DOCSLIB.ORG

East Street Rails with Trails Frederick, Md

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
East Street Rails with Trails Frederick, Md EAST STREET RAILS WITH TRAILS FREDERICK, MD PROJECT SUMMARY City of Frederick, Maryland East Street Rails with Trails July 2, 2013 Rev. 1 – August 6, 2013 I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS ENGINEERING DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND. ANTHONY E. GAMMON DATE 42724 City of Frederick: East Street Rails with Trails August 6, 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 East Street Rails with Trails ........................................................................................................................... 8 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Location ..................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................... 9 2 Method ............................................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 AASHTO Guidance ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 On-Road Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Shared-lanes.................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Priority shared-lanes ....................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Bicycle Lanes ................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.4 Buffered bicycle lanes ..................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Shared-Use Path Facilities ....................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Design Criteria ................................................................................................................. 12 2.4 Intersections ........................................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Enhanced Crosswalks ...................................................................................................... 13 2.4.2 Raised Crossings .............................................................................................................. 13 2.4.3 Median Refuge ................................................................................................................ 14 2.4.4 Curb Extensions ............................................................................................................... 14 3 Preliminary Design .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Design Process ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.1 Information gathering ..................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Field visit ......................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.3 Corridor segments........................................................................................................... 15 3.1.4 Preliminary design........................................................................................................... 15 3.1.5 Design progress review ................................................................................................... 16 3.1.6 Stakeholder and public input .......................................................................................... 16 3.1.7 Preliminary design summary........................................................................................... 16 3.2 Corridor Segments .................................................................................................................. 17 Page 1 of 40 August 6, 2013 3.2.1 Segment 1: MARC Station to E. 5th Street ...................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Segment 1a: Carroll Creek Linear Park ........................................................................... 18 3.2.3 Segment 2: E. 5th Street to N. Market Street ................................................................. 18 3.2.4 Segment 3: N. Market Street to Clemson Corner .......................................................... 19 3.2.5 Segment 3a: Market Street: East Street to Clemson Corner ........................................ 19 3.2.6 Segment 4: Clemson Corner to Mill Island ..................................................................... 20 3.3 Intersection Details ................................................................................................................. 21 3.3.1 E. 5th Street ...................................................................................................................... 22 3.3.2 E. 7th Street ...................................................................................................................... 23 3.3.3 E. 9th Street ...................................................................................................................... 24 3.3.4 Delaware Road ................................................................................................................ 25 3.3.5 N. Market Street ............................................................................................................. 26 3.3.6 Monocacy Boulevard ...................................................................................................... 28 3.3.7 Routzahn Way ................................................................................................................. 29 3.4 Bridge Crossing ........................................................................................................................ 30 3.4.1 Signature Bridge .............................................................................................................. 30 3.4.2 “Econtainer” Bridge ........................................................................................................ 31 3.4.3 Temporary Bridge ........................................................................................................... 32 3.5 Trailside Amenities .................................................................................................................. 33 3.5.1 Trailheads ........................................................................................................................ 33 3.5.2 Waysides ......................................................................................................................... 35 3.5.3 Branding and Signage ...................................................................................................... 36 3.6 Construction ............................................................................................................................ 38 3.6.1 Phasing ............................................................................................................................ 38 3.6.2 Opinion of Probable Cost ................................................................................................ 38 4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Project Timeline ...................................................................................................................... 39 4.2 Public Input ............................................................................................................................. 40 4.2.1 Stakeholders Meeting ..................................................................................................... 40 4.2.2 Public Meeting ................................................................................................................ 40 4.3 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................... 40 Page 2 of 40 August 6, 2013 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Shared Use Path Plan (Excerpt) ................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2-1: Shared-Lane ............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 2-2: Shared-Lane Symbol ................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2-3: Priority Shared-Lanes ............................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-4: Priority Shared-Lanes ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • America's Rails-With-Trails
    America’s Rails-with-Trails A Resource for Planners, Agencies and Advocates on Trails Along Active Railroad Corridors About Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) has helped develop more than 21,000 miles of rail-trail throughout the country and provide technical assistance for thousands of miles of potential rail-trails waiting to be built. Serving as the national voice for more than 100,000 members and supporters, RTC has supported the tremendous growth and development of rail-trails since opening our doors on February 1, 1986, and remains dedicated to the creation of a nationwide network of trails and connecting corridors. RTC is committed to enhancing the health of America’s environment, transportation, economy, neighborhoods and people — ensuring a better future made possible by trails and the connections they inspire. Orange Heritage Trail, N.Y. (Boyd Loving) Acknowledgements The team wishes to recognize and thank RTC staff who contributed to the accuracy and utility of this report: Barbara Richey, graphic designer, Jake Lynch, editor, and Tim September 2013 Rosner, GIS specialist. Report produced by Rails-to-Trails The team is also grateful for the support of other RTC staff and interns who assisted Conservancy with research and report production: LEAD AUTHORS: Priscilla Bocskor, Jim Brown, Jesse Cohn, Erin Finucane, Eileen Miller, Sophia Kuo Kelly Pack, Director of Trail Development Tiong, Juliana Villabona, and Mike Vos Pat Tomes, Program Manager, RTC extends its gratitude to the trail managers and experts who shared their Northeast Regional Office knowledge to strengthen this report. A complete list of interview and survey participants is included in the Appendix, which is available online at www.
