City of Pontiac's North Spur Trail Development Plan by Capsule

Michigan State University UP 494

DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PONTIACâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S NORTH SPUR TRAIL 2016

Table of Contents Project Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………… 3 Table of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Table of Maps………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………..6 Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………8 Client Information Purpose of the Project Overview of Project Boundaries History Chapter 2: Profile of North Spur Area and Trail System in Oakland County…………...12 Socio-Economic Profile Trail User Profile Chapter 3: Trail Assessment and Conditional Criteria……………………………………...26 Assessment Criteria Divided Layout of the Trail Current Conditions Chapter 4: Contemporary Practices……………………………………………………………43 The Auburn Hills Clinton River Trail Public Art on Trails Lego Bridge (Wuppertal, Germany) Chapter 5: Recommendations…………………………………………………………………..49 General Recommendations for Trail Development Recommendations by Trail Section Chapter 6: Financing a Trail Project…………………………………………………………...75 Cooperative Agreements Possible Funding Options Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………….79 References………………………………………………………………………………………….80 Appendices A………………………………………………………………………………………83 SWOT Analysis Appendices B……………………………………………………………………………………...84 Trail Design and Regulatory Standards Appendices C……………………………………………………………………………………...93 Trail User Safety Requirements Appendices D……………………………………………………………………………………… 95 Road Crossing/Access Appendices E……………………………………………………………………………………… 103 Community Impact, Liability, and Integration Appendices F……………………………………………………………………………………… 105 North Spur Landscape Vegetation Appendices G……………………………………………………………………………………... 112 User data for the Lansing River Trail and Pere Marquette Rail-Trail

Appendices H……………………………………………………………………………………. 119 Clinton River Trail History Appendices I…………………………………………………....………………………………...121 Additional Maps

Project Acknowledgements Practicum Team Andy Brown Ernie Hsieh Thomas Girdwood Haowen Yu Mu Ding We would like to thank to following individuals for their time, information, guidance and advice in the development of this report. We are very grateful for their help in bringing this project to fruition.

Jane Bais DiSessa, Deputy Mayor, City of Pontiac, Michigan Terrence King, Department of Public Work, City of Pontiac, Michigan John Balint, Department of Public Work, City of Pontiac, Michigan Kristen Wiltfang, Economic Development & Community Affairs, Oakland County, Michigan Dr. Zenia Kotval, Urban & Regional Planning Program, Michigan State University Dr. Rex LaMore, Urban & Regional Planning Program, Michigan State University Joel Jeffries, GIS Technician, Economic and Community Affairs, Oakland County, Michigan

Table of Figures

Table of Maps

Executive Summary

Urban and Regional Planning Practicum students at Michigan State University have compiled this report to assist with a development plan for the future North Spur of the Clinton River Trail, a recreational trail that will run through Pontiac, Michigan. The primary objectives of this report are to provide information on what must be done in order to transform the current right-of-way into a legal and functioning trail, give recommendations on what amenities and features could be added in order to give the trail its own unique identity, and to present information on possible funding opportunities. A recreational, non-motorized trail would be a very positive addition to the city of Pontiac. The path would give the city something to brand itself with, and since part of it would connect to the portion of the Clinton River Trail that runs through Auburn Hills, Rochester Hills, and Rochester, MI, it would provide opportunities for inhabitants of these nearby cities to visit Pontiac and experience itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comparatively denser urban center. This in turn would stimulate the economy with an inflow of new capital. In addition, the potential future trail would help to promote a healthier lifestyle in Pontiac, as the path would be a great place for Pontiac citizens to get outside and exercise. The major components of this report are as follows: 1. A socioeconomic profile with data on Pontiac, Oakland County, and the State of Michigan 2. A trail user profile with data on Clinton River Trail users as well as general Michigan trail users 3. An assessment criteria and current conditions section that describes fundamental trail regulatory standards as well as the current conditions of the trail right-of-way in Pontiac 4. A contemporary practices section that exhibits features and amenities from other trails located around the country and globe 5. Trail development guidelines that give information on what must be done in order to make the current right-of-way into a legal, enjoyable recreational trail for non-motorized use 6. An overview of funding alternatives for recreational trail projects with suggestions of options relevant to the North Spur In order to form a better understanding of the characteristics of people in and around the city of Pontiac, the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s demographics were analyzed. The City of Pontiac has decreased in population from 2000 to 2010, and the median age also went up during this 10 year period. Based on the study of Pontiacâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s age distribution, the population aged 60 to 64 has experienced the quickest increase rate among other age groups during that time span. The median household income in Pontiac has also decreased since 2000, however, many studies have shown that the trail could bring economic benefits to the community. The development of the North Spur of the Clinton River Trail may become the economic booster for the city of Pontiac.

The CRT user survey and the general Michigan trail user report were both looked at in order to get an idea of who will use Pontiacâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s trail, as well as how and for how long they will use it. Both the CRT user study and Michigan trail user study found that most trail users are above the age of 35, and that they spend between 30 minutes and two hours per visit on trails. Additionally, the Michigan trail user report asserted that whether they walk or drive (most people walk), most Michigan trail users live less than 15 minutes away from the trail they frequent. The CRT user survey found that Clinton River Trail users tend to use the trail to travel a distance of 10 miles or less, and that crushed limestone is the preferred surface material. The trail assessment and conditional criteria section defines trail terminology that is used as the basic criteria for developing recommendations to convert the current North Spur right-of-way into a future legal trail. Additionally, this chapter assesses the current conditions of the North Spur by trail section. Before each study section is described in the conditions section, a map showing the land uses in that section has been provided. The contemporary practices section gives examples of trail features and amenities from trails around the country, and even across the globe. This section of the report is divided into four parts: examples of trail features from the Auburn Hills portion of the Clinton River Trail, an example of handicap accessibility on trails, public art on trails, and an example of a bridge from a trail in Wuppertal, Germany. The trail development recommendation section focuses primarily on minor enhancements. Premium trail features and amenities are mentioned but are not the central focus. This section of the report is split into two parts: one on general recommendations, and another on recommendations by segment of the trail. The general recommendations puts forward features and amenities that apply to the development of the entire trail, such as trailhead amenity improvements, surface width and material, curb ramp and detectable warnings, signage, bridges and the areas on either side of them, vegetation, emergency access, and wheelchair accessibility. The recommendations by trail segment section focuses on recommendations specific to each trail segment. In order to fund projects like the North Spur, both public and private sources of financial support can be sought. Changes in land value of the project site as well as adjacent properties can make it an attractive investment for a large variety of organisations and agencies. Because the value added is shared by the community, there are opportunities for cooperation and partnership that can magnify the potential benefits and create additional community building leverage. Findings in this section include a listing of possible sources of financial assistance. It is hoped that this report will serve as a resource for future stakeholder involvement in the planning and construction of Pontiacâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s North Spur of the Clinton River Trail.

Chapter 1: Introduction In January of 2016, a consortium of personnel from the City of Pontiac, Michigan invited students enrolled in a practicum course at Michigan State University to assist in preliminary functions pursuant to the development of a plan that would provide for new recreational opportunities in the City of Pontiac. The plan would extend the Clinton River Trail to the west from Opdyke Road and stretch north toward Jaycee Park. Of the many students from MSU’s School of Planning Design and Construction who indicated an interest in the project, the five with the most enthusiasm for the proposed trail organized into a group and set to work. By accepting the invitation of the City of Pontiac, these five students committed themselves to their very first client. The recommendations contained in this document are the result of extensive research on trails, trail amenities, and potential trail funding opportunities. They represent many hours of hard work spent by aspiring planning professionals.

Client Information The client group for this project consisted of Jane Bais DiSessa, Terrence King, and John Balint.(City of Pontiac) Jane Bais DiSessa is the Deputy Mayor in Pontiac and has been serving

in her position since September 2015. Terrence King is the Director of Public Works for the City of Pontiac and John Balint is Pontiac’s City Engineer. All three are equally excited about the future development of a recreational trail in Pontiac, as they understand how beneficial it could be for the city.

Purpose of the Project The purpose of this project is to complete an assessment of the current North Spur right-of-way and to provide recommendations that will be helpful to the client as they begin to make progress in their development of the future trail. This study will produce an assessment of the right-of-way’s current conditions, recommendations for both essential and desirable trail amenities, as well as provide information on possible funding opportunities.

Overview of Project Boundaries This section clarifies the geographic location of the city of Pontiac within Oakland County, Michigan, as well as the North Spur trail in Pontiac. The city of Pontiac is located in southeast Michigan, and the Clinton River flows through the city towards the west to empty into Lake Huron. Highlighted in green in map 1 on the following page is Oakland County, the county in which the Clinton River Trail is located.

Map 1

The above image contains data representing road and municipal boundry shapes from http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/, and a segment of a 2010 rail shapefile from census.gov which was retrofitted to illistrate the North Spur Rail Trail as analyzed by MSUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Urban and Regional Planning Practicum Team.

History The Clinton River Trail is a rail-trail that extends 16 miles across Oakland County in southeastern Michigan, through suburban, urban, and rural portions of Detroit's northern suburbs. It goes through the cities of Rochester, Rochester Hills, Auburn Hills, Pontiac, and Sylvan Lake. The only unfinished portion of the Clinton River Trail is currently located within the city of Pontiac, and a 3-mile sidewalk that connects the gap in the trail has been the temporary fix. The City of Pontiac plans to use a right-of-way that was once part of the Grand Trunk railroad for a local recreational trail that will fill part of the gap in the Clinton River Trail. The development of a portion of the Grand Trunk railroad, now known as the North Spur trail, will be the focus of this project. The image below was adapted from an excerpt of the 2008 Oakland County Trails Master Plan to show the North Spur within the context of the Clinton River Trail. As shown in the image below, the portion of the North Spur between Opdyke Rd and M-59 is part of the envisioned CRT connection in Pontiac.

Map 2

History of the Grand Trunk Railroad The history of Pontiacâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s North Spur of the Clinton River Trail reaches as far back as the early 20th century when it became part of a route along the Grand Trunk Railroad Belt Line Extension (see appx). According to a hand out provided to the practicum team by MSU faculty, the Belt Line Extension, runs from

Square

Lake

Road

Bloomfield

Township north to meet the Detroit, Grand Haven, and Milwaukee Railway on the north side of Pontiac. This created a bypass loop for trains that would have otherwise become congested on the Detroit, Grand Haven, and Milwaukee Railways. The bypass loop alleviated the burden of heavy transportation demands of the automotive industry. The railroad closed in the late 20th century and has since been vacant.

History of Clinton River Trail As noted from the Friends of the Clinton River Trail website, Originally used by Native Americans as a route around the vast swamplands between Rochester and Detroit, this trail follows the Clinton River through most of its journey across Oakland County. The great Trunk Railroad, originally called the Michigan Air Line, laid down a rail bed along this route in 1879. When the railroad diverted this portion of the rail line in 1998, the Friends of the Clinton River Trail group formed and became the catalyst for acquiring this property for trail usage. This led to the formation of the Clinton River Trail alliance that pursued funding sources to purchase the property and developed the Clinton River Trail Master Plan to coordinate a seamless connection of the trail through the five member communities. Grant funding from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund and GreenWays initiative, as well as from the five individual cities made the land purchase possible, while funding from the Michigan Department of Transportation is assisting in the trailâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development. The ultimate goal of connecting this trail to a regional trail network is surely becoming a reality.

Chapter 2: Profile of North Spur Area and Trail System in Oakland County Socio-Economic Profile

In order to form a better understanding of the people and businesses around the Clinton River Trail and the proposed North Spur, the demographics of the area were analyzed. The data was collected from the 2000 and 2010 censuses of Pontiac, Oakland County, and the state of Michigan.

Population Figure 1: 2000 and 2010 Population Comparison Table

*Includes U.S. Census data from 2000-2010 As the table above indicates, the city of Pontiac, as well as the state of Michigan as a whole, has experienced a population loss from 2000 to 2010. The city of Pontiac lossed their population at the quickest rate, at over 10% during these 10 years. However, Michiganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population only decreased by 0.6%.

