1 Least Cost Path Trail Network in Orchard Park

LEAST COST PATH TRAIL NETWORK IN ORCHARD PARK, NEW YORK

MARIELY ANN ORTIZ

A TERMINAL PROJECT PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2016

2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee chair and co-chairs Professor Ferdinand Lewis and

Professor Stanley Latimer for their unfathomable patience, understanding, and support throughout this process. Many thanks also to my GIS guru, Lisa Matthies-Wiza.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 3

LIST OF TABLES ...... 6

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 7

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 9

ABSTRACT ...... 10

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 11

About Trails ...... 11 About Orchard Park, NY ...... 13 The Trails Task Force ...... 14 Nature Trails ...... 16 Rails to Trails ...... 18 Park to Park Connections, Park to Neighborhood Connections, and Multi-Use Paved Trails ...... 19

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 20

Related Literature ...... 20 Government documents ...... 20 Non-Profit Organizations (NPO) ...... 21 Least-Cost Path Trail Network Studies ...... 23 Summary ...... 24

3 DATA AND ANALYTICAL METHODS ...... 26

Data ...... 26 Analysis ...... 26 Destinations ...... 27 Water Features ...... 31 Slope ...... 33 Transportation ...... 34 Land Uses ...... 35 Weighted Overlay ...... 37 Cost Distance and Cost Path ...... 38

4 RESULTS ...... 40

4 Park to Village - Axis Connections ...... 40 Birdsong Park to Yates Park ...... 40 Brush Mountain Park to Yates Park ...... 41 Milestrip Complex to Yates Park ...... 42 Chestnut Ridge to Yates Park ...... 43 Park to Park - Loop Connections ...... 44 Chestnut Ridge Park to Brush Mountain Park ...... 45 Brush Mountain Park to Milestrip Complex ...... 46 Milestrip Complex to Birdsong Park ...... 47 Birdsong Park to Chestnut Ridge Park ...... 48

5 CONCLUSIONS ...... 50

APPENDIX

A TRAILS TASK FORCE 2002 SURVEY ...... 53

B MAPS ...... 56

Orchard Park Trails (Figure 1 – 2) ...... 57 Origins and Destinations (Figure 3 – 6) ...... 58 Water Features Raster (Figure 3 – 7) ...... 59 Slope Raster (Figure 3 – 8) ...... 60 ROW Raster (Figure 3 – 9) ...... 61 Land Use Raster (Figure 3 – 10) ...... 62 Weighed Overlay (Figure 3 – 11) ...... 63 Birdsong Park to Yates Park LCP (Figure 4 – 1) ...... 64 Brush Mountain Park to Yates LCP (Figure 4 – 2) ...... 65 Milestrip Complex to Yates Park LCP (Figure 4 – 3) ...... 66 Chestnut Ridge Park to Yates Park LCP (Figure 4 – 4) ...... 67 All Axial LCP Connections (Figure 4 – 5) ...... 68 Chestnut Ridge Park to Brush Mountain Park LCP (Figure 4 – 6) ...... 69 Brush Mountain Park to Milestrip Complex LCP (Figure 4 – 7) ...... 70 Milestrip Complex to Birdsong Park LCP (Figure 4 – 8) ...... 71 Birdsong Park to Chestnut Ridge Park LCP (Figure 4 – 9) ...... 72 All Loop LCP Connections (Figure 4 – 10) ...... 73 All LCP Connections (Figure 4 – 11) ...... 74

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 76

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 78

5 LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1 – 1 Identified Existing and Potential Sites (TTF, 2002) ...... 15

3 – 1 Weighted overlay raster influence ...... 38

6 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1 - 1 Location of Orchard Park in Erie County (l) and Erie County in the state of New York (r)...... 13

1 - 2 Discreet trails and recreational areas in Orchard Park NY ...... 17

1 - 3 Erie Cattaraugus Rail Trail ...... 18

1 - 4 Current Priority Trail List ...... 19

3 - 1 Brush Mountain Park (outlined in blue) Aerial ...... 27

3 - 2 Milestrip Complex (outlined in blue) Aerial ...... 28

3 - 3 Birdsong Park (outlined in blue) Aerial ...... 28

3 - 4 Chestnut Ridge Park (outlined in blue) Aerial ...... 29

3 - 5 Yates Park (outlined in blue) Aerial ...... 30

3 – 6 All park origins and destinations ...... 31

3 – 7 Reclassified water features ...... 32

3 – 8 Reclassified slope...... 33

3 – 9 Reclassified right-of-ways (ROW) ...... 34

3 – 10 Reclassified Land Uses ...... 36

3 – 11 Weighted Overlay ...... 37

3 – 12 Birdsong Park to Yates Park LCP process ...... 39

4 – 1 Birdsong Park to Yates Park LCP ...... 40

4 – 2 Brush Mountain Park to Yates Park LCP ...... 41

4 – 3 Milestrip Complex to Yates Park LCP ...... 42

4 – 4 Chestnut Ridge Park to Yates Park LCP...... 43

4 – 5 All axial LCP connections ...... 44

4 – 6 Chestnut Ridge Park to Brush Mountain Park LCP (l), and identified problem in route (r) ...... 45

7 4 – 7 Brush Mountain Park to Milestrip Complex LCP (r), and identified problem in route (l) ...... 46

4 – 8 Milestrip Complex to Birdsong Park LCP ...... 47

4 – 9 Birdsong Park to Chestnut Ridge Park LCP ...... 48

4 – 10 All loop LCP connections ...... 49

4 – 11 All LCP connections ...... 50

8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

GIS Geographical Information Systems

TTF Trails Task Force

NPO Non-Profit Organization

9 Abstract of Terminal Project Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning

LEAST COST PATH TRAIL NETWORK IN ORCHARD PARK, NEW YORK

Mariely Ann Ortiz

May 2016

Chair: Ferdinand Lewis Co-chair: Stanley Latimer Major: Urban and Regional Planning

Trails, traditionally viewed as recreational infrastructure, have developed into an alternative transportation method. Multi-use trails or paths allow for safe travel and connections for non-motorized transportation. The trails or paths are most convenient and effective when they create a network for residents to reach a variety of amenities for work or play.

The following research objectively determines possible routes within the Town of

Orchard Park, New York to connect some of its parks and discreet trails as per their trails master plan. The analysis will be provided to the Orchard Park Trails Task Force to assist them in the creation of a non-motorized transportation network for the town.

