Appendix a - Cost Estimates

Cynwyd Spur Trail Feasibility Study

Appendix A - Cost Estimates

Page 43

Cynwyd Heritage Trail Spur- Phase 1 & 2 (w/ Retaining Walls) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

Length Width Trail Feature Item Number Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost (ft) (ft)

Section 1: O'Neill property line to bridge crossing Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA 0409-0385 wearing course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 9.5 mm mix, 1.5" depth, SRL-L 1050 12 1400 SY $19 $ 26,600 12' Paved Shared Use Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA base Path 0309-0320 course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 25.0 mm mix, 3" depth 1050 12 1400 SY $26 $ 36,400 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 1050 12 233 CY $62 $ 14,467 0212-0014 Geotextile, Class 4, Type A 1050 12 1400 SY $4 $ 5,040 Shoulder 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 1050 4 78 CY $62 $ 4,822 0203-0001 Excavation - Class 1 (pavement box only) 1050 12 389 CY $32 $ 12,534 Trail Clearing/Excavation 0203-0001 Excavation - Class 1 for grading 1050 16 856 CY $32 $ 27,575 0201-0001 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $20,000 $ 20,000 Railroad Bridge Rehab RR bridge for trail users 1 LS $75,000 $ 75,000 Signing 0931-0111 Post-mounted signs, type B 60 SF $36 $ 2,134 Right-of-way fence under 76 and along railroad 0624-0001 600 LF $21 $ 12,660 Fencing bridge 0624-0300 End posts for chain-link fence 8 EA $194 $ 1,551 0624-0400 Corner posts for chain-link fence 6 EA $199 $ 1,193 0804-0011 Seeding and soil supplement - formula B 15 LB $60 $ 881 Seeding 0803-0001 Placing stockpiled topsoil 77 CY $26 $ 2,031 Walking Trail along Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $10,000 $ 10,000 waterfront 0703-0021 AASHTO No. 10 (6" depth) 400 6 44 CY $48 $ 2,133 Drainage/Stormwater Drainage swale along trail, pipes 1 LS $30,000 $ 30,000 Boardwalk 450' x 10' timber boardwalk around outfall 1 LS $375,000 $ 375,000 Fishing Pier Wood structure over outfall with railings 1 LS $50,000 $ 50,000 Walking Trail connection Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $20,000 $ 20,000 to CHT 0850-0031 Rock, class R-3 1000 6 73 CY $90 $ 6,600 Adventure Area boulders and/or play equipment 1 LS $25,000 $ 25,000 Canopies at NS Railroad Bridge Two canopies (one each side) required by NS 2 Each $50,000 $ 100,000 Subtotal $ 861,621 Design (20%) 1 LS $ 172,324 Landscaping (10%) 1 LS $ 86,162 E&S Controls (5%) 1 LS $ 43,081 CM/CI (10%) 1 LS $ 86,162 Survey (5%) 1 LS $ 43,081 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 43,081 Contingency (20%) 1 LS $ 172,324 Section Total $ 1,507,837

Section 2: Bridge Trail Bridge Bridge 150 1 LS $400,000 $ 400,000 9624-0001 Fence on both sides of bridge approaches 80 LF $21 $ 1,688 Fencing 9624-0300 End posts 8 EA $194 $ 1,551 9624-0400 Corner posts 4 EA $199 $ 796 Subtotal $ 404,035 Design (20%) 1 LS $ 80,807 E&S Controls (5%) 1 LS $ 20,202 CM/CI (10%) 1 LS $ 40,403 Survey (5%) 1 LS $ 20,202 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 20,202 Contingency (20%) 1 LS $ 80,807 Section Total $ 666,657

1 Cynwyd Heritage Trail Spur- Phase 1 & 2 (w/ Retaining Walls) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

Length Width Trail Feature Item Number Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost (ft) (ft)