Age By studying the age distribution of the area, one can ascertain a better understanding of the targeted trail users as well as what amenities should be included on the trail.

Figure 2: Median Age - 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census

The 2000 Census data shows that the median age of the residents in Pontiac and Auburn Hills are similar. Oakland County and the state of Michigan as a whole have a relatively older median age. The 2010 Census shows the median age has increased for both the cities, county, and the state.

Age Distribution Figure 3: Age Distribution - 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census

The table above shows the change in age distribution in Pontiac between 2000 to 2010. In Pontiac, the population aged 60 to 64 has experienced the fastest increase rate among other age groups during those ten years. At the same time, Pontiac seems to have been losing their younger population. The population between 5 and 9 years old has decreased 29.4% from 2000 â&#x20AC;&#x2039;to 2010, the population between ages 10-14 has decreased 23.5%, and people aged 20-34 saw a decrease of 22.5%.

Race Figure 4: Racial Composition Comparison Table - 2010 U.S. Census

The population in Pontiac was predominantly African American in 2010 (52.1%); this percentage of African Americans is much higher compared to Oakland County, where African Americans only account for 13.6% of the total population. The predominant race in Oakland County and Michigan is White.

Median Household Income Figure 5: Median Household Income - U.S. Census 2000, 2010, 2014

Figure 6: Median Household Income by Municipality (bar graph)

The median household income in Oakland County, and Michigan have witnessed an overall increase from 2000 to 2014. However, median household income in Pontiac has decreased since 2000. The median household income in Pontiac was the lowest of all compared reference areas in 2000, 2010 and 2014.

Educational Attainment Figure 7: Educational Attainment by Municipality and Age

Featured in figure 7 are the education attainment estimates from the 2014 American Community Survey. Pontiac has a relatively lower educational attainment compared to Oakland County and the state of Michigan.

Housing Tenure Figure 8: Housing Tenure by Municipality

Figure 9: Housing Tenure by Municipality (bar graph)

The occupied housing is 82% in Pontiac, 91.7% in Oakland County, and 85.4% in the state of Michigan. Pontiac has a relatively lower occupied rate compared to Oakland County, and the state of Michigan.

Trail User Profile The purpose of this section is to take a look at the average Michigan trail user. In order to appropriately plan for the people and activities on the North Spur trail, it is important to know certain demographic and preference-related information about trail users. This section pulls data from a report titled Michigan Department of Community Health Building Healthy

Communities Final Report: Trails and Parks, as well as from an online survey conducted by an organization called The Friends of the Clinton River Trail (FCRT). General demographic information and survey results for Michigan trail users was taken from the trails and parks report, and the relevant FCRT survey questions and response percentages have also been included.

Data for Michigan Trail Users The information in this section was taken from a trails and parks report created by Michigan’s Department of Community Health (MCDH) and an organization called Building Healthy Communities (BHC). By relying on observational data, authors Julian Reed, Lisa Grost, and Karah Mantinan were able to produce the information found below. They used a system known as SOPARC (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities), which is a “validated direct observation tool for assessing park and recreational areas, including park users’ physical activity levels, gender, activity modes/types, and estimated age and ethnicity groupings” (Active Living Research). Daily direct observations were made on 17 of Michigan’s trails at 7:30 AM, 12:30 PM, 3:30 PM, and 6:00 PM between 2007 and 2009 (Reed, Grost, and Mantinan, 2010). Figure 10: Demographics of Michigan Trail Users

Gender

Age

Ethnicity

Frequency (N=7,125)

Percent

Male

3638

51%

Female

3487

49%

Child

896

12.6%

Teen

1089

15.3%

Adult

4192

59%

Senior

950

13.3%

White

6876

96.7%

Other

238

3.3%

As can be seen from the figure 10, male and female trail use is about the same. Additionally, adults use trails much more than children, teens, or seniors, with those three categories having roughly the same use percentages. Lastly, the vast majority of trail users are white. Figure 11: Frequency and Percent of Total Trail Users for Age by Gender Gender

Age

Child

Teen

Adult

Senior

Female

Male

393

497

5.5%

434

655

6.1%

9.2%

2201

1971

31%

27.8%

448

502

6.3%

7.1%

In order from the most amount of use to the least amount of use: ●

Female adults

●

Male adults

●

Male teenagers

●

Male seniors

●

Male children

●

Female seniors

●

Female teenagers

●

Female children

Figure 12: Frequency and Percent of Trail Users for Changes in Temperature

As can be seen from figure 12, the vast majority of people use trails when the temperature is between 61 and 80 degrees fahrenheit. Also, people tend to use trails more often in extreme heat compared to extreme cold. The following table was collected by using the responses from an interviewer-administered survey distributed to the users of the 17 Michigan trails between 2007 and 2009. The survey had 876 respondents, and the relevant most frequently cited responses and their corresponding percentages are included in the table below. Because the data in the tables above were collected from observational techniques, and the table below was collected from an intercept survey, the results may vary. *Denotes similar finding compared to direct observation results. Figure 13: MOST Frequently Cited Survey Responses and their Corresponding Percentages Survey Question

Most Frequently Cited Response

Frequency (of 100% for 2007-2009)

Identify the physical activity the respondent is doing:

*Walking

63%

Identify gender

Female

56%

Where are you usually coming from when you use this trail?

Home

86%

How much time does it usually take to get to this trail from your home?

Less than 15 minutes

73%

How much time does it usually take to get to this trail from your work?

Less than 15 minutes

55%

How do you usually get to this trail?

Walk

37%

What is your usual reason for using this trail?

Exercise or do recreational physical activity

89%

During the past 7 days (including today), how many days have you used this trail for the reason stated above (exercise or recreational physical activity)?

One

33%

What exactly do you usually do when you are on this trail for the reason stated above (exercise or recreational physical activity)?

*Walk

60%

How much time do you usually spend on the trail per visit when you use it for the reason stated above (exercise or recreational physical activity)?

Between 1 and 2 hours

29%

What is your age?

35+

75%

Are you Hispanic or Latino?

95%

What is your race?

*White

93%

What is the highest grade in school you have completed?

College graduate

30%

According to the survey results, most Michigan trail users use trails for walking, and a slight majority of these users are female. The observational data from figure 11 shows that adult females accounted for the highest percentage of trail users. Similarly, the table directly above (13) displays that both females and people above the age of 35 accounted for the most frequently cited responses in their categories. Table 13 also asserts that most users are coming from home when they use the trail, and it typically takes them less than 15 minutes to get from home to the trail. When the user is coming from work, it usually takes them less than 15 minutes as well. Regardless of where the trail user is coming from, however, the most frequently cited means of transportation to get to the trail was by foot. Once on the trail, most users cited exercise or recreational physical activity as their usual reason for using it, and most of them indicated that they had used the trail for that reason once in the past week (including the day 20

they were using it when they answered the survey). Also, walking was the most frequently cited form of exercise or physical recreational use, and most users spent between one and two hours doing that activity. Similar to the results found in figure 10, the intercept survey found that Caucasian people were the dominant trail users. Lastly, most trail users were college graduates. It should be noted that in 2010, the majority of Pontiac citizens were not White, and in 2014, only 11% of Pontiac citizens held a Bachelor's degree or higher .

The Clinton River Trail The Friends of the Clinton River Trail (FCRT) is an organization dedicated to “promote the Clinton River Trail as a safe and enjoyable recreational destination” (clintonrivertrail.org). In 2014,

members

the

organization

created

survey

using

website

called

SurveyMonkey.com, and received 352 respondents. The goal of the survey was to collect data related to the users of the CRT. The following charts were taken from the Friends of the Clinton River Trail’s survey. Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Featured below is a figure that summarizes the information from the bar graphs above. Figure 20:â&#x20AC;&#x2039; â&#x20AC;&#x2039;MOST Frequently Cited Survey Responses and their Corresponding Percentages Survey Question

Most Frequently Cited Response

Frequency

What is your age?

35-55

50%

How do you use the trail?

Biking

37%

When on the trail, how long do you typically use it?

30 minutes - an hour

51%

What distance do you typically travel per use?

10 miles or less

76%

How important is a consistent trail surface throughout the different sections of the trail to you?

Not important

44%

What type of trail surface do you prefer?

Crushed limestone

45%

More differences than similarities were found between the demographic/survey data for Michigan trail users and the survey data for the Clinton River Trail. Although both populations of users were typically of the adult age, trail use activity and amount of time spent on the trail per visit had differing results between the two surveys. Comparatively, the survey for general Michigan trail users found that most people enjoyed walking on trails, while the FCRT survey found that most users rode their bike. Additionally, general Michigan trail users typically use trails for between one and two hours per visit, while CRT users usually spend between 30 minutes and an hour on the trail.

Chapter 3: Trail Assessment and Conditional Criteria This chapter defines trail terminology that is used as the basic criteria for developing recommendations to convert the current North Spur right-of-way into a future legal trail. The trail has been divided into six sections for assessment purposes. Following a brief description of the technique used to divide the trail into study sections will be a map to show the six sections. Additionally, this chapter assesses the current conditions of the North Spur by trail section. Before each study section is described in the conditions section of this chapter, a map showing the land uses in that section has been provided.

Assessment Criteria The following criteria is a list of regulations that must be adhered to in order for the North Spur right-of-way to become a legal trail. These features are the minimum in terms of what a path must have to be considered a recreational trail. In our recommendations section, these as well as additional trail features will be discussed.

Trail Width: According to the Federal Highway Administration â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access (Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guidelines), 14.6 Shared Use Path Width; a shared use path should be at least 3.05 meters (10 feet) wide. The shared use path should also have graded areas at least 0.61 meters (2 feet) wide on both side of the path. (See appendix A page 68-69)

Trail Surfaces: Trail surfaces should meet general trail usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preferences and should also be accessible to potential users with disabilities. According to ADA guidelines and standards for outdoor developed areas, the surface of trails, passing spaces, and resting intervals must be firm and stable. A firm trail surface resists deformation and indentations, is not permanently affected by weather conditions, and can sustain normal wear and tear from the expected uses between planned maintenance intervals.

Bridges: There are a few components to bridge assessments on trails - bridge deck surfacing, railings, and the connection points to the trail. FHWA on Roadway Departure Strategic Planning, addresses on the provision of bridge railings: bridge railings are very important components of roadway safety systems and play an important role in preventing and mitigating crashes.

Emergency Access: In the case of an emergency, trails should be accessible to emergency vehicles. On shared-use paths where there is the potential for emergency or maintenance vehicles to gain access to areas, it may be necessary to increase the vertical clearance. In addition, when an underpass such as a tunnel is used, 3.05 m (10 ft) of vertical clearance is recommended (Federal Highway Authority – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access 2/2).

On Trail Signage: The FHWA Recreation Trail Program addressed the demand of on trail signage at the preliminary level of trail maintenance within the C onflicts of the Multiple-Use Trails:

Trail maintenance programs should address, at a minimum, the following: signs and markings, sight distance and clearance, surface repair, drainage, sweeping and clearing, structural deterioration, and illumination (Conflicts, Page 28).

Divided Layout of the Trail To provide the necessary detail required by the scope of this study, the segments of proposed trail between each road that intersect what was previously a rail line were analyzed individually. To do this, the MSU practicum team utilized a Geographic Information System (GIS) application produced by ESRI called ArcMap. With the tools supplied by Arcmap, polygons were drawn to represent each study area. In the subsequent sections of this chapter, discrete recommendations are given for each of these areas. On the following page is a map containing data representing road and municipal boundry shapes from gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/, and a segment of a 2010 rail shapefile from census.gov which was retrofitted to illistrate the right-of-way of Pontiac’s future North Spur Trail. Each of the colored polygons on the map represents a study section.

Map 3

Current Conditions As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, each study section described in this section will be preceded by a map showing the land uses found along each segment of the trail. Theses maps are composed of a base layer land use map from Oakland Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Economic Development & Community Affairs website, a roads layer from the Michigan GIS Open Data Portal, and lot lines provided by the Oakland County Department of Information Technology. The same 2010 rail shapefile from census.gov from the map on the previous page was used to illistrate the right-of-way of Pontiacâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future North Spur Trail. Conducting a physical condition assessment was an essential part of this study. Following the completion of this assessment, the practicum team was able to develop recommendations. Key elements of the assessment allowed our recommendations to address variations in trail width along the right-of-way, trail accessibility improvements, trail and bridge safety improvements, and vegetation cover. This assessment required many hours to be spent investigating and documenting the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current state. Although laborsome, it was an exploration of possibilities and yielded many beneficial findings.