Using Geographical Information Systems (GIS), relevant aspects such as slope, land uses, protected natural features, existing non-motorized transportation infrastructure, and right of way are taken into consideration to find the least cost path to create the network.

The resulting paths connected parks to other parks and the parks to the Village within the

Town of the same name (Orchard Park). Additionally, they connect some of the discreet trails within subdivisions, and link different areas to the major streets of the Town, providing safe routes to shopping, events, and other significant locations.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to determine the most effective routes to connect the discreet recreational trails within parks in Orchard Park, New York. As is mentioned in Kokkinidis, et al.

(2013): “The practical design of suitable trails is important for safety, recreation, minimizing environmental impact, and cost. However, trail design is a time-intensive and methodical process involving many different variables in order to determine the optimal location and layout (Xiang,

1996)”. Therefore, a digital tool such as a least cost path can help reduce time and cost of the process by readily identifying the least expensive route or network given relevant features.

A connected network provides a higher effective use of the facilities and is more likely to encourage multiple uses (Partnership for Active Transportation, 2014), and is identified as a main goal of the Orchard Park Trails Task Force. This study will develop a draft shared use trail network with a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) least cost path analysis. The least cost path analysis utilizes features determined and weighed to identify the course least likely to traverse aspects unwelcomed or otherwise costly. The analysis will be provided to the Orchard

Park Trails Task Force to assist them in the creation of a non-motorized transportation network for the town.

About Trails

Commonly, trails are thought of as mostly natural paths humans use for walking, hiking or jogging in undeveloped areas such as forests or parks. However, trails can have much wider and flexible uses, and can be located in a variety of environments. While there is no universal definition for trails in the United States, the National Parks System uses the following definition:

“... a travel way established either through construction or use which is passable by at least one or more of the following, including but not limited to: foot traffic, stock, watercraft, bicycles, in-line skates, wheelchairs, cross-country skis, off-road

recreation vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, ATVs, and 4-wheel drive vehicles.” (National Parks Service, 2014)

Trails are usually paths for non-motorized transportation and recreation; meant for pedestrians, cyclists, skaters, or skateboarders, but may accommodate less common activities such as snowmobiling, cross country skiing, and horseback riding. Trails can be unpaved or improved to cater to different users. Trails are typically found through vegetated areas such as forests or parks, but are also found along abandoned or unused rail lines, and through urban areas. Larger networks of trails often connect different infrastructural features such as bridges, tunnels, unpaved or improved paths, sidewalks, and bike lanes, for example.

As an amenity, connected trails can make unappealing areas attractive, safe, and walkable, encouraging physical activity (Racca & Dhanju, 2006; Bicycle Federation of America

Campaign to Make America Walkable, 1998; FHWA, 2015). They can encourage and reinforce healthy lifestyles; in fact, “the research shows the value, role and potential of parks (i.e., primarily nature-based areas such as community parks, trails and greenways) in facilitating active living (Henderson & Parr, 2005) by providing easy access to affordable and safe facilities for exercising. Trail connectivity, besides encouraging active living, may promote a sense of community (Bicycle Federation of America Campaign to Make America Walkable, 1998;

FHWA, 2001; Partnership for Active Transportation, 2014; Racca & Dhanju, 2006).

About Orchard Park, NY

Orchard Park, New York is a town on the southern outskirts of Buffalo, New York (See

Figure 1 - 1), with the Village of Orchard Park within. The town occupies 38.6 sq. mi. and had

29,054 residents as of the 2010 Census (U.S. Census Bureau). The median household income in the Town is $77,517, while the national average is $53,046.

The median age is 44.9. About 24% of residents (in 2010) were under 18 years of age, and about 19% were over the age of 65. Almost half of the total population was older than 45 years of age indicating an aging population in the next couple of decades (Orchard Park Town

Board, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010; Wendel-Duchscherer, 2002). The demographics at this point indicate that a substantial portion of the population are children and young adults and we can expect a future increase in elderly residents. As research has shown that the built environment can have an effect on physical activity (Boarnet, 2006; Active Living Research,

Figure 1 - 1 Location of Orchard Park in Erie County (l) and Erie County in the state of New York (r).

2011) and that the location and character of facilities

The Trails Task Force

In an effort to provide its residents with more connectivity and walkability, as well as fitness, recreation, and community interaction alternatives, a Trails Task Force (TTF) was created in June 2001 by the Orchard Park Town Board (TTF, 2007). The Trails Task Force

Committee, a volunteer group of interested residents and a representative from the Engineering and Conservation departments, promotes the creation and maintenance of trails in Orchard Park.

Their vision is to “create a pedestrian friendly community through the development of trails and pathway systems which interconnect the entire Town of Orchard Park” (Trails Task Force,

2002).

The TTF conducted a survey (Appendix A) in 2002 of town residents to determine their preferences in regards to the development of trails. Out of the 3,500 surveys sent, 44% were answered and returned, which was four times higher than required to be statistically significant and higher than the Task Force expected. The surveys were sent to 10% of registered voters, and reached all geographical areas, all age groups, genders, and a representative cross section for length of residency in the town.

Overall the results were positive and confirmed the interest of residents in non-motorized transportation facilities, with 82% of respondents favoring trails, and having no objection to the trails being located near their homes. The same also reported they would use the trails mostly for walking, with 51% also said biking, and 20% including running. Another 41% indicated they would use the trails more than once per week.

The most important elements for the respondents were:

1. Nature trails 2. Connecting parks with each other 2. Connecting the parks with the neighborhoods

2. Rails to trails 3. Paved surface trails (Trails Task Force, 2002).

Recommendations to the Town Board as a result of the survey findings included trails as a priority for recreation in Orchard Park, and a multi-use trail system throughout the entire town.

In 2003, the TTF was formalized into a permanent committee. Their goals include identifying opportunities for:

 Connecting neighborhoods, parks, schools, open spaces, the Village, shopping areas, historic sites, and natural resources  Creating accessible and safe pathways, bike routes, hiking and nature trails  Developing a stronger sense of community through connectivity  Providing alternate transportation methods  Promoting alternative, inexpensive exercise opportunities for residents. (TTF, 2002)

Through the process of creating the trails plan, Trails in Orchard Park: Planning for the

Future (2002), the TTF started to look at the existing amenities within the Town and Village and any sites that would lend themselves to trails and parks, as well as other options that could be leveraged for paths such as inactive rail corridors and utility or transportation right of ways.

