DOCSLIB.ORG

Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study Regional Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study Regional Report Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study Regional Report SEPTEMBER 2012 PREPARED FOR: Norwalk River Valley Trail Steering Committee PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Stantec Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study Acknowledgements Norwalk River Valley Trail Committee Members Mike Cunningham, Danbury Holt McChord, Wilton Kathy Miville, Danbury Donna Pratt, Wilton Rob Gutman, Ridgefield Patricia Sesto, Wilton Richard Kent, Ridgefield Jim Snedeker, Wilton Ben Oko, Ridgefield Jim Carter, Norwalk Victor DeMasi, Redding Dan Landau, Norwalk Pam Elkow, Redding Deborah Lewis, Norwalk Stuart Green, Redding David Park, Norwalk David Pattee, Redding Alex Karman, SWRPA Susan Robinson, Redding Will Palmquist, SWRPA Lisa Bogan, Wilton Greg Waters, NPS Patrice Gillespie, Wilton Linda Cook, NPS Mike Lindberg, Wilton Study Team Jeff Olson, Principal, Alta Planning + Design Phil Goff, Project Manager and Planner, Alta Planning + Design Shannon Simms, Project Designer, Alta Planning + Design Gary T. Sorge, Principal, Stantec John Eberle, Project Engineer, Stantec Marcy Miller, Public Outreach Planner, Fitzgerald & Halliday The development of the Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study was made possible through a Recreational Trail Program Grant from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). The NRVT Committee thanks CTDEEP for its support. Regional Report| i Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................................................................1 2 Summary of Routing Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 2 3 Study Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 4 Summary of Existing Plans & Policies .......................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Statewide Plans .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Regional Plans ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Local Plans ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 5 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Opportunities and Challenges ................................................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 33 6 Connectivity Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 42 7 Trail Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................ 58 7.1 Trail Width ................................................................................................................................................................... 58 7.2 Trail Surface Type .................................................................................................................................................. 58 7.3 User-accessibility ................................................................................................................................................... 59 7.4 Trail within Right-of-Way................................................................................................................................... 61 7.5 Trail Amenities ........................................................................................................................................................ 61 7.6 Other Trail Amenities ............................................................................................................................................62 8 Trail Safety and Security................................................................................................................................................. 63 9 Potential Permitting Issues and Requirements ......................................................................................................... 65 10 Routing Options Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 72 10.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................................. 72 10.2 Evaluation of Route Options ............................................................................................................................... 73 11 Routing Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................... 91 11.1 Danbury .................................................................................................................................................................... 91 11.2 Ridgefield and Redding ......................................................................................................................................... 97 11.3 Wilton ..................................................................................................................................................................... 105 ii | Regional Report Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study 11.4 Norwalk ................................................................................................................................................................... 115 12 Parcel Inventory .............................................................................................................................................................. 127 13 Cost Estimates and Phasing ........................................................................................................................................ 139 13.1 Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................................................... 139 13.2 Phasing .................................................................................................................................................................... 