DOCSLIB.ORG

Board of Commissioners Action Item Request

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Board of Commissioners Action Item Request Upper Gwynedd Township 1 Parkside Place North Wales, PA 19454 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION ITEM REQUEST Date: July 7, 2020 To: Board of Commissioners From: Sandra Brookley Zadell, Township Manager Re: Trail RFP Consultant Meeting Date: July 13, 2020 Background: As you know the BOC authorized an RFP for a consultant to perform the Powerline Trail Feasibility Study. We received ten responses to our RFP, and Sarah Prebis and I reviewed all 10 proposals. We narrowed those proposals down to four firms that Commissioner Damsker and Commissioner McNaney and Sarah and I then interviewed. All of the proposals were strong and interesting but, in the end, we decided to go with Michael Baker International, Inc’s proposal. Chris Stanford and his team have worked on over 100 miles of trails. Chris and his associate Michael Szilagi who will be our main team contacts are very knowledgeable with our area. Michael lives in North Wales Borough and uses our trails system currently. The firm has strong relationships and experience with trails that impact SEPTA and rail crossings (which our trails impact). Chris was the trail design professional on the 202-parkway trail and has experience acquiring easements from PECO and Delaware Valley University both of which are required with this portion of our trail system. Finally, their proposal includes the use of Wikimaps, which includes an interactive tool that residents can access on our website and social media to share their thoughts, concerns, and opinions about our plans. This forward-thinking approach utilizing technology for resident outreach was interesting to us. I have also worked with Chris Stanford in two previous municipalities. I know firsthand his dedication to public outreach and his approach with residents. He believes that the trail system belongs to the community and will design trails that work for our residents. Budget Impact: The proposal indicates the cost will be $30,000 and that is exactly what we have budgeted for this project. $15,000 of that will come from the C2P2 grant funding. Interdepartmental Action: The Parks and Recreation Department will work with the Township Manager and Chris Stanford and his team to complete the feasibility study over the next 8-12 months. Recommended Motion/Resolution/Ordinance: Motion to appoint Michael Baker International, Inc. as our consultant for the Power Line Trail Feasibility Study. May 29, 2020 Sarah A. Prebis, Parks and Recreation Director Upper Gwynedd Township, Parks and Recreation Department 1 Parkside Place North Wales, PA 19454 RE: Proposal for Powerline Trail Feasibility Study for Upper Gwynedd Township Dear Ms. Prebis, Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker), in association with Wikimapping Inc. (Wikimaps), is excited to submit this proposal for Upper Gwynedd’s Powerline Trail Feasibility Study. The Powerline Trail has been under planning and development in the County for several years in various municipalities, with some sections already successfully completed. With the acquisition of a DCNR grant, the Township is ready to take the next step with the planning and development of this important addition to the Township’s trail network. Michael Baker is ready to assist the Township with this effort. We bring the following advantages: Our bike/pedestrian team has over two decades of planning and public outreach experience with similar trail feasibility studies. Local examples include the Liberty Bell Trail Study (Lansdale Borough), New Britain Borough Rail with Trail Study, Destination Peace Valley Park Trail Feasibility Study (Doylestown/New Britain Townships), Turk Road Neighborhood Trail Study (Doylestown Township), Frankford Creek Greenway Study (City of Philadelphia), Rail Trail Feasibility Studies (City of Philadelphia), Swarthmore Borough Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan, Schuylkill River Trail Gap Analysis (City of Philadelphia), and several others. This extensive background gives us many lessons learned and effective approaches to trail planning and implementation, property negotiation/acquisition, public engagement, environmental permitting, and agency coordination. Michael Baker was the final design engineer for the 202 Parkway Trail in Montgomeryville. We have intimate knowledge of the public right of ways and property ownership in the SR 202/SR 63 portion of the study area. Chris Stanford, PE, PMP, PTOE, our proposed project manager for this study, was also the project manager for that 202 Parkway Trail design section. Michael Baker coordinated with PECO and Delaware Valley University for property easements/acquisition in that area. This familiarity and base of existing right of way, traffic signal design, and other engineering information will be valuable to the Township for planning this portion of the trail network and for creating a safe connection to the 202 Parkway Trail. Our 15+ years of design experience with DCNR grant-funded projects and writing winning DCNR grant applications will significantly benefit the Township. Our complete understanding of DCNR’s funding programs, design/review process, and match requirements will streamline project management for Township staff and accelerate the completion of this study. In addition, our knowledge of other grant funding programs, such as PennDOT TASA, PennDOT Multimodal, DCED Multimodal, DCED Greenways and Trails, DVRPC Regional Trails Program, and others will result in a superior implementation plan. We have extensive experience planning, designing, and gaining PUC approval for railroad crossings for trails. In recent years, we completed grade crossing modifications at three locations along SEPTA regional rail