St. Clair County Trails Plan

ST. CLAIR COUNTY TRAILS PLAN

2019 St. Clair County Trails Plan  TABLE OF CONTENTS

01. INTRODUCTION 5 02. COUNTY ASSESSMENT 21 03. TRAIL FRAMEWORK 31 04. IMPLEMENTATION 61

APPENDIX

Planning Consultant: Financial assistance for this project was provided, in part, by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Multi-Community Planning Assistance Grant Program and by the Community Foundation of St. Clair County.

smithgroup.com

CHAPTER 01 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE & INTENT

Trails, greenways, bikeways, and other non-motorized community desires. These activities will support the transportation facilities are becoming a critical part adoption of an implementation focused plan that of a community’s mobility infrastructure. Whether clearly identifies opportunities, needs, and priorities for helping to connect people to recreation opportunities future trail and bikeway projects. and nature, tourists and visitors to local economies, or Ultimately, the planning process is a chance to step residents to their schools and jobs - such facilities play back and take stock of current facilities and position heavily into the quality of life of a community. county government, local municipal partners, and other In St. Clair County, a number of signature regional trails agencies to pursue and implement the next wave of connect to and through portions of the county. Such trail projects across St. Clair County. trails includes the Macomb-Orchard Trail, which is To this end, the process engaged a broad range of part of the state-wide Great Lake to Lake Route #1 trail stakeholders, local leaders, technical experts, and system, the Wadhams to Avoca Trail, and over 26-miles members of the public to responds to three key tasks: of the Bridge to Bay Trail system. These existing trails are already defining elements of the communities Identify existing gaps in county-wide trail networks through which they pass and greatly valued by Identify preferred alternatives to eliminate the gaps residents and visitors alike. Prioritize projects to support implementation Despite these successes in building the county’s decisions current trail network, the potential for a county-wide system is not yet fully-realized. In particular, there The following organizations led the planning effort: are significant gaps between existing trail segments, making it a challenge to connect from one system to another. Additionally, there are many destinations, important from an economic and recreational standpoint, that are not yet accessible by trails or other non-motorized facilities. In many cases, the gaps in the current network exist because they reflect difficult or challenging areas for locating trails, impacting the feasibility and cost of implementation. In other cases, new connection opportunities have not been fully identified or included in planning documents previously.

The purpose of the St. Clair County Trails Plan is to assess the overall county and its major destinations, inventory the existing trail systems, and understand

6 St. Clair County Trails Plan  KEY TERMS

The following are key terms and concepts that underpin ALL-AGES, ALL-ABILITIES the approach and recommendation from this planning All-Ages, All-Abilities refers to an approach for process. designing non-motorized facilities (i.e. trails and bikeways) in ways that create safer and more TRAILS comfortable environments for all users. This is Trails refer to dedicated, linear transportation corridors especially important for cycling, where traditional bike that provide opportunities for walking, running, lanes are often viewed as unsafe or uncomfortable, biking, and other non-motorized uses for recreation, particularly when directly adjacent to fast moving and/ commuting, and other mobility needs. Trails are or high traffic vehicle travel lanes. typically separate from roadway corridors and located along public or private land (with access easements). Trails are designed for all-ages and abilities, and often include additional design elements such as landscaping, wayfinding, furnishings (benches, waste cans, etc.).

BIKEWAYS Bikeways refer to dedicated bicycle corridors, typically within existing roadways, that provide separation from motorized vehicles and/or use other treatments to create a lower stress and more comfortable environment for cycling. This lower stress environment can encourage a greater portion of the population to be comfortable biking in their communities.

smithgroup.com 7

GOALS The following goals were developed early in the planning process in collaboration with the project’s Steering Committee.

GOAL 1 GOAL 2 DEVELOP A REGIONAL CONNECTED TRAIL USE TRAILS AS AN ECONOMIC NETWORK PROVIDING ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REINVESTMENT DRIVER ASSETS AND DESTINATIONS WITHIN AND FOR ST. CLAIR COUNTY COMMUNITIES. OUTSIDE OF ST. CLAIR COUNTY. Trails can provide economic benefits to people Existing trails can provide greater benefit if they are through tourism and recreational spending, as well as connected to and part of a larger, complete network, improving the quality of life in the community, which which allows more people to access more destinations. can help retain and attract people and jobs to the area.

8 St. Clair County Trails Plan  GOAL 3 GOAL 4 LEVERAGE EXISTING PLANS AND INITIATIVES ENHANCE COMMUNITY HEALTH, PUBLIC TO ENCOURAGE COLLABORATION, SAFETY, AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERSHIPS AND EFFECTIVE USE OF THROUGH SOUND TRAIL DESIGN AND RESOURCES FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT. Building and maintaining trails is a complex process. Trails, greenways, and other non-motorized facilities Successful trail projects build partnerships between must be designed using best practices to ensure the funding entities, property and right-of-way owners, and safety of trail users, protect environmental health, and implementors. ensure that trails are well-maintained and supported.

PLACEHOLDER PLACEHOLDER

smithgroup.com 9

PLANNING PROCESS

The planning process for the St. Clair Trails Plan reflected a focused and concise series of steps that enabled the Planning Team to assembly key information, engage a broad range of stakeholders, and make smart, defensible decisions regarding future trail routes and implementation priorities.

PROJECT ROLES PLANNING PHASES

PLANNING TEAM The planning process proceeded over four major planning phases, as outlined below. Comprised of staff from the St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission, St. Clair County Parks and Recreation, Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance, and the Consultant. The Planning Team was responsible for managing the planning process, conducting outreach, performing analysis, providing technical expertise, and assembling plan documents. 1 STEERING COMMITTEE PHASE 1: EXPLORATION (OCT-DEC 2018) Staff and/or elected representatives from individual The exploration phase consisted of the following municipalities, regional transportation and planning primary tasks: officials, and other key stakeholders involved in the trails and bikeway implementation. The Steering Collected GIS/spatial data, including Committee was responsible for providing guidance demographics, roadway characteristics, and support to the planning process while sharing the parcels, destinations/assets, and existing and perspectives of the communities and/or agencies they planning non-motorized facilities. represent. Held kick-off meeting with the Steering PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Committee to establish project goals and solicit initial feedback and identify trail gaps The public engagement effort was focused around a through mapping activities. series of open meetings combined with a web survey to help understand the attitudes, preferences, and desires Held two public workshops, at different times of St. Clair County residents. and locations during the day, to provide an overview of the project and collect additional feedback through mapping activities.

10 St. Clair County Trails Plan  PHASE 2: TRAIL OPTIONS (JAN-FEB 2019) In the second phase, the Planning Team conducted the following:

Analyzed of existing trail and non-motorized networks and combined this with stakeholder feedback to establish an inventory of trail gaps. PHASE 4: PLAN ROLL-OUT The final phase of work consisted of Worked closely with stakeholders and local preparing the planning documents agency representatives to develop a series of (this report) and distributing to options (future route segments) that could project partners and the broader bridge these gaps. Developed typical cross- community. sections and facility designs. 2 4 3

PHASE 3: PRIORITIZATION (MARCH-APRIL 2019) The prioritization phase included the following primary tasks:

Facilitated Steering Committee meeting #1 to discuss route priorities and scoring considerations.

Developed and used a prioritization scoring matrix to assess the benefits, opportunities, costs, and challenges associated with implementing potential trail segments.

Developed cost estimate for trail routes.

Assembled priority routes and segments into an overall framework plan.

Excerpt from the GAP map developed during Phase 2

smithgroup.com 11

DESIGN APPROACH

Designing trails and bikeways is a rapidly evolving process, as the types of facilities, technologies, and treatments employed across the country explode. Underlying this evolution is a desire to design facilities that are more safe, comfortable, and attractive to a broader range of people. By designing facilities for all ages and abilities, the trail network becomes more accessible to more people and its use and associated benefits (health, tourism, economics, quality of life, etc) will be more fully realized. Fortunately, there is a wealth of design guidance to assist in designing safe and comfortable facilities. This includes:

Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA, 2015)

Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA, 2016)

Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO, 2014)

Advisory Bike Lanes in North America (Alta Planning + Design, 2017)

Designing for All Ages & Abilities (NACTO, 2017)

Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Experimental and Interim Approved treatments)

Guide for the Development of Bike Facilities (AASHTO, 2012) - New edition forthcoming

12 St. Clair County Trails Plan  LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS AND DESIGNING FOR ALL AGES AND ABILITIES Designing trails, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian bike lanes (typically LTS 2) can be supplied instead, amenities for safety first will create accessible and then most adults (70% of the bike riding population) welcoming infrastructure for non-motorized users. Key would have some level of comfort using them. to encouraging greater cycling rates is understanding As proposed projects move into the implementation the diverse types of bicycle riders that exist in a phase, it is important to design with an LTS approach. community and how their level of comfort and sense of For the St. Clair County Trails Plan, LTS 1 and 2 facilities safety affects the design of bicycle infrastructure. should be the target for all projects. The typical designs A national survey of people living in the 50 largest and cross-sections discussed in the following pages metropolitan areas in the U.S. (see diagram on indicate what LTS level certain types of facilities can be next page) found, for example, that only 5% of an designed to, as well as design considerations for where area’s population are “enthused and confident” and those facilities are most appropriate. comfortable biking on non-residential (commercial) The diagram on the next page describes a visual streets when bike lanes are present. Similarly, the relationship between the types of bike riders found in survey found that 51% of the population is “interested many communities and how that relates to the LTS of but concerned” - they might be willing to bike on different types of facilities. separated trails or protected bike lanes if such facilities exist, while 37% are unwilling, unable, or uncomfortable biking anywhere. Related to the types of bike riders, is a planning and engineering tool called Level of Traffic Stress (LTS). LTS determines how “stressful” the riding experience is when considering a range of factors for biking within a roadway. Factors include the speed and volume of vehicle traffic, the number of travel lanes, the size and complexity of intersections, and the types of bicycle facilities provided. LTS 4 roads are considered the most stressful, while LTS 1 are the least. LTS can be linked to the types of bike riders to better understand what types of riders are likely to be comfortable biking on which roadways. This in turn can inform what facilities to create that would make a road more comfortable for a broader range of users. For example, LTS 3 corresponds to conventional bike lanes on major roadways, which only appeals to “strong and fearless” and/or “enthused and confident” riders (only 19% of the bike riding population). If protected

smithgroup.com 13

REALIZING ALL AGES & ABILITIES Linking types of bicycle riders to level of traffic stress and facility design

% % % INTERESTED, BUT % 7 5 51 CONCERNED 37 NO WAY, NO % % STRONG & ENTHUSED & 32 19 HOW FEARLESS CONFIDENT 62% OF ABOVE RIDERS 38% OF ABOVE RIDERS

100% of these riders 100% of these riders Comfortable to Comfortable to Unwilling, unable or are very comfortable are very comfortable some degree using some degree on uncomfortable biking on non-residential on non-residential protected bike lanes residential streets or anywhere streets without bike streets with on non-residential separated on paths lanes bike lanes streets

LTS 4 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS N/A 11% OF RIDERS 19% OF RIDERS 70% OF RIDERS 100% OF RIDERS COMFORTABLE COMFORTABLE COMFORTABLE COMFORTABLE

Strong & Fearless Experienced Riders Most Adults All Age & Abilities Off-street Riding in busy traffic Conventional and Protected bike lanes Slow, low-volume streets Shared-use trails and No bike lanes buffered bike lanes “Dutch Standard” Separated bikeways pathways. No traffic stress

GREENWAY FACILITY DESIGN INTERSECTION BLOCK TARGET IS LTS 2, WHICH IS Number On-street TYPICALLY COMFORTABLE of Crossed Parking FOR 70% OF WILLING AND Travel Lanes ABLE BICYCLE RIDERS Number of LEVEL OF Speed of Vehicle Lanes Design TRAFFIC Cross-streets of Bicycle Facilities STRESS Source: (2016) Dill J. and McNeil N., Speed of Traffic (LTS) Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Intersection Findings from a National Survey, Journal of Approach the Transportation Research Board. Number of Vehicles

14 St. Clair County Trails Plan  TRAIL & BIKEWAY FACILITY TYPES

A variety of different types of facilities, many of which will be new to St. Clair County and individual communities, are referenced throughout this plan. These include:

Off-road trails

Side paths OFF-ROAD TRAIL

Separated Bikeways (two-way)

Buffered Bike Lanes

Advisory Bike Lanes

Conventional Bike Lanes

Enhanced Sharrows These facility types are described individually on the following pages. SIDE PATH

CONVENTIONAL BIKE LANE SEPARATED BIKEWAYS

ADVISORY BIKE LANE BUFFERED BIKE LANE

smithgroup.com 15

OFF-ROAD TRAILS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS: 1

Off-road trails are typically designed as "shared-use" high volumes of traffic are anticipated, providing wider trails that allow multiple types of non-motorized uses trails that create separate pedestrian and bicycle (walking, running, biking, skating, etc.). The minimum travel areas is recommended, when space allows. preferred trail width is 10-feet, with 2-feet of clear Implementing off-road trails can be an opportunity shoulder on either side. In constrained locations, a to incorporate habitat/landscape restoration, site narrower width may be acceptable. In locations where furnishings, and other amenities into the design.

SIDE PATHS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS: 1 OR 2

Side paths are typical designed like trails (above), but One common challenge with implementing side are located adjacent to a roadway and typically still paths, particularly in more rural areas, is the need to within a public right-of-way. Like trails, side paths are accommodate drainage ditches alongside the roadway. designed as shared-use facilities allowing pedestrian This can require extensive land grading around the as well as bicycle users. The minimum preferred side side path or may require installing culverts to facilitate path width is 10-feet, although narrower widths may drainage underground, below the side path. be acceptable in narrower conditions (as shown in the image above).

16 St. Clair County Trails Plan  SEPARATED BIKEWAY (TWO-WAY) LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS: 1 OR 2

Two-way separated bikeways can be used in a variety with the use of a buffer zone. The buffer should utilize of environments to provide a more comfortable facility curbing, delineator posts, planter boxes, and/or raised for cycling where there is not space for side paths. In medians to provide a physical barrier between vehicle constrained locations, like downtown commercial and travel lanes. Separated bikeways, especially two- areas, two-way facilities preserve more roadway width way varieties, require additional design considerations for vehicle uses (travel lanes and parking), while still at intersections and street crossings. providing physical separation between cars and bikes

BUFFERED BIKE LANES LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS: 2

Buffered bike lanes are similar to conventional bike A row of parking can also be used to help provide lanes, but add additional buffer space between the bike physical separation, but care must be taken to provide lane and adjacent vehicle lanes. Typically, this buffer adequate clearances and buffers to prevent car doors is defined by pavement markings, but delineator posts, from swinging into the bike lane, as bike riders may curbing, and other obstructions can be used to provide have less room to move safely out of the way. more physical separation. This is especially valuable when adjacent to higher traffic and/or speed areas.

smithgroup.com 17

ADVISORY BIKE LANES LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS: 2

Advisory bike lanes are a new treatment suitable corridor is an intended bicycle route. With advisory for use on lower volume roadways, such as local lanes, vehicles travel closer to the center of the street, residential streets, where centerline stripes are not and shift over to the right (yielding to bike riders), when normally present. Advisory lanes help formalize opposing vehicle traffic is present. Depending on street vehicle behavior on lower volume streets while clearly width, on-street parking can be accommodated on one identifying space for bike riders and signaling that the or both sides of the roadway.

CONVENTIONAL BIKE LANES LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS: 3 OR 4

Conventional bike lanes do not generally provide for preclude other treatments, or as a temporary treatment lower levels of traffic stress given the free-flowing while alternative routes or improvements are waiting travel lane directly adjacent to the bike lane. While implementation. conventional lanes may be comfortable for some users on lower speed or volume routes, they are generally not considered all ages, all abilities appropriate facilities. Conventional lanes may be used where space is extremely limited, site or project constraints

18 St. Clair County Trails Plan  ENHANCED SHARROWS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS: 3 OR 4

Sharrow markings (i.e. "Share the Road" markings) help used flanking on the sharrow symbol to provide greater signal to vehicle drivers that the roadway is intended visibility and indicate where in the travel lane bike for more frequent use by bike riders as part of a bicycle riders should be positioned. Unlike typical sharrow network. However, sharrow markings are not effective markings that are ambiguous about whether cars as an all ages and all abilities type of facility. should be able to pass bike riders, enhanced sharrows reinforce that the lane is fully shared and that vehicles Enhanced sharrow markings can be used on minimum should not pass around bike riders. width roadways (i.e. 10-foot travel lanes) and should be centered in the travel lane (not placed to the right as is Enhanced sharrows are most applicable on slower typical practice). Additional white dashed lines can be speed and lower volume roadways.

ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Bike lanes should provide a minimum preferred Separated bicycle facilities, depending on the width of 5-feet in each direction for bicycle type of buffer and overall dimensions, may require operations. When bike lanes are adjacent to a specialized maintenance equipment for sweeping curb and gutter, the gutter should not be counted and snow maintenance. Care should be given to towards lane width unless a seamless surface is evaluate snow storage needs, with snow stored provided and stormwater inlet structures are bike- within the buffer, behind the road curb, or a friendly. combination of the two.

In locations with high volumes of bike traffic, wider bike lanes should be provided to enable bike riders to more easily pass one another.

smithgroup.com 19

CHAPTER 02 COUNTY ASSESSMENT

PLANNING CONTEXT

St. Clair County consists of 33 municipalities, RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS including 8 cities, and 2 villages. Many of these Past planning documents helped inform the communities have their own transportation and development of the St. Clair County Trails Plan. Critical planning departments with established master plans documents include: or transportation plans that have a bearing on the St. Clair County Trails and Routes Master Plan development of this Trails Plan, specifically in terms (2009) - This document provides a high-level look of opportunities for property access for trails or use at potential greenways and route across the county, of roadways for multi-modal (vehicle, walking, biking, with detailed studies of a number of proposed transit) facilities. non-motorized improvements. Since the plan was At the county level, St. Clair County owns and manages created, a number of non-motorized improvements many of the roadways outside of incorporated cities have been made, but many are still outstanding. and townships, and has jurisdiction over the design This 2009 plan was a useful starting point for and operations of their roads. The St. Clair County Parks exploring route opportunities for the current and Recreation department helps manage recreation planning process. and trail facilities (such as the Bridge to Bay Trail). The SEMCOG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Similarly, state-owned roadways require coordination Plan for Southeast Michigan (2019) - Provided a with Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) baseline inventory of non-motorized facilities and for planning and implementing future improvements. roadway information. Future planning elements Last, a number of other agencies or non-government identifies a network of regional non-motorized organizations have a connection to trail and bikeway routes in St. Clair County and connections to planning in St. Clair County. This includes: adjacent counties.