Section 3: Bridge crossing to Cynwyd Heritage Trail Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA 0409-0385 wearing course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 9.5 mm mix, 1.5" depth, SRL-L 800 12 1067 SY $19 $ 20,267 12' Paved Shared Use Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA base Path 0309-0320 course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 25.0 mm mix, 3" depth 800 12 1067 SY $26 $ 27,733 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 800 12 178 CY $62 $ 11,022 0212-0014 Geotextile, Class 4, Type A 800 12 1067 SY $4 $ 3,840 Shoulder 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 800 4 59 CY $62 $ 3,674 0203-0001 Excavation - Class 1 (pavement box only) 800 12 296 CY $32 $ 9,550 Trail Clearing/Excavation 0204-0101 Excavation - Class 3 (for retaining walls) 800 8 948 CY $36 $ 34,133 0201-0001 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $20,000 $ 20,000 Retaining Walls Dual retaining wall 3650 SF $100 $ 365,000 Signing 0931-0111 Post-mounted signs, type B 60 SF $36 $ 2,134 Drainage/Stormwater Drainage swale along trail, pipes 1 LS $30,000 $ 30,000 9624-0001 Fence on downhill side of slope 800 LF $21 $ 16,880 Fencing 9624-0300 End posts 2 EA $194 $ 388 9624-0400 Corner posts 10 EA $199 $ 1,989 0804-0011 Seeding and soil supplement - formula B 15 LB $60 $ 881 Seeding 0803-0001 Placing stockpiled topsoil 77 CY $26 $ 2,031 Subtotal $ 549,522 Design (20%) 1 LS $ 109,904 Landscaping (10%) 1 LS $ 54,952 E&S Controls (5%) 1 LS $ 27,476 CM/CI (10%) 1 LS $ 54,952 Survey (5%) 1 LS $ 27,476 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 27,476 Contingency (20%) 1 LS $ 109,904 Section Total $ 961,664

Section 1 $ 1,507,837 Section 2 $ 666,657 Section 3 $ 961,664 Project Total $ 3,140,000

2 Cynwyd Heritage Trail Spur- Phase 1 & 2 (w/ Boardwalk) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

Length Width Trail Feature Item Number Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost (ft) (ft)

1 Cynwyd Heritage Trail Spur- Phase 1 & 2 (w/ Boardwalk) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

Length Width Trail Feature Item Number Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost (ft) (ft)

Section 3: Bridge crossing to Cynwyd Heritage Trail

Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA 0409-0385 wearing course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 9.5 mm mix, 1.5" depth, SRL-L 800 12 1067 SY $19 $ 20,267 12' Paved Shared Use Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA base Path 0309-0320 course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 25.0 mm mix, 3" depth 800 12 1067 SY $26 $ 27,733 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 800 12 178 CY $62 $ 11,022 0212-0014 Geotextile, Class 4, Type A 800 12 1067 SY $4 $ 3,840 Shoulder 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 800 4 59 CY $62 $ 3,674 Trail Clearing/Excavation 0201-0001 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $20,000 $ 20,000 Boardwalk 12' wide timber boardwalk 700 LF $1,000 $ 700,000 Signing 0931-0111 Post-mounted signs, type B 60 SF $36 $ 2,134 Drainage/Stormwater Drainage swale along trail, pipes 1 LS $30,000 $ 30,000 0804-0011 Seeding and soil supplement - formula B 15 LB $60 $ 881 Seeding 0803-0001 Placing stockpiled topsoil 77 CY $26 $ 2,031 Subtotal $ 821,582 Design (20%) 1 LS $ 164,316 Landscaping (10%) 1 LS $ 82,158 E&S Controls (5%) 1 LS $ 41,079 CM/CI (10%) 1 LS $ 82,158 Survey (5%) 1 LS $ 41,079 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 41,079 Contingency (20%) 1 LS $ 164,316 Section Total $ 1,437,769

Section 1 $ 1,507,837 Section 2 $ 666,657 Section 3 $ 1,437,769 Project Total $ 3,620,000

2 Cynwyd Heritage Trail Spur - Phase 1 with Retaining Walls Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

Length Width Trail Feature Item Number Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost (ft) (ft)

