POWER LINE TRAIL CONNECTOR

Transcription

POWER LINE TRAIL
CONNECTOR
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA
DRAFT REPORT
December 2013
PREPARED BY:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Robert J. Birch
Candyce Fluehr Chimera
Michael J. Fox
Jeffrey W. McDonnell
Joseph P. Walsh
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Vere Archibald
Barry Baker
Jeffrey Gibbons
Jeanine Hurry
Mahbubur R. Meenar
Beth Staab
Terry Wilson
OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
Kim Greene
Jay Glickman
Laurence Poli
Roy Rodriguez
Beth Staab
PARK& RECREATION BOARD
Mark Angelone
Linda Brooks
Angelo Grasso
Kim Greene
Michael Okino
Al Quasti
Anthony Ruggieri
PLANNING COMMISSION
Michael Beatty
Jay Glickman
Steve Krumenacker
Leon McGuire
James Rall
Ellen Reynolds
Jonathan Trump
This project funded through the Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission’s (DVRPC’s) Regional Trails Program.
PAGE
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
-PROJECT SCOPE
-REGIONAL CONTEXT
-PROJECTED USE
-TRAIL CHARACTERISTICS
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
-PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
-USAGE FEASIBILITY
-LEGAL FEASIBILITY
METHODOLOGY
-EXISTING PLANS AND FIELD INVENTORY
-PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-DESIGN CRITERIA
RECOMMENDATIONS
-TRAIL ALIGNMENT
-PROPOSED EASEMENTS
-OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
-IMPLEMENTATION
-OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
-FUNDING
-PERMITTING AND COORDINATION
APPENDIX
-PHOTO REFERENCE SHEETS
-MONTGOMERY COUNTY PRIMARY TRAIL NETWORK PLAN
-PENNSYLVANIA BIKE ROUTE S PLAN
POWER LINE TRAIL CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY
PAGE
3
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT SCOPE
The purpose of the Montgomery
Township Power Line Connector Trail
Feasibility Study is to evaluate routing
options that will best connect the recently
constructed Route 202 Parkway Trail
to the partially constructed Power Line
Trail. Both of these trails are identified on
Montgomery County’s proposed primary
trail network plan, which was prepared
by the Montgomery County Planning
Commission. Feasibility criteria include
pedestrian safety, physical barriers,
financial consideration, connectivity to
residential populations and to existing and
proposed amenities within Montgomery
Township as well as surrounding
municipalities.
also exist. The Route 202 Parkway trail is a
nine (9) mile multi-use trail that runs from
Doylestown to Montgomeryville. The other
significant trail network that is proposed
within the Township is the Power Line Trail.
This proposed seventeen (17) mile trail
will extend from Evansburg State Park in
Skippack Township to the Pennypack Trail
and Cross County Trail in Upper Moreland
Township. The Trail follows a PECO utility
corridor. Approximately five (5) miles of
the trail has been constructed in adjacent
Horsham Township. REGIONAL CONTEXT
Montgomery Township is situated on
the eastern edge of Montgomery County,
bordered by Horsham Township, Lower
Gwynedd Township, Upper Gwynedd
Township, Lansdale Borough, Hatfield
Township and New Britain Township,
Bucks County to the East. The Township
is densely populated and composed of
a large range of residential and nonresidential uses. In addition to the
multitude of existing sidewalk networks
existing throughout the Township, several
existing and planned regional trail routes
202 PARKWAY TRAIL SEGMENT WITH
DEDICATED BIKE LAND AND SIDE TRAIL
In addition to these regional, off
road trails, Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation’s Bicycle PA Bike Route S
utilizes portions of Route 309, Hartman
Road, Horsham Road and Kenas Road
within Montgomery Township. This on-
PAGE
4
INTRODUCTION
road bike route extends four hundred
sixteen miles in length, beginning at
the West Virginia state line just west of
West Alexander and extending east to
the New Jersey state line in Washington
Crossing. Although the Bicycle PA routes
do not necessarily provide specific bicycle
facilities, they are intended to provide
experienced bicyclists with a guide to
available highways and rail trails to traverse
across the state.
PROJECTED USE
Montgomery Township anticipates
the Power Line Connector Trail to be
a Multi-Use trail, utilized by bicyclists
and pedestrians for transportation and
exercise. The proposed Trail system
will provide a multitude of recreational
opportunities for the Township and
Surrounding Communities by linking
residents to regional trail networks. These
trail networks provide access to various
parks, open space, commercial areas and
cultural/historical sites. Implementation of
the trails will also open up opportunities for
enhancement of natural areas.