Michigan Trails & Greenways Alliance and the Great 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan adopted in Lake to Lake Trails initiative (Route #1 is proposed to 2019 - Developed by St. Clair County Metropolitan connect through St. Clair County) Planning Commission, this documents outlines the long range changes to transportation needs and Blueways of St. Clair demands. This plan is built on a demographic and economic trend analysis and calls for improvements to safety, a complete streets design approach and future planning efforts to resolve gaps in the non- motorized network.

22 St. Clair County Trails Plan  L

r ddo e B Je B

r D r

o K i

c u M c i k c m k a e e C w

b r W r

t a a a i

n i d y l n

e n C M Yale om y W Dudle a s i to le n Ya i c l M k d

E Yale c a Burtchville Twp

r a m M s Yale o Grant Twp ch t o urt Burtchville Twp c B m 2

n k

S 5

e Greenwood Twp w

a t B a t F Brockway Twp y Greenwood Twp Lynn Twp y r

l a o Lynn Twp e Grant Twp Brockway Twp r w s g

n o Norman

o D

n u Metcalf L n an c a Norm e e k

l e l Metcalf s g Metca h in lf o l N r r B e te e o a Gl r S Avoca t rd h L y a an s k lliv h C Su e a s a w h d o

M e Kenockee Twp eard Fort Gratiot Twp r C B e

t a 2 t din r Keewah p y 5 Fole i o c

a r E

k N

c Fort Gratiot Twp B m ity Mussey Twp e Imlay C o

r Clyde TwV p

m A r Mussey Twp Clyde Twp i t S fft n a h Kr e b

h c C t Kenockee Twp b

t Emmett Twp e o e r r K n r i t e b v i t i Emmett Twp d i s t R l b L g a f igh i o o t n l n e P Bryce r r ryce s d i CapacB D e n u e nn Gr iga Capac n n er Water o e v v i A ater e e Emmett Brandon R 94/W M l r eer E I ap l L T

e B a a H n Port Huron

Go Emmett i y n u W I 69 l o E I 9 Port Huron r o 6 o Burt r 9 6 d I I n R 6 e /E 9 l i 4 B l l s L e I 9 I 69 BL y ling E 2 Spar 4 C n Griswold t

e Port Huron Twp o h

K n s r i t n y e e ove r C D n r m ita e o Kimball Twp l en E Kimball Twp i ryd y D v R M

i B c Port Huron Twp Wales Twp h e W lle Masters m Berlin Twp (St. Clair) a R a

l e Riley Twp e n

l iv l

Berlin Twp (St. Clair) s i er

C r Lambs e l e ek t n re

t B l H Smiths C tio n c Almo e t a e e

a n n Gr

Riley Twp r r p Wales Twp u F r

y a B i Marysville e t Marysville C ough g z H id Alpine a N Yager h R s o Memphis (St. Clair) M s u M r e B t a l

h a a Bordman i n W Dolan y Memphis (Macomb) e

M r ot e ati m Memphis (Macomb) B R Gr Davis p a attle h u R

u R i m n s R

R i n

n v

i g e d

e r g 4 Richmond Twp e St. Clair Twp 9 I Bruce Twp Armada Twp tion E eling Om ool Sec Columbus Twp Eb Sch 94 Armada Center Columbus Twp I Bruce Twp W Armada o W

a e Richmond Twp d Armada Twp g h e id a Armada d i R R St. Clair Twp m id s r a s d g e St. Clair e a M v m i r a ore St. Clair d W Mo R i Fre A n Richmond W Division

o ile RomeS o 32 M

l ivision Br c D ee

M o Richmond

t Romeo 5 Richmond (St. Clair)

o Washington Twp East China Twp

r 3 Lenox Twp

K t P China Twp

h 5 i

d a China Twp i n

29 Mile Casco Twp l M t g m

e Ray Twp R Lenox Twp io Casco Twp East China Twp

t s N o 29 Mile a r m Ne w Gr isner e e e H M v a i Washington Twp o ve n R

P I

l Ray Twp a d

n i

k New Haven n M

C Marine City

h New Haven P City u Marine a N r e c Marine City r k ile w h 26 M e C H hartier r a o C ve u Markel n n Cottrellville Twp W t t a y io Ira Twp t sh L a i i Ira Twp ng n Cottrellville Twp Gr to e n r e n v e New Baltimore e Shea i 24 Mil D S e New Baltimore ixie R t

Gr a

Shelby Twp Chesterfield Twp23 Mile r v

3 Mile i 2 Chesterfield Twp l S l Macomb Twp ug e Shelby Twp C ar Roadway OwnershMiapcomb Twp o bu D tto s M h y S n n a k R o t r s e r o s o fe y n h 1 - State Trum nkline f a 21 Mile e B e e J r o o r ile S h 21 M Clay Twp e P c c n Clay Twp iv

l h t a A R o o 2 - County Primary n i r t i S e P k h Algonac a oin a t l Utica n Hall te Hall T M r e e C 3 h m Gr bl t b e 5 e

n 5 a h i r

t e r z a 3

3 - County Local r M s i

l r e S o u n Algonac

E i N Mile 19 Or N Henry B J o b C oy C a Ga f m n c al l lu Mount Clemens h 4 - City Major n o w i i r Go l C d f e R e C w i i as iv l e s e e r r n n v n I ha l C n d e e H dl a y id r g M h r a e River v H d i ar e n C ri i 5 - Cy ity MinoR r ngton y r v C Harrison Twp e e on a e B t A s in ro l Clinton Twp w c Gr C d k Sterling Heights a e Harrison Twp o Millar r r Existing Bike FacilitiB es Metropolitan n Metropolitan o rs l e e ff n Off Road e an an Clinton Twp J h vi 15 Mile k C ra c o e n M b Quin r Side Path s K e e e rp o l 14 Mile l a y FrH aser Gr H t

a io y Fraser t Wide e Shoulder a U s 0 2 4 8 t Gr ic Miles a St. Clair Shores ° WarreOnn Road Bike LanReosevilleSt. Clair Shores Warren Roseville 12 Mile

smithgroup.com 23

EXISTING & PLANNED TRAILS & NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES

Understanding the extent of existing and previously of planned routes reflect a number of significant proposed trails and other non-motorized facilities (bike "gaps" in the system, which this Trails Plan will lanes, wide shoulders, etc) is an essential starting further describe and propose solutions. These gaps point for developing a strategic long-term planning predominately reflect connections into the heart vision. The Planning Team utilized detailed roadway of commercial/economic centers in the connected and trail data compiled by SEMCOG as a starting communities (e.g. downtown Port Huron, Marysville, point for assembling a trail inventory. Review of this St. Clair, Marine City, and Algonac) or where more information with the Steering Committee, project rural roadway conditions are constrained and partners, and local agency representatives provided provide less clear opportunity for constructing a side further refinement to the existing inventory. path.

In terms of trails separated from roadways, the most Macomb-Orchard Trail/Great Lake to Lake Route #1 significant existing facilities include: - The existing Macomb-Orchard Trail ends in the City of Richmond in Macomb County. This trail is part of The Wadhams to Avoca Trail - This is a roughly the planned Great Lake to Lake Route #1 trail, which 12.5-mile long section of trail along a former railroad will connect from South Haven on Lake Michigan corridor connecting from Avoca Road in the north- across the state to Port Huron (ending in Lighthouse central part of the county southeast to the west edge Park). A significant gap exists between the City of of Port Huron. Completing the connection at the east Richmond heading east towards the Bridge to Bay of this trail into Port Huron and Bridge to Bay Trail is Trail, which this plan will address. a critical need. Additionally, the Wadhams to Avoca Trail can be extended in the north west part of the Past planning efforts have also identified a number of county with a connection to Yale for area residents other potential off-street trails or on-street bike routes. and to provide a destination point for trail users. While many of these routes are considered by this plan, many of these off-street routes are contingent on Bridge to Bay Trail - The Bridge to Bay Trail is securing significant access easements (along utility envisioned as a contiguous series of trail routes corridors for example). While they should continue to connecting New Baltimore around Anchor Bay and be pursued from a long-term standpoint, this Trails north along the St. Clair River corridor to Lakeport Plan focuses more on critical gaps that stitch together State Park. The Bridge to Bay Trail was planned the segments of existing regional trails in ways that as a 54-mile system of trails that will connect to are more implementable in the near-term. commercial/economic centers, recreational assets, and other key destinations along the shoreline. To date, approximately 26-miles of the system have been constructed as a combination of side paths (along rural roadways) and shared-use trails separate from the roadway. The remaining 28-miles

24 St. Clair County Trails Plan  Lakeshore

Brockway Jeddo Bricker

Duce

Kimball

Martin

Cade

Winn Comstock Main Yale Dudley Wildcat

Yale Bridge to Bay Trail

Mason

Brockway Wadhams to Avoca Trail Extension

Brown Burtch

Sayles

Fargo Bridge to Bay Trail

Norman

Connell

Duce Norman Metcalf Metcalf Metcalf Beard North Sterling Avoca Glyshaw Fort Gratiot Trail System

Cade Sullivan

Columbus to Greenwood Trail

Capac Beard

Bricker Pine Grove Foley Keewahdin

Emmett

North Imlay City Brott

Vincent Abbottsford Sheridan Krafft

Cribbins Kilgore Lightle River Bryce Bryce Dunnigan Wadhams to Avoca Trail Water Bridge to Bay Trail Brandon River Allen Main

Lapeer Taylor Two Bridges Trail Breen W I 69 Goodells Burt E I 69

Riley Center CN SpurRiver Trail to Rail Trail Sparling Griswold

Cove Range Kinney Dove Emerson Dryden Richman Military

Columbus to Greenwood Trail Belle River Masters Wales Center

Lambs

Almont Berville Henry Smiths Creek

Burnell Gratiot Capac Hough Alpine North Yager Stoddard Gratiot Bridge to Bay Trail Main

Mayer Bordman Dolan

Memphis Ridge Busha

Bauman Rattle Run Davis

River

Power Line Corridor Richmond to Marysville Bike Route

E I 94

Ebeling Omo School Section Armada Center Belle River Way Bike Route W I 94 Wadhams

Ridge Bridge to Bay Trail

Main Macomb Orchard Trail CN Trail Power Line Trail Fred W Moore Riverside Bridge to Bay Trail Armada Ridge Division

SM 53 32 Mile Division Bree Bridge to Bay Trail

Haven Ridge

North

29 Mile

Romeo Plank

N M 53 M N 29 Mile New Haven Palms Gratiot Meisner

River

Indian

Main

Church

Bridge to Bay Trail

Parker New Haven Marine City King 26 Mile CountyLine Chartier Markel Washington

Gratiot Shea 24 Mile Dixie Starville 23 Mile Green 23 Mile Sugarbush Bridge to Bay Trail

Existing/Proposed Non-Motorized Bridge to Bay Trail

Cotton River

8-10' Shared-use Path Marsh

Hayes Stone 8' Fines Shared-useRomeo Plank Path 21 Mile Jefferson Proposed21 Mile Shared-use Path Anchor Bay

SProposed M 53 Unimproved Path Pointe Tremble Hall Hall Gratiot 8-10' Schoenherr Side Path Saint Clair River

Elizabeth N M 53 19 Mile Orchid Bike Lane CanalExisting North Henry B Joy Garfield Golf Course Wide Shoulder Existing Cass Riverside Bike Path Columbine

Irwin River IronMapped Belle Trail Only Bike Route River Middle Channel Harrington Channel

Planned Back-RoadClinton River Bike Route Avery Green Planned BikeMillar Route Metro Parkway Trail Metropolitan Metro Parkway Trail SEMCOG Regional Non-Motor. 15 Mile Jefferson SEMCOG Regional Non-Motor. Channel Moravian Quinn

Kelly 14 Mile Hayes ° Parks & Open Space Harper

IronPublic Belle Trail Parks Groe 0 2 4 8 Conservation LandsUtica Gratiot Miles Private/Club Open Space12 Mile sbeck

smithgroup.com 25

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Engagement with a range of stakeholders, local abilities approach. experts, residents, and organizations was essential —— Reviewed trail gaps identified by the to this planning process. The engagement efforts Steering Committee and Planning Team, and occurred during each phase of work and included the supplemented with additional input from the following activities: public. Steering Committee Kick-Off Work Session —— Launched a web-based survey concurrent with the (November 7, 2018) public meeting (along with paper copies for direct —— Communicated the purpose, scope, and process distribution to meeting participants). Results are of the St. Clair County Trails Plan. summarized on subsequent pages.

—— Developed the project goals collaboratively. St. Clair County Transportation Study (SCCOTS) Work Session (February 13, 2019). This group was —— Reviewed demographic mapping, analysis tasks, comprised of MDOT officials, regional, county, and and data coordination. local transportation-related staff that are focused —— Identified key destinations, trail/bikeway on engineering and implementing transportation opportunities, and challenge areas, and known projects. trail gaps via destination and asset mapping —— Reviewed preliminary route options and activity with stakeholders. segments for technical feasibility and to gauge Meeting with Municipal Leaders (November 29, implementation support or other considerations 2018). This meeting was with township supervisors for implementation (cost, constructability, and city managers in affected communities to property access, preferred design treatments, review the project goals, discuss the gap analysis, etc.). and inform them on how they could be involved and Steering Committee Direction Meeting (March 21, provide input. 2019) Two Public Meetings (December 11, 2018, 11:30-1:30, —— Reviewed refined route options and approaches 6:30-8:30) for resolving gaps in the network at a detailed —— Provided an overview of the plan purpose, goal, level with the Steering Committee. and process. —— Discussed factors and methods for prioritizing —— Presented educational materials about best projects for implementation. practices and design methods for trail and bikeway design that supports an all ages and all

26 St. Clair County Trails Plan  SURVEY FINDINGS The web-base and paper survey generated 130 responses, with the large majority of these (104 responses) during December 2018-January 2019. The survey was advertised through the county website, press-releases, social media, and shared with community representatives for further distribution.

Q: WHAT TYPE OF BIKE RIDER ARE YOU? The first question asked respondents to identify what type of bike rider they are. A very high portion of respondents reported they were "Strong and Fearless" (15.3%) or "Enthused and Confident" (38.7%), compared to national averages of 7% and 5% respectively. This indicates there was a self-selection bias among survey participants, such that those that took the survey were more likely to already be more confident bike riders. "Interested but Concerned" and "Willing but Cautious" combined for 56.7%, which is also a higher than national averages (at 51%).

Q: WHAT DO YOU FEEL ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT TRAIL OR BIKEWAY BENEFITS? Improving health and wellness was by far the most important benefit reported by survey respondents. Making the region more attractive to residents and business also scored highly, although a seemingly related benefit - supporting economic activity and investment - scored the lowest. This may be due to not understanding the link between trails, residents/job attraction, and economic health.

smithgroup.com 27

Q: HOW FREQUENTLY DO YOU CURRENTLY USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS FOR DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES? Trails and bikeways were used most frequently for "Getting Outside and Access to Nature" and "For General Health and Fitness." Accessing recreational, commercial, and cultural/entertainment destinations were also a frequent use for trails and bikeways. Given the limited level of transit service across the county, it is not surprising to see "Getting to transit services" score towards the bottom.

Q: HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS FOR DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES IN THE FUTURE? Results are overall consistent with patterns from the prior question about current trail use frequency. Numbers across nearly all categories were slightly higher compared to current uses.

28 St. Clair County Trails Plan  Q: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE FOLLOWING BARRIERS PREVENTING YOU FROM USING TRAILS OR BIKEWAYS MORE OFTEN? The most significant perceived barrier, "Trails don’t connect to places where I want to go," is fortunately a barrier this planning effort can help address by identifying desired destinations and identifying ways to build a more complete, less fragmented trail system.

Q: WHAT COMMUNITY DO YOU LIVE IN?

Q: WHAT IS YOUR AGE? In comparison to the county-wide demographics, the survey respondents tended be older adults. 22% of respondents are 65 years of age or older, compared to 14.5%. Similar, only 2% of respondents were under 18 years, compared to 19.6% of the county overall being 18 years or younger.

smithgroup.com 29

CHAPTER 03 TRAIL FRAMEWORK

TRAIL FRAMEWORK PROCESS

WHAT IS A TRAIL FRAMEWORK? The central element of the St. Clair County Trails Plan is the trail framework. A trail framework identifies feasible and actionable trail projects - whether new off-road trails or on-road bikeways - that support the project goals of:

Creating a connected regional trail network

Driving economic development and reinvestment

Encouraging collaborations and partnerships

Enhancing public health, safety, and green infrastructure

HOW IS TRAIL FRAMEWORK PLAN BUILT? The trail framework plan for St. Clair County was built through a three-step process.

STEP 1 - GAP IDENTIFICATION

Using existing spatial data, stakeholder feedback, field investigation, and local expertise, the Planning Team identified overall gaps in the trail system. This planning effort focused primarily on gaps in the larger regional network, with the objective of linking together the significant existing trails into an intact network. Specific attention was paid during this process to identify gaps that aligned with key destinations and assets along proposed corridors - such as recreational destinations and downtowns or other commercial centers.

32 St. Clair County Trails Plan  STEP 2 - GAP ALTERNATIVES The Planning Team, working closely with the projects partner organizations, identified potential routes or trail "segments" that are candidates for filling the identified gaps. In many cases, there are multiple routes or trail alignments that could bridge a gap. After a broad range of candidate segments were identified, each segment was assessed in terms of feasibility, length, potential cost of construction (based on the type of proposed facility), and potential roadway or property impacts.

STEP 3 - PROJECT PRIORITIZATION The final step in the process was developing a scoring matrix to help quickly prioritize the many segments and inform how a sequence of route segments could be stitched together into a logical "project" that could be pursued for implementation.