Neighborhood Developed Undeveloped Other Possibilities Parks Yates Birdsong Duerr Burmon Roadside Lanes Brush Chestnut Ridge Liberatore Eagle Heights Highway ROW Mountain Chestnut Ridge Utility Company Milestrip Carriage Honeycrest Village ROW Orchard Park Poplar Orchard Steinwach Creek-side Paths Schools Heights Meadows Eagle McFarland Industrial Park land Heights Webster Business Property South Lane Woods ROW Sidewalks

Buffalo-Pittsburgh

rail line

Table 1 – 1 Identified Existing and Potential Sites (TTF, 2002)

Since 2002, they came to develop a trail or project priority list as well as trail site selection criteria and a trail design and construction guide.

Of the top five items identified by the Town residents in the survey, some have seen progress (nature trails, rails to trails), while the larger scale items have not moved forward (inter- and intra-park and neighborhood connections and paved trails).

Nature Trails

Orchard Park has mostly nature trails. A few are within parks (Yates Park trails, Erie

County’s Chestnut Ridge Park trails), but most are within subdivisions due to a combination of

Town code provisions, and the Trails Task Force. Some examples are the trails in Birdsong subdivision and Chestnut Ridge Village.

According to §25-4(A) of the Town Code (1985), approval of undeveloped or partially undeveloped plats requires an open land area equal to at least 9% of the total area to be conveyed to the Town for playground or other recreational purposes (Orchard Park Town Code, 2015). In addition, the Town’s subdivision law requires developers to include in their plan submittals the sites to be reserved or dedicated to parks, playgrounds or other public use (§121-22(E)).

These areas would have remained undeveloped, if it were not for the Trails Task Force.

Since the creation of the Trails Task Force, these open land areas, almost like pocket parks, have usually been designed as nature trails, each separate from other subdivisions or neighborhoods

(Figure 1 – 2).

In 2011 another stipulation was added to the Town code requiring the developer to specify proposed pedestrian access in the form of “trails, boardwalks and pedestrian bridges for public access and recreation areas” (§121-68(F)) (Orchard Park Town Code, 2015).

This combination of effort from the Trails Task Force and town officials, and the

Milestrip Complex

Yates Park

Brush Mountain Park

Birdsong Park

Chestnut Ridge Park

Figure 1 - 2 Discreet trails and recreational areas in Orchard Park NY

Parks identified in the Trails Priority List are labeled. Red circles indicate discreet neighborhood nature trails. Orange lines indicate trails. Thick black lines indicate sidewalks

resulting code regulation will assure Orchard Park residents retain natural environments in their neighborhoods and have convenient access to active living facilities.

Rails to Trails

Another important trail element identified through the survey was rails to trails. Since about

2008, there has been a group, the Erie Cattaraugus

Rail Trail, trying to convert the currently inactive

Buffalo-Pittsburgh rail corridor, which starts in

Orchard Park, as rails to trails.

The proposed Erie Cattaraugus Rail Trail would cover over twenty-seven miles, connecting Figure 1 - 3 Erie Cattaraugus Rail Trail the communities of Orchard Park, Aurora, West

Falls, Colden, East Concord, Springville, and West Valley. It would connect to Cattaraugus

County, south of Erie County, through beautiful scenery, ski areas, farmland, towns and villages and a high-trestle bridge (See Figure 1 - 3). The Orchard Park Trails Task Force supports this project, but is not directly involved in its development, and there are no other inactive rail lines in Orchard Park. Completion of the corridor as a rails-to-trails would fall within the objectives of the TTF.

Park to Park Connections, Park to Neighborhood Connections, and Multi-Use Paved Trails

The main vision of the trails task force is to interconnect the town and village through trails, but it has not made progress towards this goal thus far.

The TTF’s current trail priority list identifies suggested trails within some parks (Liberty

Park, Honeycrest Park), and from park to park (such as connecting Burmon Park to Honeycrest

Park). It also lists the parks identified for connection to the Village and other relevant locations.

To assist the Trails Task Force in reaching its objectives, a least-cost path analysis of relevant factors will be conducted to determine the most suitable route to create a network as identified in the Priority Trail List.

Figure 1 - 4 Current Priority Trail List

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Related Literature

Most directly relevant literature on how to build a trail is largely produced by government agencies such as town, city, or county departments and non-profit organizations (NPOs) such as

American Trails, Trails Trust, National Trails Training Partnership, and the Pedestrian and

Bicycle Information Center.

Only one of these resources (published in December 2015) addressed how to create a network, but they all identify relevant factors to consider for all trails.

Government documents

In the case of government agencies, the documents, such as the FHWA Trail

Construction and Maintenance Notebook (2007) and The Virginia Greenways and Trails

Toolbox (2011) (and many other local-level documents) take the form of design standards. While these are helpful documents, these sources do not focus on a methodology for selecting a trail route or developing a network; they largely focus on how the path should be in terms of width, clearance, or surface, or how it should be constructed (clearing vegetation, addressing cross slope, etc.).

There is, however, a new report from December 2015 by the Federal Highway

Administration, Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and

Bicycle Networks, which does address multi-use path networks. They define a network as

“interconnected pedestrian and/or bicycle transportation facilities that allow people of all ages and abilities to safely and conveniently get where they want to go”. A network should help to facilitate a variety of bicycling and walking trips, be cohesive, direct, accessible, offer alternatives, be safe, secure, and comfortable (FHWA, 2015).

They suggest that planning and prioritization, shared use paths, corridor improvements, bridges, on-road facilities, and intersection and crossing improvements are project types that can contribute to network connectivity.

Like the other documents, they do not delve into how to create the network and focus more on removing obstacles and deficiencies.

The FHWA also produced a document for inclusive trails. Designing Sidewalks and

Trails for Access Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide (2001) delineates standards that will usually make for a comfortable trail for the majority of the population. Creating paths with the maximum potential users in mind creates a more useable feature for every socio-economic demographic. It makes it easier for residents with mobility and other disabilities to access and use the facilities but also help any person using the trail. Some examples include pushing or pulling carts, luggage, or strollers, and young children can use curb ramps when riding their bicycles. Additionally, a “good system of sidewalks may allow older pedestrians who no longer drive [as well as the young who do not yet drive, or those who cannot afford to, are unable to, or chose to not own a car] to walk to services and socialize in their community, while offering a continued independent lifestyle”

The guide goes deeper into the design details of accessible paths. For shared-use paths it specifically recommends firm and stable surfaces, gradual slopes of no more than 5 percent, and avoiding or beveling changes in level.

