriam Niederman Paul K. Pernerewski, Jr. Michael A. Ptak James M. O’Rourke M. Catherine Smith William Wesson Kevin R. Zak For additional information about the Naugatuck River Greenway, please contact: Waterbury Development Corporation 24 Leavenworth Street Waterbury, CT 06702‐2121 203.346.2607 www.wdconline.org Table of Contents I. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Public Process ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................................. 3 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................... 5 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 PHYSICAL FEATURES MAPPING ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Length, Dimensions, Boundaries and Topography ................................................................................................................. 6 Composition of Soils and Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Surrounding Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Erosion and Drainage ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 Traffic and Roadway Capacity ......................................................................................................................................... 10 NATURAL FEATURES ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 CULTURAL, HISTORIC AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 16 Structures in the Potential Routes ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Huntingdon Avenue ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Utility Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Utility Poles ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Signalized Intersections .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Bridges ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Utilities on Other Properties ........................................................................................................................................... 20 LINKS/CONNECTIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 21 IMPACTS TO ADJACENT LAND USES ................................................................................................................................. 21 BRIDGES, INTERSECTIONS AND ACCESS POINTS .................................................................................................................. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ............................................................................................................................................... 26 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 27 References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS DIAGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 29 III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 37 IV. PROPOSED GREENWAY ROUTE ..................................................................................................................... 43 North End ............................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Thomaston Avenue Section .................................................................................................................................................. 46 Downtown Section ............................................................................................................................................................... 50 South Main Street Section .................................................................................................................................................... 56 V. CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 63 Green Construction ............................................................................................................................................................... 63 Construction Methods .......................................................................................................................................................... 63 Construction Materials ......................................................................................................................................................... 64 VI. COST ESTIMATE ........................................................................................................................................... 65 Right‐of‐Way Acquisition Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 65 Engineering Costs ................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Construction Costs ................................................................................................................................................................ 65 Remediation Costs ................................................................................................................................................................ 69 VII. FUNDING SOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 71 Municipal Bonds ................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Greenway Trust Fund ........................................................................................................................................................... 71 Adopt‐A‐Trail Programs........................................................................................................................................................ 71 Federal Transportation Funding ........................................................................................................................................... 71 Recreational Trails Program ................................................................................................................................................. 72 State Funding ....................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Design Arts Program ............................................................................................................................................................ 72 VIII.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study: Watertown
    Regional Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study Table of Contents 1. Overview ............................................................................................... 3 2. Mission and Goals ..................................................................................... 5 3. Study Methodology .................................................................................... 6 4. Study Area .............................................................................................. 7 5. Potential Greenway Routing Analysis .............................................................. 8 6. Obstacles to Access and Connectivity (Gap Analysis) ......................................... 11 7. Affected Property Data ............................................................................ 12 8. General Construction Feasibility and Cost ...................................................... 12 9. Brownfields and Environmental Constraints .................................................... 13 10. Safety and Security ................................................................................ 14 11. Permitting Issues .................................................................................. 15 12. Coordination with Other Studies ................................................................ 18 13. Community Input .................................................................................. 19 14. Opportunities and Challenges ................................................................... 20 15. Recommended
    [Show full text]
  • Records of the New York, New Haven & Hartford
    RECORDS OF THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD IN CONNECTICUT Compiled by: John J. Doody, PE & PLS Principal Engineer, CDOT March 1, 2001 Connecticut Department of Transportation District 3 Surveys 140 Pond Lily Avenue New Haven, CT 06525 Attn: John J. Doody Tel: 203-389-3110 Fax: 203-389-3169 Email: [email protected] RR valuation maps on microfiche (also in each District Office & Newington) Centerline and Topography for New Canaan Line, Danbury Line & Waterbury Line 1"=40', reduced to 1"=100', paper and digital. Maine Line topography and centerline, various locations from Greenwich to New Haven, 1"=40', mostly Railroad Stations. AMTRAK topography, New Haven to Clinton, 1"=40' Dodd Center NYNH&H RR Archive Map Index (to be completed 6/2001) Over 2,300 maps in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York east of the Hudson River, including New York City. Connecticut State Library RR Commission Records Index Over 8,400 decisions rendered by the Railroad Commission from 1860 to the 1960's. This references complete files, including maps, on land transactions that came before the commission, as well as other matters. Connecticut State Library RR Commission Map Index Over 1,500 maps pertaining to RR Commission hearings listed above, all in Connecticut. Railroad Company Index. This is a listing of over 100 RR companies that later became part of the NYNH&H RR, when they were founded, and when they were bought out by other companies. Connecticut Department of Transportation 1998 Rail Transportation Ownership and Service Map. Lists owners, status of all rail lines in Connecticut.