    [Show full text]
  • RWT Section 3
    SECTION III: RWT Development Process The current RWT development process varies from location to location, although com­ Blackstone River Bikeway, mon elements exist. Trail advocacy groups and public agencies often initially identify a Albion, RI desired RWT as part of a bikeway master plan. They then work to secure funding prior to initiating contact with the affected railroad. “As a general rule, bike When a public agency seeks approval of an RWT, the railroad company typically lacks an es­ tablished, accessible review and approval process. While some RWTs move forward quickly trails should not be (typically those where the trail development agency owns the land), many more are outright located along railroad rejected or involve a lengthy, contentious process. RWT processes typically take between rights-of-way…[we] should three and ten years from concept to construction. not encourage recreational Overview of Recommendations use next to active [railroad] Based on the research conducted for this report, the following recommendations are made rights-of-way.” regarding RWT development processes: DEBORAH SEDARES, PROVIDENCE AND WORCESTER RAILROAD, MA 1. Local or regional bikeway or trail plans should include viable alternatives to any trail that is proposed within an active railroad corridor. 2. Each proposed RWT project should undergo a comprehensive feasibility study. If “The biggest driver was the required, the proposed project also should undergo an independent, comprehensive realization that this was a environmental review. historic transportation 3. Trail agencies must involve the railroad throughout the process and work to address corridor…to put another their safety, capacity, and liability concerns. mode into this old corridor 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoned Railroad Corridors in Kentucky
    KTC-03-31/MSC1-01-1F Abandoned Railroad Corridors in Kentucky: An Inventory and Assessment Kentucky Department for Local Government June 2003 Prepared by the Kentucky Transportation Center 1. Report No. 12. Government Accession 3. Recipients catalog no KTC-03-31/MSC 1-0 1-1F No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date June 2003 Abandoned Railroad Corridors in Kentucky: An Inventory and Assessment 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Lisa Rainey Brownell KTC-03-31/MSC1-01-1F Kentucky Transportation Center 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address Kentucky Transportation Center 11. Contract or Grant No. University of Kentucky Oliver H. Raymond Building Lexington. KY 40506-0281 12. Sponsoring Agency Code 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Department for Local Governments Final 1024 Capital Center Dr. Ste. 340 Frankfort, KY 40601 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This report provides an inventory of Kentucky's abandoned rail lines and a detailed assessment to highlight the lines that may be the most suitable for future trail use. A secondary purpose of the report was to inventory historic railroad structures. Over 125 different abandoned rail lines were identified, mapped using GIS technology, and assessed for their current use and condition. These abandoned rights of way exist in all regions of the state, in urban and rural areas. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Abandoned Railroads, Rails to Trails Unlimited 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 120. Security Classif. (of this page) 121. No. of Pages 122.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Rails-With-Trails
    America’s Rails-with-Trails A Resource for Planners, Agencies and Advocates on Trails Along Active Railroad Corridors About Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) has helped develop more than 21,000 miles of rail-trail throughout the country and provide technical assistance for thousands of miles of potential rail-trails waiting to be built. Serving as the national voice for more than 100,000 members and supporters, RTC has supported the tremendous growth and development of rail-trails since opening our doors on February 1, 1986, and remains dedicated to the creation of a nationwide network of trails and connecting corridors. RTC is committed to enhancing the health of America’s environment, transportation, economy, neighborhoods and people – ensuring a better future made possible by trails and the connections they inspire. Orange Heritage Trail, N.Y. (Boyd Loving) Acknowledgements The team wishes to recognize and thank RTC staff who contributed to the accuracy and utility of this report: Barbara Richey, graphic designer, Jake Lynch, editor, and Tim September 2013 Rosner, GIS specialist. Report produced by Rails-to-Trails The team is also grateful for the support of other RTC staff and interns who assisted Conservancy (RTC): with research and report production: Kelly Pack Priscilla Bocskor, Jim Brown, Jesse Cohn, Erin Finucane, Eileen Miller, Sophia Kuo Pat Tomes Tiong, Juliana Villabona, and Mike Vos Barry Bergman RTC extends its gratitude to the trail managers and experts who shared their Patrick Donaldson knowledge to strengthen this report. A complete list of interview and survey Eli Griffen participants is included in the Appendix, which is available online at www.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Report on Trails and Greenways in the OKI Region
