TOWN OF DEDHAM

HERITAGE RAIL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY 2017

PLANNING DEPARTMENT + ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully recognize the Town of Dedham’s dedicated Planning and Environmental Department’s staff, including Richard McCarthy, Town Planner and Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator, each of whom helped to guide this feasibility study effort. Their commitment to the town and its open space system will yield positive benefits to all as they seek to evaluate projects like this potential rail trail.

Special thanks to the many representatives of the Town of Dedham for their commitment to evaluate the feasibility of the Heritage Rail Trail. We also thank the many community members who came out for the public and private forums to express their concerns in person. The recommendations contained in the Heritage Rail Trail Feasibility Study represent our best professional judgment and expertise tempered by the unique perspectives of each of the participants to the process.

Cheri Ruane, RLA Vice President Weston & Sampson

June 2017

Special thanks to:

Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator Richard McCarthy, Town Planner Residents of Dedham Friends of the Dedham Heritage Rail Trail Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending

Page | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction and Background

2. Community Outreach and Public Process

3. Base Mapping and Existing Conditions

4. Rail Corridor Segments

5. Key Considerations

6. Preliminary Trail Alignment

7. Opinion of Probable Cost

8. Phasing and Implementation

9. Conclusion

Page | 2

Introduction and Background

Weston & Sampson was selected through a proposal process by the Town of Dedham to complete a Feasibility Study for a proposed Heritage Rail Trail in Dedham, Massachusetts. A previous report from 2014, Dedham Greenway Concept Plan, by Rails to Trails Conservancy outlined general information about rail to trail projects and offered initial considerations of strategies to overcome existing barriers to a cohesive and continuous trail as well as opinions of probable cost.

While this information was a good start, the community requested a more in-depth look at what it would take to address site-specific concerns along this particular corridor and include current estimates of probable cost based on recently publicly bid projects in Massachusetts. Weston & Sampson has reviewed the initial study and included some relevant information and findings from that document to provide context and a cohesive summary of what will be required to construct the 1.33-mile rail trail currently being considered.

It must be stated that most things are technically feasible given unlimited time and money. The question is not one of ability to make this trail a reality, it is instead a determination of the value of the result in light of the resources required to get there. The following study outlines those resources and as well as the engineering considerations required to build a Heritage Rail Trail in Dedham.

From the 2014 Dedham Greenway Concept Plan:

Purpose and Needs Statement

The proposed Dedham Greenway from the Boston City Line to Dedham Square in Massachusetts would create a 1.33-mile public green space along a former railroad corridor. This concept plan investigates the opportunities and constraints affecting the proposed greenway and sets out design concepts that can be utilized by the community for the next phase of implementation.

Greenways are one of the few practical strategies that have emerged as an antidote to the problems of loss of open space, uncontrolled growth and fragmented communities; there are multiple ways that trails and greenways can help build more livable communities. Greenways and trails are designed to produce real, tangible benefits that can be summarized by four major outcomes:

▪ Resource conservation: Greenways preserve precious open space, which is crucial to the long-term livability and sustainability of a neighborhood or region. ▪ Health and recreation: Greenways promote public health by creating safe opportunities for individuals and families to engage in physical activities, such as walking and bicycling. ▪ Community revitalization: In both urban neighborhoods and rural communities, greenways encourage economic and community revitalization by stimulating small business creation and improving community quality of life. ▪ Alternative transportation: While originally created for recreation, thousands of bicycle commuters now use greenways and trails to get to work, thereby reducing traffic congestion and air pollution while building physical activity into their daily lives.

In addition to these tangible outcomes, greenways also produce important intangible benefits. When the opportunity to build a new greenway arises, something remarkable often happens in a community.

Page | 3

Individuals, state and local government, the private sector and community-based groups unite in the common purpose of building a greenway. Greenway building is community building.

Project Goals

The goals of this study are to define design alternatives for the greenway and to propose additional steps required to proceed to the design and construction stage of the project.

Community Outreach and Public Process

This project required a robust engagement process with the public. We led a series of meetings with the general public as well as organized groups both in favor and against the implementation of this rail trail. Given that a potential rail trail will run immediately adjacent to the Avery Elementary School and the Dedham High School Field we also made a presentation to the Dedham School Committee. On July 15, 2016 Weston & Sampson presented the feasibility study findings available at that time. The presentation covered potential alignments of the trail corridor as it interfaces with the school. The school committee voiced concerns about student safety. They also noted that the concept of a “bypass route” during school hours may still impact student safety because of the vehicular and pedestrian congestion that has been noted within the larger neighborhood. For the school committee to better understand the implications of the rail trail they requested the town complete a circulation study of this area. The Planning Department has begun to gather that data with an analysis forthcoming.

A site walk was held along the entire corridor so that site specific concerns and observations could be made and documented. 800 post cards were sent via registered mail to both direct and indirect abutters asking what they would like to see on the trail. Overall, we have had contact and feedback from hundreds of abutters and Dedham residents, all of which has informed the findings of this study. The following table lists the formal meetings:

DATE MEETING 03.19.16 Kick-off Meeting 04.29.16 Site Walk w/ MAPC 05.17.16 First Public Meeting 06.06.16 Dedham Abutter Meeting: Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending 06.09.16 Dedham Abutters Meeting 06.15.16 Dedham School Committee 07.19.16 Dedham Abutters Meeting: Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending 10.04.16 Rail Trail Site Walk w/ Abutters

Through the course of this study it has become clear that this potential rail trail has both strong supporters and strong objectors. A series of letters to the editor in the Dedham Transcript have articulated both perspectives. The residents of Dedham, in particular the direct and indirect abutters, are passionate about this topic. Two organized groups have emerged around the potential rail trail project; Friends of the Heritage Rail Trail and Dedham Tax Payers for Responsible Spending. It is worth noting that The Friends of the Heritage Rail Trail raised funds to allow for additional meetings with consultants and outreach to abutters. A mailing survey was sent to all direct abutters and all abutters within 300’ of the rail corridor. The results of this mailing are as follows:

Page | 4

Total # of Responses: 150 out of 433 (35%) Direct Abutters: YES = 14, NO = 37 out of 144 (YES = 10% vs NO = 26%, DID NOT RESPOND = 64% 300’ Abutters: Total:

Base Mapping and Existing Site Conditions

We have developed base mapping from aerial imaging and Town of Dedham Assessors Maps. Those graphics have been included as a base plan in Appendix A.

The summary of existing conditions findings can be found in Appendix B. In general, the existing rail bed is in relatively good condition in that it is mostly stable with minimal signs of erosion. In areas where the surfaces are compacted, currently used informally by pedestrians, or paved through previous efforts the path is fairly passable and largely accessible for able-bodied pedestrians.

There are several lengths of former rail bed that are impassible in their current condition. They include steep slopes up to Mount Vernon Street (where there was previously an underpass) and zones of volunteer vegetative growth that is incredibly dense and hard to navigate. At River Street, a bridge that spanned the roadway was removed due to large trucks being unable to make safe passage below leaving the bridge abutments but little else.

There are a few locations where existing slopes exceed universally accessible limits of 5% for a sloped walkway and 8.33% for a ramp with handrails. These areas can be regraded while being mindful of the surrounding vegetation that is to be protected. Some of the existing trees need pruning or removal simply because they have reached the end of their useful life. Removals will be kept to a minimum to maintain existing screening between the rail bed and abutters.

Page | 5

Rail Corridor Segments

To succinctly and effectively describe both existing conditions and proposed requirements for a Rail Trail facility in this location we have broken the overall 1.33-mile corridor into a series of smaller segments. These segments are also used to describe a phased implementation strategy that allows for incremental construction projects should full funding not be available all at once.

The rail bed has been divided into the following segments:

Segment A – East Street to tennis courts (including Mt. Vernon Street)

Segment B – Tennis courts to high school field parking lot

Segment C – High School Field parking lot to Fairview Street

Segment D – Fairview Street to Quincy Street Extension

Page | 6

Segment A – East Street to tennis courts (including Mt. Vernon Street)

Existing conditions of Segment A include a well-worn surface through densely vegetated woodland and limited exposure to abutters. The biggest challenge of this section is the crossing of Mount Vernon Street. There was a former underpass for the railway use that was removed because of dangerous roadway conditions and poor sight lines for drivers. When the underpass was filled a new road was installed with a better curvature to support driver sight lines and traffic safety. Current conditions at the existing rail bed elevation looking at Mount Vernon Street are shown on the following page.

Page | 7

Segment B – Tennis courts to high school field parking lot

Segment B has fairly level grades but a widely varying set of existing conditions for abutting uses and access. The path right-of-way is very close to abutting residences on the south side of the corridor. To the north there is less pressure due to recreational uses and parking lots. As the corridor moves to the east you encounter an existing roadway that provides access to the Avery Elementary School as well as parking lots for school use. The corridor was repurposed as a public road when the school was built and while a usage agreement was drafted specifically to allow a future Rail Trail to be built, there is resistance to putting a Rail Trail through the center of an active school complex due to existing traffic congestion at drop off and pick up as well as student safety concerns during the school day. This segment ends as the street turns south and a worn path that generally follows the existing former rail bed picks up.

Page | 8

Segment C – High School Field Parking Lot to Fairview Street

Right in this area, east of the parking lot next to the high school field, is where a significant amount of excess fill from the Avery School construction project was deposited. Many large, mature trees were removed to accommodate this fill deposition, much to the significant disappointment of immediate abutters whose backyards and homes that were once screened by mature vegetation are now exposed to the rail corridor. In addition, the deposition of the fill material was not done in a way that accommodates universal access. In addition to the materials and uneven surfacing, the slopes of the material along the ridgeline of the soil berm exceed 5% and must either be re-graded or constructed with handrails and landings at slopes not more than 8.33% in accordance with Massachusetts Architectural Access Board and American with Disabilities Act requirements.

This segment of path extends to the Walnut Street Bridge. This bridge creates an underpass condition along the rail corridor. This area, hidden from view by the bridge and abutments, is understood to accommodate nefarious activities that the abutters are concerned about. There is visible evidence of graffiti, drinking, and drug use in this area. Site security and screening of abutters will be critical in this area.

Page | 9

Segment D – Fairview Street to Quincy Street Extension

This corridor alignment runs behind the large warehouse to the north east of the path on Google Maps. To the southwest of the right-of-way are a series of smaller businesses that have encroached to varying degrees on the railway property. Once past the long warehouse building there are a few residences that sit much lower in elevation than the rail corridor. This creates an opportunity for visual access from path users into people’s private homes including second floor rooms. Several of the abutters have explicitly brought this to our attention at meetings and on-site walks.

A portion of this segment near the easement at Flanagan Place will require invasive species management to eradicate sections of Japanese knotweed. During a site walk, residents requested the use of organic methods of removal due to the proximity of nearby vegetable gardens.

Once you reach River Street you find yourself high above the roadway grades where a former railroad bridge existed. We understand that this bridge was removed because larger trucks were hitting it on a fairly regular basis and it was a safety concern. Rugged individuals have been able to navigate down the top of the abutment structure to River Street, quickly dash across the street between fast-moving cars, and ascend the eastern abutment structure to continue the walk.

Moving eastward beyond River Street there are several automotive and construction based businesses to the north of the rail bed. Since the rail bed is considerably higher than the surrounding properties you can

Page | 10

see onto the roofs and into the yards of these businesses with ease. This elevation change may create the potential for vandals to throw objects onto the businesses below.

To the south of the corridor are single and multi-family residences. Many have fences existing, some with gates to access the right-of-way now. This segment would end at the Quincy Ave Extension which runs from Whiting Avenue heading northeast and abuts the railway parcel. Selective tree removal, grading, pavement and signage would be needed to make a safe and clear connection from this interim Rail Trail terminus back to the public way. It appears there has been much encroachment at this end of the segment by abutting businesses. The Town has committed to investigate this further.

Key Considerations:

Following is a summary of key considerations of factors that were reviewed and investigated throughout the process of this study.

1. Property Ownership

▪ By deed from the MBTA dated June 22, 1999, and recorded in Book 13545, Page 523 (the “Deed”), the Town obtained the fee title to the entirety of an abandoned railroad right-of-way known as the Dedham Secondary Branch (the “Rail Corridor” or “Corridor”). Described in the Deed as “Parcel B”, the Corridor is 1.3 miles in length, and its boundaries are shown on railroad valuations plans recorded with the Registry of Deeds and referenced in the Deed. The Deed also granted to the Town the fee interest in a 6.3-acre parcel of land (“Parcel A”) now known as Gonzalez Field. The Town’s fee ownership of the Corridor in its entirety was recently confirmed by an April 11, 2017 title report obtained on the Town’s behalf by Town Counsel. ▪ Acting on behalf of the Town, the Board of Selectmen accepted the grant of the Rail Corridor for general municipal purposes pursuant to authorization of the vote under Article 1 of the April 10, 2006 Special Town Meeting. The Selectmen had previously accepted the grant of Gonzalez Field for active recreation purposes pursuant to authorization of the vote under Article 3 of the April 13, 1998 Town Meeting. It appears that authorization to acquire the Rail Corridor was inadvertently omitted from the 1998 Town Meeting vote authorizing the acquisition of Gonzalez Field, thus requiring the further authorization of Town Meeting and acceptance of the Board of Selectmen with respect to the Rail Corridor in 2006.

2. Custody of the Rail Corridor

▪ Following the Selectmen’s acceptance of the grant of the Rail Corridor, the Town then transferred a portion of the Rail Corridor (the “School Portion”) to the care, custody and control of the School Department for school purposes by the vote of the April 2, 2008 Town Meeting under Article 38. ▪ Following the transfer of custody of the School Portion, and as part of the construction of the Avery School, the Superintendent of Schools and the Town Administrator executed a Letter of Commitment (See Appendix F) identifying the Rail Corridor as a future shared use path that would eventually connect downtown Dedham with the new elementary school to the Readville Commuter Rail Station, and committing to maintain a minimum of 50 feet of clearance (no structures) within the Rail Corridor, together with access through the school driveway and the Rail Corridor, in order to accommodate the future shared use path.

Page | 11

▪ At present, based on the actions set forth above, the Rail Corridor is owned in its entirety by the Town, and is held by the Town in part in the care, custody and control of the Board of Selectmen for general municipal purposes, and in part by the School Department for school purposes, subject to the Letter of Commitment as it may apply.

3. Proximity to the Avery Elementary School

There is continued discussion about the use of the railroad right-of-way for the construction of the Avery Elementary School and a letter of commitment that was drafted in an effort to secure future access for a rail trail facility in this location. It is important to note the Avery Elementary School was designed, permitted and constructed just a few years ago which created the challenge of navigating the rail trail around the school campuses. Further, this challenge was recognized after construction and a commitment was made to work through this issue (see Appendix F – Letter of Commitment). The current school administration has voiced concerns about the confluence of rail trail users with students at drop off, pick up, and during the school day. Current conditions have been reported as congested and chaotic during drop off and pick up. The concern is that the addition of rail trail users to this area will only further compound existing congestion and compromise student safety. As a result, the school committee requested a traffic study be completed as part of this feasibility study. We also recommend a circulation study be completed for key intersections near the elementary, middle and high schools to provide critical information on the movement patterns in this area (pedestrian and vehicular) to help make informed planning decisions. The circulation study has been postponed to allow for the completion of the feasibility study and to better define the scope of the circulation study.

4. Environmental Conditions of the Site – as a former rail bed, there are concerns about potential environmental issues.

▪ The site is a former rail bed. While careful site characterization must be completed, there is established precedent for projects of this nature. In fact, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has even developed guidelines and best management practices (BMP’s) for the conversion of former railroad lines to recreation trails. If final design moves forward, a Licensed Site Professional should be involved to develop initial site assessment, a soil management plan, and compliance with the Department of Environmental Protection requirements. ▪ As part of this study an initial review of environmental reporting both on the site and in the immediate vicinity was conducted. The findings showed that there are no open cases of environmental threats in the immediate area and that the site must go through the standard protocols of a rail to trail project through an LSP, but that no significant environmental events have occurred on this particular corridor. The summary of our findings is attached in Appendix C. ▪ Based on other rail to trail projects completed in Massachusetts, a soil management plan that will be in full compliance with DEP requirements must be completed. This has been included in the opinions of probable cost.

5. Access and Egress to the Corridor – points of access to a potential rail trail must be established including parking accommodations.

▪ Multiple points of egress will allow for ease of use and improve site security.

Page | 12

▪ Currently we are proposing potential points of access to a rail trail at East Street, Whiting Avenue through the high school field parking lot, Quincy Avenue Extension and potentially Aiken Street with future considerations at Flanagan Place. All points of access will be handicapped accessible. ▪ While a trail of this length and location would see most users coming on foot or bike from the local neighborhood, there will still be potential users who require vehicular transportation to a trail facility. To provide a limited number of parking spaces for users in need we suggest a few spots in the Gonzales Field complex be identified as for use by trail users when a sporting event is not in progress. Also, spots within the parking lot next to the high school field is open on weekends and could be used during that time for rail trail parking.

6. Privacy and Security of Abutters – there is concern by abutting residents and business owners about a loss of privacy and increased vandalism.

▪ Certain business properties reported a history of vandalism during the time before the River Street rail bridge was in place. ▪ Abutters have reported current nefarious activity on the former rail bed including graffiti, drinking, smoking and marijuana use. The town has been in discussions with the Town Manager to include costs for fencing for Devaney Oil to meet Homeland Security needs. ▪ At Mount Vernon Street and River Street where an underpass and a bridge were formerly in place respectively to accommodate the intersection of the rail line and the vehicular roadways. The possibility of reintroducing these two elements has caused concern for those living in close proximity of these features perceived to be an attractive nuisance for nefarious behavior. ▪ Elevation of path surface allows for views into some homes ▪ There are also abutters whose homes sit very close to the rail road right-of-way. They have concerns about people walking in such close proximity to their private residences. Their fears include a reduction in privacy and security. ▪ We have been made aware that during construction of the Avery Elementary School a large volume of fill was placed along the path alignment. To make room for this fill several mature trees were removed. This visually exposed several residences that had previously been enclosed and screened by this vegetation from the former rail bed.

7. Cost of Construction

▪ Previous estimates were perceived as inaccurate and too low. Some residents are wary of approving a project that will end up costing much more than people expect. ▪ Opponents have voiced concerns about competing needs within the town and that tax payer dollars should not be allocated to this project. ▪ Costs have been estimated based on current construction pricing and include soil management required for the environmental considerations.