The following pages describes each step in this process in more detail.

smithgroup.com 33

GAP IDENTIFICATION

Twenty-five (25) major gaps were identified by the GAP 23/24 (COMBINED) - WADHAMS TO AVOCA TRAIL Planning Team. These gaps became the focus of the TO BRIDGE TO BAY TRAIL (PORT HURON WEST) trail planning effort. The following briefly describes the GAP 25 - PORT HURON NORTH CONNECTORS extent and major opportunities associated with gap. The map on the following page shows the location of Detailed maps of each of these gaps and the identified these gaps in red. segments, key land uses, and recreational destinations are included in the appendix of this report. GAP 1 - LIGHTHOUSE PARK TO LAKESIDE PARK A few additional gaps were identified on the overall GAP 2 - LIGHTHOUSE PARK TO THOMAS EDISON PARK county plan, but these gaps were not explored in GAP 3 - PINE GROVE PARK TO KEIFER PARK greater detail in this planning effort. These include:

GAP 4 - DOWNTOWN PORT HURON GAP 22 - LAKEPORT STATE PARK TO NORTH COUNTY LINE. Lakeport State Park is the identified terminus GAP 5 - BLUE WATER RIVER WALK TO ELECTRIC for the Bridge to Bay Trail system. Connections GAP 6 - MARYSVILLE CONNECTIONS further to the north are desired to complete cross-

GAP 7 - MARYSVILLE TO BUSHA ROAD county connections, and efforts to build these can be explored in the future. GAP 8,9,10 (COMBINED) - ST. CLAIR CONNECTIONS GAP 26 - WADHAMS TO AVOCA TRAIL EXTENSION. This GAP 11 - MARINE CITY CONNECTIONS gap reflects a desire to continue to the Wadhams GAP 12 - MARINE CITY TO ALGONAC STATE PARK to Avoca Trail further to the northwest into Yale. This gap, while ultimately important to the overall GAP 13 - ALGONAC CONNECTIONS network, faces challenges in terms of property GAP 14 - ALGONAC TO NEW BALTIMORE access along the railroad corridor.

GAP 15 - NEW BALTIMORE TO RICHMOND GAP 27 - CENTRAL COUNTY NORTH-SOUTH CONNECTION. A number of potential off-road trail GAP 16 - RICHMOND CONNECTIONS routes have been identified by prior trail planning GAP 17/18/19 (COMBINED) - GREAT LAKE TO LAKE TRAIL efforts as a means of connecting north-south EAST CONNECTION through the central part of the county. This could

GAP 20 - FORT GRATIOT PRESERVE TO LAKESHORE include the use of the utility (power line) corridors or trails within road right-of-ways. Portions of this gap GAP 21 - LAKEPORT STATE PARK TO FORT GRATIOT lies within Macomb County, and so cross-country PRESERVE coordination will be important for addressing this gap in the future.

34 St. Clair County Trails Plan  St. Clair County Trail Plan Lakeshore

Boy Scout Camp Jeddo

Brockway Duce Fraleigh

Mowerson Bricker 22

Kimball

Fountain

Four

Boyd

Martin

Hemlock

Cade Winn 4 Square Sportmens Association Trillium Haynes La Salle Yale Hillock Comstock 1st Main Dudley Manning PARK North Wildcat Myron Yale Lakeshore Lakeport State Park North

Bailey 22 Mason Brockway Wicha Yale Grant Twp Gibbons Pirates Burtch M 25

Kilgore

Greenwood Twp Blaine Mill Creek Conlan Paver

Brockway Twp Brockway Burtchville Twp

Red Wing Acres Nature Sanctuary Sayles Bridge to Bay Trail

Lynn Twp Brown

Christine Wilkes Wilkes

Mason Fargo Hewitt

Wilkes Wadhams to Avoca Trail Extension Black River Wilkes Hewitt

Turner Emmett 26 Norman Campbell Wildrose

Old Country

Central

Norman

26 Fox Clyde 21 Connell 21 Huron Metcalf Sylvan

Norman McMahon Jorden Streeter Lakeshore

Pleasant Metcalf Shallow Creek Golf CourseTice

Metcalf

Sterling Danielle Fred J Baker Cade

Beard Avoca Siegel Cork Fieck Rockridge Main Glyshaw

Capac

Farm

Fronteac Sullivan North

Galbraith

StoneyCreek

Martin Cribbins Beard Fort Gratiot Twp Port Huron State Game Area B Wixson Clayton Ford C

Alma Burton

Wyant

Barbara M 25 Pine Knoll Bruce Fort Gratiot Nature Preserve Bridge to Bay Trail Bridgewood 20 Foley Redwood Brott Keewahdin Mussey Twp Bricker Kildeer Whitney Sheridan Alton D. McGaw Plant Reserve

Imlay City Shoefelt Robert E. CrawfordState Ball Fields

Vinson Port HuronVelma Golf Club

Lois Pine Ridge Willow Heritage

Vincent Clyde Twp Winds Putt R Kenockee Twp Cribbins Krafft Schutt Emmett Twp Orchard Bryce

Pine Tree Imlay City Mclain Bryce Keyworth James and Alice Brennan MemorialHaley Wadhams to Avoca Trail Baker's Field Park

Columbus to Greenwood Trail Holland

Downey Shamrock 1 Valencia White Tail 1 WillowOxbow Ridge Kilgore

McLain River Industrial Gratiot Ellis Waldheim Pine Grove Sanborn

Cade Lightle Forest

10th

Linda Old Saw Mill Schutt

Riverside

Barth Bryce Haley Spencer Main 25 2 Park No. 3 Conger Abbottsford Garfield Peck Dunnigan Peck Elks Club Hancock 2 Teal Reliford Nye 25 Orchard State Autumn River Emmett KOA Stone Emily Moses Water Capac Conrad 12th

Breen Kinney Brandon Garlick E I 94/Pine Grove Totem Kearney 3 Mary Hueling River Emmett Lapeer Branch Bartlett 3 E I 69/CapacW I 69/Capac Taylor/WTaylor/E I 69 I 69 Erie Fort

Taylor River W I 69 E I 69 W I 69/Kinney Goodells County Park Allen Burt Lapeer Port Huron English Quay E I 69/Kinney 24 13th

24 25th Flinchbaugh Smith I 69 BL Pine River Nature Center 7th 3rd 4 H & D Enterprise Howard E I 94/E I 69 Court Dunlap Kimball Township Park 23 Union CN Spur Trail 4

A I 69 BL White Oaks Golf Course I 69 BL

Morningstar Port Huron Twp 23 Sparling Bancroft Griswold 16th

23rd Burns Dunlap 5 Griffin Michigan 5 Emerson Raymann Detroit Audubon Preserve Wayne Dove Sandy Military

24th 27 Cove Dryden Kimball Twp Park #5 Electric 27 Quain Parker

Wales Twp Richman Furness

Kinney

Kellie Riley Twp Masters Ravenswood Belle River

Berlin Twp (St. Clair) Forest David Lambs Columbus to Greenwood Trail Smiths Creek Hunt Club Messmer Messmer 4th

Belle River Wales Center Marysville Berville Friendship Rod and Gun Club 6th

Delaware 7th Almont Leaning Tree Golf Course Smiths Creek

RileyCenter

Henry

Richman Gilbert Burnell Huron Capac 19 Memphis Ridge 19 Fitz Municipal Park Main Sturdevant Burns 6 Hough Yager Alpine Yager River Yager E I 94/Gratiot

North Memphis (St. Clair) Busha 6 Mill Cuttle

Pine Ridge Wales Ridge Cuttle Stoddard Marysville Public Golf Course Bordman Bridge to Bay Trail Main Dolan

Range

Marshall

Pratt Lion Beacon Aspen Memphis (Macomb) Mayer Serenity Fred Meiselbach Park 7 Davis Memphis Ridge Moore 7

Bauman Thousands Trails Otisikita Council of G.S. Preserve Richmond to Marysville Bike Route

Palms

Welser Power Line Corridor St. Clair Twp Irwin 18 18 Hyslop Dayton School Section Veldon Columbus Twp W I 94 88 Golfside St. Clair River Country Club

Brown Kathleen

Burman Richmond Twp Ebeling Rattle Run

Deer Meadow Omo Columbus County Park Armada Twp Armada Center

Wadhams

Fulton Main Alice W. Moore Woods Nature Sanctuary Greystone Kanie Aspen Melinda 10 A Oak Armada Birch Greig Park Brown Macomb Orchard Trail Vine Carney

9th CN Trail Ellsworth 34 Mile Werner

Power Line Trail 10 B 6th Clinton10 Riverside Armada Ridge 9 Arlington McKay Brenner

Midway

Heritage Natures 33 Mile Willow Mill Creek St. Clair Little League Park Ridge 9 St. Clair Oakland Quail 1717 Fred W Moore Madison 33 Mile Pine Shores Golf Course Arden

Main Power Line Trail Skinner1616 Shagena

Belle River Way Bike Route Powell Division 32 Mile

Richmond Rosewood

Bridge to Bay Trail Romeo Beier Saint Clair Bree S M53 Adair

Ind Division Richmond (St. Clair) 2nd

Bethuy Richmond Forest Golf Course Lilac Harbor

32 Mile Wolcott

Remington Rattle Run Rose Romeo Golf Course Rose

Freigang Pine Valley Golf Club Church Hospital Lilac

Brian

Donovan Pointe

Starville

County Line N M 53

Windmill

Remer

North Rambling China Twp River Hill River Miller Lenox Twp 15A Township Hall Park Victoria East China Twp 15 Casco Twp King Woodland 29 Mile

Cranston East China Township Park Ray Twp Pine Brook Bryson

Knotts

Rere Haven Ridge

Romeo Plank 29 Mile

Braun New Haven 15C

Wayfaring Gratiot Meisner Wilcott Mill Indian Trail Road Park

Stonegate Cetnor Bridge to Bay Trail Cousin Huron Pointe Sportsmen's Club Park Susan Bud Dawn Bart 11 Indian Trail Bart Mattison

Brookside LoneOak 11 Wetzel State Park Clark Henry Linegar Murray Fir St. Clair Shores Sportsmen Club Degurse 27 Mile New Haven Marine City Rogan Main Meadow

Oak Ridge Golf Course St. Clair Lakeplain Forest Indian Blake Main Parker

Canterbury Mayer Marine City

Omo Erie McKinley

26 Mile Water

Brookfield E I 94/26 Mile Bell King Road Bridge Indian New Haven Fairchild Omo EXISTING FACILITIES Chartier

Bertha M. Pollard Park Bethuy

Hayes Off Road

Trucano Markel Homestead Wetland Park 12 Macomb Corners Park Cedar Glen Golf Club

Wolverine Golf ClubBrenda Cottrellville Twp Side Path Cambridge 25 Mile Elynn Starboard Starville 12 Mount Trashmore Ottawa Paradise Bonet

Macomb TownCenter Park Halifax Noel Pineridge Denis Wide Shoulder New Baltimore Harbour Ira Twp Washington West 24 Mile Kakos Broadbridge Crackle Wood Golf Club Bristol 15 B River Lexington Schnoor Baker On Road Bike Lane Card Norfolk

Village Edge Sass Lilac Chesterfield Twp Gill

Sable Champlain Safie Joy Foster Celtic Boston Shea 24 Mile Main Bridge to Bay Trail Hale Antrim Green 14 Dixie

Stafford Kirby PROPOSED FACILITIES Base AverhillHickory Redwod Boulder Lakes Golf Club Village Oakwood Cobblestone Annette Wilma Chesterfield

Maurice Mayer Elly Tee J's Golf Course Kiely Off Road

Bellestri

23 Mile Nature Donner Bower Kayla Zobl

ShelbyUtica Twp Dante Bella Woods Golf Club E I 94/23 Mile Callens Jochar Genaw Au Lac Bayview

Danview Tech Danview Macomb Twp 14 Lake Swartout Side Path Hawk Swartout Spicer Hickock Port Salem Rossiter Killewald Jefferson Golden Park Foxboro Fuller Cotton St. John Marsh Wildlife Area Gaviota Hibbs 14 Bronte Iris Pearl

Bramley

Elk

Paul 22 Mile Salt River Marsh Dyke Park Hickory Hollow Golf Course On Road Bikelane

Shelby

Heritage 22 Mile Marsh Algonac State Park Shady Glen Harbor Bayshore Benoit Clay Sycamore Hills Golf Club Salt River Legacy Hunt IDENTIFIED GAPS

Sugarbush Heydenreich Burning Tree Golf and Country Club St. John's Marshland State Wildlife AreaClay Twp Trail Gap Le Grande 21 Mile East W I 94/21 Mile Jans 21 Mile Heather York Sunset Fairchild

Romeo Plank PARK & OPEN SPACE

Buckner Carousel Tilch Gable Edgewater Maple Harbor Labelle Teal Sheri Colony UticaAltz Hill Burn Market

Hickory Waterside Centre Town Public Parks Pointe Tremble Elm StoneAlgonac Anchor Huntcliff W I 94/M 59 Merrill Delmar Recreation

Deneweth Tashmoo

N M 53 Falcon Fruit

Delco Hall

Plattsburg Doolittle Hall Elizabeth Key Lakeside Revere Conservation Lands

Bayview Pine State Cornell Wright Saint Clair River Oberliesen Milton S M 53 Barbret Ammo 13 Castle Channel

Dunham Schilling Cottage Canal Creek 14 Pointe Katie Private/Club Open Space Bunker Channel Elm Sandpiper Medea Russell Eureka Luke 13

Polo Little Cape Apache Keystone Walden Morgan Carlyle Supply Heydenreich Groesbeck Clair George Wild Life Area Henry B Joy Mr Mac St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area

Jason

Wagner

Dharte Orchid 19 Mile Little Land Use North Lotus Crandall Airport Columbine Canal Garfield

Schoenherr Amber Greenfield Bedford Rose Berly Hubbard Harsens Island Hunt Club Lauren Market Perimeter Public / Institutional Land Uses Damask

Irwin

Saal Rose Nike Sholitz River Dubay Sea Ray Ashgrove Cass Shari 18 Mile Donna Dickinson Cannon Venice Civic Center Park Moxon Tulip Church Commercial Land Uses Kingsbrooke Harsens Island Hunt Club Main Bridgeview

Emerald La Croix DodgeIron BellePark Trail Cucci River Crocker Channel Clinton River Congress Manor Stadler Harrington Clinton River Spillway Bike Path Rattery Jefferson Petoskey Ashland Municipal Boundaries Sienna Clinton Twp Oakridge E I94 Columbine Clinton River Parks South 17 Mile Wellington Jefferon Path Middle Channel Wild Life Area 17 Mile Gern Hill Golf Club Trillium GAP IDENTIFICATIONMunicipal Boundaries MAP

Reimold Harrison Twp Parquet Plumbrook Mattson Woods Rhapsody Metro Villa Fairway Rosedale

Dodge Park Cartier Normandy Broadway Golf Pointe Millar MetroHiller Parkway Trail Denver Denise Acacia

Mast

Willow Camelot Elm Lane Charlemagne Moran Gap Route Metro Parkway TrailNunneley BIKE ROUTE (Highlight) Metropolitan Zimmerman Lake St. Clair Metropark

Little Mack Golfview

Cecilia Green Brookstone Holiday Waterway County Bay Ashby Venice Hillside Glenwood Harsens Island Bike Route

Union Lake Sax Freedom Hill County Park Wee Care Gap General Area Highlite Shook Ashton Maynard Regional

Corso Bay Sharkey Channel Klein 15 Mile Gratiot Harper/E I 94

Huntley Moravian Kemp Lake

Beaconsfield Maple Lane Quinn Manila USBR20

Iron Belle Trail Fraser

Red Run

Mulvey

Hayes Foster 14 Mile Beverly

Sunrise Utica St. Clair Shores Country Club smithgroup.com0 6,000 12,000 3524,000

Kelly

Nardelli Masonic Hinz Shoreview hicago Feet C Masonic

Van Cantabarry Catherine Krieg ° Hoover Darby

Little Mack 13 Mile Greater Mack St. Clair Shores Frank

Calahan

Harper

Common Arnell Warren Granada Roseville 12 Mile

GAP ALTERNATIVES

For each of the analyzed gaps, a range of alternative In total, 137 individual segments were identified, ideas were explored for bridging the gap. Specifically, representing 101-miles of potential new facilities. The these ideas were individual segments that identified majority of these proposed facilities, consistent with a specific type of trail or bikeway facility (see Chapter the overall design approach of emphasizing all ages One - Trail and Bikeway Facility Types for conceptual and all abilities, are Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) 1 or 2 examples of each type). These facilities include: facilities. Off-road trails, side paths, and separated bikeways comprise 84% of the total length of proposed Off-Road Trails route segments. Side Paths The maps on the following page show examples of the Separated Bikeways (two-way facility) detailed gap maps included in the appendix of this

Buffered Bike Lanes report. The gap maps identify the start and end point of each segment and the proposed facility type. Advisory Bike Lanes

Enhanced Sharrows

Conventional Bike Lanes

Signed Bike Routes

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS 1 OR 2

36 St. Clair County Trails Plan  SAMPLING OF THE GAP ALTERNATIVES MAPS USED DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS. ALL DETAILED MAPS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT APPENDIX.

smithgroup.com 37

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

The final step in developing the framework was Transportation Opportunities: If the segment evaluating the benefits, opportunities, and costs passed through high population density, high of each of the route segments based on a range of job density, or both high population AND high job criteria and use that as basis for selecting prioritized density areas, it scored higher. This criteria reflects segments to combine into a coherent project. The the segments ability to serve pure transportation resulting lists of projects reflects the culmination of functions for connecting people to potential this planing effort and are described in detail in the workplaces. next section. Implementation Support: If the route is aligned The evaluation approach considered two major with an identified capital improvement project, elements: (1) the "value" a given segment provided in has an identified organization that will champion terms of alignments with the overall goals of the St. implementation, and/or has a committed funding Clair Trails Plan; and (2) the "challenges" faced when source, it scored higher. implementing the routes. CHALLENGE CRITERIA VALUE CRITERIA Property Access: If a segment relies on an access Connections to existing trails or bicycle facilities: easement through private property or direct Segments scored higher if they connected to lower acquisition, the route scored lower. If more than ten Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS) facilities, such as different property owners are affected, the score was trails or side paths. Segments scores higher if the further reduced. proposed alignment or what was being connected Impacted Right-of-Way Uses: If right-of-way to was part of an identified regional trail connection widths are constrained and trade-offs need to be (i.e. Bridge to Bay Trail or Great Lake to Lake Trail made in street uses in order to accommodate a Route #1). trail or bikeway facility (such as removing parking Destinations Accessed and Economic Benefits: or travel lanes), then the route may score lower. In Segments scored higher for connecting directly some cases, roadway reconfigurations - such as a to core commercial or downtown commercial road diets - are a net positive on their own and may destinations, large recreational facilities or regional ultimately result in a higher score for the route. park destinations, and smaller park destinations. Cost of Construction and Complexity: If there Attractiveness and Impact of Proposed Facility: are anticipated costs for a given segment above If the proposed facility type is LTS 1 or 2, passes and beyond the typically associated cost (such as through an especially scenic or attractive context segments requiring bridges or elevated trail, major the segment scored more highly. If the route was on utility or drainage changes, etc) the route may be a street in a higher LTS 3 or 4 environment, its score scored lower. was reduced.