    APPENDIX 1 Status Report on Trails and Greenways in the OKI Region January 2008 Introduction The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for transportation planning in the Cincinnati metro area. In addition to our multi-county geographic area, our transportation planning responsibilities are also multi-modal as they include freight and personal movement by motorized and non-motorized modes. Shared use paths are a component of the regional transportation system including roadways. In some respects they can be considered a specialized network for non-motorized travel, just as the interstate highway system is for limited access motorized traffic. Like auto travel, the majority of non-motorized travel (bicycling and walking) still shares the local and arterial road system. While the regional trail system may be comprised of many local trail components, it excludes recreational loop trails less than four miles serving one park, walking paths and mountain bike trails. Like the highway system, OKI’s role for the regional trail system is to plan for a network of trail facilities, recommend guidelines for their construction and identify resources for implementation. This work is included the Regional Bicycle Plan. Implementation of these recommendations is normally initiated by local and state governments. The OKI staff provides technical assistance and coordination to trail groups and local governments in determining the detailed planning, design and funding requirements. A recommended resource for local trail groups is Trails for the Twenty-first Century available through Rails to Trails Conservancy. OKI also administers Transportation Enhancement funds, sub-allocated to us from the Federal Highway Administration through the Ohio Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • RWT Section 2
    SECTION II: Case Studies This section provides summaries of 21 rail-with-trail case studies researched for this report (see Figure 2.1). Overview of Findings In general, when a trail developer owns the right-of-way, RWT projects tend to proceed more quickly. All RWT projects should involve the railroads, law enforcement officials, and other stakeholders from the outset. These stakeholders know best their operation and maintenance issues and potential trouble spots. Burke-Gilman Seattle Waterfront Trail Extension & Elliott Bay WA ME MN OMSI/Springwater Kennebec Burlington VT River OR Cedar Railroad Trail Waterfront Lake LaCrosse Bikeway Trail MA MI RI WI Lehigh River Gorge Blackstone PA River Bikeway Schuylkill River Five Star Extension Northeast Corridor Platte River Trail Three Rivers DE CO CA Mission City ATSF Coastal GA Chattahoochee Cottonbelt TX Existing/Planned RWT Facility FIGURE 2.1 RWT case studies Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 9 SECTION II Railroad company participation in the design of RWTs can help Unknown Walking on rail 2% 2% maximize safety and minimize adverse impacts on railroad op­ erations. Positive design features include good separation (distance, grade, vegetation, or fencing), well-defined and de­ signed crossings, ongoing maintenance, and user education. Where these features are not present, RWTs can cause undue Walking Walking burden on the railroads in the form of increased trespassing, along rail across rail 58% 38% operation and maintenance costs, safety risks, and potential le­ gal liability for injury to trail users and trespassers. Researchers observed few trespassers on tracks next to exist­ ing trails. Those few observed were crossing or walking on tracks where fencing was not present to separate the trail from FIGURE 2.2: Planned RWT case studies: Type of trespassing the tracks.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Statewide Greenway Trails Plan/Final GEIS