Non-Profit Organizations (NPO)

The NPO documents are usually in the form of handbooks. Some examples include

American Trails and the National Trails Training Partnership – which have a large resource library-, the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA), the Boy Scouts of America, and the Rails to Trails Conservancy.

In the case of NPO documents, they mostly focus on nature trails, those mostly found in undeveloped sites such as wooded areas. Most of the aspects they mention are slope and cross grade, trail corridor, surface, clearing, and maintenance. They base the route on natural features, such as views, visiting waterfalls or lakes, walking along a waterway, coming to a large tree or interesting rock formations, and do not discuss networks.

They also focus on sustainability of the trails; in this sense, a trail that will do the least damage to the surrounding environment and require the least maintenance. For example, creating the trail, as the path of least resistance, may redirect pedestrian and bicycle traffic from more frangible areas. Additionally, recommendations are given for the surface of the trail and its location along natural features such as south-facing trails in northern regions to increase the rate at which snow would melt and maintain a warmer area, and north facing trails in southern regions where blocking direct sunlight is desirable.

Some of the handbooks are highly focused on a specific activity for the trail, such as mountain biking or hiking, usually considered a recreational trail. These are usually more physically demanding than one intended for the general population or general use.

Other resources, such as Safe Routes to Everywhere (Partnership for Active

Transportation, 2014) and Active Transportation Beyond Urban Centers (Rails to Trails

Conservancy, 2011), are usually in the form of reports and more focused on overall trail, bike lane, and sidewalk benefits.

They indicate that interest and convenience to a trail is highly recommended. Interest for the trail can be based on the trail itself, such as natural and built features on the trail or its utility as an exercise or recreational feature, or be closer related to destinations. Destinations can be places to eat, places to shop, cultural interest, event venues, picturesque places, and other such

attractions, or more utilitarian such as schools, offices, public services and transit (FHWA, 2015;

Bicycle Federation of America Campaign to Make America Walkable, 1998).

Convenience refers to how easily the user can access and use the facility. Paths located within short, walkable distances from residential areas are favored. A walkable distance is considered anywhere up to a mile, but usually closer to one quarter of a mile (FHWA, 2001;

FHWA, 2015). Krizek, et al. (2007) found that cyclists will travel from 1.5 mi to 2 mi to access a path (FHWA, 2015). Also a lack of obstacles is preferred. Obstacles can be debris or facilities in poor condition (such as cracked and heaving sidewalks), high-volume roads without safe crossings, or disconnected facilities, such as sidewalks to nowhere (FHWA, 2001; FHWA, 2015;

National Center for Bicycling and Walking, 2010).

Least-Cost Path Trail Network Studies

In the dozens of articles and resources found, most were as presented above. However, some did use an objective tool to identify the trail routes and some even developed networks.

Studies using a GIS least-cost path (LCP) include Ferguson’s (1998) Location and Design of

Recreational Trails: Application of GIS Technology, and Designing Recreational Trails In A

Forest Dune Habitat Using Least-Cost Path Analysis At The Resolution Of Visitor Sight

Distance (Sitzia, et al., 2014).

Ferguson’s GIS LCP recreational trail analysis in 1998 was deemed costly, time consuming, and less effective than the “office method”, which consisted of an experienced trail designer planning the route on a topographic map. However, we now have 18 years of software and data improvements, which are more capable of producing adequate alignments.

Sitzia, et al.’s (2014) study although more recent, focused on a nature trail, but only to create individual trails with particular attention to wider paths and protecting natural habitats and ecological processes.

The study Beyond Geomorphosites: Trade-Offs, Optimization, And Networking In

Heritage Landscapes (Harmon and Viles, 2013) used the LCP to create a network. The study’s objective was to create a trail system that would protect cultural and natural heritage yet be usable for tourists, and the scientific and educational communities. They developed several alternatives based on scores according to user groups and stakeholder preferences. They found that “modeling and scenario analysis could lead to a more open, transparent, and democratic design and planning process”. The alternatives presented would give stakeholders and planners something to compare results, and make tradeoffs as necessary; they may also use “expert judgment to further refine the trail system, adding additional circuitry to increase connectivity”.

Kokkinidis, et al. (2013) in A Least-Cost Algorithm Approach to Trail Design Using

GIS, developed a series of nature trails for the Boy Scouts of America in Philmont Ranch, New

Mexico. Their algorithm prioritized connectivity, preservation, safety, cost, usability, and scenic appeal through slope, soil suitability, vegetation, land cover, and proximity and visibility of preferred landmarks. This was applied towards determining trails with varying levels of difficulty. They found that

“It is easy to use, customizable, and produces high quality deliverables. The least- cost path algorithm fuses together a novel combination of datasets to meet all of the important design priorities, thereby fulfilling an unmet need to efficiently design and map trails in a cost-effective manner.” (Kokkinidis, et al., 2013)

Summary

Overall, the literature lacked information on the creation of multi-use trail networks until the end of 2015, and has abundant information about the details of trail construction. The document by the FHWA (2015), Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected

Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks, describes actions that the TTF has developed for itself

(prioritization) or is developing (shared use paths, on-road facilities).

Some studies have used a least-cost path analysis to determine a trail route, but were mostly focused on nature trails, not shared-use paths. Almost every resource agreed on slope as an important factor to consider, as well as convenience and destinations.

Although not mentioned outright, it is essential to determine the uses and users of the path; each article and guide determined who and what the trail was for before addressing any other aspects.

CHAPTER 3 DATA AND ANALYTICAL METHODS

GIS utilizes a distance analysis function that can determine objectively the least cost path to connect two points (Briney, 2014). Using this technology through the ArcGIS 10.3.1 program, the most suitable and efficient routes can be identified to reveal a trail network in Orchard Park.

Data

In order to create the least cost path, GIS shapefiles of a variety of factors identified in the literature were collected. The majority of the data was acquired from the Orchard Park, New

York Network Coordinator. Additional files were collected from the New York State

Clearinghouse, Cornell’s CUGIR, Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council, and the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning geodatabase.

Once the data had been acquired, it was compared against the Orchard Park trails master plan objectives, the intended uses and users, and narrowed down to the most relevant physical factors. The shapefiles were then prepared for the LCP; each was converted from vector to raster, and reclassified so that the value (or cost) for each feature was determined, as necessary to run a least-cost path analysis. When all files were prepared, a Weighted Overlay was run to create a unified base where the costs identified in all the separate layers were added and summarized into one corresponding cell. Then, with the entrance to each destination identified by a vector point,

Cost Distance and Cost Path analysis were run, resulting in the LCPs between each location.