139 14 Implementation .............................................................................................................................................................. 142 14.1 Funding ................................................................................................................................................................... 142 14.2 Obstacles and Mitigation ................................................................................................................................... 143 14.3 Zoning and Subdivision Regulation Tools ..................................................................................................... 145 15 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 149 Regional Report| iii Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study This page left intentionally blank. iv | Regional Report Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study 1 Overview The Norwalk River Valley Trail (NRVT) Routing Study report is the product of a year-long effort to study, analyze and develop routing recommendations for a trail along the Norwalk River and Route 7 corridor in Southern Connecticut. The NRVT will ultimately provide residents throughout the region with a safe pedestrian and bicycle path that will connect to neighboring municipalities. Certain sections of the trail will be designed to accommodate equestrians as well. In most areas along the length of the alignment, the preferred NRVT route was apparent due to the relative ease of developing a trail within the contiguous corridor of Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT) properties or because of existing portions of the NRVT currently in use in Wilton and Norwalk. In a handful of locations, however, routing options were presented and narrowed down based on input from the general public and members of the Norwalk River Valley Trail Committee, which includes public officials, local commission members, and community advocates. The primary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Implementation Plan for Sustainable Development in the New York - Connecticut Metropolitan Region
    Implementation Plan for Sustainable Development in the New York - Connecticut Metropolitan Region MAY 30, 2014 DRAFT: June 2, 2014 - 13:33 SCI Implementation Plan Draft 20140602_final.indd 1 About the New York-Connecticut Sustainable Communities Consortium NY-CT Sustainable Communities Consortium The New York – Connecticut Sustainable Communities Consortium is supported by a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities Regional Planning Grant. The Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program is a key initiative of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a federal partnership joining the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, and HUD with a shared mission to coordinate federal housing, transportation, water, and other infrastructure investments to make neighborhoods more prosperous, allow people to live closer to jobs, save households time and money, and reduce pollution . Partners in the NY-CT Sustainable Communities Consortium An Advisory Board was formed to monitor the progress of include cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, Consortium activities, provide recommendations, and review and non-profit organizations across Long Island, New York City, and comment on Consortium work programs. Advisory lower Hudson Valley, and coastal Connecticut: Board members include both governmental agencies and non- governmental organizations in the tri-state New York/New Regional Plan Association, partner and fiduciary agent Jersey/Connecticut
    [Show full text]
  • Park Association-Support Act Establishing a Tax Abatement
    Testimony of Eric Hammerling, Executive Director, Connecticut Forest & Park Association Public Hearing Subject Matter Position Raised Bill 5477 : AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TAX ABATEMENT FOR Support CERTAIN CONSERVATION EASEMENTS . Raised Bill 5476: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A STATE -WIDE GEOGRAPHIC Support INFORMATION SYSTEM TASK FORCE . The Connecticut Forest & Park Association (CFPA) is the first conservation organization estab lished in Connecticut in 1895. For 12 5 years, CFPA has offered testimony before the General Assembly on various State Park and Forest, trail recreation, forestry, and land conservation iss ues. I am pleased to testify today to express CFPA’s support of Raised Bill 5477 , “An Act Establishing a Tax Abatement for Certain Conservation Easements .” What would this bill do (in plain language)? This bill would enable, but not require, muni cipalitie s to pass a local ordinance to waive property taxes for landowners who place a conservation easement on a portion of their property to protect the trail corridor of a State - designated Greenway . This would be a n outstanding way to support municipalities in encourag ing landowners to protect these speci al ly designated corridors in perpetuity fo r public use and enjoyment . Why is a tax abatement for Greenways both critical and urgent ? Greenw ays are designated by the state (C.G.S. Section 23 -10 2(b) ) as noteworthy recreational resources, and an incentive is needed to keep these trails intact for future generations. State -designa ted Greenways typic ally stretch across multiple properties owned by a patchwork of private, municipal, and state landowners. The loss of just one section of trail on one property can sever corridor conti nuity along a Greenway, and trails on private lands are the most vulnerable.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Environmental Protection Inland Waters And
    Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies TITLE 26. Fisheries & Game Agency Department of Environmental Protection Subject Inland Waters and Marine District Defined Section § 26-108-1 CONTENTS Sec. 26-108-1. Inland waters and marine district defined Revised: 2015-3-6 R.C.S.A. § 26-108-1 - I- Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies TITLE 26. Fisheries & Game Department of Environmental Protection §26-108-1 Inland Waters and Marine District Defined Sec. 26-108-1. Inland waters and marine district defined The following lines across streams flowing into Long Island Sound, Fisher’s Island Sound, Little Narragansett Bay and tributaries thereof shall be known as the inland-marine demarcation lines above which lines such water shall be known as the “inland district” and below which lines such water shall be known as the “marine district”: FAIRFIELD COUNTY Byram River, Greenwich marine district—up to and including the railroad crossing inland district—all waters above Horse Neck Brook, Greenwich marine district—none inland district—above junction with mouth of harbor Indian Harbor, Greenwich marine district—up to and including the first railroad crossing inland district—all waters above Mianus River, Greenwich marine district—below dam just above Boston Post Road inland district—all waters above Rippowam River, Stamford marine district—up to and including the first railroad crossing inland district—all waters above Noroton River, Stamford-Darien marine district—up to and including Boston Post Road inland district—all waters above Goodwives River,
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Greater Bridgeport Region Bridgeport Hospital and St. Vincent's Medical Center Collaborative Community Health Needs Asse
    2019 Greater Bridgeport Region Bridgeport Hospital and St. Vincent’s Medical Center Collaborative Community Health Needs Assessment and Implementation Plan By the Health Improvement Alliance This document is a special section of the Fairfield County Community Wellbeing Index 2019, a core program of DataHaven (ctdatahaven.org), in partnership with Fairfield County’s Community Foundation and a Community Health Needs Assessment for the towns served by all Fairfield County hospitals including Bridgeport Hospital and St. Vincent’s Medical Center 1 | Page ABOUT THIS REPORT This document is a special section of the Fairfield County Community Wellbeing Index 2019 (Appendix A), a comprehensive report about Fairfield County and the towns within it. The Community Index was produced by DataHaven in partnership with Fairfield County’s Community Foundation and many other regional partners, including the Health Improvement Alliance (HIA), a coalition serving towns in the Greater Bridgeport region. This document serves as the Community Health Needs Assessment for the six towns in the HIA area (Bridgeport, Easton, Fairfield, Monroe, Stratford, and Trumbull). The Community Health Needs Assessment documents the process that the HIA used to conduct the regional health assessment and health improvement activities. You may find the full Community Wellbeing Index attached to this section, or posted on the DataHaven, Fairfield County’s Community Foundation, Bridgeport Hospital, St. Vincent’s Medical Center, or any of the town health department websites. The Community Health Needs Assessment and Community Health Improvement Plan were approved by the Board of Trustees for St. Vincent’s Medical Center in June 13, 2019 and the Board of Trustees for Bridgeport Hospital in July 9, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Releases Gov. Malloy, CTDOT Indefinitely Postpone Hundreds Of
    Press Releases 01/10/2018 Gov. Malloy, CTDOT Indefinitely Postpone Hundreds of Transportation Projects Across Connecticut Malloy Administration Will Work With Legislature to Identify New Funding and Save Projects (HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) Commissioner James P. Redeker today released a full list of projects totaling $4.3 billion that are postponed indefinitely until new revenue is appropriated for the Special Transportation Fund (STF). The Governor made clear that his administration will announce detailed proposals this month that, if adopted by the General Assembly, would bring the projects back online. The STF finances the state’s transportation system, including the operating costs of the CTDOT and all of the services it provides. Last month, Governor Malloy reiterated and increased his warnings on the solvency of the fund following the release of a report showing that without prompt action, the STF will be in deficit by fiscal year 2019, which begins July 1, 2018. **Download the list of CTDOT projects now postponed indefinitely here** Hundreds of projects across the state, such as critical improvements to the I-91/Route 15 interchange on the Charter Oak Bridge, the replacement of the Waterbury Mixmaster, and the widening of I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford, are postponed indefinitely, or until resources are identified to allow projects to continue. Even routine highway maintenance and transportation aid to cities and towns are seriously jeopardized. “If Connecticut does not take the necessary action to allow us to restart these vital projects, not only will it put the state’s infrastructure into a further state of disrepair, it will hurt our economy,” Governor Malloy said.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Open Space Plan: Part One