38 St. Clair County Trails Plan  PRIMARY PROJECTS SECONDARY PROJECTS The three types of projects described below (Critical These projects reflect additional opportunities for Gaps, Transformative, and Important) are projects that creating trails and other non-motorized connections. should be actively pursued for implementation as a These projects are considered secondary because priority for partners and agencies across the county. they may do one or more of the following (1) provide a These projects reflect those that generally scored supplemental or additional parallel connection to a high across the priority matrix scoring and/or provide primary project; (2) provide a near-term alternative to a essential, primary connections between existing trail primary project with a lower-level facility; and, (3) may facilities. be an opportunistic or “easy win” project that is quick to implement but delivers less benefits.

CRITICAL GAP Projects that provide an essential connection between SECONDARY two existing and significant trails or other non- These are new routes that are significant and should motorized facilities. Implementing Critical Gap projects be viewed as the “next set” of priority projects. will provide the most significant improvements to the Opportunities to implement these projects should overall interconnectivity of the trail network. Cost is always be considered. less of a consideration given the importance of the connection. ALTERNATIVE These are near-term, alternative, or other supporting TRANSFORMATIVE routes. Should certain primary routes prove infeasible, Projects that are more expensive and/or challenging then these alternative routes can be considered. This to implement, but which have the capacity to category also includes routes that are relatively low- dramatically change the experience and function of the cost and/or provide less amenity value compared corridor. High value and impact projects with relatively to other routes, but should nevertheless be planned higher implementation costs. long-term as part of the overall network. Opportunities to piggyback these projects on other roadway projects should be considered. IMPORTANT Projects that add significantly to the overall network by connecting to new destinations. Typically, they connect on at least one end to an existing trail or non-motorized facility, and thus extend the reach of existing facilities. Typically high value projects with moderate costs.

smithgroup.com 39 K im b S a l ta l

t e ! K im 2

b n

a d ll

urtch Burtch 6 M B t h 2 5 5 M

t M a h i 4 2 5 n t

Lakeport State Park B !

B 21D a ! !!

L o rtle r My r a in e Memoir 21 B B !! u

r Norman PROJECTS: NORTHEAST ZONE

S !

a alf n c o ! Met

n J

tcalf ! u Me e ashington a W f v tcal n Me i s oln t Linc a Fort Gratiot County Park !

! !21E

S Manor Beach Park

a Shoreview n

Shallow Creek Golf Course!!21 A

L a k e s h o r e LAKE SHORE ROAD Route Segements Cole B r BIKEWAY id Facility Type g e

Intersection Improvement to B

a ! y ! ce Off Road Trail Bra !21C T ! T r a

B e

il ! a a l ! y w Side Path Trail w o

o o L ! o d a ! d k Separated Bikeway (2-Way) e

h ! o ! r Buffered Bike Lanes e

Shorewood !

! ! ! Advisory Bike Lanes FORT GRATIOT TO

! ! Enhanced Sharrows LAKEPORT STATE PARK !!20C

! ! Conventional Bike Lane

! !

! Signed Bike Route !

! ! Wide Shoulder !!20B Project Types (Highlight)

Critical Gap M

! 2 P

5 a L

Transformative r a k k

e e an F Carrig r s o h Important r m o r a e n Secondary L ! a k McIntyre Park !20A e ! s Alternative/Supporting h o r M e

Opportunistic 2 L

5 a k e s

! h Existing Bike Facilities F o o r r e t

Off Road G

a Fort Gratiot Trail System e t a

o Side Path d ° t

a l

n a Wide Shoulder Sparta i l Fort Gratiot Nature Preserve w S

n 0 0y .225 0.45 0.9

On Road Bike Lane t e

Hitchings m Miles ! 40 St. Clair County Trails Plan 

! PROJECTS: NORTHEAST ZONE

FORT GRATIOT TO LAKEPORT STATE PARK (GAP 21) LAKESHORE ROAD BIKEWAY (GAP 21) Segment 21C/21D – SECONDARY | New Route Segment 20A/20B/20C/21A/21B – ALTERNATIVE This proposed off-street trail would utilize mostly As a potential near-term alternative to the above route undeveloped natural lands and connect from Fort is to extend the existing side path on 24th Avenue Gratiot Nature Preserve north to existing trails at (M-25) north to Lakeshore Road (segment 20A and Metcalf Road (east of Eastwood Drive). Implementation 20B). Relatively wide shoulders along the length of the of this trail will require securing access easements corridor allows for buffered bike lanes to be installed through privately held property. A second section of through lane striping and signage. While not a low off-street trail can be constructed through Lakeport LTS facility, it would provide a connection and help State Park to provide a connection out to the lake raise the visibility of bike riders along the corridor and front, utilizing the existing non-motorized bridge over moderate driving speeds. Lakeshore Road.

DESIGN APPROACH FOR LAKE SHORE ROAD BIKWEAY

smithgroup.com 41

wahdin Kee! wahdin Kee

W i ll ia m

Commerce PROJECTS: PORT HURON NORTH ZONE Grace er F eil o w

r n

t A

i o !!25M t

i l F

S a i y r

s w

t a e y m

y ath ern Ab Port Huron Golf Club

F o r t

Gr son a at t H M W io

e t

2 T l e 5 r a n i l S y s BLACK RIVER RUN t e Krafft Krafft

B m !

r id Krafft !

g M !25L ! ! e

to 2 5 B A 1

a 0 Gr

s ! y ! t p T h a

r e a ti il n o t

25A J !! a c

P !

n !

B ! 25D ! ! u ! Simpson tt er ! n !25B ! 25K u ! !!

t 4

2 25C Lakeside Park

! !

Oa ! ! !

k 1 H ! 0 i t

er l h

iv ls !C R ! ! ! o er 25N !1E n iv ! ! ! g R ! e North River Road Park 25E r !! !!25O W

a ! l n ! 1D Holland u !! ! t

C lle S Sa d M La r oo ! h rw le i ria al B S a m a e L p ! n s 25F C ! l a e o ! h ! od n n wo P azel e H d r i ! A n r o e p on y a Edis Baker's Field Park p Gr h o

o m GRATIOT SIDE PATH v W n e bor a San a P t t l in Sanborn Park o n e x u rn t BLACK RIVER RUN Gr Sanbo o v S 1C t ! e 25G Om P ! e SOUTH CONNECTOR ! o ! E a d B o d n i i Flor l r p

s id k e 1F a r l ! s ! r g ne a ! e P e Jo

r r s

lub v iscilla 1 lli ! o ! untry C i H Co to 2 lub R n t tine Country C r h en W bo B omme Ball a h 1! B an Bon r ! H ! S y i rta g i T pa c M

r S h ! k o a t i ! o u l W keview r n o ntine oann La A y t alle J 1A A o B r ! m ! V c d e c l r a o Co n e n L lo er u nial o s d in alm 1 P Route Segements n s da r Lighthouse Park 1 e A n t o C ns g h obi l 1 R a d o Facility Type l 5 l o i e t

n h p

kwood V Oa r ! e

Home !

Intersection Improvement r ! Fort Gratiot Light Station ! !

ne 2! A o Brandywi !

! l F ! r ! l P ake ! m o D u Palmer Park e h i Off Road Trail Sc n c r

a i W e 1

e t r s ! 7 wo w n a PINE GROVE CONNECTOR t t ! 2 l o i h n 0 n Side Path Trail ur o b w il u e M i

t W verv h i d LIGHTHOUSE PARK t R ! !2B ! ! Separated Bikeway (2-Way) Garfield 2D

ew e M !! CONNECTOR ! 1 i l erv yrt a iv M C 4 R ! 1 p Buffered Bike Lanes t h 3 l !

h e e

t ck

co ! h an r ! w H ie r 1 erv ! Riv y Advisory Bike Lanes 9 t ck l !

h 1 Hanco ussel !2C 5 R h ! 25H c ! ! hur t ! C ! Enhanced Sharrows h S hurch

t C Elmw ! r rch oo ! ock hu d ! a Hanc 4 C wb 9 Conventional Bike Lane 1 I 6

2 E d

e t / oo 2 ! w ! 0 h 25I

k 2 e lm r c E o 1 ! ! t ! B s t h v lu ! r d n c ! o R ur il e o h W s h o a Signey d Bike Route W C Tr ate d s i 1 e r

v t Gr ! Bridg Bridg

e 8 Two e ! e r t ! w h in Wide Shoulder o P leberry Canal o ove/E I 94 25J k d !! Huc 1 Pine Gr ! od rker lmwo 7 Ha S E 1 er S t Hark 1 Project Types (Highlight) h n 2 h 8 a Thomas Edison Park o c t t i a od i h o n mw h s r El i n t o

d Critical Gap e d fiel C n Mans E c l

a S ld s ie l i ansf i a Transformative M ra r TWO-BRIDGES TRAIL

T Mansfield PE ark s m P er e l Scott o t W ater Wa g k W o rid Scott h EXTENSION B p i T Important l

l o l o Tw a r w

R 1 l i i 3 v a Secondary il t r a e h n r Lyo T

r T s es i y

d a g 1 Alternative/Supporting d e 0 ri B n

r B t McPherso h o te o s 1

Lions Club Park a n t so w cPher e

/W M 1 T r

4 e Opportunistic 9 e t

I o h

W ov g h

r d G i

y pple r McBrad pple Whi S e Whi

in B n ExisPtionrgt HBuikroen F Taocwilintsiehsip RV Park /P W 94 o i I hipple s W l

E Optimist Park l 4 ! o Off Road ater/W I 9 as d W Thom w I 94 E Water/W ! Thomas Side Path er ° 94 E I 94 I 94/Wat I 4 E S W I 94 W E I 9 wick t g t 24J 24H 1 Sed c ! ! o ! e 2 ! W p n Wide Shoulder r t s h e e i o l r g E l P a o e l 0 0.15 0.3 0.6

u k Y pa ashington w On Road Bike Lane m W

Ca Pine Grove Park Miles

! !

! 42 St. Clair County Trails Plan  !

! !

! PROJECTS: PORT HURON NORTH ZONE PROJECTS: PORT HURON NORTH ZONE

GRATIOT SIDE PATH (GAP 1) BLACK RIVER RUN (GAP 25) Segment 1F - IMPORTANT Segment 25K/25D/25C/25B/ 25A - IMPORTANT Provides a side path connection down Garfield Street, This route provides a connection from Lakeside Park connecting Lighthouse Park to Palmer Park and then north to an existing side path and trail system along north on Gratiot Avenue to Lakeside Park. The existing 24th Avenue – a large commercial shopping district. lawn extensions (between the sidewalk and road curb) The first segment (25K) is a continuation of the side are quite wide, and can readily accommodate a side path along Gratiot Avenue, and turns west at the Black path. River, becoming an off-street trail (25D) at the top of the bank. This trail runs around the back edges of Port Huron Northern High School (25C) with an opening onto Jack Pine Lane (25B), using advisory lanes. The existing LIGHTHOUSE PARK CONNECTOR (GAP 2) sidewalk on Tamarack Drive (25A) can be expanded Segment 2A/2B/2C - CRITICAL GAP into a side path connecting north to Kraft Road. A new Provides the final connection from the current north mid-block crossing between Tamarack Drive and Aspen end of the Bridge-to-Bay Trail to Lighthouse Park Drive will provide a connection to the existing side (terminus for the Great Lake to Lake Route #1). Uses paths that continue further north. a combination of side paths and advisory bike lanes on slower moving streets. Intersections should be converted into all-way stops (instead of two-way stops), BLACK RIVER RUN – SOUTH CONNECTOR to slow traffic and allow bike riders to make safer (GAP 25) crossings through neighborhood streets. Segment 25N/25F/25G – SECONDARY A subsequent phase of trail in this area can utilize a TWO-BRIDGES TRAIL EXTENSION (GAP 25) new non-motorized bridge over the Black River to the Holland Woods Middle School (25N). An off-street trail Segment 25J/25I – CRITICAL GAP can connect to and cross Hollard Avenue and connect The existing Two-Bridges Trail ends at 10th Street just south on Parkway Drive (25F) to Sanborn Park. A new/ south of the border crossing facility at Harker Street. improved trail through the park (25G) can provide a Segment 25J would improve the existing sidewalk connection to the existing side path on Pine Grove conditions below the bridge on 10th Street to create a Avenue. connection to a new side path along Elmwood Street (25I). This side path would link into existing sidewalks, which can be widened and can ultimately connect to PINE GROVE CONNECTOR (GAP 25) the existing trail at the water’s edge. Segment 25H - SECONDARY An desirable alternative or supplement is to locate a A shorter section of side path that extends south from separated trail below the Blue Water Bridge within the the existing section of side path along Pine Grove, bridge easement. traversing down Hancock Street and 10th Street to connect to the Two-Bridges Trail Extension. This would help complete a small local loop of trails.

smithgroup.com 43 W

l l o w Thomas Edison Park Sedgwick P le a s t a ec n p B t s ro r P id g ct e e M p t s ic o ro h P ig B a a Washington n y W T r i a l

l i o l

w 1 Pine Grove Park

P in !

rdson e Richa ! ! G !3A r ! chardson o Ri v e y rne Kea !!3B MICHIGAN & FORT STREET Kearney

P r IMPROVEMENTS

i o

r ! Lincoln

Lincoln S 3C u !

p W !

r R l

l i

i o o v S

e w r r a

B n

r t

d C

g l 3C lins a e ! Raw i ! r t PROJECTS: PORT o P

B in

a e y G

T r o r n HURON DOWNTOWN E tanto a v S

l e i k l 3C n !!

Stanton o r

F u

o ZONE H M r

t O

n h ! t wood a n

i le ! G Haynes Park ood g

r Glenw !

i a

o n !!3D

! Beers ! R Beers iv H u e S r r t o

Young H

r o !4I Bard n ! Bard Ward W Keifer Park at er !!4C rney River Street Marina and Park Va F D 4B o r

! t o ! c k ! s i orran MILITARY-HURON

d ! McM Wells e S BIKEWAY

i Miller o r d River !!4J Gran Pearl M e B

t e r

r n d

e g

e C

r t n

Route Segements v ! B i ! Quay Street Dock !

y ! ! Facility Type ! T ks Lapeer Southside Dock and Park r Jen a

i Q l Intersection Improvement uay !

12th and Jenks Tot Lot !!23E Wa ! ter 4E ! M ! ! ! Off Road Trail e

! Fort Street Dock

tt r ille c ! G

h ! ! Side Path Trail ! a

t ! ! Separated Bikeway (2-Way) 6

t !

h 4D 1 ! 7 ! oward 2 H ! ! t t Buffered Bike Lanes h

h ! ! Advisory Bike Lanes W

Pine a ! ! Pine te

Enhanced Sharrows 4F !!4G r ! !!

! Conventional Bike Lane QUAY CONNECTOR ! Vantage Point ! Signed Bike Route Wall 3 l

r i

a ! r

! T

Wide Shoulder all 9 W y t

h a

B ! ! ! !

Project Types (Highlight) o t 4H !! e g

Critical Gap d i

r Court B Transformative

t Important h Union Secondary

t l

h i

a Alternative/Supporting r T

Opportunistic stnut R e Ch 4

h e

Existing Bike Facilities W

l 3

i 1

r u

3 d Off Road M

B t

h White Park

Side Path 1 1 °

h White 8 t Wide Shoulder h

1 9

0 t

h 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 t On Road Bike Lane h Griswold Gateway Bike Route Miles I 69 BL I 69 BL

44 St. Clair County Trails Plan  ! !

! !

! PROJECTS: PORT HURON DOWNTOWN ZONE

MICHIGAN & FORT STREET IMPROVEMENTS (GAP 3) QUAY CONNECTOR (GAP 4) Segment 3/3A/3B – CRITICAL GAP 4D - ALTERNATIVE Widening sidewalk into a side path to provide a Quay Street improvements are planned for 2019. consistent width connection south to the existing trail Extend side path connection (4D) to existing trail segments. Intersection improvements along Michigan and Quay Street side path. Improve the block of Quay Street (e.g. bumpouts to reduce crossing distances) Street (4E) east of Huron Street to create connection to should be incorporated as part of these improvements. Huron Street near the bridge. Consider lane reduction/ narrowing on Quay Street to create additional bikeway space. Alternatively, rebuild poor condition curb and sidewalk to create extension of the side path. This MILITARY-HURON BIKEWAY (GAP 4) route could connect to the southern portion of the Segment 4B/4E/4F – TRANSFORMATIVE Military-Huron Bikeway to avoid having to do the full Pursue a road diet on Military Street/Huron Street extent of that project in one undertaking. (four lanes to three lanes) in order to build a protected bikeway on the east side, which would provide direct connection to many significant destinations. Construction would be relatively economical given that minimal curb adjustments would be needed, although some bumpouts would need to be removed. Existing parking can largely be preserved on both sides of the road (see cross-section below for conceptual design).

DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE MILITARY-HURON BIKEWAY

smithgroup.com 45 ! !

! ! !