Map 4

Section 1 The first segment of the Clinton River Trail starts at Joslyn Avenue and ends a North Perry Street. Jaycee Park, a recreational area with multiple facilities, is adjacent to Joslyn Avenue. There is no entrance to the trail from the road, and Joslyn lacks sidewalks or pedestrian friendly amenities. The trail material is mainly a mix of mud and cracked rocks, and in the condition of rain or snow melt, it would become very difficult to walk or bike on. In this section of the trail, most of the adjacent land is roughly 10 feet above the path, and one section is in between two ponds. For these reasons, drainage may be an issue. Prominent land uses adjacent to Section 1: Industrial, Public/ Institutional, Mobile Home Park Single Family, Multiple Family.

Map 5

Section 2 The second segmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s northern extent is North Perry Street, and its southern extent is Univeristy Drive. In this segment, Galloway Lake park - a potential trailhead - serves as a multi-purpose park with recreational areas, a playground, a picnic area, and a fishing area. The trail surface in this segment consists rocks and mud, and there is no shoulder available. Vegetation on both sides of the trail seems to be in lack of maintenance, and as shown in the picture below, there are powerline electric cables that run on either side of the trail. Prominent land uses adjacent to Section 2: Recreation/Conservation, Single Family, Multiple Family.

The narrowest part of this section is about 5 feet, but towards the southern end, the trail width opens up to about 20 feet. There are also residential neighborhoods located along this section of the trail.

Map 6

Section 3 The third segmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s northern extent is University Drive and its southern extent is Featherstone Road.

The trail in this section goes under a bridge, and the elevation is lower than the adjacent residential properties. The trail and the residential area is separated by fences and trees, and the trail is spacious with less side vegetation compared to other sections. Similar to section 2, there are powerline electric cables that run on either side of the trail. There appears to be an abandoned open space area on the west side of of the trail (between the trail and Emerson Rd), that used to be part of the Silverdome parking lot. Prominent land uses adjacent to Section 3: Multiple Family, Single Family, Public/Institutional

Map 7

Section 4 The fourth trail segmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s northern extent is Featherstone Road and its southern extent is M59. This segment of the trail is adjacent to the Silverdome property, which was once the home of the Detroit Lions. However, the city sold the property in 2009 and it has since been in disrepair. The trail surface is made up of crushed rocks and there are two bridges in this section. As can be seen from the picture on the left, the entire surface of the bridge is covered with loose rock. This could pose as a safety threat to the cars below that travel along M59.

The picture above shows the Silverdome, which is currently vacant and will be redeveloped in the future. The road behind the Silverdome served as a service road for operation vehicles but is now blocked by an iron fence. Prominent land uses adjacent to Section 4: Public/Institutional, Commercial/Office

Map 8

Section 5 The fifth segmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s northern extent is M59 and its southern extent is Auburn Road. The first bridge in this section has a soft wooden surface, and it goes over the Clinton River. The bridge seems to be in need of repair. The surface in this section is mainly comprised of dirt with crushed rocks, and powerlines are also located on either side of the trail. A section of unused rail can be seen along this part of the trail. (The North Spur of the Clinton River Trail was part of a route along the Grand Trunk Railroad Belt Line Extension).

Prominent land uses adjacent to Section 5: Industrial, Single Family, Public/Institutional

Map 9

Section 6 The sixth segmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s northern extent is Auburn Road and its southern extent is South Opdyke Road. This section of the trail contains a recreational area adjacent to Murphy Park. There are small paths in the area leading to Murphy Park, which could provide potential future access points to the trail. The trail also runs atop a stone bridge which appears to be in poor condition.

The southern end of this section has a small entrance on South Opdyke Road. On the opposite side of South Opdyke Road is the existing trailhead of the Clinton River Trail. Prominent land uses adjacent to Section 6: Vacant, Commercial/Office, Multiple Family

Chapter 4: Contemporary Practices The following examples are a sampling of trail amenities/features from other recreational trailways as well as general features that could be included on a trail to set it apart from others. These examples were chosen because the idea could increase trail identity, or because they possess similarities with Pontiac’s future trail. It is hoped that this section of the report will help the future developers of Pontiac’s trail by providing them with real world examples.

The Auburn Hills Clinton River Trail Because sections five and six of Pontiac’s North Spur Trail will be in compliance with the CRT Master Plan, and will therefore have the same look and feel as the CRT, this portion of the report on the current Clinton River Trail has been included. Since section six of Pontiac’s future trail connects to the Auburn Hills part of the CRT, images from that portion are included in the following. The Auburn Hills portion of the CRT passes through three roads, spanning a total of 2.2 miles. Figure 20 displays the trailheads/access points as well as the amenities found at them along the Auburn Hills sections of the CRT. An X denotes that the point of interest has that amenity, and a box left blank denotes that the point does not have the amenity. Figure 21: Points of Interest and Amenities along the Auburn Hills Portion of the CRT Parking

Restroom

Water

Food and Snacks

Auburn Hills Civic Center

River Woods Park

Auburn Hills Skate Park

Downtown Auburn Hills

Riverside

X X

X 43

Additional Trail Access

Park Opdyke Road Trailhead

Source: clintonrivertrail.org/maps

Trail Surface Material The surface material used throughout the Auburn Hills section of the Clinton River Trail is recycled asphalt. This material allows the trail to be easily accessible to walkers, bikers, inline skaters, and people in wheelchairs. It should be noted that recycled asphalt is not used throughout the entirety of the Clinton River Trail.

The pictures above were taken at the Opdyke Road Trailhead of the Auburn Hills CRT.

Bridges The bridges that go over roads on the CRT have high railings on either side. These railings prevent anyone from falling off the bridge, and also prohibit anyone on the bridge from throwing anything at the passing cars below. The surface material of the bridge is concrete.

The bridge above stretches over I-75.

Signage

In addition to the mandatory signage for a path to be a legal trail (see appendix A page 101-104), the Auburn Hills section of the CRT also has a list of trail rules and etiquette: ●

Open daily 7:00 a.m. to dusk

●

Hunting, trapping, and weapons are prohibited

●

Alcohol is prohibited

●

Motorized vehicles are prohibited

●

Stay on designated trail

●

Signal to others when passing

●

Keep right and pass on left

●

Pets must be on a leash

●

Keep the trail clean

●

Clean up after your pet

●

Bikers yield to walkers and handicapped persons

●

Walkers yield to handicapped persons 45

The pictures above were taken at the Opdyke Road Trailhead of the Auburn Hills CRT.

Opdyke Road Trailhead Opdyke road is the road that crosses the point where the Clinton River Trail and Pontiac’s future trail intersect. The trailhead on the Auburn Hills side of the road has parking access. In the future, this trailhead could be used as an access point for both trails on either side of the road.

Public Art on Trails

The picture in the upper left was taken at the B-Line Trail in Bloomington, Indiana, and the trail in the upper right was taken at the Little Miami Scenic Trail North in Xenia, Ohio. Both of these trails have excellent public art, and these features help draw in countless amounts of trail users. In fact, public art can be a very positive force for recreational trails, according to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. “Public art can help elevate a rail-trail from practical infrastructure to a space cherished by the community. Art establishes the trail as a community asset and encourages public engagement and stewardship” (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy). Additionally,

public art on a trail increases trail identity, community identity, and creates opportunities for participatory arts and events. A trail’s identity can simply be increased with artistic ramps, railings, or sculptures, and an entire community’s identity can be increased with historical sculptures or murals relating to the area’s past (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy). Section five of Pontiac’s future trail still has intact rails from when the path used to be a railroad, and these rail tracks have potential to be some sort of historical public art in the future. Lastly, recreational trails make great venues for artistic events. “These gatherings help form partnerships among art, conservation, and community groups, and they introduce new visitors to the rail-trail. Artistic events can also cultivate a common vision and inspire change” (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy).

Lego Bridge (Wuppertal, Germany)

The Lego bridge in Wuppertal, Germany is a playful attempt at city revitalization. As part of the city’s shared use rail to trail redevelopment project, the 250 square feet plain, dull concrete underneath the bridge was painted to resemble lego bricks. The point of this example is to demonstrate that something as simple as a new paint job can go a long way in terms of making something on a trail more memorable, therefore making the entire trail more unique (Jobson, 2012).

Chapter 5: Recommendations

The following section is organized into two parts: the first part is organized into objectives that make recommendations that can be applied throughout the entire trail, and the second part is split by trail section and recommendations are made in regards to the specific trail section. Development guidelines for each section are based on current conditions and trail regulations/guidelines were developed by the following sources: ●

AASHTO Bike Guide

●

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Transportation Facilities (2006)

●

MUTDC Chapter 9 - Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities

●

Clinton River Trail Look and Feel Guidelines

For a more comprehensive representation of trail regulations and guidelines, please refer to Appendix B.

General Recommendations for Trail Development: The following is a list of trail features that will need to be applied/installed throughout the trail.

Trailhead Amenity Improvements Since the trailheads are expected to serve as the largest access points for the North Spur Trail, the current amenities at them should be updated to create further trail/park visiting incentives. ●

Repainting lines for parking spaces

●

Updating the existing park amenities (benches, drinking fountains, sports facilities, etc.)

●

Installing appropriate signage and information kiosks

Since the three major access points (Jaycee Park - Section 1, Galloway Park - Section 2, and the Opdyke Road Trailhead - Section 6) all fall in different sections of the future trail, more specific recommendations will be made regarding each of them in the latter portion of this recommendations section.

Trail Surface Width and Material ●

The standardized trail width should be 10 feet throughout the entire trail

●

The shoulder on either side of the 10 foot wide trail should be between 18 and 24 inches

●

This team has determined that there are three surface materials that would be viable options for Pontiac’s future trail:

Figure 22 Preference

Material

Concrete

Pros

Cons

●

Higher Life Expectancy

●

More expensive

●

Durable

●

Not a good surface for runners

●

Construction carries potential

Holds up well against extreme weather conditions

Asphalt

●

Crushed Limestone

Cheaper

●

● ●

Ideal for cyclists

threat to environment

Medium life expectancy

Cheapest among 3 suggested materials High porosity

●

Stones must be crushed and compacted properly

●

Difficult to maintain

Curb Ramp and Detectable Warning The installation of curb ramps (ramps that connect the surface below the curb to the surface above the curb) and detectable warnings (an array of bumps on a curb ramp that let visually impaired persons know they are about to cross a road or enter an area where cars are present) will enhance the user's safety regardless of their mobility or travel mode ●

Curb ramps should be installed at every trailhead where they make sense (see Appendix D pg. 98).

●

Detectable warning installations should be implemented at crossings and within the adjoined parks if the trail connects with an area with automobile traffic (See Appendix D pg. 100).

Signage ●

Signage addressing that users should keep right on the trail should be present at trailheads and access points.

●

Signs warning users that a bridge is approaching should be placed 107 feet (stopping sight distance - see Appendix C pg. 93) away from either side of the bridge.

●

Areas of the trail where there are steep downward slopes on either side of the path should be marked with signage that addresses the issue.

Bridges and the Areas on Either Side of Them ●

The trail should be widened at points where it connects to a bridge. This will ease any potential congestion at these points.

●

In the areas on either side of a bridge, a different surface material (typically concrete to match the surface of the bridge) should be installed. Using a different trail surface at these points signals the user that a change in the trail is approaching.

●

Signs warning users that a bridge is approaching should be placed 107 feet (stopping sight distance - see Appendix C pg. 93) away from either side of the bridge.

●

Railing installation on both sides of a bridge is mandatory. If the bridge spans over a road, the railings should be approximately ten feet high to prohibit trail users from throwing anything at the passing cars below.

●

There should be signs at each end of the bridge that warn users that the surface may be icy.