Analysis

The main objective of the trails master plan is to interconnect the entire Town. Using the current Trails Priority List, five parks were identified: Brush Mountain, Milestrip Complex,

Birdsong Park, Chestnut Ridge Park, and Yates Park. These happen to be the largest in Orchard

Park and are located in such a way that almost the entire town is serviced.

The intended users for the trail network are any and all residents of Orchard Park, NY, regardless of age or ability, to reach varied areas of the town in such a way as to be suitable for more than recreation (Trails Task Force, 2002). As such, the trail should maintain the lowest difficulty possible, as well as connect a variety of attractions or uses.

Relevant physical factors then include the destinations, existing trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, and roads, rivers or streams, lakes, wetlands, topography, and land uses.

Destinations

The first listed in Brush Mountain Park (Figure 3 – 1), a 75.4-acre park on California

Road, on the west side of the Town. It currently has baseball fields, a concessions stand, bathroom facilities, and a small portion serves as a tree nursery for the Town.

Figure 3 - 1 Brush Mountain Park (outlined in blue) Aerial

The next park identified for connections is the Milestrip Complex (Figure 3 - 2) in the northeast area of town. This is a 56-acre site on Milestrip Road, with four athletic fields, a concessions stand, restrooms, and the town’s composting facility.

Figure 3 - 2 Milestrip Complex (outlined in blue) Aerial

The third park identified is Birdsong Park (Figure 3 – 3).

This is a 60-acre park with trails, off Jewett-Holmwood Road, in the eastern side of town.

It is crossed by Smokes Creek, and directly adjacent to Birdsong subdivision.

The last site identified for connectivity is actually an Erie County park, Chestnut Ridge

Park (Figure 3 – 4). The park is approximately 1, 231 acres, has several Works Progress

Figure 3 - 3 Birdsong Park (outlined in blue) Aerial

Administration (WPA) structures, including the 1925 Casino, and hosts the Erie County Park

Rangers. Chestnut Ridge is also home to the Eternal Flame Falls, where a flame burns naturally behind a sparse waterfall.

Figure 3 - 4 Chestnut Ridge Park (outlined in blue) Aerial The park provides year-round activities, including hiking, twelve recently updated tennis courts, a disc golf course, informal diamonds, toboggans, sledding, snow-shoeing, cross country skiing, and holiday and family events (Erie County Parks, Recreation, and Forestry, n.d.). Trails cross throughout the park.

As of March 11, 2016, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) will be adding bike lanes during a road-diet reconstruction of Route 277/Chestnut Ridge Road, which bisects the park and leads directly to the Village of Orchard Park. Construction should be completed in late 2016 along with sidewalk extensions from the Village to Armor Duells Road and Breezewood Drive. These improvements will provide the non-motorized transportation

facilities to connect the park to the Village (NYSDOT Email, Personal Communication, 2016).

Along this North-South axis are several residential subdivisions, private recreation centers (such as a golf course, country club, and swim club), a couple of senior housing or assisted living communities, the Orchard Park library, and the Village of Orchard Park with the majority of the municipal government sites, shopping, restaurants, and other services. This also would connect

Chestnut Ridge Park with Yates Park.

Figure 3 - 5 Yates Park (outlined in blue) Aerial

Yates Park is 51-acres, with Green Lake at its core. The lake is suitable for fishing, swimming, and boating, and is currently undergoing dredging and dam repairs (Integrated

Reviews, 2015). The Orchard Park Recreation Department offices are located in the park as well as large picnic shelters, some athletic fields, events throughout the spring, summer, and fall, and trails.

Yates Park was used as the nexus for the trail network. It is centrally located, with sidewalk connections to the Village, but not necessarily direct trail access to Yates Park from

other areas of the

Town. The available facilities and location made it an ideal location to connect the other parks to, as well as connect the other parks to the Village.

To create the least cost path it is necessary to have an origin and destination Figure 3 – 6 All park origins and destinations

(Figure 3 – 6). Consequently, layers were created with point features indicating the entrances to the parks. Brush Mountain and Milestrip Complex have one main entrance each, and so that was determined to be the origin or destination. Chestnut Ridge and Birdsong park also have one main entrance, but, although there are other ways to access them, these were the more logical termini in relation to the direction in which the other parks were located.

Yates Park, on the other hand, has several suitable entrances; the four most logical in regards to distance and convenience for users were marked. Cyclists and pedestrians would not go out of their way to enter the park in this case, but choose the most convenient path.

Water Features

Considering water bodies helps identify areas other than existing right-of-ways suitable, or unsuitable, for trail construction. Fording or bridging water features would be more difficult and expensive than utilizing an existing road surface for the trail, although it may provide a more

direct or shorter route. Water features would also require additional permitting to build in or around.

Shapefiles:

1. Rivers and streams 2. Lakes 3. Wetlands (State and Federal)

A buffer of 50 feet was created around streams and lakes to protect riparian areas, but retain water feature interest. The wetlands layer already contained Figure 3 – 7 Reclassified water features buffers around wetland polygons.

These three layers were combined into one, changed from vector to raster data formats, and reclassified. They were reclassified on a scale of one to ten, where the larger number represents a higher cost.

The value 1 areas are 50 to 100 feet from the water features, which is the ideal location.

Any areas outside of that 100’ edge were all given a value of 5, since there would be no additional costs or considerations in regards to the water feature, but would also not provide the same interest as being closer than 100’. Areas less than 50’ from a water feature were valued at

10 since constructing the path within that area would incur additional ecological and monetary costs through potential damage to the streams, lakes, or wetlands, the added cost of bridging over the feature if necessary and the additional permitting costs and considerations (Figure 3 – 7).

Slope

Steep hills can increase costs and make the trail more difficult for users.

A multi-use paved trail, unlike a hiking or mountain biking trail, should be suitable for the largest number of users and uses, which limits grade on the trail.

Shapefiles:

1. Digital Elevation Model Figure 3 – 8 Reclassified slope (DEM) – 2 ft

A DEM is a “representation of continuous elevation values over a topographic surface”

(esri, n.d.). Slope, which is the incline or steepness of a surface (esri, n.d.), was derived from the

DEM using the Slope tool in ArcMap. The resulting layer was then reclassified. The steepest suitable slope identified in the literature was 5 percent. The layer was reclassified to reflect decreasing costs with decreasing slope, while all grades above 5 percent are considered to be high cost as they are unsuitable to the intention and users of the multi-use trail (Figure 3 – 8).