    Final Statewide Greenway Trails Plan & Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement April 7, 2021 Acknowledgements Erik Kulleseid Commissioner Tom Alworth Executive Deputy Commissioner Division of Environmental Stewardship and Planning Ron Rausch, Director Diana Carter, Assistant Division Director Christopher Morris, Trails Planner Tana Bigelow, Park Planner Nancy Stoner, Environmental Analyst Christina Croll, Environmental Program Specialist Rebecca Odell, GIS Technician Ian Benjamin, Community Programs Coordinator Other Contributors National Park Service NYS Department of Transportation NYS Department of Environmental Conservation NYS Department of Health NYS Canal Corporation Empire State Development Corporation Hudson River Valley Greenway Niagara River Greenway Parks & Trails New York OPRHP acknowledges the many representatives from local governments, regional transportation planning organizations, non-profit groups, and other stakeholders for their contributions to this plan. Page intentionally left blank SEQR NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A FINAL GEIS Date of Notice: April 7, 2021 Lead Agency: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) Title of Action: Adoption and Implementation of the Statewide Greenway Trails Plan SEQR Status: Type I Location of Action: Statewide This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. OPRHP, as lead agency, has prepared a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) regarding the proposed action described below (Statewide Greenway Trails Plan). Brief Project Description: The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has prepared a plan for a comprehensive statewide system of non-motorized multi-use trails (Greenway Trails) as directed by legislation signed by Governor Cuomo in November 2019 (https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/A5035B).
    [Show full text]
  • Rails-With-Trails: Lessons Learned Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions TMC3/BB252 6
    Rails-with-Trails: U.S. Department of Transportation Lessons Learned Federal Highway Administration Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions Federal Railroad Administration National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Transit Administration August 2002 FTA-MA-26-0052-04-1 Foreword This report has been prepared at the direction of the U.S. Department of Transportation for the purpose of examining safety, design, and liability issues associated with the de­ velopment of shared use paths and other trails within or adjacent to active railroad and transit rights-of-way. This document is intended to explore lessons learned from the ex­ perience of rails-with-trails (RWTs), and suggest practices to enhance safety and secu­ rity for railroads, transit, and trail users. The U.S. Department of Transportation does not actively promote RWT projects, but recognizes that RWTs already exist and that more are being planned and implemented. This report provides information for public agencies, railroads, legal interests, and trail organizations to make informed decisions. NOTE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the view of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Rails-To-Trails: Creating Sustainable Access to America’S Federal Lands
    Rails-to-Trails: Creating Sustainable Access to America’s Federal Lands Kelly Pack Director of Trail Development Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Greenbrier River Trail, West Virginia Monongahela National Forest Our mission… …to create a nationwide network of trails from former rail lines and connecting corridors to build healthier places for healthier people. 1916: 275,000 miles active railway Rail-trail history in U.S. 1,872 open rail-trails | 21,312 miles 701 rail-trail projects | 8,110 miles Capital Crescent Trail, D.C. and Maryland 400+ rail-trails on federal lands – 50% USFS – ~15% DOD – ~15% NPS Paul Bunyan State Trail, Minnesota Chippewa National Forest Railbanking - A voluntary agreement between a railroad company and a trail agency to use an out-of-service rail corridor as a trail until a railroad might need the corridor again for rail service. Historic Union Pacific Rail-Trail State Park, Utah Bureau of Reclamation Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust et al. v. United States Medicine Bow Rail-Trail, Wyoming Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest George S. Michelson Trail, South Dakota Black Hills National Forest Iron Horse State Park Trails (John Wayne Pioneer Trail), Washington Bureau of Land Management Klickitat Trail, Washington Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Virginia Creeper Trail, Virginia Jefferson National Forest Elroy-Sparta Trail, Wisconsin Fort McCoy (DOD) Route of the Hiawatha/Olympian Route of the Hiawatha/Olympian, Idaho and Montana Southern Tip Trail • Virginia – USFWS Southern Tip Bike & Hike Trail, Virginia Eastern
    [Show full text]
  • FHWA Feb 2003
