Pine Township Trail Feasibility Study by Pashek+MTR

C O N N E C T I O N S This project was partially funded by the Community Partnership Grant Program administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), Bureau of Recreation and Conservation.

TOWNSHIP OF PINE ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Pashek Associates 619 East Ohio Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was partially funded by the Community Partnership Grant Program administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), Bureau of Recreation and Conservation.

A special thanks goes out to all of the citizens of Pine for their enthusiasm and input during the study. Also, the input of the following individuals was important to the successful completion of this study.

BOARD

SUPERVISORS

Mr. Richard Brant, Chair Mr. Michael Dennehy Mr Philip Henry Mr. Frank Spagnolo Mr. Daniel Sporrer

STUDY C OMMITTEE Mr. Dan Sporrer, Board of Supervisors Mr. Don Keys, Parks and Recreation Commission Mr. Larry Stephens, Planning Commission Mr. Tim Shipley, Local Developer Ms. Nancy Malone, Community Resident Ms. Joni Patsko, Director of Parks and Recreation Mr. Scott Anderson, AICP, Director of Code Administration and Land Development Mr. Gary Koehler, AICP, Township Manager

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT

C ONSERVATION

AND

NATURAL RESOURCES

Ms. Kathy Frankel, Regional Advisor Mr. M. Wesley Fahringer, Recreation and Parks Advisor

June 30, 2005

township of pine trail feasibility study

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Goals of the Township Trail System . . . .2 Review of Existing Documents . . . . . . . .2 Why arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t We Walking and Biking . . . . .8 Benefits of a Township Trail System . . . .9 CHAPTER 2: PUBLIC INPUT AND SUPPORT Support for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Study Group Meeting One . . . . . . . . . . .13 Study Group Meeting Two . . . . . . . . . . .14 Study Group Meeting Three . . . . . . . . . .16 Study Group Meeting Four . . . . . . . . . . .17 Key Person Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Community Needs Questionnaire . . . . .20 Local Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 State and National Support . . . . . . . . . . .25 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 CHAPTER 3: DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE Trail Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 How will Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities be Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Township Population Profile . . . . . . . . .34 Estimated Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 CHAPTER 4: INVENTORY Community Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Downtowns, Business Centers, and Community Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Historic Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Concentrations of Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Existing Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Existing Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Hydric Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Steep Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Prime Agricultural Soils . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Forested Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS Analysis of Existing Trails . . . . . . . . . . .67 Current Design Requirements . . . . . . . .69 Proposed Trail Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . .69 CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDED ROUTES Route Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 Intersection and Road Crossing Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 Trail Access Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . .81 CHAPTER 7: TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN STANDARDS General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 Accessibility Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .85 Pedestrian Facility Requirements . . . . . .90 Shared Use Path Requirements . . . . . . . .93 Bicycle Facility Requirements . . . . . . . . .95 Intersection Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .99 Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities . . . . .100 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 Underpasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 CHAPTER 8: LEGAL FEASIBILITY Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 Easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 CHAPTER 9: OPERATIONS AND SECURITY Shared Use Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 Bicycle Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 Operation and Management Plan . . . . .110 CHAPTER 10: FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Shared Use Paths Cost Summary . . . . .115 Sidewalk Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .117 Bike Lanes Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . .119 CHAPTER 11: RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Shared Use Path Priorities . . . . . . . . .127 Sidewalk Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131 Bike Lane Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 Demonstration Segment . . . . . . . . . . . .139 Financing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix One:

Model Trail Easement

Appendix Two:

PennDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Checklist

Appendix Three:

Pennsylvania Recreation Use Statute and Political Subdivision Tort Claims

Appendix Four:

Opinion of Probable Costs

township of pine trail feasibility study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To w n s h i p o f P i n e Trail Feasibility Study INTRODUCTION Recognizing the recommendations for trail improvements in the Township’s 1998 Comprehensive Recreation, Park and Open Space Plan were not achieving the desired results, the Township authorized this study to determine if trail improvements could be refocused to acheive the desired results. Between 1998 and 2004 trails were constructed in the Township. These trails met current Township requirements, but many were not successful. During this study we learned their design, location, proximity to homes, steepness of slope, or connection to a desirable destination contributed to their success or lack of success. We also learned trails were not being planned in a systematic approach which lead to a fragmented trail network instead of a unified system. In 2004 there were 11.46 miles of existing trails, and 78.5 miles of sidewalk in the Township. The first step in planning for a township-wide trail system was to determine whether or not there is demand, and just as important, support for a trail system in the Township of Pine. During planning efforts for the 1998 Comprehensive Recreation Plan, residents were surveyed to determine what their recreation interests and needs were. When asked what recreation facilities the Township should focus their resources on, those responding to the survey ranked trail improvements second - hiking trails, third - bike paths, and fifth - connecting trails, out of twenty choices. In 2003, the Township’s Comprehensive plan was updated. That plan recommended a comprehensive trail and open space system be developed for the Township. Residents of the Township were again surveyed during this Trail Feasibility Study process. The results of this survey again confirmed the demand for a trail system in the Township. Eighty-five percent said trail connections through the Township are important community assets. Eighty-three percent support trail development within the current Township tax structure, and seventy-seven percent said a trail system will enhance their quality of life.

The GOAL of this plan is to identify key connections and determine the feasibility of a community-wide trail system. The plan’s realistic recommendations will be achieved in stages over the next several years and result in amenities that all Township residents will enjoy. township of pine trail feasibility study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sixty-four percent support a minimal tax increase to accelerate trail development. And, fifty-one percent of those responding felt existing walking, jogging, hiking and biking opportunities in the Township are unsafe. Based on these results we conclude there is sufficient demand and support to justify a Township-wide trail system.

ANALYSIS The project steering committee concluded the Township trail system should focus on developing a high quality network of trails to connect the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parks, schools, historic sites, and natural areas with the Township residents and their neighborhoods. To determine the location of the proposed trails, we first identified concentrations of residential development (trail generators) and trail destinations (parks, schools, and business districts). This Conceptual Trail Connections Study identified where trail corridors would be desired. Given limited resources for construction, the steering committee concluded the Township should be responsible for focusing its efforts on primary trail corridors. Primary trail corridors are defined as those corridors that collect

CONCEPTUAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS

STUDY

township of pine trail feasibility study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY users from adjacent neighborhoods, and business districts, and provide a direct connection to a desired destination. These corridors will include trails with paved surfaces, whether in the form of a shared use path, sidewalk, or bike lane. This does not preclude the development of other types of trails, and other types of trail surfaces. To be considered as a potential primary trail segment, a corridor had to meet the following minimum criteria, established by the steering committee, to promote successful trail development: 1. Trails must not be located closer than one hundred and fifty feet from a home’s rear or side yard, unless the trail is within a dedicated public right-of-way, or permitted location. 2. Trails must have logical destinations. 3. Trail alignments must allow for the construction of a paved shared use path, paved bicycle lanes, or concrete sidewalks. 4. Trails must have a running slope of less than twelve percent and a cross slope of two percent or less. Utilizing this criteria, potential trail corridors where identified. Each of the corridors were visited by the consultant and members of the project steering committee. This process resulted in the project team recommending the Township-wide trails system be comprised of thirty-three new trail segments. This includes 19.78 miles of shared use path, 6.50 miles of additional sidewalk, and 11.37 miles of additional bike lanes. The resulting plan achieves the desired vision of connecting the sidewalks in existing neighborhoods with each other and with significant community destinations. In order to prioritize the trail segments, criteria was established to determine each trail segment’s significance to the overall trail system. This analysis resulted in prioritizing the trail segments. Then a map was prepared to show the locations of the proposed segments. The map indicates the trail segment’s number, the segment’s overall priority, and the segment’s priority within it’s trail classification. The Proposed Trail Connection map can be found at the end of this summary.

township of pine trail feasibility study

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS Recognizing trail opportunities benefit the public and private sector, and that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a responsibility to provide for nonmotorized transportation, as well as motorized transportation, within state transportation right-of-ways, we recommend all sectors contribute to achieving the Township’s goal of implementing this trail system. Therefore, we evaluated each proposed trail segment to determine which sector of the community should be responsible for implementing it. This analysis resulted in recommending that twenty-one percent of the trail system be implemented by the Township, twenty-two percent of the trails be implemented by the private sector, and fifty-seven percent be implemented by the public sector. The following segments, listed in order of priority, are recommended to be implemented by the Township: Priority Trail Se gme nt De scription Segment Number

Type

Length Description

Shared Use Path

2.16

Shared Use Path

0.74

17A

Shared Use Path

0.52

Shared Use Path

0.42

Shared Use Path

0.19

Shared Use Path

1.50

T his segment is the former Irwin Road, and is referred to as the Irwin Road T rail.

Shared Use Path

1.41

Sidewalk

0.24

T his proposed sidewalk will connect the to Route 910 and parallel to State Route 19 (Wexford Road).

T his shared use path connects the T ownship’s Community Park, the shared use path along Warrendale Road and the shared use path and bike lanes along Pearce Mill Road. T his proposed shared use path will connect the T ownship’s Community Park to the shared use path currently being constructed between Winwood and Pinkerton Roads. T his shared use path will follow Irwin Road from State Route 910 (Wexford Road) connecting bike lanes along State Route 910, the existing shared use Irwin Road T rail which extends into North Park. T his shared use path will connect the trails within Pine Haven Park to the bike lanes and shared use path proposed along Wexford Road (State Route 910) and hiking trails within North Park.

township of pine trail feasibility study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After each trail segment was identified and prioritized we prepared opinions of probable construction costs. In 2004 dollars, the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s financial responsibility to implement the eight segments identified herein is approximately $4,943,930. Taking into consideration potential grant opportunities the actual cost tot he Township could be further reduced. Given reason estimates of grant funding that could be obtained, we project the segments could be developed by the Township for $2,754,080. Recognizing the Township currently allocates $200,000 annually for sidewalk improvements, and the current program is nearing completion, this funding could be reallocated towards trail improvements. This funding, along with additional funding secured through a variety of grant programs, should allow the Township to implement its segments in a ten to fifteen year period. Priority Trail Se gme nt De scription

O pinion of Pote ntial Grant Pote ntial Probable Funding Grant Length Construction Amounts O pportunitie s Costs

Segment Number

Type

Shared Use Path

2.16

$1,624,654.41

$1,299,723.53

Shared Use Path

0.74

$371,546.35

$185,773.18

PA DCNR PA DCED

17A

Shared Use Path

0.52

$111,544.78

$55,772.39

PennDOT Safe Routes to School

Shared Use Path

0.42

$150,589.44

$75,294.72

PA DCED

Shared Use Path

0.19

$138,186.65

$69,093.33

PA DCNR

Shared Use Path

1.50

$340,920.13

$170,460.07

PA DCNR

Shared Use Path

1.41

$1,923,776.45

$192,377.65

Sidewalk

0.24

$282,711.85

$141,355.93

$4,943,930.06

$2,189,850.77

Total Cost Cost per Mile Cost per One Hundred Lineal Feet

Estimated Cost to the Township

7.18

PennDOT Safe Routes to School

PA DCNR PA DCED T ownship Sidewalk Program

$688,569.65 $13,041.09

$2,754,079.29

Critical to the success of the Township trail system is the implementation of the trail segments identified as the responsibility of the private and public sectors. To acheive this success open communication between the Township and each sector is required.

township of pine trail feasibility study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Also, to successfully implement this plan Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing ordinances must be modified to facilitate the recommendations and design standards of this plan. When looked at in whole the private sector may see this plan as onerous. However, the trail system is going to be constructed one segment at a time. With the community survey indicating an overwhelming demand for more trails, we believe the costs associated with the trail development can become part of the development costs. For the public sector this will require careful coordination with PennDOT and others who may be making improvements and rehabilitating their facilities within the state road right-of-way. We recommend the Township or its designee meet quarterly with PennDOT staff. The purpose of these meetings is to learn what work PennDOT is planning in the Township, how that work will respond to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists in the Township, and most importantly, how it achieves the goals for trail connections as identified in this plan. Although PennDOT issued a policy statement on Improved Pedestrian Mobility in 2001, District 11-0 has not been proactive in addressing pedestrian and bicycle accomodations in their designs. Therefore, it is imperative the Township educate District staff on the importance of these accomodations to the residents of the Township of Pine. If this is unsuccessful, then the Township or its designee will need to work through their State Representatives to acheive the desired result. We acknowledge that with the help of Mr. Malek Francis, PennDOT District 11-0 Pedestrian / Bicycle Coordinator, PennDOT has agreed to establish bike lanes, between North Park and Pine Community Park, on Pearce Mill Road. Finally, the Trail Feasibility Study establishes minimum standards for trail development within the Township. These standards are summarized in the Township of Pine Trail Development Standards Summary.

township of pine trail feasibility study

insert overall trail plan

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

1: INTRODUCTION

GOAL The GOAL OF THIS PLAN is to: 1. Recommend a high quality network of trails that connect the Township’s parks, schools, historic sites and natural areas with the township’s residents and their neighborhoods. 2. Prioritize the implementation of trail segments into a fiscally responsible capital improvements campaign and partnering with agencies with similar goals, such as PennDOT, Allegheny County and the Harmony Trail Association. 3. Update trail design and construction standards for various trail types.

The Township of Pine is located in Northern Allegheny County, approximately twenty miles north of the City of Pittsburgh, and, is comprised of approximately seventeen square miles of land. The Township is bordered by Marshall Township and the Boroughs of Franklin Park and Bradford Woods to the west, the Town of McCandless to the south, Hampton and Richland Townships to the east, and, Cranberry and Adams Townships in Butler County to the North. Over the past ten years the Township population has almost doubled, growing by 89.8%, from a population of 4,048 to 7,683. This growth is expected to continue, with the Township’s population expected to double again by 2010 to 14,728 people, and it is expected to reach approximately 20,000 residents by 2020. While the population is growing, it is also important to acknowledge what age groups are growing within the Township when planning to provide for their needs. Over the past ten years the zero to nineteen year old population saw a dramatic increase of 170%, as did the thirty-five to fifty-four year old segment of the population which realized an increase of 155%. Other age groups, fifty-five to sixty four year old and seniors saw more moderate increases while the only group to see a decline was that of the thirty-five to forty-four year old segment. Over the years, Pine has acknowledged the need to plan for implementing a variety of park and recreation amenities to meet the residents’ needs. In 1998, the Township updated their Comprehensive Recreation, Park and Open Space Plan. The resulting recommendations of the plan included provisions for a network of trails throughout the Township. In 2003 the Township completed a comprehensive planning effort. The vision for Pine, as established in the Comprehensive Plan is "Sustaining our Character into the Future". As such, the Township is striving to maintain its rolling hills, green buffers, new town center and the village of Wexford while accommodating the new growth. While accommodating the demands of growth, the Township is eager to implement solutions

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

to lessen the impact of this growth on land consumption, the Township's transportation and infrastructure, and to protect its sensitive natural resources. The Township’s vision is to retain its character and high quality of life. A network of trails throughout the Township will assist in many ways to help achieve this vision by: • enhancing the safety of Township residents who currently rely on the vehicular network to meet their pedestrian and bicycling needs. • providing an alternative mode of transportation thus reducing the demand on transportation infrastructure, reducing the cost of traveling between the Township's institutions and amenities, and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. • enhancing the quality of life of Township residents by providing additional recreational, social and fitness opportunities. Given limited Township resources the Township must proceed with caution, focusing its efforts on trail development where demands are greatest, where pedestrian and bicycle connectivity make sense, and where trail development is feasible. The Township recognizes past efforts in developing trails has been met with frustration, both from the Township's perspective and from those responsible for their development. This study hopes to learn from the past, and capitalize on current opportunities. Goals of the Township Trail System During the first study committee meeting attendees reviewed the goals established, for trail and bikeway opportunities in the 1998 Comprehensive Recreation, Park and Open Space Plan. The committee felt that although the goals were admirable, they should be

refined and prioritized. The committee concluded the most significant goals should focus on connectivity, improving recreational opportunities, improving safety and alternate modes of transportation, while the remaining goals of the 1998 study should function as secondary goals. These include providing wildlife habitat corridors, protecting environmentally sensitive resources, establishing environmental education opportunities, and protecting scenic vistas within the Township.

Review of Existing Documents Over the years many studies have addressed providing trails for recreational purposes in the Township of Pine. These include:

NORTH HILLS T RAIL A LIGNMENT STUDY, C HESTER ENGINEERS, 1998 This study looked for opportunities to connect the northern suburbs of Allegheny County to the City of Pittsburgh. This study recommends two segments through Pine, one entering from the west, and one extending from the south. Western Trail Segment This segment is proposed to enter the Township in the vicinity of the Warrendale Bayne Road, as it crosses the Pennsylvania Turnpike. At Wallace Road this segment joins the Southern trail segment and continues to the Pine Richland School Complex. Southern Trail Segment The study recommends the trail continue from the Township's southern boundary, northward, along the former Harmony Inter-Urban Line right-of-way to State Route 910. In the vicinity of Brooktree Drive there is an opportunity to head east, crossing State Route 19, and entering North Park along its western boundary. The study recommended that once the trail

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

reaches the vicinity of McKinney Road the trail turn northward, past Wexford Elementary School, over the ridge, to the intersection of Wallace and English Roads. Then the trail is proposed to run parallel to Wallace Road and continue along Warrendale Bayne Road (Red Belt), through the Treesdale Estate, to the Pine Richland High School complex.

HARMONY T RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY, PASHEK A SSOCIATES, 2002 A feasibility study was completed in 2002 to determine the feasibility of developing the Harmony Trail, from Wall Park in McCandless Township, to State Route 910 in Pine, following the corridor of the former Harmony Inter-Urban Line. Of the segments studied, the segment from Richard Road, in the Town of McCandless, to State Route 910 appeared to be feasible to develop if the corridor can be acquired from the respective land owners. If this portion of the actual Harmony Inter-Urban corridor could be acquired, development costs would be limited as the former railbed still exists and could be supplemented with fine aggregates to develop a first class trail.

T RAIL IMPROVEMENT STUDY - NORTH PARK, GWSM, INC., 1990

AND

SOUTH

of trails located throughout the park. Current trail types include bicycling, walking, hiking, equestrian, special use (therapeutic / Braille) and shared use paths. In addition, the study addressed the need to address current safety concerns by separating bicycle use from pedestrian uses by establishing bike lanes. This recommendation was implemented and in 2002 Lake Shore Drive was reconfigured to eliminate one lane of traffic to accommodate bicycle lanes separate from the walking trail. In addition, the study recommended the County adopt a Trail Management Plan, and provides an outline of topics the Management Plan should address.

PINE C ODE, Z ONING, C HAPTER 84 The Township's zoning ordinance addresses the provision of sidewalk and trails as follows: •

Appendix 84-2 - Parks and Recreation Guidelines Appendix Provides cross sections with three bike trail types: 1.

This study recommended ways to improve the internal trail systems in North and South Parks. Although numerous recommendations were made, they generally pertained to internal trails, therefore the recommendations do not address trail improvements outside of North Park, in Pine.

A LLEGHENY C OUNTY PARKS C OMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN, WALLACE, ROBERTS & TODD, 2002 This comprehensive study of the Allegheny County Parks System and its individual parks recommends that trails within the County Parks be brought into compliance with current standards for the various types

township of pine trail feasibility study

Type I - 8'-0" min. wide multi-use path separated from roadway by 12'-0" landscape buffer. Paved surface. The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities” recommends a minimum trail width of ten feet.

Type II - 5'-0" min. wide designated bike lane exclusive for bicycle use, one or two way traffic. Paved surface. A 5’-0” two way bike lane, located adjacent to a vehicular travel lane violates the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code.

Type III - 3'-0: min. wide designated bike

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

lane exclusive for bicycle use, one way traffic. Paved surface. AASHTO’s “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities” recommends a minimum width of 4’-0”.

RECREATION, PARK AND OPEN SPACE PLAN, T OWNSHIP OF PINE, PINE PARKS AND RECREATION C OMMISSION, 1998

Although the study recommends a feasibility study be completed to locate and prioritize trail segments, the plan does include a map identifying the proposed trail network. Additionally, the plan provides specifications for trail development for Class I through IV Trails, as follows: •

Class III Low Traffic: Low traffic trails should be 8'-0" wide, have a clearance height of 8'-0" wide, with 4'-0" wide well compacted granular surface, geotextile fabric and 2'-0" clearance on each side. Trail use is for pedestrian and handicapped only. This trail should have a maximum 8% gradient with 2% maximum cross slope. If trails are greater than 8% in slope, asphalt surface is required.

•

Class II High Traffic: A high traffic trail should be 12'-0" wide, clearance height of 8'-0", and a surface of 5" deep well compacted granular slag or limestone, geotextile fabric and 2'-0" clearance on each side. This trail is a combined bike and walking trail, handicap accessible, with a maximum 5% gradient with 2% maximum cross slope. A High Traffic Class II Trail is essentially the same as the Class I Bikeway.

•

Class I Bikeway: A bike path should be separated from motorized vehicles by a 12'-0" wide preferred greenway. The path should be 8'-0" wide, clearance height of 8'-0" minimum, and a surface of well compacted granular slag, limestone or asphalt and geotextile fabric. This path is for two way travel.

•

Class II Bike Lane: A bike lane should be an added lane to the roadway designated by pavement markings and bike lane signage. The lane should be 5'-0" minimum for one way traffic or 8'-0" minimum for two way traffic, clearance height of 8'-0" minimum and a surface of asphalt paving.

•

Class III Bike Route: A bike route is a shared traffic lane which is part of the roadway. Bikes are legal vehicles which must obey traffic laws. The route should be 3'-8" wide for one way traffic only

Established goals for providing hiking trail opportunities within the Township: • Promote trails as an alternate mode of transportation • Provide a new recreation, fitness and social opportunity • Provide wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors • Provide for the preservation of conservation lands such as steep slopes, flood prone areas that are inappropriate for development • Assist in the preservation of scenic vistas • Provide accessible recreation facilities • Provide the Township with environmental education opportunities • Provide limited access to the County Greenway System Established goals for a proposed bikeway system: • Provide access to the County Greenway System • Promote trails as an alternate mode of transportation • Improve the safety of bicycling • Provide new recreational, fitness and social opportunity • Link all recreational facilities in the area • Interconnect with similar systems in surrounding communities

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

and a surface of asphalt paving. The bike route should be designated by pavement markings and bike route signage. â&#x20AC;˘

Equestrian Use: The demand for equestrian use is not sufficient to install specific equestrian trails, and by the same token is not expected to be heavy enough to cause a problem as a shared use of the trail network.

Public input during the 1998 Comprehensive Recreation, Park and Open Space Planning process demonstrated the desire, and need for accommodating pedestrian and bicycle needs within the Township. When asked what recreation facilities the Township should focus their resources on, respondents to a community survey gave priority to trails, ranking them second, third and fifth among twenty choices.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

1998 Recreation Survey - All Responses 5.40%

Shuffleboard Volleyball

7.50%

Horse Trails

7.10% 7.70%

Horseshoes

8.20%

Teen Game Room

9.10%

Soccer

9.70%

Organic Plots

14.50%

Aerobics

15.90%

Basketball Day Camp

18.20%

Baseball

18.20%

Tennis

21.90%

Nature Center

21.90% 23%

Community Day

23.60%

Band Shell

25%

Connecting Trails

26.70%

Playground

38.80%

Bike Paths

42.90%

Hiking

49.70%

Swimming 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

2003 TOWNSHIP OF PINE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Sustaining Our Character into the Future, peter j. smith & company, inc., April 2003 Fifty percent of those responding to the Community Survey support the development of trails within Pine that link to the surrounding communities. Furthermore, seventy-five percent of the respondents indicated that bikeways/walkways should be developed to improve safety within the Township. The analysis of existing land use completed for the Comprehensive Plan indicates that linking park land through a comprehensive trail system would be desirable. The Comprehensive Plan goes on to establish policy statements and corresponding actions required to achieve the vision established in the plan for the Township. Several of these policy statements and action strategies can be achieved through the implementation of the recommendations of this trail feasibility study. They include: â&#x20AC;˘

Policy: We realize the need to create commercial nodes that meet neighborhood shopping needs, and thus, reduce vehicle trips in the community.

â&#x20AC;˘

Policy: We provide comprehensive recreation facilities for all Township residents. - Action: Develop a Comprehensive Open Space and Trail System. - Action: Continue to ensure all new Trails are in place before housing development occurs.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

W hy a r e n ' t we walking and biking? So, you may ask if there is such a demand for trails in the Township why don’t we see a lot of people walking and biking throughout the Township today. During a recent presentation on creating walkable communities, Peter Moe, Executive Director of the National Center for Bicycle and Walking illustrated that we are not walking and biking for the following reasons: •

This has been caused because we have removed the visual cues that remind us to walk, such as sidewalks, and by making it difficult, and sometimes impossible to cross a street. This has resulted in a childhood dilemma. • • • • •

It encourages sedentary behaviors over an active lifestyle It removes or restricts physical activity from our routines Requires children to be chauffeured for short trips Restricts spontaneous decisions to play or recreate outdoors Confines children to four walls of the school or home for most of the day

There is no place to walk or bike. Walkways and bikeways must be convenient, continuous, connected and comfortable.

•

I can't get across the street. Street crossings should be convenient and allow people of different abilities to cross safely and securely

•

It's too far. A typical walking trip is about ¼ mile, by segregating land uses, we put schools, commercial areas, and civic centers out of reach of people walking

•

By completing this study The Township of Pine has positioned itself to create a walkable community by providing the Township’s residents with safe pedestrian and bicycle opportunities, and to provide opportunities for Township residents to live healthier and more active lifestyles.

Walk there? Past transportation engineering solutions only focused on accommodating vehicles, today's engineering solutions should focus on accommodating all modes of transportation; vehicular, bicycling and walking

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

B e n e f i t s o f a To w n s h i p Trail System While the health benefits of trails is often acknowledged, there are many other benefits that are not, including environmental, community, and personal benefits. A few of the direct benefits include: •

Trails provide an alternative mode of transportation, and reduce the negative environmental impacts associated with combustion engine vehicles.

•

Trails help create a sense of place and community by encouraging residents to interact with each other.

•

Trails generate positive economic impacts by delivering additional spending to businesses. As businesses become more productive, new jobs and tax revenues follow. The additional spending may result from increased visitation or by changing the behavior of an existing pool of resident shoppers.

•

Finally, trails help us reduce stress and create a balance between work and play.

If you take the following facts into consideration you will understand the impact these benefits will have to the Township. •

BENEFITS

TRAILS

Environmental Benefits

• Reduce pollution • Provide opportunities to enjoy nature

Community Benefits

• Reduce crime and delinquency • Connect families • Support youth • Offer lifeline for elderly Economic Benefits

• Increase tourism • Enhance land and property value • Assist in business retention • Generate revenue

Walking is the most popular activity in the United States 1,000,000 people walk two to three times a week for recreational purposes, yet we have removed the visual cues in our communities that provide us with a constant reminder to walk.

•

More bicycles are sold than cars. In 1998 approximately 19.6 million bicycles were sold in the United States . 15 million automobiles

Personal Benefits

• Reduce stress • Create balance between work and play • Eliminate boredom and loneliness

The benefits of a Township trail system are wide-ranging. township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

are sold annually in the United States. •

Currently, new development in the United States does not typically promote pedestrian friendly environments, nor community oriented environments. Sidewalks have been eliminated as a requirement for land and subdivision because developers have convinced communities that it is 'too expensive' to construct sidewalks. However, it has been proven that it is no more expensive to build ten foot wide travel lanes with five foot wide sidewalks than it is to build twelve foot travel lanes without sidewalks. We commend the Township of Pine for beginning an exception to this point.

•

Safety, Safety, Safety - Pedestrians and bicyclists are currently using the roadways, which provide no accommodation for them.

participating in CDC's BRFSS, none fell into the highest two categories of obesity prevalence. No BRFSS participating states had an obesity rate greater than 14%. By the year 2000, data was available for all 50 states, revealing 49 states as falling within the highest two categories of obesity (i.e., 27 states having 15-19% obesity; 22 states having a population rate of 20% obesity or more). As the obesity epidemic spreads, the prevalence of overweight among U.S. adults has increased by 61% from 1991 to 2000 alone . The foresight of the Township Officials to take on the task of establishing a community wide trail system is to be commended. A comprehensive trail system will enhance the quality of the life within the Township and become an indispensible asset.

One pedestrian is injured every seven seconds and one dies every one hundred and twelve minutes. One bicyclist dies every one hundred and fifteen minutes. •

Encouraging Physical Fitness and Healthy Lifestyles During the past 20 years, 1985 to 2000, there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States. Currently, more than half of all U.S. adults are considered overweight, defined as having a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or more. Body Mass Index is defined as a measure of an adult's weight in relation to his or her height, specifically the adult's weight in kilograms divided by the square of his or her height in meters. These data were derived from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a random-digit telephone survey conducted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and state health departments.

“Let us bequeath our children more than the gadgets that surround us. If bicycling can be restored to the daily life of all Americans, it can be a vital step toward rebuilding health and vigor in all of us.” - Dr. Paul Dudley White, American Cardiologist, 1886-1973

In 1985, while only a handful of states were

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

1990

1995

2000

No Data

<10%

10% -14%

15-19%

続20%

Obesity* Trends Among U.S. Adults Center for Disease Control Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (*Body Mass Index 30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5'4" person) township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

C ONCLUSIONS With the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision to retain its character and high quality of life, the projected increase in population, particularly those groups most inclined to use trail resources, and the documented need for recreation and trail opportunities in the Township we concur that the development of a high quality network of trails connecting the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s institutions and amenities is highly desirable. In addition to meeting the recreation needs of the Township residents, we acknowledge the Township and its residents will receive environmental, community, economic and personal benefits from a high quality trail system.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

2: PUBLIC INPUT & SUPPORT Suppor t for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements To guide the process of preparing this trail feasibility study, the Township Parks and Recreation Director formed an eight member steering committee. This committee represents the various stakeholders in the Township who play a role in planning for and developing trails within the Township. The committee includes: • • • •

public input is key to a successful trail system plan

• • •

a Township Supervisor the Township Director of Parks and Recreation the Township Manager the Township Director of Code Administration and Land Development a Planning Commission Member a Local Developer and community resident and a Community Resident with avid interests in pedestrian and bicycling opportunities in the Township and the region.

Other venues of public input included: • • •

Community Trail Questionnaire Key Person Interviews Public Meetings

The input received from each of these venues is summarized in this chapter. Study Group Meeting One The eight person study committee met on January 14, 2004 at the Township Municipal Building. At the meeting the consultant introduced the project, confirmed the goals of the plan, discussed the Township's role in providing trails, reviewed past barriers to trail development, established goals for the citizen survey and reviewed a draft of survey, developed a profile of trail users, identified key destinations that should be connected in the Township and discussed potential trail corridors.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

Study Group Meeting Two The second Study Group meeting was held on Wednesday, February 11, 2004. At the meeting, the group reviewed the revised draft of the Trail Questionnaire and suggested possible revisions. The group also reviewed the Township of Pine Trail System Goal Statement and the group discussed the various types of trail users within the Township and the Consultant explained the differences between different types of trail corridors, and the users they serve, including: • • • • •

Walking / Hiking Trails Sidewalks Shared Use Paths Bicycle Lanes Share-the-Road Lanes

Attendees concluded the most desirable type of trail is the Shared Use Path, however they acknowledged that in many circumstances it would be difficult to achieve in all locations. Therefore, other trail modes should be explored to provide continuity of the trail system. A brief discussion on equestrian trails followed. Those present felt the equestrian trail need in the Township is limited, and that resources should focus on meeting the larger need of providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. A Conceptual Trail Connections Study (found on the following page) was discussed. The study identified concentrations of population and destinations within the Township to spark conversation about where potential trail corridors should be developed.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

CONCEPTUAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS

township of pine trail feasibility study

STUDY 15

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

Study Group Meeting Three The third study group meeting was held April 14, 2004. At that meeting the Consultant reviewed the results of the random sample questionnaire, PennDOT’s 2004 roadway improvement plans for the Township, a new transportation enhancement funding opportunity through PennDOT (Safe Routes to School) and reviewed a preliminary draft of potential trail corridors identified by the consultant. After some discussion, attendees requested that additional opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle opportunities be identified. The Consultant acknowledged the request and indicated he would meet with Township staff and a representative of the study committee to discuss where there may be additional opportunities. On April 27, 2004, the Consultant and representatives of the Township, met with PennDOT to review their plans for pedestrian and bicycle improvements within the Township and to determine how current PennDOT projects might be modified to acknowledge and implement the Township’s plans for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. On May 7, 2004, the Consultant met with representatives of the Township to discuss additional pedestrian and bicycle opportunities in the Township. A number of potential corridors were identified, and the Consultant conducted an evaluation of the corridors identified. On May 13, 2004, the Consultant and representatives of the Township met with a representative of Trees Estate to discuss the possibility of acquiring an easement through the Trees Estate property, on the southern side of Warrendale Road for the purpose of developing a shared use path to connect the Township’s Community Park with the Pine Richland School Complex. On June 3, 2004, the Consultant, along with representatives of the Township and study group

conducted a field view of existing and proposed trail corridors including: 1. Existing Hill Road Trail 2. Proposed Oak Haven to Pine Haven Park Trail (Segment 31) 3. Proposed Terra Vista Drive Trail (Segment 28) 4. Existing North Park Manor Trail 5. Existing Lake MacLeod Trail 6. Existing Oak Haven Trail 7. Existing Fox Meadow Trail 8. Existing Woodland Farms Trail 9. Existing North Park Manor Trail Based on this review it was the group’s consensus to recommend the Township: •

eliminate the proposed Oak Haven to Pine Haven Park trail due to topographic constraints.

•

allow the existing Hill Road Trail to revert back to a natural state due to steep terrain, difficulty in expanding the trail to meet current standards due to topography and the availability of the English Road Trail to the west.

•

request the Home Owners Association to remove the existing Terra Vista Drive Trail due to steep topography, appearance of trail through backyards of adjacent residents and limited connectivity.

•

request the Home Owners Association to remove the existing Oak Haven, Fox Meadow and Woodland Farms Trails due to steep topography, appearance of trail through backyards of adjacent residents and limited connectivity.