1 A C 1 e r A t W o S m e h g n l i o t o d W r

l a w o o Lighthouse Park

l y p i

l e u g n a i d P ! e e ! n n e r h

a i l 1F! c V 1 !

r n r n

P y i ! ! t B ! 2 ! Park No. 3 r t e D u i r t

n n G C ! h t s a e 1 e o r h w r b 7 o w M Black River Golf Course w M 2 e t v e w 0 h r o e a r i r a u r d n t lb o i r W p h y n t d l 2B ld e ! A S e ! arfi G 1 t 1 view le 4 t n 3 iver Myr !2D i R !

t t G

a h h Elks Club 1 k ! S w c r vie co F 9 n a O er Ha A iv R o t t ! 1 a h i r b 1 h 5 rc o e k 25H hu 2C 6 e ! C t ! t s w ! ! t h r ch h r t d k hu ! o ncoc C e a B H o

S 2 e 2 2 d d 1

l o 1 o

p a n w A 2 0 m tk 8 l ! i ! ! E ns ck s 25I r c to n t ds t ! t u o h ! k o h

W d !

c L ha H B te t R e Ale ta i S M n e r i 1 l W o a ! v d rry n 25J a e a a kleb C Huc 7 ! 1 e w R 1 ! s t S y t i i 2 r h v 8 l W h a n f h l B e w t i d r t o y o Thomas Edison Park h W e w a o s h e w E e e in m w Ela o El i l d r s P a d o l e e o o l i k t i c o d a s n d h n oo r h T e t d rw a c e iv es G v R o g Scott e id r t B t t E o W r Sc o n t B v ter r Wa a R o 1 i e e

d s M w i ater 3 W s T v g t il e t t l a n a Lyo e h l a r r

a y T s n t n w s i o d e d

d g rson o e Phe Lions Club Park id Pherson Mc B o r Mc B a d o y

w W rady 1 Port Huron Township RV Park T McB Whipple T 1

r i

t a l

l le h l

i ipp 1 4 Wh i 9 a o ! I r l t er/W T 2 t o Wa s w e ! t

g n rid Thomas h 94 I 94 94/Water B e W I E E I Two Sedgwick W M

Maes i ic e l g l h ra er 24H ington o ig ! Wash w a

a g !

G a n e !

e Y ! ic P! ine Grove Park rv Richardson M e ! S au i ! c r p B E e m P 3B h ! t 24J a ey rn l e a ! Ke o ! a k i C !

a g n p W a c i a e d ry l a coln h n u In n Lin E l L R r r A e S e r B a e H g i l R u p l e g a k e 24G i p e e Y i ! v ins n Rawl 3C ! h e ! e c e r r ! A B r r r h l i / t r a o I 7 i a r

s 1 anton d t r

9 u l S

w R e 4 n !

e L n !

T ! r C u

H e p d ! oo t 3D R r R son nw o l le ! w Ne G

o o !

a p e o t elson Short

i N 4I

i n i ! c W ! r !

E s b l B F h r rs b e n Be B e a o C b on o v l arlet t a

e C e C i n y e r 4 e y r i n a o R c r r d n r T t 9 L g s t n i a p T d g eer o n v Bar o o I ord r n G e e Lap d r e e r r e C a r W a e r 1 E e D t r i c 1 o 4 n Sp ncis o l 4C e a ! ru t r ! c 7 F ey H e n ! H t ar a o V rring c M B

t e o h n t 1 k o 9 4 r h a p 4B e

2 s ! 6 0 s p B l ! Jo Wel y a h i ! r n s I L ell t d P t W p c

i ! h L h T k e

/ a h s r e R

W 4 a r r / ille a ! M 1 t a 9 i R 4 4J n l

r 5 ! n I rl ! i 9 ea o P t d t

d I !

u h g rrand ! Fa ! ! o t rtin e a W e M Lapee ! l r 1 ! ! 1 p ine 9 ther 7 s Ka 6 k 6 ! en h I J 4! E 1 t 6

t ! W Jenks !

/ h ! h 4 3 t 9 illett ! I Farley G h t ! W 1 9 h I 6 Park No. 4 Gillett 0 ! W t W 4D 69 h !! I oward a r Trail W 24F H Pine te

to RAIL TO TWO-BRIDGES !! ec ! r ip Conn 69 Howard !4F sh I 2 ine ! wn E P o 9

T 4/ 6

9 t ! ! I t TRAIL CONNECTOR h ! E h E I 69 E I 69 Wall !4H ! 9 ! 6 Court I 4 20th and Court Street Park and Pool 1 23E ! t 9 h W / t l i h all 4 nion W U a 9 r

I Walk T

h 2 r 1 E il tnut t s 6 2 e h e 24I 8 C a 2 4 ! 1 r ! 1 White Park t n v T t 1 i 1 7 8 h r h d u s t t p t R h 3 h h S t napp 2 r K 2 hestnut hite N C W J 7 e C n t a t I 69 BL ! a d h I 69 BL y 7 ! R W ! Oak

I 69 BL t 2

Griswold a 2 I 69 BL h e 5 ute

i 6 Ro

ke u ail Bi 9

er Tr l ay o Riv tew l

il t ! a a t G R ! t 23C t t ! h

h ! ! B o ! h

! 23B Division

! !

old ! w 2 W ! Gris R

23A 2 i

! v t

I ! n 2 isio v 2 i h e e D Minni

9 n 3 r 11th and Division Tot Lot

d r

T Minnie d r a Bancroft

i l Bancroft Cypress Tunnel

t 7

9 t

ar h !23D River to Rail T Ced Up rail Johnstone ton ! Dixon !

GRISWOLD-OAK BIKEWAY 2

h !

5 2 1 t 1 9

t 0 5 8 Route Segements Petit 4 t h t t h 1 etit t P h h

h 1 2 eard B t Facility Type 7 rd h !5A2 t Bea !

h 2 2 mbus 6 Colu

Intersection Improvement h 5A1

h !!!

! ! 1

! 2 2 Off Road Trail 3 2 5 0 ic t r n 4 t t t h

h h c a t ! h le ! s E 11 Side Path Trail u n th

S o

Williams k s ! C 16th Street Park ic a ! M en Separated Bikeway (2-Way) R t

er ! d

! r

Buffered Bike Lanes 3 ove 3 D

Re 10TH STREET ! i ! 3 d Advisory Bike Lanes 6 r t Knox Field a

e h

e Dov m IMPROVEMENTS & v! Do Cleveland ic el ! 2 r 2 t B Enhanced Sharrows d 4 c Clevelan 7 t e

2 l ROAD DIET t h

2 5 E h ! 2 6 ! lenn t G h 4 8 t

Conventional Bike Lane 3 h ern 0 N y t r 2 h

t ta Michigan Road Little League Park h n i ! Nern l il ! Signed Bike Route d ai M

Manuel Thornhill Tr ry

anuel 3 a M d 3 t 0 y i ! l

4 i n a ! t s B h s t e Vann a M 2 Wide Shoulder h l to

h h e t

3 tle s t t Park #5 h Li g 5 d

Little A 6 ri t Project Types (Highlight) 3 B M h Moak B

i 2 u

n Moak 8 en n Critical Gap t a h e V s is o Goulden ta Trt ansformative a Slo-Pitch Softball Assn Field Conner Conner

Important 3 th 2 Nor Lincoln Park n 3 uth 3 So 1 d

Secondary t

t h Peavey Q PROJECTS: PORT HURON 3 2

2 Alternative/Supporting 8 a es n urg St t

h h

n d

Peavey t

9 t

Opportunistic 3 0 WEST/SOUTH ZONE

4 a S h s a R u i Existing Bike Facile ities Ravenswood Road Park n B d l woo t ens l av R a C J a

S a a Off Road R h a m s r

i o u C M n l e

l B

i o s t i

n c

n C Side Path a a h °

n h l

i a s e g

i u

c a r B Wide Shoulder t n i

c L a C

u h i b a s 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 t

p e u Mermaid Park

On Ror ad i Bike LanCe onnecticut Park B t

t a Miles y

46 St. Clair County Trails Plan  PROJECTS: PORT HURON WEST/SOUTH ZONE

10TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS & ROAD DIET RAIL TO TWO-BRIDGES TRAIL CONNECTOR (GAP 5) (GAP 24) Segment 5A1 – IMPORTANT Segment 24F/24C/24H – ALTERNATIVE An alternative to (or additional future route The existing side path on 10th Street is in very poor supplementing) the Griswold Street/Oak Street route is condition and is not adequately buffered from the to utilize the existing railroad and utility corridor (24F) curb and active travel lanes. It also does not meet for an off-street trail connecting Griswold Street to standard width requirements for shared-use trails. Lapeer Avenue. From there, the trail can utilize advisory Pursue a road diet (four to three lanes) given the lower bike lanes and other bike boulevard treatments AADT volumes. Rebuild east side of the roadway with a along Rural Street (24G) to Water Street, providing a proper width side path trail. Alternatively, could build a connection to residences and Port Huron Little League two-way bikeway in the roadway via space created from Park. Water Street (24H), is a potential road diet the road diet as a less costly approach. candidate street, which could allow construction of a protected bikeway north to the existing Two-Bridges Trails. GRISWOLD-OAK BIKEWAY (GAP 23) Segment 23A/23B/23C - CRITICAL GAP The existing Wadhams to Avoca Trail ends just west of I-94. There is ample room below the I-94 bridge and to the east to construct a side path from the current trail terminus east to Michigan Road (23A). At Michigan Road, the side path crosses to the south side of the roadway and follows Griswold Street until it transitions into Oak Street (23B). Along Oak Street, parking can be removed from the south side of the street to create ample room for a wide protected bikeway (two-way bike travel) through the residential area. The three-lane portions of Oak Street would require a lane reduction down to two-lanes to provide room for the bikeway. Overall, this route provides a direct connection to the existing Bridge-to-Bay Trail (Blue Water River Walk portion) and from there into downtown Port Huron. The existing Blue Water River Walk may not be a direct enough or desired route for certain types of trail users (e.g. faster moving bike riders). A connection along 7th Street, with the potential use of advisory bike lanes connecting northward, can be considered as a supplemental link.

smithgroup.com 47 S

N S

e a e

i c w i n

n n t

t M la

u e Y o K

8th J r P

o o a

r w n m

k u C a t

a l L

a C

s n

r t

o I

a o l

O n l

l i

l i o e I nc h n u i Delaware Park B

th n a 8th n 9 r

i o

a d S o a s

s i d E i e s c a o V c 9th n I

A i

t r 9 o a 9th G i g 4 at i 9th e r n N

R G A o th i 10 e a G r o c L

w g

c s o d M oo a i Victorian W n i

ota e l s s r a e inn i M Y a

c f s e a A r i o

o r e s v i

r o p T l l e k n d n r llard l Co y

i t l a

B ot ti o 11th D t ra 1th G e 1 e 11th l g a E d w i th 12 r I t a 9 o B ti r 4 ra e G 13th

13th 13th t k

W r o i e

t o

M w G s

a Y

c i e ! N n H

G o w W o Municipal Park /

n e Huron Park a e n C 4 r w e m g s N h I 14t 9 a s h t i 4 i 1 9 I r p a n J o o 4 ! e s t

a W r h 4th i 1 n s G i a

r r e a d 6A Veteran's Memorial Park

e ! ! ne ! y r lle P Ga G W e e b C rd n n r a e

a Is o n r I n H ! o l u t 9 t o s r i !19A o o g n 4 ! y h r 15t t n a i ! / l W h v d

s a o a I n

9 W i

a 4 6B E !! i

l e ! e CHRYSLER BEACH n Chrysler Beach

V ! o th CONNECTOR 6 e i 1 ! t

r a m r 16th !!7G G o / Washington Park

n 4

t 9

I W

E i

c 17th C N

o C e o C

M w a l o s o r i

n i o n r J n

a n

l n e l i i d n e e r

R a o s c r a s

a e t T o i

n y c y t

g a u a

e 18th t B o 18th t e O g d r i

i r

l e wood B Joan M y

i c PROJECTS: h

r a

Oconne n MARYSVILLE ZONE R !

a n Cu n Hunter o ttle t ! g g e n vi 7F o !! merald C E !

Cuttle ! Cuttle

l Marysville Public Golf Course

n BUSHA-CUTTLE SIDE PATH

a !

h Witt s u

B l i

a r

o t

e Mack g d RIVER ROAD BIKEWAY i r Route Segements B !7A a ! h Facility Type s Carleto u n m B u Intersection Improvement r d

K l ! e e ! ndall

! Off Road Trail M !

g ! r ! 7E B u s ! r Side Path Trail l ! s b i l

l d i

l s i g ! M k e

W c ! i Separated Bikeway (2-Way) t

o V

B ! ! a Buffered Bike Lanes Ho y ffm an T

r ! ! a i Advisory Bike Lanes l

! ! Enhanced Sharrows ! ! Conventional Bike Lane E

i ! 7B s P ! o ! ! n y Signed Bike Route r

m ! i i v ! d Wide Shoulder e

! Project Types (Highlight) ! s ! r ! Davi ! Wills !7D e ! v is v i Critical Gap Davis Da R TransfoDramviastive 7C Important !!

Secondary er iv! R r e

v Alternative/Supporting i

R Opportunistic Existing Bike Facilities Off Road

Side Path °

Wide Shoulder e

R 0 0.15 0.3 0.6

i On Road Bike Lane v e Miles

48 St. Clair County Trails Plan  ! PROJECTS: MARYSVILLE ZONE

CHRYSLER BEACH CONNECTOR (GAP 6) BUSHA-CUTTLE SIDE PATH (GAP 7) Segment 6B – CRITICAL GAP Segment 7F / 7E – ALTERNATIVE A short section of side path along River Road with new Should the River Road Bikeway be infeasible, a side mid-block crossing and intersection improvements path along Cuttle Road and Busha Highway can provide to connect to the existing trail along the water’s edge. a connection south. This alignment can also be Avoids having to route trail uses through parking lots considered in conjunction with the River Road Bikeway and congested riverfront areas. in the long-term as an opportunity to create a localized trail loop.

RIVER ROAD BIKEWAY (GAP 7) Segment 7A/7B/7D – TRANSFORMATIVE A constrained but transformational opportunity to extend and utilize the existing trail better by making a connection further south to the existing side path on Busha Highway. This requires coordination with property owners and additional engineering work along steeper sections. One-way vehicle travel would be maintained with the shoulder widened towards the east to make space for a two-way bike facility. Retaining walls and barriers will likely be needed to stabilize the bank and protect riders.

DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE RIVER ROAD BIKEWAY

smithgroup.com 49 !

St. Clair River Country Club

Route Segements u

Facility TyA pe l !

n B ! !!8A Intersection Improvement o

wm ! e ! an Yanke Off Road Trail River Point

! ! Side Path Trail

! ! Separated Bikeway (2-Way)

R ! a ! s River Pointe 9A n Buffered Bike Lanes a !

J ! g a

H ! ! s e Advisory Bike Lanes B

B p Scott

n h ! a

T ! t Enhanced Sharrows a s e

i m

r h Irene ! t a n h ckhe r a o ! Bl e C n Conventional Bike Lane n

r R

u ! ! b V Achatz ! Signed Bike Route e a ! r

! ! Wide Shoulder n l r i u a r b T dale e Project Types (Highlight) Birk a y r Alice W. Moore Woods Nature Sanctuary a B l B i Critical Gap a o r t T

e y Transformative g a d i B r to B ry e R Turnber Important g a m id n u r

chum g r Ket d B Secondary e d Glene l r d a e o gle f s t n M a

l r Alternative/Supporting t h S n

i 9B o !

H o ! Devon Opportunistic r T Saint B Andrew Existing Bike Facilities Brow ridge s r n to B e ay T B d v rail enedi i ct n R Off Road 2 RIVER ROAD h r Greig Park t e 4 iv Side Path R IMPROVEMENTS t

t s

s e Vine a W Wide Shoulder E Karen R Bai oya h e rd l t On Road Bike Lane d i 6 a d i r s

r r W 3 h at e e o rl t oo Ro t y al v 0 i c h

i 1 t R

V 9

Vine n

2 ! PROJECTS: ST l i

a r

h O ! T rch t ard 5 y

a x CLAIR ZONE o B Adam Mu C lb s St. Clair Community Pool erry o t

Thorna e pple g d i r

J B ay Adams d r

3 Ash h t D 0 Jay elano 1 Jay Palmer Park R !9C a h ! tt Tru le R mbull t un Cass 4 h Cas t s x Rattle R W 8

un o itherell

Rattle Run C Clinton ! 10A ! !! ! e d i d

y !s! o 10B r

e Jac ! ! kson P e o in n e !

v r i w h h

a t t k R

C C 6 a Hugo edar O

h h

t y t h r t 5 9 Fort 1 n 1 Boat Harbor e 1 h

t d Sinclair H St. Clair Little League Park h 0 J n g u t liet 1 2 n 2 i t 1 i Francis h

W W Moore M Fred! Fred W Moore ary !!17A !!9D y r CLINTON STREET e i n la r C a t BIKEWAY C in O a Ha a Pine Shores Golf Course S rriet k

a f

k Joseph B. Klecha Park e o l

d a

i G n P s

alm ! d er r

e e n ! v l i o a

s R d i

d m

e l E l

E a

i 9E d !

g !

t o Oak ST. CLAIR SOUTH

B Margaret e n a i

r CONNECTOR

! H a e T t ! haway h r e t a !

r d a

i i i l a ! l C s C r D e t elaware v n i E i

v a R S R W e r iv o g o Elm e d r w f ood r i e e M R ld e i n a v White Pine in e Manor Park r Rivera Park Manor P Ivy Bree ark Bree T ashmoo 9F K Saint Clair !! i

Saint Clair g !

n a

i R d n a I n ° g

g 0 est 0.15 0.3 0.6 s N wk Ha Miles

50 St. Clair County Trails Plan  PROJECTS: ST. CLAIR ZONE

RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (GAP 9) ST. CLAIR SOUTH CONNECTOR (GAP 9) Segment 9A/9B/9C - IMPORTANT Segment 9A/9B/9C - SECONDARY Planned improvements in St. Clair along portions of The St. Clair South Connector is an on-road route Riverside Drive and extending into River Road include utilizing conventional bike lanes and short segments a road diet and establishing bike lanes. Road diet of buffered bike lanes where feasible. The right-of- plans indicate adequate width for creating buffered/ way is narrow and of limited width for more extensive protected bike lanes, and/or consolidating bike lanes facilities. The side path on King Road provides a higher into a protected two-way bikeway, especially in the level facility (and is already built) and should be used commercial sections (9C). Section 9A is a priority as the main connection south from St. Clair. for a side path continuation or buffered bikeway via shoulder widening.

CLINTON STREET BIKEWAY (GAP 10) Segment 10A/10B – CRITICAL GAP The Clinton Street Bikeway is critical for providing an east-west connection from the existing Fred Moore side path trail and connected trails/side paths through the center of town east into the downtown commercial area. Section 10A in the residential zone is relatively straightforward given the lack of on-street parking and overly wide travel lanes with unused pavement areas. Section 10B, going through a more commercial area, will be trickier to construct but provides a connection. DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE CLINTON ROAD BIKEWAY

smithgroup.com 51

Route Segements Fra ncis r

v Facility Type !i Springborn R

Intersection Improvement e

i ! ! R

Off Road Trail r

v ! ! i R A Side Path Trail Spr spe

in e n

g l

l ! bo rn e e ! g Separated Bikeway (2-Way) B d

ri ! rk ! a Buffered Bike Lanes P

! ! Advisory Bike Lanes Springborn Rd Belle River Access

! ! Enhanced Sharrows

! ! Conventional Bike Lane !!11A

K !