    Rails-with-Trails: U.S. Department of Transportation Lessons Learned Federal Highway Administration Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions Federal Railroad Administration National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Transit Administration August 2002 FTA-MA-26-0052-04-1 Foreword This report has been prepared at the direction of the U.S. Department of Transportation for the purpose of examining safety, design, and liability issues associated with the de­ velopment of shared use paths and other trails within or adjacent to active railroad and transit rights-of-way. This document is intended to explore lessons learned from the ex­ perience of rails-with-trails (RWTs), and suggest practices to enhance safety and secu­ rity for railroads, transit, and trail users. The U.S. Department of Transportation does not actively promote RWT projects, but recognizes that RWTs already exist and that more are being planned and implemented. This report provides information for public agencies, railroads, legal interests, and trail organizations to make informed decisions. NOTE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the view of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • National Road Heritage Trail Development Guide – Statewide
    Acknowledgments PRODUCED IN COOPERATION WITH THE INDIANA OFFICE OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE LT. GOVERNOR’S QUALITY OF PLACE INITIATIVE SPECIAL THANKS ALSO TO Efroymson Fund – A Central Indiana Community Foundation Fund Greenways Foundation Wabash Valley Community Foundation – Vigo County Central Indiana Bicycling Association Foundation Indiana Trails Fund, Inc. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Tom McCain (Cross-state NRHT logo) NATIONAL ROAD HERITAGE TRAIL, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Greg Midgley, President / Indiana Trails Fund Jeff Ray, Vice President / Healthy Communities of Henry County Stacy Riggs, Director/ Indiana Trail Riders Association (equestrian) Joe Jarzen, Director / Indiana National Road Association, Executive Director Joy Marley, Director / People Pathways, President (Greencastle) *Jan Davis, Director / Hendricks County Heritage Alliance *Stan Lambert Director / Richmond Parks and Recreation, Superintendent NRHT DEVELOPMENT GUIDE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Greg Midgley, NRHT President Jeff Ray, NRHT Vice President Stacy Riggs, Director / Equestrian Liaison Joe Jarzen, Director / Indiana National Road Association Amy Inman, Senior Planner Indianapolis MPO *Stan Lambert, Richmond Parks and Recreation, Superintendent NRHT DEVELOPMENT GUIDE STEERING GROUP Dan Watson, National Road Bicycle Club (Terre Haute), President Joy Marley, People Pathways, President Gerald Pagac, Hendricks County Park Board Rich Carlucci, Plainfield Town Manager Ray Irvin, Indy Greenways, Director Mark Reynold, Cumberland Town Council / Indiana National Road Association Richard Vonnegut, Indiana Trails Fund, President / Hoosier Rails–to-Trails Council Kevin Heber, Indiana Trails Fund / Hoosier Rails-to-Trails Council Steve Morris, Indiana DNR, Division of Outdoor Recreation, Streams and Trails Coordinator Gerald Nieman, INDOT, Transportation Enhancement Program Manager Michael O’Loughlin, INDOT, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Scenic Byway Program Manager * Until late 2005 Acknowledgements PRIMARY COUNTY CONTACTS Vigo County ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Cumberland County Rails to Trails Project/Plan
    Feasibility Study for Various Rails to Trails Projects Within The County of Cumberland Submitted to: The County of Cumberland 790 East Commerce Street Bridgeton, NJ 08302 June 29, 2010 Submitted by Campbell Thomas & Co. 1504 South Street Philadelphia, PA 19146-1636 215-545-1076 www.campbellthomas.com in association with Menke & Menke, LLC and Strauss and Associates Cumberland County’s Proposed Trail Network The preparation of this report has been financed in part by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or uses thereof. Feasibility Study for Various Rails-to-Trails Projects within the County of Cumberland, New Jersey Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Project Scope ........................................................................................................................2 B. Project Partners .....................................................................................................................2 C. Regional Context...................................................................................................................3 D. Benefits of the Trail ...............................................................................................................3 E. Study Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]