PROJECTED USE
BICYCLE PA ROUTES
PAGE
5
INTRODUCTION
TRAIL CHARACTERISTICS
This feasibility study considers
several types of trails to create the link
between the Parkway Trail and the Power
Line Trail. Multi-Use, or Shared Use trails
TYPICAL SEPARATED MULTI-USE TRAIL
OFF ROAD
which are physically separated from
vehicular traffic, as well as On-Road cycling
routes are noted as potential routes.
TYPICAL ON ROAD SHARED ROUTE
PAGE
6
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
Land Use
The land that exists between the 202 Parkway Trail
and the proposed connection to the Power Line Trail is
primarily urbanized land with rolling topography. Land uses
include a wide range of Industrial, Commercial and MidDensity Residential.
16F
16F
16F
16F
16F
16E
16E
16E
16E
16E
1AD
1AD
1AD
1AD
1AD
16C
16C
16C
16C
16C
16B
16B
16B
16B
16B
169
169
169
169
169
16D
16D
16D
16D
16D
16A
16A
16A
16A
16A
168
168
168
168
168
D0
D0
D0
D0
D0
166
166
166
166
166
167
167
167
167
167
164
164
164
164
164
162
162
162
162
162
165
165
165
165
165
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
161
161
161
161
161
145
145
145
145
145
160
160
160
160
160
D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
14A
14A
14A
14A
14A
147
147
147
147
147
144
144
144
144
144
D8
D8
D8
D8
D8
1AC
1AC
1AC
1AC
1AC
146
146
146
146
146
14C
14C
14C
14C
14C
D3
D3
D3
D3
D3
148
148
148
148
148
143
143
143
143
143
D4
D4
D4
D4
D4
D5
D5
D5
D5
D5
F2
F2
F2
F2
F2
D7
D7
D7
D7
D7
14D
14D
14D
14D
14D
135
135
135
135
135
137
137
137
137
137
110
110
110
110
110
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
112
112
112
112
112
D6
D6
D6
D6
D6
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
15E
15E
15E
15E
15E
D9
D9
D9
D9
D9
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
15D
15D
15D
15D
15D
F1
F1
F1
F1
F1
DF
DF
DF
DF
DF
E2
E2
E2
E2
E2
E0
E0
E0
E0
E0
10F
10F
10F
10F
10F
E1
E1
E1
E1
E1
10E
10E
10E
10E
10E
10D
10D
10D
10D
10D
10C
10C
10C
10C
10C
50
50
50
50
50
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
10B
10B
10B
10B
10B
E3
E3
E3
E3
E3
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F3
F3
F3
F3
F3
132
132
132
132
132
51
51
51
51
51
131
131
131
131
131
130
130
130
130
130
4F
4F
4F
4F
4F
F5
F5
F5
F5
F5
12F
12F
12F
12F
12F
4E
4E
4E
4E
4E
12E
12E
12E
12E
12E
65
65
65
65
65
4D
4D
4D
4D
4D
117
117
117
117
117
12C
12C
12C
12C
12C
118
118
118
118
118
66
66
66
66
66
116
116
116
116
116
53
53
53
53
53
108
108
108
108
108
10A
10A
10A
10A
10A
64
64
64
64
64
107
107
107
107
107
11B
11B
11B
11B
11B
4C
4C
4C
4C
4C
4A
4A
4A
4A
4A
62
62
62
62
62
11C
11F
11C
11C
11C11F
11F
11F
11C
11F
120
125
120
120
120 125
125
125
120
125
122
122
122
122
122
106
106
106
106
106
4B
4B
4B
4B
4B
E6
E6
E6
E6
E6
114
114
114
114
114
FA
FA
FA
FA
FA
104
104
104
104
104
F8
F8
F8
F8
F8
48
48
48
48
48
45
45
45
45
45
40
40
40
40
40
43
43
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
44
5E
5E
5E
5E
5E
EC
EC
EC