Section 1: O'Neill property line to bridge crossing Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA 0409-0385 wearing course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 9.5 mm mix, 1.5" depth, SRL-L 1050 12 1400 SY $19 $ 26,600 12' Paved Shared Use Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA base Path 0309-0320 course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 25.0 mm mix, 3" depth 1050 12 1400 SY $26 $ 36,400 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 1050 12 233 CY $62 $ 14,467 0212-0014 Geotextile, Class 4, Type A 1050 12 1400 SY $4 $ 5,040 Shoulder 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 1050 4 78 CY $62 $ 4,822 0203-0001 Excavation - Class 1 (pavement box only) 1050 12 389 CY $32 $ 12,534 Trail Clearing/Excavation 0203-0001 Excavation - Class 1 for grading 1050 16 856 CY $32 $ 27,575 0201-0001 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $20,000 $ 20,000 Railroad Bridge Rehab RR bridge for trail users 1 LS $75,000 $ 75,000 Signing 0931-0111 Post-mounted signs, type B 60 SF $36 $ 2,134 Right-of-way fence under 76 and along railroad 0624-0001 600 LF $21 $ 12,660 Fencing bridge 0624-0300 End posts for chain-link fence 8 EA $194 $ 1,551 0624-0400 Corner posts for chain-link fence 6 EA $199 $ 1,193 0804-0011 Seeding and soil supplement - formula B 15 LB $60 $ 881 Seeding 0803-0001 Placing stockpiled topsoil 77 CY $26 $ 2,031 Drainage/Stormwater Drainage swale along trail, pipes 1 LS $30,000 $ 30,000 Canopies at NS Railroad Bridge Two canopies (one each side) required by NS 2 Each $50,000 $ 100,000 Subtotal $ 372,888 Design (20%) 1 LS $ 74,578 Landscaping (10%) 1 LS $ 37,289 E&S Controls (5%) 1 LS $ 18,644 CM/CI (10%) 1 LS $ 37,289 Survey (5%) 1 LS $ 18,644 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 18,644 Contingency (20%) 1 LS $ 74,578 Section Total $ 652,554

1 Cynwyd Heritage Trail Spur - Phase 1 with Retaining Walls Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

Length Width Trail Feature Item Number Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost (ft) (ft)

Section 3: Bridge crossing to Cynwyd Heritage Trail

Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA 0409-0385 wearing course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 9.5 mm mix, 1.5" depth, SRL-L 800 12 1067 SY $19 $ 20,267 12' Paved Shared Use Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA base Path 0309-0320 course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 25.0 mm mix, 3" depth 800 12 1067 SY $26 $ 27,733 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 800 12 178 CY $62 $ 11,022 0212-0014 Geotextile, Class 4, Type A 800 12 1067 SY $4 $ 3,840 Shoulder 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 800 4 59 CY $62 $ 3,674 0203-0001 Excavation - Class 1 (pavement box only) 800 12 296 CY $32 $ 9,550 Trail Clearing/Excavation 0204-0101 Excavation - Class 3 (for retaining walls) 800 8 948 CY $36 $ 34,133 0201-0001 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $20,000 $ 20,000 Retaining Walls Dual retaining wall 3650 SF $100 $ 365,000 Signing 0931-0111 Post-mounted signs, type B 60 SF $36 $ 2,134 Drainage/Stormwater Drainage swale along trail, pipes 1 LS $30,000 $ 30,000 9624-0001 Fence on downhill side of slope 800 LF $21 $ 16,880 Fencing 9624-0300 End posts 2 EA $194 $ 388 9624-0400 Corner posts 10 EA $199 $ 1,989 0804-0011 Seeding and soil supplement - formula B 15 LB $60 $ 881 Seeding 0803-0001 Placing stockpiled topsoil 77 CY $26 $ 2,031 Subtotal $ 549,522 Design (20%) 1 LS $ 109,904 Landscaping (10%) 1 LS $ 54,952 E&S Controls (5%) 1 LS $ 27,476 CM/CI (10%) 1 LS $ 54,952 Survey (5%) 1 LS $ 27,476 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 27,476 Contingency (20%) 1 LS $ 109,904 Section Total $ 961,664