    REDDING, CONNECTICUT OPEN SPACE PLAN 2018 SUPPLEMENT TO THE REDDING TOWN PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 2018 Prepared by the Redding Conservation Commission Redding Open Space Plan 2018 A report on the protection of natural systems in Redding, Connecticut. Prepared by the Redding Conservation Commission as a supplement to the 2018 Town Plan of Conservation and Development. The Conservation Commission David Pattee, Chairman Stuart Green William Hill Tina Miller Wallace Perlman Susan Robinson Redding, Connecticut Town of Redding Page 1 Open Space Plan – 2018 Table of Contents OPEN SPACE PLAN............................................................................................................... 1 2018 OPEN SPACE PLAN: PART ONE ................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Section 1-1: Goals of the Open Space Plan .................................................................................. 3 Section 1-2: Existing Open Space ................................................................................................. 4 GREENBELTS ............................................................................................................................. 5 Section 1-3: Lands for Protection ................................................................................................ 6 Section 1-4: Additional Open Space Concerns ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CONSERVATION THEMES H E L
    B e t CONSERVATION THEMES h e l Overview of Conservation Themes Bethel’s character is largely the result of its unique combination of land and Protecting important water, as well as historic and scenic resources. As these resources are mutually resources is a critical element in maintaining dependent upon one another, negative impacts to one can negatively impact community character and others. Properly protected, these important resources will continue to have ensures quality of life for positive impacts upon the Town’s quality of life, for generations to come. current and future These issues are addressed early in the planning process since it is necessary to generations. identify those resources that the community wishes to preserve and protect before making decisions about where to locate development and what types of development to encourage. Although Open Space preservation was identified as the most important issue in community workshops, this section leads with a discussion of natural resources, which are also a very important consideration and can have a tremendous impact on the qualities of individual pieces of open space. Open Space Land Resources Historic Resources Water Resources o rces 19 NATURAL RESOURCES Overview “The nation behaves well if Preserving and conserving natural resources protects environmental functions, it treats natural resources maintains biodiversity, and prevents environmental damage. as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.” Theodore Roosevelt Tree Canopy Water Resource 20 Protect Land Based Natural Resources Bethel is fortunate to have so many acres of forest land, meadowlands, and other undeveloped natural lands.
    [Show full text]
  • AQUIFERPROTECTIONAREA SW Estport , CONNECTICUT
    n M ! R F S o N G o Godfrey Pond C e t Inwood Rd u P u n o d a r u d B W d r n n r t e R L r e t d R d b e r t e R o t t s n R 111 D i l n I o a e l a r o M o t e n l s S1 r R i t t V W w l r A O d n k a l d e K i i R e i S d 1 n M a n n l R W B e l y D H o id g e a a T u a l R t R i Wheelers Pond 1 H L l a a r x d n l B o a g e R d r r a v a d o F d d e d d R n r T t e Nod Hill Pond t e y n l n e R r e R R W d h d o e u d r D e D d i y n u D R v M R e e E w e e d n k d e o S H R u b n d w r r a r r r e Chestnut Hill r c d e o e d d w 7 R H u w o n b L e r D d l R d Mill River h B o d L w t S W n d b n s s s u Plymouth Avenue Pond £ a d s y e ¤ r A u o i R R s o n i b Pipers t o R h d Hill R n d o i n L c S d d e 5 C t a e d r r d d B o U H g Powells Hill k t t o r t 9 d e S k n Spruc u p r l d D o R d c r R R L P e S i a r n s l H r Cristina R 136 i h L Ln e n B l i r T R o d n r d s l L S o n r R V e o H o k L R i r M d t M Killian A H G L a S ve d R e s R y n l g e d Pin 1 i l C r a d w r n M e d d e r a a 1 i R r d c y e D h k h s r S R 1 d o d c E Cricker Brook i t c a k n l 7 r M d r u w a e l o R l n y g a R d r S n d l Dr c e B W od l e F nwo d r Nature Pond o t utt o l S i B t w d C h l S B n y i d r o t l e W ch R e i D R e e o o D p B r M Hill Rd i L d n r H R ey l on r il H P H n L H o ls illa w o d v r w t w a w on La n o s D D d d e O e S e n w r g r R e p i e i W k l n n e d d W t r g L e v e r t l y e l D l r y g l 53 e e T a e o R e l s d y d H n Plum rkw o a D i P a R n l r a S d R L V W i w o u r u Jennings Brook l
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Strea
    Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Streambed Sediment in the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins, 1992-94 By Robert F. Breault and Sandra L. Harris Abstract exceed sediment-quality guidelines over a wider geographical area, although usually by lower Streambed-sediment samples were collected ratios of contaminant concentration to sediment- in 1992-94 at selected sites in the Connecticut, quality guideline than the organic compounds. Housatonic, and Thames River Basins to determine the geographical distribution of trace elements and organic compounds and their INTRODUCTION potential for adverse biological effects on aquatic organisms. Chromium, copper, lead, mercury, The Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins study unit is one of 59 National Water-Quality nickel, zinc, chlordane, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs Assessment (NAWQA) study units nationwide. The were detected in samples from