8. Cost of Operations and Maintenance

▪ Typical annual path maintenance costs in New England are $5,000 / mile which includes mowing (and landscape maintenance) and trash pickup. ▪ The addition of this path would require an additional 300 man hours / year which equates to 15% of a full-time employee. ▪ Precedent examples of operation and maintenance costs are included in Appendix D.

Page | 13

▪ It is important to note that additional decisions by the town would need to be made before determining the municipal entity responsible for maintenance (such as the designated category of open space.) ▪ The estimates above are based on a minimal-maintenance vegetation strategy. This approach would use native plantings which, once established, would become part of the surrounding, existing plant community of the rail corridor. This is a departure from the previously completed artistic renderings and is in response to feedback provided by the town’s Park and Recreation Department as well as discussions with the Dedham Residents for Responsible Spending.

Preliminary Trail Alignment

The following pages include graphic and written descriptions of a preliminary trail alignment for consideration. While the rail bed itself is the starting point for any “rail trail” there always community- specific conditions that inform site-based adjustments and additional features to the rail bed that must be deployed to make the project feasible.

Each plan segment includes a legend that describes the symbols used to show where interventions will be made and what kind. Further explanations of those elements as well as images of what this construction might looks like follow the plans.

Page | 14

Segment A – East Street to the tennis courts (including Mt. Vernon Street underpass)

There has been discussion about a potential pedestrian bridge from the start of a proposed rail trail across East Street to the Gonzales Recreation Field Complex. While this would certainly provide outstanding pedestrian connectivity we anticipate the cost of construction to be prohibitive. In this location, we have shown an at-grade pedestrian crosswalk that connects to existing sidewalks along East Avenue up to the parking area for Gonzales Field where there would be handicapped parking available for trail visitors.

Once across East Street one encounters a fairly steep sloping lawn up to the original rail bed elevation. This area would be graded to ensure universally accessible egress, excellent visibility for users and public safety and clear wayfinding and signage identifying the proposed rail trail. The surface would be asphalt to ensure longevity and ease of maintenance. The initial point of egress where the ramp will be required will be 6’ wide with the full width of 12’ being accomplished at the top of the slope.

Selective removal of vegetation will only be completed within the construction access zone along with any trees that are showing signs of decline or poor health and could potentially be a hazard to trail users in the future. In some areas, there is poor drainage and stormwater collects into large puddles. These would be managed through site grading and infiltration of stormwater back into the ground. Connections to existing storm drain lines will be considered for overflow capacity during a major storm event.

To cross Mount Vernon Street, we recommend an underpass be constructed under the roadway. Formerly there was an underpass in this location but it was subsequently filled and the roadway lowered. We anticipate leaving the roadway intact and using a construction technique known as “jacking” to remove the fill materials and insert a 10’ x 12’ concrete structure to support the span and provide pedestrian access. This new underpass will be lit with security lighting. Security cameras like those used at other Dedham parks and buildings have also been discussed at this location. The grading and drainage operations of this effort will be significant as there are several large culverts currently in place to convey

Page | 15

stormwater under Mount Vernon Street. These must be relocated in conjunction with a larger drainage renovation that will capture stormwater from the west end of the path and connect it into the larger town system. As an alternative to the underpass, a switch-back pathway may be constructed up the embankment to connect the rail trail to Mount Vernon Street.

Once past Mount Vernon Street the rail corridor limits are in very close proximity to one residential home and deck. Given the recreational use to the north of the tennis courts, we are proposing a shift of the path to hug the northern property line. Between the proposed Rail Trail and the southern property line the design would call for earthwork that creates berms for screening and evergreen planting. Fencing would be integrated alongside the path within the planting to ensure path users remained on the path. This area also holds stormwater during wet periods and detention and conveyance of stormwater will be required to ensure the path is well-constructed and has longevity in concert with surrounding utilities.

Page | 16

Segment B – Tennis courts to high school field parking lot

As you progress to the East along the rail corridor you arrive at the edge of the Avery Elementary School access drive, the high school and athletic field is to the south of the roadway. This is the interface where many people, including the school committee, have expressed concern about vehicular congestion, public and student safety. In response to these concerns we have considered alternative path alignments (shown in the graphic above) that can be in effect during school hours. Two pathway alternatives were developed to address concerns during these hours. One option would use signage to instruct path users to bypass the Avery School access drive and proceed behind the track and field to continue on the rail trail at the high school field parking lot. Another option, moving west to east on the trail, would direct path users up a handicap ramp to Mt Vernon Street, to the north of the tennis courts, behind the Dedham Pool Building and the Avery School, up the ledge past the basketball courts and around the field to continue on the rail trial at the high school field parking lot. When school is not in session in the evenings, on weekends and all summer long, path users would be able to ride or walk along the access drive that connects directly with the railway corridor. The Mount Vernon Street alternative will require an intensive ADA compliant ramp to provide passage for pedestrians from the rail corridor elevation up to Mount Vernon Street. This is reflected in the opinions of probable cost. Please see Key Considerations for additional information related to the Avery Elementary School and usage agreements for a potential rail trail facility. It is important to note that the school was built on the right-of-way of the rail bed. As a result, there was an agreement between the town, the school and MAPC for the allowance of a recreational corridor through the access road.

Page | 17

Segment B Alternative – Mt. Vernon Street to north of Avery Elementary School to high school field parking lot

An alternative route behind the Avery Elementary School was studied in more detail. Moving west to east, this alternative route would require a switch back trail or ADA ramp leading up to Mt Vernon Street. The route would then cross Mt Vernon, pass through the tennis court parking area and subsequently cross Recreation Road. These crossings would incorporate pedestrian/bike crossing signals. As the path travels to the north and then east of the pool building, a 6-foot-tall black vinyl chain link fence would separate the path users from the school property. An intensive ADA compliant ramp would be required to reach the higher elevations adjacent to the basketball court. The path would then continue along the outer edge of the rectangular athletic field (requiring ledge removal) before connecting again to the existing rail corridor.

Page | 18

Segment C – High school athletic field parking lot to Whiting Avenue at Fairview Street

In this location, the elevation of the rail bed is optimal for a potential rail trail facility. There is an existing bridge spanning Walnut Street that creates a generous underpass once used by the railway. This underpass would be painted and security lighting installed. Security cameras have also been discussed for inclusion at this location.

Some abutting residences have minimal vegetation and screening between their private property and the rail corridor. In these locations, we propose additional planting and regrading as necessary to create a universally accessible trail with an appropriate buffer to the nearby homes.

In locations where local businesses have begun to encroach on the railway corridor, conversations with each property owner to determine what alterations to their current operations will be required. The proposed rail trail will include fencing at these locations to screen views of industrial usage from the path.

Page | 19

Segment D – Fairview Street to Quincy Street Extension

This segment runs in close proximity to some residences and due to the rail bed elevations, create unwanted visual access into people’s homes up to their second floors. A shifting of the path alignment away from these houses, coupled with re-grading and planting will provide a better buffer and mitigate privacy concerns in these locations.

A pedestrian bridge is required at River Street. An at-grade crossing at this location is not recommended due to traffic speeds and limited visibility coming from the north. The former bridge abutments remain in place and can be reused, pending structural evaluation, for a pre-fabricated bridge structure that will reconnect rail bed. The businesses north of the path and east of River Street have suggested vandalism occurred when the former bridge existed. To protect these properties, we are proposing fencing, planting and protective netting that will extend 20’ in the air and prohibit projectiles from being thrown from this part of the path.

The interim terminus of this proposed rail trail will include a connection from the rail corridor to Whiting Avenue via Quincy Street Extension. This would require an easement. An alternative interim terminus would be through an easement through the adjacent MBTA property to the east/south-east. As you can see from the aerial photo and abutters maps there has been significant encroachment on this property. Mitigation is in order if the town plans to use Quincy Street Extension as a pedestrian connection. From a longer term perspective, the town has had conversations with property owners in Dedham and Boston about continuing the rail trail to Readville Yard Station.

Page | 20

Opinion of Probable Cost

From an operational perspective, the town will need to dedicate seasonal and full time staff (as phases are implemented) to manage the new public open space assets. Based on our research in other Massachusetts municipalities we have determined that on average this facility will cost the town $7,500 in labor costs each year to operate and maintain in good order. This assumes that the town has all of the necessary equipment to perform the work (vegetation, pavement, snow management). Construction estimates are taken from recent bid pricing of comparable projects for publicly bid projects in Massachusetts.

*This value is not included in the Maximum Cost with Alternates for Segment B because it is a cheaper alternative than the switch-back ramp to Mt. Vernon St.

Page | 21

Page | 22

Conclusion

The prospect of a multi-use rail trail through this part of Dedham has been a polarizing concept amongst direct and indirect abutters. There are some that are excited by the potential for dedicated pedestrian and bike connections between homes and the schools as well as opportunities for exercise out of the way of vehicles. Others see the costs of time and money to be too high given the maximum length of 1.33 miles. Throughout this feasibility study we have engaged with residents on both sides of the issue as well as many who do not oppose the idea of a Heritage Rail Trail, but want the result to be safe and not have a negative impact on abutters.

We have concluded that in order to create the Heritage Rail Trail from East Street to the Quincy Street Extension along the original rail corridor, including an underpass at Mount Vernon Street and a bridge at River Street, the total cost will be approximately $3,865,232 including contractor overhead/profit, mobilization, engineering, permitting and contingencies. This price does not include lighting ($681,500) or a bridge to connect the rail trail with the Gonzales Athletic Complex ($3,100,000). The Town is exploring grant funding as well as inclusion of this project on the Transportation Improvement Program by MassDOT.

The best implementation strategy includes a phased approach to construction. By selecting smaller segments of the corridor to be improved over time it disperses construction costs over a longer period and allows people opposed to the concept of the path to see how a limited section would function as a pilot program.

Appendices

▪ A – Base Plan by Segment ▪ B – Site Photos by Segment ▪ C – Summary of Environmental Findings from W&S LSP ▪ D – Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail Trails by Rails to Trails Conservancy ▪ E – Structural Cost Precedents for Bridges and Underpasses ▪ F – Letter of Commitment, Board of Selectman ▪ G – Direct/Indirect within 300’ Abutter Survey Postcard

Page | 23

Page | 24

MATCH LINE SEGMENT B SEGMENT LINE MATCH

220’

PLACE ELMVIEW MT VERNON STREET VERNON MT

0 55’ 110’

N BARROWS STREET BARROWS ACCESSIBLE PARKING ALTERNATE ROUTE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

SEGMENT A ELEANOR STREET ELEANOR CLARK STREET

East Street to Tennis Courts (Including Mt. Vernon Street Underpass) Street Vernon Courts (Including Mt. Tennis to East Street CROWLEY AVENUE CROWLEY PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS SHIFT IN RAIL TRAIL BERM PLANTING

AVERY STREET CECIL PLACE CECIL ALTERNATE RAIL TRAIL ROUTE CROSS WALK RAIL TRAIL ON EXISTING SIDEWALK RAIL TRAIL

EAST STREET

AVENUE 220’ CASS

HAZELNUT PLACE SEGMENT C SEGMENT

0 55’ 110’

MATCH LINE MATCH

N WHITING AVENUE WHITING SEGMENT B

Tennis Courts to High School Field Parking Lot Parking Courts High to School Field Tennis WHITING AVENUE WHITING

SHIFT IN RAIL TRAIL

BERM PLANTING FENCE REGRADE AREA AS REQUIRED

ELMVIEW PLACE ELMVIEW SEGMENT A SEGMENT MATCH LINE MATCH

ALTERNATE RAIL TRAIL ROUTE ACCESSIBLE PARKING CROSS WALK RAIL TRAIL PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL

MT VERNON STREET VERNON MT

STREET BARROWS RAIL TRAIL SWITCH BACK OR ADA RAMP

CROSS WALK ADA RAMP

FENCE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LIGHT RECREATION ROAD RECREATION

CLARK

STREET ELMVIEW PLACE MT VERNON STREET VERNON MT

WHITING AVENUE

SEGMENT B ALTERNATIVE Mt. Vernon Street to North of Avery Elementary School to High School Field Parking Lot

WHITING AVENUE

SEGMENT D SEGMENT MATCH LINE MATCH 220’

0 55’ 110’ N

WHITING AVENUE WALNUT STREET WALNUT SEGMENT C High School Field Parking Lot to Fairview Street Fairview to Lot Parking High School Field PLANTING FENCE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS

RAIL TRAIL REGRADE AREA AS REQUIRED BERM CASS AVENUE CASS

HAZELNUT PLACE

220’ QUINCY STREET EXTENSION STREET QUINCY

0 55’ 110’

QUINCY STREET QUINCY N

SEGMENT D RIVER STREET RIVER Fairview Street to Quincy to Extension Street Street Fairview

MILTON STREET

SHIFT IN RAIL TRAIL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FENCE INTERIM TERMINUS FLANAGAN PLACE FLANAGAN

WHITING AVENUE

RAIL TRAIL REGRADE AREA AS REQUIRED STREET PROTECTIVE NETTING + FENCE PLANTING

FAIRVIEW

SEGMENT C SEGMENT MATCH LINE MATCH SEGMENT A - EXISTING PHOTOS

APPENDIX B SEGMENT B - EXISTING PHOTOS SEGMENT B - ALTERNATE ROUTE BEHIND AVERY - EXISTING PHOTOS SEGMENT C - EXISTING PHOTOS SEGMENT D - EXISTING PHOTOS

85 Devonshire Street, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA 02109 Tel: 617.412.4480

TO: Cheri Ruane and Cassidy Chroust

FROM: Kenneth Gendron

DATE: August 29, 2016

SUBJECT: Summary of Dedham Rail Trail Environmental Findings

The DEP database was reviewed along with a request for an EDR including Sanborn Maps and historical aerial photos. The DPE site map is attached. The blue dots represent sites closed with a Class A-2 RAO (clean but not to background) or Permanent Solution Statement with No Conditions and the green dots represent sites closed with a Class A-3 RAO which includes and Activity and Use Limitation (AUL). Red dots represent open sites. The accompanying list with the red highlighted RTNS are the sites located in the vicinity of the proposed rail trail that have been reviewed.

The EDR will take some time to come in because of the type of search requested.

However, of the 11 DEP sites along the trail, no issues have been found. All 11 RTNS have been either closed or linked to closed sites. The one big one is the adjacent rail yard. It is closed, but with a deed restriction. This site is at the end (or beginning) of the proposed rail trail and borders on Quincy Street.

The EDR report and appendices were reviewed. There was limited Sanborn coverage so they were not helpful. There was a nice library of aerial photos dating back to 1938. There have not been many significant changes throughout the area over time as it has been primarily residential with some commercial development. The rail yard has been throughout that timeframe. There was no new information in the EDR report itself.

Therefore, no significant environmental issues were found along the proposed rail trail with the exception of the rail yard. There may be some soil management issues along the former rail line itself consistent with historical use as a rail line and treated timbers. Of course there is always the risk of an undocumented spill along the rail line itself, however, that is unlikely.

Enclosed: Dedham Rail Trail DEP Site Map

westonandsampson.com Offices in: MA, CT, NH, VT, NY, NJ, PA, SC & FL

SearchableSites Page 1 of 6

Reportable Release Lookup

Locations Map Legend | Data Questions?

200 m 1000 ft

The search returned 201 results | Search Keywords >> 'DEDHAM' | Data last updated: 08/26/2016 There is a maximum limit of 200 records that can be displayed. You have exceeded the limit. 200 records have been displayed. Page:1 of 2 Sorted by: Release Address GIS Previous Next City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical Files Select RTN Town Address Location Aid Category Date Status Date Phase Class Type GIS 3-0000003 DEDHAM ALLIED DR DEDHAM PLACE NONE 1986-03-06 DEPNFA 1987-12-16 Files ALLIED 3-0000795 DEDHAM 1 ALLIED DR NONE 1986-11-12 WCSPRM 1990-05-10 Files CONTAINER CORP DEDHAM PLACE Hazardous 3-0026042 DEDHAM 3 ALLIED DR 42-17-29 N 71-36-22 TWO HR 2006-07-11 RAO 2006-11-03 A1 Files MAP Material W 3-0011343 DEDHAM 40 ALLIED DR RTE 128 120 DY 1994-07-21 RAO 1995-09-26 A2 Oil Files MAP 3-0012983 DEDHAM 40 ALLIED DR NEAR RTE 128 120 DY 1995-09-28 RAO 1996-01-16 A2 Oil Files MAP 3-0000902 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR ATLAS OIL NONE 1988-10-15 RAO 1995-06-28 A2 Files OFF EAST ST EXIT 3-0010345 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR TWO HR 1993-12-22 RAO 1994-02-18 A1 Oil Files MAP OF 128 3-0014384 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1996-10-22 RAO 1997-10-22 A3 Oil Files MAP 3-0016606 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1998-03-17 RAO 1998-05-08 A2 Oil Files MAP 68-116 ALLIED CUMMINS NORTH PHASE 3-0003152 DEDHAM NONE 1990-07-15 RAO 1996-07-29 Oil Files DR ATLANTIC II 3-0012993 DEDHAM 75 ALLIED DR NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1995-10-02 RAO 1996-01-26 A2 Oil Files MAP 40 ALLIED ROOFING TAR Hazardous 3-0031063 DEDHAM 120 DY 2012-08-22 RAO 2013-06-13 A2 Files MAP DRIVE RELEASE Material 3-0023159 DEDHAM AMES ST @ POLE #51/31 TWO HR 2003-09-09 RAO 2003-09-18 A1 Files MAP 3-0028967 DEDHAM 18 AMES ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2009-12-22 URAM 2010-01-08 Oil Files PHASE 3-0002716 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST MOBIL STATION NONE 1991-10-15 RAO 2011-05-12 C1 Oil Files MAP V Oil and PHASE 3-0021116 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2001-09-28 RAO 2011-05-12 Hazardous Files MAP V Material EXXON MOBIL 3-0023153 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST TWO HR 2003-09-07 RTN CLOSED 2005-04-13 Oil Files MAP STATION 3-0023994 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2004-06-23 RTN CLOSED 2005-04-13 Oil Files MAP Oil and MOBIL STATION 3-0025770 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST 72 HR 2006-03-29 RTN CLOSED 2007-01-26 Hazardous Files MAP 11658 FMLY 01-081 Material 3-0026537 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST MOBIL STATION 72 HR 2007-01-19 RTN CLOSED 2007-03-16 Oil Files MAP 3 AND 5 DENTAL OFFICE 3-0018370 DEDHAM TWO HR 1999-06-04 RAO 1999-06-16 A1 Files MAP SCHOOL ST BLDG 3-0023068 DEDHAM 2-4 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2003-06-18 DPS 2003-10-28 Files MAP 3-0024795 DEDHAM 2 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2005-04-22 PSC 2015-11-24 PC Oil Files MAP PHASE 3-0013374 DEDHAM 22 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1996-01-25 RAO 2006-12-04 A2 Oil Files MAP V

http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016 SearchableSites Page 2 of 6