Section 1 $ 652,554 Section 2 $ 666,657 Section 3 $ 961,664 Project Total $ 2,290,000

2 Cynwyd Heritage Trail Spur- Phase 1 with Boardwalk Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

Length Width Trail Feature Item Number Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost (ft) (ft)

Section 1: O'Neill property line to bridge crossing Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA 0409-0385 wearing course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 9.5 mm mix, 1.5" depth, SRL-L 1050 12 1400 SY $19 $ 26,600 12' Paved Shared Use Superpave asphalt mixture design, HMA base Path 0309-0320 course, PG64-22, <0.3 million ESALS, 25.0 mm mix, 3" depth 1050 12 1400 SY $26 $ 36,400 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 1050 12 233 CY $62 $ 14,467 0212-0014 Geotextile, Class 4, Type A 1050 12 1400 SY $4 $ 5,040 Shoulder 0703-0024 Subbase 6" Depth (No. 2A) 1050 4 78 CY $62 $ 4,822 0203-0001 Excavation - Class 1 (pavement box only) 1050 12 389 CY $32 $ 12,534 Trail Clearing/Excavation 0203-0001 Excavation - Class 1 for grading 1050 16 856 CY $32 $ 27,575 0201-0001 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $20,000 $ 20,000 Railroad Bridge Rehab RR bridge for trail users 1 LS $75,000 $ 75,000 Signing 0931-0111 Post-mounted signs, type B 60 SF $36 $ 2,134 Right-of-way fence under 76 and along railroad 0624-0001 600 LF $21 $ 12,660 Fencing bridge 0624-0300 End posts for chain-link fence 8 EA $194 $ 1,551 0624-0400 Corner posts for chain-link fence 6 EA $199 $ 1,193 0804-0011 Seeding and soil supplement - formula B 15 LB $60 $ 881 Seeding 0803-0001 Placing stockpiled topsoil 77 CY $26 $ 2,031 Drainage/Stormwater Drainage swale along trail, pipes 1 LS $30,000 $ 30,000 Canopies at NS Railroad Bridge Two canopies (one each side) required by NS 2 Each $50,000 $ 100,000 Subtotal $ 372,888 Design (20%) 1 LS $ 74,578 Landscaping (10%) 1 LS $ 37,289 E&S Controls (5%) 1 LS $ 18,644 CM/CI (10%) 1 LS $ 37,289 Survey (5%) 1 LS $ 18,644 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 18,644 Contingency (20%) 1 LS $ 74,578 Section Total $ 652,554

1 Cynwyd Heritage Trail Spur- Phase 1 with Boardwalk Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

Length Width Trail Feature Item Number Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Cost (ft) (ft)

Section 3: Bridge crossing to Cynwyd Heritage Trail

Section 1 $ 652,554 Section 2 $ 666,657 Section 3 $ 1,437,769 Project Total $ 2,760,000

2 Cynwyd Spur Trail Feasibility Study

Appendix B - Existing Structures Evaluation

Page 44

Cynwyd Trail Existing Structures Reconnaissance

October 24, 2014

A field view was conducted to determine the suitability of an existing stone retaining wall and concrete and stone underpass to be utilized as part of an upcoming trail expansion.

Stone Retaining Wall

The stone wall is comprised of two portions; the first is section of large stone blocks extending from the bridge southward. It appears that the wall was added to with a section comprised of smaller stones. The first section has dry set, but did not fragment under hammer blows and appear quite stable. There is a layer of wider base stones buried beneath the ground. The only defects to the wall are several areas where smaller stones were used as infill and have fallen out. The voids caused by missing stones are allowing the backfill material to wash out. Also, severa bushes are growing out of the cracks in the face of the wall. Even larger trees are growing immediately behind the wall

The second portion of wall is comprised of smaller dry set stones

open concrete manhole provides access and is a safety hazard. The manhole is flush with the ground

the top. Several small metal pipes run through it.

Recommendations:

Main Wall- herbicide. The root systems of the trees cannot be removed without damaging the wall.

Back fill larger voids in face with smaller stones. Mortar may be used to set stones, but should not be used in normal cracks between the stones as that will disrupt drainage.