throughout the study unit drainage basin comprises an area of almost basins, but concentrations of these constituents 16,000 mi2 and extends through parts of the Province of generally were lowest in the northern forested Quebec, Canada, eastern Vermont, western New Hamp- drainage basins and highest in the southern shire, west-central Massachusetts, nearly all of Connect- urbanized drainage basins of Springfield, icut, and small parts of New York and Rhode Island. Massachusetts, and Hartford, New Haven and The study unit is entirely within the New Bridgeport, Connecticut. Possible anthropogenic England Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1938), a sources of these contaminants include industrial plateau-like upland that rises gradually from the sea but effluent; municipal wastewater; runoff from includes numerous mountain ranges and individual agricultural, urban and forested areas; and peaks.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Oriented Development Final Report | September 2010
    FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration Abstract This report presents an evaluation of transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities within the Danbury Branch study corridor as a component of the Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FTA AA/DEIS) prepared for the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT). This report is intended as a tool for municipalities to use as they move forward with their TOD efforts. The report identifies the range of TOD opportunities at station areas within the corridor that could result from improvements to the Danbury Branch. By also providing information regarding FTA guidelines and TOD best practices, this report serves as a reference and a guide for future TOD efforts in the Danbury Branch study corridor. Specifically, this report presents a definition of TOD and the elements of TOD that are relevant to the Danbury Branch. It also presents a summary of FTA Guidance regarding TOD and includes case studies of FTA-funded projects that have been rated with respect to their livability, land use, and economic development components. Additionally, the report examines commuter rail projects both in and out of Connecticut that are considered to have applications that may be relevant to the Danbury Branch.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Analyses Included Herein Present the Operating Revenues and Expenses Only for Those Properties Governed by the State Lease Agreements
    SSSeeewwwaaarrrddd aaannnddd Monde CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS RAIL GOVERNANCE STUDY Task 4.3 – Financial Review Connecticut Department of Transportation Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 1 - 3 OVERVIEW OF ALL STATIONS ............... ............... ......................... ............... 4 - 8 STATION COMPARISON ANALYSIS Five Year Totals ............... ............... ......................... ............... 9 Year end June 30, 1996 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 10 Year end June 30, 1997 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 11 Year end June 30, 1998 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 12 Year end June 30, 1999 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 13 Year end June 30, 2000 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 14 STATIONS - NEW HAVEN LINE Main Line New Haven Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 15 - 19 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 20 - 22 Milford Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 23 - 25 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 26 - 28 Stratford Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 29 - 31 Station and Parking
    [Show full text]
  • Norwalk Harbor Report Card Is Part of a Larger Effort to Assess Long Island Sound Health on an Annual Basis
    Norwalk Harbor C+ Report Card Following the water’s trail from your house, into the river, and to the Harbor The way land is used in a watershed has a Harmful practices Beneficial practices significant effect on water quality. In areas where there are more impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, streets, and roofs, water from storms and even light rain can flow quickly and directly into a storm drain system. This water flow, called runoff, transports a wide variety of pollutants (such as sediments, excess nutrients, bacteria, and toxic man-made chemicals) into nearby streams, rivers, and the Harbor. This type of pollution, often difficult to control, is called Nonpoint Source Pollution (NSP). NSP can cause the destruction of fish and macroinvertebrate habitats, promote the growth of excessive and unwanted algal blooms that Infrastructure Pollution Sources Inputs contribute to hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) Storm water pipe Oil Bacteria events in Long Island Sound, and introduce Sewer pipe Pet waste Nutrients dangerous chemicals into local waterways. These pollutants that run off the land threaten Storm drain Illegal hookup Toxicants the biological integrity of the Sound and the Rain garden Broken and leaking sewers recreational and commercial value of this important resource. In addition to the harmful Nonpoint source pollution can enter Norwalk Harbor from pet waste, illegal hookups, broken pipes, and car oil spills. When proper sewer and car effects on the overall Sound, negative impacts maintenance practices and rain gardens are used, pollution is prevented. can be seen locally in Norwalk River and Harbor. Your actions can help improve the Harbor! Compost yard waste, Be a considerate pet owner.
    [Show full text]