lines and two CSX rail lines, as well as coordination with SEPTA for a new grade crossing for the Pennypack Trail. Michael Baker’s Rail Transit group includes numerous former engineers and construction managers from railroad companies. Staff, such as Ed La Guardia, PE, who worked for the SEPTA railroad for 30+ years prior to joining Michael Baker, can apply AREMA railroad requirements to plan safe crossings of SEPTA’s Lansdale Doylestown Line and Stony Creek Branch railroad (currently operated by CSX). As one of PA’s largest transportation planning and engineering firms, we have extensive expertise with road/trail crossing design. We have firsthand experience with trails crossing PennDOT, County, and Township roadways of all levels of traffic volume. Our plans have ranged from simple signing and markings to rectangular rapid flashing beacons to full signals for new trails. This experience will allow for upfront coordination with PennDOT and Montgomery County, as well as 500 Office Center Drive, Suite 210, Fort Washington, PA 19034 the Township staff to plan for the right location and right level of safety improvements needed for several trail/road crossings needed for the Powerline Trail. Michael Baker has completed planning, design, and construction of over 100 miles of trails, shared use paths, bike lanes, cycle tracks, shared roadways, and other bicycle infrastructure in Pennsylvania over the last 20 years. This includes experience on similar projects along Jordan Creek Greenway, Saucon Rail Trail, Liberty Bell Trolley Trail, Neshaminy Greenway, Pennypack Rail Trail, 202 Parkway Trail, Schuylkill River Trail, East Coast Greenway, and Doylestown Community Bike and Hike System, among others. Chris Stanford, PE, PMP, PTOE is a certified project management professional with over 26 years of experience successfully completing a wide range of trail, greenway, and transportation projects in southeast PA. His significant management expertise, combined with DCNR relationships and experience on similar trail studies, will be an asset to the Township. We have partnered with Jenkintown resident and avid bicyclist Steve Spindler of Wikimapping to assist with the public outreach process. Wikimaps is a cost-effective tool to gain public input on a map-based platform. The tool allows the public to indicate barriers to walking/bicycling at specific locations and to ask questions about potential trail routes. This tool could be linked to the Township’s website, social media accounts and online survey to achieve maximum input from many residents and to gain feedback that will be beneficial to the feasibility study. Michael Baker has worked extensively with Delaware Valley University for many years at the DelVal Doylestown campus, successfully negotiating trail easements and designing multi-use public trails on school property. Our experience working directly with PECO on the numerous trail and transportation planning/design projects including a major highway easement across this same PECO corridor for the 202 Parkway will be valuable for this study. Michael Baker previously acquired a County highway occupancy permit for the wastewater facility on West Point Pike. This knowledge of existing right of way will be helpful for investigating trail alternatives in that area. Michael Baker’s Fort Washington office is only eight miles from the study area. This proximity will facilitate cost-effective site views and on-site meetings. As demonstrated from our in-depth proposal that follows, the Michael Baker Team has a solid understanding of this project’s unique challenges and has formulated a streamlined approach to meet the Township’s goals. Our unique combination of trail planning experience on similar studies, road crossing and railroad crossing design experience related to trails, public outreach approach enhanced by Wikimaps, local knowledge and extensive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Competitive Programs
    DVRPC FY2017 TIP FOR PENNSYLVANIA CHAPTER 7: COMPETITIVE PROGRAMS This section contains lists of projects that have been awarded via regional or statewide competitive programs, which are open to a specialized segment of the public. As projects move through the delivery pipeline, they may or may not show up in the active TIP project listings, but are important to the DVRPC region for demonstrating investments in particular types of infrastructure and potential fund sources. REGIONAL COMPETITIVE PROGRAMS Competitive Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program – DVRPC periodically sets aside a specific amount of CMAQ funds for a DVRPC Competitive CMAQ Program (see MPMS #48201), which seeks transportation-related projects that can help the region reduce emissions from mobile sources and meet the National Clean Air Act Standards. CMAQ-eligible projects will demonstrably reduce air pollution emissions and, in many cases, reduce traffic congestion. Projects may be submitted by a public agency or a public-private partnership. A Subcommittee of the DVRPC Regional Technical Committee (RTC) evaluates the projects and makes recommendations to the DVRPC Board for final selection. In July 2016, the DVRPC Board approved the most recent round of the DVRPC Competitive CMAQ Program by selecting 17 projects for funding in the DVRPC Pennsylvania counties, for a total CMAQ award of $21,900,000. For more information, see www.dvrpc.org/CMAQ/ Regional Trails Program (Phases 1-4) – The Regional Trails Program, administered by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, with funding from the William Penn Foundation, aims to capitalize upon opportunities for trail development by providing funding for targeted, priority trail design, construction, and planning projects that will promote a truly connected, regional network of multiuse trails with Philadelphia and Camden as its hub.