Vegetation The function of planned vegetation on the trail can be categorized into f our priority types. 1)

Psychology - Vegetation separates the trail from adjacent land uses, creates a natural buffer between the trail users and other human activities along the trail, and ensures the privacy of residents near the trail.

2) Environment - Vegetation stabilizes the soil, lowers the risk of flood, and provides possible inhabitants for wildlife.

3) Human Scale - Vegetation draws the boundary of the trail and creates a sense of

right-of-way for the trail users. It also lowers the risk of users trespassing on private properties and encourages them to use constructed entrances (trailheads and access points).

4) Aesthetics - Vegetation enhances the natural beauty of the trail, and also hides any

aesthetically unpleasant objects along the trail (power lines, abandoned industrial sites, etc.). Vegetation also provides design standards for any further development in the future.

Vegetation selection should also take the following three key attributes into account: 1)

Source - Vegetation on the trail should be a species from the region that the trail is in. This lowers the risk of ecological invasion, which occurs when plants reproduce very rapidly.

2) Control - Numbers, sizes, and possible outcomes of the plants should be controlled. Vegetation along the trail should not reach a height to where it could interfere with powerlines. 3) Function - Vegetation along the trail should be able to grow and function in the

predicted weather conditions of the area. Snowstorms, very low temperatures, and heavy precipitation are all elements of concern when it comes to vegetation selection.

The vegetation landscape design should be consistent with the Clinton River Trail. The picture below on the left displays the vegetation layout on the Clinton River Trail, and the picture below on the right shows Pontiac’s future trail, and how vegetation could be laid out in a similar way. ●

Red section: the trail surface

●

Yellow section: the trail shoulder

●

Green section: an area of grass

●

Purple section: Medium sized vegetation

For the trail sections that the trail is higher than the adjacent ground, the same layout can apply.

For more information regarding vegetation, refer to Appendix F.

Emergency Access ●

The entrance to a trail on a trailhead should be emergency vehicle accessible.

●

All points on the trail should have enough vertical clearance for an emergency vehicle to pass. (Refer to Appendix B, pg. 89).

Wheelchair Accessibility An accessible trail should meet these minimum technical provisions: ●

Paving the trail is not required, however, the surface material should be firm and stable.

●

The trail should be accessible from trailheads - where necessary, there should be curb ramps connected to the trail at these points.

●

Cross slope: 5% maximum (for information on cross slope, refer to Appendix B, page 89-90).

●

Running slope should meet one or more of the following (for information on running slope, refer to Appendix B, page 90): ○

5% incline or less for any distance

○

Up to 8.33% incline for 200 feet maximum. Resting intervals (relatively level areas that provide an opportunity for people to stop and catch their breath) should be no more than 200 feet apart.

○

Up to 10% incline for 30 feet maximum. Resting intervals should be no more than 30 feet apart.

○

Up to 12.5% incline for 10 feet maximum. Resting intervals should be no more than 10 feet apart.

●

No more than 30% of the total trail length may exceed a running slope of 8.33% incline.

●

Signage: should be provided indicating the length of the wheelchair accessible trail segment.

Recommendations by Trail Section This section includes specific problems and corresponding recommendations for each section of the trail. At the beginning of each set of trail section recommendations, there is a map. On these maps are different numbers paired with either circles or points of different colors. The numbers indicate certain specific recommendations, which can be found in the trail segment’s section below the map. The points and circles paired with these numbers simply point out on the map where these recommendations are being made, and the colors of the dots or circles mean the following: ●

Green - Signage

●

Blue - Bridges and the features/amenities associated with them

●

Pink - Potential access points

●

Orange - Road crossing

In order to keep recommendations of the same type grouped together, the points on the maps may be discussed out of numerical order in the following section.

Jaycee Park Trailhead Jaycee Park currently provides baseball fields, outdoor picnic areas, and parking as a community recreational park. The services provided by this park could be extended to trail users in the future.

Map 10: Jaycee Park Recommendations

Recommendations for Jaycee Park Trailhead ●

Construct a path that connects the North Spur Trail and the park.

●

Signs and information kiosks that guide people to the trail should be installed throughout the park.

● ● ●

A sign directly adjacent to the road connected to the park should be installed to let passing motorists know that the park is a trailhead ( Point 1 on Map 10). Bike racks could be installed in the park.

The continuous maintenance of the park’s amenities (baseball fields, picnic tables, etc.) is necessary in order to continually draw in park and trail users.

● ●

Trail rules and etiquette signs should be installed where the park connects to the trail (Circle 2 on Map 10).

Signs telling users to keep right on the trail should be installed where the park meets the trail (Circle 2 on Map 10).

By addressing trail rules and etiquette at every trailhead, the threat of potential conflict on the trail can be reduced. ●

Provide trail rule and etiquette signs.

●

Additional illustrations for wheelchair users can be included on the North Spur trail rules and etiquette signs.

●

Trail rules and etiquette can also be addressed on information kiosks and the trail website to prevent conflict.

●

Trail rules should be but are not limited to the following: ○

Hunting, trapping, and weapons are prohibited

○

Motorized vehicles are prohibited

○

Stay on designated trail

○

Signal to others when passing

○

Keep right and pass on left

○

Pets should be on a leash

○

Keep the trail clean

○

Clean up after your pet

○

Bikers yield to walkers and handicapped persons

○

Walkers yield to handicapped persons

Alcohol is prohibited

Section 1: Map 11: Section 1 Recommendations

Signage ● ● ●

There is one curved area in section one. A sign displaying that the trail is about to curve should be placed immediately before this area (Point 5 on Map 11).

Signs warning users that there is a steep slope on either side of the trail should be installed (Point 4 on Map 11).

Signs indicating where and how far away Jaycee Park is should be installed on the trail.

Drainage As a connection to Jaycee Park, the trail surface could potentially become covered by water from heavy rains, as well as decomposition due to its elevation.

Map 12

●

To enhance the drainage performance of the section, adjustment to the cross slope of the trail should be examined with the city engineers (from the trail surface adjacent to

Jaycee Park to the trail surface adjacent to the lot lines on the west side of Walton Charter Academy).

Utilizing the Space Underneath a Bridge The area is located beneath Joslyn Avenue and roughly 250 meters away from Jaycee Park (Circle 3 on Map 11). ●

Benches and lockers could be installed for trail users.

●

An emergency phone/call station could be installed under this bridge.

Section 2: Map 13: Section 2 Recommendations

Galloway Park Trailhead

Galloway Park possesses great potential for being a fantastic outdoor open space along Pontiac’s future trail. The large parking lot, bathrooms, playground area, and the multitude of sports recreational facilities could accommodate trail users of all ages. The existing community center also has potential to be a great resource to the trail and park in the future. ●

The renewal of the following amenities would be necessary in order to revive Galloway Park:

● ●

○

Basketball court, soccer field, and tennis courts

○

Lavatory

○

Repainting of parking lot lines

○

Playground area

A complete, accessible path should connect the park to the North Spur Trail. Signs should also be placed in the park to guide users to the trail (Circle 8 on Map 13).

Enhance the park’s accessibility by creating curb ramps where they are necessary to allow wheelchair users to enjoy the area’s amenities.

●

A sign directly adjacent to the road connected to the park should be installed to let passing motorists know that the park is a trailhead.

●

Trail etiquette signs should be installed at the point where the park connects to the trail (Circle 8 on Map 13).

The park and trail development will hopefully excite the residents and local stakeholders to support the following recommendations to further enhance the park. ● ●

Rebuild the community center, utilizing architectural design to emphasize the park identity and attract visitors from other cities. (already sold)

Utilize the community center to hold art, conservation, or community events (refer to the public art section in the contemporary practices part of this document, pg. 47 and 48).

●

Install lockers and bike racks in the park.

Bridge Over North Perry Street ● ●

Circle 7 on Map 13

The trail should be widened at points where it connects to the bridge. This will ease any potential congestion at these points.

●

In the areas on either side of the bridge, a different surface material (typically concrete to match the surface of the bridge) should be installed. Using a different trail surface at these points signals the user that a change in the trail is approaching.

●

Signs warning users that the bridge is approaching should be placed 107 feet (stopping sight distance - see Appendix C pg. 93) away from either side of the bridge.

●

Since the bridge spans over a road, railings that are approximately ten feet high should be installed to prohibit trail users from throwing anything at the passing cars below.

●

There should be signs on either end of the bridge that warn users that the surface may be icy.

Signage 62

●

Informational kiosks should be installed in Galloway Park.

●

Directional signs that guide trail users to Galloway Park should be installed in this section of the trail.

● ●

Signage addressing that users should keep right on the trail should be present where Galloway Park connects to the trail ( Circle 8 on Map 13).

Signs warning users that a bridge is approaching should be placed 107 feet (stopping sight distance - see Appendix C pg. 93) away from either side of the bridge over North

●

Perry Street (Circle 7 on Map 13).

Trail rules and etiquette signs ( Circle 8 on Map 13).

Drainage

To enhance the area’s drainage, the trails cross slope should be examined by city engineers. The section of trail between where Baltimore Street would intersect the trail and University Drive should also be examined due to the lands downward slope. Map 14

Access Points 63

Access points on the trail are areas where a user could access the trail, however, where there is no opportunity for parking a car. The following places could be potential access points to the trail: ● ●

The path from Madison Avenue to the trail ( Circle 9 on Map 13).

The path from Baltimore Street to the trail (Circle 10 on Map 13).

Section 3: Map 15: Section 3 Recommendations

Utilizing the Space Underneath a Bridge The areas located beneath the University Drive and Featherstone Road bridges could house emergency phone/call stations (â&#x20AC;&#x2039; Circles 11 and 14 on Map 15)â&#x20AC;&#x2039;. 65

Vegetation ●

Because the landscape in this section is sloping downward, specific plants that absorb more water through their roots could be considered. Plants with deep rooting systems can bind soils on slopes.

Drainage To enhance the drainage of the area, the cross slope in this section of the trail should be examined by the city engineers. Map 16

Access Points ● ● ●

A path from Hotchkiss Street to the trail ( Circle 12 on Map 15).

A path from Harrington Elementary School to the trail (Circle 13 on Map 15).

The sidewalk on Featherstone Road could connect to the trail (Circle 14 on Map 15).

Section 4: Map 17: Section 4 Recommendations

Access Points ●

With this section next to the Silverdome, the location and number of access points are dependent on the future redevelopment of the site.

Bridge Over M-59 ● ●

Circle 17 on Map 17).

The trail should be widened at points where it connects to the bridge. This will ease any potential congestion at these points.

●

Signs warning users that a bridge is approaching should be placed 107 feet (stopping sight distance - see Appendix C pg. 93) away from either side of the bridge.

●

Railing installation on both sides of the bridge is mandatory. Since the bridge spans over a road, the railings should be approximately ten feet high to prohibit trail users from throwing anything at the passing cars below.

●

There should be signs on either end of the bridge that warn users that the surface may be icy.

●

Crushed stones on the bridge may cause a safety issue to the cars that travel along M-59. These stones need to be removed.

●

Concrete pavement is a suggested bridge surface.

Signage ● ●

Steep slope warning signs should be installed before the M-59 bridge ( Point 16 on Map 17).

Signs that explain the history of the Silverdome could also be included in this section (Point 15 on Map 17).

The Area Adjacent to the Silverdome Benches created from the spectator seats found inside the Silverdome could be implemented in this section. These benches would help give the trail an identity, as well as serve a functional purpose.

Drainage Due to the section’s natural landscape, the correct engineering of cross slope should satisfy the drainage demand.

Map 18

Section 5: Map 19: Section 5 Recommendations

Bridge Over The Clinton River ● ●

Circle 18 on Map 19.

The trail should be widened at points where it connects to the bridge. This will ease any potential congestion at these points.

●

In the areas on either side of the bridge, a different surface material should be installed. Using a different trail surface at these points signals the user that a change in the trail is approaching.

●

Signs warning users that a bridge is approaching should be placed 107 feet (stopping sight distance - see Appendix C pg. 93) away from either side of the bridge.

●

Railing installation on both sides of a bridge is mandatory.

●

There should be signs on either end of the bridge that warn users that the surface may be icy.