The earth above the wall has in some places slumped over the top stones. This materia stones to retard plant growth and prevent debris from falling on to the trail.

The wall is massive enough to support a limited size pedestrian bridge. The location of the bridge along the wall, type and weight of the structure, the span length, and the grade necessary to rise up to meet the Cynwyd Heritage trail will have to be considered.

If the bridge is to be founded directly on top of the wall, a reinforced concrete cap beam could be used to distribute the load and insure the stones do not move. The cap beam should extend over a minimum of 3 stones and distance

elow the top stones. If greater height is required, a new abutment should be constructed a minimum of 10 feet behind the wall.

Smaller Stone Wall- A portion of this wall has already failed. It could be reconstructed which would ssembled and rebuilt. The failed portion could probably be eliminated by re grading and flattening the slope in this area. If the trail does not run closely along the top of the wall re grading should be sufficient. If it is desired to keep the wall in service, it could be reconstructed using the existing stones.

Underground Vault- The manhole at the top should be sealed immediately. There are foot paths in the area and it presents a unmarked hazard. If the trail is not planned to be close to the vault securing it should be sufficient.

If the Vault is interfering with the trail it may need to be broken up, the top portion removed and backfilled.

If the planned bridge is over the vault, it could be filled with concrete or aggregate and used for a support at low cost. If aggregate is used it would be best to fracture the bottom to allow drainage. The height of the embankment on the opposing slope may make this impractical.

Rail Road Underpass

The underpass is a hybrid structure comprised of a concrete encased I beam superstructure, a stone masonry west wall with a stone masonry wing wall on the south side and a stone masonry wall capped with a concrete portion on the north side. The east abutment is concrete with no wing on the south side, abutting into the retaining wall and a portion of concrete and a portion of stone masonry wing topped with concrete on the north side.

The superstructure is in fair condition overall with cracking and efflorescence on the bottom surface throughout. At the edges, it steel beams are rusted and no reinforcement is visible.

The West wall is in good condition.

The East wall and concrete portions of the wing are in poor condition with heavy scaling, thick delaminations of surface concrete and severely rusted reinforcement. Portions of the wall have failed and fallen from the surface up to 1 are peeling away and pose a safety hazard as they fall. Portions of reinforcement are exposed and heavily rusted, some with 100% loss.

Recommendations:

Superstructure- The spalling concrete at the ends of the structure pose a safety risk and should be removed. Concrete in this area will continue to spall off as it has advanced deterioration probably caused by chemical reaction to the water infiltrating from above. This water is probably impossible to divert due to the active tracks above. Encasing the surface through normal means of attaching to the concrete will drilled in anchors will probably not be effective as the surrounding concrete is in such poor condition. Reconstructing the area is probably also not practical as it would involve accessing the railroad property and possible closure of the tracks for some period. An alternative would be erect a carrier beam to support the encasing concrete.

West Wall and Wing- The abutment needs no work at this time. The wing wall needs no work other than removing earth that has slumped over the top stones. This material should

plant growth and prevent debris from falling on to the trail.

East Wall and Wing- The abutment and wing wall have deep spalling and dangerous portions of concrete likely to fall. All loose concrete should be removed. Similar to the superstructure, the degree of failing concrete will make normal encasement of questionable durability. It is recommended to construct an encasement with an independent footing that can support the weight of the new wall and insure stablility.

Photo 1 - Face of wall from the south. Note trees growing from face of wall and immediately on top. The underpass is in the distance.

Photo 2 - alerting anyone to its presence.

Photo 3 - Photo showing chamber in relation to wall. The inspector is standing immediately beh

Photo 4 -

Photo 5 - Smaller stone wall dryset on face of wall. The smaller wall is about 40

Photo 6 - Underpass opening

Photo 7 - the largest. It is allowing fill material to fall from behind the wall.

Photo 8 - West Abutment in good condition

Photo 9 - East Abutment. Note heavily scalled surface, exposed reinforcement, with 100% section loss.