    [Show full text]
  • Visual Assessment Report
    PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT: A VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES FOR VIEWSHEDS ALONG THE CIRCUIT TRAILS BIG WOODS TRAIL March 2019 PREPARED BY: APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB Catherine Poppenwimer Patricia McCloskey, AICP Dave Publicover PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 The Circuit ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Protecting Views Along The Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 2 Big Woods Trail .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area Landscape ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Results for the Big Woods Trail ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Big Woods Trail
    [Show full text]
  • Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options
    Advocacy Sustainability Partnerships Fort Washington Office Park Transportation Demand Management Plan Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options Prepared by GVF GVF July 2017 Contents Executive Summary and Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 ArcMap Geocoding and Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 6 Travel Times Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Employee Commuter Survey Results ................................................................................................ 7 2. Office Park Companies Outreach Results ......................................................................................... 7 3. Office Park
    [Show full text]
  • Power Line Trail
    PROTECTING SIGNIFICA NT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT: A VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES FOR VIEWSHEDS ALONG THE CIRCUIT TRAILS POWER LINE TRAIL March 2019 PREPARED BY: APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB Catherine Poppenwimer Patricia McCloskey, AICP Dave Publicover PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 The Circuit ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Protecting Views Along The Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 2 Power Line Trail ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area Landscape ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Results for the Power Line Trail ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Power Line
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
    2020 Comprehensive Plan Update UPPER FREDERICK TOWNSHIP Montgomery County, PA Updated November 2020 by Tackett Planning, Incorporated Originally prepared January 2008 by CHPlanning Limited Upper Frederick Township Comprehensive Plan Upper Frederick Township Comprehensive Plan Upper Frederick Township Comprehensive Plan UPPER FREDERICK TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Troy Armstrong, Chairman William Tray, Vice-Chairperson Sean Frisco, Member TOWNSHIP MANAGER Jackie Tallon PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Richard Buckman, Chairman Joseph Buick Robert Keenan William O’Donnell Jared Landis Township Building 3205 Big Road Obelisk, Pennsylvania 19492 Upper Frederick Township Comprehensive Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS: Chapter 1: Introduction & History...................................................................................... 2 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Community Background ...................................................................................... 2 1.3 Regional Setting .................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Population ........................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Community Issues Survey .................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Resource Protection .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Keystone Fund Projects by Applicant (1994-2017) Propose DCNR Contract Requeste D Region Applicant Project Title # Round Grant Type D Award Allocatio Funding Types
    Keystone Fund Projects by Applicant (1994-2017) Propose DCNR Contract Requeste d Region Applicant Project Title # Round Grant Type d Award Allocatio Funding Types Alverthorpe Manor BRC-PRD- Region 1 Abington Township Cultural Park (6422) 11-3 11 Development $223,000 $136,900 Key - Community Abington Township TAP Trail- Development BRC-PRD- Region 1 Abington Township (1101296) 22-171 22 Trails $90,000 $90,000 Key - Community Ardsley Wildlife Sanctuary- BRC-PRD- Region 1 Abington Township Development 22-37 22 Development $40,000 $40,000 Key - Community Briar Bush Nature Center Master Site Plan BRC-TAG- Region 1 Abington Township (1007785) 20-12 20 Planning $42,000 $37,000 Key - Community Pool Feasibility Studies BRC-TAG- Region 1 Abington Township (1100063) 21-127 21 Planning $15,000 $15,000 Key - Community Rubicam Avenue Park KEY-PRD-1- Region 1 Abington Township (1) 1 01 Development $25,750 $25,700 Key - Community Demonstration Trail - KEY-PRD-4- Region 1 Abington Township Phase I (1659) 4 04 Development $114,330 $114,000 Key - Community KEY-SC-3- Region 1 Aldan Borough Borough Park (5) 6 03 Development $20,000 $2,000 Key - Community Ambler Pocket Park- Development BRC-PRD- Region 1 Ambler Borough (1102237) 23-176 23 Development $102,340 $102,000 Key - Community Comp. Rec. & Park Plan BRC-TAG- Region 1 Ambler Borough (4438) 8-16 08 Planning $10,400 $10,000 Key - Community American Littoral Upper & Middle Soc/Delaware Neshaminy Watershed BRC-RCP- Region 1 Riverkeeper Network Plan (3337) 6-9 06 Planning $62,500 $62,500 Key - Rivers Keystone Fund Projects by Applicant (1994-2017) Propose DCNR Contract Requeste d Region Applicant Project Title # Round Grant Type d Award Allocatio Funding Types Valley View Park - Development BRC-PRD- Region 1 Aston Township (1100582) 21-114 21 Development $184,000 $164,000 Key - Community Comp.