EC
EC
69
69
69
69
69
5B
5B
5B
5B
5B
78
78
78
78
78
5A
5A
5A
5A
5A
EE
EE
EE
EE
EE
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
6A
6A
6A
6A
6A
156
156
156
156
156
6F
6F
6F
6F
6F
6D
6D
6D
6D
6D
158
158
158
158
158
157
157
157
157
157
79
79
79
79
79
59
59
59
59
59
58
58
58
58
58
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
68
68
68
68
68
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
57
57
57
57
57
6B
6B
6B
6B
6B
70
70
70
70
70
75
75
75
75
75
13F
13F
13F
13F
13F
142
142
142
142
142
154
154
154
154
154
153
153
153
153
153
71
71
71
71
71
13E
76
76
76
76
76
74
74
74
74
74
155
155
155
155
155
F0
F0
F0
F0
F0
Montgomery T
77
77
77
77
77
6E
6E
6E
6E
6E
EB
EB
EB
EB
EB
E7
E7
E7
E7
E7
5D
5D
5D
5D
5D
54
54
54
54
54
56
56
56
56
56
E9
E9
E9
E9
E9
42
42
42
42
42
67
67
67
67
67
46
46
46
46
46
55
55
55
55
55
F6
F6
F6
F6
F6
129
129
129
129
129
12B
12B
12B
12B
12B
5F
5F
5F
5F
5F
F7
F7
F7
F7
F7
E8
E8
E8
E8
E8
127
127
127
127
127
126
126
126
126
126
41
41
41
41
41
60
60
60
60
60
49
49
49
49
49
F9
F9
F9
F9
F9
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5
61
61
61
61
61
47
47
47
47
47
113
113
113
113
113
105
105
105
105
105
11A
11A
11A
11A
11A
52
52
52
52
52
13D
Neighborhoods
Streets
Features
1D5
1D5
1D5
1D5
1D5
Streams
1D2
1D2
1D2
1D2
1D2
Buildings
1D1
1D1
1D1
1D1
1D1
1CC
1CC
1CC
1CC
1CC
1CD
1CD
1CD
1CD
1CD
1CE
1CE
1CE
1CE
1CE
1D3
1D3
1D3
1D3
1D3
1CB
1CB
1CB
1CB
1CB
Parcels OverView
1CA
1CA
1CA
1CA
1CA
Zoning Layers
1C5
1C5
1C5
1C5
1C5
1C9
1C9
1C9
1C9
1C9
Zoning Overlays
B
ECPOD
HLI
HLI II
1C6
1C6
1C6
1C6
1C8
1C8
1C8
1C8 1C6
1C8
1C7
1C7
1C7
1C7
1C7
Zoning
BP
C
CA
L1
MHP
R1
R2
R3
R3A
R3B
R5
R6
RS
S
1DA
1DA
1DA
1DA
1DA
1D6
1D6
1D6
1D6
1D6
1D9
1D9
1D9
1D9
1D9
1D8
1D8
1D8
1D8
1D8
1DB
1DB
1DB
1DB
1DB
1DC
1DC
1DC
1DC
1DC
1ED
1ED
1ED
1ED
1ED
1DD
1DD
1DD
1DD
1DD
1DE
1DE
1DE
1DE
1DE
1DF
1DF
1DF
1DF
1DF
1E0
1E0
1E0
1E0
1E0
1E2
1E2
1E2
1E2
1E2
1EC
1EC
1EC
1EC
1EC
1E1
1E1
1E1
1E1
1E1
1E3
1E3
1E3
1E3
1E3
1E4
1E4
1E4
1E4
1E4
1E5
1E5
1E5
1E5
1E5
1E6
1E6
1E6
1E6
1E6
1E8
1E8
1E8
1E8
1E8
1A9
1A9
1A9
1A9
1A9
1AA
1AA
1AA
1AA
1AA
1A8
1A8
1A8
1A8
1A8
1AF
1AF
1AF
1AF
1AF
1A7
1A7
1A7
1A7
1A7
1C3
1C3
1C3
1C3
1C3
1A5
1A5
1A5
1A5
1A5
1A6
1A6
1A6
1A6
1A6
1A3
1A3
1A3
1A3
1A3
1A2
1A2
1A2
1A2
1A2
1A4
1A4
1A4
1A4
1A4
1A1
1A1
1A1
1A1
1A1
1A0
1A0
1A0
1A0
1A0
19F
19F
19F
19F
19F
19E
19E
19E
19E
19E
PAGE
7
1C1
1C1
1C1
1C1
1C1
1BD
1BD
1BD
1BD
1BD
19D
19D
19D
19D
19D
1BE
1BE
1BE
1BE
1BE
19C
19C
19C
19C
19C
1BF
1BF
1BF
1BF
1BF
19B
19B
19B
19B
19B
Natural Areas and Parks
Due to the highly urbanized and
densely populated condition of the project
area, there are limited Natural Areas. There
is a vegetated corridor that follows the
path of the Little Neshaminy Creek which
flows through the project site as well as
vegetated tributary areas. These tributary
areas exhibit signs of the highly urbanized
environment in which they are located,
having eroded banks from high velocity
flows.
LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK
There is a Township Park located within
the project area. Whispering Pines Park is
located at Orchard and Stump Roads.
Notable Sites
The area of the Connector Trail
contains several notable sites that were
influential in the recommended trail
routing. The first site is The Joseph Ambler
Inn property. Several historic structures
are located on this property, including a
stone-bank barn which was constructed in
1820, a cottage built in 1929, The Thomas
Wilson House and The John Roberts House.
The land was originally owned by William
Penn and was granted to Richard Pearce,
who then sold a piece to William Morgan.
Joseph Amber acquired the property after
the death of William Morgan. This site is
full of history and charm.
Another important site in the
project area is the Montgomery Township
Municipal Complex. The Township complex
is home to the Township’s Government,
Administration and Police. There are
existing trails and open space on this site as
well. This complex has ample parking, and
could serve as a trail head for the Connector
Trail.
Looking to the future, there is one
more notable site within the Connector Trail
project area. The approximately twelve
(12) acre site is located on the south side of
Horsham Road, to the east of Stump Road.
This is the future home of the Montgomery
Township Community Center. This will
be a wonderful asset to the community,
providing programs and amenities for
residents of all ages. The facility will also
have ample parking and could serve as a
trail head for the Connector Trail.
PAGE
8
USAGE FEASIBILITY
The Connector Trail connects into
the existing network of sidewalks that
reach into densely populated residential
neighborhoods, providing the necessary
hierarchy of access to the available
regional trail systems and their associated
amenities and resources. The proposed
trail route avoids roadways with high
volume vehicular traffic where possible to
create a safe, inviting environment for trail
users. In addition to the access provided to
residential properties, it is also important
to recognize the proximity to the many
employees that work in the Commercial
and Industrial sites within the project area.
This creates opportunities for before-work,
lunch break and after-work use of the trail
system. Pedestrian commuting is also a
potential benefit to employees living and
working in close proximity to this trail
network.
LEGAL FEASIBILITY
Proposed Easements will be
necessary to obtain from all properties not
owned by Montgomery Township or within
Township road rights-of-way, including
PECO and PennDOT. The recommended
routes, as described, utilize Township
owned property where possible to limit
the number of easements that would be
necessary from private property owners.
Trail construction and maintenance
easements would need to be executed.
PAGE
9
METHODOLOGY
EXISTING PLAN AND
FIELD INVENTORY
The Montgomery County Trail Plan
which was prepared by the Montgomery
County Planning Commission identifies
the Power Line Trail and 202 Parkway Trail
within the Township.
This Feasibility Study was prepared
utilizing aerial imagery flown in 2005,
and obtained from the Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC),
as well as Geographical Information
System (GIS) parcel data obtained from the
Montgomery Township GIS database.
Potential Trail Routes were walked
and a photographic inventory of conditions
was taken.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Draft Plan and Routing Options were
presented publicly at the Township’s Planning Commission meeting in April 2013,
the Park & Recreation meeting in June
2013, the Environmental Advisory Committee meeting in September of 2013 and
the Open Space Committee meeting in
October of 2013. General consensus was
reached to support the proposed trail
routes.
DESIGN CRITERIA
There are several guidelines for the
design of Multi-Use Trails, the most current
of which are still in draft form as of the
date of this report. The following chart
provides a comparison between the most
current recommendations as provided
by the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Board (Access Board) and the
American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
These criteria were considered during the
preparation of this feasibility study and
shall also be utilized to guide the detailed
design and engineering of the Connector
Trail.
The American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Official’s
(AASHTO) current guidelines for Shared
Use Paths recommend a minimum width
of ten (10) feet for a two-directional Shared
Use Path. A graded, shoulder area of at
least three (3) feet should also be provided.
These guidelines also recommend a
minimum lane width of fourteen (14)
feet for Shared Lanes on roadways, in
conjunction with proper signage and
roadway markings.