    [Show full text]
  • A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty Of
    A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY OF WESTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY by Mark Edward Anderson IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS For the ~raduafeDivision THE SHEPAUG VALLEY RAILROAD: AN AMERICAN STORY Mark Edward Anderson Bantam, Connecticut May, 1989 SHEPAUG VALLEY RAILROAD SERVICE AT GREATEST EXTENT JULY 1872 Intermediate Mileaqe Station- Litchfield Lake Bantam Morris Romford New Preston Washington Judd's Bridge Roxbury (Chalybes) Roxbury Falls f Shepaug (Southbury) Hanover Springs Hawleyville I { Stoney Hill (Plumtrees) k Bethel (via Danbury and Norwalk owned tracks, leased to Shepaug) Source: Shepaug Valley Railroad Public Timetable Dated: As above --TABLE OF CONTENTS SHEPAUG VALLEY RAILROAD STATIONS with INTERWDIATE MILEAGES SHOWN ........Frontispiece 1 MAP: WESTERN CONNECTICUT RAILROADS IN THE LATE 1800's ..............Frontispiece 2 -AN AmRICAN STORY ...............................Pages 1 - 69 APPENDICIES: Pages 70 - 83 1. PRO-RAILROAD PROPERTY OIJNERS LITCHFIELD, CONNECTICUT: 1870 2. PRO-RAILROAD LANDOWNING PETITIONERS ROXBURY, CONNECTICUT: 1869 3. PRO-RAILROAD LANDOLQIING PETITIONERS MORRIS, CONNECTICUT: 1869 4. WASHINGTON, CONNECTICUT PROPERTY OUNERS GRANTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO SHEPAUG VALLEY RAILROAD: 1870 - 1872 5. FOREIGN CAR MOVEMENTS; SHEPAUC-, LITCHFIELD AND NORTHERN RAILROAD: 1895 - 1898 6. EXCERPTS: SHEPAUG. LITCHFIELD AND NORTHERN RAILROAD ANNUAL REPORT: 1898 BIBLIOGRAPHY: SOURCES CONSULTED ............... .Pages 84 - 86 Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, Litchfield, Connecticut had thrived as a major crossroads of two post-colonial trunk routes, the New Haven to Albany and Hartford to New York turnpikes. This Yankee hill town boasted several good hotels and taverns of reputation, was seat of its namesake county and service center for many surrounding, smaller settlements. The stagecoach lines that travelled the two turnpikes had used Litchfield as a stopover and interchange point and had thus contributed to the town a measure of prosperity.
    [Show full text]
  • SHRP2 Railroad-DOT Mitigation Strategies (R16) Community of Interest Meeting
    MEETING SUMMARY SHRP2 Railroad-DOT Mitigation Strategies (R16) Community of Interest Meeting TO: Joe Taylor, FHWA Ken Jacoby, FHWA Pam Hutton, AASHTO Kate Kurgan, AASHTO Mike Loehr, CH2M Dave Solow, CH2M Susannah Kerr-Adler, CH2M PREPARED BY: Sherry Appel, Jen Smoker, CH2M MEETING DATE: February 7-8, 2017 VENUE: AASHTO, Hall of States Building, Washington, DC Purpose The purpose of this meeting was to gather invited members of the Community of Interest (COI) formed in support of SHRP2’s Railroad-DOT Mitigation Strategies (R16) product. The goals for the participants were to enable them to share best practices, lessons learned, challenges, and accomplishments; hear from each other about model agreements; learn about potential new processes with railroads and highway agencies; and most importantly, foster a collaborative environment in which to capture the most innovative ideas from all stakeholders for expediting project delivery. The COI meeting included representatives from 18 state departments of transportation (DOTs), 2 Class 1 railroads and 1 Short Line association representative. A special breakout session enabled the participated to discuss the status of their model agreements, including Master Agreements, Preliminary Engineering Agreements for Special Projects, Flagging Agreements, Grade Crossing Agreements, and Construction and Maintenance Agreements. The agenda is attached. All presentations are available at: http://shrp2.transportation.org/Pages/R16_CommunityofInterest.aspx. Participants (see attached registration record) •
    [Show full text]
  • Naugatuck Railroad Company 2 of 17 | Cover Letter Cover Letter
    1 of 17 | Table of Contents Connecticut Department of Transportation ECTI NN CU O T D C N E O P I A T R A NAUGATUCK RAILROAD T T M R E O N P T S COMPANY O F TR A N TIGER Discretionary Grant Application Table of Contents Contact Information (B) James P. Redeker Bureau Chief – Public Transportation Cover Letter ....................................................................................................................2 Connecticut Department of Transportation 2800 Berlin Turnpike B. Contact Information ...............................................................................................1 Newington, Connecticut 06131 C. Project Description ...................................................................................................4 860.594.2802 [email protected] D. Project Parties ................................................................................................................7 E. Grant Funds and Sources and Uses of Funds .................................7 F. Selection Criteria ........................................................................................................7 Project Information (K) G. Federal Wage Requirement ..............................................................................9 H. National Environmental Policy Act Requirements ...................9 i. Type of Project Freight Rail I. Environmentally Related Federal, State, and Local Actions ......................................................................................9 ii. Project Location J. Protection of
    [Show full text]
  • Housatonic Railroad Company 2 of 14 | Cover Letter Cover Letter