•

propose revisions to the Township’s Land Development and Subdivision Ordinance to encourage trail development like that which is occurring at Lake MacLeod.

•

strengthen the construction inspection process to ensure trails are being properly constructed, and to

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

establish maximum running slope and cross slopes on trails. It was suggested that trail construction be treated as the Township treats road construction in new developments. Study Group Meeting Four On June 9, 2004, the Consultant met with the Study Group. The purpose of the meeting was to review progress that occurred on the study since the April 14th study group meeting. This included reviewing the following: •

•

PennDOT’s commitment to provide bike lanes along Pearce Mill Road. Reviewing the PennDOT Safe Routes to School grant opportunity.

•

Reviewing the results of the initial meeting with the representative from Trees Estate.

•

Reviewing the proposed revisions to the trail plan based on staff review and study group input.

•

Reviewing the findings of the June 3rd field review of existing and potential trail corridors.

•

Establishing criteria by which the various trail corridor segments can be prioritized.

On June 16, 2004, the consultant met with the Study Group to conduct a field view of existing and proposed trail corridors including: 1. Community Park to High School Trail (Segments 22 and 23) 2. Community Park Trail (Segment (19) 3. Community Park to Pinkerton Road Trail (Segment 17) 4. Existing West Grove Trails 5. Existing / Proposed Irwin Road Trail (Segment 29)

township of pine trail feasibility study

Based on this review it was the group’s consensus to: 1. Consider a below grade crossing of Pearce Mill Road to allow users to cross this State Route which bisects the Park to School route. 2. Be sensitive to Trees Estate, and develop a proposal to utilize their property parallel to the State Route without affecting the privacy of the residents. 3. Encourage development of trails like those throughout Lake MacLeod and Treesdale. 4. Recommend the Township partner with Allegheny County to formally develop the Irwin Road Trail. On July 8, 2004 the Consultant and study group member Nancy Malone, an avid road cyclist, conducted a field review of the proposed bike lanes. Based on this review Nancy agreed the bicycle lanes being proposed were warranted, and that they were located along the proper roadways. Key Person Interviews During the course of the study several key persons were identified as having important roles in assisting the Township to achieve its vision of developing a comprehensive trail system throughout the Township. Meetings and / or phone interviews were scheduled with those individuals to review the Township’s plan and to discuss their role in it. Mr. Tom Fox, PennDOT District 11-0 District Executive The Consultant contacted Mr. Fox to determine what roadway rehabilitation and resurfacing projects were scheduled for 2004 in Pine Township. Mr. Fox provided a list of the following projects: •

U.S. 19 - We have a major widening and resurfacing project for the Wexford Flats, Pine Creek to Wallace Road.

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

We are in the design phase of this project and expect to begin the Right-of-Way phase within the next 12 months. Construction is several years off. •

•

SR 4063- PennDOT currently has two segments of Pearce Mill Road under contract for milling, resurfacing, shoulders, base repair, drainage, and other miscellaneous construction 1)

From about the intersection with Kummer Road to SR 910

From SR 910 to about the intersection with Logan Road

SR 4068- PennDOT currently has the portion of Bakerstown/Warrendale Road, between west of the intersection with Pierce Mill Road to Babcock Boulevard, under the same contract:

Mr. Malek Francis, PennDOT District 11-0 Pedestrian Bicycle Coordinator The Consultant met with Mr. Francis to discuss the Township’s plans for pedestrian and bicycle improvements, to coordinate the Township’s vision with 2004 improvements within State road right-of-ways, and to discuss funding opportunities for the Community Park to School Complex connection, as a safe route to school. Mr. Francis expressed interest in revisiting the design for the Pearce Mill Road resurfacing project to determine whether bicycle lanes could be accommodated as part of PennDOT’s current construction project. Following the meeting Mr. Francis conducted several field visits with Township representatives and various PennDOT staff. At the conclusion of these meetings PennDOT agreed to construct bicycle lanes from North Park to State Route 910. The State Route 910 to Logan Road segment would be explored in future years and may require the Township to apply for Transportation Enhancement funding to assist in covering the cost to construct

bicycle lanes through this segment. Mr. Francis commended the Township for developing the plan, and suggested that whenever they need to communicate with PennDOT they contact him. Mr. Dick O’Rouke, Trees Estate The Township and the Consultant requested a meeting with Trees Estate to discuss the possibility to acquiring an easement, through the Trees Estate property, parallel to Warrendale Road. The purpose of this easement is to construct a shared use path to connect Pine Community Park with the Pine Richland School Complex. Mr. O’Rouke indicated the Trees Estate Board of Directors considers proposals on a case by case basis and that a proposal should be submitted by the Township. Mr. O’Rouke indicated that once a proposal is prepared, it should be delivered to him for presentation to the Board. He indicated they meet once every week or two, on an as needed basis. Mr. O’Rouke asked the Township to be specific in their request, and to explain how this component fits into the Township’s plans for achieving the broader goal of making Pine a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly community. Mr. O’Rouke noted a member of the Trees family resides on the estate, and the Board’s main concern is protecting his privacy. Mr. Tim Shipley, Developer of Lake MacLeod During the study committee meeting held on June 9, 2004 the committee asked study committee member , Tim Shipley, to discuss his concerns with the current trail requirements and the proposals to amend the existing requirements that have been discussed by the committee to date. Mr. Shipley indicated past problems with developer constructed trails appear to have resulted from the initial design and layout of the subdivision and PRD

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

plans. Many of the trails appear to have not been designed with the overall design on the plans, but instead many trails were placed in the plans as an afterthought to meet the Township requirements.

discuss the possibility of partnering with the Township to formalize it as a trail. Mr. Baechle was very supportive of the proposal and indicated the Township should contact him when they are ready to proceed.

Mr. Shipley expressed concern over the Township’s lack of enforcing the maintenance requirements of the trails, once they have been installed by the developer and become the responsibility of the respective homeowner association. In addition, Mr. Shipley noted that enforcement efforts have to be equal, and must apply to each developer and homeowner responsible for a trail. Inconsistent enforcement could result in liability for the Township.

Also during this meeting, the Consultant reviewed PennDOT’s plans for establishing bike lanes along Pearce Mill Road. Mr. Baechle expressed appreciation for the Township’s efforts in convincing PennDOT that these bike lanes are necessary, and noted the County will do its part to build upon the Township’s efforts within North Park.

Mr. Shipley indicated all trails developed as part of a subdivision or PRD plan should be designed as an integral part of the plan, and that prospective owners should be made aware of the trail before purchasing the property. Mr. Shipley suggested the Township require trails to be constructed when the roads are being constructed within the developments, and that the developers be required to disclose the locations of all proposed trails within a development at the property closing with the prospective buyer. He indicated this could be as simple as having the buyer sign a copy of the subdivision plan indicating the layout of the proposed trails, and the trails’ relationship to the property being purchased. Mr. Shipley was concerned that if too many restrictions are placed on the design and layout requirements those restrictions may reduce a developer’s ability to afford developing property in the Township. Mr. Shipley suggested the Township consider offering a density bonus to developers who provide an integrated trail system in their subdivision / PRD plans. Mr. Andy Baechle, Director of the Allegheny County Parks and Recreation Department On July 8, 2004 the Consultant and representatives of the Township met with Mr. Andy Baechle to complete a field view of the closed portion of Irwin Road, and

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

QUESTIONNAIRE In March of 2004, seven hundred and ninety-five questionnaires, with self addressed stamped envelopes, were sent to a random sample of twenty-five percent of the households within the Township. Five surveys were returned undeliverable for a total of seven hundred and ninety surveys delivered. Two hundred and forty-three completed surveys were returned and tabulated. Therefore, the response rate for this survey was 30.75%.

2. Do you feel a trail network will enhance the quality of your familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life? Over three quarters of respondents feel that trails will enhance their quality of life.

YES 77%

Typically, a response rate of twelve percent can be considered to be representative of the overall communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desires. The 30% response rate for this questionnaire is considered to be outstanding, and representative of the entire community.

NO 23%

The questions and results were as follows: 1. Do you feel existing walking, hiking, jogging, and bicycling opportunities within the Township are safe? The responses are split almost 50/50. Fifty percent is a high number of residents to feel these recreation opportunities are currently unsafe. YES - 49% NO - 51%

3. Do you feel multi-use trail connections that accommodate pedestrian bicycling activities are important community assets?

YES 85%

NO 15%

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

4. How would you classify your current trail use? check all that apply. The chart below indicates the percentages of responses for each use type. Fitness walking/jogging and family walking are the highest ranking activities. Nature walks were ranked second highest, receiving more votes than any type of biking activity.

fitness walking/jogging

6. Do you travel outside of Pine to use trails? With almost half of Pine residents leaving the Township to use trails, provision of trail opportunities within the Township should be a high priority. Not only does the availability of trails within a community increase the quality of life in that community, but trail users are likely to buy lunch, rent bikes, or spend money on other things associated with trail use. The responses to this question indicate that a large number of residents are leaving the Township to recreation and spend money elsewhere.

family walking leisure biking

YES 53%

in-line skating leisure walking fitness biking family biking nature walks none

YES 47%

5. Circle all of the trails in the Township you are aware of? The top ten responses were: 1. Pine Community Park Trails (116 votes) 2. North Park - Lake Trail (82 votes) 3. North Park - Marshall Lake Trail (67 votes) 4. North Park - Rachel Carson Trail (43 votes) 5. Pine Haven Park Trail (41 votes) 6. North Park - Skyline Trail (41 votes) 7. North Park - Bluebird Trail (38 votes) 8. North Park - Observation Trail (37 votes) 9. North Park - Manor Trail (34 votes) 10. North Park - South Ridge Drive Trail (33 votes)

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

If Yes, where do you go?

7. Do you walk or jog on sidewalks in the Township?

The top three responses are regional trails/parks that attract trail users from a large area so it is not unusual for Pine residents to use them. However, Township officials may want to examine what trails Pine residents are using in Adams, Cranberry, and Marshall to determine if these communities offer unique community trail experiences that arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t offered in Pine.

YES 62%

Montour Trail

NO 38%

Moraine State Park Butler Freeport Trail Lake Wilham Presque Isle

8. Do you walk, jog, or bike on roadways in the Township?

Adams Township Cranberry Township Marshall Township

Walking, jogging, and in some cases biking are unsafe on roadways. A large number of respondents indicated they do use roadways so this is an important safety issue that should be addressed by providing safe places to conduct these activities.

YES 52%

NO 48%

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

9. If the Township were to focus its efforts on one trail connection, realizing resources are limited, which should it be? Please rank the following, 1 being the most important, 5 the least. The chart below represents a weighted tally of the rankings given to each trail connection. A connection between the Community Park and North Park was the highest priority and a connection between the Community Park and the High School was the second highest. Also, the North Park connection received the largest number of highest priority votes, followed by the High School/Community Park connection.

10. How often would you use new trail connections? 52% of respondents would use new trails once a week or more.

11. Do you support the development of new trail opportunities in the Township within the current tax structure?

YES 83%

Pine Park to H.S.

NO 17%

Pine Park to North Park English Road to Route 19

12. Understanding trail development will take a considerable amount of time within the current tax structure, would you support a minimal tax increase to accelerate trail development?

Irwin Road to North Park

Red Belt to Pine Park

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

NO 64%

YES 36%

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

13. How would you use new trails?

15. Please circle the number of people in your household for each age group?

A total of 91% of respondents indicated that they would use trails for exercise or leisure compared with the smaller percentage of respondents who would use trails and similar trail opportunities over long routes connecting one community focal point with another.

LEISURE 45%

EXERCISE 46%

The response to this question was compared with the demographic data collected in the 2000 census. The comparison indicated the demographic makeup of the survey respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; households corresponds to the overall demographic makeup of the Township. This further validates that the results of the questionnaire can be considered representative of all Township households.

16. In what area of the Township do you live?

TO/FROM WORK 1%

TO/FROM RT 19 5% TO/FROM SCHOOL 3%

Although the response rates are not geographically representative, given the random sample of 25% of the households within the Township the response rates are statistically representative. The geographic representation is skewed because quadrants the respondents were able to choose from contain various densities of residential development and are of varying sizes. Therefore it is not surprising the southwest quadrant of the community had the highest representation, as it contains the greatest number of households in the Township.

14. What trail amenities are most important to you?

Restrooms - 30% Places to Park - 30% Trail Route Markers - 26% Picnic Stops - 11% Bike Racks - 3%

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

LOCAL SUPPORT 2004 Trail Feasibility Study Questionnaire The results of the questionnaire completed as part of this study indicate there is overwhelming support for developing a trail system in the Township of Pine. This is supported by the fact that seventy-seven percent of the respondents indicated a trail network will enhance their quality of life and eighty-five percent of the respondents indicated trail connections are important assets. 2002 Comprehensive Plan In the community survey that was distributed to Township residents in 2002, as part of the Township Comprehensive Planning process, fifty percent of respondents indicated that they would like to see trails developed that link to surrounding communities. Furthermore, seventy-five percent of respondents indicated that bikeways/walkways should be developed to improve safety in Pine.

NATIONAL

AND

STATE SUPPORT

Support for pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements has been overwhelming at the national, state and local levels. A 1997 survey of US voters found strong support for Federal funding for bicycling . The survey, by Lake, Sosin, Snell and Associates for the “Bikes Belong!” campaign found that: •

sixty-four percent of voters support using money from Federal gasoline taxes for things like bike trails, bike lanes and sidewalks; twenty-five percent strongly support this. Even a majority of those who do not ride bikes support this statement.

•

seventy-nine percent of voters described as convincing the message that bike trails and lanes are important to creating safe communities for our children, including 46 percent who found this very convincing. 37 percent of voters volunteered that

township of pine trail feasibility study

safety concerns were the most important reason for funding bike trails and lanes. A 1994 survey of house-buying preferences, by American Lives, Inc., found that seventy-four percent of home buyers said the presence of walking and biking trails is very or extremely important in their choice of location. This answer was fourth, behind quiet, low traffic area at ninety-three percent, designed with cul-de-sac streets, circles and courts at seventyseven percent, and lots of natural, open space at seventy-seven percent. A national survey on growth and land development, commissioned by the Surface Transportation Policy Project in September 2000, found that seventy-seven percent of the population either strongly or somewhat favors using part of State transportation budgets to create more sidewalks and stop signs in communities to make it safer and easier for children to walk to school even if this means less money to build new highways. In 1996, PennDOT's Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan recommended bike lanes and wider outside lanes be placed along highway corridors, as well as, providing bicycle lanes and continuous sidewalks in the retail core of communities. The recommendation indicates PennDOT will consider bicycle accommodations in highway construction projects and encourages municipalities to do the same. In late 1999, the US Department of Highway Transportation's Federal Highway Administration published a document titled "the Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach” which is a policy statement adopted by the United States Department of Transportation. The USDOT hopes that public agencies, professional associations, advocacy groups, and others adopt this approach as a way of committing themselves to integrating bicycling and walking into the transportation mainstream.

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

FWHA Policy Statement The following Policy Statement was drafted by the U.S. Department of Transportation in response to Section 1202 (b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) with the input and assistance of public agencies, professional associations and advocacy groups. 1. Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in new construction and reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas unless one or more of three conditions are met: •

bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway. In this instance, a greater effort may be necessary to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians elsewhere within the right of way or within the same transportation corridor.

•

the cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Excessively disproportionate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of the larger transportation project.

•

where sparsity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need. For example, the Portland Pedestrian Guide requires "all construction of new public streets" to include sidewalk improvements on both sides, unless the street is a cul-de-sac with four or fewer dwellings or the street has severe topographic or natural resource constraints.

2. In rural areas, paved shoulders should be included in all new construction and reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day, as in States such as Wisconsin. Paved shoulders have safety and operational advantages for all road users in addition to providing a place for bicyclists and pedestrians to operate. Rumble strips are not recommended where shoulders are used by

bicyclists unless there is a minimum clear path of four feet in which a bicycle may safely operate. 3. Sidewalks, shared use paths, street crossings (including over- and undercrossings), pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so that all pedestrians, including people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently. 4. The design and development of the transportation infrastructure shall improve conditions for bicycling and walking through the following additional steps: •

planning projects for the long-term. Transportation facilities are long-term investments that remain in place for many years. The design and construction of new facilities that meet the criteria in item 1) above should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements. For example, a bridge that is likely to remain in place for 50 years, might be built with sufficient width for safe bicycle and pedestrian use in anticipation that facilities will be available at either end of the bridge even if that is not currently the case.

•

addressing the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross corridors as well as travel along them. Even where bicyclists and pedestrians may not commonly use a particular travel corridor that is being improved or constructed, they will likely need to be able to cross that corridor safely and conveniently. Therefore, the design of intersections and interchanges shall accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient.

•

getting exceptions approved at a senior level. Exceptions for the non-inclusion of bikeways and walkways shall be approved by a senior manager and be documented with supporting data that indicates the basis for the decision.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

•

designing facilities to the best currently available standards and guidelines. The design of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians should follow design guidelines and standards that are commonly used, such as AASHTO’s “ Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities”, AASHTO's “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”, and the ITE Recommended Practice "Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities".

There is no question that conditions for bicycling and walking need to be improved in every community in the United States; it is no longer acceptable that 6,000 bicyclists and pedestrians are killed in traffic every year, that people with disabilities cannot travel without encountering barriers, and that two desirable and efficient modes of travel have been made difficult and uncomfortable. Every transportation agency has the responsibility and the opportunity to make a difference to the bicycle-friendliness and walkability of our communities. The design information to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians is available, as is the funding. The United States Department of Transportation is committed to doing all it can to improve conditions for bicycling and walking and to make them safer ways to travel.

C ONCLUSIONS Results of the public input process indicate that three out of every four residents of the Township support the development of a trail system and that four of every five residents believe trails are important community assets. However only one in three residents support a tax increase to fund the implementation of the system This is consistent with the input that indicates the Township must actively pursue partnerships with other agencies and obtain the support of the local development community to assist in implementing various trail segments throughout the community.

Traditionally, PennDOT’s concern was the vehicular roadway, and improvements beyond the motorized vehicular cartpath were looked upon unfavorably. However, in December of 2001 PennDOT issued a policy on Improved Pedestrian Mobility which reversed an earlier position on pedestrian accommodations by stating that sidewalks should be considered on all PennDOT funded roads. Furthermore, PennDOT’s design manuals 1, 1A and 2 were updated to include a “Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Design Checklist”. In the Fall of 2003 training workshops were held in each PennDOT District office to educate staff of the proper use of these new design checklists.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 3 DEMAND AND PPUBLIC OTENTIAL INPUT USE

3: DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE Trail Users The Township recognizes that a trail’s planned use will influence design and construction. To properly plan for trail development, the targeted trail users must be considered. The following is a description of potential trail users, and issues that must be considered when designing to meet their needs.

WHO

ARE WE DESIGNING FOR?

Typically, bicycle and pedestrians have common desires; these are convenience, continuous, connected and comfortable routes. However, each of these is defined differently depending on the particular abilities of the user and their mode of travel. Bicyclists The Federal Highway Administration's definition of bicyclists was developed to assist transportation facility designers and planners in determining the impact of different facility types and roadway conditions on the cyclists. These definitions are as follows:

township of pine trail feasibility study

•

Advanced or experienced riders are generally using their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with a minimum of detour or delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle traffic; however, they need sufficient operating space on the traveled way or shoulder to eliminate the need for them or a passing motor vehicle to shift positions.

•

Basic or less confident adult riders who may also be using their bicycles as they would for transportation purposes, for example, to get to the store or visit their friends, but prefer to avoid roads with fast or busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample width to allow easy overtaking by the faster motor vehicles. Thus, basic riders are

CHAPTER 3 DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE

comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bicycle lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets. •

Children, riding on their own or with parents, may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key destinations in their community, such as schools, convenience stores and recreation facilities. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds, like those with shared use paths, and busier streets with well defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles, can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride on the travel lane of major arterial roads.

Generally speaking anyone who rides a bicycle can be categorized into one of the above classifications. Research conducted by the US DOT National Highway Traffic safety Administration and Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and published in the "National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors”, found that the average length of a bicycling trip taken on a typical day during the summer was 3.9 miles. About 38.6% of the trips were less than one mile, while 7.3% of the trips were more than 10 miles in length. Trips whose purpose was for exercise or recreation were longer, 5.6 miles on average, than trips for other purposes, 2.2 miles on average.

Pedestrians Pedestrians are much more difficult to classify. The U.S. Department of Transportation defines a pedestrian as any person not in or upon a motor vehicle or other vehicle. Therefore, pedestrians include walkers, joggers, parents with strollers, wheelchair users, those traveling by foot, and those with mobility impairments. Pedestrians come in all ages, with varying abilities, and in all sizes. Given the diversity of pedestrians the design considerations vary depending on who is to be accommodated. Generally, when designing facilities for pedestrians' three categories tend to have the greatest need. These groups can be classified as seniors, children and the physically challenged. By designing for the greater comfort and convenience of these groups, one will have addressed the needs of all pedestrians. Research conducted by the US DOT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and published in the "National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors”, found that the average length of a walking trip taken on a typical day during the summer was 1.2 miles. About 26.9% of the trips were shorter than one quarter mile, while 14.8% of the trips were more than 2 miles in length. Trips whose purpose was for exercise or recreation were longer, 1.9 miles on average, than trips that were for other purposes, 0.8 miles on average.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 3 DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE

Seniors

Children

•

Children see the world differently :

•

Seniors aren't able to walk as quickly as their younger counterparts. Seniors don't have ability to react quickly if put in a dangerous position. Seniors are more physically frail than younger pedestrians and have a greater likelihood of being killed if hit by a vehicle.

•

Children don't think about getting hurt until about age nine.

•

Children are impulsive and impatient.

•

Children focus on one thing at a time.

•

Children confuse the worlds of reality and fantasy.

•

Often a Senior's eyesight and hearing is not as good as their younger counterparts.

•

Children have difficulty figuring out what is important.

•

Seniors are generally not mobile enough to be able to step up and down high curbs.

•

Children have trouble judging traffic speed, gaps in traffic, or whether a car is coming, going, or standing still.

•

Seniors tend to focus on identifying gaps in traffic and not be aware of traffic moving around them.

•

Children have limited ability detecting traffic in their side vision.

•

Children have difficulty figuring out the meaning and direction of sound.

•

Children focus on sounds that interest them, rather than sounds that are important to them.

•

Children have trouble understanding that a car can't stop as quickly as they can.

•

Children lack the knowledge to understand traffic rules and danger.

•

Children are smaller; they have trouble seeing traffic, and being seen by drivers.

•

Children think that if they can see are car they can be seen by the car, even if standing behind a shrub or parked car.

•

Seniors are involved in more pedestrian accidents in November, December and January. This is attributed to the shift to wearing warmer clothes, which they tend to wear in darker or more neutral colors, making them less visible to the driver. Also, long winter shadows make it more difficult for pedestrians to be seen.

Although seniors only represent 8% of pedestrian crashes they make up 25% of the fatalities.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 3 DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE

•

Children confuse eye contact with the driver's permission to cross.

•

Children don't realize drivers are paying attention to many things and aren't just focused on them.

Physically Challenged Everyone has experienced a physical impairment, or injury that limits mobility, at some point in their life. Broken legs, sprained ankles, pregnancies, and arthritis, not to mention more serious conditions that may affect us permanently. Walking aids such as crutches and walkers, mobility aids such as wheelchairs and electric carts also make it more difficult for us to negotiate our way from one destination to another. By designing pedestrian facilities that respond to their limitations, we can make pedestrian travel safer and more enjoyable for everyone. Considerations should include: •

Longitudinal slopes less than 5% and cross slopes less than 2%.

•

Adequate widths to accommodate passing, minimum five feet to allow two wheel chairs to pass each other.

•

Elimination of vertical hazards such as tripping hazards and more serious hazards such as curbs.

•

Visual and tactile cues to warn pedestrians in advance of the traffic lanes.

Safety WHAT

CAN BE DONE TO MAKE BICYCLING AND

WALKING SAFER?

It's easy to very quickly understand whom the bicyclists and pedestrians are, but what can we do to make their environment safer? 1. Respond to their needs. 2. Require land development to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements as a part of new development, or redevelopment activities. 3. Educate bicyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicle drivers so there is a greater level of understanding between one another. Start young by introducing children to walking and bicycle safety in elementary school. With change we can create vibrant town centers, create walkable schools and communities, connect educational, recreational, social and business destinations with each other. By encouraging more people to bicycle or walk, instead of driving or riding in a motor vehicle, will reduce infrastructure costs, reduce pollution, and improve our health and wellness. All of these factors collectively will contribute to increasing the quality of life in our community. Although it sounds easy to implement, there will be many who will want to resist change. Many will say we are creating unsafe conditions. However, bicyclists and pedestrians are currently using the existing roadways, without any improvements that respond to their needs, at a significant risk. By addressing their needs the roadways will only become safer. Many will say it costs too much to construct the improvements. However, it has been illustrated time and time again that good design can be constructed within the same budget that we are constructing poorly designed improvements that do not respond to the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, before throwing in the towel,

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 3 DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE

one should spend a little time and effort defending the principles of smart growth by utilizing the findings of many studies that promote smart growth, encourage livable and walkable communities, and enhance the quality of life for our generation, and, generations to come. Finally, the most significant argument, the potential increase in liability for providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities can also be defended. In 1986, the United States Federal Highway Administration's study "Liability Aspects of Bikeway Designation", completed by the Bicycle Federation of America, concluded that the designation of a bicycle facility will have no effect on the potential liability of the government entity which controls the facility . To reduce exposure from legal action by facilities users, a number of steps can be taken . These include: •

Post warnings to the users regarding actual or potential hazards

•

Monitor the actual use of facilities and be aware of any developing problems

•

Apply common maintenance standards to public facilities

•

Use "state of the practice" facility planning and design guidelines

township of pine trail feasibility study

How are / will bicycle and pedestrian facilities be used? There are many uses accommodated in pedestrian and bicycle facilities including, walking, hiking, biking, strolling, jogging, and in-line skating to name a few. All of these activities are different from each other and are not necessarily compatible with each other. Generally speaking, those activities that are comparable in mode and speed are compatible with each other. The greater the difference in speed or mode, the more likely the uses will not be compatible with each other. In addition, the type of surface provided on the improvement will dictate the type of use that occurs on the facility. For example, equestrian uses require an uncompacted surface of natural materials, whereas rollerblading requires hard paved surface such as asphalt. Therefore these uses are not compatible. In addition, the type of facility may influence the use. In Pennsylvania bicycle lanes along the shoulders of a road are considered part of the vehicular transportation system. As such, activity occurring in the bicycle lanes must be consistent with the state's motor vehicle code. Given this, the use of bicycle lanes is strictly limited to bicycle travel.

CHAPTER 3 DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE

Township Population Profile Demand for trails is a function, in part, of the size of an area’s overall population. A larger population needs more miles of trails because there are more people looking for opportunities to recreate and exercise. The Township of Pine’s population has grown significantly in the past decade and is expected to continue to grow. The population increased by 3,635 people (90%) from 1990 to 2000 for a total population of 7,683. During the same period, Allegheny County has lost 4.1% of its population and Pennsylvania’s population grew by only 3.36%. In the Township’s 2003 Comprehensive Plan, the community’s total population is estimated to be 14,728 in 2010 and 19,254 in 2020.

20000

2020 15000

2010 10000

2000 5000

1990 0

Pine is home to 2,120 families, with an average size of 3.4 people. Approximately 53% of the Township’s households have family members under the age of eighteen.

population growth

Based on the growth within Pine, there is a demonstrated need to accommodate the pedestrian and cycling needs of the community’s residents. .

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 3 DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE

Population, by age group

0-14 30.1%

15-19 - 5.9%

Population increase 1990-2000, by age group

20-44 32.1%

45-64 22.2%

2500 66+ - 9.7%

2000

1500

1000

township of pine trail feasibility study

85 + years

75 to 84 years

65 to 74 years

60 to 64 years

55 to 59 years

45 to 54 years

35 to 44 years

25 to 34 years

20 to 24 years

15 to 19 years

10 to 14 years

5 to 9 years

under 5 years

500

CHAPTER 3 DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE

Estimated Demand

for trails in the Township.

Determining usage feasibility is based on projections of potential future use of a proposed trail. An understanding of the volume of users may influence the design and implementation of a trail system. Several groups contribute to the user base of a trail system.

The Omnibus percentages of those who ride bicycles and those who walk, jog, or run were used with the Township’s population figures to generate estimated number of trips. The Omnibus percentages for use of paved roads, shoulders, bike lanes, sidewalks, and multiuse paths were used.

•

Biking

current local trail users who welcome an additional recreation opportunity;

•

new local trail users who start using trails as momentum builds around the development of a new trail system;

•

non-local trail users will often travel from outside the local service area of a trail to take advantage of a unique recreation opportunity.

It is impossible to generate an exact total of these three user groups to determine the future use of a proposed trail system. However, examination of the core users (those living within the typical service area) aids in determining the demand for new trails. One of the best ways to determine the potential future use of a recreational trail is to survey every resident that may use the trail, which is often cost prohibitive. The results of the random sample citizen survey conducted as part of this study do aid in gauging support for new trails. Additionally, national surveys serve as a good benchmark for use projects. The United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics conducts the Omnibus Survey of 1,000 households each month to collect input on transportation issues, including recreational trail use. Pine’s population was 7,683 in 2000 and is projected to be 14,728 in 2010. To project a rough estimate of annual trail use, the Omnibus survey results were applied to these population numbers for the Township. While the resulting figures are not a specific projection of use, they begin to quantify the potential user base

Using the Omnibus use percentages, the Township’s 2000 population will generate an average of 4,427 trips by bicycle per month (53,124 annually, 145 per day). In 2010, that number will jump to an average of 8,487 trips per month (101,844 annually, 279 per day). Utilizing the 2020 projected population of 19,254, we estimate an average of 10,975 bicycle trips will be generated per month (131,700 annually, 368 per day).

Walking, Jogging, Running An even larger number of trips may be taken by pedestrians. According to the Omnibus percentages, the Township’s 2000 population will generate an average of 73,326 trips per month (806,586 annually, 2,210 per day) and in 2010, and average of 140,564 trips per month (1,546,204 annually, 4,236 per day) will be taken. Utilizing the 2020 projected population of 19,254, we estimate an average of 182,913 pedestrian trips will be generated per month (2,194,956 annually, 6,013 per day). Conclusion This analysis indicates there is a potential to average 256,000 pedestrian and bicycle trips a month. This further confirms the need to provide a network of trails within the Township of Pine.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 3 DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE

Average Monthly Trips (using OmniBus percentages and Township population)

Bicyclists

20000

15000

10000

February

January

December

November

October

September

August

(no data available)

July

June

May

April

March

5000

Pedestrians 250000

200000

150000

100000

township of pine trail feasibility study

February

January

December

November

October

September

(no data available)

August

July

June

May

April

March

50000

CHAPTER 3 DEMAND AND POTENTIAL USE

C ONCLUSIONS The demand and potential analysis we completed for this study indicates: •

The average pedestrian trip, for recreation purposes is 1.9 miles long, while non-recreation related trips average 0.8 miles in length.

•

The average bicyclist’s trip, for recreation purposes is 5.6 miles long, while non-recreation related trips average 2.2 miles in length.

•

The population of the 5-19 age group, and the 25-59 age group has doubled between 1990 and 2010.

•

Overall, there is projected to be a 130% increase in the Township’s population between 2010 and 2020.

•

Current demand generates approximately 4,000 pedestrian trips a day, while it is projected the Township’s 2020 population will generate a demand for approximately 6,000 pedestrian trips a day.

•

Current demand generates approximately 145 bicycle trips a day, while it is projected the Township’s 2020 population will generate a demand for approximately 279 bicycle trips a day.

Therefore, we conclude there is sufficient demand to justify the Township’s need to develop a Township wide trail system.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

4: INVENTORY Community Resources When planning for a trail system, it is important to identify those features of a community that are desirable locations to travel to and from. Generally, destinations include: • • • • • • •

The proposed recreational connections capitalize on existing resources.

Schools Community Centers Downtowns Business Districts Parks / Open Space Historic Sites Concentrations of Residential Population (Land Use)

The Community Resources Map, on the following page documents the locations of the desirable destinations within the Township of Pine.

SCHOOL FACILITIES There are a variety of recreation facilities available to residents through the Pine-Richland School District. School sports fields and facilities are often open evenings and weekends to residents and groups for rental. Pine-Richland Middle/High School Recreation facilities at the school complex include: athletic facility, tennis courts, baseball field, softball field, soccer field, multi-purposes fields, indoor gymnasiums and multi-purpose rooms, and indoor pool. Also of note is the existing asphalt walkway which extends from the school building complex along Warrendale Road (Red Belt).

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

township of pine trail feasibility study

Location Map

Legend

SEVEN FIELDS BOROUGH

Township of Pine

Township Park

Matchline

State Highway

County Park

Existing Sidewalk

Open Space

Existing On-Road Trail

Existing Shared Use Trail

Allegheny County Pennsylvania

Municipal Building

Ballfield

Facility/Building

Skating Rink

Picnic Shelter

ADAMS TOWNSHIP

SR4059

VALENCIA BOROUGH

West Grove #1 Trail an Kau fm

West Grove #2 Trail

Run

ea Br

ec kn

r ee kC

SR 4068

TOWNSHIP

Township of Pine Community Park

31 40 SR

Lake MacLeod Trail

4 SR

SR 4 061

Fairways-East Ridge Trail

8 06

Woodland Farms Trail

Municipal Building

405 2

INT 76

Pine R

Pine-Richland High School Complex Middle School High School Swimming Pool Athletic Facility

INT 7 6

4 SR 068

Fox Meadow Trail

40 68

31 40 SR

SR 4052

N Fo rk

SR 4063

Oak Park Trail High School Trail

MARSHALL

Playing Field

RICHLAND TOWNSHIP

Butler County Allegheny County

4 05

Basketball Courts

Town Center/Traditional Villlage Areas

Existing Neighborhood Trail

SR 4061

TOWNSHIP

SR 4069

CRANBERRY

Residential Areas

Existing Park Trail

School

40 63

INT 76 MATCHLINE

NORTHERN TIER SOUTHERN TIER

TOWNSHIP OF PINE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

PASHEK ASSOCIATES

63 SR 40

1 US

BRADFORD WOODS

North Park Manor Trail

C O M M U N I T Y R E S O U R C E S -- N O R T H E R N T I E R 0

500

1,000

2,000 Feet

JULY 2004

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

township of pine trail feasibility study

SR 4052

Legend

4 SR

31 40 SR

Location Map

RICHLAND TOWNS

INT 7

068 SR

º ¹

County Park

Open Space

k j I Æ

40 63

School

Basketball Courts

Municipal Building

Ballfield

Facility/Building

Skating Rink

Picnic Shelter

¥I

Playing Field

INT 76

Fox Meadow Trail MATCHLINE

NORTHERN TIER SOUTHERN TIER

40 68

63 SR 40

1 US

BRADFORD WOODS

North Park Manor Trail

INT 76

a $"!