PAGE
10
METHODOLOGY
Shared Use Trail Design Guidelines
Trail Type
Off Road
Required Width
10' minimum with 2'
clear shoulders having
6:1 max. slope (3)
5' clear shoulders shall
be provided where
there is an adjacent
water hazard or downward slope of 3:1 or
greater
10' minimum with a
minimum of 5' clear to
adjacent roadway
Agency/Guideline
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO)
Design of Shared
Use Path (Feb. 2010) (DRAFT)
Signage
Part 9 of MUTCD
(AASHTO)
Design of Shared
Use Path (Feb. 2010) (DRAFT)
Part 9 of MUTCD
On Road (Shared Lanes)
Minimum of 14' lane
width. (1)
(AASHTO)
Design of On-Road
Facilities (Feb. 2010) (DRAFT)
On Road (Bike Lanes)
Minimum of 4' where
no curb and gutter and
there is no on-street
parking Adjacent to
On-Street Parking: 6'
recommended (5' min.)
7' Adjacent to Narrow Parking Lane
with High Turnover
6-8' In Area of High
Bicycle Use
4' with no vertical
obstructions adjacent
5' with vertical obstruction adjacent
(AASHTO)
Design of On-Road
Off Road (Adjacent to Roadways)
On Road (Paved Shoulder)
Path within a Public Right-Of-Way
functioning as a sidewalk
Shared Use Path in Independent
Corridors
(AASHTO)
Design of On-Road
Public Rights of Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG)
Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility
Guidelines for Outdoor Developed
Areas (ADOGA)
Markings
Solid/Broken Retroreflectorized Yellow line
to clarify the direction
of travel and organize
pathway traffic
Solid/Broken Retroreflectorized Yellow line
to clarify the direction
of travel and organize
pathway traffic
W11-1 & W16-1P
Bike Lane Symbol Mark(Share the Road)
ing Placement immeR4-11 (Bicylces May dately after an intersecUse Full Lane)
tion and at intervals not
greater than 250 ft.
R3-17 (Bike Lane) & 4" Solid White Line and
R3-17aP/bP (Ahead/ Bike Lane Symbol MarkEnds) Spaced as
ing spaced as needed,
needed, based on
based on context
context
W11-1 & W16-1P
(Share the Road)
R4-11 (Bicylces May
Use Full Lane)
W11-1 & W16-1P (Share
the Road)
R4-11
(Bicylces May Use Full
Lane)
(1) Less than 14' may be designated for bicycles with adequate sigange and markings
(2) Shared Lane Marking not to be used on roadways having a speed limit greater than 35 mph
(3) 8' width is allowable in rare cases/physical constraints
PAGE
11
RECOMMENDATIONS
TRAIL ALIGNMENT
Multiple potential trail alignments
were explored and evaluated through the
process of determining the feasibility of the
connector trail. The various trail options are
described below.
Option A - Off-Road: (Route shown in RED
on the overall trail feasibility diagram on
Page 17 and shown in detail on Pages 1820)
Route A proposes to connect to the existing
stub trail that currently connects to the 202
Parkway Trail at the western property edge
of the Joseph Ambler Inn property. The
trail follows along the northern property
line of the Joseph Ambler Inn, heading
east towards the Montgomery Township
Municipal Complex. Easements will need to
be secured to cross the Joseph Ambler Inn
property. The trail would extend across the
western property line of the Montgomery
Township Municipal Complex into a
wooded area. A stream crossing would
be necessary to traverse over the Little
Neshaminy Creek, which flows through the
Township property and under Horsham
Road. An alternate to this stream crossing
would be a routing out to Horsham Road
to utilize the existing road crossing. The
negatives of this routing would be a less
scenic route and safety concerns utilizing
the highly trafficed State roadway. The trail
would then connect to the existing paved
trails north of the parking area for the
municipal complex. Safety improvements
such as signage and striping would be
needed to better identify the pedestrian
crossing of the driveway which provides
access to the municipal complex from
Stump Road. The trail would then follow
the existing access drive and traverse along
the eastern side of the municipal building
and meet the intersection of Horsham and
Stump Roads. Gated access and fencing
is recommended to secure the access area
and storage tanks.
