Manchester Trail Alte lternat rnatives ives Presentat entatio ion n Meeti ting ng August 27, 2019 19
Agenda Project Team Project Schedule About the Project Alternatives Analysis Next Steps Public Input
Meet the Project Team Town of Manchester – Project Administrator Old Railroad Bed, LLC John O’Keefe, Town Manager Bennington County Regional Planning Commission VHB – Design Consultant Jim Sullivan Dan Peck P.E., Project Manager Erica Quallen, EIT, Project Engineer Vermont Agency of Transportation – Federal Oversight and support Peter Pochop
Project Schedule Project Kick-Off Meeting April 3, 2019 Existing Conditions Assessment April - May Local Concerns Meeting May 16 , 2019 Alternatives Assessment May - August Alternatives Presentation Tonight Final Public Meeting October Final Scoping Report October 31, 2019
Draft Purpose and Need Purpose: The Town of Manchester wants to identify options, potential impacts, and costs associated with the development of multi-use path along the abandoned MD&G Railroad corridor. Need: There has been an informal path along the rail corridor and there has been expressed interest in formalizing the trail and creating a public amenity for locals and visitors.
Right-of- 2000 Conceptual Local Way and Feasibility Path from Citizens This Study Funding Study along MEMS to Purchase and Design Delayed Rail Corridor North Road Rail Corridor Project
Project Context Create additional bicycle and pedestrian connectionS in Manchester Add approximately 1.6 mile multi-use trail along the old railroad corridor Extend from Riley Rink at Hunter Park and extend northerly to North Road (Across from Squires Road Intersection)
1.6 Miles of New Trail Private Property Stream Crossing Beattie Lane Riley Rink
Existing Conditions Natural Resources Flood Hazard Zone Wetlands, River Corridor at Streams Cultural Resources previously identified along the corridor
Manchester Trail – Segment 1 Segment 1
Cross Section A
Manchester Trail – Segment 1 Segment 2
Cross Section B
Manchester Trail – Segment 1 Segment 3
Cross Section C
Manchester Trail – Segment 1 Segment 4
Fence at Steep Fence at Slopes Private Property Cross Section D
Manchester Trail – Segment 1 Segment 5
Manchester Trail – Segment 1 Segment 6
Evaluation Matrix - Trail Alternative A: Alternative B: Alternative C: No Build Aggregate Path Paved Path Construction $0 $582,000 $810,000 $0 $435,000 $520,000 Design, Mobilization, and Contingency Engineering Total Cost (Rounded, not including ROW) $0 $1,000,000 $1,300,000 Constructability N/A Easy Moderate Service Life N/A Moderate High Maintenance Requirements N/A Moderate Moderate Prime Agricultural Soils None Potential Potential Hazardous Materials None Potential Potential Floodplains None None None Fish & Wildlife None None None Impacts Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species None Potential Potential Public Lands - Sect. 4(f) None None None LWCP - Sect. 6(f) None None None Managed Lands None None None Right-of-Way None Yes Yes Wetlands None Potential Potential Act 250 No Unlikely Unlikely Section 404 - Wetlands (USACE) No Yes Yes Section 401 Water Quality Certification No Yes Yes State Wetlands Permit No Yes Yes Stream Alteration Permit No Potential Potential Permits* Construction Phase Storm Water No Yes Yes Discharge Permit (General Permit 3-9020) Operational Phase Storm Water Discharge No Potential Potential Permit (General Permit 3-9015) Lakes & Ponds No No No Rare, Threatened, and Endangered No Potential Potential Species Aesthetic Quality No Change High Moderate Meets Purpose & Need No Yes Yes *Stream Crossings and Path would be submitted as single permit application
Stream Crossing #1 Between Mt. Aeolus Lane & Beattie Lane Intermittent Stream Existing Stone and Wood Structure Replaced by Corrugated Plastic Culvert
Stream Crossing #1 Improvement Recommendations Add more fill to cover the inlet and outlet of the 1. culvert, which are exposed. Add stone fill to armor the inlet and outlet to 2. prevent erosion and scour. Lay down gravel on the trail to improve the walking 3. surface. Estimated Cost: $2,500
Stream Crossing #2 Southeast of Beattie Lane Perennial Stream Existing Bridge Mostly Deteriorated Potential Long Span Bridge
Stream Crossing #3 North of Field Perennial Stream Existing Bridge Mostly Deteriorated Potential Long Span Bridge
Stream Crossings #2 & #3 Alternatives A, B, & C Alternative A: Alternative B: Alternative C: Steel or Steel Girder Bridge Concrete Arch Aluminum Plate Arch Pros: Pros: Pros: Construction would be out • Low maintenance • Least expensive option • of channel requirements leading to Cons: Matches existing bridge • longer service life Shorter service life than • south of Riley Rink Cons: concrete arch due to Cons: Most expensive option • corrosion and abrasion Has greater maintenance • requirements
Stream Crossings #2 & #3 Alternatives D & E Alternative D: Prefabricated Timber Bridge Pros: Reasonable cost for a unique look • Cons: Timber typically has a shorter service • life than concrete or steel Alternative E: Prefabricated Steel Truss Bridge Pros: Easy to install • Cons: Similar maintenance requirements • to girder bridge
Evaluation Matrix - Structures (Crossings #2 & #3) Alternative A: Alternative B: Alternative C: Alternative D: Alternative E: Girder Bridge Concrete Arch Pipe Arch Timber Bridge Steel Truss Bridge $150,000 $238,000 $110,500 $213,000 $216,000 Construction $60,000 $83,000 $38,000 $73,000 $73,000 Design, Mobilization, and Contingency Engineering Total Cost (Rounded, not including ROW) $210,000 $330,000 $150,000 $290,000 $290,000 Constructability Moderate Simple/Moderate Simple Moderate/Hard Simple/Moderate Moderate High High Low Moderate Service Life 50 - 75 Years 75 - 100 Years 75 - 100 Years ~ 50 Years 50 - 75 Years Maintenance Requirements Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Prime Agricultural Soils Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Hazardous Materials Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Floodplains None None None None None Fish & Wildlife None None None None None Impacts Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Public Lands - Sect. 4(f) None None None None None LWCP - Sect. 6(f) None None None None None Managed Lands None None None None None Right-of-Way During Construction During Construction During Construction During Construction During Construction Wetlands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Act 250 Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Section 404 - Wetlands (USACE) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Section 401 Water Quality Certification Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes State Wetlands Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Stream Alteration Permit Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Permits* Construction Phase Storm Water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Discharge Permit (General Permit 3-9020) Operational Phase Storm Water Discharge Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Permit (General Permit 3-9015) Lakes & Ponds No No No No No Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Species Aesthetic Quality Moderate High Low/Moderate Very High High Meets Purpose & Need Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes *Stream Crossings and Path would be submitted as single permit application
Next Steps Selection of Preferred Alternative September Draft Scoping Report Early October Final Scoping Report October 31
Questions? Comments? Share them with us! Daniel M. Peck, PE Project Manager 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 802.497.6195 dpeck@vhb.com
Recommend
More recommend