Photo 10 - Piece of concrete fallen from south entrance of the superstructure

Photo 11 - separated from the main wall along the arrows and will fall.

Photo 12- North face of superstructure. Note spalled areas and remaining areas which are delaminated and likely to fail,

Photo 13- the remaining concrete is sandy (light brown areas) and the reinforcement which has rusted through.

Photo 14- North East wing wall. Note scaling concrete surface to the right and rubble concrete at the bottom of the photo.

Cynwyd Spur Trail Feasibility Study

Appendix C - Meeting Minutes

Page 45

Meeting Minutes

Project: CHT Spur Feasibility Study Date: Jan. 24, 2014

Subject: Study Committee Meeting Time: 8:30 AM

Attendee Representing Phone Number Email Address Chris Stanford Baker 215-442-5333 [email protected] Sara Patterson Baker 215-442-5321 [email protected] Barrett Dunigan Cynwyd Trail 610-731-6846 [email protected] Scott Zelov Lower Merion Township 610-256-4120 [email protected] David DeAngelis Lower Merion Township Parks 610-348-2825 [email protected] George Manos Lower Merion Township 610-664-4534 [email protected] Bill Cook Citizen 610-405-1942 [email protected] Donna Heller LMT Parks and Rec 610-645-6187 [email protected] Chris Leswing LMT Building and Planning 610-645-6116 [email protected] Liz Gabor O eill Properties 215-847-7603 [email protected]

Purpose of the Meeting:

This was a meeting to give everyone from the Study Committee an update on the feasibility study and discuss next steps with regards to the existing site analysis, trail alignment, and the upcoming public meeting.

Discussion:

I. Roles/Responsibilities

II. Scope and Schedule

a. Scope includes master plan for Cynwyd Spur Trail, draft and final reports, public and steering committee meetings, existing conditions/site assessment, operations and maintenance plan, and financial feasibility.

b. Funding is one of the main priorities for this feasibility study. A good understanding of cost and funding sources is necessary. Possible funding sources include City Ave redevelopment recreation fees, grants (DCNR, TAP).

c. There was some discussion about if this trail is meant to be part of a regional trail network or a local amenity. It was decided that, for the purposes of the feasibility study, the trail connection to the Cynwyd Heritage Trail (CHT) would be considered part of a regional trail network, and other parts of the site would be looked at as a local amenity. Based on the fact that it would be part of the regional trail network, it would be necessary to pursue regional funding instead of the township fully-funding the project.

III. Existing Site Analysis

a. Preserving the character of the site is desirable. Keeping at least a portion of it natural is important for the project. The existing nature trail is well-liked (including part of the plan.

- 1 - Meeting Minutes

Project: CHT Spur Feasibility Study Date: Jan. 24, 2014

Subject: Study Committee Meeting Time: 8:30 AM

b. The connection to the property has not been determined yet. They will be constructing a trail along the river to the edge of their property at a location that will be determined based on the placement of the Cynwyd Spur Trail.

c. A question was raised about what the soil is comprised of in this area and its stability because of the adjacent land uses and historic use of the site. While soil samples are not part of the feasibility study, they would be required during the design phase.

d. Concerns about the amount of water that is present in this area during and after rain were raised. Drainage will be part of later stages of the feasibility study and will likely need significant analysis during the design stages.

e. Safety concerns for this site include its remoteness and accessibility by emergency vehicles/personnel and its visibility. Visibility concerns will be addressed as part of the feasibility study through recommendations for tree removal where appropriate to improve site lines throughout the site. Lighting was also discussed, but it was determined that it would not be appropriate for this site because it will only be open from dawn to dusk.

f. The safety around the train tracks is also a concern. Fencing may be required along the tracks to prevent trail users from accessing the tracks.