Pedestrian crossing buttons exist at
the intersection of Horsham and Stump
roads. These signals and curb ramps should
be closely evaluated to ensure they are fully
compliant with Penn-DOT requirements
since they fall within Horsham Road’s rightof-way, which is a State road. Continental
crosswalk striping should be implemented
to create better vehicular awareness of
the pedestrian crossings. The trail would
then continue east along Horsham Road
and follow the vacated road parcel which
is located between two storm-water
management facilities, the eastern facility
PAGE
12
RECOMMENDATIONS
being located on the site of the future
Montgomery Township Community Center.
Routing the trail though the Community
Center site is a great opportunity to
connect to a major Community Amenity.
The trail would continue east, along the
southern property line, following the
existing tree line. The trail then crosses
over several properties where easements
would need to be obtained. The first is the
Cedar Run Landscapes property. There
are existing storage areas and bulk mulch
bins located in the area where the trail
is proposed. Once past the Cedar Run
property, the trail accesses the property of
TEVA Pharmaceuticals. The TEVA facility
is completely enclosed by an eight (8) foot
high chain link fence. There is lawn and
landscape area between the property line
and the chain link fence that would be
ample to support the ten (10) foot wide
trail. Following the perimeter of the TEVA
property, the trail crosses over to the
parcel to the south of TEVA, the Hartman
Corporate Center property. Again, ample
area exists between the parking area for
the Hartman Corporate Center and the
TEVA fence line. This route provides a
continuous trail which is not impeded by a
significant number of roadway or driveway
crossings. The trail continues between
the TEVA and Hartman Corporate Center
properties until it reaches Hartman Road.
The trail then advances across the entrance
drive to the Harman Corporate Center
and continues south along Hartman Road.
A five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk
exists along portions of this stretch of
the proposed trail. There are also several
obstacles to traverse along this stretch,
including existing culvert crossing head
walls, wet areas, utility poles and slopes.
The trail will intersect with the PECO power
line corridor which is the future location
of the Power Line Trail, heading towards
Horsham Township to the east. A midblock crossing will be needed to cross
Hartman Road at this location.
Preliminary discussions with property
owners along this Route, particularly in
the vicinity of the TEVA parcels, which
indicated that this route would likely not
be a viable option due to security concerns
as well as potential future development.
Therefore, an alternate route is also shown
on the plan, which would basically become
a side trail along Horsham and Hartman
Roads. There are existing concrete
sidewalks which could be widened or
replaced to accomodate the multi-use trail
PAGE
13
RECOMMENDATIONS
width that is required. This option appears
to be viable with the drawback of the
proximity to the high volumes of vehicular
traffic along Horsham Road.
Option B - On-Road (Shown in ORANGE
on the overall trail feasibility diagram
located on Page 17 and shown in detail on
Pages 21-23)
Route Option B traverses through the
industrial complex. This route proposes
to separate the walkers from the
cyclists. Evaluating this route identified
approximately twenty (20) access
driveways would need to be crossed
in order to move through the campus.
These crossings would create dangerous
conditions for cyclists, in particular. The
proposed routing utilizes the existing thirty
(30) foot wide paved cart way as an on-road
shared roadway. In addition to the shared
roadway for cyclists, a five (5) foot wide
walkway would be located on the south
side of Commerce Drive. The walkway
would be continued along the east side of
Stump Road to fill in the sidewalk gap that
exists in that area, which connects to an
existing mid-block crossing, connecting to
The Village Shopping Center. Once on the
west side of Stump Road, this also creates
a link to Whispering Pines Park, which has
a tot lot, basketball court, street hockey
court and opens lawn. Signage, street
markings and bicycle safe storm drain
grates are needed to properly mark the
shared roadway. The walkway continues
along the western side of Commerce Drive
to eliminate the need for a crossing at
Domorah Drive, along Hartman Road, in
order to connect with the Power Line Trail.
A culvert extension would be necessary
where a piped tributary currently exists.
At the intersection of Domorah Drive and
Hartman Road, the ten (10) foot wide multiuse trail would head south on the western
side of Hartman Road and connect to the
future Power Line Trail system by way of a
mid-block crossing with a pedestrian refuge
island in Hartman Road. The intersection of
the Township’s Connector Trail and Power
Line trail would have a kiosk containing
information and maps of the various trail
systems for users to utilize to determine
their desired route and identify amenities
and destinations along the trails.
An alternative to the continuation of
the route as described above is to divert the
trail through the secondary PECO power
line corridor prior to Domorah Drive. The
difficulty with this routing option is the
ability to safely navigate through the Public
Works area to connect with the primary
PAGE
14
RECOMMENDATIONS
PECO power line corridor. Significant
changes to the parking and vehicle access
would need to take place to accommodate
a safe pedestrian route through this area.