Oakhaven Trail

SR 31 40

91 0

Pine Haven Park

0 91

Hill Road Trail

PASHEK ASSOCIATES

Irwin Road Trail

Æ I I Æ I Æ

j k

j k I Æ

Marshall Lake Trail

I Æ

¥I

TOWNSHIP OF PINE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Æ I I Æ

North Park

Wexfo rd Ru n

FRANKLIN PARK

j k

ù ù

Karrington Woods Park

RICHLAND TOWNSHIP

US 1 9

º ¹

31 40 SR

N Fork Pine Run

Wexford Elementary School

SR 40 63

SR 910

Marshall Lake

I Æ I Æ

HAMPTON

TOWNSHIP OF McCANDLESS

C O M M U N I T Y R E S O U R C E S -- S O U T H E R N T I E R

500

1,000

2,000 Feet

JULY 2004

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

Wexford Elementary School

HISTORIC SITES

The elementary school is located on a 20-acre site and incudes a baseball complex. There is a also a basketball court, playground, and indoor gymnasium.

The Township’s historic sites are primarily located in the Old Wexford Village. Several agricultural and estate sites exist in the Township, however, they are privately held and not accessible to the public.

DOWNTOWNS, BUSINESS DISTRICTS C OMMUNITY C ENTERS

AND

The Township of Pine contains the historic Village of Wexford, near the intersection of State Route 910 and Route 19. The area is currently has a Traditional Village Overlay classification, recognizing the Township’s desire to promote the development of a traditional village in this location. The purpose of the Traditional Village Overlay is to facilitate the enhancement and preservation of the Old Wexford area as a traditional village. It is the intent to promote livable streets which are oriented to and accessible by pedestrians. The Village of Wexford is a current attraction to residents of the community, and expansion of the Village will generate further demand to connect the Village into the Township’s trail network. The State Route 19 corridor, from the Pine / McCandless border to the south, and to Marshall Township border to the north, is currently zoned as commercial, and contains a Town Center Design Overlay District zoning designation. By definition, the Town Center Design Overlay will support a mix of business, office, service, and residential use with a compact town center core. The town center core will support small scale specialty retail, office, and residential uses and be designed to include a defined public plaza and open space area as a central unifying element. The Town Center will have specific pedestrian orientation and will be tied together through streetscape amenities and design treatments.

C ONCENTRATIONS

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

According to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, the existing land use within the Township is dominated by residential development. Land Use • • • • • • • • •

Acreage

Percent

Agricultural 756 Residential 4,919 Commercial 308 Industrial 11 Entertainment 37 Community Service 213 Public Service 10 Public Parks 1,638 Vacant 2,632

7.18% 46.74% 2.93% 0.10% 0.35% 2.02% 0.10% 15.56% 25.01%

Total

100.00%

10,524

It is important to recognize concentrations of existing residential neighborhoods as potential trip generators.

Park s The Township’s 2003 Comprehensive Plan indicates that approximately sixteen percent of land within the Township is dedicated as public parks or open spaces within subdivisions. This includes five hundred and forty acres (5%) within new and existing subdivisions. The Pine Community Park, local on Pearce Mill Road, is the heart of recreation activity in the Township. Also, part of Allegheny County’s North Park is located in the southern portion of the Township.

The Town Center Overlay Design District will become an attraction as the area develops.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

T OWNSHIP PARKS

REGIONAL FACILITIES

Karrington Woods

Beechwood Farms Nature Reserve

This seven acre park is located within the Karrington Woods housing development. The parks is a neighborhood community park with a number of different recreation amenities. The park includes picnic tables, a playground, 1/2 basketball court, hockey court, and multi-purpose field.

This 134-acre nature reserve located 12 miles south of Fox Chapel includes over five miles of walking trails. It is one of the largest environmental education centers in western Pennsylvania and is the headquarters of the Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania. Crooked Creek National Recreation Area

Pine Community Park This is the newest and largest of the three Townshipowned parks. The 105-acre park is located across from the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s municipal building. Facilities at the park include baseball/soccer fields, sand volleyball courts, playground, concession stand, trails, restrooms, and pavilions. Pine Haven Park This 38-acre park is just north of North Park. The park is passive in nature and provides a walking trail along the North Fork of Pine Creek.

The Crooked Creek National Recreation Area is located 35 miles east of Pine in Ford City, PA. Recreation opportunities include a boat launch, sand beaches, swimming, picnic areas, and fishing. Goddard State Park Located 50 miles north of Pine, this park includes the 1,860-acre Lake Wilhelm. Recreation opportunities include hiking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, picnicking, wildlife watching, boating, fishing, and hunting. Hartwood Acres This 629-acre park offers unique outdoor recreation and cultural opportunities. It is just fifteen miles east of Pine. The park hosts the Celebration of Lights during the holiday season. The Hartwood Mansion is within the park, as well as an outdoor amphitheater. The park also has multi-use trails for horseback riding, biking, and walking. Jennings Environmental Education Center

Pine Haven Park Trail

This 352-acre park is managed by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Located thirty-five miles north of Pine, the Center offers a wide variety of nature activities and trails.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

McConnellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Mills State Park McConnellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Mills State Park is located in Lawrence County, thirty miles north of Pine. The park includes 2,546 acres of the Slippery Rock Creek Gorge, a National Natural Landmark. The park offers unique recreation opportunities such as rappelling, rock climbing, whitewater rafting, canoeing, and kayaking. The park is also used for fishing, camping, hunting, picnicking, and there are eleven miles of trails through the gorge. McKeever Environmental Learning Center

amphitheater, classroom, educational displays, and large natural areas. Raccoon State Park This State Park encompasses over 7,000 acres of recreational and undeveloped land in Hookstown, PA, forty miles southwest of Pine. The park includes a 100-acre lake that provides opportunities for fishing, boating, and wildlife viewing. The park also includes multi-use trails, the Wildflower Reserve and Interpretive Center, and the historic Frankfort Mineral Springs. Camping and picnics areas are also available.

This recreation facility and learning center is located fifty miles north of Pine near Sandy Lake. Within 205 acres sits a environmental education campus, which includes several buildings, provides an exceptional facility for conferences, retreats, workshops, and training seminars. Moraine State Park This park includes Lake Arthur, Frank Preston Conservation Area, and Davis Hollow Marina. The park offers diverse recreational opportunities including picnicking, group camping, fishing, swimming, boating, biking, and hiking. Winter activities include ice-skating, cross-country skiing, ice boating, ice fishing, snowmobiling and sledding. North Park / Latodami Nature Center Part of North Park and the Latodami Nature Center are located in Pine. North Park offers programs and facilities that provide recreational and environmental education opportunities. Facilities at the park include picnic areas, playgrounds, horse show area, soccer fields, boating area, tennis courts, walking and exercise trails, basketball courts, golf courses, softball and baseball fields, football field, swimming pool, multipurpose field, cabins, and an ice-skating and roller rink. The Latodami Nature Center is 234 acres within North Park. The Center includes a historic barn, outdoor

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

E x i s t i n g Tr a i l s A number of trails currently exist throughout the Township. They include: • Private Walking Trails - developed as part of a planned residential development. These trails are owned and maintained by private home owners associations. • Quasi-Public Walking Trails - developed on School Property and owned and maintained by the Pine Richland School Districts. • Public Walking Trails - developed by the Township within the community park, and in other areas of the community. • Shared Use Paths - Although not officially acknowledged as a multi-use path, the closed portion of Irwin Road, between Jackson Road, in the Township, and the vicinity of the Babcock Boulevard / Ingomar Road intersection in North Park functions as one. • Sidewalk Connections - developed as part of subdivision and planned residential development. These trails are owned and maintained by the property owners who’s land the sidewalk resides within. Because these are typically located within the street right-of-way they are considered public. • Shared Roadways - Pearce Mill Road, from North Park to the Township’s Community Park is signed, by PennDOT, as a Shared Roadway. Each of these existing trails are further described herein. Trails that have been approved, but not constructed, are not included herein.

PRIVATE WALKING T RAILS The Township’s Zoning Ordinance requires those developing land through a Planned Residential Development to provide easements for, and to develop trails, in accordance with the Township’s 1992 Recreation Park, and Open Space Plan, as amended. To date, the following trails have been constructed by virtue of this requirement. • • • • • • • •

Fariways-East Ridge Trail Fox Meadow Trail North Park Manor Trail Oakhaven Trail Oak Park Trail West Grove Trail #1 West Grove Trail #2 Woodland Farms Trail

Fairways-East Ridge Trail (.24 miles) An interconnection between two neighborhoods, this paved walking trail is accessed at the end of East Ridge Drive or the golf course vehicle crossing between the 15th Green and 16th tee of Treesdale Golf Course. Walking the trail in either direction provides a brief glimpse of the second half of the 15th fairway, green, and the lake between. This trail provides an important pedestrian connection between two neighborhoods. Fox Meadow Trail (.21 miles) This grass trail traverses nine acres of open, undisturbed woodlands, providing link between the upper Fox Meadow areas and the main entrance to this neighborhood. The trail parallels the backyards of the homes in the Fox Meadow plan, and negotiates steep topography. Based on the location we believe the trail is seldom used. The trail duplicates connections afforded by

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

sidewalks within the development. The value of maintaining this trail should be reconsidered. North Park Manor Trail (.34 miles) This trail connects Wynfield Court and Wynstone Drive in the fourth phase of North Park Manor. The asphaltpaved surface follows the tree line of the southern perimeter, parallels Emmet Road, and passes through eight acres of open space. This path also provides immediate access to English Road and the tot lot situated within this phase of the neighborhood.

Oakhaven Trail (.53 miles) This trail connects to Hill Road, Gander Drive, Oakhaven Drive, and the tot lot on Drake Drive. The stone and dirt trails also connects to 17.5 acres of undisturbed woodlands in the western portion of the neighborhood and provides access to English Road. The trail parallels the backyards of the home is the Oak Haven plan, and negotiates steep topography. Based on the location we believe the trail is seldom used. The trail duplicates connections afforded by sidewalks within the development. The value of maintaining this trail should be reconsidered.

North Park Manor Trail Oakhaven Trail

It is apparent this trail was placed in the development to meet the letter of the law, as prescribed in the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning ordinance. However, it was not designed as an integral component of the planned residential development. The longitudinal and cross slopes of the trail are excessive, making the trail difficult for the average person to use. The cross slope of the trail exceeds 11% for some distance, and the longitutinal slope exceeds 30% half of its length. This is a case where better design requirements could have prevented the trail from being constructed in its current location, and perhaps could have redirected to a more user friendly environment. The value of maintaining this trail should be reconsidered.

township of pine trail feasibility study

Oak Park Trail (.27 miles) This paved trail follows the western tree line of Oak Park and the open meadows of the Trees Manor. The trail ends at the tot lot in the valley woodlands behind Black Oak Court. The trail negotiates steep topography. Based on the location we believe the trail is seldom used. Sidewalks connect the neighborhood to the proposed trail corridors. And this trail dead ends and does not provide any connectivity. The value of maintaining this trail should be reconsidered.

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

West Grove #2 Trail (.09 miles) This paved trail provides a connection between the neighborhoods in Treesdale, south of Warrendale Road. Trail users have an opportunity to briefly view the Wallace Family private cemetery, owned by the family since 1838. Woodland Farms Trail (.27 miles) This trail is accessed at Scarlet Circle and provides access to the undisturbed woodland valley west and north of this neighborhood. The trail runs through over 8.5 acres of natural woodlands. Oak Park Trail

West Grove #1 Trail (.17 miles) A connection between the upper and lower areas of West Grove, this trail also provides access to the West Grove tot lot. At the upper area, benches provide a resting spot to take advantage of the views.

The trail negotiates steep topography. Based on the location we believe the trail is seldom used. Sidewalks connect the neighborhood to the proposed trail corridors. And this trail dead ends, and does not currently provide any connectivity. The value of maintaining this trail should be reconsidered.

Woodland Farms Trail West Grove Trail

Although the grades are rather steep, it does provide an important, and usable connection between various parts of the Oak Grove neighborhood.

QUASI-PUBLIC T RAILS High School Trail (.24 miles) As the first leg of a trail along Warrendale Road, this asphalt trail was installed when the main entrance to the

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

high school was reconstructed. The paved eight foot wide path extends across the frontage of the district property. It is possible to widen the trail to accommodate a shared use path and connect it to the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Park by paralleling Warrendale Road. The trail was developed and is maintained by the Pine Richland School District. Harmony Trail The Harmony Trail Association has proposed to develop a multi-use path from Wall Park, in McCandless Township, to Wexford Bayne Road in Pine Township. The proposed route follows the former Harmony Shortline corridor, paralleling Wexford Run, and covers a distance of approximately four and onehalf miles. The Harmony Trail, once developed, will serve as a regional attraction, and attract residents from throughout the North Hills communities of Allegheny County.

pedestrian and bicycle safe crossing at the intersection of Brooktree Drive and State Route 19.

PUBLIC T RAILS Over the years, the Township has developed a number of trails in the Township. They include connector trails, as well as trails within Township Parks. Additionally, Allegheny County maintains an extensive network of trails within North Park. A brief description of each trail follows: Hill Road Trail This stone trail follows Hill Road from Wexford Road (Route 910), north and uphill to Oakhaven Drive. The trail connects with the Oakhaven Trail and hikers can easily access English Road to the north and North Park to the south. The trail was installed approximately five years ago, and was constructed with a compacted aggregate cross section. Because of the steepness of grade the stone eroded, and the trail has now been taken over by vegetation. The area in which the trail was constructed is not conducive to a trail. Steep grades limit the width of the trail and do not allow room for drainage improvements. However, the trail, if passable, would provide connectivity for a handful of residents that live in the surrounding neighborhoods. This value of maintaining this trail should be reconsidered.

Harmony Trail

The Township should encourage and support plans to connect the Harmony Trail with North Park, in the vicinity of Brooktree Drive. A constraint to making this connection is State Route 19. The Township should encourage PennDOT to design and construct a

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

T OWNSHIP PARK T RAILS

Hill Road Trail

Irwin Road Trail

The trails throughout the Township parks meet an important recreation need. The trails focus on exposing residents to the environmental aspects of the park. Therefore the trails are generally either a natural footpath, or constructed with a stone surface. Additionally, the trails have been constructed to minimize the impact on their surroundings and therefore contain some challenging slopes. The Recommendations Chapter of this report will acknowledge the need to mark these trails, and to provide additional segments that accommodate those with physical disabilities. The Township Park Trails are described as follows: Pine Haven Park Trails

This road, which is closed to vehicular traffic, follows a northern tributary to North Park Lake. Although not officially adopted by the Township and the County as a multi-use path, it functions as such. The trail provides access to North Park from Wexford Road (Route 910), bypassing the heavily-travelled Babcock Boulevard. Parking is available at the southern end of the trail, in North Park.

Pine Haven Park Trail (.76 miles) Accessed at Emmett Road, the main entrance to North Park Manor on Lyndhurst Circle, or the asphalt parking lot off Lyndhurst Circle, this stone trail provides hikers an opportunity to view the natural stream valley that passes through the center of Pine Haven Park. Pine Community Park Trails Highland-Grassland Trail (1.10 miles) This community park trail offers a unique, panoramic views of the entire park. A branch of the trail connects with Greenwood Drive located in the Pine Timbers neighborhood. Lake Access Trail (.71 miles)

Irwin Road Trail

This trail provides access to the lake in the Pine Community Park. The stone and paved trail is commonly used by fishermen. The trail offers views of the wetlands to the north and the lake.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

Tree Line Trail (.23 miles) This earth trail runs through woodlands and provides access to the Wetland Trail and the Lake Trail. Beginning at the Lake Trail serpentine, this trail parallels the Lake Trail but offers an opportunity to explore the woodlands beside the Lake Trail. In the other direction, the Tree Line Trail follows the edge of the woodlands, terminating below Pavilion 2. Wetland Trail (.39 miles) Running through Pine Community Park, this earth trail encompasses the northern wetland that feeds the parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lake. Surrounded by woodland and shrubbery, the trail offers several glimpses into the natural wetland area.

Route 19. Once US Route 19 is crossed, there is a commitment from the Allegheny County Department of Public Works to construct a trail from McKinney Road to Brooker Drive. North Park contains over thirty miles of interior trails, and contains a portion of the thirty-three mile long Rachel Carson Trail which connects North Park with Hartwood and Harrison Hills Parks. Approximately twenty-five percent of North Park is located within the Township of Pine, while the balance of the park is located in the Town of McCandless. The chart on the following page is a summary of the trails located in North Park.

NORTH PARK T RAILS Two opportunities exist to provide trail connections, from the Township of Pine, to North Park. They include Irwin Road, and from the Harmony Trail to the McKinney Road area. Irwin Road was closed, from the North Park border southward to Lake Shore Drive, by the Township of Pine, in cooperation with the Town of McCandless and the Allegheny County Public Works Department in 1998. The road was closed due to poor conditions and limited use. Today, this 1.7 mile section of roadway serves as an unofficial bicycle and pedestrian connection to the Lake Shore Drive area of North Park. Because the roadbed is in tact, it would be relatively inexpensive to upgrade the road to a shared use path. This study documents support for this endeavor. The Harmony Trail can be connected to the McKinney Road area (soccer complex) of North Park in the vicinity of Brooktree Drive. A right-of-way exists to connect the Harmony Trail with Brooktree Drive. The difficulty with this segment will be working with PennDOT to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle crossings at the intersection of Brooktree Drive and US

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

Summary of North Park Trails Interior Trails Trail Lake Trail

Location Around North Park Lake

South Ridge Drive Around South Ridge Drive Trail South Ridge Trail Pine Creek Trail Hill Trail Rocky Dell Trail

Off Off Off Off

of of of of

South South South South

Ridge Ridge Ridge Ridge

Perimeter Trail

Circles North Park

Drive Drive Drive Drive

Marshall Lake Trail Perimeter of Marshall Lake Bluebird Trail

Latodami Environmental Education Center CCAC Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Crow's Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Fox Meadow Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Nature Access Latodami Environmental Trail Education Center North Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Observation Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Pond Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Skyline Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Spur Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Towhee Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Wagon Wheel Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center White Tail Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Brail Trail Latodami Environmental Education Center Total Miles

Notes 6' walking path (one side), and 6' bike lanes (both sides), both adjacent to Lake Drive Shared use path, 8' wide shared use path, adjacent to South Ridge

Length 5.0 miles

Hiking, nature, level, nature trail Hiking, nature, scenic, nature Hiking, nature, good workout Hiking, nature, rock cliffs, indian excavations Hiking, nature, utilizes portions of other named trails within the park Hiking, nature, unmaintained, difficult to follow, not blazed Hiking, nature

1.42 1.93 1.61 2.35

Hiking, nature

0.11 miles

Hiking, nature

0.41 miles

Hiking, nature

0.07 miles

Hiking, nature

0.40 miles

Hiking, nature

0.69 miles

Hiking, nature

0.52 miles

Hiking, nature

0.37 miles

Hiking, nature

0.38 miles

Hiking, nature

0.77 miles

Hiking, nature

0.37 miles

Hiking, nature

1.0 mile

Hiking, nature

0.20 miles

1.2 miles miles miles miles miles

8.0 miles 1.6 miles 1.88 miles

abandoned 30.96 miles

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

North Park Trail Improvement Feasibility Study, 1990, GWSM, Inc.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

Existing Opportunities A number of opportunities exist within the Township to expand the current level of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in conjunction with current development proposals. The following documents the opportunities present.

WARRENDALE ROAD SHARED USE PATH The Township has approved development plans that will provide a multi-use path, parallel to Warrendale Road, from Pinkerton Road northward to the vicinity of Winwood Road.

T REESDALE ESTATES V ILLAGE The Developer's Agreement; page 23, paragraph 40; between the Township and Trees Development Company provides for fifty foot rights-of-ways along all roads, and sixty feet right-of-way along Warrendale Road. The Agreement also specifies that a forty feet greenway established along the Warrendale, Mars and Pearce Mill Roads. Additionally, the Agreement; page 24, paragraph 46; indicates the developer will discuss with the Township a bike trail within the greenway along the Red Belt and shall provide an easement for same as part of any overall Township plan for a system of bike trails in the Treesdale area of Pine Township. By utilizing these easements, and obtaining and easement on the north side of Warrendale Road, through privately held property, or on the south side of Warrendale Road, through the Trees Estate property, it would be possible to connect the Township Community Park with the High School Complex, and the neighborhoods that lie in between the two destinations.

BLUE HERON RIDGE The Blue Heron Ridge development being constructed on State Route 910, Bayne-Wexford Road, along the Township's border with Marshall Township, proposes five thousand lineal feet of four foot wide trail throughout the development. Approximately seven hundred feet of this trail will be developed on the proposed route of the Harmony Trail System, with the remaining length providing internal connections in the proposed development.

township of pine trail feasibility study

PINE C ONNECTION

SGS Associates is currently preparing a proposal to develop the property surrounding the Oxford Athletic Club. The Township should encourage the development of a trail that connects State Route 910 with Wallace Road to the north.

LAKE MACLEOD T RAIL The developers of Lake Macleod have constructed a compacted stone trail around the perimeter of Lake MacLeod. This trail will be connected to the sidewalks throughout the development and through the existing Oak Park Drive plan to the proposed Park to School trail.

SIDEWALKS Many residential developments in the Township include sidewalks. However, they are generally contained within each development and do not connect one residential development to another. This resulting lack of linkages between neighborhoods is significant. The Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning regulations require any development plan to include sidewalks constructed according to Township regulations. This has improved pedestrian circulation with neighborhoods and, if they were linked, could be an asset for the entire community. Consideration must be given to developing trail segments that connect these sidewalks with one another.

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

T OWNSHIP OF PINE T RANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE In addition to considering how connectivity will be accomplished throughout the Township, ample consideration must be given to providing this connectivity in a safe manner. This study acknowledges the Township has a Capital Improvements Plan which proposes upgrades to the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation system. When the design of each of those projects begins, the Township must insure that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is addressed in a safe and logical manner.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

Natural Resources The Township of Pine is rich in natural resources. Input received during the Township’s comprehensive planning process in 2003, indicates residents of the Township desire to maintain its rolling hills and green buffers while accommodating new growth. Natural resources can be viewed as an opportunity, by providing opportunities for natural resource and environmental education, and they can be viewed as constraints, as they often preclude the development of trails across or through them. Natural resources within the Township include: • • • • • • •

Watersheds Wetlands Floodplains Hydric Soils Steep Slopes Prime Agricultural Soils Forested Land

WATERSHEDS The Township of Pine is includes seven watersheds, including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

North Fork of Pine Creek Brush Creek Breakneck Creek Wexford Run Montour Run Kaufman Run Rinaman Run

The largest watershed in the Township, North Fork of Pine Creek, contains the Township’s most prominent stream. This stream begins near Warrendale Road (Red Belt), in the northern portion of the Township, and flows southward through the central portion of the Township, through Marshall Lake and North Park Reservoir in North Park, eventually making its way to

township of pine trail feasibility study

the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh. Many unnamed tributaries feed the North Fork of Pine Run in dendritic fashion. The remaining streams, although important, are less prominent, as only a small portion of their watersheds are located within the Township. Each stream is classified by PA Chapter 93, which establishes a protected use designation. The streams in Pine are classified as follows: • Cold Water Fisheries North Fork of Pine Run Rinaman Run Wexford Run Montour Run

• Warm Water Fisheries Breakneck Creek Kaufman Run Brush Creek A cold water fisheries designation protects the propagation and / or maintenance of fish, plant and animal species native to cold water habitat. A warm water fisheries designation protects the propagation and / or maintenance of fish, plant and animal species native to warm water habitat. WETLANDS Many animal and plant species are dependent on the habitats of wetlands. In Pennsylvania, jurisdictional wetlands are protected from development by PA Chapter 105 and Federally by Section 404. A jurisdictional wetland is generally defined as an area which contains hydrology, hydric soils and the presence

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

of wetland vegetation. In Pennsylvania, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for confirming the boundaries of the jursidicational wetlands, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for permitting activities occurring in them, as well as enforcing unpermitted disturbances of jursidicational wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands are defined by completing a jurisdictional wetland determination and receiving Letter of the Jursidicational Determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which confirms the findings.

Additionally, hydric soils not located within wetlands will require additional expenses during construction to address high water tables and therefore, typically are more expensive to develop. FLOODPLAINS The Natural Resources Map identifies the locations of of the 100 year floodplains along the streams in the Township as documented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Mapping. STEEP SLOPES

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published National Wetland Inventory Maps which identify the locations of potential wetlands. The maps are in USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle format. These maps served as the source for the wetlands identified on the Natural Resources Map for this study. The Natural Resources Map indicates there are several large wetlands along the North Fork of Pine Creek, and its tributaries. Smaller wetlands occur in the Township along Breakneck Creek. Although suitable for desk top analysis, the results cannot be relied upon for completing a jursidicational wetland determination. The jursidicational wetland determination must be conducted in the field following the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “Wetlands Delineation Manual” requirements. The determination is site specific and is generally completed as a first step to any land development project or activity. HYDRIC SOILS Another indication of potential jurisdictional wetlands is the presence of hydric soils, or soils with hydric inclusions. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydric soils are one of the three criteria required for a jurisdictional wetland determination.

The development of steep terrain is often costly and proposes unnecessary risks such as erosion and land slides. It is generally accepted that slopes less than fifteen percent are suitable for development while slopes between fifteen and twenty-five percent can be developed with careful planning and less intense development. Slopes greater than twenty-five percent are typically not developable due to environmental and economic reasons. The Natural Resources Map identifies slopes of less than fifteen percent, slopes between fifteen and twentyfive percent, and slopes greater than twenty five percent. Trails may be developed within the sloped areas provided that the running grades of the trails meet the design requirements for the trail type, and consideration being given to the trail’s development will not contribute to accelerated erosion or increase the opportunity for land slides. PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS Suitable soils are required to conduct agricultural activities on a given site. As an important natural resource prime agricultural soils be reserved for farming and other suitable agricultural activities. The Natural Resources Map indicates the extent of the

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

prime agricultural soils in Pine. FORESTED LAND Forested land serves as a habitat and shelter for western Pennsylvania Wildlife. Additionally, forested land helps to shade streams, thereby reducing water temperature and expanding the opportunity for temperature sensitive plant and animal species to exist in and around the streams. For the cultural environment, forested areas reduce heating and cooling costs for buildings located in and around them and forested areas replenish oxygen through photosynthesis. Forested areas should be retained for the benefits they provide to the natural and cultural environment. Therefore the forested areas are shown on the Natural Resources Map.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

township of pine trail feasibility study

Legend

Location Map

Matchline Township of Pine

SEVEN FIELDS BOROUGH

Twp Boundary

Forest

Floodplains

Stream

Slope 10 - 20%

Hydric Soils

Topo (5 ft)

Slope > 20%

Prime Ag Soils

Road Edge

Allegheny County Pennsylvania

CRANBERRY

Wetlands

TOWNSHIP

e kn re a

ee Cr

KK EEEE R R CC CCKK HEEDD E E H KKNN EERRSS A A EE AATT BBRR W W

Pin e R

NN RRUU E NNE PPII DD K K RR HHEE FFOO RRSS EE HH RRTT WAATT O O W NN

KK EEEE CCRR EEDD HH HH UUSS RRSS BBRR AATTEE W W

N F ork

MARSHALL

TOWNSHIP

a $"!

VALENCIA BOROUGH

TOWNSHIP

an Ru n Ka ufm

NN RRUU EENN EEDD M M SSHH F F UU ERR KKAA AATTE W W

ADAMS

RICHLAND TOWNSHIP

Butler County Allegheny County

NN RRUU R R DD OOUU SHHEE T T S ONN ERR M MO AATTE W W

짜I TOWNSHIP OF PINE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

PASHEK ASSOCIATES

N A T U R A L F E A T U R E S -- N O R T H E R N T I E R

500

1,000

JULY 2004

2,000 Feet

Location Map

BRADFORD WOODS

짜I

a $"!

RICHLAND TOWNSHIP

N Fork Pine Run

Wexfo rd Ru n

North Park

FRANKLIN PARK

Marshall Lake

짜I

TOWNSHIP OF PINE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

PASHEK ASSOCIATES

HAMPTON

TOWNSHIP OF McCANDLESS

N A T U R A L F E A T U R E S -- S O U T H E R N T I E R 0

500

1,000

JULY 2004

2,000 Feet

CHAPTER 4 2 INVENTORY PUBLIC INPUT

6: RECOMMENDED ROUTES 5: ANALYSIS Analysis of Existing Trails in the Township

Currently, there are a total of 11.46 miles of existing trail, and over 78.5 miles of sidewalk within the Township. The 11.46 miles of trail is broken down as follows:

Private T rails 18% Quasi-Public T rails 1%

Public T rails 81%

The existing trails within the Township were evaluated to determine how they fit into the Township’s vision to connect neighborhoods with the cultural and natural resources of the community. The trails evaluated include existing private, quasi-public and public trails as documented in the Inventory. These include: Private Trails • • • • • • • •

township of pine trail feasibility study

Fariways-East Ridge Trail Fox Meadow Trail North Park Manor Trail Oakhaven Trail Oak Park Trail West Grove Trail #1 West Grove Trail #2 Woodland Farms Trail

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS

Quasi-Public Trails • High School Trail • Harmony Trail Public Trails • • • • •

Hill Road Trail Irwin Road Trail Existing Sidewalks Pine Haven Park Trails Community Park Trails

To assist in determining how each existing trail fits into the overall Township Trail System, the consultant evaluated the segments against the following criteria: 1. 2. 3.

Does the trail provide connectivity? Does the location of the trail respect privacy of adjacent residential properties? Was the trail constructed in accordance with acceptable design practices for it’s location?

In addition, the trails were evaluated to determine whether they meet current Americans with Disabilities Trail guidelines and the Universal Trail Access Program criteria including:

necessary to protect the Township and /or current owner from the liability of operating an unsafe facility. Where a trail is owned by a private entity, such as a homeowner association one can assume the matter is complicated as the trail was a requirement of the development, and met the current trail development standards at the time it was installed. However, we believe it is ultimately the Homeowners Association’s responsibility to comply with current Township standards, if they cannot, then it is the homeowner's responsibility to close the trail and have it removed. Based on this evaluation, we recommend the following trails be closed unless a convincing argument to the contrary can be presented: Private Trails • • • •

Fox Meadow Trail North Park Manor Trail Oakhaven Trail Woodland Farms Trail

Public Trails • Hill Road Trail Park Trails

4. 5. 6. 7.

Maximum trail grade Minimum trail width Surface accessibility Erosion resistance

If a trail segment failed one or more of the criteria it was then evaluated to determine if the deficiency could be corrected, or if the deficiency was inherent to its design. If the deficiency could be addressed then it is recommended that the trail be retained as part of the Township’s trail plan. If the deficiency could not be addressed, then it is recommended the trail be allowed to revert back to a natural state. In the case of paved trails, the trail may need to be removed if hazardous conditions are present. This drastic measure is

Trails within the Township’s parks were not evaluated against this criteria. However, given the steep terrain of the parks, and the grades of the existing trails, every effort should be made by the Township to provide accessible trail segments within the parks and to sign the trails to indicate whether they are accessible. Existing Sidewalks With the implementation of the Township Sidewalk Ordinance, the Township has successfully connected residential development internally, as well as with the collector and arterial roads that serve them. Given the topography of the Township, and the fact that roads

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS

are limited to a maximum grade of twelve percent, it is acceptable for the sidewalks within residential development to function as an opportunity to provide connectivity to the Township trail system. It is more desirable to have concrete sidewalks, along streets that are accessible to the general public, than to have isolated asphalt or stone trails through the woods, along steep grades, which the majority of the public would not consider acceptable to them. Based on the observations of the existing trails, and their use (or lack thereof) all future trails should comply with the criteria established above. In rare circumstances it may be acceptable to deviate from one or two criteria, but only in situations where no other alternative exists to provide the desired connectivity. In those cases, one must strive to achieve an acceptable grade, which may increase construction costs or require longer distances of trail. Current Design Requirements Current design requirements are somewhat vague. The Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s high and low traffic trail details indicate that trails have a maximum gradient of 8% and a maximum cross slope of 2%. However, the low traffic details indicates if the grade of the trail is greater than 8% then the trail surface must be asphalt pavement. Many of the existing trails reviewed have a cross slope of greater than 2%. With regards to maximum slope, we believe the original intent was to limit the maximum slope to 8%. However, by paving the exception that trails greater than 8% must have an asphalt surface, one assumes there is no maximum grade if the trail is paved. Additionally, the requirements are outdated, and do not comply with current trail development standards. Proposed Trail Corridors

focus on establishing primary trail corridors that provide access between neighborhoods,and to cultural, historic and environmental features of the Township. Towards that end, a conceptual analysis was prepared that overlayed the cultural and natural resources inventory maps and identified these connections in a conceptual manner. This Conceptual Trail Connections Study was used in Study Group meetings to generate discussion on how this concept plan could be realized. Concurrently, discussions were held with the Study Group and Township staff related to the types of trails that might be proposed in the master plan. Based on these discussions a consensus was reached to focus on proposing the following types of trail corridors within the Township: â&#x20AC;˘

Shared Use Paths Shared use paths (also commonly referred to as multi-use paths) are facilities that are typically separated from the vehicular transportation network, within its own right-of-way, and not in the road right-of-way. As its name suggests many different types of users may be present on a shared use path including walking, biking, jogging, in-line skating and strolling. Typically, shared use paths connect key community resources, such as parks and schools, with adjacent population concentrations. Heavy use requires well stabilized and paved construction. The minimum width of a shared use path is ten feet. Where shared use paths parallel a roadway, there should be a minimum horizontal separation, from the outside edge of the road shoulder to the path, of five feet. The construction impact of a shared use path can be significant. Therefore, particular attention should be given to the trail alignment, with sensitivity to natural areas.