! i Signed Bike Route n

g n

ooth a ! B River Park b ! Wide Shoulder r U

Project Types (Highlight) i

T Critical Gap

B PROJECTS: Mattis Transformative o on t

Important i

r MARINE CITY

Secondary

t n

a ZONE

Alternative/Supporting a

e l Opportunistic P

e y M

l Existing Bike Facilities e l l a

e l Mabel r

a y arine City R M V

ty i rine OCiff Road ! a v M r oodworth e e W

r v !

Side Path R Degurse ! Wide Shoulder Maple

i On Road Bike Lane n g !11I ! 11B !! H Gladys olland t n d l a P W d o s e a s n r B a tm

r 2 a e i r n k r l i i H y s d t e e P r er g r

v a in i ropolis e

Met M a R 4 !

5 t M t o

6 t t e e h !

h l t B

l k h in r

e B

a !11D ro a a

y !a ! B d ! ! M w M st West T ay We r West a R P i iv e l e a Marine City Beach 3 r r l r r r

d e Plank Lowell e !11C t v y ! a i r ! R a W ! l e M i l l

r Hill e m Broadway Park T B a i l Je y l S i ffe a ain rs t W o B C n lai

o r

t h

t e

e b g Water Works Park a

i z

r High i High l 11E

B !

E ! ! U ni Ward Ward on t !11G e ! k n St. Clair Park i r a a Cottrell M M

ari M King Road ne ! ll B Be ridg!e Nautical Mile Park ! B r

g ! ! e Robertson !11F ! r n t o Roberts e o rown M t B a B rown B a

a i W r n

P T ll v ro i Car a r Carroll

a r MARINE CITY LOOP R

l e 11H Bruce e ! l ce r Bru ! l

P e

a 3 B

r Scott r r k d

e e

r ! a

Chartier ! r e

! v R i

i R er v harti er C e harti e C r l l e

B Bowery Alger !!11J !!11K MARINE SOUTH

r CONNECTOR e iv R MDNR Boat Launch Marine City Brid ge t o Ba

y Tr ail ! ! !

!11L Sh ! ort cut

l i

a r

T! °

y a

o t 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 e

g d i Miles r

52 St. Clair County Trails Plan  !

! !

s MDNR Boat Launch Marine City h !!11K

!!11J ! PROJECTS: MARINE CITY ZONE ! !

Sh ort !11L cu ! MARINE CITY LOOP TRAIL (GAP 11) t

Segment 11D/11C/11E/11F/11H – IMPORTANT ! This series of segments provides a connection from the trails and side paths west of the downtown area into the center of town and the waterfront area. The route along 11D will require coordination with property owners ! given the tight space between the curb and back of

Av sidewalk. A non-motorized bridge may be considered alon over the river in this location. Section 11C has ample pavement width and lanes to accommodate in-road l i a r

T bicycle facilities, such as buffered lanes transitioning y a Lo B ui s o t

L t into conventional lanes and/or sharrows in the core e itt le s g 1 d i r F business area. Going south out of the downtown B ield area (11F and 11H) can utilize advisory bikes lanes and Br oad sharrows given the low traffic volumes (less than 2,000 bri dge AADT).

r e v i R

MARINE SOUTH CONNECTOR (GAP 11) Segment 11K/11L - SECONDARY Route continues southward down River Road along Chartier Road. ExistingRoute sidewalks Segements can be widened

Facility Type ! N !12A (and extended) into a !side path. Ample room along the au ! Off Road Trail t ical

side of the roadway for! ! sideSide Pa tpathh Trail construction. This

alignment is preferred! ! overSepara t11Jed B ik(potentialeway (2-Way) off-street trail)

! ! Buffered Bike Lanes due to having a clearer! and more direct connection into

! Advisory Bike Lanes the downtown area. ! If site constraints post a challenge,

! Enhanced Sharrows 11J can be used as an! alternative! Conventional Bik ealignment Lane to 11K,

providing a connection! ! Stoign ethed Bike existing Route side path on ! ! Wide Shoulder Chartier Road. ALGONAC STATE PARK CONNECTOR Project Types (Highlight) Rob Critical Gap erts ALGONAC STATE PARKTransfo rCONNECTORmative (GAP 12) Important

Segment 12A/12B – SECONDARY

! Secondary ! !!12B! Route shown on map at rightAlternative/Supporting Algonac State Park If space permits, can beO implementedpportunistic as a side path. Riverfront Park Property

Existing Bike Facilities i

a If not, widen the existing shoulder into a protected r

T Off Road

B bikeway/trail on the west side of the road. This trail Side Path o ° t

Wide Shoulder i provides a connection to the existing trail in Algonac r

B 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 State Park. On Road Bike Lane Miles

smithgroup.com 53

Route Segements s r

e t Facility Type e P

Intersection Improvement ! Jankow ! Off Road Trail

l i ! a ! Side Path Trail r T

y a ! a r ! kw B Separated Bikeway (2-Way) a o y t

! ! e Buffered Bike Lanes g d i

! ! Advisory Bike Lanes B ! ! Enhanced Sharrows

r ! ! L e

Conventional Bike Lane v i

M R ! a

! r

Signed Bike s Route

h ! r ! e Wide Shoulder v i

R Project Types (Highlight) Critical Gap M

s Transformativeh

Important

S n

to o neS t !

to g Secondanrey Vi n r ill i gin M h ia s t

a s Alternative/Supporting u

W c o L S Opportunistic he Cherry rw C oo o d Existing Bike Facilities 13A lo e ! N n e ! M o i L a r

Off Road i C t l a ll ! e h n n o unset t g S B e l ! r Side Path l A a ll u da v n Wide Shoulder e Ke l 13B Maple t !! a an On Road Bike Lane w lm

R O E ! ld

Fie os Dixie ! el aw S n ark a ! P

t D C Cole ix

l ie a C i Lions Park r h an ne ls Golfview yd L e oc Ve ha ne ve ti n an In e te t rl a oc t he S !13C n it ! Fru De G lta Sm re ith en r S n a e c g iv o i O h R A u r c c ir t h i m a a rd M l y C e C t Beth t la in ta y a S S

S ! um !

me Smith Field Park ALGONAC BIKE Scout & Columbia Street Park r F ! ! n ru !13D H o it ! ow t Ple C a in a la BOULEVARD rd l sa y Co C nt lum bia F rui Lib t er n ty o d d l r e a r h w R i S ob a PROJECTS: ALGONAC ZONE d b l S E in u s Water Tower Park C m !13E t m ! t in n e t o r e a t s a L S g s t ib n Riverfront Park a t er i r F ie ty h e r s v n a n i a R e t W H e ig ir k d r h la n a ic e C s M M t n in w a o S

!!14A ! T Wo rfo

! P lk

ointe ! T ! remble !13F ! Po inte T remble

n r y

a e

l n E t

e s a

K w e g d E

Ruskin ie k c a r Townsend H M e e Co t le nle a n y w e g p d rd E lla ro i th W a L °

0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Miles

54 St. Clair County Trails Plan  PROJECTS: ALGONAC ZONE

ALGONAC BIKE BOULEVARD (GAP 13) Segment 13A/13B/13C/13D – SECONDARY The Algonac Bike Boulevard begins at the terminus of the Algonac State Park Trail near Sherwood and Michigan Road. The route uses a side path (13A), which then transitions into shared roadway (sharrows and advisory bike lanes) for 13B and 13C. These roads are residential with low traffic volumes. Segment 13D passes through a more commercial and built-up area, with a proposed side path connecting along Smith, across River Road, and to the existing trail/boardwalk (13E). Opportunities to improve the existing boardwalk should be considered to make it more accommodating of all types of non-motorized users.

ALGONAC BOARDWALK

smithgroup.com 55 !

l ble M e W Trum Heb a

K y e Fellowship Grove

e e Peggy r

o r

n s n worth e s 18A A Ell r ! r 33 Mile l P in W l o i il g a M w r nd nd t e K a Pou T u K o a B r A ! Po C r e e n n y a T r r n M l i l r o u r e L e l y el L i e art a B N r r r n n e s rtel i e n a i B C b n n n g t w a i e o M e ore t r Mo o l P W M r d d T re a a F co n m i r R b O n a i rc e B i dg ha g t l e rd d e S io Tr i e t 17A a R k ! R il b a

i Park i r vision

d e n ion Di g ! Divis

e !

n G Casco Township Belle River Area

32 Mile ! !

e ! ! L ! ! 16C o on r 16B ! p Division Divisi Division ! at

! o t n Adair !16H io t

a B Dow r

! e

F ! G s

o l

16A s

! e r ! ! C e

16G 1 e ! R P ! n h s

a u t v

t !16F s r ! ! e

h r Gierk ! ! 16D h a iane !16E ! W D ! l ! k ! a aint Clair y S a B Rattle Run

e i r k 31 Mile t A e

s R e

o C R r u F i h a t o e u d M

r r A e

c e

h l

d t

t B t L io Puttygu t e o a t ut w g r h Putty

u e G

P Route Segements l 30 Mile a n L k 4 ub Facility Type 9 ah I n W Intersection Improvement

Lenox Township Community Center and Park ! ! Off LRinodasde Tyrail t 4 ! ! o 9 Side Path Trail ti I a r Lindsey W

29 Mile 29 Mile G ! ! Separated Bikeway (2-Way)

COUNTYLINE SIDE H e s ! ! Pine Brook s Buffered Bike Lanes Township Park Site PATH e n

! ! Advisory Bike Lanes 15A ! ! ! Enhanced SharrowM s

Meisner y er ! sn e Mei ! Conventional Bike Lr ane 28 Mile

! ! Signed Bike Route

Huron Pointe Sportsmen's Club ! ! Wide Shoulder

B Project Types (Highlight)

o atham h Ch s u Critical Gap

t Riverbrook Park Main y Cranston Springborn Transformative

27 Mile C Clark Clark o u Important P

4 n 9 a t I l y m

s E C

la L k Secondary

wson St. Clair Shores Sportsmen Club s i a

O e

4 r 9 City I F AMltaerrineative/Supporting e ine City E r Mar

v St. Clair Lakeplain Forest

o i Oak Ridge Golf Course

s R

t M C Opportunistic a ile M o in s 26 t 94/ r I p e W e 26 Mile l o v 6 Mile Mi C Exiskting Bike Facilities 2 6 r m /2 o e 4 a e A I 9 u r E t C n e n t a Off Road y w S L

N i n e ! w Bertha M. Pollard Park e Side Path H LAKE ST CLAIR a Hobarth v e B n Wide Shoulder B u BIKEWAY

r e

a t

h o k On Road Bike Lane u n n e

e y av r Arnold S H w ew W rth Pointe 4/N 25 Mile No a a n P l I 9 s A Laur P Marke 25 Mile en E h a i v i C n n l

o g r m t W e e o n R n e s d

i tt e Bre k d a x

g l f e o A e ir Mount Trashmore r la D t B d l t C h a k in e r ely Sa e e e

r r

k K t f

o a a i i oc e t a S rt Cu n ho

s S B l t B d h ! m le re l i oln

inc S a L e M e w S e 4 Woodl Ira Township Park n and 2 W a

n e C 24 Mile West Hill a !14C Broadbridg y

r C a s A

e irw L 14D C a S F ! ! e E h s a ! r i r k n h n h l e g B e e s m W F l g a a

e a e e ! i e d L t r e o s o y H i n k l M k e Ivy e e n G t urdick r o o n

S n s R d n a M A lt r a a o h iv I t H s a s n a a h a L e o h y a u M S s l n a ia n r i l Ruedisale Point Park Di She e l d e xie a e i l t M y r t l n ! D k S i e i i c xi L y M a e e B h n a M

W P e i e r

r H e ia l r a D c l u G 14E r

h n !

R ! k tl o ! ! e Walter and Mary Burke Park (Downtown Park) ! 23 Mile A y se 23 Mile l t

e Perch m Waterworks Park

n k

a o Koenig y V s s n r

n D i e n lle ff

e a C Je c B

r r

e Sikon Jerome i d Callens s g

t n e o s Brandenburg Park t r o S H e o f B u o ef g k PROJECTS: ANCHOR a a e J r r y b u L T s r h o e a F t t t t i o S ie l r c s e l BAY ZONE b son r hn e r u s Jeffe ve e i i o R de lt r G Sa St. John's Marshland State Wildlife Area!14B

y a B r o h c D

n y A k °e ay B or ch D An y k 0 0.5 1 2e go min Miles Fla

56 St. Clair County Trails Plan  ! PROJECTS: ANCHOR BAY ZONE

LAKE ST. CLAIR BIKEWAY (GAP 14) MINOR LAKE ST. CLAIR BIKEWAY CONNECTORS Segment 13/E13F/14A/14B/14C – SECONDARY Segment 14D/14E This is a challenging stretch of roadway (Dyke Road 14D is a proposed side path to connect from Dixie and Dixie Highway) with relatively high traffic volumes Highway north on Meldrum Road to the Ira Township and speeds with a range of adjacent uses. However, it Hall and Ira Park. provides a key connection along the scenic lakefront Segment 14E is a shared road/bike route through a and wildlife areas, as well as providing a connection residential and marina district that provides a clear to New Baltimore. Sidewalks in segment 13F and connection to Water Works Park. 14A can be expanded on the north side of the road (where present) into a side path. Segment 14B and 14C would transition into a buffered bikeway section. In some locations, the existing shoulders may be wide COUNTY LINE SIDE PATH (GAP 15) enough to accommodate a bikeway with modest Segment 15A – SECONDARY improvements. In other locations, especially along This segment extends the existing side path along the Marsh where the roadway is more constrained, County Line Road, which ends at Anchor Bay High the shoulder would need to be widened, separate side School, north into Richmond. This side path can be paths established, or boardwalks constructed. This constructed on the east side of the roadway as a could be constructed as an alternate route for the separate side path where room permits or a buffered Great Lake to Lake Trail Route #1. Although it has some bikeway by paving and widening the shoulder. The dimensional challenges it does offer the opportunity to bridge over I-94 is very narrow, and a separate connect with numerous waterfront communities. non-motorized bridge crossing may be preferred. Any modification of existing bridges or new bridge DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE LAKE ST. CLAIR construction would require coordination with MDOT BIKEWAY (ADJACENT LAND USE CONTEXT VARIES) and FHWA.

smithgroup.com 57 G P

o D r

i C u rd o wa ll o c a E I 69 W u H W I 6 n 9 9 9 d I 6 I 6 a W E e n Port Huron SE tate Game Area e s n Route Segements l d

l a

n t y rling un l Spa o D ! s w p s !

i rail a d T d enwoo H Facility Type to Gre Hill r h M s e bu irc L lum B d Co a H O

ng e rli M parling Spa old a r w i m S v Gris l r c riswold a a l Intersection Improvement G e k n e p a

S y D o t l r d

t e t

i r ! a n e G t ! y t p o

y Off Road Trail o s 4 l l 9 4 e il r H o I 9

t e

d Jasper Woods Memorial I o !

! e m W n / /E Side Path Trail l E y e l S e e s Card l g g Dove

n tu Detroit Audubon Preserve sh n n ! o rd A A a a ! C s n e l R R F e r Separated Bikeway (2-Way) Gre v l o e a ove e o D

v n n

x m t

e ! ! E Buffered Bike Lanes Lambs S

a Moak ! r

l R ! m d W B

i Advisory Bike Lanes C e c

s r ers S ast v M o h o I

M a a

v m a 9 ! ls Sear R n e i B ! a d 4 n

a Enhanced Sharrows t a y u t

n A ok n o P br ash e L r

g x a r n ! ood vensw e l r s a ! R a

k Conventional Bike Lane od i F wo s Ravens r W

s i

mb t ! a z L R ! I

Signed Bike Route 9 i od c nswo Smiths Creek Hunt Club 4 e h

C Rav

m ! mbs ! La o

l a W th Wide Shoulder u 5 C W

n m

M a o Friendship Rod and Gun Club a

l b v i e l reek 6th n s C e th u i e Sm s

o Project Types (Highlight) s s S Creek s R h t r Smi t ette C c Marqu o Leaning Tree Golf Course i o d e th H H 9 G th t 9 u n Critical Gap g r ert t o b e Gil t n r t e

e e n o i

e r t N r ot y n a ti Transformative o r a w in r l a A K G ek G e a Cr F ! hs o Smit M / s n e i o 4 t h B l d z 19A 9 l ! Important s

u I T !