    [Show full text]
  • Circuit Pipeline - November 2015
    Circuit Pipeline - November 2015 Philadelphia Trunk Trail Trail Segment Type Mileage County Study Cynwyd Parkside Cynwyd Trail Trail 1.50 Philadelphia In progress Cresheim Cresheim Creek Trail Trail 2.20 Philadelphia Complete Tacony Frankford Greenway Trail, Phase 3 Trail 0.84 Philadelphia In progress Pennypack Fox Chase Lorimer Trail 0.42 Philadelphia In progress Pennypack State & Rhawn Trail 0.06 Philadelphia Complete SRT Ivy Ridge Trail Trail 0.60 Philadelphia Complete SRT Wissahickon Gateway Trail 0.31 Philadelphia Complete SRT Boardwalk from Christian to Gray's Ferry Trail 0.42 Philadelphia Complete SRT Bartram's to Fort Mifflin Trail 3.58 Philadelphia In progress ECG K&T, Phase 2 Trail 0.85 Philadelphia Complete ECG Delaware Avenue Extension, Phase 1B Trail 0.28 Philadelphia Complete ECG Sugar House Casino to Penn Treaty Park Trail 0.30 Philadelphia Complete ECG Spring Garden Street Greenway Cycletrack 2.15 Philadelphia Complete ECG Delaware River Trail Sidepath - Washington to Spring Garden Trail 1.90 Philadelphia Complete ECG Cobbs Creek Segment B Trail 0.80 Philadelphia Complete/On-going Total trail mileage 16.21 Bucks Trunk Trail Trail Segment Type Mileage County Study Neshaminy Upper Neshaminy Creek Trail -- Turk Rd to Dark Hollow Rd Trail 6.10 Bucks Complete Neshaminy Upper Neshaminy Creek Trail -- Chalfont/New Britain Gap Trail 1.35 Bucks Complete D&L/ECG Delaware Canal Tunnel (Falls Township) Tunnel 0.05 Bucks ? ECG Bridge Street Crossing Structure 0.10 Bucks Complete ECG Bensalem - Cramer to Birch Trail/Sidepath 0.38 Bucks
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia
    Corridor Analysis For The Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail In Northern Virginia June 2011 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Don Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; Liz Cronauer, Fairfax County Park Authority; Mike DePue, Prince William Park Authority; Bill Ference, City of Leesburg Park Director; Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria Department of Transportation; Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; Patti Pakkala, Prince William County Park Authority; Kate Rudacille, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Jennifer Wampler, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Greg Weiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided through a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service. Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Funding for this report was through a cooperative agreement with The National Park Service Report prepared by: Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission with assistance from Samantha Kinzer, Environmental Planner The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, VA 22031 703.642.0700 www.novaregion.org Page 2 Northern Virginia Regional Commission As of May 2011 Chairman Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia Trail Master Plan 2020 Update
    2020 UPDATE PHILADELPHIA TRAIL PLAN Image Source: Philadelphia Inquirer Cobbs Creek Connector A 1 THE YEAR IN TRAILS 2 PRIORITY STATUS UPDATE 3 TRAIL DEVELOPMENT 4 NEXT STEPS Schuylkill River Swing Bridge Construction | SRDC 2 THE YEAR IN TRAILS 2020 TRAIL PLAN UPDATE PURPOSE The Philadelphia Trail Master Plan is a recommendation Due to limited funding for trail and park projects, the City of Philadelphia2035, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This recognized the need for prioritizing proposed trail projects recommendation is listed in the Renew section under Goal to serve Philadelphians citywide and to best use available 6.1 Watershed Parks and Trails: Complete, expand, and planning, design, and construction funding. connect watershed parks and trails in the City and the region. The Trail Master Plan process began in the spring The Trail Master Plan outlines four overarching goals of 2011 as a joint effort of the Philadelphia City Planning of the Philadelphia trail network: connectivity, safety, Commission (PCPC) and Philadelphia Parks & Recreation encouragement of physical activity, and open space. The (PPR), in collaboration with the Office of Transportation, purpose of the City trail planning process is to ensure that Infrastructure, and Sustainability (OTIS). proposed trail development projects in Philadelphia meet these goals. As the status of the trail network is constantly The 2020 Philadelphia Trail Plan Update builds on the changing, the annual update offers the opportunity to Philadelphia Trail Master Plan adopted by the PCPC in document and reevaluate these priorities from year to year 2013 and its subsequent annual updates in 2014, 2015, 2017, in order to provide Philadelphians with a connected and 2018 and 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania's Return on Investment in the Keystone Recreation, Park