    1 of 14 | Table of Contents Connecticut Department of Transportation ECTI NN CU O T D C N E O P I A T R A HOUSATONIC RAILROAD T T M R E O N P T S COMPANY O F TR A N TIGER Discretionary Grant Application Table of Contents Contact Information (B) James P. Redeker Bureau Chief – Public Transportation Cover Letter ....................................................................................................................2 Connecticut Department of Transportation 2800 Berlin Turnpike B. Contact Information ...............................................................................................1 Newington, Connecticut 06131 C. Project Description ...................................................................................................4 860.594.2802 [email protected] D. Project Parties ................................................................................................................7 E. Grant Funds and Sources and Uses of Funds .................................7 F. Selection Criteria ........................................................................................................8 Project Information (K) G. Federal Wage Requirement ..............................................................................9 H. National Environmental Policy Act Requirements ...................9 i. Type of Project Freight Rail I. Environmentally Related Federal, State, and Local Actions ......................................................................................9 ii. Project Location J. Protection of
    [Show full text]
  • 7338-252 / I-95 Nerops Tech Memo 1
    Northeast Rail Operations (NEROps) Study Appendices This report includes three appendices: Appendix A. Project Steering Committee and Contact Information Appendix B. Interviews, Meetings and Outreach Appendix C. Resource List I-95 Corridor Coalition A-1 Northeast Rail Operations (NEROps) Study Appendix A: Project Steering Committee The project steering committee for the Northeast Rail Operations Study included the following representatives of I-95 Corridor Coalition member agencies: • Steve Slavick, New York State Department of Transportation, Lead Role • Robert Elder, Maine Department of Transportation • Christopher “Kit” Morgan, New Hampshire Department of Transportation • Steve Devine, Rhode Island Department of Transportation • Thomas Cahir, Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation • Carmine Trotta, Connecticut Department of Transportation • Charlie Miller, Vermont Agency of Transportation For information regarding this project, please contact: • Marygrace Parker Freight, Mobility, Safety & Security Coordinator I-95 Corridor Coalition E-mail: [email protected] • James Brogan Consultant Project Manager for NEROps Phase I Cambridge Systematics, Inc. E-mail: [email protected] • Brian ten Siethoff Consultant Project Manager for NEROps Phase II Cambridge Systematics, Inc. E-mail: [email protected] A-2 I-95 Corridor Coalition Northeast Rail Operations (NEROps) Study Appendix B: Interviews, Meetings and Outreach The Northeast Rail Operations Study involved extensive outreach to stakeholders in the Northeast U.S., including
    [Show full text]
  • Naugatuck Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007
    NAUGATUCK TRAIN STATION VISUAL INSPECTION REPORT January 2007 Prepared by the Bureau of Public Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation Naugatuck Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Overview: The Naugatuck Train Station is located across the Naugatuck River from Route 8. This station is a train stop along the Waterbury Branch of the New Haven Line. Like most branch stations, the Naugatuck Train Station consists of a low- level platform, a ramp, stairs, a shelter and a parking area. The historic Naugatuck Railroad Station building is located next to the current platform. The building is being rehabilitated for the Naugatuck Historical Society Museum. A portion of the parking lot is being used to stage the rehabilitation. The station parking lot is located on Water Street a few blocks from downtown Naugatuck. Due to the lack of trailblazing signs, one might have trouble finding the station unless familiar with the area. There appears to be little station illumination beyond the two floodlights behind the platform. There are no plans to install high-level platforms at the Naugatuck Train Station at this time. The costs would be excessive considering present ridership. However, the Department has initiated a separate study of the Waterbury and New Canaan Branch Lines to examine the future of each. Upon completion of this report, the Department will consider high-level access and other station options. Maintenance Responsibilities: Owner: CDOT Operator: CDOT Platform Lights: Metro-North Trash: Metro-North Snow Removal: Metro-North Shelter Glazing: CDOT Platform Canopy: CDOT Platform Structure: CDOT Parking: Town Page 2 Naugatuck Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Station Layout: Aerial Photo by Aero-Metric, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study: Beacon Falls
    Regional Naugatuck River Greenway Routing Study Table of Contents 1. Overview ............................................................................................... 3 2. Mission and Goals ..................................................................................... 5 3. Study Methodology .................................................................................... 6 4. Study Area .............................................................................................. 7 5. Potential Greenway Routing Analysis .............................................................. 8 6. Obstacles to Access and Connectivity (Gap Analysis) ......................................... 11 7. Affected Property Data ............................................................................ 12 8. General Construction Feasibility and Cost ...................................................... 12 9. Brownfields and Environmental Constraints .................................................... 12 10. Safety and Security ................................................................................ 14 11. Permitting Issues .................................................................................. 15 12. Coordination with Other Studies ................................................................ 18 13. Community Input .................................................................................. 19 14. Opportunities and Challenges ................................................................... 20 15. Recommended