IV. Trail Alignment

a. A question was raised about why the trail needed to meet ADA requirements. The concern was the cost of designing and constructing an ADA-compliant trail. It was decided that the part of the trail that would link to the CHT should be ADA accessible and the current nature trail would be improved slightly, but not made ADA accessible.

b. raffic associated with the Schuylkill River Trail.

c. Grading is one of the more difficult aspects of this site. The site is small with a significant elevation change from the river to the CHT. There are safety and feasibility concerns about constructing a trail on this site. The safety concerns include people falling off the edge of the trail and down a steep slope and cyclists going gaining too much speed on the downhill sections. Feasibility concerns included the cost and the area that would be disturbed by constructing an ADA accessible trail. These concerns will be addressed throughout the feasibility study.

d. Three options for alignment were presented and discussed. The general consensus was that the first trail option (where the existing walking path is) would be left as a nature trail. The second two options were variations on a trail that connects with the CHT closer to the river, and has a jug-handle design with a bike/pedestrian bridge. The bridge option would be more suitable -use path because of the directness of the route, opportunities for views, the visibility of the trail, etc.

- 2 - Meeting Minutes

Project: CHT Spur Feasibility Study Date: Jan. 24, 2014

Subject: Study Committee Meeting Time: 8:30 AM

V. Brain Storming: park uses, additional amenities, general concerns

a. This location is not ideal for a dog park because it is too far away from parking. The idea can be brought up at a public meeting, but will probably not be pursued further.

b. A possible location for a fishing platform on the Schuylkill River would be on the structure above the drainage pipe outfall.

c. A high-ropes course was discussed and will be discussed again at the public meeting. There is a feeling that the idea will not be well-received at the public meeting. Additionally, there were concerns about opening up this section of trail to a for-profit company because it may cause the township to get more requests from companies who would also like to use the trail.

d. Landscape screening between the trail and the train tracks and I-76 was discussed to visually separate trail users from these uses and the noise.

e. There is a possibility to use the existing railroad track and rail car on the site near the river for sign posts, artwork, or other parts of the trail. When it was researched in the past, it was determined that putting railroad track into the pavement of the trail is prohibitively expensive, but it may be appropriate as an edge treatment. This may also reduce the amount of debris on the trail after it rains which seems to be a problem with the existing CHT.

VI. Public Meeting

a. A public meeting/design workshop is planned for the end of February or beginning of March to be held at the township building or at the West Laurel Hill Cemetery. The meeting will consist of a short presentation (done by Baker) to introduce the project and breakout sessions for the public to discuss options and concerns. Maps of the area will be brought by Baker.

b. Prior to the public meeting, the Friends of Cynwyd Heritage Trail will organize a walk-through of the site to introduce the project to the public and garner interest.

c. It was discussed that preliminary costs associated with different trail options should be discussed at the meeting.

VII. Next Steps

a. There are two different grants that have April 2014 deadlines: PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/grants/index.aspx, and Transportation Alternatives Programs (TAP) http://www.dvrpc.org/TAP/. Each grant was discussed, and it was determined that the deadlines were too close to pursue them this year, but may be something that should be pursued in the future.

- 3 - CYNWYD SPUR TRAIL FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDY

Public Meeting 1 3/6/2014

Chris Stanford, P.E., PTOE, PMP Sara Patterson, PhD, LEED AP   

  

  

   Existing Conditions CYNWYD SPUR FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDY

Cynwyd Heritage Trail Connelly Tract Schuylkill Expressway/Riverfront .  .

        .                                                                                      .   .      .  .         .          

 

  

 



 





  .  .            .                       .                    ..                                                          .     

.    .    .     . .

  .                         .              .                                       .     .           .                  . .          

      . 

 

    .

  



 .                 

       .             . .      .        .       

 

Meeting Minutes

Project: CHT Spur Feasibility Study Date: April 30, 2014

Subject: Working Meeting Time: 9:00 AM

Attendee Representing Phone Number Email Address Beth Pilling Montgomery County Planning 610-278-3738 [email protected] Chris Stanford Baker 215-442-5333 [email protected] Sara Patterson Baker 215-442-5321 [email protected] Lindsay Taylor Lower Merion Township 215-645-6220 [email protected] Jeff Knowles DCNR 215-560-1182 [email protected] Kay Sykora Manayunk Development Corp 215-482-9565 [email protected] Chris Leswing LMT Building and Planning 610-645-6116 [email protected] Barrett Dunigan Friends of CHT 610-731-6846 [email protected] Sarah C. Stuart BCGP- Circuit Coalition 215-242-9253 x306 [email protected] Stephanie Craighead Phila. Parks and Rec 215-683-0210 [email protected]

Purpose of the Meeting:

The purpose of this meeting was to confirm the status of each Schuylkill River Trail project and to discuss the alignment of an off-road, paved alignment from Manayunk Bridge to Pencoyd Bridge.