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical Files Select RTN Town Address Location Aid Category Date Status Date Phase Class Type GIS 3-0017238 DEDHAM 22 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1998-08-31 RTN CLOSED 1998-12-30 Files MAP 3-0006022 DEDHAM 23 BRIDGE ST RAY S AUTO NONE 1994-03-08 RAO 1995-03-22 A2 Files PHASE 3-0003648 DEDHAM 27 BRIDGE ST SHELL SERV. STA. NONE 1991-07-15 RAO 2004-03-09 A2 Oil Files MAP V PHASE 3-0023652 DEDHAM 27 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2004-03-03 RAO 2006-09-29 A2 Files MAP II PHASE 3-0013759 DEDHAM 79 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1996-05-14 RAO 2007-08-14 A2 Oil Files MAP II BARREL DUMPING 3-0001761 DEDHAM 150 BRIDGE ST NONE 1987-01-15 DEPNFA 1993-07-23 WETLAND BP SERVICE PHASE 3-0002485 DEDHAM 367 BRIDGE ST NONE 1989-10-15 RAO 1996-06-17 A2 Oil Files STATION III 22 BRIDGE GETTY SERVICE 3-0032274 DEDHAM 72 HR 2014-06-27 PSNC 2015-06-26 PN Oil Files MAP STREET STATION 22 BRIDGE FORMER GETTY 3-0032761 DEDHAM TWO HR 2015-03-04 PSNC 2015-06-30 PN Oil Files MAP STREET STATION 3-0026971 DEDHAM 26 BRYANT ST TOWN OFFICES 120 DY 2007-07-27 RAO 2008-07-25 B1 Oil Files MAP 3-0010021 DEDHAM 215 BUSSEY ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1993-10-06 RAO 1994-01-31 A4 Oil Files MAP Oil and COMMONWEALTH PHASE 3-0004540 DEDHAM 216 BUSSEY ST NONE 1993-10-01 RAO 2000-02-12 A4 Hazardous Files MAP GAS IV Material BOSTON EDISON PHASE Hazardous 3-0019447 DEDHAM 11 CECIL PL 72 HR 2000-04-12 RAO 2003-04-22 C1 Files MAP SUBSTATION 20 IV Material NSTAR 3-0020431 DEDHAM 11 CECIL PL TWO HR 2001-03-01 RAO 2001-03-15 A2 Oil Files MAP SUBSTATION 20 NSTAR ELECTRIC 3-0024094 DEDHAM 11 CECIL PL POWER STA 20 120 DY 2004-07-28 RAO 2004-07-28 A2 Files MAP TRNSFMR 24B NSTAR ELECTRIC 3-0024970 DEDHAM 11 CECIL PL POWER DISTR STA 120 DY 2005-06-15 RAO 2005-06-15 A2 Files MAP 20 11 CECIL NSTAR STATION 3-0030738 DEDHAM 72 HR 2012-03-27 RTN CLOSED 2012-06-04 Files MAP PLACE #20 14 CHAUNCEY PHASE 3-0026355 DEDHAM HOMEOWNER TWO HR 2006-11-02 RAO 2009-02-13 A2 Oil Files MAP ST II Hazardous 3-0025257 DEDHAM CHURCHILL PL CHURCHILL PARK 72 HR 2005-09-21 RAO 2006-08-03 A2 Files MAP Material 175 3-0025001 DEDHAM COMMERCIAL WES LAND TRUST 120 DY 2005-07-01 RAO 2005-09-13 A2 Oil Files MAP CIR 400 Oil and LOT 49 PHASE 3-0023517 DEDHAM COMMERCIAL 120 DY 2004-01-15 RAO 2006-11-29 A3 Hazardous Files MAP RUSTCRAFT RD II CIR Material 97 DALE RESIDENTIAL 3-0032668 DEDHAM TWO HR 2015-01-07 PSNC 2015-11-12 PN Oil Files MAP STREET PROPERTY 3-0019832 DEDHAM 875 EAST ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2000-08-14 RAO 2007-03-22 C2 Oil Files MAP Oil and 3-0026207 DEDHAM 875 EAST ST PROPERTY 120 DY 2006-07-12 DPS 2006-10-04 Hazardous Files MAP Material PHASE 3-0001362 DEDHAM 901 EAST ST TEXACO STATION NONE 1988-10-15 RAO 1996-11-22 A2 Oil Files III 3-0010474 DEDHAM 901 EAST ST DEDHAM TEXACO TWO HR 1994-01-21 RAO 1996-11-22 Oil MAP TEXACO SERVICE PHASE 3-0027223 DEDHAM 901 EAST ST 120 DY 2007-11-07 REMOPS 2015-02-25 Oil Files MAP STA V EASTWOOD 3-0010539 DEDHAM 1007 EAST ST 72 HR 1993-10-01 RAO 1994-03-17 A2 Oil Files MAP NURSING HOME PHASE 3-0019432 DEDHAM 1039 EAST ST NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2000-04-05 TMPS 2016-06-23 TF Oil Files MAP IV PHASE 3-0020943 DEDHAM 1069 EAST ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2001-07-27 REMOPS 2013-12-02 Oil Files MAP V EASTERN METAL PHASE 3-0004448 DEDHAM 1105 EAST ST NONE 1993-07-15 PSNC 2014-11-26 PN Oil Files MAP MILL PRODUCTS II ALONG PHASE 3-0029306 DEDHAM EAST STREET DRIVEWAY TO NO TWO HR 2010-06-02 RTN CLOSED 2012-04-10 Oil Files MAP II 1039 EAST ST 15 EASTERN 3-0015018 DEDHAM NEAR BRYANT ST 120 DY 1997-04-09 RAO 1997-04-09 A2 Oil Files MAP AVE Oil and 31 EASTERN 3-0014149 DEDHAM GULF STATION 72 HR 1996-08-26 RAO 1998-06-15 A2 Hazardous Files MAP AVE Material 31 EASTERN FROM HEATING Hazardous 3-0014453 DEDHAM 120 DY 1996-10-22 RAO 1998-06-15 A2 Files MAP AVE OIL TANK Material Oil and 31 EASTERN 3-0017018 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1998-07-07 RAO 1999-07-01 B1 Hazardous Files MAP AVE Material 31 EASTERN CUMBERLAND 3-0024715 DEDHAM 72 HR 2005-03-23 RAO 2006-03-30 A2 Oil Files MAP AVE FARMS 3-0001760 DEDHAM ELM ST ROADWAY SPILL NONE 1986-12-06 DEPNDS 1996-05-09 Files DEDHAM 3-0026876 DEDHAM 55 ELM ST INSTITUTION FOR TWO HR 2007-06-05 RAO 2008-06-06 A2 Oil Files MAP SAVINGS Hazardous 3-0026841 DEDHAM 200 ELM ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2007-05-11 RTN CLOSED 2008-05-19 Files MAP Material FOUNDRY SAND Oil and PHASE 3-0026872 DEDHAM 200 ELM ST SECONDARY DISP 120 DY 2007-05-11 RAO 2010-05-20 A3 Hazardous Files MAP III AREA Material 3-0001196 DEDHAM 250 ELM ST NONE 1988-10-15 RAO 2007-06-18 A3 Oil Files MAP

http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016 SearchableSites Page 3 of 6

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical Files Select RTN Town Address Location Aid Category Date Status Date Phase Class Type GIS HERSEY PRODUCTS INC Hazardous 3-0026857 DEDHAM 250 ELM ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2007-05-23 RTN CLOSED 2008-05-30 Files MAP Material 30 ELMVIEW 3-0030264 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2011-08-30 RAO 2011-09-30 A2 Oil Files MAP PLACE ERNEST AND MILTON Hazardous 3-0027172 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2007-10-11 URAM 2007-10-11 Files MAP STREET TO Material COMO RD FAIRBANKS ST BOSTON EDISON 3-0012524 DEDHAM TWO HR 1995-05-27 RAO 1995-07-21 A1 Oil Files MAP AT TAFT ST POLE 227/9 Oil and FOX TELEVISION 3-0019739 DEDHAM 25 FOX DR 120 DY 2000-07-13 RAO 2001-02-09 B1 Hazardous Files MAP STATION Material GREEN LODGE GREEN LODGE 3-0010361 DEDHAM ELEMENTARY 72 HR 1993-12-27 RAO 1994-04-26 A2 Oil Files MAP ST SCHOOL HASTINGS ROADWAY 3-0026583 DEDHAM STREET AT TWO HR 2007-02-07 RAO 2007-03-27 A1 Oil Files MAP RELEASE LORRAINE ST 123 HAVEN Hazardous 3-0029555 DEDHAM POLE #70/14 TWO HR 2010-09-30 RAO 2010-10-29 A1 Files MAP STREET Material 3-0012495 DEDHAM 146 HIGH ST POLE 72/10 TWO HR 1995-05-22 RAO 1995-07-21 A1 Oil Files MAP EAST AND HIGH 3-0024072 DEDHAM 490 HIGH ST 72 HR 2004-07-22 RAO 2004-11-16 A2 Oil Files MAP STREET ROTARY HIGH STREET Hazardous 3-0024412 DEDHAM 491 HIGH ST 120 DY 2004-11-16 RAO 2005-02-01 B1 Files MAP ROADWAY Material NORFOLK 3-0019170 DEDHAM 649 HIGH ST REGISTRY OF TWO HR 2000-01-15 RAO 2000-03-14 A2 Oil Files MAP DEEDS I-95 SOUTH TRUCK TURNOUT 3-0014085 DEDHAM TWO HR 1996-08-02 RAO 1997-04-16 A1 Files MAP (128) NR RT 135 I-95 SOUTH REST STOP NORTH 3-0028064 DEDHAM (RTE 128 TWO HR 2008-10-10 RAO 2009-02-06 A2 Oil Files MAP OF RTE 135 SOUTH) 5 BEHIND DEDHAM Hazardous 3-0017280 DEDHAM INCINERATOR TWO HR 1998-09-10 RAO 1998-11-09 A1 Files MAP MALL Material RD INDUSTRIAL Hazardous 3-0018777 DEDHAM MBTA TWO HR 1999-09-22 RTN CLOSED 2001-07-04 Files MAP AVE Material INDUSTRIAL MBTA READVILLE 3-0002856 DEDHAM NONE 1991-01-15 RAO 2013-04-09 A3 Files MAP DR YARD 8 INDUSTRIAL NORTH OF FIRE Hazardous 3-0029477 DEDHAM 120 DY 2010-08-31 URAM 2010-09-09 Files MAP DR TRMT BLDG Material 8 INDUSTRIAL 3-0033411 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2016-02-15 PSNC 2016-03-29 PN Oil Files MAP DR 300 LEGACY WHOLE FOODS 3-0031902 DEDHAM TWO HR 2013-12-08 RAO 2014-02-03 A1 Oil Files MAP PLACE MARKET 3-0018611 DEDHAM LYONS ST LYONS BRIDGE TWO HR 1999-08-08 RAO 1999-10-15 A2 Oil Files MAP 58 MCDONALD PRECISION Hazardous 3-0028245 DEDHAM 120 DY 2008-12-24 RAO 2009-12-31 A2 Files MAP ST COATING INC Material 58 MCDONALD PRECISION Hazardous 3-0028522 DEDHAM 120 DY 2009-05-19 RAO 2009-12-31 Files ST COATING INC Material 25 MCNEIL 3-0029666 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2010-11-23 RAO 2010-11-29 A1 Files MAP WAY 180 MEADOW 3-0033544 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2016-04-26 PSNC 2016-05-31 PN Files MAP ROAD EMERGENCY 3-0004765 DEDHAM 29 MILTON ST NONE 1993-08-13 DEPNFA 1996-06-03 Oil FUEL 160-168 FONTAINES AUTO 3-0015181 DEDHAM 120 DY 1997-06-06 DPS 1999-01-08 Oil MAP MILTON ST SERVICE 160-168 3-0017858 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1999-01-08 RAO 1999-01-08 B1 Oil Files MAP MILTON ST PHASE 3-0014851 DEDHAM 180 MILTON ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1997-02-24 RAO 2001-05-14 C1 Oil Files MAP II GASOLINE PHASE 3-0001934 DEDHAM 197 MILTON ST NONE 1989-01-15 RAO 1996-01-02 A2 Files STATION II ADJACENT TO PHASE 3-0011441 DEDHAM 200 MILTON ST 120 DY 1994-08-22 RAO 1996-08-05 A3 Oil Files MAP DEDHAM DPW II 155 MT 3-0010134 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1993-11-02 RAO 1994-01-09 A3 Oil Files MAP VERNON ST NEAR 129 3-0025591 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2006-01-18 RAO 2006-01-27 A1 Files MAP JENNEY LN 3-0011216 DEDHAM NEEDHAM ST 262 NEEDHAM ST TWO HR 1994-06-29 RAO 1994-09-01 A1 Files MAP 3-0014931 DEDHAM NEEDHAM ST POLE #59 TWO HR 1997-04-10 RAO 1997-08-13 A2 Oil Files MAP 262 NEEDHAM ST SUSANNAS 3-0003713 DEDHAM NONE 1991-03-06 RAO 1997-08-10 Files ST CHURCH 800 3-0028437 DEDHAM NEWBRIDGE NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2009-04-08 RAO 2009-06-08 A2 Files MAP CIR NORFOLK AND 3-0021389 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2002-01-10 RAO 2002-02-12 A2 Oil Files MAP COURT STS 100 OSJL SHOPPING Hazardous 3-0033710 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2016-07-22 UNCLASSIFIED 2016-07-22 Files CENTER Material HIGHWAY 3-0031420 DEDHAM LOWES FACILITY TWO HR 2013-03-11 RAO 2013-05-06 A1 Oil Files MAP

http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016 SearchableSites Page 4 of 6

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical Files Select RTN Town Address Location Aid Category Date Status Date Phase Class Type GIS 306 PROVIDENCE HIGHWAY 920-928 DEDHAM Hazardous 3-0032088 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2014-04-02 PSNC 2014-06-19 PN Files MAP CABINET Material HIGHWAY PROVIDENCE CHEVROLET 3-0003732 DEDHAM NONE 1991-10-15 RAO 1994-07-05 A2 Files HWY GALLERY 180 3-0016737 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE STOP N SHOP TWO HR 1998-04-27 RAO 1998-06-25 A1 Oil Files MAP HWY 180 3-0019148 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2000-01-10 RAO 2000-03-22 A1 Oil Files MAP HWY 287 Oil and PHASE 3-0024049 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2004-07-13 RAO 2006-01-25 A2 Hazardous Files MAP III HWY Material 405 GASOLINE 3-0032228 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE TWO HR 2014-06-12 PSNC 2014-08-11 PN Oil Files MAP STATION HWY 580 RW REDMAN CO 3-0003370 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NONE 1990-10-15 RAO 2001-09-04 A3 Oil Files MAP INC HWY 580 3-0013614 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE RTE 1 72 HR 1996-03-27 RAO 1998-06-15 A3 Oil Files MAP HWY 725-765 3-0010825 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE DEDHAM PLAZA 120 DY 1994-07-05 RAO 1995-07-03 A2 Oil Files MAP HWY 805 FORMER Hazardous 3-0021412 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2002-01-17 RAO 2002-01-17 B1 Files MAP CAMBRIDGE TIRE Material HWY 825 DALCO REALTY 3-0030590 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2012-01-19 RAO 2012-01-25 B1 Oil Files MAP TRUST HWY 882 3-0010168 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NYNEX GARAGE 72 HR 1993-11-09 RAO 1994-03-08 A2 Oil Files MAP HWY 945-947 NISSAN REALTY 3-0026560 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2007-01-25 RAO 2007-05-18 B1 Oil Files MAP LLC HWY 950 3-0029696 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2010-12-10 RAO 2011-04-12 A1 Oil Files MAP HWY 1000 ALBANY 3-0001534 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NONE 1988-10-15 RAO 1994-02-05 A2 Files INTERNATIONAL HWY 405 Oil and 3-0021870 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE SUNOCO STATION 120 DY 2002-06-20 RAO 2011-12-19 A2 Hazardous Files MAP HWY RT1 Material PROVIDENCE DEDHAM 3-0010383 DEDHAM 72 HR 1993-12-31 RAO 1994-12-27 B1 Oil Files MAP TPKE SHOPPING PLAZA 525 3-0010802 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE RT 1 72 HR 1994-04-06 RAO 1994-06-08 A1 Oil Files MAP TPKE 525 Oil and PHASE 3-0020483 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2001-01-19 RAO 2005-05-16 A2 Hazardous Files MAP IV TPKE Material 525 3-0020603 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2001-04-18 RTN CLOSED 2001-11-06 Oil Files MAP TPKE 525 Hazardous 3-0023207 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2003-09-25 RTN CLOSED 2004-09-13 Files Material TPKE 525 FORMER SHELL 3-0023644 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 72 HR 2004-02-27 RTN CLOSED 2004-09-13 Oil Files MAP STATION TPKE 990 CM SERVICE 3-0013490 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE TRAINING 120 DY 1996-02-26 RAO 2000-03-08 A2 Files MAP TPKE CENTER 990 3-0019156 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE GM TRAINING CTR 120 DY 2000-01-07 RAO 2000-03-08 Oil Files MAP TPKE REAR 460 3-0015663 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE RTE 1 TWO HR 1997-10-29 RAO 1998-01-02 A2 Oil Files MAP HWY 904 REAR STERGIS 3-0003992 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE ALUMINUM NONE 1993-10-01 DEPNDS 1996-06-06 Oil Files HWY PRODUCTS 3-0000165 DEDHAM 11 RIVER ST HUGHES OIL CO NONE 1987-01-15 RAO 1995-08-03 B1 Files Oil and 3-0015372 DEDHAM 12 RIVER ST BOSTON EDISON TWO HR 1997-08-03 RAO 1997-10-02 A1 Hazardous Files MAP Material Hazardous 3-0014069 DEDHAM 30 RIVER ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1996-07-25 RAO 1996-07-25 A2 Files MAP Material 3-0002846 DEDHAM 41 RIVER ST NONE 1990-04-15 WCSPRM 1990-03-21 Files

http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016 SearchableSites Page 5 of 6