●

The bridge will need to be updated for safety reasons - either the current materials will need to be reinforced, or the bridge will need to be rebuilt.

●

Structure renewal - it is suggested that the architectural style is kept due to its character and relation to the trail’s history.

Bridge Over Auburn Avenue ● ●

Circle 20 on Map 19.

The trail should be widened at points where it connects to the bridge. This will ease any potential congestion at these points.

●

Signs warning users that a bridge is approaching should be placed 107 feet (stopping sight distance - see Appendix C pg. 93) away from either side of the bridge.

●

Railing installation on both sides of a bridge is mandatory. Since the bridge spans over a road, the railings should be approximately ten feet high to prohibit trail users from throwing anything at the passing cars below.

●

There should be signs on either end of the bridge that warn users that the surface may be icy.

Signage ●

Due to the elevation, the steep slopes on either side of the trail could be a potential threat to trail users. Warning signs that extend outward from shoulders of the trail

●

should be installed (Point 19 on Map 19).

The look and style of signs in this section of the trail should be consistent with the CRT.

Drainage Due to the sectionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s natural landscape, the correct engineering of cross slope should satisfy the drainage demand. Map 20

Section 6: Map 21: Section 6 Recommendations

Bridge ●

Circle 21 on Map 21

●

The trail should be widened at points where it connects to the bridge. This will ease any potential congestion at these points.

●

Signs warning users that a bridge is approaching should be placed 107 feet (stopping sight distance - see Appendix C pg. 93) away from either side of the bridge.

●

There should be signs on either end of the bridge that warn users that the surface may be icy.

●

The bridge is in poor condition, and maintenance is needed.

●

Since sections of railing is missing on the bridge, either those sections should be filled in, or an entirely new railing should be installed.

Signage ● ● ● ●

There is a sharp curve in section 6, so warning signs should be posted to alert cyclists (Point 22 on Map 21).

Stop signs should be erected within the stopping sight distance before approaching the trailhead at Opdyke Road ( Point 23 on Map 21).

The look and style of signs in this section of the trail should be consistent with the CRT. The trail rules and etiquette at the Opdyke Road trailhead at the end of section 6 should apply to sections 5 and 6 of the North Spur Trail.

Drainage Due to the section’s natural landscape, the correct engineering of cross slope should satisfy the drainage demand.

Crosswalk ● ● ● ● ●

●

Circle 24 on Map 21.

A crosswalk should be installed to connect the west end of the Clinton River Trail on S Opdyke Road to Pontiac’s future trail. The creation of a refuge island would enhance both the trail and motorway user’s safety (see Appendix D pg. 96). Refuge island size, crossing time, and signal phases should be examined by a city engineer. Pedestrian signal upgrades with features like verbal countdown timers and push buttons would further enhance the user’s safety at the crosswalk (see Appendix D pg. 96-98). Curb ramps and detectable warnings should be installed at the crossing.

Map 22

Chapter 6: Financing a Trail Project Property used for transportation is a matter of public interest. Because not every citizen can be directly involved in public works projects, they are aâ&#x20AC;&#x2039;dministered by a government entity. At the

local level, various ordinances and resolutions are agreed upon by City Councils that represent the public. Funding administration a â&#x20AC;&#x2039; t the municipal and county level commonly includes a line item in a consolidated capital improvement program or an allotment from a department (The Trail-Building Toolbox).

Site Property Value Other ways municipalities can obtain funds include taxes and bonds. Property taxes are calculated based on property value and bonds are issued on a case by case basis. If property values increase as a result of a public works project like a rail-trail, increases in property taxes may follow. In order for a bond issue to be able to fund a project, a predetermined target may be set after which the project could begin. Carefully deliberated decisions about public finances can make these types of monies go a long way. Property value assessment and bond issues can be complex tasks but a funded project would provide a satisfying reward for the effort put forward.

Wetland Protection and Reclamation It can be difficult to put a monetary value on a wetland remaining a wetland or a previously compromised wetland reemerging as a functional , however, there are foundations and federal agencies that can help put this type of value into perspective. Although the true value in wetland preservation is environmental, when determining how to fund a project that will have a positive impact on protecting a wetland, grant funding should not be overlooked. To be eligible for wetland protection funding, environmental studies determining the extent of a project's impact to a wetland are performed by licensed professionals.

Cooperative Agreements Forming partnerships with organizations can help municipalities manage the complexities of oversight. In Pontiac, The Friends of the Clinton River Trail, an all-volunteer, non-profit citizen group has already been making great strides to make progress on trails within Oakland County. They will be a key resource for the City of Pontiac as a portion of the North Spur is 76

planned to be a link along the CRT. When cooperative agreements are made with a community organization, it can be much easier to get the public involved. According to the Rails-to Trails Conservancy, “Partnering with a trail management agency generally also means

communicating directly with a single partner instead of hundreds of property owners along the line” (Trail-Building Toolbox).

Utility Synergy For trails with utilities that run with them, cooperation with a utility company can be extremely beneficial. Agreements could be in the form of leases, licences or easements. Which type of agreement to choose is determined by negotiation, but some situations may be more appropriate than others. For more information about when to use a lease, licence, or easement, the MSU Practicum team recommends reading an article entitled “When to use a lease, licence, or easement” that can be found on the University of California’s website. For trail projects, although selling land to a utility company may sometimes be an option, decision makers should keep in mind that there could be issues with trail access if a utility company owns the trail property.

Municipal Collaboration For the City of Pontiac, a strong partnership with Oakland County could be the gateway to a successful financing strategy. Oakland County administers several programs that The North Spur may be eligible for. Oakland County’s Department of Economic Development & Community Affairs guides a Trail, Water & Land Alliance. They also administer an Environmental Stewardship Program, and a Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), and a Brownfield Initiative.

Outside-the-Box Funding In addition to the more traditional sources of trail funding, partnerships with local businesses could lead to a more sustainable economic future for the North Spur. Increases in bike and pedestrian traffic could draw the interest of bicycle manufacturers or running shoe stores. Whatever the strategy, the end goal is always to bring the joys of recreational opportunity to the public and provide access to those who will benefit most.

Possible Funding Options Jon Harrison, head of the Social Sciences Unit at the Michigan State library, has compiled an excellent collection of information for funding seekers in the State of Michigan and made it

available on the library website. In the next page is a truncated listing of options most relevant to a project like the North Spur with contact information added by the practicum team.

Michigan Department of Transportation Grant Programs http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9621_17216---,00.html Contact: Vince Ranger at 248-483-5130 or rangerv@michigan.gov Transportation Alternatives Program http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9621_17216_18231---, 00.html These programs fund enhancement activities that improve Michigan's intermodal transportation network and the quality of life in Michigan. Contact: (same as above) â&#x20AC;&#x2039;Vince Ranger at 248-483-5130 or rangerv@michigan.gov

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Brownfield Grants and Loans http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3311_4110_29262---,00. html Deadline: Continuous. There are no application deadlines. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is offering $30 million dollars in grants and loans for environmental assessments and cleanups at properties with known or suspected contamination. Funds are targeted to projects that promote economic development and reuse of brownfield properties. Contact the MDEQ Brownfield Redevelopment Program at 517.373.9540 or the specific Grant and Loan Coordinators. Contact: Bruce Moore at 517-373-6413 or Moorebc@michigan.gov Clean Water Revolving Fund http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307_3515_4143---,00.h tml Michigan's Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, better known as the State Revolving Fund (SRF), is a low interest loan financing program that assists qualified local municipalities with the construction of needed water pollution control facilities. Contact: Sonya Butler at 517-284-5401 or butlers2@michigan.gov Grants and Loans http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307_3515---,00.html The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is committed to forming partnerships with interested groups and local community organizations to

achieve the mutual goal of protecting and enhancing environmental quality in Michigan, for the benefit of current and future generations. Financial assistance and information about the various funding opportunities are available through grants and loan programs. Contact: Jason Berndt at 517-241-4796 or berndtj1@michigan.gov

Michigan Community Services Commission Michigan Community Service Commission http://www.michigan.gov/mcsc The MCSC supports volunteerism in Michigan by providing funding for National Service, service-learning, and other volunteer initiatives. Annually, the MCSC grants approximately $6.9 million in federal funds to nonprofit organizations, schools, and other agencies to support National Service and volunteer activities in Michigan. Contact: Garry Gross at (517) 373-8028 or grossg@michigan.gov Michigan's AmeriCorps http://www.michigan.gov/mcsc/0,1607,7-137-8074---,00.html Contact: Megan Foresman at (517) 512-4506 or sargentm1@michigan.gov

Web accessibility for above listing: http://staff.lib.msu.edu/harris23/grants/state.htm Below is a short list of foundations operating in Oakland County derived from a search of the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) Website (h ttp://nccsweb.urban.org). In their efforts to find funding alternatives, The City of Pontiac could consider utilizing this listing to find supplementary funding opportunities. Contact information, where available, was added by the MSU Practicum Team and was not provided by the NCCS. Greater Pontiac Community Coalition Phone: (248) 335-8740 Fax: (248) 335-7330 Dare to Dream Detroit Contact Person: Sarika Gupta Email: sarikag@umich.edu ACI Foundation Contact Person: Ann Daugherty Email: ann.daugherty@acifoundation.org Phone: (248) 848-3144

Americana Foundation Phone: 248-347-3863 Dresner Foundation Phone: (248) 785-0299 William Davidson Foundation Phone: (248) 788-6500 Email: grants@williamdavidson.org The Kresge Foundation Contact Person: Rip Rapson Email: rrapson@kresge.org - 248-643-9630

Lear Corporation Charitable Foundation Phone: (248) 447-5938

Conclusion

The construction of a recreational trail in the city of Pontiac would provide a number of benefits to the area, including an environmentally friendly transportation route, a space for outdoor physical activity/exercise, as well as an amenity unique to Pontiac that would potentially draw in visitors. Although the future trail right-of-way has not been officially endorsed or engineered, this report will provide a reference for future deliberation and planning. It is hoped that the background information on the Clinton River Trail, the data from the socioeconomic profile, the trends regarding user information for Michigan trails and the Clinton River Trail, as well as the right-of-wayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current conditions, the recommendation and funding information, and the contemporary practices will serve as good resources for future stakeholder involvement leading to the eventual realization of the trail. It is believed by this team that the future North Spur Trail has the potential to be a major revitalizing force in the city of Pontiac one day.

References Ask How Your Garden Grows. (2014). Native Plant News, 1(1), 11. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.newenglandwild.org/membership/magazines/Volume-1_No.-1_Fall-Winter-20 14-Native-Plant-News.pdf A Guide to the Control and Management of Invasive Phragmites 3rd Ed. (2014). A Guide to the Control and Management of Invasive Pragmites, 3rd Edition, 1. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ogl-ais-guide-PhragBook-Email_212418_ 7.pdf "Benefits of Using Native Plants. (n.d.). The Native Plant Society of Texas - Houston Chapter. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.naturediscoverycenter.org/assets/documents/Native-Plants-Benefits.pdf Bohling, M. (2013, November 22). Invasive Phragmites australis: What is it and why is it a problem? Retrieved March 27, 2016, from http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/invasive_phragmites_australis_what_is_it_and_why_is_i t_a_problem Burritt, B. (2011, April). Palatability: More than a Matter of Taste. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/AG_RangeManagement_2011-01p r.pdf Chandler, B.E. (2013, July). Federal Highway Administration Safety Program - Signalized Intersections Informational Guide (Second Edition). Retrieved from

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/signalized/fhwasa13027/ Dorner, J. (2002). An introduction to using native plants in restoration projects. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from https://www.nps.gov/plants/restore/pubs/intronatplant/intronatplant.pdf Federal Highway Administration (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Retrieved from

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm Global Invasive Species Database. (n.d.). Phragmites australis (grass). Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=301 Goodness Grows In North Carolina Plants and Nursery Stock. (n.d.). Retrieved April 04, 2016, from http://www.ncagr.gov/agscool/commodities/plantkid.htm Hendershott, A. (2015, February 10). MDC Cape Nature Center to host 10th annual Native Plant & Garden Seminar. Retrieved April 04, 2016, from http://mdc.mo.gov/newsroom/mdc-cape-nature-center-host-10th-annual-native-plant-gar den-seminar Introduction [Introduction]. (2006). In L. M. Steiner (Author), Landscaping with native plants of Michigan (p. 6). St. Paul, MN: MBI Pub. Jobson, C. (2012, July 5). Street Artist Megx Creates Giant Lego Bridge in Germany. Retrieved from