Transportation

Proximity to the existing trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, and roads is a relevant factor to trail location to reduce the chance of superfluous infrastructure and waste of funds, and to increase the likelihood of co-location with existing facilities and the creation of a unified trail network. The new sidewalk and bike lane extensions on

Route 277/Chestnut Ridge Road were added to the data for final analysis. Figure 3 – 9 Reclassified right-of-ways (ROW)

Shapefiles:

1. Right of Way (ROW) 2. Sidewalks 3. Bike lanes

The ROW layer was created by finding the negative, or empty, spaces between parcels. A streets layer was considered instead, but such line shapefiles do not include the roadway or ROW width. In this study, a streets layer would not have accurately represented the area available for transportation. A least-cost path analysis compares each cell against its neighbors to follow the lowest values (i.e., cost). To represent the ROW as a line feature common in streets layers, would not have allowed for a realistic representation of opportunities and constraints for the path.

After creating a polygon shapefile in ArcCatalog, the empty layer was added to the workspace in ArcMap. A new rectangle large enough to encompass the Town of Orchard Park was created in the layer. The resulting polygon was Clipped to the Orchard Park town boundary.

The parcels were turned into large blocks separated by ROWs by using the dissolve tool. The

Union tool combined the new parcel blocks and the Orchard Park polygon layers. The resulting data layer contained a ROWs polygon, which was moved into a new layer. The ROW layer was then converted to raster.

The result was reclassified in values of 1 for the existence of a right of way, and values of

10 outside of a right of way as constructing a paved multi-use path would be more costly outside the ROW (Figure 3 – 9).

Existing bike lanes and sidewalks are mapped as line features. The sidewalks features were buffered 1.5 feet since most sources concur on a minimum of 36 inches for accessibility

(FHWA, 2001). The resulting buffers were dissolved into one feature, and converted to raster.

The raster was reclassified, using the Orchard Park town boundary layer as the extent for the analysis. The bike lanes layer was treated equally.

Sidewalks and bike lanes were reclassified with the same values: 1 for where they are present and 5 where they are not, since there is no need to build a trail where there is already a sidewalk or bike lane. In addition, it would be more expensive to locate a trail where there is not a bike lane or sidewalk, yet not as much as completely outside the ROW.

Land Uses

Taking into account the parks, residential and commercial areas, and other area land uses provides a source and destination for the trails (Bicycle Federation of America Campaign to

Make America Walkable, 1998; FHWA, 2015), and identifies what areas the trails should connect to or pass through.

Shapefiles:

1. Tax Parcels

This layer was converted to raster and reclassified to reflect land use and expected cost by land use for the development of the trail (Figure 3 – 10).

Public and Semi-Public land are the lowest cost (1) because they would most likely not necessitate acquiring right-of-ways or easements. Additionally, they are locations that serve as destinations for trail users such as public recreation facilities, municipal buildings, schools, and the library.

Commercial areas can serve as trail destinations as well (value of 2). Places such as restaurants and stores could benefit from a trail near their location (Partnership for Active

Transportation, 2014;

Rails to Trails

Conservancy, 2011), and therefore it may not be as costly to locate the trail in those areas.

Industrial areas

(value of 3), while not likely to be more expensive, do not necessarily provide the amenities of the first two land uses listed. Figure 3 – 10 Reclassified Land Uses

Agricultural uses (value of 4), Vacant/Undeveloped (mostly residential) (value of 5), and

Residential/NA (value of 6) are typically more difficult to acquire the land or easement to construct a trail on. Additionally, the network is intended to connect parks to parks and neighborhoods to parks. A number of residential areas already have a neighborhood-level trail.

Therefore, it is more desirable that the multi-use path not travel towards residential areas, but from them.

Weighted Overlay

A weighted overlay is defined as:

“A technique for combining multiple rasters by applying a common measurement scale of values to each raster, weighting each according to its importance, and adding them together to create an integrated analysis.” (esri, n.d.)

The “common measurement” was accomplished by reclassifying the cells in each raster from 1 through 10, detailed above. The “importance” is also known as the percent influence, detailed in Table 3 – 1. The percent influence was determined through Trails Task Force documents and the literature.

The weighted overlay combines the values of each cell with the corresponding cell in Figure 3 – 11 Weighted Overlay

each of the other layers to provide a single, average value per cell. Figure 3 -11 shows that the

lowest cost, or cell value, in any location would be 1, represented in green, and gradually

increasing to 8, the highest cost in any location, represented in red.

Raster % Influence Slope 25 Water 25 Land Use 25 ROW 15 Sidewalks 5 Bike lanes 5 Total 100% Table 3 – 1 Weighted overlay raster influence

Cost Distance and Cost Path

The cost distance tool produces two pertinent outputs: distance and backlink. Cost

Distance (Figure 3 – 12 A) gives the length to “the nearest source for each cell in the raster,

based on the least-accumulative cost over a cost surface”. Cost Back Link (Figure 3 – 12 B)

“gives the neighbor that is the next cell on the least-accumulative cost path to the nearest

source”. These rasters are calculated from the origin of the path.

These are then used as inputs in the cost path tool, which “produces an output raster that

records the least-cost path or paths from selected locations to the closest source cell defined

within the accumulative cost surface, in terms of cost distance” (ArcGIS, n.d.).The cost path tool

would use them as an input, as well as the destination of the path, and produce a least cost path

(Figure 3 – 12 C, D, E).

A. B.

C. D.

Figure 3 – 12 Birdsong Park to Yates Park LCP process

A. Cost Distance B. Backlink C. Least Cost Path over water features raster D. LCP over ROW raster E. LCP over Slope raster

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

Park to Village - Axis Connections

Birdsong Park to Yates Park

Figure 4 – 1 Birdsong Park to Yates Park LCP

To currently reach Yates Park from Birdsong, a pedestrian would have to walk around the Orchard Park Country Club and Golf Course either by going north towards Highland Avenue

(1.2 mi route), which has no shoulders, or south towards Jewett-Holmwood Road (1.6 mi route), which has narrow and disappearing shoulders.

The proposed connection from Birdsong Park to Yates Park and the Village follows neighborhood roads, crosses residential and public lands, and skirts water features (See Figure 4

– 1) to reach Yates Park, simultaneously connecting to the sidewalks and bike lanes of the

Village. This path is .85 miles long.