The input provided by the public, the study committee, Township staff and key persons directed the plan to

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS

Summary of Existing Trails Recommended to Remain

Type Private

Trail Fairways-East Ridge Trail Oak Park Trail West Grove Trail No. 1 West Grove Trail No. 2

Private Trails Total Length Quasi Public High School Trail Public Trails

Irwin Road Shared Use Path Pine Haven Park Trail Highland-Grassland Trail Lake Access Trail

Tree Line Trail Wetland Trail Public / Quasi-Public Trails Total Shared Roadways Pearce Mill Road Total All Trails

Ownership Home Owner Association Home Owner Association Home Owner Association Home Owner Association

Material Asphalt

Length 0.24 miles

Asphalt

0.27 miles

Stone

0.17 miles

Asphalt

0.09 miles

Asphalt

2.12 miles 0.16 miles

Asphalt

0.56 miles 0.76 miles

Township Township

Stone and Asphalt Earth Stone and Asphalt Earth Earth

State

Asphalt

Pine Richland School District Township Township Township Township

1.10 miles 0.71 miles 0.23 miles 0.39 miles 4.25 miles 2.81 miles 9.18 miles

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS

•

Bike Lanes Bike lanes are defined as a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or excluding use of bicyclists. Bike lanes provide community wide connections and are constructed on road shoulders, adjacent to each outside travel lane. This provides the cyclist with the opportunity to travel with the direction of traffic, a requirement of the motor vehicle code. Bike lanes are designated to promote the predictable movements of bicyclists and motorists. Bike lane markings can increase a cyclist’s level of confidence in motorists not straying from their path. Likewise, passing motorists are less likely to swerve to the left out of their lane to avoid cyclists on the right, creating an opportunity for a head-on collision.

•

Sidewalks Sidewalks are defined as that portion of the street or highway right-of-way that is designed for the preferential or exclusive use by pedestrians. Sidewalks should be have a minimum width of five feet. Sidewalks are appropriate in neighborhood and traditional village settings. In addition they are practical in situations where the construction of a shared use path is not possible due to site constraints. Sidewalks, when paired with bike lanes along a roadway, can accomplish the same goal as a shared use path.

group recommended the Township’s role should be one of providing primary trail corridors that connect cultural and natural resources with population centers. Participants recognized that walking and hiking trail needs are being met by four miles of hiking and walking trails in the Township’s parks, as well as over thirty miles of hiking and walking trails within North Park. Therefore, a goal of this study is to connect the Township residents to these trails, and to focus resources on not duplicating existing trail opportunities, but establishing new ones. As for providing equestrian trails in the Township, participants noted equestrian trails are provided for and can be met in Pinehaven Park, Pine Community Park and North Park. And, they acknowledge the demand for equestrian trails is limited in the Township. Therefore the consensus was to not provide additional equestrian trail opportunities in the Township. With the concept plan and trail types defined, the consultant prepared a draft of the proposed Trail Master Plan for the Township. The draft master plan was discussed by the study committee, and several members participated in reviewing the proposed corridors in the field with the consultant. Each corridor was reviewed to ensure: • • •

•

The proposed trails provides connectivity. The location of the proposed trails protect the privacy of adjacent residential property owners. The proposed trails can be constructed to comply with the grade requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act Guide for the Development of Outdoor Recreation Facilities. The proposed trails can be developed in a manner than does not harm the natural environment.

During the course of the study the issue of whether to include walking, hiking trails and equestrian trails was discussed. All recognized the value of these types of trails and noted they play an important role in the trail system. However, consensus was reached and the study

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 5 PUBLIC ANALYSIS INPUT

6: RECOMMENDED ROUTES After completing the inventory and analysis for this project the Consultant prepared the first draft of the proposed trail routes. This draft was presented to the the study group, Township staff and key persons. Based on the input received, the plan was revised and presented to each group several times. Each time progressing towards developing consensus among the study’s participants.

30%

Proposed Shared Use Paths 53%

The final plan recommends the development of over forty trail segments, totaling 37.65 miles of new trail opportunities throughout the Township. This includes:

Proposed Sidewalks Proposed Bike Lanes

17%

Breakdown of Proposed Trail Types

• 19.78 miles of Shared Use Paths • 6.50 miles of Sidewalk • 11.37 miles of Bike Lanes In addition, there are the existing trails that have been incorporated into the system, including: • 1.67 miles of Shared Use Paths • 78.80 miles of Sidewalk • 3.53 miles of trails internal to Pine Haven and Community Park • 30.96 miles of trail within North Park. The resulting plan achieves the desired vision of connecting existing neighborhoods with each other; with significant community resources including parks, schools, town centers, and historic sites; while encouraging the protection of sensitive environmental resources such as steep slopes, streams, wetlands, and floodplains. Upon implementation the plan will truly realize the Township’s goal of improving pedestrian and bicycle access.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDED ROUTES

ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS ( NOT

PRIORITIZED)

The following is a description of the proposed trail segments. Segment: 1 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.35 miles This proposed shared use path segment runs between the Harmony Trail and Brooktree Road in the southwest corner of the Township. This segment crosses Wexford Run and does not follow a roadway. Brooktree Road has existing sidewalks that connect to U.S. Route 19. The proposed shared use path connection then runs along Brooker Drive to the proposed trail head at the edge of North Park. Segment: 2A Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.96 miles This proposed shared use path is the Harmony Trail, with an extension along State Route 910, running east to Lloydmont Road, paralleling Wexford Run. Segment: 2B Type: Sidewalk Length: 0.24 miles This proposed sidewalk will connect to U.S. Route 19 by paralleling State Route 910 (Wexford Road) and connecting to the existing sidewalks in old Wexford. Segment: 3A Type: Sidewalks Length: 0.53 miles Sidewalks are proposed along Wexford

Road, between Lloydmont Drive to the proposed shared use path in vicinity of the Oxford property's stormwater detention facility. Segment: 3B Type: Bike Lanes Length: 0.77 miles Bike lanes along Wexford Road (State Route 910) from the proposed sidewalk in the vicinity of Oxford property's stormwater detention facility to the bike lanes being developed along Wexford Road (State Route 910) at the New Community Church property.

Segment: 3C Type: Bike Lanes Length: 0.88 miles Bike lanes are proposed along Wexford Road ( State Route 910) from its intersection with Pearce Mill Road to Gibsonia Road (State Route 910). Segment: 4 Type: Sidewalk Length: 0.17 miles This proposed asphalt sidewalk connection links the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail. Segment: 5 Type: Sidewalk Length: 0.14 miles This proposed asphalt sidewalk segment connects the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail.

township of pine trail feasibility study

Legend

Location Map

Existing

* Locations of proposed Shared Use Paths are conceptual. Final alignments will be determined, if properties are developed, in conjunction with design of proposed development.

Township of Pine

Bike Lanes

Township Park

Trailhead

Neighborhood Trail

North Park

Municipal Building

Shared Use Path Park Trail

Trail Numbering & Ranking

Sidewalk

Proposed

SEVEN Allegheny County FIELDS Pennsylvania BOROUGH

2A-17-15

Bike Lanes

Shared Use Path *

Trail Number

Sidewalk Connections

CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP Butler County Allegheny County

SR 4069

an R Kaufm

A 17

Municipal Building

N F or k Pine

SR 4063 6

Pine-Richland High School Complex High School Middle School Swimming Pool Athletic Facility

4 SR

Run

17 A 9A

INT 7

068

214063

40 68

40 SR

SR 4052

76 INT 76

8 06

RICHLAND TOWNSHIP

14 SR 4 0

4 SR

27 40 SR

TOWNSHIP

Township of Pine Community Park

405

e re kC

SR 4068

MARSHALL

SR4059

ec kn ea Br

VALENCIA BOROUGH

ADAMS TOWNSHIP

SR 4061

INT 76

B 33

33A 3B

US 16E 9

40 SR

N Fork Pine Run

Karrington Woods Park

Wexford Elementary School

North Park

MARSHALL LAKE TRAIL

TOWNSHIP OF McCANDLESS

TOWNSHIP OF PINE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

ASSOCIATES

HAMPTON

Marshall Lake

HARMONY TRAIL

PASHEK

SR 910

SR 406 3

6E 2A

Wexfo rd Run

40 SR

Pine Haven Park

INT 76

63 SR 40

BRADFORD WOODS

1 US

FRANKLIN PARK

Priority Rank Based on Trail Type

Overall Priority Rank

PROPOSED TRAIL CONNECTIONS 0

500 1,000

2,000 Feet

December 2004

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDED ROUTES

Segment: 6E Type: Sidewalk Length: 2.10 miles These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where there are no sidewalks along the eastern side of U.S. Route 19. Segment: 6W Type: Sidewalk Length: 2.00 miles These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where the are no sidewalks along the western side of U.S. Route 19.

Segment: 7 Type: Sidewalk Length: 0.24 miles This proposed sidewalk parallels North Chapel Drive connecting State Route 19 and State Route 910 (Wexford Road). Segment: 8 Type: Sidewalk Length: 0.29 miles This sidewalk connects U.S. Route 19 with the sidewalks along Swinderman Road. Segment: 9A Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.38 miles This proposed shared use path connects the bike lanes on Warrendale Road with the proposed shared use paths to the east and west of Wallace Road.

township of pine trail feasibility study

Segment: 9B Type: Bike Lanes Length: 1.58 miles Bike lanes are proposed along Wallace Road, from it's intersection with Warrendale Road to U.S. Route 19. Segment: 9C Type: Sidewalk Length: 0.56 miles This sidewalk along Wallace Road will connect the existing English Road shared use path with the Wallace Road and State Route 19 intersection. Segment: 10 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.51 miles This shared use path connects the existing shared use path trail along English Road, which ends at Wynstone Drive, to the English Road/Graham Road intersection. Segment: 11 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.92 miles This shared use path connects the proposed shared use path and bike lanes through new development to the shared use path along English Road. Segment: 12 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.33 miles This shared use path connects the sidewalks along Cloverdale Drive, through new development, with the shared use path and bike lanes along Wallace Road.

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDED ROUTES

Segment: 13 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.81 miles This shared use path will connects property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, with the bike lanes proposed along Warrendale Road and the bike lanes proposed along Wallace Road. Segment: 14 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 1.38 miles These bike lanes along Franklin Road will connect bike lanes along Warrendale Road to the proposed shared use path paralleling Mt. Pleasant Road. Segment: 15 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 1.83 miles This proposed shared use path parallels Mt. Pleasant Road and Dean Road, and connects the bike lanes proposed along Franklin Road and the shared use path along Warrendale Road.

Segment: 18 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 1.31 miles This proposed shared use path connects property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road and the Township's Community Park. Segment: 19 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.74 miles This shared use path connects the Township's Community Park, the shared use path along Warrendale Road and the shared use path and bike lanes along Pearce Mill Road. Segment: 20 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 1.66 miles This is a shared use path proposed to connect the Warrendale Road/Franklin Road intersection with the Graham Road/Pearce Mill Road intersection along Warrendale and Graham Roads.

Segment: 16 - Deleted Segment: 17 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.52 miles This proposed shared use path will connect the Township's Community Park to the shared use path currently being constructed between Winwood and Pinkerton Roads.

Segment: 21 Type: Bike Lanes Length: 3.09 miles This proposed bike lane connects the bike lanes currently being construction by PennDOT from North Park to State Route 910 (Wexford Road) to the Township's Community Park.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDED ROUTES

Segment: 22 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 2.16 miles This is the signature component of the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s trail system. A proposed shared use path connects the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Park with the Pine-Richland School Complex. This proposed shared use trail will follow Pearce Mill Road north from the park entrance and the east along the southern side of Warrendale Road, to the intersection of Treesdale Drive. This intersection shall be signalized to safely direct users to the northern side of Warrendale Road. The path will continue to the intersection of the school complex access road. This intersection shall also be signalized to safely direct users to the southern side of Warrendale Road and the school complex. At the school complex, this shared use trail connects with the shared use trail connecting these two key destinations. Segment: 23 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 1.31 miles This shared use path connects the Township Community Park with the PineRichland School Complex, through the Trees Estate property. The trail crosses the north fork of Pine Run. Segment: 24 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 1.41 miles This shared use path will pick up the end of the proposed shared use path extension along English Road, Segment 10, with the proposed shared use path connecting the Community Park and the School Complex.

township of pine trail feasibility study

The trail runs along the north fork of Pine Run for approximately half of its distance. The portion along Pine Creek is proposed to be developed as an interpretative trail. Segment: 25 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.22 miles This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property ,and presumed to be developed as housing, to the bike lanes proposed along Babcock Boulevard. Segment: 26 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.82 miles This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property, and presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road. This will connect the future residents to the High School Complex and beyond. It addition it will connect those future residents to the bike lanes proposed along Babcock Boulevard. Segment: 27 Type: Bike Lanes Length: 3.23 miles Bike lanes are proposed along Babcock Boulevard, from the Richland Township border to the intersection with Gibsonia Road, continuing along Gibsonia Road to Kerrington Drive, where it connects with Kerrington Drive. The Township should work with Richland Township to promote the extension of the bike lanes to Richland Township Elementary School.

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDED ROUTES

Segment: 28 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 1.50 miles This segment is the former Irwin Road, and is referred to as the Irwin Road Trail. There is 0.27 miles of the trail in Pine Township, before it reaches North Park. Many portions of this segment need to be stabilized and resurfaced. Segment: 29 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.42 miles This shared use path will follow Irwin Road from State Route 910 (Wexford Road) connecting bike lanes along State Route 910, the existing shared use Irwin Road Trail which extends into North Park. Segment: 30 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.33 miles This shared use path will connect Kerrington Woods Park and the surrounding residential area with the Irwin Road Trail. Safety improvements are required to provide a pedestrian and Bike crossing at the intersection of Babcock Boulevard and Kerrington Drive. Segment: 31 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.19 miles This shared use path will connect the trails within Pine Haven Park to the bike lanes and shared use path proposed along Wexford Road (State Route 910).

Segment: 32 Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.23 miles This shared use path will connect the bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road) with Wexford Elementary School. Segment: 33A Type: Shared Use Path Length: 0.50 miles This shared use path will connect the sidewalks and Bike lanes along Wallace Road with sidewalks along Village Club Drive, a proposed trail head, and the Bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road). Additionally a trailhead is proposed in the vicinity of the Oxford Athletic Club. Segment: 33B Type: Bike Lane Length: 0.39 miles This bike lane connection will connect the bike lanes along U.S. Route 19 to Village Club Drive and the Oxford Athletic Club. Segment: 33C Type: Sidewalk Length: 0.27 miles This sidewalk connection will connect the sidewalks along Wallace Road to the Oxford Athletic Club, along Village Club Drive.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDED ROUTES

INTERSECTION AND ROAD C ROSSING IMPROVEMENTS The recommended alignments are separated from the roadway network where possible. However, in a number of locations the trail alignment cross, or intersect with it. The following locations must be improved to facilitate safe pedestrian or bicycle crossings of the roadway. Intersection Improvements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Wallace Road at US Route 19 N. Chapel Rd at PA Route 910 PA Route 910 at Pearce Mill Rd PA Route 910 at Babcock Boulevard Warrendale Road at Graham / Wallace Rds Warrendale Road at Babcock Blvd Babcock Blvd at Bakerstown Rd N. Chapel / Manor / N. Church at US 19 Brown Rd at US Route 19 Brooktree Road / Brooker Dr at US Route 19 Church Rd at PA Route 910 Pearce Mill Rd at PA Route 910 Mars Rd at Warrendale Rd US Route 19 Franklin Road at Warrendale Road

Roadway Crossings • Pearce Mill Road, to facilitate Park to School Trail, below grade crossing or pedestrian activated signal crossing recommended. • Warrendale Road at Treesdale Drive pedestrian activated signal crossing recommended. • Warrendale Road at the Pine-Richland School Complex pedestrian activated signal crossing recommended. • Wexford Road (State Route 910), to facilitate Pine Haven to North Park connection, a signalized atgrade crossing recommended at the Pine Haven Park entrance. • Red Belt, to facilitate Pine Community Park to new residential development, below grade

township of pine trail feasibility study

crossing recommended if required sight distance cannot be achieved. Tunnel Improvements • Pearce Mill Road, at PA Turnpike crossing, improve visibility of pedestrians and cyclists in tunnel, by widening tunnel, lighting and signage. Roadway Realignment • Irwin and Jackson Roads, convert this segment to one way to accommodate a parallel multi-use trail extension to connect North Park’s Irwin Road Trail to the Township trail network.

T RAIL ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES Given the success of the Township’s sidewalk ordinance, the majority of neighborhoods have access from their subdivision or planned residential development, to the proposed trail network via the existing sidewalk network. Cyclists can use the internal roadway network to reach the proposed corridors as the roads within the neighborhoods are low volume, and generally of sufficient width to accommodate the cyclist in a safe manner. In addition to these access points, several formal trail access points should be developed for those who choose to drive to their point of beginning. We recommend that these ‘trailhead” opportunities be developed at the various destinations within the trail system thereby allowing one to travel from Point A, to Point B, and back to Point A. Generally these trips are preferred by those with less experience, and those who desire to complete their trip without crossing roadways.

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDED ROUTES

Based on input received during the course of this study, we recommend trailheads be identified in the following locations: • High School Athletic Complex Parking Lot • Township Community Park - at the proposed community center, and on the eastern side of the park near the ballfields. • Near the intersection of U.S. Route 19 and Brooktree Drive to provide access to the western portion of North Park. • On Pearce Mill Road in the vicinity of the North Park Ice Rink. • In the vicinity of the Oxford Athletic Club or Sheetz

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC INPUT

7: TRAIL TYPES AND GUIDELINES T r a i l Ty p e s a n d D e s i g n Guidelines Pedestrian and bicycle facility guidelines and standards should be adopted to ensure consistency and quality in locating, designing, interpreting, and maintaining the facilities. These standards should be based on current guidelines established by the PennDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Checklist (Appendix 2), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (U.S. Access Board), the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), the U.S. Forest Service, the Student Conservation Association agencies and pedestrian and bicycle organizations. Therefore, responding with the recommended solution for the particular situation. Pedestrian and bicycle planning is in its infancy. The state and federal agencies responsible for developing these guidelines routinely revise these guidelines as required to increase user safety and efficiency, and to respond to data collected in post construction evaluation. Therefore, the recommendations contained herein must be reviewed on a periodic basis, and be updated to reflect these changes. Current resources utilized in the development of these recommendations include:

township of pine trail feasibility study

•

Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): 1999. This is the standard generally cited for bicycle facilities

•

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

•

Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and

CHAPTER 6 7 LEGAL T RAIL T FYPES EASIBILITY AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Streets "Green Book," AASHTO. This resource offers design details for Interstate and Primary Road design.

general design guidelines. This document makes frequent reference to the AASHTO Guide described above.

•

The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Implementation Manual, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration: 1998. This report set forth design criteria for evaluating the suitability of bicycle lanes adjacent to vehicular roadways.

•

Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation: 1995. This is a detailed, well-organized planning and design guide. It is known for innovative recommendations for pedestrian and bicycle accommodation with traffic calming and expressway interchanges.

•

Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (U.S. Access Board): 1999. This document is the final report of the Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas. This committee developed accessibility recommendations through a consensus process for a variety of outdoor areas, including trails. The U.S. Access Board will use the committee's recommendations, in conjunction with public comment, to develop standards for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Until standards are developed, this report contains the best information for meeting the requirements of the ADA.

•

Iowa Trails 2000, Iowa Department of Transportation: 2000. As with the Oregon Plan, this plan is an excellent planning and design guide. It incorporates the most current trail planning design guidelines.

•

National Park Service Trails Management Handbook, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 1983.

•

Universal Trail Assessment Process, Beneficial Designs, Inc.

•

Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): 2000. This document provides detailed planning and design recommendations for developing pedestrian and non-motorized multi-use trails that meet the needs of a broad spectrum of users, including people with disabilities. This document also contains background information regarding user needs, the benefits of universal design, and recreation equipment used by people with disabilities. Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, Federal Highway Administration: 1994. This is primarily a planning document for bicycle facilities, but also offers

There are times when exceptions to guidelines and standards may be deemed appropriate. These exceptions are typically required when they are necessitated by physical and environmental conditions, community desire, changing trends, intensity of use, and many other factors. Therefore they must be considered in light of site-specific issues. These guidelines and standards should be established to help accomplish the following goals: Therefore, the Township should officially incorporate them into the Township's Design Standards into the Township of Pine Land Development and Subdivision Ordinances where appropriate. In order to adequately establish guidelines for the various pedestrian and bicycle facilities recommended in the Township Trail Master Plan one must have a thorough knowledge of the type of use each facility will receive.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

The design guidelines for pedestrian and bicycle facilities follow, and are presented in the following order:

feet from a home’s rear or side yard, unless the trail is within a dedicated public right-of-way; or other permitted location;

General Requirements

• must have logical destinations;

Accessibility Requirements

• must allow for the construction of a paved shared use path, paved bicycle lanes, or concrete sidewalks;

Pedestrian Facility Improvements • •

Sidewalks Crosswalks

All trails shall be designed with adequate drainage. At a minimum each trail must:

Shared Use Paths

1. Have a cross slope of two percent maximum.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Amenities

2. Where side slopes of the trail are less than 5% no swales are needed unless the trail is constructed in a wet area.

• • • •

Signage Bicycle Racks Rest Opportunities Access Points

Bicycle Facility Improvements • • •

Bicycle Lanes Share the Road Intersections

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS All proposed trails, shall be developed within dedicated rights-of-ways, on public property, or within easements dedicated to the Township. When a proposed trail does not follow the public roadway system, the developer shall publicly dedicate a separate right-of-way for said trail. Right-of-way shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the trail and site work associated with constructing the trail. Trails must also: • not be located closer than one hundred and fifty

township of pine trail feasibility study

3. Where side slopes of greater than five percent and / or when side slopes are over twenty-five feet in length, a swale is required on the uphill side of the trail to collect water, pipe it beneath the trail and outlet to daylight. All pipes shall be sized to adequately contain a ten year storm event. 4. Where trails are built on an embankment, no swales are required assuming runoff drains to daylight. 5. When trails are built in cut, swales are required on both sides, and swales shall be piped as required to drain to daylight. 6. Where swales are required along trails, the trail surface shall be pitched to the uphill side swale.

ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990, was a major civil rights law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in the private and public sectors. The Act requires the built

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

environment be accessible to all individuals regardless of their disability. The Federal Access Board is responsible for developing and maintaining accessibility requirements. Enforcement is typically the responsibility of the U.S. Access Board, for those facilities utilizing federal funds, or the U.S. Department of Justice for all other facilities, public and private. In 1999, the Access Board published the “Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas - Final Report - September 30, 1999.” Although this has not been officially adopted as the final rule for outdoor developed areas, those responsible for designing them should follow these guidelines as they have been in development over the past six years.

In addition, where pedestrians trails serve as the primary means of access to outdoor recreation facilities, such as trailheads, the more stringent Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation Area Access Routes (proposed ADAAG Sections 16.3.1 - 16.3.9). The tables on the following page summarize the guidelines for Recreation Trails and Outdoor Recreation Area Access Routes.

The tables on the following page summarizes the proposed guidelines for Recreation Trails, as proposed in Section 16.2.1 - 16.2.10 in the “Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas”. All trails meant to be used by pedestrians in the Township must meet these guidelines unless it qualifies for an exception as defined in the Guidelines.

Exceptions include:. •

Where compliance would cause substantial harm to cultural, historic, religious, or significant natural features or characteristics; or,

•

Where compliance would substantially alter the nature of the setting or the purpose of the facility, or portion of the facility; or,

•

Where compliance would require construction methods or materials that are prohibited by federal, state, or local regulations or statutes; or,

•

Where compliance would not be feasible due to terrain or the prevailing construction practices.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Summary of Proposed ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Recreation Trails (Proposed ADAAG Sections 16.2.1 - 16.2.10)

Surface

Firm and Stable

Clear Tread Width

36 inches Exception: 32 inches Openings shall be of a size that does not permit passage of a 1/2" diameter sphere.

Openings

Elongated openings must be perpendicular or diagonal to the direction of travel. Exception One: Elongated openings may be parallel to the direction of travel if they do not permit passage of a 1/4" sphere. Exception Two: Openings shall be of a size that does not permit passage of a 3/4" sphere.

Protruding Objects

Comply with ADAAG 4.4 - Protruding objects with 80 inches clear headroom. Exception: Barrier to be provided if vertical clearance is less that 80 inches.

Tread Obstacles

Passing Space Running Slope

Up to two inches Exception: Up to three inches. If the clear tread is less than 60 inches, a passing space must be provided every 1,000 feet. No more than 30% of the total length can have a running slope that exceeds 8.33% - 5% for any distance - 8.33% with resting intervals provided every 200 feet. - 10% with resting intervals provided every 30 feet. - 12.5% with resting intervals provided every 10 feet. Exception: 14% for 5 feet to open drainage structures if maximum cross slope of 5% or less.

Cross Slope

5% maximum Exception: 10% maximum for open drainage structures, where clear tread width is 42 inches minimum.

Rest Intervals

Edge Protection Signs

Size: 60 inch length, at least as wide as the widest trail segment adjacent to the rest area. Less than 5% in any direction, required intervals no greater than lengths specified under Running Slope. Where provided, 3 inch minimum height. Newly constructed and altered trails that comply with 16.2 should be designated with a symbol.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Summary of Proposed ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation Access Routes (Proposed ADAAG Sections 16.3.1 - 16.3.9)

Surface

Firm and Stable

Clear Tread Width

36 inches Exception: 32 inches for a maximum distance of 24 inches Openings shall be of a size that does not permit passage of a 1/2" diameter sphere.

Openings

Protruding Objects

Comply with ADAAG 4.4 - Protruding objects with 80 inches clear headroom.

Tread Obstacles

Up to one inch

Passing Space

Exception: Up to two inches if beveled. If the clear tread is less than 60 inches, a passing space must be provided every 200

Running Slope

No more than 30% of the total length can have a running slope that exceeds 8.33% - 5% for any distance - 8.33% with resting intervals provided every 200 feet. - 10% with resting intervals provided every 30 feet.

Cross Slope

3.3% maximum

Rest Intervals

Edge Protection

Exception: 5% maximum to insure adequate drainage. Size: 60 inch length, at least as wide as the widest trail segment adjacent to the rest area. Less than 3.3% in any direction. Slope up to 5% permitted to ensure adequate drainage. Where provided, 3 inch minimum height.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Accessibility implies compliance with minimum standards of access as established by the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). However, it is possible to do better than to meet the minimum guidelines. The concept of universal design can help us do better. Universal design emphasizes meeting the needs of all potential users to the greatest extent possible. The principles of universal design are: • • • • • • •

equitable use flexible use simple and intuitive use perceptible information tolerance for error low physical effort size and space for approach and use

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Pe d e s t r i a n Fa c i l i t y Improvements S idewalks: The portion of the street or highway right-of-way designed for the preferential or exclusive use by pedestrians. Locations We commend the Township for the fact their land development and subdivision ordinances, and zoning ordinance require sidewalks as recommended by the Federal Highway Administration's publication titled “Priorities and Guidelines for Providing Places for

Pedestrians to Walk Along Highways and Streets”. Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, and in accordance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sidewalks must be marked as required by the U.S. Department of Transportation's “Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices”. Where sidewalks are installed the regulations should require the sidewalk to be grade separated from the roadway with a concrete curb, minimum height six inches above street surface.

Roadway Classification and Land Use Highway (rural)

Sidewalk Requirements Shoulders required with minimum width of 6'-0" Highway (rural / suburban - less than 1 one side preferred. Shoulders development unit per acre required minimum width 6'-0" Suburban Highway Both side preferred, one side required Major Arterial (residential) Both sides required Collector and Minor Arterial (residential) Both sides required Local Street (residential - less than 1 development unit per acre) Local Street (residential - 1 to 4 development unit per acre) All Streets (commercial areas) All Streets (industrial areas)

Future Phasing secure / preserve right-of-way for future sidewalks secure / preserve right-of-way for future sidewalks Second side required if density is greater than 4 development units per acre

Both sides preferred, one side required Both sides required Both sides required Both sides preferred, one side required

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Widths

Materials

Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, and shall be in accordance with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This Act requires a clear width of sixty inches. The width may be reduced to thirty-six inches in the following instances.

Sidewalks shall be constructed with reinforced concrete, with a minimum PSI of 3,500. Expansion joints should be installed at not more than twenty feet on center, and control joints should be constructed at intervals of five feet on center. The walking surface shall receive a nonslip broom finish to provide the slip resistant surface required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will provide a durable surface with an approximate life span of twenty years.

1. A wider width is impossible. 2. The narrow width continues for as short a distance as possible. 3. Passing spaces are provided at a minimum interval of two hundred feet.

township of pine trail feasibility study

Curb Ramps Curb ramps are required to provide access to sidewalks that are elevated from the surrounding surfaces. Curb ramps should be installed at intersections, perpendicular to the roadway. Diagonal curb ramps should be

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

avoided because they place users in positions vulnerable to turning traffic. Additionally, a pedestrian crossing at a diagonal ramp takes more time to cross the roadway than does a pedestrian crossing perpendicular to the road. Curb ramps shall be a minimum of forty-eight inches wide, have a slope of 8.33% or less, have side slopes with a slope of less than ten percent. It is preferable to have a minimum clear walk width of thirty-six inches behind the ramp so pedestrians avoid traveling over the side slopes when walking perpendicular to the ramp. Where it is not possible to have a minimum clear walk width of thirty-six inches behind the ramp, parallel curb ramps should be constructed.

The ramp slope should be perpendicular to the curb to avoid an uneven cross slope that creates problems for wheelchair users because all four wheels will not touch the ground.

crosswalks in all instances where sidewalks continue on the opposite side of a roadway and vehicular traffic is controlled by either a stop sign or traffic signal. Midblock crosswalks should not be permitted unless adequate site distance exists to allow a pedestrian to cross the street at a speed of 3.5 feet per second. Although the MUTCD does not provide a specific recommendation for crosswalk striping, it is generally regarded that more paint provides more protection. Although this has not been substantiated, it may be that the greater the amount of paint, the greater the perceived protection on the part of the pedestrian and the stronger message to the motorist. The current PennDOT approved zebra stripe pattern that the Township has established is appropriate and should continue to serve as the Township standard for crosswalks.

Crosswalks Crosswalks inform the motorist of pedestrian activity across the roadway, and indicate to the pedestrian the desired location to cross a roadway. Locations The Township's land development and subdivision ordinances, and zoning ordinance adequately require

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

SHARED USE PATHS A shared use path (also commonly referred to as a multi-use path) is a facility that is typically removed from the vehicular transportation network, within it's own right-of-way, not the vehicular right-of-way. As it's name suggests many different types of users may be present on a shared use path. Users generally include walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and rollerbladers. Shared Use Path Width and Clearance Requirements

area with a maximum slope of 1:6 should be maintained adjacent to both sides of the path. Where lateral obstructions; such as guide rails, utility poles, trees and walls; are present three feet of clearance from the object is recommended. When slopes greater than 1:3 are present it is recommended that a minimum of five feet be maintained between the edge of the path pavement and top of slope. The minimum recommended vertical clearance to an obstruction is eight feet. However, the vertical clearance may need to be greater to accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicles.

The AASHTO publication titled "Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities recommends that two directional shared use paths be constructed with a minimum width of ten feet. Additionally, the guidelines state a minimum of a two foot wide graded

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Shared Use Path Materials For optimum durability, a shared use path should be constructed of bituminous paving. The following cross section is recommended for a typical multi-use path. The path must be placed on stable, compacted soils to achieve structural stability. Markings and Signage Generally, the following types of signs should be installed along multi-use paths: • Entrance/Trailhead Signs: must invite path users, be attractive, and provide trail users with an overall summary of the path; • Mileage Markers: should be installed in either one-tenth mile or half mile intervals along the path. Mile markers can assist emergency response personnel in locating path users in need of

Directional Sign 94

assistance; • Wayfinding Signs: should be installed at appropriate locations along the path directing path users to cultural features beyond the trail corridor. At a minimum, wayfinding signs should be placed to direct users to schools, parks, and the Township building; • Historical / Interpretive Signs: should be installed to interpret points of interest. These can be historical or environmental in nature; and • Regulatory / Warning Signs: should follow the requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices published by the Federal Highway Administration. The design of all signs must take into consideration durability, maintenance requirements, and replacement costs.

Mileage Marker township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

B i c y c l e Fa c i l i t i e s BICYCLE LANES A bicycle lane is a portion of roadway that is designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes are designed to promote predictable movements of bicyclists and motorists. Bike lane markings can increase a bicyclist’s confidence in motorists staying within their path of travel. Likewise, passing motorists are less likely to swerve to the left out of their lane to avoid bicyclists on the right if the bicyclists are within a bicycle lane. Locations The recommended bicycle lanes will be one-way facilities that carry bike traffic in the same direction as the adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Two way bicycle lanes are not recommended when they result in bicyclists riding against the flow of traffic. Wrong-way riding is a major cause of bicycle accidents and violates the Uniform Vehicle Code. However, there may be special situations where a two bicycle lane for a short distance can eliminate the need for a bicyclist to make a double crossing of a busy street or travel on a sidewalk. Two way bicycle lanes should only be considered after careful evaluation of the relative risks.

township of pine trail feasibility study

Widths All bicycle lanes should be designed to achieve the highest bicycle level of service rating as possible. The American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials’ “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities” recommends a minimum of four feet, and where vertical obstructions, such as utility poles, curbs, or guide rails are present, a five foot width is recommended. However, a greater width will often be required to achieve an acceptable bicycle level of service rating. Construction Materials The surface of a bicycle lane must be smooth and uniform. PennDOT will require a Type I shoulder along state owned roadways.