S r r ! n a M W ls l W t lpine lpine Wi 16th i A A s lpine i n A l a Secondarye a Yager s h l F g e Yager o r d i ine s ger A lp i Ya e A t n e 18th R z t n l C u R Alternative/Supporting o l s R e e e a l e n n a Yager ik n t B g W e r le S l e ! n r i Bordma Opportunistic e v ttle t s Cu v o ry Cuttle i a d R M d olan to D e a n d Witt Existing Bike FacilDiotilaes R n d n al r o Fitzger i d i m c h B P c h i Pra Off Road R a tt m r t

l a e S rith F n t

t t

o Side Path G M

a oll a d Carr v y

i e Drexler Fred Meiselbach Park n ! r Wide Shoulder P r K d lett eber a ner W l avis m D ber B On Road Bike Lane We s a Weber u m Otisikita Council of G.S. Preserve

a M Thousands Trails

n t a tio 4 y a ill idor r 9 A Mesk e Corr e G I A r Lin we l Po r l n Meskill /E e

d s n B t r o m a e all ti Kend a S a u w r h t m G e d s a an i Neum a n

n W 94 B Hyslop I a E r !18A t H ! l awford e B Cr e K o t w s M t

e m

a a n

e n

C y gg W Lo R n n

S e

a a e

i t r t u t t d Otsiketa o rt le h Sho 4 e g ke 9 y Yan d R e I h d u H Columbus County Park y i E n

a l u l ggeman R r Bri a r d

t s d s t Han l t Big e e

r R

u u Route t n A ike a ne Belle River Way B Vi r N FRED MOORE Ketchum l Hand i Big n Bertha A. Daubendiek Memorial Nature Sanctuary

il g W a t HIGHWAY TRAIL r o Greig Park T e n N r C n Vine le x e Trumb

K o l Fellowship Grove r e r C b Robert umble C o Tr He W a n te

e u r y n gg y e ! P o r e o

e R i e a k e o ! r 10A ik h P n t g s or ! w r B lls w E o M e e W l a il k v w a a s e C

Pound y e i und r n o r P a ! O r

n M e o L

t Bartel e Moore St. Clair Little League Park b W d l i Fred te r n Bar n Fred W Moore e o e

e m h

ic T B R A r !17A B a ! P l l e i r a l i i e n

P a

r b ! ivision l k v! isionD g i o ! D

e ! L C

e t ! ! w ! o o r 16B ! !16C p t e ! n a n ! B ! i B ! t re o air r e d e a n A

H !16H L ! l Ivy S l i e e

! n w B Do W F

s M 16D ! ! e o ! R r

s a i

c 1 d r ! ! T i e d v e K s g r

n e h

a s

16F t e ! i ! ! r ! n a 16A i t

! l !! ! t W l m

W o !16E e ! ! y s ! a B e ir a y aint Cla s a S e

r B t y

r A

i Mile t i T 31 k W s Rattle Run c r e k F e a t a

o o R R i i d l M r r t i o h e a RICHMOND TRAIL a

e r d u a s

l G A t m t d e

r s

EXTENSION u

m B Puttygut t e

o t Tripp ti h Puttygut a u r Indian ile y G 30 M Lu Belle River ba hn Remer Lindsey

Lenox Township Community Center and Park Township Hall Park K i n R River g ec M Belle or M Mile Lindsey c ile 29 a 29 M K

i H

e n

e r l

e s

Pine Brook y s

n K

l M

15A m ! i ! n a

s g

s S

h r t Meisner Meisne a Gurtler r

l 28 Mile l e Indian Trail Road Park

h Huron Pointe Sportsmen's Club i

n i F

c a r

o C h

o Springborn t C y

h n oth P Bo

e u B

t a

t y r

l o c

m 27 Mile t L u h

s i y PROJECTS: GREAT LAKE TO e n

r n ! !

d Marine City B ty i arine Ci a C M

LAKE EXTENSION ZONE n °

o !

u St. Clair Lakeplain Forest ! ! S West ! ! n 11D t ! t ! a ! y

e B L il 26 Mile v

M i nk

i Pla e

n 0 0.75 1.5 3 6 l 2 ! l / t e 4 e I 9 h Ward !11G ! u ! E Miles ! y

King Road !

Brown

! ! 58 St. Clair County Trails Plan 

! ! PROJECTS: GREAT LAKE TO LAKE EXTENSION ZONE

RICHMOND TRAIL EXTENSION (GAP 16) FRED MOORE HIGHWAY TRAIL (GAP 17) Segment 16A/16B/16C – CRITICAL Segment 17A – CRITICAL Richmond has already assembled plans for a trail Gap 17 reflects a preferred route for extending the Great connection from the existing end point of the Macomb- Lake to Lake Trail Route #1 east from its current end Orchard Trail (part of Great Lake to Lake Trail Route point in the City of Richmond (as part of the Richmond #1) through the downtown Richmond area and east Trail Extension described above). to the municipal limits. These segments propose a Segment 17A provides a side path connection on combination of off-street trail (16A) and side paths the south side of the Division Street and Fred Moore (16B and 16C) on the south side of 32 Mile/Division Highway from Richmond eastward to the existing Street. There are some tight locations (e.g. at a railroad side paths at King Road and Fred Moore Highway in crossing) where coordination with adjacent property St. Clair. Large portions of Fred Moore Highway have owners and the rail company will be needed. Richmond an additional 80 feet of right-of-way on the south side has already acquired access to portions of segment 16B of the road, providing opportunities to establish a for trail improvements. side path trail well removed from the road way. Road Segments 16E,F,G,H along Main Street represent a bridges over streams and/or I-94 are wide enough to future opportunity to provide a supplemental trail accommodate transitioning to a buffered bikeway in connection into the heart of town, linking the north some locations, but in others may require a separate and south commercial areas together while improving boardwalk or non-motorized bridge. mobility options for residents and visitors alike. Fred Moore Highway was selected, in working closely with the Steering Committee, as the preferred route given its relatively lower cost of construction and, more importantly, that it provides a direct connection to the City of St. Clair and other shoreline communities, which an alignment along Gratiot Avenue would circumvent. DESIGN APPROACH FOR THE FRED MOORE HIGHWAY TRAIL Alternate routes for the Great Lakes to Lake Trail Route #1 could include Gratiot (18A0 or the Lake St. Clair Bikeway (13E-F, 14A-C).

smithgroup.com 59

CHAPTER 04 IMPLEMENTATION

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The implementation strategy for the St. Clair County Implementation of certain critical gaps and all Trails Plan calls for identifying clear priorities and transformative projects may take multiple years to actionable trail projects that will rapidly help bridge design, engineer, and fund. Where there are lower critical gaps and build a more robust trail network. cost, quicker to implement, near-term ALTERNATIVE This strategy organizes the projects described in ROUTES identified, emphasis should be placed the previous chapter by project type and provides a on implementing these as an interim connection. high-level cost estimate as well. However, attention and action must still be taken to continue advancing the primary route.

The SECONDARY routes are the last level of priority. APPROACH Primarily, these routes extend the trail system into new areas (as opposed to filling gaps that connect The recommended approach for implementation existing trails together). Long-term, these routes are seeks to build the most robust and complete vital for building a robust, county-wide trail system. network as directly as possible and in a manner While attention should be paid to implement these that satisfies the all ages and all abilities design routes when an opportunity presents itself, building approach. This approach recommends the these in the absence of first addressing critical gaps following: and transformative projects can result in additional Focus on the CRITICAL GAP and fragmented or disconnected trails and bikeway TRANSFORMATIVE projects first, from both facilities being built. As consequence, their value technical resources (staff time, etc) standpoint may not be fully realized at the time of construction. and funding procurement. These two categories of projects represent the critical linkages that will build out the regional trail network. High-level funding (large grants, county-wide or regional transportation programs, etc) should be focused on these critical gaps and transformative projects first, as they will benefit the greatest number of uses across the county.

The IMPORTANT projects should be viewed as the next level of priority down. However, action towards implementation should be taken immediately and in concurrence with planning and designing the critical gaps and transformative projects.

62 St. Clair County Trails Plan  TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINIONS

This implementation strategy provides a high-level, The route selection process considered existing conceptual cost opinion for each type of trail or curb-to-curb dimensions so as to minimize the need bikeway facility on a linear foot basis. These costs to reconstruct or move street curb. reflect direct construction costs. The following stipulations apply to the cost numbers: The averaged costs per linear foot of construction, by Does NOT include the cost for roadway re-surfacing trail type and subject to the above stipulations, are or other utility improvements that may want to align listed in the table below: with the project.

Does NOT include the cost of purchasing land or access easements for trails outside of the public TRAIL TYPE COST PER LF right-of-way. Off-Road Trail (10’) $145 / LF Does NOT include costs for addressing Side Path (10’) with Drainage $180 / LF environmental issues or remediation needs. Two-Way Bikeway Urban (within $135 / LF Does NOT include soft costs such as survey work, existing curb-to-curb) permitting, planning, design, or engineering. Two-Way Bikeway Rural (where it $200 / LF requires widening a shoulder) Does NOT include any escalation of cost numbers Buffered Bike Lanes $70 / LF in urban over time. Dollar amounts reflect those at the time this plan was produced. $55 / LF in rural Advisory Bikes Lanes $15 / LF DOES include a 40% construction allowance over Enhanced Sharrows $12 / LF the baseline to account for general contingencies, allowances for utility adjustments, drainage, or other Conventional Bike Lanes $15 / LF construction items directly impacted by the facility construction.

DOES include allowances for intersection improvements and enhancements.

Two-way separated bikeways, trails, and shared-use paths are assumed to be 10-feet wide using asphalt. Includes allowances for pavement markings, signage, delineator posts, curb islands, and other design elements standard to trails and bikeways.

smithgroup.com 63

Critical Gaps Important BRIDGE-TO-BAY TRAIL - KEY PROJECTS Transformative Alternate Secondary

Project Name GAP MILES COST * Notes Lighthouse Park Connector 2 0.4 $135k Low cost, advisory bike lanes and side paths Michigan & Fort Street 3 0.5 $290k Widening existing sidewalks and improving intersections for Improvements greater user comfort and safety Chrysler Beach Connector 6 0.1 $140k Short side path connection with new mid-block crossings Clinton Street Bikeway 10 0.9 $735k Separated bikeway through a primarily residential area Military-Huron Bikeway 4 0.9 $1.1M Contingent on a road diet (meets initial criteria) to construct two-way separated bikeway. Preserves parking. Minimal curb impacts River Road Bikeway 7 1.2 $1.5M May require minor private property encroachments. May require building low retaining wall at edge of embankment Black River Run 25 1.9 $1.5M Utilizes public river corridor, school property, and rights-of-way Gratiot Side Path 1 1.0 $950k Urban side path 10th Street Improvements 5 0.3 $265k Deteriorating existing facilities, road diet opportunity along roadway River Road Improvements 9 2.0 $1.4M Will be partly implemented through the planned road diet project Marine City Loop Trail 11 1.7 $440k Combination of treatments to connect into the heart of town

BRIDGE-TO-BAY TRAIL - SECONDARY/ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

Lake Shore Road Bikeway 21 5.6 $2.6M Alternative route should Fort Gratiot to Lakeport State Park be unable to secure property access for an off-road trail Quay Connector 4 0.2 $170k Builds on Quay Street improvements pending implementation Busha-Cuttle Side Path 7 2.1 $2.0M Alternative southward route should River Road Bikeway be infeasible Pine Grove Connector 25 0.7 $712k Side paths to complete the loop from Black River to the Two- Bridges Trail Fort Gratiot to Lakeport 21 3.3 $2.5M Requires access easements or property acquisition for entire State Park length Black River Run South 25 0.8 $1.6M Additional trails and side paths through school and park Connector property. Large non-motorized bridge crossing over Black River St. Clair South Connector 9 1.4 $335k Lower cost conventional bike lanes. Provides more direct south compared to routing west along the King Road side path Marine South Connector 11 1.1 $1.1M Side path extension Algonac State Park 12 2.2 $2.1M Rural side path or separated bikeway via widening the shoulder Connector Algonac Bike Boulevard 13 0.9 $330k Primarily advisory lanes and other lower cost in-road treatments along a low speed and volume roadway Lake St. Clair Bikeway 14 13.1 $13.5M Rural separated bikeway via shoulder widening County Line Side Path 15 5.9 $5.6M Side path trail extension

The Bridge-to-Bay Trail projects reflect the largest Implementing just the Critical Gap, Transformative, subset of trails in this plan and represent 48.2-miles and Important routes would provide a contiguous of trail and $58.9-million in conceptual construction connection from the Fort Gratiot Park area south to costs. Marine City. This set of trails would cost approximately $13.2-million and includes 11-miles of new trail facility.

64 St. Clair County Trails Plan  L

r eddo e B J B

r D r

o i K

c u M c i k c m

k a e e C w r W b r t a a a i n i d n y l

l e n C M Yale om BRIDGE-TO-BAY TRAIL ley W Dud a st i o B Yale n i c l M d k r

B i c a d

r a PROJECTS W g s o h t tc e o a ur c d B B n k h r t S

w a o o

a m w a B s F y B Pine Grove Connector y n t a l o a r e i r A y d s g v g o T c o e a r n a t T Norma o r i l C a il B o E D a Lake Shore Road Bikeway n x t u alf y n e Metc an n c T Norm e s e r l i a l o n Metcalf i g Metca l in lf rl B N te e o a G r F S Avoca t o r h d l Fort Gratiot to Lakeport State Park y r

s t an v h lli G C Su a

r a

w a C d

t e o eard i Black River Run C B o

l B u P t t a

t in i r d h n T m eewa p K e Foley i o

c r a r G E b a k N r c ty Ci B o u y a i m Iml Gratiot Side path e v l o e s r V S

m r A t i t S y n o h afft e b Kr s h c C t b G t t e e o e r r K r r n i t e m b v i e t i Black River Run - South Connector d i s t R l b e L g a i f gh l o i i n t o n l ce n e Bry r a w r s Bryce d r D e W o a T

u d n o h

n a y i d m Lighthouse Park Connector ga s a n t r n T o

A e Water B e r vo iv A ter a a

o e Brandon c R 94/W l t M r a E I i r l pee T T l a L r e B a a a e il n H G y i g Michigan & Fort Street n u

l W I 69 d o o l i r

i r o Burt o r E ra n I B d 69 r T R e pu Quay Connector l i

l l S s e N y ling C River Spar to C old Rai n Grisw l Trai e o l C Military-Huron Bikeway R K n s r o i t a n y e e v e n Dov r n r e a m g it e il en E e Dryd y R M C 10th Street Improvements i

c B o h W e l ll Masters u m e a m R a l e e b l n

l iv l i

s i e r u a

v r s C r bs T Lam t e e l o eek y n r B l H iths C Sm a t G Almon c t e e t e o B a n i r n t r r

e o p a u r r t y e

a G B e n

C t g Hough lpine w tio Chrysler Beach Connector A r a id N o Yage r r S G o o B M e t t d M r o u t a o a

d h T a R Bordman i h n d e r olan y k s Busha-Cuttle Side Path D a i a e B u M i r l r le d il B e sv

m y B Ra ar Davis a River Road Bikeway p ttle o M h u Ru t i m n d s n o R

a R m h i n c v P i i e d R

o r g 4 w e 9 il e I a r r E T g ction L belin O hool Se 4 E Sc i y n 9 Armada Center m I a e B W o e Route W Bik C lle River Way o Be a t l o i d River Road Improvements r e a h r g r i a d d il i T

Tra R il o m r d i a y r d r B a r s h g a Orc e T b M B Clinton Street Bikeway m N co P a a C o

M o e oore t i g d W M id n Fre R w B da e a ion r ivis e St. Clair Connector South rm D g A i Mile r d d S 32 i B n g isio L iv r D r M e i B i n d

t e g

5 o

3 T B

r t o a a

i y B l

T H a

r y

a a

v T i

l e r N a

n o i

r 3 t

5 i

g t 29 Mile M

l e R o i ti N e a o 29 Mil a r P r m N r e T e w G isner a e e H M v y a l i m o v e a n R

s P B I

n County Line Side Path l o a d t n i

a e k

n g

d i

a r

B n

K ity u arine C a N M r i n c e r k g Mile w h 26 e Marine City Loop Trail C H Chartier r a o ve u Markel n n

W t t y Marine South Connector a l o i

i s L t h a a i i r r n n g T G to e n y a n a B e e She Mil D S 24 e ix o r ie t Algonac State Park Connector t G a e 23 Mile r v g

B 3 Mile i d 2 l i S r l r e u i g d B a g C R r e o b u i v tt s t M o o e H h n n S a r B a R o s t r o s a y r o e y n h y e f m f a e s 21 Mile e B T StClairGaps e J r r o o a 21 Mile h r i e P c l n iv t a A R o n i r t P i S k h a oin a Hall t te l Hall r Tr M e e C 3 m Algonac Bike Boulevard Project Types (Highlight) G bl t S b e 5

5 h a i c t e

z a 3 h r M s i

l r e S o Critical Gap o u n

E N e i e 9 Mil 1 o O N Henry B J b n oy C

C r a G f m h n c al l lu Lake St. Clair Bikeway e a o h Transformative n o i r i r G l d r f C e i Ca w r l e ss e e r iv Riverside Bike Pa nn n I R th a l Ch n d ddle a Ir Important r y Mi h o r R n ive H iver C B R arrington e n e ton v ail ee A r r lle Secondary lin y T G T C kwa ra Par smithgroup.com 65 il lar tro AlternatMiviel /Supporting rail Me Metro Parkway T n Metropolitan o rs l e e Opportunistic ff nn n e a ia 15 Mile J h av C or ExistMing Bike Facilities Quinn r k K c e e e rp l 14 Mile H l ° b a SEMCOG s y a H e t y o io e r t lle TraOil ff Roas d G a Iron Be r U G 0 2 4 8 t Side Path ic a Miles 12 Mile Critical Gaps Important WADHAMS TO AVOCA TRAIL Transformative Alternate Secondary Project Name GAP MILES COST * Notes Griswold-Oak Bikeway 23 3.6 $3.1M Combination of side paths and separated two-way bikeways Two-Bridges Trail 25 0.6 $575k Side paths within public right-of-ways Extension Rail to Two-Bridges 24 2.9 $1.6M Alternative (or a long-term additional) route to the Griswold- Connector Oak Bikeway, although requires rail and utility corridor access agreements

The Wadhams to Avoca Trail projects include new an alternative and/or complimentary route to the facilities that connect from the existing terminus of Griswold-Oak Bikeway. the trail east through Port Huron along two potential routes. The Rail to Tow-Bridges Connector is envisioned

Critical Gaps Important GREAT LAKE TO LAKE TRAIL Transformative Alternate Secondary Project Name GAP MILES COST * Notes Fred Moore Highway Trail 17 10.6 $10.1M Side path with occasional boardwalk sections on the south side of the roadway, utilizing a wider public right-of-way where present. Richmond Trail Extension 16 1.7 $1.6M Trail has been extensively planned by the City of Richmond and is being actively advanced towards implementation.

These two Critical Gap projects provide the connection from the existing end-point of the Great Lake to Trail Route #1 (aka the Macomb Orchard Trail) east to the Bridge-to-Bay Trail.

OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY the Bridge to Bay Trail to the Wadhams-Avoca Trail. The Critical Gap and Transformative projects reflect Last, the side path trail along Fred Moore Highway the most important projects at the center of stitching establishes the east-west connection from St. Clair together a complete trail network. Importantly, many to the City of Richmond, where the trail network can of the critical gaps are relatively short in length (less connect to the existing Macomb-Orchard Trail. than a mile), with the Fred Moore Highway Trail as From an implementation standpoint, the critical gap a standout trail in terms of longer overall length. projects and transformative projects all utilize public Collectively, the critical gaps and transformative rights-of-way or other lands where access is readily projects represent 20.7-miles and approximately feasible. This means that implementing these projects $19.3-million in conceptual construction costs are not likely to be held up by time-consuming property (exclusive of any soft or other total project costs). acquisitions or easement agreements. If these projects are constructed, there will be a low The Secondary routes extend the network to other key stress (LTS 1 or 2) facility for pedestrians and bikes destinations and will complete the major trail visions that connect along the St. Clair River corridor from in the county - such as the full realization of the Bridge Lighthouse Park (terminus of the Great Lake to Lake to Bay Trail. Trail Route #1) south through Port Huron and beyond to Marysville, the City of St. Clair, and Marine City. This Secondary and alternative route projects can be would unite a substantial section of the Bridge to implemented opportunistically, especially when they Bay Trail, stitching together already built segments. align with other transportation capital projects (such An east-west route through Port Huron connects as road resurfacing or reconstruction projects).

66 St. Clair County Trails Plan  L

r eddo e B J B

r D r

o i K

c u M c i k c m

k a e e C w r W b r t a a a i n i d n y l

l e n C M Yale om ley W Dud a st i o B Yale n i c l M d k r

B i c a d

r a W g s o h t tc e o a ur c d B B n k h r t S

w a o o

a m w a B s F y B y n t a l o a r e i r A y d s g v g o T c o e a r n a t T Norma o r i l C a il B o E D a n x t u alf y n e Metc an n c T Norm e s e r l i a l o n Metcalf i g Metca l in lf rl B N te e o a G r F S Avoca t o r h d l y r

s t an v h lli G C Su a

r a

w a C d

t e o eard i C B o

l B u P t t a

t in i r d h n T m eewa p K e Foley i o

c r a r G E b a k N r c ty Ci B o u y a i m Iml e v l o e s r V S m WADHAMS TO AVOCA r A t i t S y n o h afft e b Kr s h c C t b G t t e e o e r r K r r n i t e m b v i e t i d i t TRAIL s R l b e L g a i f gh l o i i n t o n l ce n e Bry r a w r s Bryce d r D e W o a T

u d n o h Two-Bridges Trail Extension

n a y i d m ga s a n t r n T o

A e Water B e r vo iv A ter a a

o e Brandon c R 94/W l t M r a E I i r l pee T T l a L r e B a a a e il n H G y i g Rail to Two-Bridges Connector n u

l W I 69 d o o l i r

i r o Burt o r E ra n I B d 69 r T R e pu l i

l l S s e N y ling C River Griswold-Oak Bikeway Spar to C old Rai n Grisw l Trai e o l C R K n s r o i t a n y e e v e n Dov r n r e a m g it e il en E e Dryd y R M

c B o h W e l ll Masters u m e a m R a l e e b l n

l iv l i

s i e r u a

v r s C r bs T Lam t e e l o eek y n r B l H iths C Sm a t G Almon c t e e t e o B a n i r n t r r

e o p a u r r t y e

a G B e n

C t g Hough lpine w tio A r a id N o Yage r r S G o o B M e t t d M r o u t a o a

d h T a R Bordman i h n d e r olan y k s D a i a e B u M i r l r le d il B e sv

m y B Ra ar Davis p a ttle o M h u Ru t i m n d s n o R

a R m h i n c v P i i e d R

o r g 4 w e 9 il e I a r r E T g ction L belin O hool Se 4 E Sc i y n 9 Armada Center m I a e B W o e Route W Bik C lle River Way o Be a t l o i d

r e a h r g r i a d d il i T

Tra R il o m r d i a y r d r B a r s h g a Orc e T b M B m N GREAT LAKE TO LAKE co P a a C o

M o e oore t i g d W M id n Fre R w B da e a ion r ivis e rm D g A i Mile r d d S 32 i B TRAIL n g isio L iv r D r M e i B i n d

t e g

5 o e Fred Moore Highway Trail 3 T B

r t o a a

i y B l

T H a

r y

a a

v T i

l e r N Richmond Trail Extension a

n o i

r 3 t

5 i

g t 29 Mile M

l e R o i ti N e a o 29 Mil a r P r m N r e T e w G isner a e e H M v y a l i m o v e a n R

s P B I

l o a d t n i

a e k

n g

d i

a r

B n

K ity u arine C a N M r i n c e r k g Mile w h 26 e C H Chartier r a o ve u Markel n n

W t t y a l o i

i s L t h a a i i r r n n g T G to e n y a n a B e e She Mil D S 24 e ix o r ie t t G a e 23 Mile r v g

5 h a i c t e

z a 3 h r M s i

l r e S o Critical Gap o u n

E N e i e 9 Mil 1 o O N Henry B J b n oy C

C r a G f m h n c al l lu e a o h Transformative n o i r i r G l d r f C e i Ca w r l e ss e e r iv Riverside Bike Pa nn n I R th a l Ch n d ddle a Ir Important r y Mi h o r R n ive H iver C B R arrington e n e ton v ail ee A r r lle Secondary lin y T G T C kwa ra Par smithgroup.com 67 il lar tro AlternatMiviel /Supporting rail Me Metro Parkway T n Metropolitan o rs l e e Opportunistic ff nn n e a ia 15 Mile J h av C or ExistMing Bike Facilities Quinn r k K c e e e rp l 14 Mile H l ° b a SEMCOG s y a H e t y o io e r t lle TraOil ff Roas d G a Iron Be r U G 0 2 4 8 t Side Path ic a Miles 12 Mile

CREATING SPACE FOR BIKEWAYS

Fitting new trails and bikeways into the existing fabric ROAD DIETS of developed urban and even rural environments can Road diets typically include reducing the number be challenging. Public street rights-of-way often face of travels lanes (e.g. a four-lane road to a three- many competing demands for their space - vehicular lane road) in order to create space for non- travel lanes, transit service, commercial activities, motorized facilities. Often, four-lane to three- parking, public gathering space, and more. Finding lane road diets are feasible where traffic volumes the room for non-motorized infrastructure, particularly are below 15,000 annual average daily traffic separated and protected facilities for biking, can be a (AADT). challenge.

Existing

STRATEGIES WITHIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Utilizing rights-of-way for greenways and urban trails, where feasible, provides the advantage of using publicly owned land to accommodate trails, either within the existing roadway, reconfiguring the roadway, or placing it adjacent to the road outside curb. There 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ is also the advantage of being able to implement projects in coordination with other improvements to the corridor that can improve safety, access, and aesthetics for all roadway users. Road Diet However, integrating greenways and non-motorized facilities into rights-of-way often requires trade- offs between different modes of travel or uses. The following pages show examples of how these transformations can be accomplished.

12’ 10’ 12’ 14’

68 St. Clair County Trails Plan  SKINNY STREETS WIDEN SHOULDER In some cases, vehicle travel lanes may be much Many roads, particularly in more suburban or wider than necessary, particularly for multi-lane rural contexts, have ample room next to vehicle roads with wide outside lanes. Reducing lanes lanes where shoulders can be widened to to 10- or 11-feet in width can help slow vehicle accommodate better bicycle facilities. In some speeds, reducing crash severity, while creating cases, this may require new pipes, culverts, and/ space for bike lanes within the roadway. or the modification of drainage ditches.

Existing Existing

14’ + 12’ 12’ 14’ + 10’+ 10’+

Skinny Streets Widen Shoulders

6’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ 6’ 5-6’ 10’+ 10’+ 5-6’

smithgroup.com 69

REMOVE ON-STREET PARKING RECONSTRUCT STREETSCAPE On-street parking is important for many In many locations, particularly more urbanized commercial areas, but often there is more on- areas, there can be opportunities to reconstruct street parking than necessary with parking use the sidewalk/streetscape zone, particularly when rates that remain relatively low. Parking can widths are 15-feet or more. Raised or separated often be removed from one side of the road, in bike lanes can then be built at the sidewalk level. conjunction with shrinking lane widths, to create new space for bicycle facilities.

Existing Existing

8’ 12’ 12’ 8’ ~15’ 8’ 12’ 12’ 8’ ~15’

Remove Reconstruct On-street Parking Streetscape

8’ 6’ 10’ 10’ 6’ 6’ 4’ 5’ 2’ 8’ 10’ 10’ 8’ 2’ 5’ 4’ 6’

70 St. Clair County Trails Plan  WIDEN SIDEWALKS INTO SIDE PATHS OUTSIDE RIGHTS-OF-WAY Often, the landscape zone between the road Areas outside the public rights-of-way on either private curb and sidewalk may be wide, particularly in or publicly owned parcels can also create opportunities urban and/or rural contexts. This affords the for greenway and urban trail construction. These opportunity to expand sidewalks on one or both locations afford some of the best opportunities sides of the road into multi-use side paths that for implementing significant greenway projects can accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle that can incorporate landscaping and open space travel. enhancements alongside a new non-motorized facility. Several approaches can be used to help achieve the desired affect. Existing ZONING CHANGES One approach, particularly in built-up urban areas, is to adjust the front setback regulations for development to require a minimum distance from the street curb that is sufficient to accommodate greenways and urban trails. Typically, 20- to 24-feet can provide room for 5’ 6’ min 12’ 10’ 12’ 6’ min 5’ sidewalks, protected bike lanes, landscape, and other streetscape amenities while still maintain good urban form.

EASEMENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY Widen Sidewalks into Side Path Easements on private, public, or institutional/civic Shared-use Trail Shared-use Trail properties can be pursued and set up to create corridors for greenways through adjacent parcels. Utility corridors (e.g. power lines) can be a good opportunity for pursuing easements due to their length and continuity. Often paved trails can double as service roads for utility operators. 8’ min 2’-6’ 12’ 10’ 12’ 2’-6’ 8’ min PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION Trails and greenways can also be constructed on private property as part of new development or in conjunction with a new development proposal. Several examples exist within the project area where a developer built a new or extended an existing trail system through their property. Having a dedicated plan, vision, and support from local leadership and the community can help establish the demand and benefits of adding these facilities.

smithgroup.com 71

MAKING IT HAPPEN

ESTABLISH A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE manner. An important need for implementing such an extensive system of public infrastructure is having the right governance structure in place to oversee projects, coordinate implementation between multiple partners, and ensure that the planning, design, construction, and long-term maintenance activities are conducted in accordance with the plan vision and goals. In St. Clair County, many different municipal entities plan and implement projects in partnerships with a broad range of groups, trail advocates, and funding sources. As part of a long-term initiative, stakeholders should identify a governance structure and process for continuing to plan, implement, and maintain trails and bikeways in a coordinated manner across the county. For example, the Steering Committee established during this process could continue to be engaged on a regular basis (e.g. semi-anally) to review the state of the plan and any implementation progress, clarify priorities, and help make informed decisions from a county-wide perspective and in alignment with the project goals. A governance structure can become more formalized through an established enacted body, such as a county-wide Trail Commission, comprised of key representatives from across the county that is tasked with implementing projects. A more formalized entity at the county level can help bridge the gap between individual communities and municipalities and ensure that resources are put towards projects that support a fully-connected network. This entity can also play a role in ensuring that signage, marketing/PR, branding, and other communications relative to the county-wide network is conducted in a coordinated and effective

72 St. Clair County Trails Plan  PARTNERSHIPS AND COORDINATION REGIONAL AND STATE PARTNERS Successful implementation will require partnerships. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments It is important to acknowledge that there is not a one- (SEMCOG): Provides planning assistance and size fits all approach to implementation, and the mix helps coordinate non-motorized improvements of partners involved with implementing will vary from throughout Southeast Michigan. Key partner for project to project. However, it is anticipated that a coordinating activities between adjacent counties. range of partners from the local to regional level will be Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR): necessary. Technical expertise and potential funding partner, The following lists identifies a range of potential particularly for off-road trails that can be aligned partners, but is not intended to be an exhaustive list. with natural area restoration/conservation activities and recreational assets. LOCAL COMMUNITIES Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT): Individual municipalities will play an instrumental Key partner and coordinating agency - both from a role in helping to implement projects within their potential funding perspective and at technical level boundaries. Whether providing leadership, funding, where proposed routes follow along or cross state- or technical support, local engagement is essential. owned roadways. COUNTY PARTNERS FEDERAL PARTNERS St. Clair County Metropolitan Planning Commission: National Park Service - Rivers, Trails and Provides planning services and support to Conservation Assistance: Technical/design support, communities throughout the county. advocacy across regional network St. Clair County Transportation Study (SCCOTS): Regularly assembled group of municipal and NON-PROFIT PARTNERS agency representatives that meet to coordinate Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance (including transportation projects. Coordination with group Great Lakes to Lake Trails initiatives) will be helpful for vetting designs and pursuing Blueways of St. Clair: Alignment between boat launch implementation. sites and river trails with non-motorized routes St. Clair County Parks and Recreation: Maintains and Rails-to-Trails Conservancy: Can provide technical strengths county owned park system through a local expertise and support, particularly with respect to millage. Key partner in building or extending trail routes aligned with railroad corridors. facilities. Community Foundation of St. Clair County

Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan

smithgroup.com 73

FUNDING

A DIVERSITY OF SOURCES FUNDING NEEDS Just as there will likely be many partners and The need for funding includes the entire life-cycle of the organizations responsible with realizing the vision, greenways or urban trails. This includes design and funding will need to be provided from a diversity of planning costs, construction costs, as well as ongoing sources. operations and maintenance costs. Establishing long- term maintenance endowments has been successfully One advantage of trails and bikeways, due to the broad used in other communities in order to provide the range of community benefits they provide, is that they resources for ensuring the success of greenways in the can leverage funding from a wide range of different long-term. sources. Being able to match multiple sources of funding together in order to implement a more robust POTENTIAL SOURCES project is an important tool for implementation. Non-motorized transportation grants

TYPES OF FUNDING Pedestrian safety grants Funding for can come from many of the following Healthy/livable community grants sources: Safe routes to schools program Regional/State/Federal grant programs aligned with the following activities: non-motorized Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) transportation, economic development, habitat floodplain relief grants and natural resource preservation/conservation, Water quality and watershed related grants stormwater management, community health and welfare, transportation improvement programs. Federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) transportation grants Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) at the local, county, or regional level - funded as transportation, Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) trail infrastructure, or recreational projects. related grants

Public/private partnerships with private entities Economic development grants providing land access, easements, or direct financial Brownfield funding contribution to greenway implementation. Community and private foundations

Corporate sponsorships

Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funding

74 St. Clair County Trails Plan  MAINTENANCE

The Metropolitan Planning Commission completed a Sweeping/washing Current Trail Condition Analylsis of the entire existing Pavement marking maintenance trail network in May, 2019. This provides a thorough baseline upon which to advance a trail maintenance Pavement repair program. FURNISHING AND AMENITY MAINTENANCE Identifying which entity is responsible for which Cleaning and repair of seating areas, benches, etc. maintenance need during the planning and design phase of a specific project is essential to ensure Waste collection (trash and recycling) that trails and bikeways are safe to use and in good Signage repair/maintenance condition for the years to come. Funding efforts should always account for maintenance needs in the total Light pole operations and repair/maintenance project cost development. Security call box maintenance and 911 fees

INSPECTIONS LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Routine inspections are integral to all maintenance Stormwater (inlet and trap cleaning) operations. Inspections should occur on a regularly scheduled basis. Frequency of trail inspections will Perennial beds depend on the amount of trail use, location, and Tree and shrub trimming/pruning – ensuring that age. Items to consider in trail inspections include: trail areas are free and clear of any obstructions and scheduling and documentation of inspections; the that the 2-foot clear zones adjacent to bicycle areas condition of railings, bridges, and trail surfaces; are maintained proper and adequate signage; removal of debris; and, Lawn mowing coordination with other agencies associated with trail maintenance. Fence repair

TRAIL SURFACE MAINTENANCE OTHER MAINTENANCE NEEDS Snow clearing to the full width of trail facilities Signal timing and adjustments

Railroad crossing materials/surface maintenance

Elevated trail and bridge inspections

Utility inspections and maintenance

smithgroup.com 75

KEY ACTIVITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

PLAN MAINTENANCE AND REPORTING OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMMING The St. Clair County Trails Plan provides an overall Beyond physical maintenance, operating a vision and implementation strategy based on successful urban trail may also require investment the conditions that exist today and reasonable in programming to build support and utilization assumptions about near-term changes. However, the of the trail facility. These programming needs may plan should not be viewed as a static document. If be conducted with volunteer labor, but are often a conditions change significantly within the county or responsibility of the trail operating entity and hence new opportunities present themselves, amending may have a cost associated with providing these the plan should be considered. This is an area where programs. Typical programs include: continuing to engage the Steering Committee and Creation and rotation of interpretive signage other partners on a sustained basis proves invaluable for making important decisions down the road. Art installation/rotation and selection oversight

In addition to plan maintenance, establishing a Trail ambassadors (trail “rangers”) program mechanism for clearly communicating the current coordination status and trail implementation progress to county Special event coordination residents and partners is important for maintaining interest and support for the trail system. A periodic Project implementation coordination with other (e.g. semi-annual) "State of Trails" newsletter (print and projects in the area digital) can share recent successes and metrics, talk Safety patrols and/or emergency fees about upcoming projects, and help galvanize partners around shared knowledge of the system.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REVIEWS A critical aspect of project implementation is aligning trail and bikeway improvements with roadway projects. An entity should be identified within the governance structure of the trail program to review CIP plans across all relevant jurisdictions to understand timing, project scopes, and potential overlaps with projects identified in this Trails Plan.

76 St. Clair County Trails Plan  WAYFINDING AND SIGNAGE COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN AND RECREATION PLAN ALIGNMENT A frequent challenge faced by larger trail systems is At the local level, effort should be made when establishing a clear brand for the overall system while communities engaged in master planning, recreation acknowledging respecting preexisting trails that may planning, or transportation planning initiatives to have their own brand or identity. While many existing make sure the routes and projects identified in the St. trails may have some of their own identity elements Clair County Trails Plan are integrated into the local (unique logo, naming convention, etc - such as Bridge plans. Local plans are often the source for securing to Bay Trail), this can be incorporated into a broader CIP dollars and many grants will require projects to be identity for an overall St. Clair Trail "system." Trail supported by a master plan and/or five-year recreation monuments and markers can include logos/names of plan, through which public support and leadership the individual trail as well as denoting that it is part of approval can be demonstrated. a larger county-wide system. The broader county-wide identity is also a good level to work in a unified approach to wayfinding (directional signs, maps) along the corridor. This would include developing a family of sign types and standards to provide a uniform image throughout the network.

smithgroup.com 77