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 2, Issue 1
    Volume 2 Issue 1 ® A F Publication Vol. 2 SPEEDWITCH 1 CONSIST SPEEDWITCH®L STAFF William G. Dulmaine, Jr....…......PUBLISHER NHRHTA, INC. Charles O. Dunn..................….....EDITOR SPEEDWITCH MANUFACTURERS UPDATE ................................................................................................. PAGE 3 BY ETER ESS Peter R. Ness...................…….....EDITOR MODELING P R. N TECHNICAL REVIEW and RESEARCH….. Richard Abramson, MODELING THE NEW HAVEN Thomas Curtin, William G. Dulmaine, Jr., Wayne Drummond, MODELING A NEW HAVEN CLASS J-1 MIKADO 2-8-2 ............................................................... PAGE 8 Marc J. Frattasio, J. W. Swanberg BY LOUIS DIROSSO PROOFREADING………......Chris Adams, Richard A. Fleischer, Randy Hammill, Bill Lupoli, Bill Reidy, John Sheridan, Edward ACKDATING AN NTERMOUNTAIN EW AVEN AILROAD ERIES OVERED OPPER AGE B I N H R 117000 S C H ...... P 10 Sweeney BY DAVID BACHAND Chris Adams.................................PHOTO ARCHIVIST MODELER PROFILE – RICK ABRAMSON .................................................................................... PAGE 12 “Library of Congress card catalog no. 78-6451543” MODELERS’ GALLERY ........................................................................................................... PAGE 14 Web Site and New Haven RR Online Forum www.nhrhta.org TOWER TALK – BOOK REVIEWS AND WANTS ........................................................................... PAGE 15 THE NHRHTA MODELERS SHOP ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Valley Railroad Company 2 of 22| Cover Letter Cover Letter
    1 of 22| Table of Contents Connecticut Department of Transportation ECTI NN CU O T D C N E O P I A T R A VALLEY RAILROAD T T M R E O N P T S COMPANY O F TR A N TIGER Discretionary Grant Application Table of Contents Contact Information (B) James P. Redeker Bureau Chief – Public Transportation Cover Letter ....................................................................................................................2 Connecticut Department of Transportation 2800 Berlin Turnpike B. Contact Information ...............................................................................................1 Newington, Connecticut 06131 C. Project Description ...................................................................................................4 860.594.2802 [email protected] D. Project Parties ................................................................................................................7 E. Grant Funds and Sources and Uses of Funds .................................7 F. Selection Criteria ........................................................................................................7 Project Information (K) G. Federal Wage Requirement ..............................................................................9 H. National Environmental Policy Act Requirements ...................9 i. Type of Project I. Environmentally Related Federal, Freight Rail State, and Local Actions ......................................................................................9 ii. Project Location J. Protection of Confidential
    [Show full text]
  • 1 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION Connecticut General Statutes Section 22A-66A(J) Requires That Railroads Who Operate In
    VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-66a(j) requires that railroads who operate in Connecticut and apply pesticides to their rights of way must file a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) with the Department of Transportation on or before February 1 of each year and must send copies of the plan to the chief elected official of each town in which pesticides will be applied. The following plan is hereby submitted by the Connecticut Railroad Association on behalf of the following railroads (hereinafter, the “Subject Railroads”): Central New England Railroad Connecticut Southern Railroad CSX Transportation Housatonic Railroad Naugatuck Railroad New England Central Railroad Pan Am Southern Providence & Worcester Railroad Railroads in Connecticut must adhere to an extensive body of regulations promulgated by various state and federal agencies. The most comprehensive body of safety regulations is promulgated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the agency that has primary regulatory authority over rail safety in the United States. In addition, the Surface Transportation Board has authority over a wide range of rail activities specifically designed to promote and protect the ability of railroads to efficiently and safely participate in interstate commerce. One critical aspect of the safety regimen that railroads must adhere to is the maintenance of their rights of way such that track, structures and various appurtenances can be inspected in order to protect the safety of rail operations, the safety of railroad employees and the safety of the public. Railroads in Connecticut and throughout the country follow a carefully defined process under which they inspect their track and structures in order to discover defects that could lead to derailments or other types of accidents that would be harmful to the railroad and its employees, harmful to the public or harmful to the environment.
    [Show full text]