Discussion:

I. Status of Current Projects

a. Montgomery County is in the midst of putting together a Comprehensive Plan which includes the Schuylkill West Trail. One of the goals would be to complete a trail from Cynwyd Station to Fairmount Park.

b. Manayunk is concerned about a trail that bypasses Main Street because businesses might lose customers who will use trial on the west side of the river.

c. Ivy Ridge Trail

i. Using abandoned rail alignment from Dupont Street to the Ivy Ridge train station

ii. The study is complete, ready for design, waiting for funding. Estimated construction cost is $4.7 million

iii. From Ivy Ridge Station to Shawmont Ave is a gap in the trail.

d. Manayunk Bridge

i. Ready for construction. Awaiting PennDOT to award bid and start construction

e. CHT Spur

i. Study will be complete by the fall. See discussion below

- 1 - Meeting Minutes

Project: CHT Spur Feasibility Study Date: April 30, 2014

Subject: Working Meeting Time: 9:00 AM

f. Trail along O’Neill property

i. Received Land Development approval. 12’ trail along property and across Pencoyd Bridge will be complete as part of construction. Project cannot be opened until trail and bridge construction is complete. There will be dedicated trailhead parking on the O’Neill property, and all of the parking will be public.

g. Wissahickon Gap

i. PECO, SEPTA, and the City of Philadelphia met in April to discuss the possibility of either SEPTA or PECO providing the space for the trail. PECO may be able to provide the space; they are currently determining how much it will cost to move equipment.

ii. The project is ready to send out an RFP, the only thing that is needed is the route between the PECO and SEPTA property.

h. Schuylkill River Trail

i. Schuylkill River Heritage Area should be brought in for discussions about changing the alignment for the main stem of the Schuylkill River Trail

ii. The major concerns with using the alignment on the west side of the river is the cost of the Spur Trail and the ownership issues with Norfolk Southern that would need to be addressed before choosing this as a primary alignment.

iii. Norfolk Southern is being approached by a number of counties and municipalities wanting to use their land for something. It would be helpful for all groups to coordinate and ask Norfolk Southern at the same time for easements and other agreements to help facilitate all projects in the region.

II. CHT Spur

a. ADA compliance

i. Guidelines are currently being drafted for shared-use paths. They used to fall under trail guidelines, but they currently fall under facilities in public right-of-way guidelines because they are used for transportation and recreation.

ii. Max grade for facilities in public right-of-way and not adjacent to an existing roadway is 5% unless it is not practicable due to existing terrain. Trail grade guidelines allow for some steeper slopes and have length and other requirements.

iii. CHT Spur trail can meet ADA guidelines for trails, but it is not practicable to meet the public right- of-way because of the existing terrain.

- 2 - Meeting Minutes

Project: CHT Spur Feasibility Study Date: April 30, 2014

Subject: Working Meeting Time: 9:00 AM

b. Alignment and construction

i. There are two alignment options, one that uses the existing nature trail and another that has a jug handle and bridge to meet the CHT closer to the Manayunk Bridge. The bridge option is the most practical because there is a smaller grad change (~85’ instead of ~105’). The bridge option is also the more direct route from the Manayunk Bridge to the O’Neill property.

ii. Significant cut and fill will be required to construct the trail in some areas, but retaining walls and boardwalks could be used in some areas to reduce impact on the surrounding areas.

iii. Final recommendation will include both a 12’ paved shared-use path and a nature trail to provide space for as many people as possible.

- 3 - 



  

  

  

     

     

     

                  







 















  

           

      



       

  

        

 

 





  





 

 















          













 