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Markings All traffic control markings along the bicycle lanes will comply with the requirements of Part IX of the MUTCD. A bicycle lane should be delineated from the motor vehicle travel lanes with a six inch solid white line. A larger width, such as eight inches, may be used for added distinction. The bicycle lane should be painted with standard pavement symbols to inform the bicyclists and motorists of the bike laneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existence. Preferred symbols are either a bicycle or a bicyclists on a bike, with a directional arrow. All markings shall be white and reflectorized. In the past, the Preferential Lane Symbol (Diamond) was recommended. However, it is no longer recommended for bicycle lanes due to confusion with the use of the diamond for the High Occupant Vehicle (HOV) lanes. If a bicycle lane is marked with a diamond, motorists may become confused and drive on the bicycle lane. At intersections with driveways, bike lane striping is dependent on edgeline striping. At low volume residential driveways where the road edgeline is continuous, the bike lane striping should be continuous. At high volume commercial driveways where the edgeline is discontinued (but regular vehicle lane

striping is continuous), the striping separating the bicycle lane from the regular travel lane should become a two to four foot, or dotted, skip line. Vertical barriers and obstructions, such as abutments, piers, and other features causing construction of a bike lane should be clearly marked to gain the attention of approaching bicyclists. This treatment should be used only where the obstruction is unavoidable, and be by no means a substitute for good design. In all cases, the designer must first make every effort to correct the hazard before resorting to obstruction markings. Obstruction marking is generally accomplished by placing signs, reflectors, and diagonal yellow markings or other treatments as appropriate to alert bicyclists of the hazard. The AASHTO Guideline for the Development of Bicycle Facilities recommends the diagonal yellow striping, six inches. The length of the strip is calculated by multiplying the width into which the obstruction projects into the roadway by the bicycle approach speed. Therefore, if the obstruction projects two feet into the bicycle lane and the approach speed is ten miles an hour, a diagonal strip shall be painted from the apex of the obstruction towards the direction of travel to the outside edge (shoulder) of the bike lane for a horizontal distance of twenty feet.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Signage All signs installed along bicycle lanes should comply with the requirements of Part II of the MUTCD. Signs should only be placed where potential conflicts are not clear, or to emphasize the significance of a potential conflict. Directional and route markers should be placed at all turns, at major intersections, and at intervals of approximately one-quarter mile along the route. Care should be taken not to install too many signs. A conservative use of regulatory and warning signs is recommended, as these signs if used too frequently tend to loose their effectiveness. On the other hand, frequent display of route markers and directional signage is important to keep the user informed of his location and will not lessen their value.

Drainage Structures and Utility Covers Drainage structures and utility covers located in or adjacent to a bicycle lane must be flush with the pavement. Additionally, all rages and coverings should be bicycle safe. Grates with cross members spaces a maximum center to center distance of four inches are considered safe.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Share-the-Road Corridors

Widths

A share-the-road corridor is one that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel. This may be an existing roadway, street with wide curb lanes, or road with paved shoulders.

The AASHTO “Guide for the Development Bicycle Facilities: recommends a minimum usable lane width of fourteen feet for shared use. The Township should be constantly aware of PennDOT and Township road projects and look for opportunities to increase the existing pavement width where necessary to meet this requirement.

Share-the-road roadways are those that have been identified by signing as preferred bike routes. There are several reasons for designated signed bike routes: • provide continuity to other bicycle facilities such as bike lanes or shared use paths; • common route for bicyclists through a high demand corridor;

Signage All signs installed along shared-use roadways should comply with the requirements of Part II of the MUTCD.

• in rural areas, it is the route preferred for bicycling due to low motor vehicle volume or paved shoulder availability; and/or

Miscellaneous

• the route extends along local neighborhood streets and collectors that lead to an internal neighborhood destination, such as a park, school, or commercial district.

Because most roadways were not originally designed with the bicyclist in mind, consideration must be given to addressing hazards that bicyclists may be exposed to along the roadway. These include installing bicycle safe drainage gates, smooth payment, and by providing adequate sight distances.

Signing of shared use roadways indicates to bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using the routes.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

INTERSECTIONS It is difficult to provide generalized recommendations for the treatment of intersections to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle facilities due to the degree of variability in vehicular traffic volumes, pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic volumes, crossing widths, and existing traffic controls. However, there are some general considerations for the design process, including:

Because of the low speed limits and rural character of many of the Township roads, most intersections can simply be controlled with additional signage, assigning the right of ways for pedestrian and bicycle users. Should the Township and/or the State upgrade the roadways to include right turn lanes and/or signalized intersections, the Township needs to ensure the needs of the bicyclists and pedestrians are met in the initial design process. Traffic Control Features

• provide positive guidance to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists to ensure full awareness at intersections; • minimize conflicts and channelize intersections to separate moving conflicts; • unavoidable conflicts should occur at right angles; • optimize sight triangles, ensure stopping, intersection crossing, and decision sign distances;

Typically traffic control signals are used as a last resort, if the pedestrian and bicycle users cannot be incorporated into a controlled intersection environment. The current trends in traffic control features for pedestrian and bicycle facilities are bicycle activated traffic control signals, and pedestrian countdown signals. These mechanisms should only be considered after a detailed engineering study is completed for the intersection. The photo below is of a motion activated system that is marketed by Cross Alert Systems, Inc.

• conflicts should be clearly visible; • provide adequate staging and refuge areas for pedestrians and bicyclists; • avoid obstacles and highlight unavoidable obstacles; • at signalized intersections, minimize trail user delay by minimizing traffic signal cycle time; • provide adequate signal crossing time for pedestrians; • provide easily accessible tactile/audible push buttons; and • design to assist the user in looking into the direction of the potential hazard.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

BICYCLE

AND

PEDESTRIAN A MENITIES

There are many amenities that can make bicycle and pedestrian experiences enjoyable.

Bicycle racks should be placed near the entrances to facilities open to the public and should accommodate a minimum of five bicycles, unless greater need is projected.

Bicycle Racks Bicycle racks come in a variety of shapes and sizes. It is important that racks are chosen based on their ability to securely retain a bicycle. In addition, consideration must be given to the potential damage that can be caused to the bicycle while it is in the rack. Bicycle racks that successfully secure the bike while protecting it from vandalism are those that secure the bicycle to the rack in two locations on the bicycle frame. Traditional bicycle racks, such as the comb or toast racks, are often referred to as wheel benders because of the ease with which one could damage the bicycle by bending the rim. This is due to the fact that the bicycle is only secured to the rack by its rim. In addition, consideration must be given to supporting bicycle frames that do not have the traditional diamond frame, typical of a menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bicycle.

C HARACTERISTICS

OF A

GOOD BIKE RACK

Do not bend wheels or damage other bicycle parts.

Accommodate high security U-shaped bicycle locks.

Accommodate locks securing frame and both wheels (preferably without removing the front wheel of the bike).

Do not impede or interfere with pedestrian traffic flow.

Are easily accessed from the street and protected from motor vehicles.

Are visible to passers-by to promote usage and enhance security.

Are covered where users will leave their bikes for a long time.

Have as few moving parks as possible.

Wave style racks are not recommended because they are often used improperly. A bicycle parked perpendicular to the rack is not supported in two locations and are likely to fall over.

Rest Opportunities

Racks generally require a minimum depth of seventytwo inches, and are typically spaced a minimum of thirty inches apart. Where racks are separated by an aisle, the width of the aisle should be a minimum of forty-eight inches wide.

The locations of rest opportunities along shared use paths are crucial to ensuring a positive trail experience. Benches should have backrests to provide support, and at least one armrest to provide support as a user returns to the standing position.

Bicycle racks should be located at public buildings, commercial buildings, parks, trail heads and multi-unit residential developments. Racks should be located within one hundred and twenty feet of a building entrance, in a location clearly visible from the entrance. A rack should be placed near each actively used entrance.

100

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Trailhead Facilities Trailhead facilities should be provided in key locations where trail users are likely to enter the trail system and at intervals that are convenient to trail users. Each trailhead opportunity should have sufficient parking to accommodate commuter cyclists and recreational cyclists who may drive to them to begin their journey. These areas should be well marked and should provide a graphic map showing where the trail user is in relationship to the overall Township trail network. Typical trailhead amenities include: TRAILHEAD FACILITIES

• parking • toilets • water • shelter • security lighting • bicycle rack • benches and picnic tables • drinking fountain • air station • trash container • trail information kiosk

We recommend that trailhead facilities be provided in the following locations: • • •

• •

Pine Community Park Pine Richland High School near the Intersection of U.S. Route 19 and Wallace Road - near Sheetz or Oxford Athletic Club North Park - in the vicinity if Ice Skating Rink in the vicinity of the Irwin Road Trail

All of the proposed locations, with the exception of Irwin Road, have sufficient parking and access to restroom facilities. By adding bicycle racks, air stations, drinking fountains, and a trail information kiosk they can easily serve as trailheads.

township of pine trail feasibility study

101

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

shared use path

shared use path adjacent to road

bike lanes

Typical Trail Cross Sections 102

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Drainage

Side Swales and Culverts

Finally, the last, and probably the most important aspect of trail design, regardless of trail type, is the issue of drainage. Without sufficient drainage, a trail is bound to fail within the first five years. Although drainage improvements are determined on a case by case basis depending on the trailâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s location, there are some general rules of thumb that should be followed.

Side swales and culverts prevent water from reaching the trail surface and give water on the trail surface a lower place to drain. The use of side swales and culverts depends on the trail grade and width. Grade Breaks

Cross Slope

In order to prevent washouts on grades, grade breaks should be installed into the trail alignment. Grade breaks can be smoothly integrated into the trail.

Every part of the trail surface should pitch water at a 2% slope. Typically a surface is pitched towards the downhill side. It is recommended that the trail be crowned when the trail is constructed in a right-of-way with a cross slope of 30% or greater.

The steeper the grade, the more often grade breaks are required. This further limits the running grade of the trail. Culvert Crossings Culvert crossings take the water from side swales and crowned surfaces, and route it beneath the trail surface.

Trail Drainage Specifications by Trail Grade Grade 0-1%

Swale on uphill side

Swale on both sides

Minimum grade break spacing

If concentrated water from above is likely If concentrated water from above is likely If concentrated water from above is likely Required

Required

If cross slope is less than 8% 300' (100' in wet areas)

7% 8% 9%

Required Required Required

If cross slope is less than 8% 150' (100' in wet areas) If cross slope is less than 8% 100' (60' in wet areas) If cross slope is less than 8% 100' (60' in wet areas)

2% 3%

Comments

If wet site with minimal cross slope If cross slope above trails is less than 5% If cross slope above trails is less than 7% If cross slope is less than 8%

No grade breaks required Washouts along trail length nearly impossible 1200' if cross slope ?5%, More frequent grade otherwise none required breaks preferred 1200' (700' in wet areas) More frequent grade breaks preferred 800' (500' in wet areas) Maximum grade for fines' natural erosion resistance If cross slope is less than 8% 500' (300' in wet areas) Maximum preferred grade

township of pine trail feasibility study

Possible erosion of swales Consider hard surface Suggest hard surface Hard surface required

103

CHAPTER 7 TRAIL TYPES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Under Passes Whenever feasible, underpasses should be used to cross busy roads and highways.

two inlets at each end of the culvert and draining from the culvert center in each direction. This will also require stormwater pipe to convey the collected runoff to a natural drainage course.

Sightlines It is critical to establish sufficient sightlines for the trail user. Users approaching an underpass should have an unobstructed view of the center of the underpass entrance from a minimum of 140 feet before he enters the underpass. From 60 feet away, the user must be able to see the center of the underpass at least 40 feet into it. The underpass should be straight, or gently curved, to provide a continuous line of sight. Width and Height The minimum width of the underpass should be 4’ wider than the proposed trail and have a minimum ceiling height of 10’. Lighting Underpasses in areas where night use is likely should be lit. Box culvert underpasses under roads wider than two lanes should be lit, or have a light well in the median. Lighting should be considered for any road bridge underpass. Lights should be no more than 30’ from either entrance, and spaced no more than 25’ apart. Lights are typically left on twenty-four hours a day. The walls and ceiling of the box culvert should be painted with a white epoxy paint to increase reflectivity of light within the culvert. Drainage Box culverts can be drained in two manners. The first, and most cost effective is to allow the culvert to drain naturally to daylight. This can be accomplished where there is sufficient slope from one side of the culvert to the other along its length. The second way to address drainage is by constructing

104

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY

8: LEGAL FEASIBILITY The wide scope of this Township Trail System Feasibility Study makes it impractical to evaluate in detail the property ownership issues along all of the more than thirty proposed trail corridors. However, it is important to identify the options available to the Township for making available the property necessary for the development of the trail system. The information below is not legally binding, it is to be used as a starting point to evaluate the Township’s options with regard to property ownership as the recommendations of this study are implemented.

RIGHTS

WAY

If a recommended trail route follows a vehicular roadway, the possibility of constructing the trail within the right of way should be explored. If the existing right of way is inadequate, the Township should explore the possibility of acquiring an additional rightof-way from the adjacent property owners. Each of the bike lanes proposed herein, are proposed within the right-of-way of existing state roadways. They include: • • • • •

Wexford Road (State Route 910) Pearce Mill Road (State Route 4063) Graham Road (State Route 4052) Franklin Road (State Route 4061) Babcock Boulevard (State Road 4031)

In addition, a shared use path is proposed along various portions of Warrendale Road (State Route 4068).

PURCHASE Ideally, where an adequate right of way does not exist, the Township would purchase the trail corridor property, giving it total control over the current and future use of the property. The purchase option should be explored before easement agreements, particularly in areas where private landowners’ resistance to easement agreement may prevent a trail project.

township of pine trail feasibility study

105

CHAPTER 8 LEGAL FEASIBILITY

106

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 8 LEGAL FEASIBILITY

EASEMENT

LIABILITY

Funding limitations make purchases of all property necessary to construct the trail corridor unfeasible. Where possible, the Township may enter into an easement agreement with a private landowner to allow construction and maintenance of a trail. Where the Township enters into an easement agreement with a private landowner, the Township should assume liability for the trail corridor because exposure to liability is the largest obstacle to getting private landowners to enter into an easement agreement.

Generally, the stumbling block becomes the property owner’s fear of liability. Many times an easement or lease will be granted for little cost if the property owner is convinced that they have no liability exposure.

When property must be acquired to secure a right-ofway or easement for a trail, the Township should begin the acquisition process by approaching the property owner to determine their level of interest in granting property for the trail. Based on this initial meeting, the Township should select an acquisition method and begin to pursue it. This should be done by selecting the least costly acquisition method that the Township feels is reasonably possible, based on feedback from the owner in the initial meeting.

First the Township should present to the land owner that the trail will be designed in accordance with current practices and standards. Secondly, the Township should offer to guarantee the land owner that the Township will provide “ordinary care” of the trail. Ordinary Care is defined as “the level of care that a reasonably prudent professional or other individual would have taken in the same action or event.” And third, the Township will take prompt action to repair a hazardous condition that relates to the trail. While this is difficult to guarantee protection from liability, there is some protection to the private land owner in Pennsylvania by the Commonwealth’s Recreational Use Statute, Title 68, Chapter 11. The Act can be summarized as legislation that limits the liability of land owners who make their land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes. The Act does not provide protection for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity; nor for injury suffered in any case where the land owner charges the person or persons who enter or go on to the land for the recreational use thereof, except in the case where the land is leased to the State or a subdivision thereof. The Township should review this Act with it’s Solicitor and request a opinion as to whether this Act would limit the liability of a land owner who grants his property for trail use. The Act does not warrant a user to trespass onto private property. So, trespassing can be enforced should trail users wander outside of the agreed upon right-of-way or easement.

township of pine trail feasibility study

107

CHAPTER 8 LEGAL FEASIBILITY

Next, the Township is afforded limitation of liability through the Political Subdivision Tort Claim Act. This Act provides protection to political subdivisions in cases where injury is facilitated or caused by the act of others. An exception is granted to municipal immunity when a plaintiff alleges and can prove that an artificial condition or defect of the land itself caused the injury. Therefore, in some instances it may be in the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest to hold harmless the private land owner who offers their property for trail development. Before making any final decisions one must consider this a matter of law and should consultant the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Solicitor for a legal opinion. The Acts referenced herein can be found in the Appendix.

108

township of pine trail feasibility study

CC HAPTER HAPTER12 9 OPERATION, MIAINTENANCE MPLEMENTATION AND

9: OPERATION AND SECURITY This study recommends that a formal management plan be prepared. This plan should be adopted by the Township. The objective of the plan is to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public are protected. A trail should be classified as a linear park and should be maintained in a safe and usable condition like all other public park facilities. Trails should be designed with consideration given to maintenance, so they can fulfill their function, but not put undue burden on the maintenance staff. A management plan should define the roles and responsibilities associated with performing the various tasks related to the trail system, establish a routine maintenance schedule and a risk management inspection schedule. The trails must be kept free from litter, debris, and other foreign matter that may pose a hazard to the users. Vegetation should be controlled to ensure clear and open lines of sight and must establish a plan for the systematic removal of invasive plant species. Standard practices are to maintain a clear line of sight for three hundred feet along the trails in both directions from the user, and within three to ten feet of the trail edges. Shared Use Paths Shared use paths must be maintained for the full width so as not to allow the edges of the trail surface to unravel. We recommend the Township establish a â&#x20AC;&#x153;pack it in, pack it outâ&#x20AC;? policy for the trails, eliminating the necessity to provide trash collection along the entire route. Trash receptacles and /or dumpsters should be located at the trailheads. Seeded areas in the vicinity of shared use paths should be mowed frequently, and if winter maintenance occurs it should be accomplished through plowing in lieu of using de-icing agents which can damage the trails. Drainage must be designed in a way so it does not interfere with the trails. Should drainage problems arise after construction, they should be addressed immediately, otherwise you risk damage to

township of pine trail feasibility study

109

CHAPTER 9 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY

the trail surface. Bicycle Lanes The condition of bicycle lanes must be monitored. The goal of bicycle facility maintenance is to maintain a smooth surface, free from potholes and debris. Glass, litter, and fallen leaves often accumulate and must be routinely swept or vacuumed. Pavement edges must be uniform, not have abrupt drop-offs and not be allowed to unravel. Snow plowing should be used to maintain bicycle facilities in the winter while de-icing materials and abrasives should be avoided as they can damage bicycles and be a serious hazard to the rider. Signs, lanes, markings and stripes should be inspected regularly and kept in good condition. The level of traffic on a given roadway will dictate the frequency of the maintenance. Management Plan To ensure the success of the trail system, this study recommends the Township put forth every effort to assume the responsibility of maintaining the trail network. Trails surfaces must be maintained in a safe and usable condition at all times. All defects in a trail surface must be corrected as soon as feasible through the removal and replacement or corrective action which restores the trail surface to a safe and usable condition. All potential hazards must be clearly identified and marked to alert users until they can be repaired. Costs associated with the operation of trails is difficult to project due to volunteer labor, which has not been yet identified, that can help to offset costs. However, operation and maintenance of trails is on-going and a necessary activity that will ensure the continued use of safe trails in the community.

110

Trails should be maintained at the same level as roads. This means the tasks shall generally include the following: • Mowing of berms • security patrols • maintenance to clear brush, debris and trash • Sweeping of trails with a rotary brush to remove dirt and leaf litter • Erosion control, repair of drain pipes and cleaning of swales • sealing of bituminous pavement • patching and regrading of surface • inspecting, repairing, replacing signs, traffic markers bollards and gates • Cleaning of culverts, catch basins and other drainage structures • maintaining, and completing preventative maintenance on support facilities • Inspecting all trail related structures to ensure they are in a safe condition Based on the above, we have projected the tasks associated with maintaining each trail type proposed herein. In addition we have estimated the person hours required to complete each task, on a per mile basis. These figures were then multiplied by the number of events required per year, and then multiplied by an average salary to establish an annual maintenance budget for the trail system. This analysis assumes allocation existing staff, or hiring new maintenance staff to complete the work. Costs can be substantially reduce if volunteers are available to complete these tasks. Person hours were projected in accordance with the guidelines presented in the National Recreation and Park Association’s publication titled “Park Maintenance Standards.” These standards typically address maintenance requirements for traditional community park land. Therefore the standards were adapted to meet the needs of the proposed trail corridors. This

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 9 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY

study recommend monies be set aside to build up financial resources for years when major repairs or capital improvements are required. Maintenance is critical and has as effect not only on user safety, but crime and vandalism as well.

Share Use Path Estimated Maintenance Costs Task

Person Number Total Person Number of Cost per Hours per of Miles Hours per Events per Person Mile Event Year Hour

Total

1. Quarterly mowing of berms 2. Quarterly inspection patrol and clearing of debris from trail surface 3. Sweep trail with rotary brush, once in the spring and summer, and weekly September through October

0.50 0.50

19.78 19.78

9.00 9.00

4 4

$20.00 $20.00

$791.00 $791.00

1.00

19.78

19.00

$20.00

$3,956.00

4. Quarterly erosion control repair, maintenance of drainage structures and sign repair / replacement

2.00

19.78

39.00

$20.00

$3,164.00

Subtotal Contingency Total Cost Total Miles Annual Cost per Mile

township of pine trail feasibility study

$8,702.00 $807.00 $9,510 21.45 $445.00

111

CHAPTER 9 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY

The proposed Bike lanes will be located within the existing State rights-of-way. Typically, the State is responsible for maintaining the transportation facilities located therein. However, in many cases PennDOT has negotiated Maintenance Agreements with local municipalities. A maintenance agreement is typically a contract between a local municipality in which the municipality agrees to perform certain services and the State agrees to reimburse the local municipality for the costs incurred in completing the specified activity. A common maintenance agreement between the state and a local municipality is for a local municipality to perform snow plowing, and PennDOT in turn reimburses the municipality for the cost incurred. Although there are costs associated with maintaining bike lanes, we strongly believe that when the bike lanes are part of the vehicular roadway, they are PennDOTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s responsibility to maintain. Therefore, we encourage the Township to rely on PennDOT for maintaining the bicycle lanes, or to negotiate a maintenance agreement before assuming any maintenance responsibilities of a bike lane. Finally, the maintenance responsibility for sidewalks within a public right-of-way is the burden of the of adjacent property owner whose land the right-of-way resides upon. Through ordinance, the Township requires each property owner to maintain their sidewalk within 24 hours of a snow event. If the snow is not removed within this time period, the Township may fine the property owner for not complying with the established ordinance. Therefore, there should be no cost for the Township to maintain sidewalks, other than that associated with sidewalks on Township property.

112

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 9 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND

10: FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY We believe the most important aspect of implementing this township-wide trail system is to educate the Township’s elected officials about how the system will impact the quality of life of their constituents. Once we agree that Township residents will look to this system for their physical, emotional, and environmental well-being then the costs to implement the system can be justified. We also recognize the Township cannot afford to implement a Township-wide trail system on it’s own, but must look to other public and private agencies to assist in achieving this vision. This incudes the Township of Pine, public sector agencies such as PennDOT, and private sector representatives such as those developing property in the Township for residential and commercial development. The Township currently acknowledges that each sector currently benefits from sidewalk, road and infrastructure improvements, and we recommend trails be treated in the same manner. This means developers in the private sector should be required to construct the recommended trail improvements when a proposed corridor crosses the land they are developing. This also means the Township needs to work closely with PennDOT, so that when roads within their rights-ofways are rehabilitated or resurfaced, the project is accomplished in a manner that also responds to the needs of the pedestrians and bicyclists of the Township. Based on this scenario, we have prepared opinions of probable construction costs for the various trail segments proposed. During this process, we recommended which party should be responsible for the segment’s implementation based on the trail segment location. Thus, segments within PennDOT right-of-ways should fall within PennDOT’s responsibility, segments through future development should be the responsibility of those developing the

township of pine trail feasibility study

113

CHAPTER 10 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

property, and segments along Township Roads should be the responsibility of the Township. Based on this analysis the costs associated with implementing the Township-wide trail system is broken down as follows:

PRIVATE SECTOR 22%

TOWNSHIP 24%

build the segment. The opinions provided herein are based on mapping provided for this project by the Township. This mapping has a contour interval of five feet. The first step in finalizing the design must include the preparation of a more detailed survey, that in turn, will lead to more detailed design and cost estimating. Costs projected herein are based on 2004 dollar values. To budget for inflation of costs for future improvements, we recommend a four percent annual increase for all work occurring after 2004. The costs assume all construction will be completed through a public bidding process and with Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Rates being paid to the contractor’s employees.

PUBLIC SECTOR - 54% Our opinion of probable construction costs estimate the cost to implement all of the proposed trail segments at approximately $19,744,636.42. Therefore, in 2004 dollars, the Township's financial responsibility is approximately $4,651,218.21. The private sector’s responsibility is approximately $4,163,300. And the public sector’s responsibility is approximately $10,442,200.

The following tables summarizes the opinion of probable construction costs in accordance with trail type, segment priority (as established in Chapter 11) and responsibility, and, they break down the costs according to responsibility for implementation. The Opinions of Probable Costs that the summaries are based upon can be found in the Appendix.

With over thirty five miles of trail being proposed the feasibility study budget does not allow for a detailed unit cost breakdown of each segment. However, costs were projected based on information collected during the field review of the segments. The costs are based on the Consultant’s experience with bids received for trail projects over the past several years. These figures should be used for planning purposes only. As the Township implements this plan, the opinion of probable costs should be updated to reflect final alignments and actual construction required to

114

township of pine trail feasibility study

Pine Trail Feasibility Study Shared Use Path Priorities with Costs Trail Segment Description Segment Type Length Description Number

Shared Use Path

2.16

Shared Use Path

0.74

17A

Shared Use Path

0.52

Shared Use Path

1.31

Shared Use Path

0.42

Shared Use Path

0.38

Shared Use Path

1.50

Shared Use Path

0.19

Shared Use Path

0.23

Shared Use Path

1.41

Shared Use Path

1.31

Shared Use Path

0.22

Shared Use Path

0.82

This is the signature component of the Township’s trail system. A proposed shared use path connects the Township’s Community Park with the Pine-Richland School Complex. This proposed shared use trail will follow Pearce Mill Road north from the park entrance to Warrendale Road and then east along Warrendale Road toward Babcock Boulevard. At the school complex, this shared use trail connects with the shared use trail connecting these two key destinations. This shared use path connects the Township’s Community Park, the shared use path along Warrendale Road and the shared use path and bike lanes along Pearce Mill Road. This proposed shared use path will connect the Township’s Community Park to the shared use path currently being constructed between Winwood and Pinkerton Roads. This shared use path connects the Township Community Park with the Pine-Richland School Complex, through the Trees Estate property. The trail crosses the north fork of Pine Run. This shared use path will follow Irwin Road from State Route 19 (Wexford Road) connecting bike lanes along State Route 19, the existing shared use Irwin Road Trail which extends into North Park. This proposed shared use path connects the bike lanes on Warrendale Road with the proposed shared use paths to the east and west of Wallace Road. This segment is the former Irwin Road, and is referred to as the Irwin Road Trail. This shared use path will connect the trails within Pine Haven Park to the bike lanes and shared use path proposed along Wexford Road (State Route 910) and hiking trails within North Park. This shared use path will connect the bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road) with Wexford Elementary School. This shared use path will pick up the end of the proposed shared use path extension along English Road, Segment 10, with the proposed shared use path connecting the Community Park and the School Complex. The trail runs along the north fork of Pine Run for approximately half of its distance. The portion along Pine Creek is proposed to be developed as an interpretative trail. This proposed shared use path connects property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road and the Township’s Community Park. This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property , that is presumed to be developed as housing, to the bike lanes proposed along Babcock Boulevard. This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property, that is presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road.

Prioritization Criteria Cost of Potential for Desireablility Improves Construction Outside Funding of Residents Walkability

Improves Significance Bikeability of Segment

Priorities Priority Shared Use Sidewalk Path Priority

Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Per Lineal Foot Construction Costs

Trail Type

Connectivity

Cost of Acquisition

$639,381.91

$56.06

$371,546.35

$95.09

$111,544.78

$40.63

$430,218.73

$62.20

$150,589.44

$67.91

$99,473.30

$49.58

$340,920.13

$43.05

$138,186.65

$137.75

$233,222.76

$192.05

$1,923,776.45

$258.41

$317,097.90

$45.84

$66,113.75

$56.92

$175,580.80

$40.55

Total Score

Bike Lane

Shared Use Path Priorities with Costs Trail Segment Description Segment Type Length Description Number 10

Shared Use Path

0.51

Shared Use Path

0.81

Shared Use Path

0.37

Shared Use Path

0.35

33A

Shared Use Path

0.50

Shared Use Path

0.92

Shared Use Path

1.83

Shared Use Path

0.33

Shared Use Path

0.33

Shared Use Path

0.96

Total Cost Cost per Mile Cost per One Hundred Lineal Feet

18.12

This shared use path connects the existing shared use path trail along English Road, which ends at Wynstone Drive, to the English Road/Graham Road intersection. This shared use path will connect property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, with the bike lanes proposed along Warrendale Road and the bike lanes proposed along Wallace Road. This shared use path will connect the existing shared use path, located on the New Community Church property, to the ice skating rink in North Park, paralleling Pearce Mill Road. - Deleted from final recommendations This proposed shared use path segment runs between the Harmony Trail and Brooktree Road in the southwest corner of the Township. This segment crosses Wexford Run and does not follow a roadway. Brooktree Road has existing sidewalks that connect to Route 19. The proposed shared use path connection then runs along Brooker Drive to the proposed trail head at the edge of North Park. This shared use path will connect the sidewalks and Bike lanes along Wallace Road with sidewalks along Village Club Drive, a proposed trail head, and the Bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road). Additionally a trailhead is proposed in the vicinity of the Oxford Athletic Club. This shared use path connects the proposed shared use path and bike lanes along Wallace Road to the shared use path along English Road. This proposed shared use path parallels Mt. Pleasant Road and Dean Road, and connects the bike lanes proposed along Franklin Road and the shared use path along Warrendale Road. This shared use path will connect Kerrington Woods Park and the surrounding residential area with the Irwin Road Trail. Safety improvements are required to provide a pedestrian and Bike crossing at the intersection of Babcock Boulevard and Kerrington Drive. This shared use path connects the sidewalks along Cloverdale Drive with the shared use path and bike lanes along Wallace Road. This proposed shared use path segment is the Harmony Trail, with an extension along Route 910, running east to Lloydmont Road, paralleling Wexford Run.

Prioritization Criteria Cost of Potential for Desireablility Improves Construction Outside Funding of Residents Walkability

Trail Type

Connectivity

Cost of Acquisition

Improves Significance Bikeability of Segment

Total Score

Priorities Priority Shared Use Sidewalk Path Priority

Bike Lane

Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Per Lineal Foot Construction Costs

$108,830.74

$40.42

$192,386.77

$44.98

$0.00

$90,676.46

$49.07

$107,946.71

$40.89

$198,146.14

$40.79

$393,883.26

$40.76

$82,086.97

$47.11

$93,215.81

$53.50

$205,037.28

$40.45

$6,469,863.09 Average Lineal Foot Cost $357,056.46 $39.07 $6,762.43

Pine Trail Feasibility Study Sidewalk Priorities with Costs Segment Number

Type

Trail Segment Description Length in Description Miles

Sidewalk

0.56

Sidewalk

2.10

Sidewalk

2.00

Sidewalk

0.39

Sidewalk

0.29

Sidewalk

0.24

Sidewalk

0.24

33C

Sidewalk

0.37

Sidewalk

0.17

Sidewalk

0.14

Total Cost Cost per Mile Cost per One Hundred Lineal Feet

6.50

This sidewalk along Wallace Road will connect the existing English Road shared use path with the Wallace Road and State Route 19 intersection. These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where there are no sidewalks along the eastern side of Route 19. These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where the are no sidewalks along the western side of Route 19. Sidewalks are proposed along Wexford Road, between Lloydmont Drive to the proposed shared use path in the vicinity of the Oxford propertyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stormwater detention facility. This sidewalk connects State Route 19 with the sidewalks along Swinderman Road. This proposed sidewalk will connect to State Route 19, paralleling State Route 910 (Wexford Road). This proposed sidewalk parallels North Chapel Drive connecting State Route 19 and State Route 910 (Wexford Road). This sidewalk connection will connect the sidewalks along Wallace Road to the Oxford Athletic Club, along Village Club Drive. This proposed sidewalk connection links the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail. This proposed sidewalk segment connects the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail.

Prioritization Criteria Potential for Desireablility Outside Funding of Residents

Trail Type

Connectivity

Cost of Acquisition

Cost of Construction

Priorities Priority Shared Use Sidewalk Bike Path Priority Lane P i i P i i

Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Per Lineal Foot Construction Costs

Improves Walkability

Improves Bikeability

Significance of Segment

Total Score

$239,660.99

$81.05

$1,798,728.73

$162.22

$1,755,932.12

$166.28

$166,906.76

$81.05

$124,110.16

$81.05

$282,711.85

$223.10

$282,711.85

$223.10

$158,347.44

$81.05

$217,956.96

$242.82

$179,501.38

$242.83

$5,206,568.24 Average Lineal Foot Cost $801,010.50 $167.66 $15,170.65

Pine Trail Feasibility Study Bike Lane Priorities with Costs Segment Number

Type

Trail Segment Description Length in Description Miles

Bike Lanes

1.58

Bike Lanes

3.09

Bike Lanes

0.77

Bike Lanes

0.77

Bike Lanes

3.24

Bike Lanes

1.66

Bike Lanes

1.38

33B

Bike Lanes

0.39

Total Cost Cost per Mile Cost per One Hundred Lineal Feet

12.88

Bike lanes are proposed along Wallace Road, from it’s intersection with Warrendale Road to State Route 19. This proposed bike lane connects the bike lanes currently being construction by Public Sector Agency from North Park to State Route 910 (Wexford Road) to the Township’s Community Park. Bike lanes along Wexford Road (State Route 910) from the proposed shared use path in the vicinity of Oxford property’s stormwater detention facility to the bike lanes being developed along Wexford Road (State Route 910) at the New Community Church property. Bike lanes are proposed along Wexford Road ( State Route 910) from its intersection with Pearce Mill Road to Gibsona Road (State Route 910). Bike lanes are proposed along Babcock Boulevard, from the Richland Township border to the intersection with Gibsonia Road, continuing along Gibsonia Road to Kerrington Drive, where it connects with Kerrington Drive. This bike lane is proposed to connect the Warrendale Road/Franklin Road intersection with the Graham Road/Pearce Mill Road intersection along Warrendale and Graham Roads. These bike lanes along Franklin Road will connect bike lanes along Warrendale Road to the proposed shared use path paralleling Mt. Pleasant Road. This bike lane connection will connect the bike lanes along State Route 19 to Village Club Drive and the Oxford Athletic Club.