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical Files Select RTN Town Address Location Aid Category Date Status Date Phase Class Type GIS OAKLAND LUMBER COMPANY DEDHAM/HYDE PHASE 3-0014699 DEDHAM 47 RIVER ST 120 DY 1997-01-21 RAO 1997-06-02 B2 Oil Files MAP PARK LINE II Oil and DEDHAM DPW 3-0016985 DEDHAM 55 RIVER ST TWO HR 1998-06-29 RAO 1998-08-27 A1 Hazardous Files MAP GARAGE Material 3-0017258 DEDHAM 106 RIVER ST NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 1998-09-08 RAO 1999-01-14 A2 Oil Files MAP 3-0022684 DEDHAM 111 RIVER ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2003-03-20 RAO 2003-07-23 A2 Oil Files MAP 3-0032508 DEDHAM ROUTE 128 N EXIT 15B TWO HR 2014-10-27 PSNC 2014-12-23 PN Oil Files MAP 3-0011157 DEDHAM RTE 1 NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 1994-06-16 RAO 1994-08-11 A1 Oil Files MAP WASHINGTON ST 3-0025105 DEDHAM RTE 1 TWO HR 2005-08-05 RAO 2005-09-22 A1 Oil Files MAP AREA ACROSS THE 3-0025255 DEDHAM RTE 1 STREET FROM TWO HR 2005-09-21 RAO 2005-11-28 A1 Oil Files MAP MALL 3-0020659 DEDHAM RTE 109 BRG CHARLES RIVER TWO HR 2001-05-01 RAO 2001-07-05 A1 Files MAP 3-0020826 DEDHAM RTE 109 BRG CHARLES RIVER TWO HR 2001-06-04 RAO 2001-08-03 A1 Files MAP RTE 128 AND 3-0019505 DEDHAM UNIVERSITY NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2000-05-03 RAO 2000-08-04 A1 Oil Files MAP AVE 3-0019848 DEDHAM RTE 128 N AT ROUTE 1 TWO HR 2000-08-18 RAO 2001-08-17 A2 Oil Files MAP EXIT 16 ON RTE 3-0022642 DEDHAM RTE 128 S TWO HR 2003-03-04 RAO 2003-05-02 A1 Oil Files MAP 109 Oil and RTE 95 AND 3-0020352 DEDHAM EXIT 15 TWO HR 2001-01-26 RAO 2001-03-27 A1 Hazardous Files MAP RTE 1 Material RTE 95N BETWEEN EXITS 3-0011709 DEDHAM UNIVERSITY TWO HR 1994-10-08 RAO 1995-03-01 A1 Oil Files MAP 12&13 AVE Oil and FMR FUEL OIL UST PHASE 3-0014555 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT 120 DY 1996-11-25 RAO 1999-06-14 A2 Hazardous Files MAP B222 III Material NE CONCRETE PHASE 3-0001821 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT RD NONE 1989-01-15 RAO 1997-11-28 A3 Files PIPE FMR III FMR NE 3-0012587 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT RD CONCRETE PIPE 72 HR 1995-06-16 RTN CLOSED 1995-08-15 Oil Files MAP CO FMR STORAGE PHASE 3-0014556 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT RD 120 DY 1996-11-25 RAO 1997-11-28 A3 Oil Files MAP BLDG B206 III B310/ FRMR OIL PHASE 3-0014557 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT RD 120 DY 1996-11-25 RAO 1997-11-28 A3 Oil Files MAP RELEASE III Oil and 367-419 PARCELS 49 AND PHASE 3-0016844 DEDHAM 120 DY 1998-05-21 RAO 2011-05-23 B2 Hazardous Files MAP RUSTCRAFT RD 52 II Material 100 OFF PARKING Hazardous 3-0033417 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT 120 DY 2016-02-11 PSNC 2016-07-14 PN Files MAP AREA - EAST SIDE Material ROAD 180 3-0032157 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2014-05-09 PSNC 2015-03-04 PN Oil Files MAP ROAD 4 SANDERSON COMMERCIAL PHASE 3-0004648 DEDHAM NONE 1992-10-05 RAO 2002-01-09 A3 Files MAP AVE PROPERTY II 225 3-0004487 DEDHAM SCHOOLMASTER PROPERTY NONE 1993-07-15 DEPNFA 1996-06-06 Oil Files LN 3-0019762 DEDHAM 50 SPRAGUE ST NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2000-07-26 RAO 2002-01-25 A1 Oil Files 427 SPRAGUE IN PUBLIC 3-0012255 DEDHAM TWO HR 1995-03-09 RAO 1995-05-08 A1 Oil Files MAP ST ROADWAY 470 SPRAGUE 3-0000619 DEDHAM GENERAL FOODS NONE 1990-01-15 DPS 2010-07-19 Oil Files MAP ST 480 SPRAGUE 3-0031897 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2013-12-03 RAO 2014-02-03 A1 Oil Files MAP STREET 125 STERGIS BELL ATLANTIC PHASE 3-0015730 DEDHAM 72 HR 1997-11-20 RAO 2002-09-26 A2 Oil Files MAP WAY LEASED GARAGE V 120 STERGIS 3-0023792 DEDHAM STERGIS WAY TWO HR 2004-04-23 RAO 2004-04-28 A2 Oil Files MAP WAY NEAR POLE #366 - 3-0015676 DEDHAM STURGIS WAY 3-1,COMMERCIAL TWO HR 1997-11-03 RAO 1997-12-26 A1 Oil Files MAP DRIVE 3-0013918 DEDHAM TARBOX ST END OF ST TWO HR 1996-06-20 RAO 2000-06-05 B1 Files MAP 322 TO 350 3-0018313 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1999-05-17 RAO 1999-09-09 A2 Oil Files MAP WHITING AVE 980 TO 990 3-0018939 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1999-11-03 DPS 1999-11-03 Oil Files MAP ST Oil and 3-0015309 DEDHAM TURNER RD NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 1997-07-17 RAO 1997-09-15 A2 Hazardous Files MAP Material 3-0027574 DEDHAM 70 TURNER ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2008-03-14 RAO 2008-12-15 A2 Oil Files MAP UNIVERSITY 3-0018492 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 1999-07-07 RAO 1999-11-10 A2 Oil Files MAP AVE 360 VETERANS Hazardous 3-0014826 DEDHAM OF FOREIGN NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 1997-02-14 RTN CLOSED 1997-04-14 Files MAP Material WARS PKWY 3-0001022 DEDHAM NONE 1988-01-15 RAO 2008-09-04 A2 Files MAP

http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016 SearchableSites Page 6 of 6

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical Files Select RTN Town Address Location Aid Category Date Status Date Phase Class Type GIS 370 VETERANS PORT STATION OF FOREIGN REYNOLDS IND WARS PKWY FMR NORFOLK 47 VILLAGE PHASE 3-0018579 DEDHAM CNTY CORR TWO HR 1999-07-30 RAO 2006-05-09 A2 Oil Files MAP AVE II FACILITY 3 567 NORFOLK PHASE 3-0000567 DEDHAM 47 VILLAGE ST NONE 1987-01-15 RAO 2006-05-09 Oil Files MAP COUNTY JAIL IV WASHINGTON 3-0017589 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1998-11-17 RAO 2002-11-25 B1 Oil Files MAP ST 2 3-0001828 DEDHAM WASHINGTON CAR WASH NONE 1989-01-15 RAO 2003-09-22 A2 MAP ST 3 3-0001350 DEDHAM WASHINGTON PROPERTY NONE 1988-10-15 DEPNDS 1996-05-10 Files ST 106 DEDHAM SERVICE PHASE 3-0004518 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NONE 1993-07-15 RAO 2002-05-29 A2 Files MAP CENTER II ST 387 PHASE 3-0013169 DEDHAM WASHINGTON SCHOOL STREET 120 DY 1995-11-21 RAO 1999-02-26 A2 Oil Files MAP II ST 387 BELL ATLNATIC 3-0017328 DEDHAM WASHINGTON 72 HR 1998-09-21 RAO 1999-02-26 Oil Files MAP CENTRAL OFFICE ST 431 EXXON SERVICE PHASE 3-0000999 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NONE 1990-01-15 RAO 1996-12-03 B1 Files STATION II ST 436 PHASE 3-0017603 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1998-11-19 RAO 2000-11-21 A2 Oil Files MAP II ST 436 WASHINGTON 3-0023751 DEDHAM WASHINGTON STREET FIRE TWO HR 2004-04-13 RAO 2004-06-09 A1 Oil Files MAP ST STATION 616-700 REAR DEDHAM 3-0014634 DEDHAM WASHINGTON TWO HR 1996-12-16 RAO 1997-04-18 A2 Oil Files MAP PLAZA ST 1000 TEXACO SERVICE Hazardous 3-0004035 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NONE 1992-10-15 RAO 1994-09-20 A2 Files STATION Material ST 1000 TEXACO SERVICE PHASE Hazardous 3-0021779 DEDHAM WASHINGTON 120 DY 2002-05-21 RAO 2003-10-21 A2 Files MAP STATION II Material ST 1000 3-0022848 DEDHAM WASHINGTON TEXACO 72 HR 2003-05-09 RAO 2003-09-11 A2 Oil Files MAP ST 1000 3-0022858 DEDHAM WASHINGTON TEXACO STATION 72 HR 2003-05-14 RAO 2003-09-11 A2 Oil Files MAP ST 1000 3-0023004 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2003-07-08 RAO 2003-09-11 A2 Oil Files MAP ST WELLESLEY 3-0003712 DEDHAM EXTENSION MWRA PROPERTY NONE 1990-02-16 PENNFA 1996-07-22 Oil Files TUNL CONSTRUCTION 3-0028267 DEDHAM 44 WEST ST TWO HR 2009-01-07 RAO 2009-02-13 A1 Files MAP SITE 3-0028610 DEDHAM 45 WEST ST NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2009-07-10 RAO 2009-08-21 A2 Files MAP 379-381 WEST 3-0021390 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2002-01-10 RAO 2002-03-11 A1 Oil Files MAP ST 724 WESTFIELD DEDHAM 3-0000750 DEDHAM NONE 1990-01-15 RAO 1997-03-17 A2 Files ST COUNTRY CLUB 140 WHITING DEDHAM HIGH 3-0011327 DEDHAM 72 HR 1994-07-20 RAO 1994-09-20 A2 Oil Files MAP AVE SCHOOL 310 WHITING 3-0002149 DEDHAM PROPERTY NONE 1989-04-15 RAO 1996-07-29 Files AVE

Page:1 of 2 Previous Next

http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016 Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail -Trails CONTENTS

Executive Summary...... 4

Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������7

Major Maintenance Tasks ��������������������������������������������������������8

Administration ��������������������������������������������������������������������8 Vegetation – Grass, Trees, Herbicides and Invasives! ������������9 Surface – Repair, Clearing, Snow ���������������������������������������14 Drainage ���������������������������������������������������������������������������18 Trailhead Amenities �����������������������������������������������������������19 Sanitation �������������������������������������������������������������������������21 Signage ����������������������������������������������������������������������������22 Access Control ������������������������������������������������������������������23 Trail Features ��������������������������������������������������������������������24 Other ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������25

Conclusions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������27

Appendix A: 2014 Survey Results ������������������������������������������30

Appendix B: List of Participants...... 42

Wallkill Valley Rail Trail, NY.

ABOUT US Rails-to-Trails Conservancy serves as the national Rails-to-Trails Conservancy voice for more than 160,000 members and Northeast Regional Office supporters, 30,000 miles of rail-trails and 2133 Market Street, Suite 222 multiuse trails, and more than 8,000 miles of Camp Hill, PA 17011 potential trails waiting to be built, with a goal of Tel 717.238.1717 / Fax 717.238.7566 creating more walkable, bikeable communities National Headquarters in America. Since 1986, we have worked from 2121 Ward Court, NW, 5th Floor coast to coast, supporting the development of Washington, D.C. 20037 thousands of miles of rail-trails for millions to Tel 202.331.9696 / Fax 202.223.9257 explore and enjoy. railstotrails.org TrailLink.com

2 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Produced by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Carl Knoch Tom Sexton June 2015

The team wishes to recognize and thank RTC staff and others who contributed to the accuracy and utility of this report. Thanks to the trail managers and RTC staff who contributed photos for this report. This study was made possible by the generous support of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation, Community and Conservation Partnership Program.

Allegheny River Trail, PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

or the past three decades of rail-trail development, In the 10 years that RTC’s Northeast Regional Office has maintenance costs have generally been seen as being tracked technical inquiries, there has been a steady decline expensive. These expenses, however, have remained in the number of maintenance-related request. There are largelyF untracked on a state or national basis. Further, a likely several reasons for this decline. Rail-trail managers comprehensive breakdown and ranking of maintenance and others share maintenance methods through a variety priorities did not exist. of networks, in addition to providing direct assistance to one another. Earlier documents on maintenance best To better understand this issue, RTC conducted a management practices have also likely been helpful. In comprehensive survey of trail maintenance costs. Results addition, many individual trails have been combined into of this study show that, contrary to popular belief, larger systems, thus creating economies of scale. Volunteer maintenance costs are not as high as many perceive them programs also have grown in size and dependability and to be. In fact, when taking into account for volunteers, have taken on more responsibility. this study found that maintenance costs on average range from $500 to $1,000 per trail mile per year depending on Finally, it is evident that maintenance also has been surface. deferred.

Therefore, it is possible that although maintenance costs have declined over time, perception of those costs has remained the same.

Trail managers and local stakeholders often cite the need for dedicated state or federal funding to help pay for trail maintenance. Up to this point, RTC has lacked sufficient data to make that case effectively to decision-makers at the state or federal level. This study was initiated to bring some clarity to this issue. Whether in a town hall meeting or a discussion with a member of Congress about the reauthorization of federal funding, more accuracy regarding rail-trail maintenance costs is required.

Because funding for rail-trails is difficult to secure, over-estimating maintenance costs can inadvertently give opponents easy leverage to speak against rail-trail development. In addition, funders often question if all aspects of any community development project should be funded by state and federal grants, particularly maintenance-related costs, which are often perceived as a “local issue.”

This study presents a more comprehensive understanding of rail-trail maintenance, as has been done for other rail- trail issues such as construction costs, economic impact and rails-with-trails. Such an approach enables the rail-trail community to focus its limited resources more effectively on addressing the most critical issues.

St. John Valley Heritage Trail, ME.

4 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails This publication is the third in a series of similar works Of all the 2014 participants, 37 percent represented rural prepared by the RTC Northeast Regional Office. The rail-trails, 14 percent urban, 13 percent suburban and 36 first was released in 1996 in collaboration with a U.S. percent mixed. The mixed category contained primarily a Department of Agriculture AmeriCorps staff member rural/suburban combination. based in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The second was released in 2005 and, as with this document, was In addition to identifying the types and frequency of made possible through a Growing Greener grant from maintenance tasks, this study sought for the first time to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of secure data on the cost of rail-trail maintenance. Almost Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation 50 percent of the 200 trail managers provided a total and Conservation. maintenance cost, though far fewer had an actual budget. With the help of several veteran trail managers, RTC went Each successive study has grown in size and scope and, a step further and prepared an additional 44-question ideally, usefulness. The 1996 study contained 40 questions survey that broke down the cost of each task. Only 25 and received responses from 60 rail-trail managers. managers completed this survey, and many of these The 2005 study expanded to 70 questions and 100 required repeated follow-up by e-mail and phone. respondents. This latest version asked 117 questions and drew answers from 200 respondents.

Figure 1. Map of Trail Groups Participating in Study

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 5 State and county managers said that it was too difficult have greater value. This research indicates that the more to separate these costs from larger existing budgets. Small likely explanation for why these costs are not tracked entities and private nonprofits said they simply did not more rigorously is that rail-trails do not require as much have the capacity to track these figures. maintenance as some fear or promote. This finding is critical in the ongoing case for funding support for rail- If the need for maintenance funding is so critical, however, trails. it would stand to reason that this data would be more available or that completion of the questionnaire would

Snow covered bridge on the Piscataquog Trail in NH.

6 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails METHODOLOGY

he comparisons illustrated in this study are mostly Links to the online survey were sent to approximately between the 2005 and 2014 findings. The 1996 300 trail management organizations contained in RTC’s study contained too many “check all that apply” national trails database as of January 6, 2014. Reminders questions,T which resulted in multiple answers and thus to participate were sent to those organizations that did not participation greater than 100 percent; comparison of the immediately respond. latter two studies was more reliable, as the answers in each added up to 100 percent. Further, not all the same trails Of the responding trail management organizations, 95 were surveyed in the three studies. Unfortunately, only indicated that they had a trail maintenance budget. A including those trails that participated in all three studies follow-up survey to gather more detailed maintenance cost would have yielded too low a number to be significant. information was sent to these 95 organizations. This was not an online survey but a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, The 2014 study began with a review of the earlier studies with 48 maintenance tasks as rows. Columns captured to determine which topics required updating. Our labor hours, hourly labor cost, volunteer hours, equipment technical assistance team provided additional insights of costs, material costs, contracted services and total cost. the questions they typically are asked. We then did a review to determine what, if any, recent literature addressed the Many follow-up emails, phone calls and personal pleas topics of trail maintenance activities and associated cost. were made over several months to encourage participation in this phase of the study. We then developed a survey instrument that would collect as much information as possible regarding the most important topics. During this process, we realized that there were different sets of questions for different trail surface types. This increased the number of questions in the survey to an overwhelming 195, which could prove prohibitive to trail managers.

This potential problem was solved by the decision to create the cost survey in Survey Monkey. Using this vehicle, we could provide trail managers with a link to the online survey, and they could take the survey at their convenience. This also enabled us reduce the number of questions by utilizing the skip logic in Survey Monkey, the manager of an asphalt-surfaced trail, for example, could “skip” all of the questions not applicable to their surface type.