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/07/street-artist-megx-creates-giant-lego-bridge-in-g ermany/ Kirschbaum, J.B., Axelson, P.W., Longmuir, P., Mispagel, K., Stein, J., Yamada, D. (2001). US Department of Transportation - Office of Planning, Environment & Realty. Designing 81

Sidewalks and Trails for Access - Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide. Retrieved from. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalk2 Landis, B., Petritsch, T., Huang, H. (2004, October). Federal Highway Administration -

Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety (FHWA-HRT-04-103). Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/.../pavements/.../research/safety/04103/

Lamb, P. (2014, April 12). Ornamental Plant Becomes Invasive; Coral Ardisia Brought to Florida in 1900s; Growth Escaped Cultivation. Retrieved April 04, 2016, from https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1G1-366495768/ornamental-plant-becomes-invasiv e-coral-ardisia-brought McKenzie, T., Cohen, D. (2006, January). SOPARC: System for Observing Play and Recreation in

Communities. Retrieved from

http://activelivingresearch.org/soparc-system-observing-play-and-recreation-communities Nelson, C., Lynch, J., Vogt, C., & Woud, A. (2002). U se and Users of the Pere Marquette Rail Trail

in Midland County Michigan. Retrieved from

http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/marquettetrailuse02.pdf Native Plant Demonstration Gardens and Groves. (n.d.). Retrieved April 04, 2016, from http://www.chesapeakeecologycenter.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B0E3E88 39-5B1A-465A-AE02-B99AE49B22B9%7D Native Plants. (n.d.). Retrieved April 04, 2016, from http://www.a2gov.org/departments/Parks-Recreation/NAP/Native-Plants/Pages/NativePl ants.aspx Norris, M. (2008, May 20). Local Plants Give Sense of Place, Character. Retrieved April 04, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90645101 Pedersen, J., Vogt, C., & Nelson, C. (2005). M ulti-use trails: Truly multi use on the Lansing River Trail. Retrieved from

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/adjacent/trulymultiuselansing.html Phragmites - Native or Not. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2016, from http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/phragmites/native-or-not.cfm Protection for Plants in Michigan. (n.d.). Retrieved April 04, 2016, from http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12142-33036--,00.html Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Public Art. (n.d.) Retrieved from

http://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/trail-design/public-art/

Reed, J., Grost, L., Mantinan, K. (2010, February 16). Michigan Department of Community Health Building Healthy Communities Final Report: Trails and Parks. Retrieved from

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Trail_Report_4-10_329070_7.pdf Stanton, K., Mickelbart, M. V., Lee, B., & Jones, D. (n.d.). Landscaping Over Septic Systems with Native Plants. Home & Environment. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/henv/henv-15-w.pdf Trail-Building Toolbox | Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. (n.d.). Retrieved April 29, 2016, from http://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/ 82

United State Access Board. (2006). U.S Department of Transportation - â&#x20AC;&#x2039;Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Transportation Facilities. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/YlkmhI USDA. (n.d.). What is an Invasive Species? Retrieved March 27, 2016, from http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml Volunteer Work Days | East Lansing, MI - Official Website. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2016, from https://www.cityofeastlansing.com/810/Volunteer-Work-Days 2014 Clinton River Trail User Survey. (Spring 2014). Retrieved from http://www.clintonrivertrail.org/assets/fcrt-user-survey-report.pdf

Appendix A Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats (SWOT) Analysis

Appendix B

Trail Design and Regulatory Standards Trail design and regulatory standards research was initiated after reviewing four of the following significant guidelines suggested by the Oakland County Economic Development and Community Affairs Office: ●

AASHTO Bike Guide

●

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Transportation Facilities (2006)

●

MUTDC Chapter 9 - Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities

●

Clinton River Trail Look and Feel Guidelines

The North Spur of the Clinton River Trail is currently undeveloped, and the surface of the trail and its surrounding conditions are not safe or conducive for common recreational trail activities. Essential safety features are also inadequate on many of the trail’s bridges, and the renovation of the trail and its bridges is desperately needed to meet mandatory trail safety standards. This portion of our study will provide information over trail design standards, accessibility standards, and regulatory signage.

Trail Design Standards Width According to the Federal Highway Administration – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access (Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guidelines), 14.6 Shared Use Path Width; a shared use path should be at least 3.05 meters (10 feet) wide. The shared use path should also have graded areas at least 0.61 meters (2 feet) wide on both side of the path. In face of heavy trail traffic, trail width should be increased to be 3.66 meters to 4.27 meters (12 to 14 feet). Trail development is categorized under title II and III of the ADA, and it is mandatory to follow these specific guidelines throughout the design and construction process:

Section 4.2.1 of the ADAAG requires a minimum clear width of 0.815 m (32 inches) at a point, and 0.915 m (36 inches) continuously, for single wheelchair passage. All of the "solo" manual and power wheelchair users (i.e., not accompanied by a dog or pulling another wheelchair) had sweep widths of 0.69 m (27 inches) or less, and would therefore be accommodated by ADAAG. (AASHTO CITATION) (GRAPH FROM ADA) Trail width will impact the velocity of trail traffic, and also have a direct impact on the possibility of 3 point turns. On a narrow trail, a bicyclist can dismount and turn around to a desired direction with ease. However, for someone in a wheelchair, the same task would be unlikely to be performed due to the wheelchair user's inability to dismount out of the chair. The Clinton River Trail Master Plan has provided preliminary information on construction standards. Trails are expected to be available for cycling, jogging, and toddler trolleys with a minimum width of 10 feet for a shared use path and 18 inch to 2 foot shoulders.

Trail Construction Safety Measurements The resurfacing of bridges is required to render the trail suitable for different activities. Adding/repairing bridge railings is mandatory for safety as well as to satisfy liability requirements. The CRT Master Plan also recommends widening the trail where it connects to bridges to ease potential congestion at these points. Also, using a different trail surface material on either sides of bridges signals the user that a change in the trail is approaching.

Material and Maintenance

Surface material has a direct impact on what kind of activities can be performed on a trail. For example, rough surfaces can slow down bikes, restrict inline skating, and serve as a trail traffic calming tool. Furthermore, there is an inverse relationship between construction and maintenance cost. We will have to consider the following points in our planning and design process: ●

Trail users satisfaction

●

Accessibility

●

Cost of construction and maintenance

●

Durability of Material

Asphalt Asphalt is the most common material used in urban areas, and is ideal for cyclists and inline skaters. The regular patching of cracks is required as asphalt has a life expectancy of 7 to 15 years. Though the flexible surface is durable under heavy use, the installation process of asphalt carries probable contamination to the environment.

Concrete Concrete is the most durable hard surface material that can be maintained under severe climate and floods. However, it is not favorable for runners. The life expectancy of concrete is 25 years.

Crushed Stone Crushed stone is typically what comes to mind when most people think of trails. However, it can only accommodate trail users if the stones are crushed and compacted properly.

Soil Cement Soil cement is characteristic of concrete and is a reliable and durable surfacing material. It is cheaper and carries a higher load carry capacity than the flexible pavements. Soil cement is both easy to install and relatively inexpensive.

Resin-Based Stabilized Material Resin is a tree product that binds aggregate or soil particles together. A resin-based trail surface impacts the environment less than asphalt, and can also be cheaper.

Boardwalk Boardwalk is most often used as a trail surface for segments through wetlands, as it allows adequate drainage and impacts the fragile ecosystem less than other surface types. However, it can be slippery when wet and is quite expensive to install and maintain.

Recycled Materials Various recycled materials, such as old rubber tires worked into concrete on Florida's Withlacoochee State Trail, are becoming more popular. However, there hasn’t yet been extensive testing to know their longevity or wear tendencies. Natural Earth Trails with a natural earth surface offer inexpensive maintenance costs limited primarily to fixing drainage problems, repairing eroded areas, and removing vegetation. The trail can usually be built and maintained by volunteers. Wood Chips Wood chips blend well with the natural environment and can work well as a parallel tread for runners next to an asphalt or concrete trail. However, the surface decomposes rapidly, cannot accommodate wheelchair use, and requires constant maintenance to keep the width and surface steady. The entire surface needs replacement every two years, but maintenance and installation can be performed by volunteers. Trail Surface Aggregate (TSA) Trail Surface Aggregate (TSA) is designed for use as a wearing surface for trails. It is different from traditional materials used to surface trails such as “number 10’s”. TSA is designed to have a uniform mixture of a range of rock sizes from 3/8-inch all the way down to fine material. This uniform mix allows excellent compaction to achieve a higher in-place aggregate density than commonly used aggregates to resist wear and erosion. The cost of surfacing a trail with asphalt or concrete may be prohibitive in the beginning stages of trail building. However, this initial expense shouldn’t deter plans if one needs to start trail development right away. It is possible to upgrade from a softer surface like dirt or crushed stone to a harder surface like asphalt or concrete once funding has been secured. For example, the Cannon Valley Trail in Minnesota began as crushed stone, and was then upgraded to asphalt to accommodate commuting cyclists and to attract touring cyclists.

Easement for Emergency and Maintenance Vehicle Access The main concern for emergency vehicles is whether or not they have enough vertical clearance on the trail. In 14.8 – Protruding Object On shared-use paths where there is the potential for emergency or maintenance vehicles to gain access to areas, it may be necessary to increase the vertical clearance. In addition, when an underpass such as a tunnel is used, 3.05 m (10 ft) of vertical clearance is recommended (Federal Highway Authority – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access 2/2).

Horizontal Alignment The horizontal alignment is the critical factor that requires the user to decelerate and then maintain speed while traveling across a curve. “Most users did not slow down for any turning radii greater than 15.3 meter (50 ft) or 27.5 meters (90 feet) for a recumbent cyclist” (Chapter 1, Characteristic of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety). In Chapter 7 of Characteristic of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety, ASSHTO has

recommended an extraction from the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), “a minimum radius of 27 meter (90 feet) for cyclists travelling in 30 km/ hour (20 miles/hour) around a curve with a 2 percent elevation.”

Cross Slope and Running Slope Both cross slope and running slope are critical for wheelchair users. These changing grades will require additional effort for all trail users. Cross Slope Although cross slope might create barriers for wheelchair and other trail users, it is conducive to water drainage and surface runoff.

Designers must balance the negative effect cross slopes have on pedestrian mobility against the necessity of including cross slopes to provide adequate drainage. Designers should use the minimum cross slope necessary for the shared-use path. For asphalt and concrete, a cross slope of 2.0 percent should be adequate. For non-paved surfaces, such as crushed aggregate, the maximum recommended cross slope is 5 percent (14.5.3 Federal Highway Authority – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access 2/2). Running Slope As for the elevation to distance ratio, long distances of a gradual elevation is the same for trail users with tires as a shorter distance with drastic elevation. This will be critical to wheelchair users, since their mobility impairment is greatly hindered by their inability to tackle the described scenarios; since “both powered and manual wheelchairs are less stable on sloped surfaces, particularly if wet or frozen” (14.5 Federal Highway Authority – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access 2/2).

“In general, running grades on shared-use paths should not exceed 5 percent and the most gradual slope possible should be used at all times” (14.5.1 Federal Highway Authority – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access 2/2). “The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48” ( ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities).

Drainage Drains will be located throughout the trail. Efficient drainage will prevent trail surface flooding, ensuring accessibility to trail users while also lowering trail surface erosion.

From Federal Highway Authority â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access 2/2, Chapter 14 Shared Use Path, 14.4.4-Openings: Openings, such as drainage grates, should be located outside the shared-use path tread. Wheelchair casters or walkers, crutch and cane tips, inline skate wheels, and the tires of road bicycles can get caught in poorly placed grates or gaps creating a serious safety hazard. Other design standards are addressed as following: â&#x2014;?