    Pennsylvania’s Return on Investment in the Keystone Recreation, Park, and Conservation Fund Pennsylvania’s Return on Investment in the Keystone Recreation, Park, and Conservation Fund Right cover photo: Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. Printed on 100% recycled paper. ©2013 The Trust for Public Land. Project support was provided by The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, and the Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds (FPW) in partnership with Richard King Mellon Foundation. FPW is an environmental nonprofit serving Pennsylvania’s water quality needs. To learn more about FPW, visit pennsylvaniawatersheds.org. Table of Contents Executive Summary 6 Introduction 9 Conservation 12 Investment in Land and Water Conservation 12 Natural Goods and Services 12 Highlighting the Economic Value of Natural Goods and Services 14 Return on Investment 16 Methodology 16 Results 17 Tourism and Outdoor Recreation 18 Visitor Spending 18 Outdoor Recreation 19 Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Watching 20 State Parks 21 Enhanced Property Values 22 Reduced Local Taxes 22 Quality of Life 23 Leveraged Private and Local Dollars 23 Parks, Trails, and Recreation 24 Job Creation 24 Visitor Spending 25 Enhanced Property Values 26 Cultural Institutions 28 Libraries 28 Job Creation 28 Additional Economic Benefits 28 Historic Preservation 31 Direct Economic Impact 31 Tourism 31 Property Values 33 Higher Education 33 Conclusion 34 References 35 Appendix: Methodology 38 Executive Summary The Trust for Public Land conducted an economic analysis of the return on Pennsylvania’s investment in land and water conservation through the Keystone Recreation, Park, and Conservation Fund and found that every $1 invested in land conservation returned $7 in natural goods and services to the Pennsylvania economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Outdoors Ec R the Keystone for Healthy Living Or Do Ut O E Iv Ns He 20 Pre 09– Om 2013 Statewide C
    lan n P tio rea Pennsylvania Outdoors ec R The Keystone for Healthy Living or do ut O e iv ns he 20 pre 09– om 2013 Statewide C www.paoutdoorrecplan.com lan into action. his p ut t o p e t ast d h an om isd w The preparation of this plan was financed in part through a Land and Water ith Conservation Fund planning grant and the plan was approved by the National Park k w Service, U.S. Department of the Interior under the provisions for the Federal Land or w and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (Public Law 88-578). uld We sho National Park Service – Joe DiBello, Jack Howard, David Lange and Roy Cortez September 2009 Contents Acknowledgements........................................................................................................2 Governor’s.Letter............................................................................................................3 Executive.Summary........................................................................................................4 Introduction.....................................................................................................................6 Public.Participation.Process.........................................................................................10 Research.and.Findings:.What.Pennsylvanians.Say.About.Outdoor.Recreation.........12 Goals.and.Recommendations.......................................................................................46 Funding.Needs.and.Recommendations....................................................................... 94
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna Greenway & Trail Authority Case Study, August 2014
    Susquehanna Greenway & Trail Authority Case Study August 2014 Susquehanna Greenway Partnership Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Trail Organization Types ............................................................................................................................... 3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Trail Ownership Structures .................................................................. 21 Trail Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Potential Cost‐Sharing Options ................................................................................................................... 25 Potential Sources and Uses ......................................................................................................................... 27 Economic Benefits ....................................................................................................................................... 32 Two‐County, Three‐County, and Five‐County Draft Budget Scenarios ...................................................... 38 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Attachment 1 .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]