To make comparisons across the trails, we limited our query to states with four seasons. We did not send invitations to trail managers in the southern tier of states. Trail side mowing along the Perkiomen Tail in PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 7 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

he 2005 study indicated that trail group volunteers performed maintenance tasks on 46 Municipal government

percent of the survey trails. In the 2014 study, Non-profit thisT percentage increased to 58 percent. Municipal government was the second most cited entity for County government 2005 performing maintenance tasks after trail-group volunteers, State government 2014 at 32 percent in 2005 and jumping to 43 percent in 2014. The percent of municipal governments owning trails Other

remained nearly the same in the two studies, at 30 percent Federal government and 34 percent in 2005 and 2014, respectively. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Figure 3. Trail Maintenance Funders (2014 Survey) Trail group volunteers

Municipal government staff

Community volunteer groups

County government staff Of the trail managers who indicated that they had a State government staff 2005 budget specifically for trail maintenance, the figures for individuals with mandatory… 2014 that budget ranged from less than $500 to more than Non-profit paid staff $700,000. This range is nearly identical to that reported Other in the 2005 study. Federal government staff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Figure 2. Who Performs Maintenance (2014 Survey) Tracking annual users Although not strictly a maintenance issue, the number of annual users of a trail does affect maintenance needs. Fifty four percent of our respondents indicated that they Administration do not currently track the number of trail users; another 23 percent indicated that they guess or estimate. Of those Written trail maintenance plan trail managers who do conduct user counts, 16 percent do We were surprised that 60 percent of the responding a manual count, and 23 percent conduct the count using trail managers indicated they do not have a written trail an automated counter of some type. The reported annul maintenance plan. A written maintenance plan will save usage ranged from 2,000 to more than 2 million. time and money and contribute to a better experience for trail users.

Funding trail maintenance Do not track annual users

In the 2014 survey, municipal government was the Estimate/guess leading funder of trail maintenance, mentioned by 42 percent of respondents. This is a significant increase from Automated counter the 2005 maintenance study, when 26 percent mentioned municipal government funding. Funding by a nonprofit Manual count

fell slightly from 34 percent in 2005 to 32 percent in 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 2014. Figure 4. Tracking by Trail Managers (2014 Survey)

8 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Hours of operation Consistent with the 2005 trail maintenance and operations study, two-thirds of the trails surveyed in 2014 are open on a dawn-to-dusk schedule.

Vegetation – Grass, Trees, Herbicides and Invasives!

Mowing Perkiomen Rail Trail, PA. Sixty percent of detailed cost survey respondents reported that mowing was a labor-intensive maintenance MOWING activity and a significant component 80 of the annual maintenance budget. We conducted a correlation 70 analysis to determine if there was a relationship between labor 60 hours and the length of trails. The 50 y = 0.1019x graph below reveals that such a R² = -0.113

relationship does not exist. 40 Series1 Linear (Series1)

Based on the data provided in the Trail Length in Miles 30 detailed cost analysis, it is apparent that the amount of time and 20 expense associated with mowing is really a function of how the trail was 10 designed. Some trails have a lot of 0 grassy areas on the shoulders of the 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 trail tread, while others have crushed Hours for Mowing stone or other shoulder materials Figure 5. Correlation analysis shows no relationship between labor that don’t require periodic mowing. hours and length of trails.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 9 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Perkiomen Rail Trail, PA Rio Grande Rail Trail, CO 20 miles 20 miles Annual mowing costs $12,542 Annual mowing costs $2,112

The Perkiomen Trail has a significant amount of grass along the shoulders of the trail and fencing that needs to be cut around manually. On the other hand, the Rio Grande Trail has more native vegetation or stone shoulders that do not require frequent mowing.

10 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA Lackawanna River Heritage Trail, PA 21.1 miles 19.9 miles Annual mowing costs $6,000 Annual mowing costs $7,367

The mowing cost for these two trails is fairly close on a per mile basis. The Heritage Rail Trail has a parallel rail bed along most of its length that requires herbicide treatment but no mowing. The Lackawanna Trail allows natural vegetation to grow along the shoulders or has placed stone shoulders.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 11 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Lititz-Warwick Trailway, PA Oil Creek State Park Trail, PA 3 miles 9.7 miles Annual Hours mowing 240 Annual hours mowing 240 Annual mowing costs $3,553 Annual mowing costs $3,739

The Lititz-Warwick Trailway has significant amounts of grassy areas that require mowing along trail edges in a primarily suburban setting. Oil Creek State Park Trail is more rural and relies on natural vegetation along the trail edges that does not require much maintenance. Surprisingly, however, both reported 240 hours was required for mowing each year. This example appears to indicate that there is no correlation between labor hours and costs.

12 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Vegetation Management We asked trail managers how much time they dedicate to vegetation management along the trail because this work is the second most labor-intensive, costly maintenance item reported by respondents to the detailed cost analysis survey. Of these respondents, 62 percent reported on this maintenance activity. The amount of time reported on a per-mile basis varied from as little as 0.25 hours per mile to 106 hours per mile (most of this work is carried out by volunteers).

We provided a list of 12 tasks to 2014 maintenance survey Volunteers trimming brush, Three Rivers Heritage respondents when asking about their management of trail- Trail, PA. side vegetation. More than 90 percent of our respondents reported that they do litter cleanup, tree pruning, fallen tree removal, tree removal as a safety issue, and mowing.

Removal of invasive tree species is becoming an On average, respondents said they spent 13.5 hours per increasingly necessary maintenance task. In the 2005 mile on vegetation management. The cost of vegetation report, 36 percent of respondents reported invasive species management varied widely, from less than $100 for a four- removal as an important task; in 2014, almost 93 percent mile trail to more than $55,000 for a 24-mile trail. Much reported it as a major activity. of this work is carried out by trail management staff or volunteers, although some trail organizations do contract In the 2005 survey, about a third of the respondents out this type of work. Volunteers should have some degree indicated that they used a chemical herbicide to control of training and supervision, especially when working with vegetation. That percentage increased to 55 percent in the an herbicide. 2014 survey. Seventy-five percent of 2014 respondents reported that trail maintenance staff has responsibility for application of the herbicide. This activity was contracted out by only 14 percent of the respondents. Tree Removal Tree removal was a significant maintenance task reported in our detailed maintenance cost analysis survey. Most of the reported costs were in excess of $1,000. Forty percent of the reporting trails indicated that they contracted out this activity. There are a number of reasons stated for removing trees. In some cases storms cause tress to block the trail. In others, a dead tree presents a potential hazard to trail users and is removed before limbs come crashing down on the trail.

Tree down on Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 13 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Surface – Repair, Clearing, Snow In the 2014 study we asked respondents to identify the predominant trail surface material based on six choices: asphalt, concrete, crushed stone, original railroad cinders, dirt/soil and boardwalk. The number of responses for concrete, railroad cinders, dirt and boardwalk were so small (seven or fewer) that analysis was not possible. Therefore, we concentrated our analysis on asphalt and crushed stone.

In the 2005 study, 45 percent of respondents indicated that their trails were composed of asphalt, and 41 percent said crushed stone. In 2014, asphalt increased to 52 percent, and crushed stone decreased to 34 percent. This increase in asphalt could either be because of increased use of asphalt surfaced trails or the samples included in the survey. In some cases, state policy dictates that trails must have an Beaver caused erosion damage, Ashuelot Rail-Trail, NH. asphalt surface.

Asphalt Maintenance of Non-asphalt Trails The labor hours and resulting cost of repairs to non-asphalt trails varied widely among survey respondents. Labor Crushed stone 2005 hours reported for repairs ranged from 0.2 hours per mile 2014 for an 11-mile trail in Pennsylvania to 9.3 hours per mile for a three-mile trail in Massachusetts. The total cost of Other making repairs varied from a low of $31 to a high of nearly $13,000. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Figure 6. Predominant Trail Surfaces (2014 Survey) Not only did these costs vary widely across our sample, but they also varied widely from year to year. The major cause of damage to non-asphalt trails was because of water erosion, as reported by 55 percent of survey respondents.

The second biggest cause for repairs is because of vegetation, as reported by 25 percent of survey respondents. This can be caused by grass growing through non-asphalt trail surface, vegetation encroaching on trail edges or proliferation of invasive species. Controlling damage caused by vegetation encroachment is manageable with a program of regular, scheduled inspection and preventative maintenance.

Uncontrolled weed growth through trail surface.

14 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Regrading of some or the entire surface is another requirement in non-asphalt trail maintenance. The amount of labor hours involved to perform this task varied widely, from 14 hours to regrade a three-mile trail to two hours to regrade a 10-mile trail. The nature of the re-grading process and the type of equipment used contribute to this variability. A good estimate of the average, based on those reporting this activity, is two hours per mile for re-grading a non-asphalt surface trail.

Maintenance of Asphalt Surfaced Trails New to the 2014 were questions regarding causes of damage to asphalt trails. Survey respondents could list multiple causes of damage. As shown in Figure 7, tree roots are by far the leading cause of damage to an asphalt trail surface at 63 percent. The frost/freeze cycle and water erosion rank second and third, at 44 and 43 percent, respectively.

Respondents to the detailed maintenance cost survey submitted significant costs for repair of asphalt-surfaced trails. Examples include $9,600 for a 71-mile trail; $7,350 for a three-mile trail; and $7,200 for 39-mile trail. Only 30 percent of trail managers reported any asphalt repair. Only Tree root damage Manhan Rail Trail, MA. eight percent of managers of asphalt-surface trails reported that they seal-coated their trail. On a three-mile trail, the cost of the sealant material was $4,000 and the labor to apply it took 24 hours, or three work days. Another task required for maintenance of asphalt trails is crack sealing. The Willard Munger State Trail in Minnesota Tree roots reported spending 240 hours sealing cracks on the 71-

Frost/freeze cycle mile trail. That’s $5,760 in labor costs and $2,500 in material costs. Similarly, the Oil Creek State Park Trail in Water erosion Pennsylvania had labor costs of $935 and material costs

Sub-surface failure of $1,500 to seal cracks along the 9.7-mile asphalt trail. Lack of a crack-sealing program can lead to vegetation Vegatation (grass, weeds growing up through the cracks, and this will contribute to

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% deterioration of the asphalt surface. Figure 7. Sources of Surface Damage (2014 Survey)

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 15 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Maintenance of crushed stone

More than one-half, or 56 percent, of 2014 respondents Water erosion

with a predominantly crushed stone surfaced trail Vegatation (grass, weeds)

reported that their trail had been resurfaced since original Other construction. This is a decrease from two-thirds in the Frost/freeze cycle 2005 study. In 2014, the most mentioned interval for resurfacing was 10 years or longer, compared with nine Sub-surface failure years in the 2005 study. Tree roots

Consistent with the 2005 study, 71 percent of respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% indicated that crushed surface trails are primarily repaired Figure 8. Sources of Damage to Crushed Stone Surface manually, with a rakes, shovels and other hand tools. Light (2014 Survey) duty power equipment such as a Bobcat was used to repair damage by 42 percent of the respondents, and 32 percent responded that they utilized heavy equipment such as a grader. The type of equipment used is dictated by the Surface Clearing of Trail severity of the damage to the crushed stone surfaced trail. For the purpose of the survey, trail clearing was defined Forty-four percent of our survey respondents indicated that as the removal of material such as leaves, sticks and stones their crushed stone trail had been regraded since its original from the trail surface. A third of the respondents to our construction. This maintenance activity is carried out on detailed cost survey indicated that time was spent clearing an as-needed basis by 70 percent of the trail managers. the surface of the trail. This activity was mostly confined to asphalt surfaced trails. On average, surface clearing took Water erosion is the most frequently mentioned cause of 3.5 hours per mile, at an average cost of $22.25 per hour. damage to a crushed stone surfaced trail, with 77 percent of respondents reporting it the 2014 study.

Water erosion is the most frequently mentioned cause of damage to a crushed stone surfaced trail.

Vegetation encroaching through the trail surface was the second most common cause of damage to a crushed stone trail, with one-third of respondents citing this cause. Less Erosion damage to stone dust trail. than 2 percent of respondents indicated tree roots as a cause of damage to a crushed stone surface trail.

16 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Maintenance of Pavement Markings Snow Removal Pavement markings are generally associated with asphalt- surfaced trails. This study found that a painted center line was the most common type of pavement marking. Other pavement markings are safety or instructional in nature. Some markings are painted on the trail surface, while others are applied thermally. The detailed cost analysis revealed that this activity, while not reported by many respondents, varied in cost from $19 per mile to $140 per mile.

Winter use of the Torrey C. Brown Trail, MD.

In the general maintenance study, 33 percent of respondents reported that they removed snow from portions of the trail, and 9 percent reported that they remove snow from the entire length of the trail. Generally, full or partial snow removal was more common on trails in urban or suburban areas.

According to respondents to the detailed cost study who reported snow removal (25 percent), the time and cost of snow removal varied widely. Time spent ranged from 500 hours on the 71-mile Traverse Area Recreation Trail in Michigan to 15 hours on the 24-mile Three Rivers Heritage Trail in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This activity varied widely from year to year based on the frequency and amount of snowfall.

Some trail managers who did not report clearing snow from the trail surface did report that they cleared snow from trailhead parking lots. Trails can get a great deal of winter use if potential trail users have a place to park. Cross country skiing is a popular activity on many rail-trails in snow country. The Heritage Rail Trail County Park in Pennsylvania spent $600 clearing trailhead parking lots for skiers but does not clear the trail surface. In 2014, 63 percent of respondents reported doing trailhead snow removal, compared with half that number in 2005.

Pavement markings, Hanover Trolley Trail, PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 17 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Drainage Maintenance of drainage areas is critical to helping minimize the damage to both asphalt and crushed stone surfaced trails caused by water erosion. As we found in the 2005 survey, this activity is primarily carried out manually with the use of rakes and shovels. In both surveys, this manual activity was reported by 70 percent or more of the respondents.

Manual (rake, shovel, etc.

Power equipment Culvert failure, Allegheny River Trail, PA.

Self-cleaning design 2005 2014

Other Clearing of drainage swales and culverts Periodically investing several hundred or even several Flush with water thousand dollars in maintaining trail drainage systems and

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% culverts can prevent catastrophic damage to a trail when a major water event occurs. Figure 9. Drainage Activities (2014 Survey) Forty-one percent of respondents to the detailed cost analysis survey reported spending staff and volunteer hours on this task. A quarter of those reporting indicated that this activity was carried out entirely by volunteers.

Volunteers on the four-mile Greater Hazelton Rails to Trails in Pennsylvania spent 60 hours on this task.

Of those trail management organizations that reported carrying out this this activity, the cost varied from $85 per mile to $350 per mile. Cost depended Culvert failure, Manhan Rail Trails, MA.

18 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

on the type of drainage system used along the trail, the Trailhead Amenities number of culverts that required cleaning and the method used to clean drainage swales and culverts. Between 2005 and 2014, dramatic changes were made in the types of facilities that trail managers provide at The Montgomery County Pennsylvania Regional Trail trailheads. maintenance schedule requires that drains, pipes, culverts and inlets are cleared out three times per year and must be In 2005, only 58 percent of the survey respondents checked after all heavy rainfalls. All leaf litter, branches and indicated that they provided an information kiosk at the other debris are required to be removed at inlets and along trailheads. In the 2014 survey, however, 83 percent of drainage swales. respondents indicated that an information kiosk was part of the trailhead facility. The West Penn trail maintenance plan calls for clearing drainage swales twice a year or as needed. Most of this Availability of a permanent restroom facility increased from work is done with rakes and shovels. Some larger ditches 25 percent in 2005 to 43 percent in 2014. Availability of may require the use of a backhoe. portable toilet facilities at trailheads increased from 33 percent in 2005 to 45 percent in 2014, and the availability of trash receptacles increased from 42 percent to 61 percent over the decade between surveys.

Drainage swale in need of cleaning. Down East Sunrise Trail, ME.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 19 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Information kiosk Parking lot just for trail users Picnic tables/benches Trash receptacles Between 2005 and Portable toilet facility 2014, dramatic Permanent toilet facility changes were made in Shared public parking lot 2005 Potable water the types of facilities 2014 Shared private/commercial… that trail managers On street parking Other provide at trailheads. Commercial consessions Telephone Vending Machines 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 10. Trailhead Features (2014 Survey)

In 2005, 51 percent of the respondents reported trailheads Amenities featuring picnic tables and benches; that number increased The cost of maintaining amenities such as picnic tables and to 73 percent in 2014. Telephones at trailheads fell from benches varied among trail managers reporting detailed 13 percent in 2005 to 3 percent in 2014, consistent with cost information. It was most strongly correlated to the an overall decline in public phones in the United States. length of the trails, as longer trails required more benches In 2005 only 43 percent of survey respondents reported and picnic tables to maintain. For example, the 71-mile the availability of picnic tables and benches along the trail. Willard Munger State Trail in Minnesota spent $1,260 on Today, 76 percent of trail managers’ report that picnic maintenance of amenities, while the eight-mile section of tables or benches are provided along their trails. the Ghost Town Trail in Pennsylvania spent only $25. This type of maintenance spending likely also varies on a year to year basis.

Trailheads Respondents were asked to provide a detailed cost for several aspects of trailhead maintenance, including landscaping, toilet facilities and kiosks. For the majority of those reporting, landscaping at trailheads was carried out by volunteers. Volunteer hours annually ranged from as few as eight to as many as 500. The largest cost item at trailheads was maintenance of restroom facilities. The lowest cost item was maintenance of informational kiosks at the trailhead.

Trailhead signage, Youghiogheny Rive Trail, Great Allegheny Passage, PA.

20 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Sanitation Litter Clean-Up More than half of the trail managers who responded to the detailed trail maintenance cost survey reported on the number of hours spent cleaning up litter. Although the amount of time spent on litter removal is greater along urban trails, rural trails also require this task. Friends of the Riverfront, which manages the 24-mile Three Rivers Heritage Trail system in Pittsburgh, spends 2,000 hours annually on litter control. The 56-mile Trail of the Coeur d’ Alenes in Idaho spends 300 hours on litter cleanup.

Restroom Maintenance Cub Scouts help with litter clean-up on the Heritage Maintenance of restroom facilities, whether at trailheads Rail Trail County Park, PA. or along the trail, can be an ongoing annual expense. Respondents to the detailed cost analysis survey provided information about maintenance of both permanent facilities and portable toilets. Costs varied widely. The Heritage Rail Trail County Park in Pennsylvania has both permanent and portable toilets at trailheads along the 21- mile trail. Maintenance costs for these facilities were reported at more than $14,000 a year.