Prioritization Criteria Potential for Desireablility Outside Funding of Residents

Trail Type

Connectivity

Cost of Acquisition

Cost of Construction

Priorities Priority Shared Use Sidewalk Bike Path Priority Lane P i i P i i 5 1

Improves Walkability

Improves Bikeability

Significance of Segment

Total Score

Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Per Lineal Foot Construction Costs

$1,438,054.31

$172.38

$1,286,152.11

$78.83

$494,771.72

$121.70

$492,896.72

$121.24

$2,104,861.34

$123.08

$376,719.67

$42.98

$567,861.64

$77.93

$126,134.78

$61.25

$6,887,452.29 Average Lineal Foot Cost $534,781.60 $99.92 $10,128.44

Pine Trail Feasibility Study Trail Segment by Responsibility

Segment Number

Type

Trail Segment Description Length Description

Trail Type

Connectivity

Cost of Acquisition

Cost of Construction

Prioritization Criteria Potential for Desireablility Outside Funding of Residents

Improves Walkability

Improves Significance Bikeability of Segment

Total Score

Township Segments 2B

Sidewalk

Shared Use Path

Priorities Bike Priority Shared Use Sidewalk Priority Lane Path P i i P i i

0.24

This proposed sidewalk will connect the to Route 19 and parallel to State Route 19 (Wexford Road).

2.16

Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Per Lineal Foot Construction Costs

Responsibility

$282,711.85

$223.10

Township

$1,624,654.41

$142.45

Township / Grant

$371,546.35

$95.09

Township / Grant

Shared Use Path

0.74

This shared use path connects the Township’s Community Park, the shared use path along Warrendale Road and the shared use path and bike lanes along Pearce Mill Road.

17A

Shared Use Path

0.52

This proposed shared use path will connect the Township’s Community Park to the shared use path currently being constructed between Winwood and Pinkerton Roads.

$111,544.78

$40.63

Township / Grant

Shared Use Path

0.42

This shared use path will follow Irwin Road from State Route 19 (Wexford Road) connecting bike lanes along State Route 19, the existing shared use Irwin Road Trail which extends into North Park.

$150,589.44

$67.91

Township / Grant

Shared Use Path

0.19

This shared use path will connect the trails within Pine Haven Park to the bike lanes and shared use path proposed along Wexford Road (State Route 910) and hiking trails within North Park.

$138,186.65

$137.75

Township / Grant

Shared Use Path

1.50

This segment is the former Irwin Road, and is referred to as the Irwin Road Trail.

$340,920.13

$43.05

Township / Grant

1.41

This shared use path will pick up the end of the proposed shared use path extension along English Road, Segment 10, with the proposed shared use path connecting the Community Park and the School Complex. The trail runs along the north fork of Pine Creek for approximately half of its distance. The portion along Pine Creek is proposed to be developed as an interpretative trail.

$1,923,776.45

$258.41

Township / Grant

$4,943,930.06 $688,569.65 $13,041.09

Average Lineal Foot Cost $98.16

Shared Use Path

Total Cost Cost per Mile Cost per One Hundred Lineal Feet

7.18

Pine Trail Feasibility Study Trail Segment by Responsibility

Segment Number

Type

Trail Segment Description Length Description

Trail Type

Connectivity

Cost of Acquisition

Cost of Construction

Prioritization Criteria Potential for Desireablility Outside Funding of Residents

Improves Walkability

Improves Significance Bikeability of Segment

Total Score

Public Sector Segments

Priorities Bike Priority Shared Use Sidewalk Priority Lane Path P i i P i i

Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Per Lineal Foot Construction Costs

Responsibility

Bike Lanes

1.58

Bike lanes are proposed along Wallace Road, from it’s intersection with Warrendale Road to State Route 19.

$1,438,054.31

$172.38

PENNDOT

Bike Lanes

3.09

This proposed bike lane connects the bike lanes currently being construction by PennDOT from North Park to State Route 910 (Wexford Road) to the Township’s Community Park.

$1,286,152.11

$78.83

PENNDOT

$494,771.72

$121.70

PENNDOT

Bike Lanes

0.77

Bike lanes along Wexford Road (State Route 910) from the proposed shared use path in the vicinity of Oxford property’s stormwater detention facility to the bike lanes being developed along Wexford Road (State Route 19) at the New Community Church property.

Bike Lanes

0.77

Bike lanes are proposed along Wexford Road ( State Route 910) from its intersection with Pearce Mill Road to Gibsona Road (State Route 910).

$492,896.72

$121.24

PENNDOT

$2,104,861.34

$123.08

PENNDOT

Bike Lanes

3.24

Bike lanes are proposed along Babcock Boulevard, from the Richland Township border to the intersection with Gibsonia Road, continuing along Gibsonia Road to Kerrington Drive, where it connects with Kerrington Drive.

Bike Lanes

1.66

This bike lane is proposed to connect the Warrendale Road/Franklin Road intersection with the Graham Road/Pearce Mill Road intersection along Warrendale and Graham Roads.

$376,719.67

$42.98

PENNDOT

Bike Lanes

1.38

These bike lanes along Franklin Road will connect bike lanes along Warrendale Road to the proposed shared use path paralleling Mt. Pleasant Road.

$567,861.64

$77.93

PENNDOT

33B

Bike Lanes

0.39

This bike lane connection will connect the bike lanes along State Route 19 to Village Club Drive and the Oxford Athletic Club.

$126,134.78

$61.25

PENNDOT

Sidewalk

2.10

These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where there are no sidewalks along the eastern side of Route 19.

$1,798,728.73

$162.22

PENNDOT

Sidewalk

2.00

These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where the are no sidewalks along the western side of Route 19.

$1,755,932.12

$166.28

PENNDOT

$10,442,113.14 $615,001.66 $11,647.76

Average Lineal Foot Cost $109.59

Total Cost Cost per Mile Cost per One Hundred Lineal Feet

16.98

Pine Trail Feasibility Study Trail Segment by Responsibility

Segment Number

Type

Trail Segment Description Length Description

Prioritization Criteria Potential for Desireablility Outside Funding of Residents

Improves Walkability

Improves Significance Bikeability of Segment

Priorities Bike Priority Shared Use Sidewalk Priority Lane Path P i i P i i

Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Per Lineal Foot Construction Costs

Responsibility

Trail Type

Connectivity

Cost of Acquisition

Cost of Construction

$430,318.73

$62.21

Developer

Total Score

Private Sector Segments

Shared Use Path

1.31

This shared use path connects the Township Community Park with the Pine-Richland School Complex, through the Trees Estate property. The trail crosses the north fork of Pine Creek.

Shared Use Path

0.38

This proposed shared use path connects the bike lanes on Warrendale Road with the proposed shared use paths to the east and west of Wallace Road.

$99,473.30

$49.58

Developer

Shared Use Path

0.23

This shared use path will connect the bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road) with Wexford Elementary School.

$233,222.76

$192.05

Developer

$317,097.90

$45.84

Developer

Shared Use Path

1.31

This proposed shared use path connects property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road and the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Park.

Shared Use Path

0.22

This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property , that is presumed to be developed as housing, to the bike lanes proposed along Babcock Boulevard.

$66,113.75

$56.92

Developer

Shared Use Path

0.82

This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property, that is presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road.

$175,580.80

$40.55

Developer

Shared Use Path

0.81

This shared use path will connect property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, with the bike lanes proposed along Warrendale Road and the bike lanes proposed along Wallace Road.

$192,386.77

$44.98

Developer

$107,946.71

$40.89

Developer

This shared use path will connect the sidewalks and Bike lanes along Wallace Road with sidewalks along Village Club Drive, a proposed trail head, and the Bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road). Additionally a trailhead is proposed in the vicinity of the Oxford Athletic Club.

33A

Shared Use Path

0.50

Shared Use Path

0.92

This shared use path connects the proposed shared use path and bike lanes along Wallace Road to the shared use path along English Road.

$198,146.14

$40.79

Developer

1.83

This proposed shared use path parallels Mt. Pleasant Road and Dean Road, and connects the bike lanes proposed along Franklin Road and the shared use path along Warrendale Road.

$393,883.26

$40.76

Developer

$82,086.97

$47.11

Developer

$93,215.81

$53.50

Developer

$124,110.16

$81.05

Developer

Shared Use Path

0.33

This shared use path will connect Kerrington Woods Park and the surrounding residential area with the Irwin Road Trail. Safety improvements are required to provide a pedestrian and Bike crossing at the intersection of Babcock Boulevard and Kerrington Drive.

Shared Use Path

0.33

This shared use path connects the sidewalks along Cloverdale Drive with the shared use path and bike lanes along Wallace Road.

Sidewalk

0.29

This sidewalk connects State Route 19 with the sidewalks along Swinderman Road.

Pine Trail Feasibility Study Trail Segment by Responsibility

Segment Number

Type

Trail Segment Description Length Description

Trail Type

Connectivity

Cost of Acquisition

Cost of Construction

Prioritization Criteria Potential for Desireablility Outside Funding of Residents

Improves Walkability

Improves Significance Bikeability of Segment

Total Score

Priorities Bike Priority Shared Use Sidewalk Priority Lane Path P i i P i i

Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Per Lineal Foot Construction Costs

Responsibility

Sidewalk

0.24

This proposed sidewalk parallels North Chapel Drive connecting State Route 19 and State Route 910 (Wexford Road).

$282,711.85

$223.10

Developer

33C

Sidewalk

0.37

This sidewalk connection will connect the sidewalks along Wallace Road to the Oxford Athletic Club, along Village Club Drive.

$158,347.44

$81.05

Developer

Sidewalk

0.17

This proposed sidewalk connection links the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail.

$217,956.96

$242.82

Developer

Sidewalk

0.14

This proposed sidewalk segment connects the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail.

$179,501.38

$242.83

Developer

Sidewalk

0.39

Sidewalks are proposed along Wexford Road, between Lloydmont Drive to the proposed shared use path in the vicinity of the Oxford propertyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stormwater detention facility.

$166,906.76

$81.05

Developer

Sidewalk

0.56

This sidewalk along Wallace Road will connect the existing English Road shared use path with the Wallace Road and State Route 19 intersection.

$239,660.99

$81.05

Developer / Township

Shared Use Path

0.51

This shared use path connects the existing shared use path trail along English Road, which ends at Wynstone Drive, to the English Road/Graham Road intersection.

$108,830.74

$40.42

Developer / Township

$90,676.46

$205,037.28

$40.45

$4,163,212.92 $320,987.89 $6,079.32

Average Lineal Foot Cost $107.34

Shared Use Path

0.35

This proposed shared use path segment runs between the Harmony Trail and Brooktree Road in the southwest corner of the Township. This segment crosses Wexford Run and does not follow a roadway. Brooktree Road has existing sidewalks that connect to Route 19. The proposed shared use path connection then runs along Brooker Drive to the proposed trail head at the edge of North Park.

Shared Use Path

0.96

This proposed shared use path segment is the Harmony Trail, with an extension along Route 910, running east to Lloydmont Road, paralleling Wexford Run.

Total Cost Cost per Mile Cost per One Hundred Lineal Feet

12.97

$49.07 Harmony Trail

Harmony Trail Association

CHAPTER 10 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

Insert Bike Lane Summary

township of pine trail feasibility study

119

CHAPTER 10 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

120

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 10 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

After each trail segment was identified and prioritized we prepared opinions of probable construction costs. In 2004 dollars, the Township’s financial responsibility to implement the eight segments identified herein is approximately $3,958,700. Taking into consideration potential grant opportunities the actual cost tot he Township could be further reduced. Given reason estimates of grant funding that could be obtained, we project the segments could be developed by the Township for $2,557,100.

Currently the Township allocates $200,000 per year towards sidewalk improvements. By continuing this program, the Township has the ability to implement the trail segments identified herein as the Township’s responsibility in approximately twenty years. Utilizing grant programs such as PennDOT’s Safe Routes to School, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Community Conservation Partnership Program, and the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development’s Single Application Grant we believe the Township could implement its trail segments in a ten to fifteen year period.

Recognizing the Township currently allocates $200,000 annually for sidewalk improvements, and the current program is nearing completion, this funding could be reallocated towards trail improvements. This funding, along with additional funding secured through a variety of grant programs, should allow the Township to implement its segments in a ten to fifteen year period.

Priority Trail Se gme nt De scription

O pinion of Pote ntial Grant Pote ntial Probable Funding Grant Length Construction Amounts O pportunitie s Costs

Segment Number

Type

Shared Use Path

2.16

$1,624,654.41

$1,299,723.53

Shared Use Path

0.74

$371,546.35

$185,773.18

PA DCNR PA DCED

17A

Shared Use Path

0.52

$111,544.78

$55,772.39

PennDOT Safe Routes to School

Shared Use Path

0.42

$150,589.44

$75,294.72

PA DCED

Shared Use Path

0.19

$138,186.65

$69,093.33

PA DCNR

Shared Use Path

1.50

$340,920.13

$170,460.07

PA DCNR

Shared Use Path

1.41

$1,923,776.45

$192,377.65

Sidewalk

0.24

$282,711.85

$141,355.93

$4,943,930.06

$2,189,850.77

Total Cost Cost per Mile Cost per One Hundred Lineal Feet

7.18

PA DCNR PA DCED T ownship Sidewalk Program

$688,569.65 $13,041.09

Estimated Cost to the Township

township of pine trail feasibility study

$2,754,079.29

121

CHAPTER 10 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

122

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 9 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND

11: RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION Near the end of the study, the consultant assisted the study committee in prioritizing the implementation of the Township’s Trail System. Implementation strategies were developed in the following areas: • Policy • Management • Implementation • Allocate Township resources resources to a successful demonstration project and those trail segments that will not be realized otherwise. • Focus Township financial resources on the implementation of shared use paths and sidewalk connectors.

Early on in the process the Township recognized it would take a combined effort of public and private resources to fulfill the vision of the Township’s Trail System. The plan’s success will be based on the Township’s ability to coordinate public and private resources and to maximize funding expenditures.

Policy • Ensure Federal and State highway funding is appropriately spent pedestrian and bicycle accomodations. • Allocate management resources to coordinate PennDOT roadway improvements and ensure they include pedestrian and bicycle accomodations. • Allocate management resources on amending the Township’s Land Development and Subdivision Ordinances to ensure those responsible for land development in the Township implement their respective trail segments in order to meet the needs of their future residents.

We recommend the Township continue their effort to ensure those responsible for land development in the Township implement their respective trail segments in order to meet the needs of their future residents. We recommend this be accomplished by recognizing the lessons learned in the past, and by strengthening the language in the Township’s Land Development and Subdivision Ordinances to acheive success. Based on the information learned during the inventory and analysis phase, we recommend the Township amend their zoning ordinance to require the construction of trail segments proposed in this plan when the property the proposed segment is associated with is developed. Primary Trail Routes Ordinance (DRAFT) Recognizing that Township residents desire to travel from their neighborhoods to cultural and natural resource amenities located throughout the Township, all future development within the Township shall

township of pine trail feasibility study

123

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

provide accommodations for pedestrian and bicycle amenities in accordance with the recommendations of “Connections - Trail Feasibility Study for the Township of Pine, Allegheny County”, and as amended.

the design requirements specified in Chapter 7 of “Connections - Trail Feasibility Study for the Township of Pine, Allegheny County”, and as amended.

Management When a Primary Trail Route (defined as shared use path, sidewalk connector, or bike lane within the Township’s Trail Plan) is proposed for a parcel of land that will be developed, said route must be accomodated in proposed land development activities. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities must be designed and constructed in accordance with the design requirements specified in Chapter 7 of “Connections - Trail Feasibility Study for the Township of Pine, Allegheny County”, and as amended. All proposed pedestrian and bicycle trail segments must be installed before building permits are issued for the building construction. Land development applications will be rejected as administratively incomplete if pedestrian and bicycle facilities, officially acknowledged in “Connections Trail Feasibility Study for the Township of Pine, Allegheny County” are not accomodated as recommended, and in accordance with the design guidelines presented therein. Neighborhood Connections Ordinance (DRAFT) To further the Township’s goal of providing access for all Pine residents to the Township Trail System, all future residential developments shall identify and implement Neighborhood Connections. Neighborhood Connections will allow residents to walk and/or bike walk from their neighborhood to the trails connecting key destinations throughout the Township (as designated on the Pine Township Trail System map). A minimum of one Neighborhood Connection route shall be implemented for each neighborhood. Ideally, the Connection should take the form of a shared use path or sidewalk. The connection may follow a sidewalk and must meet

124

Managing the Township’s trail system requires the following: • • • • • •

Coordination and Partnership Development Property Acquisition Financial Planning Capital Improvements Risk Management, Operations and Maintenance Publicity and Education

Coordination and Partnership Development The Township must maintain an open dialogue with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation coordinate PennDOT roadway improvements and ensure they include pedestrian and bicycle accomodations. We recommend this be accomplished by meeting quarterly with the PennDOT Pedestrian / Bicycle Coordinator. By preparing a convincing argument that the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements improve safety, and meeting the Federal Highway Adminstration’s, and PennDOT’s goal of accomodating pedestrian and bicycle transportation, the Township will likely succeed in endeavors with the Department. We recommend the Township build upon the dialogue begun during this study with the County regarding the formal development of the Irwin Road Trail. This was identified during the study as an important route, and will provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the heart of North Park. The Township must continue this dialogue with County, and work with County Officials to establish the trail’s development as a priority. We recommend the Township continue their dialogue with the Harmony Trail Council and continue to support the development of the Harmony Trail

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

through the Township. In order to assure safe pedestrian and bicycle crossing of U.S. Route 19, and to connect the Township’s trail system with Harmony Trail, PennDOT must be involved in the process. Finally, by partnering with each of the above organizations, the Township has a greater likelihood of receiving financial assistance from the various funding agencies.

Capital Improvements When the Township has the financial resources in place to construct trail segments, the Township’s Planning Director, in consultation with the Township’s Park and Recreation Director, should manage the design and construction process. Risk Management, Operations and Maintenance

We recommend that coordination and partnership efforts be lead by the Township’s Board of Supervisors and Township management staff. Property Acquisition Where trail segments require the acquisition of property or dedication of right-of-way, we recommend the Township’s Planning Director initiate contact with the existing property owner to determine evaluate the likelihood of reaching an agreement.

As recommended in Chapter 11, the Township’s management plan must address risk management, operations and maintenance. The development of these components should be lead by the Township’s Park and Recreation Director. The risk management component should be developed in close coordination with the Township Solicitor and the Township’s general liability insurance carrier.

Should acquisition efforts be likely, the Township Solicitor should be involved with negotiating the final acquisition arrangements.

Operation and maintenance components of the plan should also be lead by the Township’s Park and Recreation Director in coordination with the Township’s Public Works Director.

Financial Planning

Publicity and Education

Financial planning is required to finance the construction and maintenance of the proposed trail segments that will be developed and maintained by the Township.

We learned through the questionnaire that was distributed to Township residents for this study, that many residents are not aware of the trails that are available to them. We recommend the Township’s Park and Recreation Director coordinate publicity efforts to inform the Township residents of current trail opportunities, and those planned for the future.

The Township Manager should prepare a financial plan, and incorporate components of that plan in the Township’s Capital Improvements Plan and in the Township’s annual budget. Grant writing should be an important component of the financial plan. Coordination and preparation of the grant applications should be completed by Township staff, as delegated through the Township Manager.

Education is an important component of the Township’s risk management plan. This study recommends the Township’s Park and Recreation Director institute pedestrian and bicycle safety programs into the park and recreation program offerings. Many advocacy groups have developed safety programs focused towards various age groups. By using these

township of pine trail feasibility study

125

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

resources the Park and Recreation Department can save time and effort. Because children and seniors have higher accident incidents, most programs have been developed for those specific audiences. More information on these programs can be obtained from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking, 1506 NW 21st Street, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036 202-463-6622. Additionally, the AASHTO “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities” provides an outline for bicycle safety that have been developed to reach four audiences, Young Bicyclists, Parents of Young Bicyclists, Adult Bicyclists and Motorists. Safe bicycling programs should provide instruction on the basics of bicycling, compliance with the Pennsylvania Bicycle Driver’s Manual, the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, and defensive bicycling tactics. We recommend the Township’s Police Department be invited to assist in the development and implementation of these programs. Funding for these programs may be obtained through the PennDOT Transportation Enhancement grant program.

Implementation The study committee, with guidance provided by the consultant, developed objective criteria to rank the significance of the various trail segments being proposed. This criteria is based upon the goals established for the trail system. The segment that achieves the highest score is the highest priority to construct. A score of one to five was given to each segment in the trail system. Five represented the best and highest use, while one indicates that the segment has little value to the community in a given category.

126

The ranking criteria included: • Connectivity - does the segment enhance the connectivity of pedestrian and cycling opportunities in the Township. • Cost of Acquisition - low cost (ranking of 5) vs. high cost (ranking of 1) • Cost of Construction - low cost (ranking of 5) vs. high cost (ranking of 1) • Potential for Outside Funding - high potential (ranking of 5) vs. low potential (ranking of 1) • Desirability of Residents - highly desirable (5), not very desirable (1) • Improves Walkability - high (ranking of 5) vs. low (ranking of 1) • Improves bikability - high (ranking of 5) vs. low (ranking of 1) • Significance of Connection - high (ranking of 5) vs. low (ranking of 1) Utilizing this criteria, the thirty-three trail segments were ranked and subsequently prioritized. In addition, each type of trail was also isolated and prioritized. For example, Segment 3B, establishing bike lanes along PA Route 910, received an overall priority of 19, while it received a bike lane priority of 8. Where segments acheived the same score, they share the priority ranking. Thus, there may be multiple segments that receive the same priority. The tables beginning on page 117 show how each segment was rated in each category, identifies the segments’ overall priority, and assigns a priority based on trail type.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Shared Use Paths Priorities 1. Segment 22 - 2.16 miles. This is the signature component of the Township’s trail system. This is the signature component of the Township’s trail system. A proposed shared use path connects the Township’s Community Park with the PineRichland School Complex. This proposed shared use trail will follow Pearce Mill Road north from the park entrance and the east along the southern side of Warrendale Road, to the intersection of Treesdale Drive. At this intersection shall be signalized to safely direct users to the northern side of Warrendale Road. The path will continue to the intersection of the school complex access road. This intersection shall also be signalized to safely direct users to the southern side of Warrendale Road and the school complex. At the school complex, this shared use trail connects with the shared use trail connecting these two key destinations. 2. Segment 19- 0.74 miles. This shared use path connects the Township’s Community Park, the shared use path along Warrendale Road and the shared use path and bike lanes along Pearce Mill Road. 3. Segment 17A - 0.52 miles. This proposed shared use path will connect the Township’s Community Park to the shared use path currently being constructed between Winwood and Pinkerton Roads. 4. Segment 23 - S1.31 miles. This shared use path connects the Township Community Park with the Pine-Richland School Complex, through the Trees Estate property. The trail crosses the north fork of Pine Run.

4. Segment 29- 0.42 miles. This shared use path will follow Irwin Road from State Route 19 (Wexford Road) connecting bike lanes along State Route 19, the existing shared use Irwin Road Trail which extends into North Park. 5. Segment 9A - 0.38 miles. This proposed shared use path connects the bike lanes on Warrendale Road with the proposed shared use paths to the east and west of Wallace Road.

5. Segment 28 - 1.50 miles. This segment is the former Irwin Road, and is referred to as the Irwin Road Trail. 5. Segment 31- 0.19 miles. This shared use path will connect the trails within Pine Haven Park to the bike lanes and shared use path proposed along Wexford Road (State Route 910) and hiking trails within North Park. 6. Segment 32 - 0.23 miles. This shared use path will connect the bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road) with Wexford Elementary School. 7. Segment 24 - 1.41 miles. This shared use path will pick up the end of the proposed shared use path extension along English Road, Segment 10, with the proposed shared use path connecting the Community Park and the School Complex. The trail runs along the north fork of Pine Run for approximately half of its distance. The portion along Pine Creek is proposed to be developed as an interpretative trail. 8. Segment 18 - 1.31 miles This proposed shared use path connects property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road and the Township’s Community Park.

When a tie occurred in the prioritization, each segment received the same priority

township of pine trail feasibility study

127

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

8. Segment 25 - 0.22 miles. This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property ,and presumed to be developed as housing, to the bike lanes proposed along Babcock Boulevard. 8. Segment 26 - 0.82 miles. This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property, and presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road. 9. Segment 10 - 0.51 miles. This shared use path connects the existing shared use path trail along English Road, which ends at Wynstone Drive, to the English Road/Graham Road intersection.

11. Segment 33A - Shared Use Path. 0.50 miles This shared use path will connect the sidewalks and Bike lanes along Wallace Road with sidewalks along Village Club Drive, a proposed trail head, and the Bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road). Additionally a trailhead is proposed in the vicinity of the Oxford Athletic Club. 12. Segment 11- 0.92 miles. This shared use path connects the proposed shared use path and bike lanes along Wallace Road to the shared use path along English Road.

10. Segment 13 - 0.81 miles. This shared use path will connects property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, with the bike lanes proposed along Warrendale Road and the bike lanes proposed along Wallace Road.

12. Segment 15 - 1.83 miles. This proposed shared use path parallels Mt. Pleasant Road and Dean Road, and connects the bike lanes proposed along Franklin Road and the shared use path along Warrendale Road.

10. Segment 20 - 1.66 miles. This is a bike lane is proposed to connect the Warrendale Road/Franklin Road intersection with the Graham Road/Pearce Mill Road intersection along Warrendale and Graham Roads.

13. Segment 30 - 0.33 miles. This shared use path will connect Kerrington Woods Park and the surrounding residential area with the Irwin Road Trail. Safety improvements are required to provide a pedestrian and Bike crossing at the intersection of Babcock Boulevard and Kerrington Drive.

10. Segment 16 - 0.37 miles. This shared use path will connect the existing shared use path, located on the New Community Church property, to the ice skating rink in North Park, paralleling Pearce Mill Road. 11. Segment 1 - 0.35 miles. This proposed shared use path segment runs between the Harmony Trail and Brooktree Road in the southwest corner of the Township. This segment crosses Wexford Run and does not follow a roadway. Brooktree Road has existing sidewalks that connect to Route 19. The proposed shared use path connection then runs along Brooker Drive to the proposed trail head at the edge of North Park.

14. Segment 12 - 0.33 miles. This shared use path connects the sidewalks along Cloverdale Drive with the shared use path and bike lanes along Wallace Road. 15. Segment 2A - 0.96 miles. This proposed shared use path segment is the Harmony Trail, with an extension along Route 910, running east to Lloydmont Road, paralleling Wexford Run. The map on the following page shows the location of these shared use path segments and identifies their priorities.

When a tie occurred in the prioritization, each segment received the same priority

128

township of pine trail feasibility study

13-121

INT 76

15 11 -1

13 1-

405

CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP

HARMONY TRAIL

111 4 -1 2

SR 4052

INT 7

Township of Pine Community Park

Wexford Elementary School

SR 910

20-12-10

68 40 3-3

A 17

Butler County Allegheny County

* Locations of proposed Shared Use Paths are conceptual. Final alignments will be determined, if properties are developed, in conjunction with design of proposed development.

32-6-6

19-2-2

PASHEK

ASSOCIATES

North Park

Trail Number

Overall Priority Rank

TOWNSHIP OF McCANDLESS

-1 3 5 -1

-1 0 5 2

-8

SR4059

VALENCIA BOROUGH

Shared Use Priority Rank

Karrington Woods Park

INT 76

40 SR

ea Br

ree kC

Priority Rank based on Trail Type

2A-17-15

Municipal Building

500 1,000

2,000 Feet

December 2004

PROPOSED SHARED USE PATHS

Marshall Lake

MARSHALL LAKE TRAIL

INT 76

Pine-Richland High School Complex High School Middle School Swimming Pool Athletic Facility

North Park Trail Numbering & Ranking

ADAMS TOWNSHIP

Shared Use Path *

Sidewalk

Park Trail

Neighborhood Trail

Shared Use Path

Bike Lanes

Township Park

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

24-7-7

Pine Haven Park

4 Municipal Building

2 1

SR 4068

Proposed

Existing

TOWNSHIP OF PINE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

4 05 SR 4061

SEVEN Allegheny County FIELDS Pennsylvania BOROUGH

Township of Pine

SR 4 0

SR 4069

SR 4063

TOWNSHIP MARSHALL BRADFORD WOODS

22-1-1

Legend

RICHLAND TOWNSHIP

Location Map

12-16-1 4

1 US

8 18-10 -

-9

-5 8 2

FRANKLIN PARK

A 33 13

4 -4 9 2

2A-17-15

5 9A 5068

N For k Pine R un

63 SR 40

US 1 9

8 03

Wexford Run

2 4 SR

1 10-1

-4 2 3 -4

-1 -1 4 18-10-8

an R un

-4 23

Kaufm

-1 SR 40 91

-1 2 2 03

SR 40 63

4 SR

HAMPTON

26 10 4 SR

N Fork Pine Run

31-5-5

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Sidewalk Priorities 1. Segment 9C - 0.56 miles. This sidewalk along Wallace Road will connect the existing English Road shared use path with the Wallace Road and State Route 19 intersection. 2. Segment 6E - 2.10 miles. These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where there are no sidewalks along the eastern side of Route 19.

8. Segment - 0.14 miles. This proposed sidewalk segment connects the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail. The map on the following page shows the location of these sidewalk segments and identifies their priorities.

2. Segment 6W - 2.00 miles. These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where the are no sidewalks along the western side of Route 19. 3. Segment 3A - 0.39 miles. Sidewalks are proposed along Wexford Road, between Lloydmont Drive to the proposed shared use path in vicinity of the Oxford propertyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stormwater detention facility. 4. Segment 8 - 0.29 miles. This sidewalk connects State Route 19 with the sidewalks along Swinderman Road. 5. Segment 2B - 0.24 miles. This proposed sidewalk will connect the to Route 19 and parallel to State Route 19 (Wexford Road). 6. Segment 7 - 0.24 miles. This proposed sidewalk parallels North Chapel Drive connecting State Route 19 and State Route 910 (Wexford Road). 6. Segment 33C - 0.37 miles. This sidewalk connection will connect the sidewalks along Wallace Road to the Oxford Athletic Club, along Village Club Drive. 7. Segment - 0.17 miles. This proposed sidewalk connection links the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail.

When a tie occurred in the prioritization, each segment received the same priority

township of pine trail feasibility study

131

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

132

township of pine trail feasibility study

SR 4061

4-19-7

5-19-8

8 -1

405 2

6 -4

17 B-

INT 76

9C-

-5

33C

CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP

SEVEN Allegheny County FIELDS Pennsylvania BOROUGH

Township of Pine

SR 4 061

-6

7-1 7

-1 8

3 A -9 -3

6 6

4 0 68

5 -1

INT 7 6

Township of Pine Community Park

Wexford Elementary School

SR 910

SR 4052

8 06 4 SR

Butler County Allegheny County

North Park

PASHEK

ASSOCIATES

Marshall Lake

MARSHALL LAKE TRAIL

INT 76

Pine-Richland High School Complex High School Middle School Swimming Pool Athletic Facility

North Park

Trail Number

TOWNSHIP OF McCANDLESS

0 91

40 68

Karrington Woods Park

SR4059

VALENCIA BOROUGH

Sidewalk Connection Priority Rank

Municipal Building

k re e C k

INT 76

1 03 4 SR

ec kn a e Br

Overall Priority Rank Priority based on Rank Trail Type

2A-17-15

Trail Numbering & Ranking

ADAMS TOWNSHIP

Sidewalk Connections

Sidewalk

Park Trail

Neighborhood Trail

Shared Use Path

Bike Lanes

Township Park

500 1,000

2,000 Feet

December 2004

PROPOSED SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS

N Fork Pine Run

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

40 63

Pine Haven Park

Municipal Building

SR 4068

Proposed

Existing

31 0 4

TOWNSHIP OF PINE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

54 40

TOWNSHIP MARSHALL BRADFORD WOODS FRANKLIN PARK

SR 4069

SR 4063

Legend

RICHLAND TOWNSHIP

Location Map

6 W - 8 -2

US 1

86W 1 US

-8 E 6

-6

Wexford Run

068

Pine R un N Fork

63 SR 40

SR 40 63

4 SR

6 E 8 -2

31 40 R S

91 0

Run

HAMPTON

an Kaufm

1 03 4 SR

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Bike Lane Priorities 1. Segment 21 - 3.09 miles. This proposed bike lane connects the bike lanes currently being construction by PennDOT from North Park to State Route 910 (Wexford Road) to the Township’s Community Park.

The map on the following page shows the location of these sidewalk segments and identifies their priorities.

2. Segment 9B - 1.58 miles. Bike lanes are proposed along Wallace Road, from it’s intersection with Warrendale Road to State Route 19. 3. Segment 3B - 0.77 miles. Bike lanes along Wexford Road (State Route 910) from the proposed shared use path in the vicinity of Oxford property’s stormwater detention facility to the bike lanes being developed along Wexford Road (State Route 19) at the New Community Church property. 3. Segment 3C - 0.77 miles. Bike lanes are proposed along Wexford Road ( State Route 910) from its intersection with Pearce Mill Road to Gibsonia Road (State Route 910). 4. Segment 27 - 3.239 miles. Bike lanes are proposed along Babcock Boulevard, from the Richland Township border to the intersection with Gibsonia Road, continuing along Gibsonia Road to Kerrington Drive, where it connects with Kerrington Drive. 5. Segment 14 - 1.38 miles. These bike lanes along Franklin Road will connect bike lanes along Warrendale Road to the proposed shared use path paralleling Mt. Pleasant Road. 6. Segment 33B - 0.39 miles. This bike lane connection will connect the bike lanes along State Route 19 to Village Club Drive and the Oxford Athletic Club.