Brush Mountain Park to Yates Park

Figure 4 – 2 Brush Mountain Park to Yates Park LCP

In the case of the connection from Brush Mountain Parks to Yates Park, two LCPs were run, connecting the only official entrance to Brush Mountain to two different entrances to Yates

Park. In this case, the proposed route is approximately 1.4 miles and follows California Road and

Duerr Road. One option (purple route in Figure 4 – 3) follows Duerr Rd until it reaches the park near the baseball diamonds, a 1.31 mile path. The second option (red route in Figure 4 – 3) cuts into a residential neighborhood until it reaches the park, which is a 1.40 mile path. It is worth noting that Duerr Road includes a bridge over U.S. Route 219, which 6 – 7’ shoulders on either side of the travel lanes.

Milestrip Complex to Yates Park

Figure 4 – 3 Milestrip Complex to Yates Park LCP

The connection from the Milestrip Complex to Yates Park was also run twice, with different entry point in Yates Park. In both circumstances, the route followed Milestrip Road until the intersection with Ferndale Drive and follows it south to Hodson Road, although these streets do not currently connect. The route then turns west on Webster Road until it reaches the intersection with N Buffalo Road, which has sidewalks, bus stops, and connects to the village core, and follows it there. Before reaching Yates Park, however, one of the LCPs deviates (the green route in Figure 4 – 4) at the intersection with Quaker Street and follows smaller neighborhood roads until it reaches the entrance to the park, passing the Orchard Park middle school along the way. This route is 2.84 miles long. The other route (bright blue in Figure 4 – 4)

continues south on RT 277 until reaching the east entrance to Yates Park, passing the Orchard

Park Library, and municipal buildings; it is 2.81 miles long.

Chestnut Ridge to Yates Park

Figure 4 – 4 Chestnut Ridge Park to Yates Park LCP

The LCP from Chestnut Ridge Park to the Village predictably followed Route 277, a 2.58 mile trail. With the upcoming additions of bike lanes and extension of sidewalks to the road, it is the ideal route to connect the park with the Village.

Figure 4 – 5 All axial LCP connections

Park to Park - Loop Connections

Chestnut Ridge Park to Brush Mountain Park

Figure 4 – 6 Chestnut Ridge Park to Brush Mountain Park LCP (l), and identified problem in route (r)

In this route, the LCP breaks away a little more from the road network to cut through some mostly residential areas. The main benefit of this least cost path, 3.69 miles long, is that it shows how this outer loop trail connection may be used to connect at least one discreet subdivision trail (Chestnut Village, on the east) and maybe the Hilltowne subdivision trail (on the west).

However, the LCP cuts into the U.S. Route 219 median before crossing back over the two

65 MPH lanes, before crossing in a diagonal and again over two 65 MPH lanes. This particular alignment is very unlikely to be a feasible alternative. In spite of that, since the route seems to parallel the Chestnut Village trail, it is likely that accessing the highway overpass (New Armor

Rd bridge) from the subdivision and crossing the bridge to the other side may be an alternative.

This bridge also has approximately 7’ wide shoulders.

That alignment could provide the residents of the west side of the highway, which

include some senior housing, a non-motorized alternative towards Chestnut Ridge Park, Brush

Mountain Park, and the neighborhood-level trails.

In future analyses, it may be beneficial to include a layer of bridges to better guide the

LCP.

Brush Mountain Park to Milestrip Complex

Figure 4 – 7 Brush Mountain Park to Milestrip Complex LCP (r), and identified problem in route (l)

This is the other route to run into problems due to the highway, not unexpectedly. The

LCP analysis suggests crossing U.S. Route 219. Otherwise, the suggested 3.86 mile path follows

California Road to U.S. Route 20A, before turning north into Cobham Drive, which surrounds an office park, possibly serving as a commuting option for employees.

The route reaches U.S. 219 and follows it north until attempting to cross towards a multiple housing residential area. It continues on Carriage Drive until reaching Southwestern

Boulevard, a commercial corridor with sidewalks in Orchard Park, until turning onto Milestrip

Road to the Park.

Milestrip Complex to Birdsong Park

Figure 4 – 8 Milestrip Complex to Birdsong Park LCP

This 2.44 mile route suggests going through the park from north to south, and following

Freeman Road south to birdsong. Crossing through the park would cross a small creek and pass by the Orchard Park High School. Currently, Freeman Road is a two way divided road with

narrow and somewhat worn shoulders, and may only be suitable for shared road facility. It is lined with mature trees and passes by some ponds before reaching Birdsong Park.

Birdsong Park to Chestnut Ridge Park

Figure 4 – 9 Birdsong Park to Chestnut Ridge Park LCP

The route connecting Birdsong to Chestnut Ridge, 3.19 miles long, follows along the road. As mentioned above, RT 277 has and will be extending sidewalks and bicycle lanes.

Figure 4 – 10 All loop LCP connections

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS

The least cost path analysis in this study offers routes that should be considered by the

Trails Task Force, to efficiently achieve an interconnected trail network with the most desirable trail characteristics. The GIS analysis was able to identify some spatial solutions that may have been less apparent when evaluated without the software.

Although interconnected routes are identified in the LCP trail network, there is room in the system for adding more trails to densify the network. The Village is the center of Figure 4 – 11 All LCP connections the municipal, cultural, and restaurant spheres. However, the larger commercial areas in the

Town (Quaker Crossing Retail Center and the McKinley Mall) are not connected to the network, and should be considered as destinations for additional trails in the future.

A constraint of the results was inappropriate highway crossings. Highways are usually a problem for non-motorized transportation and community connectivity, and the results are not surprising. Although beyond the scope of this project, more fitting crossings could be identified with the use of a bridges layer in the analysis.

Additional data to consider in future analyses would be to use the difference between the right-of-way and the existing travel lanes to determine how much space, paved or unpaved, remains of the right of way that could be converted to non-motorized facilities.

The analysis could include a building footprints layer as a high cost to help eliminate routes that would weave in between houses and therefore not provide sufficient space for a comfortable trail or path. Lastly, an updated trails shapefiles layer could aid in attempting to connect the trails directly, instead of the parks. This would require substantially updated data on all existing trails, especially if attempting to add recreational trails.

Once the TTF finalizes the routes identified in the LCP analysis, they will consult with the Orchard Park engineering department for issues and costs. Finally, they will present the curated routes to the Orchard Park Town Board with preliminary cost estimates.