Earth Day trash pick up along the Capital Greenbelt, Harrisburg, PA.

Permanent toilet facility along the Pine Creek Rail Trail, PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 21 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Signage The 2014 survey revealed that trail managers are increasing the number and types of signs along trails, which adds to the need for maintenance. Posted trail identification signs increased from 75 percent in 2005 to 91 percent in 2014. More trails have mileage markers as well, an increase from 55 percent in 2005 to 74 percent in 2014. The placement of interpretive signs has also grown substantially, from 31 percent in 2005 to 57 percent in 2014. All of this additional signage helps to provide a better trail experience. However, 76 percent of trail managers reported that their signs were subject to vandalism.

Repair and Maintenance of Signage Welcome sign, Ashuelot Rail Trail, NH. Another major maintenance task is the repair and maintenance of trail signage. More than 40 percent of respondents reported this as a significant maintenance activity. In this case, trail length is correlated with cost: typically, the longer the trail the more signs that need to be maintained and the more time and cost is involved.

The four-mile Path of the Flood Trail in Pennsylvania reported spending two hours on signage repair and maintenance, and the 26-mile Catskill Scenic Trail in New York reported spending 135 hours on this work.

More than 75 percent of the respondents to the general maintenance survey reported that vandalism was the major cause of damage requiring signage repair and maintenance.

Greenline Trail sign used for target practice.

22 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Access Control Maintenance of Gates and Bollards Fencing Gates and bollards are used to keep automobiles and other A majority of the respondents to our survey, 51 percent, motorized vehicles off of trails that are intended only for indicated that they had some type of fencing along their non-motorized use. While maintenance costs associated trail. Most common was split rail wooden fencing, which with gates and bollards were reported by only 15 percent of was mentioned by 45 percent of the respondents. Over detailed cost analysis respondents, most indicated costs of time this becomes a maintenance issue, as posts and rails between $2,300 and $5,000. rot or become damaged in some way.

Fencing generally is deployed along trails to protect trail users from a potential danger, such as a steep slope, or to prevent them from entering adjacent properties. In the detailed cost analysis, we looked at three types of typical trail side fencing: wooden, chain link and vinyl.

Of these three types, wooden fencing was reported to require the most maintenance. Thirty percent of the detailed cost survey respondents reported time repairing wooden fencing. This maintenance can take the form of replacing fencing that had rotted or fencing that had been damaged by accident or acts of vandalism. Only 8 percent of respondents reported repairs to chain link fence. No respondents reported repairs to vinyl fencing.

Bollard at intersection, Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, MA.

Damaged split rail fence along the Pine Creek Rail Trail, PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 23 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Trail Features Bridges A full 88 percent of the trail managers indicated that they have at least one bridge along their trail. The most common — 61 percent — are original railroad bridges. The second most common type of bridge is new bike/ pedestrian bridges with vehicle capacity. Surprisingly, 43 percent of respondents indicated that their bridges are not inspected on a regular basis by a certified inspectors or professional engineers. Fortunately, the number of trail managers reporting that their bridges are inspected increased from 33 percent in 2005 to 57 percent in 2014. The most frequent interval for bridge inspections reported in 2014 was two to three years, which is a shorter interval Split rail fencing, Pine Creek Rail Trail, PA. than that reported in 2005.

Scott Glen Bridge, Ghost Town Trail, PA.

24 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Tunnels or Culverts Average Labor Rate Tunnels are one of the most distinctive features of many Fifty nine percent of the respondents to the detailed rail-trails. In our 2014 survey, 41 percent of the surveyed maintenance cost survey reported labor rates for various trails reported that they had a tunnel on the trail, an trail maintenance activities. The rates ranged from a low of increase of 14 percent from those reporting in 2005. Forty $10 per hour to a high of $75 per hour. Most labor rates percent of the tunnels are illuminated, mostly on a dusk- were clustered around $25 per hour plus or minus $5. The to-dawn basis, with lighting triggered by a light sensor and average labor rate for all activities was $22.25. powered by a municipal utility.

Contracted Services Many trail maintenance activities were carried out by trail management organizations and volunteers. Some, however, are better performed by outside contractors. In the survey, activities most commonly reported as being completed by contractors included tree removal, restroom maintenance, Other herbicide application, bridge inspections and clearing of drainage culverts and mowing.

Vandalism and Illegal Dumping A third of the respondents to our detailed cost analysis survey reported that they spent time repairing trails due to acts of vandalism or dumping along the corridor. Managers of four trails between 21 and 26 miles long in predominantly suburban/rural environments spent between 40 and 150 hours repairing trails after acts of vandalism or illegal dumping.

Cleaning-up illegal dumping along the Hanover Trolley Volunteers painting over graffiti. Trail, PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 25 MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS

Howard Tunnel, Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.

26 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS CONCLUSIONS

o better understand this issue, RTC conducted a Tcomprehensive survey of trail maintenance costs. Results of this study show that, contrary to popular belief, maintenance costs are not as high as expected. Per mile yearly average costs for rail-trail maintenance assessed in this study ranged from $1,000 to $2,000, depending on whether the trail was asphalt or stone dust. This assessment supports the findings of the more detailed budgets that a few dozen trail managers provided, which averaged $2,026 per mile per year. This figure includes the value of volunteer service, which was assigned an equivalent hourly rate. When compared against the finding that 58 percent of trails reported using volunteers, both of the annual cost Tree pruning even occurs in the dead of winter, Three figures may decrease significantly. Rivers Heritage Trail, PA. Several additional significant findings from this study are summarized below.

Damage to asphalt trails from tree roots is Invasive species concerns nearly tripled in significant and growing. importance from 2005 to 2014. More than 60 percent of asphalt trail managers reported Some invasive species can be disproportionally destructive tree roots as the major source of trail damage. Clearly, as compared with native vegetation because natural control more asphalt trails are being built rather than stone dust mechanisms do not exist in their new environment. This trails (as required by some departments of transportation study found an increase in herbicide use, which is needed and metropolitan planning organizations); the true to control some invasive species. As a secondary issue, costs of these facilities needs to be better understood because trail groups rely heavily on volunteers and only and shared. Replacing asphalt after several years is costly contract out a small percent of herbicide application to and frequently becomes a rebuild that is often funded professionals, it is logical to question if volunteers are by Transportation Enhancement (TE) programs or adequately trained. Municipal workers, who would have Transportation Alternatives Programs (TAP). This costly adequate training, may be doing most of the herbicide maintenance requirement might be prevented with better application; however, this potential safety issue may construction standards and possible use of root barriers in warrant further examination. certain segments of a trail or periodic trenching to cut root growth. The removal of healthy trees several years after the trail is built is not the only option.

As an additional way to save money, several trail groups could work together to purchase materials or share equipment. State Departments of Natural Resources might use Recreation Trails Program funding to purchase equipment that can be used by any trail.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 27 CONCLUSIONS

Surprisingly, the survey found that Cost per activity. 60 percent of rail-trails do not have Based upon the detailed cost analysis survey, we were able maintenance plans. to determine the percentage that each activity represents This is surprising not only from a management perspective, in a typical trail maintenance budget. Data on asphalt and but from a liability standpoint. All trail managers should non-asphalt surfaces have been combined. have proof that they exercise a reasonable amount of due diligence to ensure that the trails are safe. Many government-owned and maintained rail-trails are included Table 2 Typical Maintenance Budget under larger park or civil works maintenance schedules. Percent of Maintenance Activity As a result, managers may believe that specific safety Budget assurance for trails is not required. However, any trail that is owned, maintained or operated by a private, nonprofit Surface clearing of trail 10.8% organization should have a detailed safety management and maintenance plan with a schedule of tasks and inspections Mowing 12.0% of related structures and facilities. Vegetation management (leaf clearing, 11.2% pruning, etc.) Keep trail-side land clear of trash and 11.5% Estimating per-mile costs. debris A total of 95 survey respondents provided an annual Whole tree removal 5.4% budget amount required to maintain their trail representing 40 percent of the trails included in the survey. Using the interquartile range (IQR) of those 95 trails gave Application of herbicides or pesticides 2.3% us a total annual budget amount for maintenance. We Clearing of drainage channels and determined that, of the sample group, annual maintenance 5.4% culverts cost per mile in 2013–2014 averaged $1,006 for a crushed stone trail and $1,971 for a paved asphalt trail. Surface maintenance of parking areas 2.7% These figures do not include any extensive or exceptional repairs and are assumed to include only the most basic Litter clean up, trash cans 2.7% maintenance tasks needed to keep the trail usable.

Maintenance of toilets at trailheads 13.0% Table 1. Estimated Costs Per Mile Asphalt Non-Asphalt Source Maintenance of toilets along the trail 1.2% Surface Surface RTC Maintenance & Trailhead parking snow removal 1.1% Operations Report - $1,971/mile $1,006/mile 2014 RTC Maintenance Repair/maintenance of signs 6.3% & Operations 2004 $1,458/mile $1,478/mile Recovery from illegal acts of Report 5.3% vandalism/dumping

Other trail maintenance activities 9.1%

28 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails CONCLUSIONS

Summary Trail managers and local stakeholders often cite the need This study presents a more comprehensive understanding for dedicated state or federal funding to help pay for trail of rail-trail maintenance, as has been done for other rail- maintenance. Up to this point, RTC has lacked sufficient trail issues such as construction costs, economic impact data to make that case effectively to decision-makers at and rails-with-trails. Such an approach enables the rail-trail the state or federal level. This study was initiated to bring community to focus its limited resources more effectively some clarity to this issue. Because funding for rail-trails is on addressing the most critical issues. difficult to secure, over-estimating maintenance costs can inadvertently give opponents easy leverage to speak against rail-trail development. In addition, funders often question if all aspects of any community development project should be funded by state and federal grants, particularly maintenance-related costs, which are often perceived as a “local issue.”

Volunteers clear storm damage along trail in Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 29 APPENDIX A 2014 SURVEY RESULTS

Please answer the following questions as completely 5. Who owns the land under the trail? If more than and accurately as possible. If it is necessary to have one, please indicate an approximate percentage. more than one person in your organization answer 23% Federal government different questions based on their personal areas of 43% State government experience and expertise, please do so. 34% Municipal government 42% County government Please provide accurate information about the 31% Railroad person to be contacted if any follow-up information is 9.9% Single private owner needed. 46% Non-profit entity 1. Please provide you name and contact information 21% Utility Name 12% Multiple private owners Title/Agency Email 6. On a general basis, who PERFORMS maintenance Phone of the trail? If more than one, please indicate an 2. What is your Trail Name and state: approximate percentage. Trail name 58% Trail Group Volunteers State 39% Other volunteer community groups Mileage (please specify) 13% Individuals with mandatory community service ADMINISTRATIVE 4% Federal government 3. What is the trail surrounding Environment (check 21% State government all that apply): 33% County government 43% Municipal government 37% Rural 12% Non-profit entity (paid staff) 12% Urban 12% Other (specify) 13% Suburban 38% Mixed 7. Do you have a written Trail Maintenance Plan?

4. What are the permitted uses on your trail? (check 40% Yes all that apply) 60% No

3%TV A 8. Who FUNDS maintenance of the trail? If 99% Bike more than one, please indicate an approximate 79% Cross Country Skiing percentage. Fishing 40% Horseback Riding 6% Federal government 56% Inline skating 31% County government 66% Mountain Biking 32% Non-profit entity 16% Snowmobile 25% State government 100% Walking 42% Municipal government 86% Wheelchair Access 14% Other (specify)

30 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations

9. What is the annual maintenance budget for this 16. How do you track annual users: trail? (Average for all respondents that provided a budget.) 54% Do not currently track the number $66,430 of annual users (Skip to 18) 23% Estimate / guess 9.a. If known, please provide the dollar amounts 16% Manual count for the following within your maintenance program. 23% Automated counter (Insufficient data) 17. How many users does your trail have on an Labor annual basis? Equipment Supplies Varied

10. How is the maintenance funded? 18. What are the hours of operation of your trail? 7% Federally legislated (REC Trails 63% Dawn until dusk funding) 30% Open 24/7 24% State Budget 7% Other 49% Municipal Budget 9% Unique funding streams or fees collected through the community (e.g. hotel tax)? 39% Local Fundraising activities (please SURFACE - GENERAL describe) 29% In-kind Donations 19. What is the average width of your trail? 6% 6ft. 11. Is the trail covered by liability insurance? 16% 8ft. 77% Yes (If yes go to 12) 60% 10ft. 23% No (If no go to 15) 15% 12ft. 3% Other (specify) 12. What is your coverage amount ? 20. What surface material exists on any sections of Most indicated $1 - 2 Million your trail? (check all that apply) 13. Who is your carrier? 76% Asphalt Various 7% Concrete 55% Crushed Stone 14. What is your annual cost? 9% Cinders 21% Dirt/ Soil Various 8% Other (specify)

15. In what year was the trail first opened for public use? Various

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 31 APPENDIX A 2014 SURVEY RESULTS

21. Please indicate any reused or recycled materials 26. At what frequency (in years)? used in the surface of your trail? 41% Recurring 69% None 27% 3 to 5 1% Tires or other rubber 23% 6 to 10 0% Glassphalt 9% 10 plus 19% Asphalt / pavement milling 2% Coal ash (cinders) 27. Do you have a crack sealing programing? 8% Quarry waste from stone/rock 35% Yes (If yes go to 28) processing (tailings, etc.) 65% No (If no go to 29) 5% Other (specify) 28. At what frequency (in years)? 22. What is the predominant surface material on your trail? 78% Recurring 13% 3 to 5 52% Asphalt (Go to 23) 9% 6 to 10 2% Concrete (Go to 35) 0% 10 plus 40% Crushed Stone (Go to 43) 4% Original railroad cinders (Go to 53) 29. What are the major causes of damage to your 4% Dirt / Soil (Go to 59) asphalt surfaced trail? 0% Boardwalk (Go to 65) 5% Other (specify) (Go to 72) 43% Water/erosion 63% Tree roots 20% Vegetation (grass, weeds) 25% Sub surface failure SURFACE - ASPHALT 44% Frost/freeze cycle 23. Has your trail been repaved or resurfaced since the original paving construction? 30. Is snow removed from your trail? 35% Yes (If yes go to 24) 9% Yes, fully 65% No (If no go to 29) 33% Yes, partially 58% No 24. At what frequency (in years)?

45% Recurring 31. How is the surface of your trail kept clear of 3% 3 to 5 trash and debris? (Check all that apply) 7% 6 to 10 9% Street sweeper 45% 10 plus 18% Rotary brush 65% Blower 25. Has your trail been seal-coated since the original 58% Manual (broom, rake, etc.) paving? 7% Other (specify) 25% Yes (If yes go to 26) 75% No (If no go to 27)

32 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations

32. Does your trail employ pavement markings? 38. Is snow removed from your trail? (Check all that apply.) 33% Yes fully 51% No (if no skip to 72) 0% Yes partially 49% Yes 67% No

39. How is the surface of your trail kept clear of 33. Do you indicate a Center Line of the trail? trash and debris? (Check all that apply) 44% Yes 33% Street sweeper 24% Painted 33% Rotary brush 4% Thermal transfer 100% Blower 51% No 0% Manual (broom, rake, chainsaw, etc) Other (specify) 34. Do you employ other safety markings? 61% Yes: 40. Does your trail employ pavement markings? 35% Painted (Check all that apply.) 14% Thermal transfer 67% Yes (if yes go to 41) 35% No 33% No (If no go to 72)

41. Do you indicate a center line of the trail? SURFACE – CONCRETE 100% Yes 35. Have sections of your trail been re-poured or 0% Painted resurfaced since the original paving construction? 0% Thermal transfer 25% Yes (If yes go to 36) 0% No 75% No (If no go to 37) 42. Do you employ other safety markings? 36. At what frequency (in years)? 100% Yes: Recurring 0% Painted 3 to 5 0% Thermal transfer 6 to 10 0% No 10 plus

37. What are the major causes of damage to your SURFACE – CRUSHED/GRANULAR STONE concrete surfaced trail? 43. How was trail surface applied? 67% Water/erosion 33% Tree roots 60% Paving machine 0% Vegetation (grass, weeds) 21% Box spreader 0% Sub surface failure 23% Tailgate from dump truck 33% Frost/freeze cycle 11% Bucket spread from loader 33% Other 0% Wheelbarrow or other manual 8% Other (specify)

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 33 APPENDIX A 2014 SURVEY RESULTS

44. Has your trail been re-surfaced since the original 49. What are the major causes of damage to your construction? crushed stone surfaced trail: 56% Yes (If yes go to 45) 77% Water/erosion 48% No (If no go to 46) 2% Tree roots 2% Vegetation (grass, weeds) 45. At what frequency (in years)? 3% Sub surface failure 17% Frost/freeze cycle 32% Recurring 27% Other (specify) 3% 3 to 5 years 21% 6 to 10 years 44% 10 years or longer 50. How are damages to your trail surface repaired: 32% Grader or other heavy equipment 42% Light duty power equipment 46. How is the surface material compacted? 40% Dragging 14% Not 71% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.) 38% Steel drum roller (static) 13% Other (specify) 47% Steel drum roller (vibratory) 5% Rubber tired roller 0% Rammer 51. Has your trail been re-graded since the original 7% Vibratory plates construction? 10% Other (specify) 44% Yes (If yes go to 34a) 54% No (If no go to 36) 47. If applicable, please indicate the size of aggregate used for your trail surface. 52. At what frequency (in years)? 40% Unknown 74% Recurring 10% 1A 4% 2 to 3 years 0% 1B 3% 2A 4% 4 to 5 years 0% 2B 2% 2RC 19% 6 to 10 years 30% AASHTO #10 2%A DS 18% Other (specify) SURFACE – ORIGINAL RAILROAD CINDERS 53. How was the surface prepared after removal of the rails and ties 48. Do you use any type of soil or aggregate binder? 56% Grader or other heavy equipment 97% No 11% Light duty power equipment 3% Yes 33% Dragging 11% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.) 22% Other (specify)