When a tie occurred in the prioritization, each segment received the same priority

township of pine trail feasibility study

135

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

136

township of pine trail feasibility study

76 SR

Allegheny County Pennsylvania

405 2

INT 76

CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP

SEVEN FIELDS BOROUGH

Township of Pine

20-12-5

INT 7 6

3 3B-9-3

Township of Pine Community Park

Wexford Elementary School

SR 910

SR 4052

8 06 4 SR

Butler County Allegheny County

-6

PASHEK ASSOCIATES

40 6

North Park

Marshall Lake

Trail Number

2 R S

- 11

0 91

40 6

SR4059

VALENCIA BOROUGH

Bike Lane Priority Rank

500 1,000

2,000 Feet

December 2004

PROPOSED BIKE LANES

Karrington Woods Park

-4

INT 76

-4 11 031 7 4

k ee

Municipal Building

Cr ck e kn ea Br

Priority Rank Based on Trail Type

TOWNSHIP OF McCANDLESS

3C-9-3

MARSHALL LAKE TRAIL

INT 76

Overall Priority Rank

2A-17-15

31 0 4

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Pine Haven Park

21 -

North Park

Township Park

Trail Numbering & Ranking

ADAMS TOWNSHIP

Bike Lanes

Sidewalk

Park Trail

Neighborhood Trail

Shared Use Path

Bike Lanes

Pine-Richland High School Complex High School Middle School Swimming Pool Athletic Facility

Municipal Building

SR 4068

Proposed

Existing

1 03

TOWNSHIP OF PINE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

54 40

TOWNSHIP MARSHALL BRADFORD WOODS FRANKLIN PARK

SR 4061

SR 4 14-17-5 061

SR 4069

SR 4063

Legend

RICHLAND TOWNSHIP

Location Map

Wexford Run

9 9

18 B

US 1

1 US

4 0 68

-4 27- 11

068

91 0

4 SR

5- 1 9B-

N Fork Pine R un

63 SR 40

SR 40 63

1 03 4 SR

HAMPTON

an Run Kaufm

SR 4 SR

N Fork Pine Run

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Demonstration Segment Based on the public input, our analysis, and the result of establishing priorities for the various trail segments proposed in this study, we recommend that Shared Use Path Segment 22, from the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Park to the Pine-Richland School Complex on Warrendale Road, be constructed as the demonstration trail. This segment will acheive all of the goals established for the trail system. The path will: 1. connect the Township Community Park with the Pine-Richland School Complex 2. will provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access for Township residents who reside between the Community Park and the School Complex 3. will provide children of the Treesdale neighborhood with a safe route to school 4. provide residents of the Treesdale neighborhood with a non-motorized transportation option when they desire to go to the Community Park or School Complex We believe the development of this segment will be overwhelmingly successful, and generate additional public support for construction of additional segments. The proposed shared use path will begin in the upper parking lot of the Township Community Park. From the upper parking lot the path will negotiate the existing grade and cross beneath Pearce Mill Road through a tunnel approximately one hundred feet long. The tunnel provides the highest level of safety as pedestrians and bicyclists cross beneath the roadway. The tunnel will direct path users to the western side of Pearce Mill Road where the path will then turn north and continue parallel to Pearce Mill Road for a distance of approximately 1800 lineal feet, within the forty foot

township of pine trail feasibility study

greenway established by the Treesdale plan. Upon reaching Warrendale Road, the path will turn to the east, and continue to the Pine Richland School Complex. For approximately 6,700 lineal feet along Warrendale Road, the path with continue within the Treesdale Estates greenway. The path can be located on either the north or south side of Warrendale Road. The final location should be determined based on the ease of acquiring the necessary easements through privately held parcels. During this study the Township and the consultant approached Treesdale Manor to determine their willingness to grant an easement through their property which is located on the north and south sides of Warrendale Road, between the Treesdale Estate development, and the school complex. A distance of approximately 1,900 feet. The Township began the discussions with Treesdale Manor by asking if they would consider granting an easement on the south side of Warrendale Road for the path. A preliminary alignment was prepared, and cross sections of the path were developed to show how the path would impact the Trees Manor property. Aligning the path on the south side of Warrendale Road was preferred by the Township because it did not require the path to cross Warrendale Road. During the meeting with representatives of Treesdale Manor they expressed concern regarding the path, and the potential that it may limit their options for the property in the future. The representatives indicated their desire was to place the path on the northern side of Warrendale Road. They recognized this alignment would require path users to cross Warrendale Road at two locations, but felt the crossing could be controlled through signalization or by providing grade separated crossings. Therefore, the consultant reviewed possible pedestrian crossing opportunities along Warrendale Road so path users could safely reach the path of the northern side

139

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

of the road. Two opportunities exist to cross to the north side of the road. The first opportunity is at the intersection of Warrendale Road and Treesdale Drive. The second opportunity occurs at East Ridge Drive. The preferred crossing is at Treesdale Drive. This crossing is preferred because of the complexity of locating the path on the southern side of Warrendale Road in the vicinity of the golf course, and Treesdale Market Square. However, crossing at Treesdale Drive requires acquiring an easement through two parcels, including the West Union Cemetery. If the easements cannot be acquired then we recommend the crossing occur at East Ridge Drive. Regardless of where the crossing occurs it will need to be approved by PennDOT as Warrendale Road is a state right-of-way. Therefore a Highway Occupancy Permit will be required. At a minimum we recommend the crossing be a pedestrian / motion activated warning system. However, PennDOT may require more advanced improvements such as signalization of the intersection.

discussing the possibility of acquiring a right-of-way for this final segment with the property owner. We estimate this alignment will cost approximately $1,624,655 to construct. We recommend the Township apply to PennDOT for funding through the Safe Routes to School program. This program can fund up to 80% of the total construction cost. However, if the entire segment, from the Pine Community Park to the school is pursued in one phase, it is unlikely that PennDOT will fund the entire 80% without political assistance. Even then it may be unlikely the full amount will be funded. The Township should begin to bring federal and state senators and representatives to the table to determine if they are willing to lobby for funding to implement the project. An alternative would be to phase the project in two or three phases of construction.

After passing Treesdale Market Square the path reaches the Treesdale Manor property. As noted earlier, at this point Treesdale Manor owns the property on both the east and west sides of Warrendale Road. Given the willingness of the Treesdale Manor representatives to indicate they would consider granting an easement for the path through their property on the northern side of Warrendale Road, and not on the southern side of the road, we recommend the path be located on the northern side of the road, through the Treesdale Manor property. At the southern boundary of the Treesdale Property there is one additional private land holding before the school access road. This property is owned by the Radio Advertising Company of Pittsburgh, Inc. In order to reach the school property an easement, approximately 400 feet in length is required to reach the appropriate location for atgrade crossing of Warrendale Road. This crossing will connect to the existing paths of the Pine-Richland School Complex. We recommend the Township begin

140

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAMS

distributed by the National Park Service through the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Communities must match grants with 50 percent of the costs through in-kind services or cash. All project grants must be exclusively for recreational purposes. Administered through Community Conservation Partnerships Program.

Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

Use of Funds or Support: Plan and invest in existing park system.

Program Goals: Develop and sustain partnerships with communities, non-profits, and other organizations for recreation and conservation projects. The Department's Bureau of Recreation and Conservation is responsible for facilitating the majority of these partnerships through technical assistance and grant funding from the Community Conservation Partnerships Programs.

Address: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Recreation and Conservation Room 1405 State Office Building 300 Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Program Restrictions: See DCNR grant application manual for Community Conservation Partnerships Program, as program restrictions vary by type.

Agency: The Conservation Fund and Eastman Kodak Company

Financing Options Many grant opportunities are available to assist in implementing the recommendations contained within this study. Potential sources include:

Address: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Recreation and Conservation Room 1405 State Office Building 300 Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANTS Agency: Locally administered by Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Program Goals: This source was established to provide park and recreation opportunities. Money comes from the sale or lease of non-renewable resources, primarily offshore oil and gas leases and surplus federal land sales. State-side LWCF grants can be used to acquire and build park and recreation facilities. State-side LWCF funds are annually

township of pine trail feasibility study

KODAK AMERICAN GREENWAYS AWARDS PROGRAM

Program Goals: Provide seed money to stimulate greenway planning and design. Supports pioneering work in linking the nation's natural areas, historic sites, parks and open space. Program Restrictions: Recipients are selected according to criteria that include: importance of the project to local greenway development efforts, demonstrated community support for the project, extent to which the grant will result in matching funds or other support from public or private sources, likelihood of tangible results, and the capacity of the organization to complete the project. Use of Funds or Support: Planning and implementation.

141

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Address:

Leigh Anne McDonald - American Greenways Coordinator The Conservation Fund 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 1120 Arlington, VA 22209 703-525-6300

NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUNDING ACT Agency: Locally administered by Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Program Goals: Provides funds to develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and nonmotorized recreational trail users. Program Restrictions: A component of TEA21, matching requirements for the Pennsylvania Recreational Trails Program Grants are 80% federal money, up to a maximum of $150,000, and 20% nonfederal money. However, acquisition projects will require a 50/50 match. Use of Funds or Support: Department must distribute funding among motorized, nonmotorized, and diverse trail use as follows: 40% minimum for diverse trail use, 30% minimum for nonmotorized recreation, and 30% minimum for motorized recreation. The Commonwealth may also use up to 5% of its funds for the operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to the use of recreational trails. Address: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Southwest Regional Field Office 1405 State Office Building 300 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412-880-0486 www.dcnr.state.pa.us

142

SINGLE APPLICATION GRANTS Agency: Pennsylvania Center for Local Government Services, Department of Community and Economic Development Program Goals: Through one application form, applicants can apply for financial assistance from the Department's various funding sources. Program Restrictions: Applications can be submitted to 100% of funding for project. However, applications that show match in dollars or services are more likely to be awarded. Funds are allocated annually and distributed quarterly. Applications can be submitted at any time. Use of Funds or Support: This program funds a wide variety of municipal projects, including recreational facility improvements and development. Address: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 325 Forum Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-787-8169 or 1-888-223-6837 www.inventpa.com Success of application is based on whether the project is supported by state legislators for the municipality. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUND Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration Program Goals: Funds can be used for bicycle and pedestrian facility construction or non-construction projects such as brochures, public service announcements , and route maps. The projects related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation must be a part of the long Range Transportation Plan.

township of pine trail feasibility study

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Use of Funds or Support: Transportation, planning, railroad crossing improvements Address: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 11 45 Thoms Run Road Bridgeville, PA 15017 Malek Francis, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator 412-429-4949

Program Goals: This program is intended to improve the quality of life in our communities. PennDOT recognizes that the streets that run through the centers of our cities and towns provide vital connections. Sprucing up these streets will bring people back to our town centers and promote healthy living. PennDOT can also contribute to the safety of our children by making improvements to the routes children take to school. This program has two primary objectives:

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

â&#x20AC;˘

Agency: locally administered through Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

â&#x20AC;˘

Program Goals: Primary source of federal funding for greenways and trails is through the Transportation Equity Act of 1998 (TEA21), formerly the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). ISTEA provided millions of dollars in funding for bicycle and pedestrian transportation projects across the country and will provide millions more as TEA21. Many sections of TEA21 support the development of bicycle and pedestrian corridors. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) can utilize funding from any of these subsets of TEA21 and should be contacted for further details. Use of Funds or Support: Safety and Transportation Enhancements Address: Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission 425 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1819 412-391-5590 Program is currently being authorized by the U.S. Congress. HOMETOWN STREETS AND SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

To encourage the reinvestment in and redevelopment of our downtowns; and To establish, where feasible, safe walking routes for our children to commute to school and to promote healthy living.

Use of Funds or Support: Home Town Streets Our Home Town Streets program will include a variety of streetscape improvements that are vital to reestablishing our downtown and commercial centers. These projects will include activities undertaken within a defined "downtown" area that collectively enhance that environment and promote positive interactions with people in the area. Projects may include sidewalk improvements, planters, benches, street lighting, pedestrian crossings, transit bus shelters, traffic calming, bicycle amenities, kiosks, signage and other visual elements. This program will not fund costs related to buildings or their facades or personnel costs related to a Main Street manager. Improvements such as general street paving and storm water management structures will normally need to seek other avenues of funding. Traffic signals are not intended to be funded by this program. However, in some cases, it may be appropriate to combine these types of improvements in a Home Town Streets project with other funding.

Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration

township of pine trail feasibility study

143

CHAPTER 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Safe Routes to School This program is designed to work with both school districts and pedestrian and bicycle safety advocates to make physical improvements that promote safe walking and biking passages to our schools. Collectively, these efforts would save on school busing costs and promote a healthy lifestyle for our children. In addition, some funding may be used for pedestrian education efforts. Examples of these types of improvements include: sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes or trails, traffic diversion improvements, curb extensions, traffic circles and raised median islands. Address: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 11 45 Thoms Run Road Bridgeville, PA 15017 Malek Francis, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator 412-429-4949

144

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX ONE Model Easement for a Trail As published in the "Community Trails Handbook", published by the Brandywine Conservancy, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania

THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, hereinafter referred to as the "Easement" made the day of in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-___ (199_).BETWEEN, _____________________, ____________________, (husband and wife) (single man) (single woman), having an address of,________, ___________, party of the first part, hereinafter called Grantor",________________ . AND TOWNSHIP OF _______________________, party of the second part, hereinafter called "Grantee," WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain tracts of ground located in Township, County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, containing acres of land, more or less, hereinafter called the "Trail Easement Area", which includes the following parcels; as shown on a plan entitled , dated________, 199_, last revised_________, 199_, prepared for_______________, by_______________, and further revised on________, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", and as described by legal descriptions, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, the trail easement area contains ____ feet/miles of public trail(s) which, by this Easement, will be available for outdoor recreation and transportation by and the education of the general public; and WHEREAS, the Trail Easement Area contains greater than ______ miles of frontage along _______ Road, and ______ Road, and the public traveling these roads are afforded scenic views of the forestlands, grasslands, farm fields, and wetlands, whose beauty and open character shall be available for outdoor recreation and transportation by and the education of the general public by this Easement; and WHEREAS, the_____________Township Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 19_, sets forth general community goals, which include ... [Indicate here any goal which would directly or indirectly relate to the

township of pine trail feasibility study

development of the trails system]; and WHEREAS, the__________Township Zoning Ordinance, adopted in 19_, defines community objectives which include "Securing and protecting pedestrian and non-motorized transportation facilities consistent with the transportation plan and trails map..." and to this end the township requires dedication of land for transportation and recreation purposes; and WHEREAS, Grantor further intends, as owner of the Property, to convey to Grantee the right to preserve and protect the Recreation and Transportation values of the Trail Easement Area in perpetuity; and WHEREAS, Grantee is a publicly-supported, taxexempt non-profit organization, qualified under Section 501(c)3 and 170(h) of the Internal. Revenue Code, whose primary purpose is the.... ; and WHEREAS, Grantee agrees by accepting this Easement to honor the intentions of Grantor stated herein and to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Recreation and Transportation Values of the Trail Easement Area for the benefit of this generation and generations to come. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above and the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, restrictions, and promises herein contained, pursuant to the laws of__[state]__ and in particular _[specific statutory authority]_, and for the further consideration of the sum of Five Dollars ($5.00), lawful money of the United States of America, in hand paid by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, do hereby mutually agree, grant, convey, and declare as follows: 1. STATEMENT OF GRANT Grantor hereby voluntarily, unconditionally and absolutely grants and conveys unto Grantee, its

APPENDIX ONE MODEL EASEMENT FOR A TRAIL

successors and assigns, an Easement in Gross and a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, in perpetuity, over the Trail Easement Area, as more particularly hereinafter set forth exclusively for the purposes of preserving and protecting the present natural, scenic, open space, educational, and recreation and transportation values of the Trail Easement Area (such purposes hereinafter referred to as the "Recreation and Transportation Purposes"). Grantee hereby accepts the Easement and agrees to hold it exclusively for such Recreation and Transportation Purposes. 2. PUBLIC ACCESS In furtherance of the Transportation and Recreation Purposes of this Easement set forth in Paragraph 1 above, Grantor hereby declares and covenants that the general public shall have and be allowed regular access to the Trail Easement Area for the transportation and recreation scientific, and educational purposes described in sub-paragraph A and subject to the limitations contained in sub-paragraphs B, C, and D of this Paragraph 2. As used herein. Trail is defined as: A corridor of at least ten (10) feet in width through which passes, or will pass, a trail as part of the ________ Township Comprehensive Trail System or as otherwise authorized by the Township. A trail is to serve transportation and recreation functions for one or more of the following: walkers, runners, bicyclists, horseback riders, and crosscountry skiers; trails shall exclude all motorized vehicles except as authorized by the Township for maintenance, management and emergency purposes. Trail Easement Area is defined as: the area (a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide) that contains the trail and is restricted from development which would inhibit the use of the trail. A. The public shall be permitted access to the "Trail Easement Area", as shown on Exhibit "A", for the following activities, except to the extent that Grantee may determine that such activities are inconsistent with the Conservation Purposes for which this Easement is granted: (i) Nature study and scientific research, including bird

township of pine trail feasibility study

watching and the study of fauna and flora, supervised by an organization described in Section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (ii) Horseback riding; (iii) Cross-country skiing; (iv) Hiking, hiking and jogging; and (v) Painting, sketching, and photography B. Public access to the Trail Easement Area shall be restricted to the "Trail Easement Area" as shown on Exhibit "A". Grantee retains the right, as it may deem necessary, in order to preserve and protect the Transportation and Recreation Values of the Trail Easement Area and the Transportation and Recreation Purposes to repair the Trail Easement Area, relocate the Trail within the Trail Easement Area, or temporarily prohibit public access to the Trail Easement Area. C. The activities described in sub-paragraph A of this Paragraph 2 shall be conducted in such a manner as to preserve and protect the Transportation and Recreation Values of the Trail Easement Area, and in this connection the following specific limitations shall apply with respect to use of the Trail Easement Area by the general public and shall be enforceable by Grantor and/or Grantee: (i) Use of any motorized vehicle or similar mechanical means of locomotion, including automobiles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, or other all-terrain vehicles shall be prohibited; (ii) Smoking of tobacco or other substances, or lighting of fires of any kind shall be prohibited; (iii) Consumption of alcoholic beverages or use of any kind of stimulant or drug shall be prohibited; (iv) Trapping or hunting with firearms, bow and arrow, or any other form of arms or weapons shall be prohibited; and (v) Overnight camping or sleeping shall be prohibited. Grantee shall have the right to impose any additional limitations with respect to the Trail Easement Area, as it deems necessary or appropriate in order to preserve

APPENDIX ONE MODEL EASEMENT FOR A TRAIL

and protect the Transportation and Recreation Values of the Trail Easement Area and the Transportation and Recreation Purposes for which this Easement is donated. D. Grantee shall have the right to require Grantor to keep the Trail Easement Area free from obstructions which prevent reasonable pedestrian (and equestrian) access to and along the Trail Easement Area including but not limited to structures, fences and fallen trees. 3. NOTICE All notices, consents, approvals, or other communication hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given if sent by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the appropriate party or successor in interest, at the address most recently provided. 4. PROHIBITION OF PUBLIC ACCESS Nothing herein shall be construed as a grant to the general public, or to a person or persons, the right to enter upon any part of the Grantor's property other than as described in Paragraphs 2, herein. Grantor reserves unto themselves and its successors in title to the Trail Easement Area, all rights, privileges, powers, and immunities, including the right of exclusive possession and enjoyment, subject only to the terms and covenants of this Easement. 5. ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS OF GRANTEE A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement the following rights are conveyed to Grantee by this Easement: (i) To preserve and protect the Transportation and Recreation Values of the Trail Easement Area; (ii) To prevent any activity on or use of the Trail Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Trail Easement Area that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use, pursuant to subparagraphs B, C, and D of this

Paragraph 5. B. In the event that a violation of the terms of this Easement by Grantor or by a third party comes to the attention of Grantee, Grantee shall notify Grantor in writing of such violation and demand corrective action sufficient to cure the violation, and where the violation involves injury to the Trail Easement Area resulting from any use or activity inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement, to restore the portion of the Trail Easement Area so injured. If Grantor fails to cure the violation within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice thereof from Grantee, or under circumstance where the violation cannot reasonably be assured within the thirty (30) day period, fails to begin curing such violation within the thirty (30) day period, or fails to continue diligently to cure such violation until finally cured, Grantee may bring an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Easement, to enjoin the violation, ex part as necessary, by temporary or permanent injunction, to recover any damages to which it may be entitled for violation of the terms of this Easement or injury to any Transportation and Recreation Values protected by the terms of this Easement, including damages for the loss of scenic, aesthetic, or environmental values, and to require the restoration of the Trail Easement Area to the condition that existing prior to any such injury. Without limiting Grantor's liability therefor, Grantee, in its sole discretion, may apply any damages recovered to the cost of undertaking any corrective action on the Trail Easement Area. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstance require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damage to the Recreation and Transportation Values of the Trail Easement Area, Grantee may pursue its remedies under this Paragraph 5 without prior notice to Grantor or without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. C. Grantee's rights under this Paragraph 5 apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Easement, and Grantor agrees that Grantee's remedies at law for any violation of the terms

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX ONE MODEL EASEMENT FOR A TRAIL

of this easement are inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this Paragraph, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this Easement, without necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. D. Any costs incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Easement against Grantor, including, without limitation, costs of suit and attorneys' fees, and any costs or restoration necessitated by Grantor's violation of the terms of this Easement shall be borne by Grantor. 6. MAINTENANCE AND ASSESSMENT OBLIGATIONS OF GRANTEE Note: Obligations may vary depending on whether the municipality holds the Trail Easement Area by easement or by ownership. If it holds the area by ownership or if it agrees through the easement to accept responsibilities, it is responsible for maintenance and assessment. In general, the municipality should be prepared to accept maintenance responsibilities except where the trail is on high traffic-generating properties much as commercial higher density residential or institutional properties for example municipally owned trails are generally not assessed taxes. Where trail easement areas remain in private ownership, the municipality should support waiver of assessment by county assessment offices. Grantee shall be [if trail is to be publicly owned and maintained] under no obligation to maintain the Trail Easement Area, or any portion thereof, or pay taxes or assessments thereon. Any action by Grantee such as maintenance of the Trail Easement Area or any other act by Grantor [Grantee-if privately held] to protect the Trail Easement Area shall be deemed merely a gratuitous act which shall create no obligation on the part of Grantor [Grantee]. 7. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST Except where the context requires otherwise, the term

township of pine trail feasibility study

"Grantor" and "Grantee", as used in this instrument, and any pronouns used in place thereof, shall mean and include, respectively. Grantor and his personal representatives, heirs, successors in title, and assigns, and Grantee and its successors and assigns. 8. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Grantor hereby agrees to request in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the sale, transfer, or long term [ten (10) years or more] lease of the property containing the Trail Easement Area, or any portion thereof, a written instrument from Grantee stating that Grantor is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Easement, or if Grantor is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Easement, stating what violations of this' Easement exist. Grantee agrees in such cases or at any other time to acknowledge, execute, and deliver to Grantor or to any mortgagee, transferee, purchaser, or lessee such a written instrument concerning compliance within thirty (30) days of written request from Grantor. Grantor shall provide a copy of Grantee's compliance statement to any purchaser, mortgagee, lessee, or assignee and shall advise Grantee in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of any transfer, long term lease, or sale of the Trail Easement Area, or any portion thereof. Any costs incurred by Grantee in determining compliance and advising Grantor as to compliance or costs incurred as a result of Grantor's failure to notify Grantee of transfer, sale, assignment, or long term lease of the Trail Easement Area, or any portion thereof, shall be paid by Grantor, [if the municipality does not agree to absorb such costs] his successors or assigns. 9. LIMITATION OF GRANTOR LIABILITY Grantor, and each subsequent owner of the Trail Easement Area, shall have no personal liability for the observance or performance of the covenants and obligations of Grantor hereunder after such party has conveyed his, her, its, or their interest in the Trail Easement Area, provided that the provisions of Paragraph 8, above, have been fulfilled and all obligations thereunder discharged.

APPENDIX ONE MODEL EASEMENT FOR A TRAIL

10. HOLD HARMLESS Grantee, and each subsequent holder of the Trail Easement Area, shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend Grantor and its heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns from and against all liability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands, or judgements, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or in any way connected with: (1) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Trail Easement Area, regardless of cause, unless due solely to the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Grantor and its heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns; (2) the obligations specified in Paragraph 6, herein; and (3) the existence or administration of this Easement. 11. STIPULATED VALUE OF GRANTEE'S INTEREST A. Grantor acknowledges that this Easement constitutes a real property interest in the Trail Easement Area immediately vested in Grantee, and that such interest has a fair market value. For purposes of allocating net proceeds in an extinguishment of all or part of this Easement pursuant to Paragraph 12 herein, the share of Grantee's interest shall not be less than the percentage that the fair market value of this Easement on the date hereof bears to the fair market value of the Trail Easement Area prior to considering the effects of this Easement (hereinafter called the "Easement Percentage"). The values for calculating the Easement Percentage shall be based upon a Qualified Appraisal obtained by Grantor for federal income tax purposes. Upon receipt of such Qualified Appraisal, Grantor shall provide a copy of the Qualified Appraisal to Grantee. In the event that Grantor does not obtain a Qualified Appraisal, the Easement Percentage shall be thirty five (35) percent of fair market value. B. Grantor and Grantee, and any successors in interests,

shall exhaust all legal remedies in order to preserve and protect the Transportation and Recreation Purposes of this Easement. Grantor shall cooperate with Grantee in Grantee's performance of its obligations under this Paragraph 11. C. In the event that all or part of this Easement is taken in exercise of eminent domain by public, corporate, or other authority so as to abrogate the transportation and recreation goals imposed by this Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate action at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking and all incidental or direct damages resulting from the taking. All reasonable expenses incurred by Grantor and Grantee in an effort to prevent a taking or in an effort to recover the full value of a taking shall be shared on an equal basis out of any recovered proceeds except in the event that (i) Grantor and Grantee agree in writing to an alternative means for sharing such expenses, or (ii) all or part of this Easement is extinguished as a result of a judicial proceeding brought, by or on behalf of Grantor which, in that event, then all expenses shall be paid by Grantor. 12. EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF NET PROCEEDS A. In the event that all or part of the Trail Easement Area interests subject to this Easement are involuntarily extinguished by (i) an action in eminent domain, (ii) other judicial proceedings, or (iii) settlement is reached between Grantor, Grantee, and condemner under threat of condemnation, and Grantor joins with Grantee in accordance with Paragraph ll.B. and 11.C. above, Grantee's share of any proceeds recovered from any compensation in eminent domain or judicial proceedings or from the first lawful sale of the Trail Easement Area, after the restrictions within this Easement have been extinguished, shall equal the Easement Percentage, provided that a larger percentage has not been stipulated by agreement between Grantee and Grantor. B. In the event that all or part of the Trail Easement

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX ONE MODEL EASEMENT FOR A TRAIL

Area interests subject to this Easement are extinguished by (i) an action in eminent domain, (ii) other judicial proceedings, or (iii) settlement is reached between Grantor, Grantee, and condemner under threat of condemnation, where such action is brought by or on behalf of Grantor or where Grantor does not join with Grantee in accordance with Paragraph ll.B. and 11.C. above, the value of the interests so taken shall be determined by an independent appraisal and the net proceeds recovered from any compensation in eminent domain or judicial proceedings or' from the first lawful sale of the Trail Easement Area after the restrictions within this Easement have been extinguished, shall be distributed between Grantor and Grantee in accordance with the findings of an independent appraisal of the interests taken which has been conducted by a Qualified Appraiser. Provided, however, that in no event shall Grantee's share of said net proceeds be less than the Easement Percentage. C. Grantee shall use its share of any net proceeds recovered, as described in this Paragraph 12, exclusively for the protection or acquisition of interests in land or for Transportation and Recreation Purposes or for improvement to the trails system. For purposes of this Paragraph, proceeds shall not include an amount equal to the fair market value of any Improvements by the Grantor to the Trail Easement Area affected by the condemnation or judicial action or any improvements to the Trail Easement Area by the Grantee, which were not included in the calculations by which the Easement Percentage was established. 13. FAILURE OF GRANTEE TO ENFORCE If at any time any organization, agency, or person having rights or duties hereunder as Grantee shall fail to enforce the restrictions set forth in this Easement, Grantor, or any governmental unit of County, shall have the right to bring suit against Grantee for specific performance. 14. TRANSFER OF GRANTEE'S INTEREST A. Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall have the right to assign either wholly or partially its right, title, and

township of pine trail feasibility study

interest hereunder only to an organization able to enforce the restrictions contained herein which has purposes similar to those of Grantee, and which encompasses the purposes set forth in this Easement. Such an organization must at the time of the assignment be a governmental unit qualified organization within the meaning of Section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or its successor provisions), hereinafter the "Code", and one which is organized or operated primarily or substantially for one of the conservation purposes specified in Section 170(h)(4)(A) of the Code. Any transfer or assignment of benefits by Grantee, its successors or assigns, must require the transferee or assignee to carry out the Transportation and Recreation Purposes of this Easement. B. In the event Grantee shall cease to exist or to be a qualified organization as described in Subparagraph 14.A., herein, its rights and duties hereunder shall become vested in and fall upon one of the following named entities, or such other qualified organization as may then be determined, to the extent such entity shall evidence acceptance of and agree to fully enforce same: __________________ Land Trust; (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) __________ Valley Association; The Nature Conservancy; Watershed Association; The Township (s) of_________, political subdivision(s) of ________ County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (vi) ______ County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; or (vii) Such other organizations as may be designated under the doctrine of cy pres by a court of competent jurisdiction; provided, however, that at the time of such designation, such entity shall be an organization as described in Subparagraph 14.A. herein.

APPENDIX ONE MODEL EASEMENT FOR A TRAIL

[Use the following paragraph only if funds were received by a private organization or a municipality as Grantee.] C. Upon the occurrence of any transfer or assignment of this Easement, Grantee shall also transfer to the transferee or assignee the then-value of any endowment funds received by Grantee from Grantor to support Grantee's obligation to monitor and enforce of this Easement, and the transferee shall hold such funds for such purposes and be subject to the provisions of this Subparagraph C. 15. EASEMENT IN PERPETUITY The provisions hereof shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, devises, successors, and assigns, as the case may be, of the parties hereto and shall be covenants running with the land in perpetuity. 16. SEVERABILITY This Easement shall be construed in its entirety, however, in the event that any provision or restriction of this Easement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions and restrictions of this Easement, and the application of such provision or restriction to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be affected thereby. 17. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A. Grantor attests that Grantor is the owner of the Trail Easement Area and that the Trail Easement Area is not subject to a mortgage as of the date of this Easement. [Alternatively, a subordination agreement from the mortgagor for the.. Trail Easement Area must be obtained. Most mortgage companies will do so if the mortgage is for less than property value.] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and again stating their intention to be legally bound hereby, the said parties have hereunto set their hands and respective seals on the day and year first above written.

WITNESS__________________ WITNESS__________________ BY________________________ (SEAL) ATTEST___________________ ______________________________________) ______________________________________)ss ______________________________________)

BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day of_ 199_, personally appeared before me, the Subscriber, a Notary Public for the State and County aforesaid, _________, party to this Indenture, known to me personally to be such, and severally acknowledged this Indenture to be their deed. GIVEN under my hand and seal of office, the day and year aforesaid. Notary Public ______________________________________) ______________________________________)ss ______________________________________) BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day of. 199_, personally appeared before me, the Subscriber, a Notary Public for the State and County aforesaid,____ President of Brandywine Conservancy, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, party to this Agreement, and acknowledge this Indenture to be his act and deed and the act and deed of said corporation; that the signature of the President thereto is in his own proper handwriting and the seal affixed is the common and corporate seal of said corporation, and that his act of sealing, executing, acknowledging and delivering said Indenture was duly authorized by a resolution of the Board of Directors of said corporation. GIVEN under my Hand and Seal of Office, the day and year aforesaid. Notary Public

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX ONE MODEL EASEMENT FOR A TRAIL

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX TWO PennDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Checklist Planning and Programming Checklist Project SR

Segment

Offset

Team Members Date Item 1. Consistency with Bicycle/Pedestrian P lanning Documents

2. Existing and Future Usage

Considerations Is the transportation facility included in or related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities identified in a master plan? • MPO/LDD bike/ped plan. • Local planning documents. • BicyclePA Routes. • Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Will the transportation facility provide continuity and linkages with existing or proposed bicycle/pedestrian facilities? Is the transportation facility included in or related to a regional/local recreational plan? • Rails-to-Trails. • Greenways. • Local, State, National Parks. Do bicycle/pedestrian groups regularly use the transportation facility? • Bike clubs. • Bicycle commuters. • Hiking, walking, or run ning clubs. • Skateboarding or rollerblading groups. • Bicycle touring groups. • General tourism/sightseeing.

Check

Comments

APPENDIX TWO PENNDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY CHECKLIST

2. Existing and Future Usage

Existing and Future Usage (cont’d)

3. Safety

Do bicycle/pedestrian groups regularly use the transportation facility? • Bike clubs. • Bicycle commuters. • Hiking, walking, or run ning clubs. • Skateboarding or rollerblading groups. • Bicycle touring groups. • General tourism/sightseeing. • Does the existing transportation facility provide the only convenient transportation connection/linkage between land uses in the local area or region?