Opening Width - The size of the open space should not permit a 13 mm (0.5 in) diameter sphere to pass through the opening. If a wider gap is unavoidable because of existing design constraints, it may be acceptable to extend the width to a maximum of 19 mm (0.75 in); and

â&#x2014;?

Opening Orientation - If the open space is elongated, it must be oriented so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant direction of travel.

On Trail Signage Signage is considered one of the most efficient ways to minimize potential accidents for trail users. Multiple access points and motorway intersections carry potential risks for the trail and road users. Appropriate warning and informative signs are necessary at road intersections or trail access points for the safety of those on the trail.

The images above and below are typical signs that might be needed along the trail.

Since intersection traffic is a great threat to motorway and trail users safety, more warning signs are needed to remind incoming traffic and trail users as well.

Appendix C

Trail User Safety Requirements User safety is linked to trail width, which is dictated by the activities the trail is designed to accommodate. Each activity requires a certain amount of space. A shared-use path is meant to serve pedestrians, joggers, and wheelchair users. Outlying safety factors include reckless and irresponsible behavior, poor user preparation, and judgement and other dangers such as wildlife, crime, and natural hazards.

Design Speed The designated speed will vary the cost and operational safety of the project. AASHTO recommends a minimum speed to design based on the highest 85th percentile speed, 29 kilometers per hour (18 miles per hour) by cyclist.

Stopping Sight Distance The stopping sight distance allows trail users to perform a complete stop within a normal reaction time. The warning signs will signal users to begin deceleration to avoid unexpected traffic while approaching access points or intersections. According to AASHTO, a cyclist’s stopping sight distance on wet pavement is 32.7 meter (107 feet).

Trail Etiquette Introduced under the Federal Highway Authority – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access 2/2, Chapter 14 Shared Use Path, 14.3-Conflicts Between Multiple User Groups: “Basic conflicts can be reduced by: ●

Providing information, including signage, in multiple formats that clearly indicates permitted users and rules of conduct;

●

Ensuring that the shared-use path provides sufficient width and an appropriate surface for everyone, or providing alternate paths for different types of users;

●

Providing sufficient separation for users traveling at different speeds. For example, if volume and space permits, bicyclists and pedestrians should have different lanes or pathways.”

Therefore, signs could be enforced, informing bicyclists to yield to pedestrians, and both pedestrians and bicyclists to yield to wheelchair users.

Regulations should be posted at trailheads along with provided trail brochures and maps (Ryan 1993). It is also necessary to provide rules and penalties on the trail’s official website. Messages about rules and penalties should produce a more cooperative atmosphere and better compliance, using wordings such as “Not Recommended” rather than “No” (McCoy and Stoner 1992). In addition to the trail users’ safety, the following rules will be addressed in trail etiquette as well: ●

Require cyclists to walk in congested or conflict prone areas

●

Require bicycle bell installation

●

Trail user is responsible for any accidents/conflicts they cause

Appendix D

Road Crossing/Access Trail to trail connection is the very last safety concern of the North Spur of the CRT planning procedure. Due to the mid block location, motorway users are less aware and efficient sign usage is necessary to ensure both motorway and trail user safety. It is essential to alert all trail users of an intersection arrival by providing clear visibility of the necessary signage. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, chapter 8 has identified the elements for effective crossings: ●

Information/signs, signals and markings;

●

Crosswalks;

●

Crossing times;

●

Medians;

●

Refuge islands and slip lanes;

●

Curb ramps

●

Sight lines

●

Onset of signal phases

It is important to create accessible solutions as well, the following quote was taken from the MDOT State Long Range Transportation Plan, 1.3.2.4 User Safety/ Security “Non-motorized safety considerations may include items like the installation of audible traffic signals and signs at street crossing.” Associates with 1.3.3.1 Use of Technology in the same document, “New technological advances may prove to have an impact on the safety of non motorized users. An example of this new technology is count down pedestrian signals. Communities across Michigan are installing these signals to increase pedestrian safety at road crossings. A countdown pedestrian signal displays the number of seconds left until the steady “Don’t Walk” phase appears and opposing traffic receives a green light.” Along with the user friendly principles, these user friendly infrastructures will enhance trail users’ equal opportunity to the enjoy and access the public recreation services.

Crosswalk Midblock crossings must be created as marked crosswalks to optimize the safety and accessibility for all pedestrians. (8.5 Crosswalk, Federal Highway Authority – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access 2/2). At midblock locations, the “crosswalk markings are legally establishing the crosswalk” (3B.18, 03, MUTCD).

Continental Design Extracted from 8.5.1 Crosswalk Marking of Federal Highway Authority – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, the continental crosswalk design requires:

The ladder design is created with white longitudinal lines at a 90 degree angle to the line of the crosswalk. The lines should be approximately 305 mm to 610 mm (12 in to 24 in) wide and spaced 305 mm to 610 mm (12 in to 24 in) apart (USDOT, 1988).

Refuge Island A refuge island allows pedestrians to cross only one direction of traffic at a time. It minimizes the crossing distance and enhances the psychological sense of comfort and safety.

between two opposing directions of traffic, the elevated structure will also serve as a traffic calming tool that reminds motorway users there is an intersection ahead.

Pedestrian Signal Upgrades: Pedestrian Signal Improving the pedestrian signals is another tool to enhance trail user safety at crossings. Countdown displays and audible pedestrian signals are preliminary efforts to upgrade the road crossings. In Chapter 9 of FHWA’s Signalized Intersection: Informational Guide, a study on safety performance is presented in the following table:

Operation standards are also addressed on MUTCD Section 4E.09 Accessible Pedestrian Signal and Detectors When used, accessible pedestrian signals shall be used in combination with pedestrian signal timing. The information provided by an accessible pedestrian signal shall clearly indicate which pedestrian crossing is served by each device. Under stop-and-go operation, accessible pedestrian signals shall not be limited in operation by the time of day or day of week. According to 1.3.3.1 Use of Technology in in MDOT State Long Range Transportation Plan, 1.3.2.4 - User Safety/ Security “New technological advances may prove to have an impact on the safety of non motorized users. An example of this new technology is count down pedestrian signals. Communities across Michigan are installing these signals to increase pedestrian safety at road crossings. A countdown pedestrian signal displays the number of seconds left until the steady “Don’t Walk” phase appears and opposing traffic receives a green light.” Pedestrian Detector Pedestrians detectors can be pushbuttons as well as detection devices that identify the presence of pedestrians and activate the crosswalk. Both walk intervals and accessible pedestrian signals will be activated by pedestrian detectors. Placement of these devices are also addressed as follows: If two accessible pedestrian push buttons are placed less than 10 feet apart or on the same pole, each accessible pedestrian pushbutton shall be provided with the following features : A. p ushbutton locator tone, B. t actile arrow,

C. s peech walk message for the WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) indication, and D. s peech pushbutton information message.

If the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only to cross from the curb or shoulder to a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait and accessible pedestrian detectors are used, an additional accessible pedestrian detector shall be provided in the median.

Curb Ramp Design Curb ramps will enhance the accessibility of all wheeled objects that use intersections. The design of a curb ramp is required by ADAAG design guidelines according to the Signalized

Intersections: Informational Guide – Chapter 3, by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The curb ramps design requires the following basic components: ●

Ramp

●

Landing

●

Detectable warning

●

Flare

●

Approach

The table on the following page is adopted from Federal Highway Authority – Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access 2/2, Chapter 7. It provides the principles in designing curb ramps in different circumstances:

100

Detectable Warning While curb ramps increase access for mobility-impaired pedestrians, they can decrease access for visually impaired pedestrians by removing the vertical curb face that provides an important tactile cue. This tactile cue is instead provided by a detectable warning surface placed at the bottom of the ramp, which provides information on the boundary between the sidewalk and roadway (3.5.2 Curb Design, Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide). Detectable warning surfaces are required to be implemented in the surface of curb ramps, and refuge and median islands (ADAAG defined hazardous vehicle areas). In ADAAG, it is addressed that “the detectable warning shall extend the full width of the curb ramp and shall extend either the full depth of the curb ramp or 24 inches (610mm) deep minimum measured from the back of the curb on ramp surface” (406.8 Detectable Warnings). hey bud the graph is down there lol Detectable warnings are also required to visually contrast to the surrounding. 705.1.3 of ADAAG states that, “detectable warning surfaces shall contrast visually with adjacent walking surfaces either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light” (705 ADAAG)

Size and Spacing of Truncated Domes Truncated domes are addressed in certain standard in ADAAG: Truncated Domes Size Minimum

Maximum

Standard

0.9 inch (23

1.4 inch (36

millimeters)

Top Diameter

50% of Base Diameter

60% of Base Diameter

Height

0.2 inch (5.2

Base Diameter

millimeters)

101

Truncated Dome Spacing Minimum Center to Center

1.6 inches (41 millimeters)

Maximum 2.4

inches

Standard (61

millimeters) Base to base

0.65 inches (17

millimeters)

Signal Clearance Interval/ Pedestrian Clearance Interval Since roadway users often fail to stop at changing yellow to red signals, signal clearance intervals are important to assess, as they control the traffic velocity on motorways. A typical signal clearance interval has a maximum of 5 seconds, which is insufficient to clear a five lane-18.3 meter (60 feet) intersection. Example For a cyclist travelling 23 kilometers/hour (20 feet/second), the 5 second interval will allow him/her to travel roughly 34 meters (111 feet). However, the mean speed of the other major users fluctuates between 6 to 10 kilometers per hour. If the addressed maximum signal interval is applied, most intersecting trail users will not complete a road crossing.

102

The following figure was extracted from MUTCD Chapter 4e.06. It will assist in understanding the concept of pedestrian intervals:

The pedestrian clearance interval goes from the beginning crossing signal to the beginning of the flashing â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Don't Walkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. AASHTO has noted that the average walking speed is 1.2 meters per second (4 feet per second). Special considerations will be evaluated according to user demographics.

103

Appendix E

Community Impact, Liability and Integration The North Spur of the CRT is a brand new development that will definitely create changes in the neighboring communities and landscape. It will be difficult to avoid issues that occur as a result of these changes at this new location in Pontiac. Here are some concerns that will need to be addressed: ●

Local crime rate

●

Adjacent property value

●

Physical waste and noise pollution

●

Interference to wildlife

●

Excessive liability obligation

Liability The MDOT State Long Range Transportation Plan, 6.3.3 states Concerns have been raised regarding liability for providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities or encouraging use of roadways by bicyclists through signing and designating routes. Similar to providing roadways for motorized vehicles, the provision of biking and walking facilities does carry a certain risk, although the risks can be mitigated by following nationally accepted standards and guidelines to maximize the safety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The court is obligated to tackle the potential risks and decide which scenario is acceptable. Other types of liability and lawsuits might be caused by trespassing, or other types of nuisances. On top of that, "Adjacent landowners are not at risk as long as they abstain from ‘willful and wanton misconduct' against trespassers such as recklessly or intentionally creating a hazard. Trail managers minimize liability exposure provided they design and manage the trail in a responsible manner and do not charge for trail access” (Hugh 2000). Therefore, insurance can be placed for probable compensations regardless to the easement to a private landowner, probable compensation to victim in crime/nuisance cases, or injuries from maintenance faults. In the Grandwalk Trail Planning and Development Report, it suggested that “Liability insurance provides a third line of defense.”

104

If a trail’s maintenance and day to day operations are privatized, purchasing comprehensive liability insurance will secure the trail operator from risks of extravagant accident compensation expenses. “Most trails are owned and operated by a public entity such as a parks department. Under this structure, the responsible entity most often is covered by an umbrella insurance policy that protects all municipal activities and facilities. Such entities are self insured” (Hugh, 2000).

Community Integration Enriching the nature of a trail as a medium of transportation, outlined in the Safe Route to School program, can allow children to utilize an alternative safe and healthy transportation mode other than a traditional motor vehicle. In SAFETEA-LU Safe Route to School, Section 1404: “SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, (Public Law 109-59)) SEC. 1404. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--Subject to the requirements of this section, the Secretary shall establish and carry out a safe routes to school program for the benefit of children in primary and middle schools. (b) PURPOSES.--The purposes of the program shall be: (1) to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; (2) to make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; and (3) to facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools.”