34 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations

54. How was the surface material compacted ? SURFACE – DIRT/SOIL 20% Steel drum roller (static) 80% Steel drum roller (vibratory) 59. How was the surface prepared? 0% Rubber tired roller 43% Grader or other heavy equipment 0% Rammer 43% Light duty power equipment 0% Vibratory plates 15% Dragging 0% Other (specify) 29% Manual (rake, shovel, etc) Other (specify) 55. What are the major causes of damage to your cinder surfaced trail? 60. How was the surface material compacted? 87% Water/erosion 20% Steel drum roller (static) 0% Tree roots 20% Steel drum roller (vibratory) 25% Vegetation (grass, weeds) 20% Rubber tired roller 13% Sub surface failure 20% Rammer 50% Frost/freeze cycle 20% Vibratory plates 40% Other (specify) 56. How are damages to your trail surface repaired? 63% Grader or other heavy equipment 61. What are the major causes of damage to your 63% Light duty power equipment dirt/soil surfaced trail? 25% Dragging 71% Water/erosion 50% Manual (rake, shovel, etc) 14% Tree roots Other (specify) 14% Vegetation (grass, weeds) 14% Sub surface failure 57. Has your trail been re-graded since the original 29% Frost/freeze cycle construction? 43% Other (specify) 71% Yes (If yes go to 58) 29% No (If no go to 65) 62. How are damages to your trail surface repaired? 29% Grader or other heavy equipment 58. At what frequency (in years)? 71% Light duty power equipment 100% Recurring 0% Dragging 0% 2 to 3 years 71% Manual (rake, shovel, etc) 0% 4 to 5 years 0% Other (specify) 0% 6 to 10 years 63. Has your trail been re-graded since the original construction? 50% Yes (If yes go to 64) 50% No (If no go to 65)

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 35 APPENDIX A 2014 SURVEY RESULTS

64. At what age / frequency (in years)? 69. How old is the boardwalk segment of your trail? 33% Recurring 23% 1 to 3 years 0% 2 to 3 years 42% 4 to 9 years 33% 4 to 5 years 26% 10 to 20 years 33% 6 to 10 years 10% More than 20 years

70. Has your boardwalk been re-decked since its SURFACE – BOARDWALK original construction? 33% Yes (If yes go to 71) 65. Does you trail contain any segments of 67% No (If no go to 72) boardwalk? 18% Yes (If yes go to 66) 71. At what frequency has re-decking occurred? 82% No (If no go to 53) 11% 2 to 3 years 0% 4 to 5 years 66. How long is the boardwalk segment of your trail? 22% 6 to 10 years 0 % 10 feet or less 67% More than 10 years 23% 10 to 50 feet 19% 51 to 100 feet 29% 101 to 500 feet 8% 501 to 1,000 feet ADJACENT LAND AND VEGETATION 19% 1,001 feet or more 72. Does annual or perennial vegetation grow along your trail? 67. How wide is the boardwalk segment of your trail? 97% Yes (if yes go to 73) 28% 5 to 7 feet 3% No (if no go to 75) 37% 8 to 10 feet 28% 11 to 12 feet 6% Greater than 12 feet 73. Do you use any herbicides or pesticides in your trail maintenance?

68. What is the decking material of the boardwalk? 45% Yes (If yes go to 73a) 54% No (If no go to 75) 6% Wood ( pine, oak, et.) not pressure treated If yes, please list: 0% Wood (teak, red wood, etc.) 84% Wood – pressure treated 74. Who is responsible for herbicide/pesticide 3% Synthetic wood (Trex, NewTechWood, ArmorGuard etc.) application (check all that apply) 0% Concrete 77% Trail maintenance staff 7% Other 20% Volunteers 14% Contractor

36 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations

75. Do trees grow along your trail? 79. How are drainage areas kept clear? (Check all 100% Yes that apply.) 0% No 56% Power equipment (backhoe, etc.) 76% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.) 76. If planting new trees, what is the distance 3% Flush with water between the trees and the edge of the trail? 25% Self-cleaning design 5% Other (specify) 15% 8 7%0 1 6%2 1 5% 20 PARKING, TRAILHEADS, and SANITATION 7% other? 80. How many trailheads are there along your trail? 77. Please indicate any activities that are performed 5% None relative to trail side vegetation. (Check all that apply.) 26% 1-3 93% Litter clean-up 28% 3-5 91% Tree pruning 26% 5-10 30% Tree and shrub planting 12% 10-15 90% Tree removal - Safety 4% Other (please specify) 44% Tree removal - Health 93% Tree removal - Fallen 81. Please indicate the features of your trailheads. 26% Tree removal - Aesthetics (improve (Check all that apply.) view shed) 78% Parking lot just for trail users 92% Mowing 22% Shared private/commercial parking 40% Leaf removal lot 62% Invasive species removal 43% Permanent toilet facility 27% Flower and ground cover planting 83% Information kiosk 3% Other (specify) 31% Potable water 5% Any other commercial concession 78. How is drainage accommodated? (Check all that 3% Telephone apply.) 43% Shared public parking lot 80% Trail surface is crowned or sloped 45% Portable toilet facility 76% Trail-side drainage channels 17% On-street parking (ditches, gullies) 61% Trash receptacles 72% Culverts 3% Vending machines 5% Other (specify) 73% Picnic tables/benches 13% Other (specify)

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 37 APPENDIX A 2014 SURVEY RESULTS

82. What is the primary surface material for your 60% Traffic control for cars at crossings trailhead parking area(s)? 75% Trail rules and regulations 53% Asphalt 25% Property boundary sign (no trespassing) 38% Crushed Stone 57% Interpretive signs 0% Cinders 28% Wayfinding on trail 6% Dirt / Soil 20% Wayfinding (off trail) 3% Other (specify) 2% No trail specific signage 12% Other (specify) 83. Is snow removed from your trailhead parking lots? 86. Do you experience vandalism of your signs? 63% Yes 76% Yes 37% No 24% No

84. Aside from trailheads, are any of these 87. Please indicate any techniques you use to amenities provided along your trail. (Check all that separate users by direction of travel or use? (e.g. apply.) pedestrian vs. bicycle) Check all that apply. 22% Permanent toilet facility 68% None 52% Informational kiosk 13% Pavement markings 24% Potable water 23% Signs 7% Any other commercial concession 3% Physical separation 62% Interpretive signage 3% Different surface type 22% Portable toilet facility 4% Separate tread (Bridle or carriage 43% Trash receptacles path) 1% Vending machines 3% Other (specify) 76% Picnic tables/benches 8% Other (specify) 88. Is your trail patrolled by any professional policing authority? 65% Yes (If yes go to 89) SIGNS, ACCESS CONTROL AND PUBLIC 35% No (If no go to 90) SAFETY 89. Police agency type: 85. What types of signs do you use? (Check all that apply.) 5% State police or state sheriff 42% Municipal police 91% Trail identification sign (“welcome to ABC Trail”) 33% Park or trail rangers 74% Mile marker 20% Other (specify) 6% Quarter miles 7% 1/10 mile 77% Traffic control for trail users (stop, yield)

38 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations

90. Is your trail patrolled by a volunteer or a non- 96. Do you have emergency call boxes on along your police group (e.g. crime watch)? trail or trailhead? 30% Yes 3% Yes 70% No 97% No

91. Do you have an on-going problem with any of the 97. How is vehicular access to your trail controlled? following activities on the trail? (Check all that apply.) (Check all that apply.) 49% Dumping 22% Vehicular access is not controlled 12% Crimes against persons 45% Gates 28% After hours use 26% Fixed bollards 17% Trespass 54% Removable bollards 71% Vandalism 11% Other (specify) 21% Crimes against property 22% Other (specify) 98. Do you use fencing along your trail? 64% Yes (if yes go to 99) 92. Are your trailheads lighted? 36% No (if no go to 101) 16% Yes (If yes go to 93) 84% No (If no go to 96) 99. What types of fencing do you use? 18% Chain link 93. During what times? 45% Split rail 75% Dusk until dawn 7% Woven Wire 25% Other 3% Stockade 27% Other (specify) 94. How are the lights controlled? (Check all that apply.) 100. What is the average height of the fence (in 13% Always on INCHES)? 4% Manual switch 48 “ most common 25% Clock / timer 75% Light / dark sensor 4% Motion sensor 18% Other (specify)

95. How are the lights powered? 96% Municipal power supply 4% Solar panel 0% Battery

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 39 APPENDIX A 2014 SURVEY RESULTS

101. In what areas have you made accommodation 104. What is the deck material on your bridges? for ADA standards or handicapped accessibility? (Check all that apply.) 78% Parking 74% Wood 50% Restrooms 9% Synthetic lumber 35% Picnic tables 1% Rubber 12% Visitor’s Center 11% Metal 15% Interpretive areas 16% Asphalt 75% Grade of trail 36% Concrete 61% Grade of access to trail 11% Stone/dirt/cinders 67% Trail Surface Other (specify) 3% Our trail has specific eaturesf for individuals with sight, hearing, or other impairments. 105. Do you have railings on your bridges? 5% Other (specify) 97% Yes (If yes go to 106) 3% No (If no go to 109)

106. What is the height of the fence/railing (in INCHES)? BRIDGES, TUNNELS and ROAD CROSSINGS 48” most common

102. Do you have any bridges on your trail? 107. Are your bridges inspected on a regular basis by 88% Yes (If yes go to 103) a certified inspector or professional engineer? 12% No (If no go to 109) 57% Yes 43% No

103. What types of bridges do you have? 108. At what frequency (in years)? 61% Existing railroad bridge 0% Recurring 33% Pre-Fabricated 66% 2 to 3 years 9% New Bike/Ped (no vehicular capacity) 23% 4 to 5 years 40% New bike/ped (with vehicle 11% 6 to 10 years capacity) 16% Small foot bridge(less than 5’ 109. Do you have any tunnels or culverts for user wide) passage under roads etc. 8% Other (specify) 41% Yes (If yes go to 110) 59% No (If no go to 114)

40 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations

110. Are your tunnels lighted? 114 Do you paint/stain/treat bridge structures or 40% Yes decks, tunnel/underpass walls, etc? 60% No 45% Yes (If yes go to 115) 54% No (If no go to 116) 111. During what times? 31% 24/7 115. At what frequency (in years)? 61% Dusk to dawn 68% Recurring 8% Other (please specify time of day/ 0 % 2 to 3 years night) 10% 4 to 5 years 23% 6 to 10 years 112. How are lights controlled? 23% Always on 116. How are at-grade crossings of roads controlled? 0% Manual switch (Check all that apply.) 31% Clock / timer 89% Stop sign for trail users 46% Light / dark sensor 17% Yield sign for trail users 0% Motion sensor 17% Traffic signal (red, yellow, green) Other (specify) 69% Ped /bike crossing sign 17% Stop sign for road users 113. How are the lights powered? 20% Yield sign for road users 92% Municipal power supply 30% Pedestrian crossing signal (walk) 8% Solar 51% Road striping 0% Battery Other (specify) 0% Generator

41 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of 200 Rail-Trails Rails to Trails Conservancy / 41 APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface Tahoe City Public Utility District Multi-use trails CA 1991 20 Asphalt Bizz Johnson National Recreation Trail CA 1983 25.4 Ballast, Gravel Fort Collins City Trails CO 1998 36 Concrete Rio Grande Trail CO 1987 42 Asphalt Middlebury Greenway CT 2008 5 Asphalt Sue Grossman Still River Greenway CT 1995 3 Asphalt Trumbull Rails to Trails CT 2006 7 Crushed Stone Farmington Canal Heritage Trail CT 2010 56 Asphalt Metropolitan Branch Trail DC 2000 3.5 Asphalt Prairie Farmer Recreational Trail IA 1999 22 Asphalt Raccoon River Valley Trail IA 1990 89 Asphalt, Concrete Gay Lea Wilson Trail IA 2000 17 Asphalt, Concrete Ashton-Tetonia Rail Trail ID 1913 30 Crushed Stone Latah Trail ID 1984 16 Asphalt Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes Recreational Trailway ID 2006 73 Asphalt Wood River Trail ID 1990 22 Asphalt Route of the Hiawatha ID &MT 1986 15 Ballast, Dirt, Gravel George Rogers Clark Discovery Trail IL 2010 9.2 Concrete Forest Preserves of Cook County IL 2009 100 Crushed Stone Burnham Greenway IL 2004 2.5 Asphalt Millennium Trail and Greenway IL 2003 8 Crushed Stone Great Western Trail IL 1990 12 Crushed Stone Illinois Prairie Path IL 1966 62 Crushed Stone DeKalb Nature Trail IL 1985 1.2 Asphalt Oak Savannah Trail IN 2010 8 Asphalt Nickel Plate Trail IN 2012 35 Crushed Stone Pumpkinvine Nature Trails IN 1996 20 Asphalt Delphi Historic Trails IN 2008 10 Crushed Stone Zionsville Rail Trail IN 1997 3.75 Asphalt Monon Trail IN 1997 9 Asphalt, Crushed Stone Brighton East Rail Trail KY 1998 2 Asphalt, Crushed Stone Narrow Gauge Rail Trail MA 2010 3 Crushed Stone Bruce Freeman Rail Trail MA 1992 6.8 Asphalt Cape Cod Rail Trail MA 2011 22 Asphalt Methuen Rail Trail MA 1995 2.4 Crushed Stone Danvers Rail Trail MA 1994 4.3 Crushed Stone Old Colony Rail Trail MA 1992 3 Asphalt Southwick Rail Trail MA 1994 6 Asphalt Springfield Riverfront Bikeway/Walkway MA 1994 3.7 Asphalt Ashuwillticook Rail Trail MA 2003 11 Asphalt Gwynns Falls Trail MD 2005 15 Asphalt

42 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface Jones Falls Trail MD 2006 9.1 Asphalt Herring Run Trail MD 1978 2.5 Asphalt Stony Run Trail MD 2013 2.9 Asphalt Three Notch Trail MD 2013 7 Asphalt Gilchrest Trail MD 2011 1.2 Asphalt Broadneck Trail MD 2000 6.6 Asphalt Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Trail MD 1983 10.25 Asphalt Baltimore Washington International Airport Trail MD 2013 12.5 Asphalt Torrey C. Brown/Northern Central Railroad Trail MD 1984 20 Crushed Stone Baltimore & Annapolis Trail MD 1991 14 Asphalt Catonsville Short Line Trail MD 2013 3.5 Dirt, Gravel St. John Valley Heritage Trail ME 1998 29 Crushed Stone Bangor Aroostook Trail & Aroostook Valley Trail ME 1999 61 Gravel, Dirt, Soil Aroostook Valley Trail ME 1991 28 Crushed Stone, Dirt Polly Ann Trail MI 1998 30 Asphalt, Crushed Stone Riverfront Trail MI 2005 2.25 Asphalt Kalamazoo River Valley Trail MI 1999 17 Asphalt Clinton River Trail MI 2004 1 Crushed Stone Flint River Trail MI 2009 20 Asphalt Leelanau Trail MI 1987 20 Asphalt I-275 Metro Trail MI mid-1970’s 30 Asphalt Conner Creek Greenway MI 2009 9.5 Asphalt Traverse Area Recreation Trail MI 1831 10.5 Asphalt Little Traverse Wheelway MI 1996 26 Asphalt Dakota Rail Regional Trail MN 2002 12.4 Asphalt Rocori Trail MN 2005 12.9 Asphalt Paul Bunyan and Cuyuna State Trails MN 2004 128 Asphalt Kenilworth Regional Trail MN 2005 0.15 Asphalt Central Lakes State Trail MN 1986 55 Asphalt Willard Munger State Trail (Gateway Segment) MN 1993 18 Asphalt, Crushed Stone Bruce Vento Trail MN 2010 23 Asphalt Willard Munger State Trail (Matthew Lourey State Trail) MN 1980 80 Asphalt, Crushed Stone Cannon Valley Trail MN 1986 20 Asphalt Dairyland Trail MN 1995 6.2 Crushed Stone Lake Wobegon Trail MN 1999 54 Asphalt Sakatah Singing Hills State Trail MN 1980 38 Asphalt Duluth Winnipeg and Pacific Trail MN 1985 8 Gravel Douglas State Trail MN 1974 26 Asphalt MKT Nature and Fitness Trail MO 1982 8.9 Concrete, Crushed Stone Northern Rail Trail NH 1995 23 Crushed Stone Sugar River Trail NH 1997 9 Dirt, Soil

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 43 APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface Goffstown Rail Trail NH 2005 5.5 Crushed Stone Windham Rail Trail NH 2000 4 Asphalt Winnipesaukee River Trail NH 2005 7.9 Crushed Stone WOW Trail NH 1990 1.3 Asphalt Derry Rail Trail NH 2004 4.5 Asphalt Gloucester Township Health & Fitness Trail NJ 2001 2 Asphalt Henry Hudson Trail NJ 1995 24.5 Asphalt Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park NJ 1980 80 Crushed Stone Barnegat Branch Trail NJ 1971 15.6 rushed Stone Middlesex Greenway NJ 2006 3.1 Asphalt Columbia Trail NJ 1990 7.5 Crushed Stone Paulinskill Valley Rail Trail NJ 1992 27 Cinders, Dirt, Grass, Ballast Traction Line Recreation Trail NJ 1986 3 Asphalt Dutchess Rail Trail NY 1991 13.5 Asphalt Oswego County Recreation Trail NY 1979 24.35 Original railroad cinders Joseph B. Clarke Rail Trail NY 1998 2.5 Asphalt Ontario Pathway NY 1992 23.5 Cinders, Grass, Gravel Town of Ballston Veterans Bike Path. NY 1960 3.6 Asphalt Auburn Trail NY 1993 10 Crushed Stone Clarence Bike Paths NY 2004 10.2 Asphalt Hudson Valley Rail Trail NY 1824 3.6 Asphalt Pat McGee Trail NY 1987 13 Crushed Stone South Hill Recreation Way NY 1988 3.4 Crushed Stone Wallkill Valley Rail Trail NY 2000 24 Asphalt, Cinders, Gravel Harlem Valley Rail Trail NY 1978 17 Asphalt Genesee Valley Greenway NY 1992 90 Original railroad cinders Catskill Scenic Trail NY 1990 26 Original railroad cinders Catharine Valley Trail State Park NY 2002 10 Crushed Stone Ballston Veterans Bike Path NY 1994 20 Asphalt Vestal Rail Trail NY 2002 5 Asphalt Heritage Trail NY 1996 11 Asphalt, Crushed Stone Hockhocking Adena Bikeway OH 1990 21 Asphalt Kokosing Gap Trail OH 1982 13.5 Asphalt 4-C Bicentennial Trail and Peace Path OH 1972 2.5 Asphalt Fairfield Heritage Trail OH 1999 9.3 Asphalt Infirmary Mound Park trails OH 1991 7 Asphalt, Dirt Taft Reserve Trails OH 1992 8 Asphalt, Dirt Lobdell Reserve Trails OH 1992 8 Asphalt, Dirt Holmes County Trail OH 1995 15 Asphalt Richland B&O Trail OH 1999 18.4 Asphalt Lebanon - Countryside YMCA Trail OH 2011 8 Asphalt