In summary, the Least Cost Path analysis provides the Orchard Park Trails Task Force with a suitable draft to focus on and fine tune to achieve a goal over 16 years in the making.

APPENDIX A TRAILS TASK FORCE 2002 SURVEY

APPENDIX B MAPS

Orchard Park Trails (Figure 1 – 2)

Origins and Destinations (Figure 3 – 6)

Water Features Raster (Figure 3 – 7)

Slope Raster (Figure 3 – 8)

ROW Raster (Figure 3 – 9)

Land Use Raster (Figure 3 – 10)

Weighed Overlay (Figure 3 – 11)

Birdsong Park to Yates Park LCP (Figure 4 – 1)

Brush Mountain Park to Yates LCP (Figure 4 – 2)

Milestrip Complex to Yates Park LCP (Figure 4 – 3)

Chestnut Ridge Park to Yates Park LCP (Figure 4 – 4)

All Axial LCP Connections (Figure 4 – 5)

Chestnut Ridge Park to Brush Mountain Park LCP (Figure 4 – 6)

Brush Mountain Park to Milestrip Complex LCP (Figure 4 – 7)

Milestrip Complex to Birdsong Park LCP (Figure 4 – 8)

Birdsong Park to Chestnut Ridge Park LCP (Figure 4 – 9)

All Loop LCP Connections (Figure 4 – 10)

All LCP Connections (Figure 4 – 11)

LIST OF REFERENCES

ArcGIS. (n.d.). Understanding cost distance analysis. Retrieved from http://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/understanding-cost- distance-analysis.htm

Bicycle Federation of America Campaign to Make America Walkable. (1998, December). Creating Walkable Communities: A guide for local governments. Retrieved from http://www.bikewalk.org/pdfs/ncbwpubwalkablecomm.pdf

Boarnet M. (2006). Planning's Role in Building Healthy Cities. Journal of the American Planning Association [serial online]. Winter2006; 72(1):5. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier, Ipswich, MA.

Erie County Parks, Recreation, and Forestry. (n.d.) Chestnut Ridge [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www2.erie.gov/parks/index.php?q=chestnut-ridge esri. (n.d.). GIS Dictionary. Retrieved from http://support.esri.com/en/knowledgebase/GISDictionary

Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation (FHWA USDOT). (2001, September). Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide. Retrieved from http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/documents/GavPAC%20Materi als/Trails%20Subcommittee/Meeting%202/USFS%20Trail%20Guidelines.pdf

Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation (FHWA USDOT). (2007). Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook 2007 Edition [Guidebook]. Retrieved from http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/documents/GavPAC%20Materi als/Trails%20Subcommittee/Meeting%202/USFS%20Trail%20Guidelines.pdf

Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation (FHWA USDOT). (2015, December). Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks . Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/network_report/n etwork_report.pdf

Harmon, B., Viles, H. (2013, May 23). Beyond geomorphosites: trade-offs, optimization, and networking in heritage landscapes, Environment Systems and Decisions (2013) 33:272– 285. doi:10.1007/s10669-013-9448-3

Henderson, K. A., & Parr, M. (2005, August). Parks and Physical Activity Parks & Recreation, 40(8), 20. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/

Kokkinidis, I., Stein, B., Surendrababu,J., Seigler, T., Hwang, W.H., Lorentz, L. (2013, June). A Least-Cost Algorithm Approach to Trail Design Using GIS, Photogrammetric

Engineering and Remote Sensing. 06/2013; 79(6):498-505. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262412977_A_Least- Cost_Algorithm_Approach_to_Trail_Design_Using_GIS

Orchard Park Town Code. (2015, October 21). § 25-4 Authority to require open land area. Retrieved from http://ecode360.com/6313006#6313012

Partnership for Active Transportation. (2014, February 11). Safe Routes to Everywhere [Report]. Retrieved from http://www.railstotrails.org/resourcehandler.ashx?id=4924

Racca, D., & Dhanju, A. (2006, November 1). Property value/desirability effects of bike paths adjacent to residential areas [Report]. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from http://128.175.63.72/projects/DOCUMENTS/bikepathfinal.pdf

Sitzia, T., Rizzi, A., Cattaneo, D., Semenzato, P. (2014). Designing recreational trails in a forest dune habitat using least-cost path analysis at the resolution of visitor sight distance, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13 (2014) 861–868. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866714001101

The Orchard Park Town Board. (2007, September 19). Town of Orchard Park 2007 Comprehensive Plan (Update). Retrieved from http://orchardparkny.org/content/Boards/View/20:field=documents;/content/Documents/ File/871.pdf

Trails Task Force. (2002, October 23). Trails in Orchard Park: Planning for the Future. Trails Task Force, Orchard Park, New York

Trails Task Force. (2007, March) Master Plan Presentation. Trails Task Force, Orchard Park, New York

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Community Facts Orchard Park Town, Erie County, New York. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. (2011, June). Greenways and Trails Toolbox. Retrieved from http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational- planning/greentrailtools

Wang, G., Macera, C. A., Scudder-Soucie, B., Schmid, T., Pratt, M., Buchner, D. (2005, April). A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Physical Activity Using Bike/Pedestrian Trails, Health Promotion Practice. Retrieved from http://www.ncrailtrails.org/pdfs/CostBenefitTrailsStudy294.pdf

Wendel-Duchscherer. (2002, June). The Orchard Park Plan [Land Use Study]. Retrieved from http://orchardparkny.org/content/Departments/View/8:field=documents;/content/Docume nts/File/903.pdf

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Mariely Ann Ortiz was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She completed high school with honors at the Escuela Central de Artes Visuales in Santurce, Puerto Rico with an Architectural

Design Certificate in 2007. She was accepted to and awarded a full tuition scholarship from the

State University of New York at Buffalo (UB), in Buffalo, New York. While attending UB, she interned at the Urban Design Project and the Office of Strategic Planning of the City of Buffalo.

She completed a Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Design and a minor in Architecture, graduating Cum Laude in 2011. She enlisted in the Army Reserve in the summer of 2012 as a

Civil Affairs Specialist, E-4, and in the fall of 2012, Mariely began the University of Florida

Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning program. She returned to Western New York in late 2013, where she began a career as a volunteer firefighter with the Windom Volunteer Fire

Company and continued to intern with the Mayor’s Office of Strategic Planning of the City of

Buffalo. In the summer of 2015, she began working as a Planner with Erie County, NY.