105

Appendix F

North Spur Landscape Vegetation To a landscape architect, approaching a new project can be a lot like looking at a blank canvas. Unlike the painter, however, the landscape architect’s work literally comes to life. Colors change with the passage of time as flowers bloom and leaves fall. This adds layers of complexity to the task of choosing the design. Because there is so much work and so many options, decisions must be made carefully. Literature is not scarce on the subject, but best practices do not emerge from any one single source. Although there are numerous resources containing guidelines for landscape design, it is important to gauge their applicability before applying them to a given project. To do this type of assessment, there is quite a lot to take into consideration. To put the landscaping vegetation options for the North Spur Trail Project into perspective, the subheadings within this section will briefly cover topics that can provide a starting point for those preparing to actively participate in this decision-making process.

Invasive, and Ornamental Plant Species According to Executive Order 13112, plants that are “non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” are invasive” (USDA, n.d.) . Because of their potential harm, these plants are an undesirable element in any landscaping venture. In East Lansing, MI volunteer efforts are made to remove invasive plant species ("Volunteer Work Days | East Lansing, MI - Official Website," n.d.) Although community events can be fun, they can be instrumental in the prevention of the spread of unwanted nuisances. Along the North Spur Trail Project Area, at least one invasive species, known by the common name “ditch

reed,”

(Global

Invasive

Species Database, n.d.) has been observed (see image to right). Its scientific

name

Phragmites

australis subsp. australis, and it was introduced to Michigan’s east coast

the

early

1800s

("Phragmites - Native or Not," n.d.). Since then, it has been expanding gradually westward (4). “Near-monotypic stands of this aggressive grass have replaced high quality, complex 106

communities of native plants over thousands of acres of Michigan wetlands and coastal areas. The rapid expansion of this variety of Phragmites has resulted in adverse ecological, economic, and social impacts on the natural resources and people of the Great Lakes” ("A Guide to the Control and Management of Invasive Phragmites 3rd Ed.," 2014) Another important group of plants to be cognizant of are plants that are referred to as “ornamental.” These are plants used for decoration and beauty ("Goodness Grows In North Carolina Plants and Nursery Stock," n.d.). Regardless of the aesthetic appeal of ornamental

plants, there can be a risk involved with selecting them without first considering how they will behave in the environment they are introduced into. Sometimes ornamental plants can become invasive (Lamb, 2014). Learning about plants that are less likely to become invasive is a step in the right direction when it comes to making good choices about what to use in a landscaping project.

Native Plants In a book entitled Landscaping with Native Plants of Michigan, a clear definition of native

plants is stated as “those species that grew in an area before European settlement.” The book mentions several benefits of native plants including their predisposition to be low maintenance, the creation of a sense of place their use can facilitate, and their ability to preserve the natural heritage of an area (Steiner, 2006). Others who are concerned about the ecological systems

that keep the earth in balance have compiled a wealth of information about how landscaping with native plants improves the environment. In fact a sheet provided by the Hana and Arthur Ginzbarg Nature Discovery Center entitled “Benefits of Naturescaping with Native Plants” other factors such as: ease of use, public health, air pollution, cost, water use, songbirds, and enhanced livability are described for people who are interested in learning more about these important topics ("Benefits of Using Native Plants, n.d.). Another great resource for information, conveniently made available to anyone who has internet access, is on the United States

National Park Service’s website, providing a similar list of the advantages of native plants (Dorner, 2002). Aside from their many beneficial qualities, there are a few concerns about using native plants for landscaping. Many of these concerns exist with both native and non native vegetation, but some are more specific to native species. For instance, it can be difficult to find native plants (Norris, 2008) (Hendershott, 2015) ("Ask How Your Garden Grows," 2014) (Stanton, Mickelbart, Lee, & Jones, n.d.). Fortunately, however, there are resources such as those found on destinationoakland.com that can help. This website provides several local resources that specialize in Michigan native genotype plants. Because there are state laws in place to protect many plants in Michigan ("Protection for Plants in Michigan," n.d.), working with those who are familiar with best practices can be extremely helpful.

107

Choosing the Best Plants for the Project In addition to a plant’s status as native, non-native, ornamental, or invasive, there are numerous other factors to consider when making a decision about what plants are best for a landscaping project. The individual morphology/physiology of a given plant, its reproduction style, and the duration of its bloom period are among a few. Although there are too many to discuss in detail without the analysis of massive indices of the many factors that weigh in on such a decision, learning about a few can help to narrow the list and provide a starting point from which some creative ideas can emerge. It can also help to know what to watch out for. For trail projects like the North Spur Rail Trail, an additional element to consider is how landscape can affect the integrity of the trail surface. In addition to the positive impacts of some landscaping vegetation options, there are negatives to be wary of as well. Knowing how a plant will affect the non vegetative components of a landscaping project could reduce maintenance costs and even liability. Some plant varieties are heavy water users and might serve well as an erosion control, possibly extending the life of a paved surface. Others varieties might have extensive root systems that could push up from underneath the trail surface to put up basal shoots and create impedances for cyclists and handicapped individuals. The more comprehensive the list of factors considered in the plant selection process, the better the landscaping plan for the project will be.

Growth Requirements As previously mentioned, there are many types of plants that might be appropriate to use in any given landscaping endeavor. Each of these plant types have different needs that will have to be accommodated in order for them to grow and flourish. In a table provided later in this report, a list of plants that could be considered for the North Spur Project is provided. This table includes a great deal of information and can be consulted in the process of creating potential landscape designs. Because the plants in the table are native to Oakland County and the North Spur covers a large area, it is likely that many of the plants in the table will be able to grow somewhere within the project area. However, given the distinct characteristics associated with each section of the study area, the topographic variations of the terrain, the interrelation between different plant types, and many other factors, the final determination of the design layout will be complex.

Commercial Availability and Nursery Stock In Michigan, a person must have a permit from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in order to collect, pick, cut, or dig up, plants that have been identified as threatened or endangered (“Protection for Plants in Michigan”, n.d.). Because Collecting plants in the wild can

be devastating to local plant populations, those intending to purchase them should look for plants that were propagated from division, cuttings, or seed (Burritt, 2011). Native plants are not 108

always commercially available nor are they always suitable for nursery stock. In order to abbreviate the list of plants in the table found at the end of this study, it has been limited to only those that the USDA has classified as being suitable for production of nursery stock and information on commercial availability is included (if available).

Human and Animal Palatability A less commonly thought of consideration when it comes to landscaping vegetation selection is the palatability of different plant varieties. Animal scientists have described palatability as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the degree to which animals like a food based on its flavorâ&#x20AC;? (Burritt, 2011). This can be important if providing food for local wildlife is a desired function of a siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s landscape design. If not, limiting the number of plants that are palatable to animals could help to avoid pest issues. Local wildlife are not the only creatures who might pick edible berries, though. If it is planned for, plants that are palatable to humans can provide an added benefit to the community.

Compatibility Issues One last consideration concerning plant selection is that of compatibility. The dispersal, density, and mix of different plants can be a dream come true, or a terrible nightmare. For instance, a plant that has a proclivity to remove available soil moisture at a rate greater than that of a plant growing adjacent to it, may starve the adjacent plant of the water it requires to survive. A similar type of problem can occur if a tall, broad-leafed plant is located adjacent to one that needs a substantial amount of sunlight. Mapping out where different plants should be planted relative to others can assist in preventing these types of issues. An example of a map showing native plants used in the landscaping around the Chesapeake Ecology Center in Maryland that includes riparian buffers, rain gardens, and several other well-planned features is shown on the next page. Following that is the aforementioned table.

109

110

111

112

Appendix G

User Data for the Lansing River Trail and the Pere Marquette Rail Trail Lansing River Trail (LRT) The following paragraph was taken from “Multi-Use Trails: Truly Multi-Use on the Lansing River Trail”, a study hosted by AmericanTrails.org. The Lansing River Trail (LRT) is a multiple use, non-motorized trail of 7 miles in length. It meanders along the banks of the Red Cedar and Grand Rivers between Michigan State University (MSU) and North Lansing. In addition there is a spur that runs from River Point Park to Moore’s River Park following the Grand River upstream for more than a mile. The trail traverses through a variety of habitats and natural environments. The trail provides direct river access to fisherman and offers walking/running, biking, and inline skating opportunities. The LRT links many of Lansing’s city parks together, as well as downtown and neighborhood business districts and many other community attractions including historic

museums, farmers market, and the city’s convention

center. The information below was created from using some of the findings from “Multi-Use Trails: Truly Multi Use on the Lansing River Trail.” It was collected by only using observational data.

113

The following data was collected from observation data to estimate total trail use and then applied data from an on-site survey using questions related to that dayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use.

114

Other statistics that were found in the AmericanTrails.org Lansing River Trail Study are that a little over half (55%) of the users of the Lansing River Trail accessed the trail without driving a vehicle to it, and that 48% of the users lived two or less miles from the trail. Also, 7% of the LRT users were tourists that traveled to Lansing to specifically use the trail, and most of them spent money at restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, and sporting goods outlets.

Pere Marquette Rail Trail (PMRT) The following paragraph was taken from “Use and Users of the Pere Marquette Rail Trail in Midland County, Michigan”, a study hosted by AmericanTrails.org. The Pere Marquette Rail-Trail (PMRT) of Midland County Michigan extends 22 miles from the City of Midland to Coleman. Developed from 1992 to 1995, the paved trail serves a variety of non-motorized activities such as walking/running, bicycling, and in-line skating. From its beginning in the urbanized setting of Midland Michigan, less than a mile from the Michigan operations headquarters of the Dow Chemical Company, the

trail

passes

through

densely

wooded

riparian

areas

adjoining

the

TittabawasseeRiver before terminating in the largely agricultural environment surrounding Coleman. Beyond linking communities, the PMRT also connects with a number of park and recreation facilities, historical and natural sites as well as numerous service/retail and light industrial businesses. The information below was created from using the some of the findings from “Use and Users of the Pere Marquette Rail Trail in Midland County, Michigan.” The study took place from May 19th

through September 30th , 2000 and from April 1st to May 18th, 2001. The following paragraph was taken from the methods section of the study, and it explains how the data was collected. 115

On a sampling day, a researcher was positioned adjacent to the rail-trail approximately 50 yards inside the segment from the access point. The researcher would then count all individuals going one direction, classifying them as adults or children and noting their mode of travel (bike, in-line, foot). At ten-minute intervals, the researcher would select the next adult who was passing going northwest and ask them to respond to a self-administered one-page 14-item questionnaire that was likely to take less than four minutes to complete. The instrument elicited data about the number of people in the respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s group, the activities in which they engaged during their visit, the amount of time they spent on the trail, and the respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s satisfaction with their experience, history of use, demographics, and other information. For those who refused, observational data were gathered about their mode of travel and they were asked about their reason for refusal. The 14-item questionnaire discussed above can be found in the next section of this appendix.

116

The data in the charts featured above also contained an other category, however, for the purposes of this report, it was factored out for a better comparison with the Lansing River Trail data.

117

Although specific adult usage by age range data was not collected in the Pere Marquette Rail Trail study, the figure below from the study displays the average user age of each documented activity, as well as other information.

118

Pere Marquette Rail Trail Use Questionnaire

119

Appendix H CRT History The following two page document was given to the practicum team as background information at the beginning of the semester.

120

121

Appendix I

Additional Maps The map featured on the following page can be found on page 83 of the 2008 Oakland County Trails Master Plan. Also included in this appendix are several other maps that were created by the practicum team but were not included in the body of the report. To perform some of our initial analysis, we used Esri GIS software. In an ESRI program called ArcMap, we used overlays of different data types and combined them to create the maps in this report. With ArcScene, we created and examined 3D models to get a better understanding of the topography of the site. The models allowed us to add a virtual dimension of depth to our research. ArcScene was used to show how these layers stack on top of one another in a GIS program. The red line shown on the second layer from the top is the North Spur. In the large 3D rendering, the red elements are utility towers.

122

123

124

125

Section Context Maps:

126

Pontiac 2015 Land Use

Featured on the following pages are maps of each section of the trail.

127

128

129

130

131

132

133