44 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface Cleveland Metro Parks OH 1990 250 Asphalt, Crushed Stone, Dirt Heart of Ohio Trail OH 1989 16 Asphalt MetroParks Bikeway OH 1990 11 Asphalt Bike & Hike / Towpath / Freedom OH 1966 60.4 Asphalt Simon Kenton Trail OH 2003 18 Asphalt Alum Creek Trail OH 2010 20 Asphalt Hock-Hocking Adena Bikeway OH 1992 22 Asphalt Slippery Elm Trail OH 1995 13.5 Asphalt Creekside trail and others OH 2005 62 Asphalt. Concrete Deschutes River Railbed Trail OR 2008 16 Dirt, Soil Crushed Stone. Asphalt, Deschutes River Trail (some surfacing cut off) OR 1989 24 Ballast, Cinders OC&E and Woodsline State Trail OR 1994 108 Woodchips Panhandle Trail in Allegheny County PA 1999 7.5 Crushed Stone Chester Valley Trail PA 2007 11.5 Asphalt Capital Area Greenbelt PA 1978 22 Asphalt Five Star Trail PA 1990 7.75 Crushed Stone McClintock Trail PA 1996 3.5 Asphalt Trout Island Trail PA 1980 2.5 Asphalt Greater Hazleton Rails to Trails PA 2011 6 Crushed Stone Steel Valley Trail PA 1988 19 Asphalt Warren/North Warren Bike/Hike Trail PA 2011 3 Asphalt Allegheny River Trail PA 1983 34.2 Asphalt Sandy Creek Trail PA 1998 12 Asphalt Great Allegheny Passage (Yough River Trail) PA 2000 185 Crushed Stone Path of the Flood Trail PA 2012 9 Asphalt, Ballast Luzerne County National Recreation Trail PA 1989 1.8 Crushed Stone Ghost Town Trail PA 1992 18 Crushed Stone Stavich Bike Trail PA 1983 7 Asphalt Swatara Rail Trail PA 1994 10 Crushed Stone Roaring Run Trail PA 2005 5 Crushed Stone Clarion-Little Toby Trail PA 1994 18 Crushed Stone Lebanon Valley Rail-Trail PA 1987 15.5 Crushed Stone Lehigh Gorge Trail PA 1994 26 Original railroad cinders Queen City Trail PA 2008 1 Asphalt Montour Trail PA 1985 47 Crushed Stone Pine Creek Rail Trail - Tioga County PA 2001 27 Crushed Stone Great Allegheny Passage - Somerset County Segment PA 2001 42 Crushed Stone Butler Freeport Community Trail Council PA 1997 20.4 Crushed Stone Warwick Trial system PA 1992 6 Asphalt Perkiomen Trail PA 2010 20 Crushed Stone

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 45 APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface Lackawanna River Heritage Trail PA 1986 35 Crushed Stone Oil Creek State Park Bike Trail PA 1998 9.7 Asphalt Great Allegheny Passage PA 1996 150 Crushed Stone Delaware Canal State Park PA 2003 60 Crushed Stone West Penn Trail PA 1991 15 Crushed Stone Three Rivers Heritage Trail PA 1986 24 Asphalt D&H Rail-Trail PA 1997 38 Original railroad cinders York County Heritage Rail Trail PA 1999 23.5 Crushed Stone The Lower Trail PA 1998 17 Crushed Stone Redbank Valley Trail PA 1999 51 Crushed Stone Armstrong Trail PA 1992 36 Crushed Stone Plainfield Township Trail PA 1991 6.7 Crushed Stone Pine Creek Rail Trail - Lycoming County PA 1992 38 Crushed Stone Blue and White Trails PA 2002 2 Asphalt Delaware Canal State Park Towpath PA 1940 60 Crushed Stone, Dirt Coal and Coke Trail PA 2007 5 Asphalt, Crushed Stone Five Star Trail PA 1997 7.5 Crushed Stone Ironton Rail Trail PA 1995 9.2 Asphalt West Penn Trail PA 2002 15 Crushed Stone Panhandle Trail - Washington County PA & WV 1999 17 Crushed Stone William O’Neill/South County Bike Path RI 2013 8 Asphalt Shelby Farms Greenline Trail TN 1966 6 Asphalt High Bridge Trail State Park VA 2007 30.9 Crushed Stone Virginia Capital Trail VA 2005 16 Asphalt, Boardwalk Southern Tip Bike & Hike Trail VA 2008 2.6 Asphalt New River Trail State Park VA 2007 57 Asphalt Virginia Blue Ridge Railway Trail VA 1987 7 Crushed Stone Dahlgren Railroad Heritage Trail VA 1998 15.7 Dirt, Soil Washington & Old Dominion Trail VA 2001 45 Asphalt Burlington Bike Path VT 1987 25 Asphalt Klickitat Trail WA 2002 31 Gravel, Dirt Ozaukee Interurban Trail WI 1963 29.5 Asphalt Hank Aaron State Trail WI 2006 14 Asphalt Gandy Dancer Trail WI 2001 20.3 Crushed Stone Badger and Glacial Drumlin State Trails WI 1984 60 Crushed Stone Southwest Path WI 2010 4.5 Asphalt Mon River WV 2008 6 Crushed Stone Caperton Trail WV 1999 6 Asphalt Deckers Creek Trail WV 1999 19 Asphalt, Crushed Stone

46 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails Pine Creek Trail, PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 47 National Headquarters 2121 Ward Court, NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20037 tel 202.331.9696 [email protected] railstotrails.org www.TrailLink.com B-16-381 9/3/2010 HUGH FARREN PED. BRIDGE Page 1B of 30 COST ESTIMATE

Alternate No. 2 - Precast Double-T

ITEM # DESCRIPTION QTY. UNITS UNIT PRICE COST

102.510 INDIVIDUAL TREE PROTECTION 11 EA $295.90 $3,255 103.000 TREE REMOVED 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000 114.100 DEMOLITION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE OF BRIDGE NO. 108.4 SY $1,000.00 $108,400 115.100 DEMOLITION OF BRIDGE NO. 1 LS $145,000.00 $145,000 120.100 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION 1650 CY $50.00 $82,500 151.000 GRAVEL BORROW 27 CY $40.00 $1,080 151.220 GRAVEL BORROW FOR SIDEWALK 120 CY $40.00 $4,800 156.100 CRUSHED STONE FOR BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS 205 TON $52.50 $10,763 460.000 HOT MIX ASPHALT 16.3 TON $142.00 $2,315 482.300 SAWING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 200 FT $3.63 $726 580.000 CURB REMOVE AND RESET 90 FT $18.00 $1,620 701.000 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 540 SY $55.00 $29,700 751.000 LOAM BORROW 50 CY $40.00 $2,000 765.000 SEEDING 2200 SY $1.90 $4,180 820.100 HIGHWAY LIGHTING - ROADWAY 820.101 R&R 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000 877.000 SIGN POST REMOVED AND RESET 3 EA $100.00 $300 901.000 4000 PSI, 1.5 IN., 565 CEMENT CONCRETE 167.5 CY $700.00 $117,250 904.200 5000 PSI, 3/4 IN., 685 SILICA FUME MODIFIED CEMENT CONCRETE 25 CY $700.00 $17,500 910.100 STEEL REINFORCEMENT FOR STRUCTURES - EPOXY COATED 1700 LB $4.00 $6,800 912.000 DRILLING AND GROUTING DOWELS 152 EA $55.50 $8,436 932.000 ELASTOMERIC BRIDGE BEARING PAD 3 SF $500.00 $1,500 945.503 DRILLED SHAFT 4.0 FOOT DIAMETER 600 FT $669.00 $401,400 945.603 PERMANENT CASING 4.0 FOOT DIAMETER 600 FT $497.50 $298,500 947.000 TEST PILE 20 FT $700.00 $14,000 975.500 ALUMINUM HANDRAIL 3108 FT $10.00 $31,080 975.600 ALUMINUM GUARDRAIL 1554 FT $200.00 $310,800 995.000 BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE, BRIDGE NO. 1 LS $86,275.00 $86,275 995.100 PRECAST BRIDGE SUB STRUCTURE & RAMPS 1 LS $709,300.00 $709,300

SUB TOTAL $2,407,479

20 % DESIGN CONTINGENCY $2,888,975

20 % CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $3,466,770

TOTAL $3,466,770

SAY $3,500,000

B-16-381 9/3/2010 HUGH FARREN PED. BRIDGE Page 1A of 30 COST ESTIMATE

Alternate No. 1 - Prefabricated Steel Truss

ITEM # DESCRIPTION QTY. UNITS UNIT PRICE COST

102.510 INDIVIDUAL TREE PROTECTION 11 EA $295.90 $3,255 103.000 TREE REMOVED 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000 114.100 DEMOLITION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE OF BRIDGE NO. 108.4 SY $1,000.00 $108,400 115.100 DEMOLITION OF BRIDGE NO. 1 LS $145,000.00 $145,000 120.100 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION 1650 CY $50.00 $82,500 151.000 GRAVEL BORROW 27 CY $40.00 $1,080 151.220 GRAVEL BORROW FOR SIDEWALK 120 CY $40.00 $4,800 156.100 CRUSHED STONE FOR BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS 205 TON $52.50 $10,763 460.000 HOT MIX ASPHALT 16.3 TON $142.00 $2,315 482.300 SAWING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 200 FT $3.63 $726 580.000 CURB REMOVE AND RESET 90 FT $18.00 $1,620 701.000 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 540 SY $55.00 $29,700 751.000 LOAM BORROW 50 CY $40.00 $2,000 765.000 SEEDING 2200 SY $1.90 $4,180 820.100 HIGHWAY LIGHTING - ROADWAY 820.101 R&R 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000 877.000 SIGN POST REMOVED AND RESET 3 EA $100.00 $300 901.000 4000 PSI, 1.5 IN., 565 CEMENT CONCRETE 167.5 CY $700.00 $117,250 904.200 5000 PSI, 3/4 IN., 685 SILICA FUME MODIFIED CEMENT CONCRETE 25 CY $700.00 $17,500 910.100 STEEL REINFORCEMENT FOR STRUCTURES - EPOXY COATED 1700 LB $4.00 $6,800 912.000 DRILLING AND GROUTING DOWELS 152 EA $55.50 $8,436 932.000 ELASTOMERIC BRIDGE BEARING PAD 3 SF $500.00 $1,500 945.503 DRILLED SHAFT 4.0 FOOT DIAMETER 600 FT $669.00 $401,400 945.603 PERMANENT CASING 4.0 FOOT DIAMETER 600 FT $497.50 $298,500 947.000 TEST PILE 20 FT $700.00 $14,000 975.500 ALUMINUM HANDRAIL 2712 FT $10.00 $27,120 975.600 ALUMINUM GUARDRAIL 1356 FT $200.00 $271,200 995.000 BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE, BRIDGE NO. 1 LS $183,700.00 $183,700 995.100 PRECAST BRIDGE SUB STRUCTURE & RAMPS 1 LS $572,500.00 $572,500

SUB TOTAL $2,324,544

20 % DESIGN CONTINGENCY $2,789,453

20 % CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $3,347,343

TOTAL $3,347,343

SAY $3,300,000

LN ISESES L

PARADARAD

S ST S

N ST O

TO

RIVER RIVE RIV RIVER LT

MILTOMILT

T OFTOF S ASASHCR

ST D

REEDREERE

A

Y AVE AVE AV AV Y Y Y Y

AVE AVE AV AV A

T

QUIN QUIN QUINC QUINC QUINC

PRATT PRATT PRATT PRATT

OM ST ST ST ST ST OM OM OM OM OM

BLOSS BLOSS BLOS BLOSS

ND ST BLOSS T

OAKLAOAK T

ST ST

ST

RIVER RIVER RIVER RIVER

ST DALEA

N ST ST P S MILTOM HROP S NTHT WINTH

T

W

EW

IEW S S

AY V RV E E V

FAIRVFAI LEE AAV

E ST ST ST E E E E ST E RCE W D

INGN AV OAKDA

TI SINCLNCLCL MYRTL MYRTL MYRTL MY MYRTL AIRRC C

OMMEO T

COMME WHITIWH

T

T ST ST ST T T T

LN A WALNU WALNU WALNU WALN

E

V LE AV

AVE OAKDA

S

T T T T T

Y S Y CASS

Y

CEY S S S CEY CEY CEY

CEY S CEY L RY LN LN LN RY RY RY RY LN RY P T UT P

CTO NUT P

VICTO VICTO VICTO VICTO VI

CHAUN CHAUN CHAUN CHAUN E

HAZEL

T ST ST ST ST T T T T

T

WALNU WALNU WALNU W

WALNU ST

V

AVE AVE AVE AV

L

L

HILL HILL HILL HILL T CEDAR

ST

N ST ST ST ST N N N N

ST

FULT FULTO FULTO FULTO FULTO G FULTO

HIGH

E

RN ST ST S ST S RN RN RN RN RN RN

U

BU N AVE

COLBU COLBU COLBU COLBU

S

EDISOE

AVE

T T T T

T OR

KS K Y LN Y

MORSEMOR LN Y L

CK S CK ICK S S S ICK ICK ICK R

NTARYNTAR

MAVER MAVER MAVER MAVER BAILE BA

VE BAILE Y L Y

RY LN LN LN L RY RY RY RY POTTE POTTE POTTE POTTE AVERY

EME SCHOO

ELEME

STS

Y LN LN LN LN Y Y Y Y Y LN Y RNORNON V

MT VE

D D

ERR

L L L L

RD RD RD RD

LDR

LL DR DR DR DR LL LL LL LL CHERR CHERR CHERR CHERR CHERR M M M M M O’NEI O’NEI O’NEI O’NEI ON

A

EIGH EIGH EIGH EIGH EIGH EIGH

HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH

SCHOO SCHOO SCHOO SCHOO

OD

DEDHA DEDHA DEDHA DEDHA

PL PL PL P PL PL PL PL

WOODL WOODL WOODL WOODL WOOD N N N N

ON

NON NON

RNON RNON RNON RNON RNON

MT VE VE VE VE MT MT MT MT MT

MT VE VE V V MT MT MT MT MT RNON RNON RNON RNO RNO R ST ST ST ST

V

AVE AVE AVE AVE AV

RUNT RUNT RUNT RUNT RUNT RUNT RUN RU

E E E E

N PL PL PL N N N N

LINDE LINDE LINDE LINDE LINDE L

VAN B B B VAN V VAN VAN

VE

AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE

LE

NG AV AV AV AV NG NG NG NG NG DALE DALE DALE DALE DALE DALE

ROO R BROOK BROOK BROOK BROOK

WHITI WHITI WHITI WHITI

S ST S S

WS ST ST ST ST WS WS WS WS L L L

L T RD

E E E E T

M M OO

ABBOT

BARRO BARRO BARRO BARRO BARRO

SCHOO SCHOO SCHOO SCHOO

MIDDL MIDDL MIDDL MIDDL

DEDHA DEDHA DEDHA DEDHA

N N N LN LN LN LN

L ALLEN ALLEN ALLEN AL ALLEN STS

RK

AR STS

EASTEA CLARKCLARC

E E

E OR ST

Y T EY AV A A A EY EY EY EY

WL WL WL

ROWL CRO CRO C

CROWL ST

A H H H H

T

RY

ST

ELEAN

CHURC CHURC CHURC CHURC EAST EAST EAST EAST EAST ST ST AVERY ST

HIGHH

R R R

VA

HARVA HARVA HARVA HARVA

>LZ[VU :HTWZVUHULUNPULLYPUNÄYTOPYLKI`+LKOHTPZJVUK\J [PUNHZ\Y]L`HIV\[ HWVZZPISLYHPS[V[YHPSWYVQLJ[^OPJO^V\SKY\UMVYTPSLZ HSVUN[OLMVYTLY+LKOHT 9HPSHUKL_[LUKMYVT,HZ[:[YLL[H[(]LY`:[YLL[HSVUN>OP[PUN (]LU\L[V[OLLUKVM 9P]LY:[YLL[H[8\PUJ`:[YLL[ (YL`V\H^HYLVM[OPZLMMVY[[VI\PSKHYHPS[YHPS& @,:56 +V`V\Z\WWVY[[OPZLMMVY[&@,:56  H0M`LZ^OH[ILULÄ[ZKV`V\HU[PJPWH[L&FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  I0MUV^OH[VIQLJ[PVUZVYJVUJLYUZKV`V\OH]L&FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF  FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF /V^THU`MLL[MYVT[OLYHPSZP[LPZ`V\YWYVWLY[`&FFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF J0M\UKLJPKLK^OH[TVYLPUMVYTH[PVUKV`V\ULLK[VTHRLHKLJPZPVU& @V\YUHTLHUKHKKYLZZ (optional) FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF )LZ[^H`[VJVU[HJ[`V\ (optional) FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF >V\SK`V\SPRL[VTLL[^P[O>LZ[VU :HTWZVUPUWLYZVU[VKV HZP[L^HSR&   @,:560M`LZILZ\YL[VPUJS\KL`V\YJVU[HJ[PUMVYTH[PVU

S S T ST EAST EAST Town of Dedham - Abutter Card Survey +LHY(I\[[LY

>LHZR[OH[`V\[HRLHML^TPU\[LZ[VOLSW\Z IL[[LY \UKLYZ[HUK `V\Y WVZP[PVU VU H WVZZPISL YHPS[V[YHPS WYVQLJ[  @V\Y YLZWVUZL PZ NYLH[S` HWWYLJPH[LK[VOLSWHZZLZZ[OLMLHZPIPSP[`VM[OPZ WYVQLJ[

>LHWWYLJPH[L`V\Y[PTLPUOLSWPUN\ZTLL[[OL ULLKZVM+LKOHTYLZPKLU[Z

:PUJLYLS` Weston & Sampson +L]VUZOPYL:[YLL[YK-SVVY )VZ[VU4(