Could the transportation facility have favorable or unfavorable impacts upon the bike tourism/economy of an area/region? Consider: • Local businesses • Chamber of Commerce. • Tourism Promotion Agencies. Are there physical or perceived impediments to bicycle or pedestrian use of the transportation facility? Is there a higher than normal incidence of bicycle/pedestrian crashes in the area? Is the transportation facility in a high-density land use area that has pedestrian/bike/motor vehicle traffic? Is there a high amount of crossing activity at intersections? • Midblock

• •

Night crossing activity Adequate lighting

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX TWO PENNDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CHECKLIST

4. Community and Land Use

5. Transit

Is the transportation facility in a city, town, or village? Is the transportation facility within/near a community or neighborhood? Is the transportation facility the “main street” in a community or town? Could bicycle or pedestrian usage impact economic development? Are sidewalks needed in the area? • Presence of worn paths along the facility. • Adjacent land uses generate pedestrian traffic. • Possible linkages/con tinuity with other pedestrian facilities. Is the transportation facility a link between complimentary land uses? • Residential and commercial. • Residential and business. Is the transportation facility in close proximity to hospitals, elderly care facilities, or the residences or businesses of persons with disabilities? Is the transportation facility within or near educational institutions? Is the transportation facility in close proximity to transit stops or multi -modal centers (including airp orts, rail stations, intercity bus terminals, and water ports)? Is the transportation facility on a transit route?

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX TWO PENNDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY CHECKLIST

6. Traffic Calming

Is the community considering traffic calming as a possible solution to speeding and cut -through traffic?

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX TWO PENNDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CHECKLIST

Scoping Checklist Project__________________________________________________________________ __ SR___________________ Segment_________________ Offset__________________ Team Members_____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Date __________________________

Right-of-Way Needs Diagram

Sidewalks Sidewalk

Shoulder/

Bike lane Planter/Buffer Strips Strips

Lane(s)

Median

Element

Shoulder/ Bike lane Planter/Buffer

Number Required

Width Required

Total Width

Sidewalks Buffer Strips Shoulders Lanes Median Total Right-of-Way Required

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX TWO PENNDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY CHECKLIST

Pedestrian Facilities Item 1. Sidewalks

Considerations Appropriate width: •

1.5 m – 2.1 m (5’-7’) for residential, commercial, and industrial.

•

2.5 m (8’) minimum for high use areas/CBD.

•

2.1 m (7’) width for bridges.

Check

•

Sidewalks (cont’d)

2. Signalized Intersections

0.6 m (2’) shy distance for vertical barriers. • 1.2 m - 2.1m barrier separating traffic from pedestrians on bridges. Applicability of planter or buffer strips. Connectivity with other pedestrian facilities. Proximity to transit bike/ped generators: • Transit stops. • Schools. • Park & rides • Nursing homes. • Offices • Business environments • Athletic fields • Recreation facilities Observe pedestrian patterns for special needs such as: • Midblock crossings. • Islands and refuges. • Night crossing activity. ADA needs and concerns. Crosswalks provided and marked. Intersection bike/ped crash history reviewed. Is there a dedicated pedestrian phase, if so how long? Crossing distance is minimized. Ped heads and ped pushbuttons provided. ADA needs and concerns.

Retirement homes Schools

township of pine trail feasibility study

Comments

APPENDIX TWO PENNDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CHECKLIST

Bicycle Facilities Item 1. Bikelanes/Paved Shoulders

2. Signalized Intersections

3. Traffic Calming

Considerations Appropriate width of bike lane: • 1.5m (5’) adjacent to curb. • 1.8m (6’) standard Connectivity with other facilities. • Bike lanes • shared use trails • trail heads/parking areas Maximize width of shoulders and provide appropriate markings as per AASHTO Green B ook. 3 m (10’) vertical clearance from fixed obstructions (excluding road signs). Angle and smoothness of railroad crossings. Avoid angles of incidence of <70 degrees or re design. Bridge accesses provided/pinch points avoided. Parking par allel or angled. Inventory existing bicycle facilities. Intersection bike/ped crash history reviewed. Crossing distance is minimized. Considerations for bikes making turns. Bike detection. Elevated push bu ttons Is the community considering traffic calming as a means to curb speeding and cut -through traffic?

Check

Comments

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX TWO PENNDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY CHECKLIST

Final Design Checklist Project__________________________________________________________________ __ SR___________________ Segment_________________ Offset__________________ Team Members_____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Date __________________________

Pedestrian Facilities Item 1. Sidewalks and Signalized Intersections

2. ADA Requirements

Considerations Crosswalks are at least 3 m (10’) wide. Crosswalks are prominently marked using continental style markings. Pedestrian signals are provided. Pushbuttons are provided and accessible. Minimize crossing distance. Maximize pedestrian visibility at crossings. Coordination of turn phases with walk/don’t walk signs. Proper lighting type and placement. Pushbuttons accessible. Pushbuttons height 1.0 m – 1.1m (3.5’-4.0’). Large pushbuttons used. 1.5m (5’) recommended passage (sidewalks). 5% maximum grade recommended (sidewalk s). 2% cross-slope maximum . Textured curb cuts. 2 curb cuts per corner at intersections. Curb cuts flush with street surface 0.6 cm. (1/4”) tolerance Running slope of new curb cuts 1 in 12 max. Longer signal cycles. Audible cro ssing signals. Level landings on perpendicular curb ramps.

township of pine trail feasibility study

Check

Comments

APPENDIX TWO PENNDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CHECKLIST

Traffic Calming

Proper head/shoulder clearance for visually impaired. Coordinate utilities with ADA requirements. Proper lighting. Analyze landscaping growth potential for future obstructions. Any conflicts with minimal distance that should be included in the project. Coordinate and minimize signage conflicts. Consider traffic calming as a means to improve pedestrian and general traffic safety .

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX TWO PENNDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY CHECKLIST

Bicycle Facilities Item 1. Bikelanes/Bikeways

2. Signage

3. Traffic calming

Considerations Bicycle safe grates, RC -34, Sheet 3 of 9. Manhole covers flush with roadway surface. Inlets flush with roadway surface. Rumble strips type and placement. Driveway aprons. Conflicts eliminated with: • Turns at intersections. • Through movements. • Bicycle and pedestrian conflicts. • Parked cars, angled vs. parallel. • Driveway aprons. 3 m (10’) vertical clearance from signs and structures. “Share the Road Signs”. “Wrong Way Signs”. Lane stenciling. Bike lane designation signs. No parking signs. Bike lane striped. Transition from bike lane to bikeway. Consistent width on roadways, bridges, and intersections. Overlap bike lane/shoulder stripe over pavement joints. Meet or exceed AASHTO criteria. Consider traffic calming as a means to improve pedestrian and general traffic safety.

township of pine trail feasibility study

Check

Comments

APPENDIX THREE Pennsylvania Recreation Use Statute and Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act Pennsylvania Recreational Use Statute (68 P.S. §§ 477) RECREATION USE OF LAND AND WATER §§ 477-1. Purpose; liability The purpose of this act is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes. §§ 477-2. Definitions As used in this act: (1) "Land" means land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty. (2) "Owner" means the posessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant or person in control of the premises. (3) "Recreational Purpose" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, water sports, cave exploration and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites. (4) "Charge" means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land. §§ 477-3. Duty to keep premises safe; warning Except as specifically recognized or provided in section 6 of this act, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warnings of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes. §§ 477-4. Assurance of safe premises; duty of care; responsibility; liability Except as specifically recognized by or provided in section 6 of this act, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use such property for recreational purposes does not thereby: (1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose. (2) Confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed. (3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property caused by an act of omission of such persons. §§ 477-5. Land leased to State or subdivision Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of section 3 and 4 of this act shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land leased to the State or any subdivision thereof for recreational purposes. §§ 477-6. Liability not limited Nothing in this act limits in any way liability which otherwise exists: (1) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition. (2) For injury suffered in any case where the owner of the land charges the person or persons who enter or go on

APPENDIX THREE PENNSYLVANIA RECREATIONAL LAND USE AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION TORT CLAIMS ACT

the land for the recreational use thereof, except that in case of land leased to the State or a subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for such lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this section. §§ 477-7. Construction of act Nothing in this act shall be construed to: (1) Create a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to persons or property. (2) Relieve any person using the land of another for recreational purposes from any obligation which he may have in the absense of this act to exercise care in his use of such land and in his activities thereon, or from the legal consequences of failure to employ such care. §§ 477-8. Repealer The act of September 27, 1961 (P.L. 1696), entitled * * * [section 1629 of title 12], is repealed. All other acts or parts of acts are repealed in so far as inconsistent herewith.

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX THREE PENNSYLVANIA RECREATIONAL LAND USE AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION TORT CLAIMS ACT

Pennsylvania Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook

Public Use of Municipal Recreational Land

Public Use of Municipal Recreational Land Pennsylvania General Assembly Local Government Commission

Recreational facilities, open space areas, and public parks are concerns of most municipalities. Certainly, they are important to a municipality’s purpose of providing for the “general welfare” of its citizenry. It, therefore, becomes important to know how, and to what degree, a municipality can be held liable for injuries to members of the general public that occur on municipal recreational land. The answer lies largely in the interplay and interpretation of two important statutes. The Recreational Use Act,1 also referred to as the RUA or the RULWA (Recreational Use of Land and Water Act), was originally enacted in 1966 and intended primarily for private land owners as an incentive for them to open large tracts of land to use and enjoyment by the general public.2 However, the Act’s protections also apply to political subdivisions, the Commonwealth, and the United States. The substance of the Act is contained in Sections 3 and 4: Except as specifically recognized or provided in section 6 of this act, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes…. Except as specifically recognized by or provided for in section 6...an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use such property for recreational purposes does not thereby: (1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose. (2) Confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed. (3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property caused by an act or omission of such persons.3

1 2 3

68 P.S. § 477-1 et seq. See 68 P.S. § 477-1. 68 P.S. §§ 477-3, 477-4. (Continued on page 98)

October 2003

township of pine trail feasibility study

APPENDIX THREE PENNSYLVANIA RECREATIONAL LAND USE AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION TORT CLAIMS ACT

Public Use of Municipal Recreational Land

Pennsylvania Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook

The statute also provides explicit exceptions to the above-referenced general rule: Nothing in this act limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists: (1) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity. (2) For injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof, except that in the case of land leased to the State or a subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for such lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this section.4 Is the Land “Developed”? The RUA only provides immunity to landowners of “substantially undeveloped property.” Therefore, the character of the municipal land where the injury occurred is important. “Courts have held that the RUA did not provide tort immunity to owners of indoor swimming pools, highly developed waterfront parks, junior high school athletic fields, inner city playgrounds, and outdoor basketball courts. On the other hand, RUA tort immunity has been granted to National Parks, undeveloped portions of municipal public parks, and even parks that are somewhat developed, so long as any structures are intended to promote a recreational purpose anticipated by the RUA.”5 In determining liability under the RUA, both the tract as a whole and the exact portion of the tract where the injury occurred must be considered.6 In addition to the RUA, the law relating to governmental immunity,7 commonly referred to as the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, grants immunity to municipalities except under certain enumerated conditions. Section 8542(b)(3) provides that a local government unit may be liable for negligence related to the care, custody, and control of real property in its possession. This liability, however, does not include acts that constitute actual malice or willful misconduct. The RUA only imposes liability for acts that constitute actual malice or willful misconduct.8 Thus, it appears that a municipality has a powerful “catch-22” protection under the interplay of these two statutes: “Whether it acts maliciously or negligently, the municipality or other governmental unit is absolutely immune, without exception, for injuries occurring on municipally owned recreational land.”9 This blanket protection, as discussed above, would only apply if it is determined first that the land in question is deemed to be “substantially undeveloped.”

68 P.S. § 477-6. Blake v. U.S., 1998 WL 111802 (E.D. Pa. 1998). See Pagnotti v. Lancaster Tp., 751 A.2d 1226 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000); Yanno v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 744 A.2d 279 (Pa. Super. 1999). 7 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 et seq. 8 See 68 P.S. 477-6. 9 Wilkinson v. Conoy Twp., 677 A.2d 876, 879 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). 5 6

Pennsylvania General Assembly ¼ Local Government Commission

township of pine trail feasibility study

October 2003

APPENDIX FOUR

Opinion of Probable Costs

Pine Trail Feasibility Study Opinion of Probable Cost Segment Number

Type

Shared Use Path

Description

Length in Miles

0.35

Item

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Seeding Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This proposed shared use path segment is the Harmony Trail, with an extension along Route 910, running east to Lloydmont Road, paralleling Wexford Run.

0.96

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total

Unit

Acres

CY SY EA SF EA

Acres

CY SY EA SF

Quanitity

Unit Price

0.64

$1,200.00

$763.64

3,080.00 2,053.33 3.00 27,720.00 1.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $0.15 $5,000.00

$12,320.00 $51,333.33 $750.00 $4,158.00 $5,000.00 $74,324.97 $7,432.50 $8,919.00 $90,676.46 $49.07

1.75

$1,200.00

$2,094.55

2,816.00 5,632.00 10.00 76,032.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $0.15

$11,264.00 $140,800.00 $2,500.00 $11,404.80 $168,063.35 $16,806.33 $20,167.60 $205,037.28

Per Lineal Foot Cost 2B

Sidewalk

This proposed sidewalk will connect the to Route 19 and parallel to State Route 910 (Wexford Road).

0.24

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Intersection Improvements Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Sidewalk

Sidewalks are proposed along Wexford Road, between Lloydmont Drive to the proposed shared use path in vicinity of the Oxford propertyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stormwater detention facility.

0.39

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Bike Lanes

Bike lanes along Wexford Road (State Route 910) from the proposed shared use path in the vicinity of Oxford propertyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stormwater detention facility to the bike lanes being developed along Wexford Road (State Route 910) at the New Community Church property.

0.77

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Bike Lanes (2 x 5' wide) Pavement Markings Regulatory Signs Intersection Improvements Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Page 1 of 9

Total

$40.45 Acres CY LS SY

Acres

CY SY

Acres

CY SY EA EA LS SF

0.15

$1,200.00

$174.55

234.67 1.00 1,408.00

$4.00 $150,000.00 $60.00

$938.67 $150,000.00 $84,480.00 $235,593.21 $23,559.32 $23,559.32 $282,711.85 $223.10

0.24

$1,200.00

$283.64

381.33 2,288.00

$4.00 $60.00

$1,525.33 $137,280.00 $139,088.97 $13,908.90 $13,908.90 $166,906.76 $81.05

1.40

$1,200.00

$1,680.00

1,505.78 9,034.67 4.00 10.00 1.00 60,984.00

$4.00 $25.00 $150.00 $250.00 $150,000.00 $0.15

$6,023.11 $225,866.67 $600.00 $2,500.00 $150,000.00 $9,147.60 $395,817.38 $39,581.74 $59,372.61 $494,771.72 $121.70

Opinion of Probable Cost Segment Number

Type

Bike Lanes

Description

Bike lanes are proposed along Wexford Road ( State Route 910) from its intersection with Pearce Mill Road to Gibsona Road (State Route 910).

Length in Miles

0.77

Item

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Bike Lanes (2 x 5' wide) Pavement Markings Regulatory Signs Intersection Improvements Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Sidewalk

This proposed sidewalk connection links the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail.

0.17

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Sidewalk

This proposed sidewalk segment connects the Harmony Trail with the sidewalks in the residential development to the west of the trail.

0.14

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Sidewalk

These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where there are no sidewalks along the eastern side of Route 19.

2.10

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Intersection Improvements Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Sidewalk

These proposed sidewalks will fill in the gaps where the are no sidewalks along the western side of Route 19.

2.00

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Intersection Improvements Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Sidewalk

This proposed sidewalk parallels North Chapel Drive connecting State Route 19 and State Route 910 (Wexford Road).

0.24

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Intersection Improvements Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Page 2 of 9

Unit

Acres CY SY EA EA LS SF

Acres CY SY

Acres CY LS SY

Quanitity

Unit Price

Total

1.40

$1,200.00

$1,680.00

1,505.78 9,034.67 4.00 4.00 1.00 60,984.00

$4.00 $25.00 $150.00 $250.00 $150,000.00 $0.15

$6,023.11 $225,866.67 $600.00 $1,000.00 $150,000.00 $9,147.60 $394,317.38 $39,431.74 $59,147.61 $492,896.72 $121.24

0.10

$1,200.00

$123.64

498.67 2,992.00

$4.00 $60.00

$1,994.67 $179,520.00 $181,638.30 $18,163.83 $18,163.83 $217,965.96 $242.83

0.08

$1,200.00

$101.82

410.67 2,464.00

$4.00 $60.00

$1,642.67 $147,840.00 $149,584.48 $14,958.45 $14,958.45 $179,501.38 $242.83

1.27

$1,200.00

$1,527.27

2,053.33 5.00 12,320.00

$4.00 $150,000.00 $60.00

$8,213.33 $750,000.00 $739,200.00 $1,498,940.61 $149,894.06 $149,894.06 $1,798,728.73 $162.22

1.21

$1,200.00

$1,454.55

1,955.56 5.00 11,733.33

$4.00 $150,000.00 $60.00

$7,822.22 $750,000.00 $704,000.00 $1,463,276.77 $146,327.68 $146,327.68 $1,755,932.12 $166.28

0.15

$1,200.00

$174.55

234.67 1.00 1,408.00

$4.00 $150,000.00 $60.00

$938.67 $150,000.00 $84,480.00 $235,593.21 $23,559.32 $23,559.32 $282,711.85 $223.10

Opinion of Probable Cost Segment Number 8

Type

Sidewalk

Description

This sidewalk connects State Route 19 with the sidewalks along Swinderman Road.

Length in Miles 0.29

Item

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This proposed shared use path connects the bike lanes on Warrendale Road with the proposed shared use paths to the east and west of Wallace Road.

0.38

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Seeding Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost 9B

Bike Lanes

Bike lanes are proposed along Wallace Road, from itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intersection with Warrendale Road to State Route 19.

1.58

Clearing and Grubbing

Sidewalk

This sidewalk along Wallace Road will connect the existing English Road shared use path with the Wallace Road and State Route 19 intersection.

0.56

Shared Use Path

This shared use path connects the existing shared use path trail along English Road, which ends at Wynstone Drive, to the English Road/Graham Road intersection.

0.51

Acres

CY SY EA SF EA

Acres

Total

0.18

$1,200.00

$210.91

283.56 1,701.33

$4.00 $60.00

$1,134.22 $102,080.00 $103,425.13 $10,342.51 $10,342.51 $124,110.16 $81.05

0.69

$1,200.00

$829.09

1,114.67 2,229.33 4.00 30,096.00 3.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $0.15 $5,000.00

$4,458.67 $55,733.33 $1,000.00 $4,514.40 $15,000.00 $81,535.49 $8,153.55 $9,784.26 $99,473.30 $49.58

2.87

$1,200.00

$3,447.27

3,089.78 18,538.67 6.00 6.00 2.00

$4.00 $25.00 $150.00 $250.00 $150,000.00

$12,359.11 $463,466.67 $900.00 $1,500.00 $300,000.00

Turnpike Underpass Improvements

1.00

$50,000.00

LS SF

2.00 125,136.00

$150,000.00 $0.15

$300,000.00 $18,770.40 $1,150,443.45 $115,044.35 $172,566.52 $1,438,054.31 $172.38

0.34

$1,200.00

$407.27

547.56 3,285.33

$4.00 $60.00

$2,190.22 $197,120.00 $199,717.49 $19,971.75 $19,971.75 $239,660.99 $81.05

0.93

$1,200.00

$1,112.73

1,496.00 2,992.00 5.00 40,392.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $0.15

$5,984.00 $74,800.00 $1,250.00 $6,058.80 $89,205.53 $8,920.55 $10,704.66 $108,830.74 $40.42

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Page 3 of 9

CY SY

Unit Price

CY SY EA EA LS

Earthwork and Grading Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Acres

Quanitity

Earthwork and Grading Bike Lanes (2 x 5' wide) Pavement Markings Regulatory Signs Intersection Improvements

Intersection Improvements Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost 9C

Unit

Acres CY SY

Acres

CY SY EA SF

Opinion of Probable Cost Segment Number

Type

Shared Use Path

Description

This shared use path connects the proposed shared use path and bike lanes along Wallace Road to the shared use path along English Road.

Length in Miles

0.92

Item

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Regulatory Signs Mile Marker Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This shared use path connects the sidewalks along Cloverdale Drive with the shared use path and bike lanes along Wallace Road.

0.33

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This shared use path will connects property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, with the bike lanes proposed along Warrendale Road and the bike lanes proposed along Wallace Road.

0.81

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Bike Lanes

These bike lanes along Franklin Road will connect bike lanes along Warrendale Road to the proposed shared use path paralleling Mt. Pleasant Road.

1.38

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Bike Lanes (2 x 5' wide) Pavement Markings Regulatory Signs Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This proposed shared use path parallels Mt. Pleasant Road and Dean Road, and connects the bike lanes proposed along Franklin Road and the shared use path along Warrendale Road.

1.83

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Page 4 of 9

Unit

Acres CY SY EA EA SF

Acres CY SY EA EA SF EA

Acres

CY SY EA EA SF EA

Acres

CY SY EA EA SF

Acres

CY SY EA EA SF

Quanitity

Unit Price

Total

1.67

$1,200.00

$2,007.27

2,698.67 5,397.33 6.00 9.00 72,864.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15

$10,794.67 $134,933.33 $1,500.00 $2,250.00 $10,929.60 $162,414.87 $16,241.49 $19,489.78 $198,146.14 $40.79

0.60

$1,200.00

$720.00

2,904.00 1,936.00 3.00 4.00 26,136.00 2.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $5,000.00

$11,616.00 $48,400.00 $750.00 $1,000.00 $3,920.40 $10,000.00 $76,406.40 $7,640.64 $9,168.77 $93,215.81 $53.50

1.47

$1,200.00

$1,767.27

2,376.00 4,752.00 8.00 4.00 64,152.00 3.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $5,000.00

$9,504.00 $118,800.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $9,622.80 $15,000.00 $157,694.07 $15,769.41 $18,923.29 $192,386.77 $44.98

2.51

$1,200.00

$3,010.91

8,096.00 16,192.00 6.00 16.00 109,296.00

$4.00 $25.00 $150.00 $250.00 $0.15

$32,384.00 $404,800.00 $900.00 $4,000.00 $16,394.40 $461,489.31 $46,148.93 $69,223.40 $576,861.64 $79.17

3.33

$1,200.00

$3,992.73

5,368.00 10,736.00 18.00 11.00 144,936.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15

$21,472.00 $268,400.00 $4,500.00 $2,750.00 $21,740.40 $322,855.13 $32,285.51 $38,742.62 $393,883.26 $40.76

Opinion of Probable Cost Segment Number

Type

Shared Use Path

Description

This shared use path will connect the existing shared use path, located on the New Community Church property, to the ice skating rink in North Park, paralleling Pearce Mill Road.

Length in Miles

0.37

Shared Use Path

This proposed shared use path will connect the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Park to the shared use path currently being constructed between Winwood and Pinkerton Roads.

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Deleted from Final Plan

17A

Item

0.52

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This proposed shared use path connects property currently undeveloped, and presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road and Pine Community Park.

1.31

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This shared use path connects the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Park, the shared use path along Warrendale Road and the shared use path and bike lanes along Pearce Mill Road.

0.74

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Pedestrian / Bicycle Bridge Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This is a bike lane is proposed to connect the Warrendale Road/Franklin Road intersection with the Graham Road/Pearce Mill Road intersection along Warrendale and Graham Roads.

1.66

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Page 5 of 9

Unit

Quanitity

Unit Price

Total

Acres

0.00

$1,200.00

$0.00

CY SY EA EA SF EA

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $5,000.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Acres

0.95

$1,200.00

$1,134.55

1,525.33 3,050.67 5.00 2.00 41,184.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15

$6,101.33 $76,266.67 $1,250.00 $500.00 $6,177.60 $91,430.15 $9,143.01 $10,971.62 $111,544.78 $40.63

2.38

$1,200.00

$2,858.18

11,528.00 7,685.33 13.00 103,752.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $0.15

$46,112.00 $192,133.33 $3,250.00 $15,562.80 $259,916.32 $25,991.63 $31,189.96 $317,097.90 $45.84

1.35

$1,200.00

$1,614.55

6,512.00 4,341.33 7.00 2.00 100.00 58,608.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $1,500.00 $0.15

$26,048.00 $108,533.33 $1,750.00 $500.00 $150,000.00 $8,791.20 $297,237.08 $29,723.71 $44,585.56 $371,546.35 $95.09

3.02

$1,200.00

$3,621.82

4,869.33 9,738.67 16.00 14.00 131,472.00 3.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $5,000.00

$19,477.33 $243,466.67 $4,000.00 $3,500.00 $19,720.80 $15,000.00 $308,786.62 $30,878.66 $37,054.39 $376,719.67 $42.98

CY SY EA EA SF

Acres

CY SY EA SF

Acres

CY SY EA EA LF SF

Acres

CY SY EA EA SF EA

Opinion of Probable Cost Segment Number

Type

Bike Lanes

Shared Use Path

Description

This proposed bike lane connects the bike lanes currently being construction by PennDOT from North Park to State Route 910 (Wexford Road) to the Township’s Community Park.

Length in Miles

3.09

2.16

Item

Clearing and Grubbing

Acres

Earthwork and Grading Bike Lanes (2 x 5' wide) Pavement Markings Regulatory Signs Turnpike Underpass Improvements Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Retaining Wall Shared Use Path 10' wide Protective Barrier Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Intersection Improvements and Controls Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This shared use path connects the Township Community Park with the Pine-Richland School Complex, through the Trees Estate property. The trail crosses the north fork of Pine Run.

1.31

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Pedestrian / Bicycle Bridge Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This shared use path will pick up the end of the proposed shared use path extension along English Road, Segment 10, with the proposed shared use path connecting the Community Park and the School Complex. The trail runs along the north fork of Pine Run for approximately half of its distance. The portion along Pine Creek is proposed to be developed as an elevated boardwalk.

1.41

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide 10' wide Elevated Boardwalk Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Pedestrian / Bicycle Bridge

Page 6 of 9

Unit

Quanitity

Unit Price

Total

5.62

$1,200.00

$6,741.82

CY SY EA EA

6,042.67 36,256.00 6.00 16.00

$4.00 $25.00 $150.00 $250.00

$24,170.67 $906,400.00 $900.00 $4,000.00

1.00

$50,000.00

244,728.00

$0.15

$36,709.20 $1,028,921.68 $102,892.17 $154,338.25 $1,286,152.11 $78.83

3.93

$1,200.00

$4,712.73

CY SFF SY LF EA EA SF

21,260.00 9,549.00 12,672.00 1,411.00 21.00 19.00 171,072.00

$4.00 $40.00 $25.00 $50.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15

$85,040.00 $381,960.00 $316,800.00 $70,550.00 $5,250.00 $4,750.00 $25,660.80

2.00

$200,000.00

$400,000.00

1.00

$5,000.00

$5,000.00 $1,299,723.53 $129,972.35 $194,958.53 $1,624,654.41 $142.45

Acres

2.38

$1,200.00

$2,858.18

3,842.67 7,685.33 13.00 10.00 103,752.00 75.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $1,500.00

$15,370.67 $192,133.33 $3,250.00 $2,500.00 $15,562.80 $112,500.00 $344,174.98 $34,417.50 $51,626.25 $430,218.73 $62.20

2.56

$1,200.00

$3,076.36

4,136.00 4,136.00 37,250.00 14.00 8.00 111,672.00 50.00

$4.00 $25.00 $35.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $1,500.00

$16,544.00 $103,400.00 $1,303,750.00 $3,500.00 $2,000.00 $16,750.80 $75,000.00

Acres

CY SY EA EA SF LF

Acres

CY SY SF EA EA SF LF

Opinion of Probable Cost Segment Number

Type

Description

Length in Miles

Item Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property ,and presumed to be developed as housing, to the bike lanes proposed along Babcock Boulevard.

0.22

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This shared use path is proposed to connect undeveloped property, and presumed to be developed as housing, to the shared use path proposed along Warrendale Road.

0.82

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Bike Lanes

3.24

Clearing and Grubbing

Shared Use Path

This segment is the former Irwin Road, and is referred to as the Irwin Road Trail.

1.50

Unit Price

Total

3.00

$5,000.00

$15,000.00 $1,539,021.16 $153,902.12 $230,853.17 $1,923,776.45 $258.41

Acres

0.40

$1,200.00

$480.00

645.33 1,290.67 2.00 3.00 17,424.00 3.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $5,000.00

$2,581.33 $32,266.67 $500.00 $750.00 $2,613.60 $15,000.00 $54,191.60 $5,419.16 $6,502.99 $66,113.75 $56.92

1.49

$1,200.00

$1,789.09

2,405.33 4,810.67 8.00 2.00 64,944.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15

$9,621.33 $120,266.67 $2,000.00 $500.00 $9,741.60 $143,918.69 $14,391.87 $17,270.24 $175,580.80 $40.55

5.89

$1,200.00

$7,066.91

CY SY EA EA SF EA

Acres

CY SY EA EA SF

Acres

CY SY EA EA EA

6,334.04 38,004.27 6.00 48.00 4.00

$4.00 $25.00 $150.00 $250.00 $150,000.00

$25,336.18 $950,106.67 $900.00 $12,000.00 $600,000.00

Turnpike Underpass Improvements

1.00

$50,000.00

256,528.80

$0.15

$38,479.32 $1,683,889.07 $168,388.91 $252,583.36 $2,104,861.34 $123.08

2.73

$1,200.00

$3,272.73

4,400.00 8,800.00 15.00 8.00 118,800.00 3.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $5,000.00

$17,600.00 $220,000.00 $3,750.00 $2,000.00 $17,820.00 $15,000.00 $279,442.73 $27,944.27 $33,533.13 $340,920.13 $43.05

Page 7 of 9

Quanitity

Earthwork and Grading Bike Lanes (2 x 5' wide) Pavement Markings Regulatory Signs Insertsection Improvements

Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost 28

Unit

Acres CY SY EA EA SF EA

Opinion of Probable Cost Segment Number

Type

Shared Use Path

Description

This shared use path will follow Irwin Road from State Route 910 (Wexford Road) connecting bike lanes along State Route 910, the existing shared use Irwin Road Trail which extends into North Park.

Length in Miles

0.42

Item

Clearing and Grubbing

Acres

Earthwork and Grading Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Conversion of Irwin Road to one-way route with shared use path Seeding Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

0.33

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Shared Use Path

This shared use path will connect the trails within Pine Haven Park to the bike lanes and shared use path proposed along Wexford Road (State Route 910) and hiking trails within North Park.

0.19

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Seeding Intersection Improvements Stream Crossing Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost 32

Shared Use Path

This shared use path will connect the bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road) with Wexford Elementary School.

0.23

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Intersection Improvements Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Page 8 of 9

Unit

Quanitity

Unit Price

Total

0.76

$1,200.00

$916.36

CY EA EA

1,232.00 4.00 4.00

$4.00 $250.00 $250.00

$4,928.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00

7,040.00

$15.00

$105,600.00

SF EA

33,264.00 1.00

$0.15 $5,000.00

$4,989.60 $5,000.00 $123,433.96 $12,343.40 $14,812.08 $150,589.44 $67.91

0.60

$1,200.00

$720.00

1,936.00 1,936.00 3.00 3.00 26,136.00 1.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $5,000.00

$7,744.00 $48,400.00 $750.00 $750.00 $3,920.40 $5,000.00 $67,284.40 $6,728.44 $8,074.13 $82,086.97 $47.11

0.35

$1,200.00

$414.55

557.33 1,114.67 2.00 15,048.00 1.00 1.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $0.15 $75,000.00 $5,000.00

$2,229.33 $27,866.67 $500.00 $2,257.20 $75,000.00 $5,000.00 $113,267.75 $11,326.77 $13,592.13 $138,186.65 $137.75

0.42

$1,200.00

$501.82

674.67 1,349.33 2.00 4.00 18,216.00 1.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15 $150,000.00

$2,698.67 $33,733.33 $500.00 $1,000.00 $2,732.40 $150,000.00 $191,166.22 $19,116.62 $22,939.95 $233,222.79 $192.05

Acres

CY SY EA EA SF EA

Acres

CY SY EA SF EA EA

Acres CY SY EA EA SF EA

Opinion of Probable Cost Segment Number

33A

Type

Shared Use Path

Description This shared use path will connect the sidewalks and Bike lanes along Wallace Road with sidewalks along Village Club Drive, a proposed trail head, and the Bike lanes and sidewalks along State Route 910 (Wexford Road).

Length in Miles

0.50

Item

Clearing and Grubbing

Earthwork and Grading Shared Use Path 10' wide Mile Marker Regulatory Signs Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 12% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost 33B

Bike Lanes

This bike lane connection will connect the bike lanes along State Route 19 to Village Club Drive and the Oxford Athletic Club.

0.39

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Bike Lanes (2 x 5' wide) Pavement Markings Regulatory Signs Seeding Subtotal 10% Contingency 15% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

33C

Sidewalk

This sidewalk connection will connect the sidewalks along Wallace Road to the Oxford Athletic Club, along Village Club Drive.

0.37

Clearing and Grubbing Earthwork and Grading Concrete Sidewalk 5' wide Subtotal 10% Contingency 10% Design and Engineering Total Per Lineal Foot Cost

Page 9 of 9

Unit

Acres

CY SY EA EA SF

Acres CY SY EA EA SF

Acres CY SY

Quanitity

Unit Price

Total

0.91

$1,200.00

$1,090.91

1,466.67 2,933.33 5.00 4.00 39,600.00

$4.00 $25.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.15

$5,866.67 $73,333.33 $1,250.00 $1,000.00 $5,940.00 $88,480.91 $8,848.09 $10,617.71 $107,946.71 $40.89

0.71

$1,200.00

$850.91

762.67 4,576.00 8.00 8.00 30,888.00

$4.00 $25.00 $150.00 $250.00 $0.15

$3,050.67 $114,400.00 $1,200.00 $2,000.00 $4,633.20 $126,134.78 $12,613.48 $18,920.22 $126,134.78 $61.25

0.22

$1,200.00

$269.09

361.78 2,170.67

$4.00 $60.00

$1,447.11 $130,240.00 $131,956.20 $13,195.62 $13,195.62 $158,347.44 $81.05

APPENDIX FOUR OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS

township of pine trail feasibility study