Option C: (Route shown in BLUE on the
overall trail feasibility diagram on Page
17)
This route explores the use of an existing
privately owned open space/utility
easement adjacent to The Terrace at
Montgomery residential development. This
area is to the east side of the development,
following the existing Little Neshaminy
Creek stream corridor. This corridor, at
first blush, appears to be a promising
opportunity due to the fairly flat terrain and
lack of mature trees and vegetation. This
route would also need to traverse some
steep slopes, cross the Little Neshaminy
Creek, provide a mid-block crossing
of Stump Road and navigate through
an existing auto dealership property.
Evaluating the overall feasibility and value
to the Township and its residents, we do
not feel this route provides the most value
for several reasons:
1. Duplicate Routing. Option A routing
would provide convenient trail access to the
Terrace at Montgomery residents, however
they currently have access to the 202
Parkway trail that runs parallel , just to the
west. An existing sidewalk network and
crosswalks provide convenient, safe access
to the 202 Parkway Trail where it intersects
with Stump Road.
2. Bypass Notable Township Sites. Routing
Option A would parallel the 202 Parkway
and Route 309 corridors, rather than
connect to the Township’s historic and
cultural resources, including the Joseph
Ambler Inn, Montgomery Township
Municipal Complex and future Community
Center.
3. Financial Consideration. Trail Routing
Option A does not allow for utilization of
existing infrastructure and Township owned
properties. This will increase the cost and
complexity of acquiring easements and
constructing the necessary infrastructure to
support trail implementation.
PAGE
15
RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPOSED EASEMENTS
Proposed Easements will be
necessary to obtain from all properties not
owned by Montgomery Township or within
Township road rights-of-way, including
PECO and PennDOT. The recommended
routes as described utilize Township owned
property where possible to limit the number
of easements that would be necessary
from private property owners. Anticipated
easements will be necessary from the
following property owners/parcels:
List of Potential Easements Needed to Facilitate Connector Trail (On-Road Route)
Parcel Block and Unit #
Block 15, Unit 10
Block 18A, Unit 9
Block 18, Unit 63
Block 18, Unit 62
Block 18, Unit 61
Block 18, Unit 60
Block 18, Unit 59
Owner Name
N/L Joseph Inn Real Estate
N/L Lloyd, William P
N/L PECO
N/L Ambrose, Francis J. & Freida
N/L Lansdale Realty Assoc.
N/L Vink & Beri LLC
N/L RMS Development Company,
LP
Approximate Easement
Area Required
13,125 s.f.*
4,800 s.f.**
3,100 s.f.**
3,500 s.f.**
2,650 s.f.**
2,150 s.f.**
7,700 s.f.**
*Based on a 15’ wide easement across the length of the property.
** Based on a 10’ wide easement across the length of the property.
PAGE
16
LEGEND
PREFERRED ROUTE
RECREATIONAL TRAIL
VEHICULAR TRAVEL
1
PLAYGROUNDS
JOSEPH
AMBLER
INN
OBSERVATION AREAS
MONTGOMERY
TOWNSHIP
BUILDING
RAIN GARDENS
1
PARKWAY TRAIL
MEADOW/LAWN AREAS
4
COMMERCE DRIVE
5
HARTMAN CORPORATE CENTER
ENTRANCE DRIVE
6
POWER LINE
WETLAND AREAS
FUTURE
COMMUNITY
CENTER
INFORMATIONAL KIOSKS
2
4
SEWER EASEMENT
2
5
SEWER EASEMENT
3
6
LEGEND
ROUTE OPTION A (OFF ROAD ROUTE)
ROUTE OPTION B (ON ROAD ROUTE)
SECONDARY PECO CORRIDOR
THROUGH MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP
PUBLIC WORKS
3
ROUTE OPTION C (UTILITY EASEMENT)
EXISTING 202 PARKWAY TRAIL
FUTURE POWER LINE TRAIL (TO HORSHAM)
PAGE
17
MONTGOMERY
GREENE
HORSHAM ROAD
463
6.
US 202
HARTMAN ROAD
2.
30
9
3.
4.
5.
i
i
EASEMENT NEEDED
1.
JOSEPH
AMBLER INN
i
7.
MONTGOMERY
8.
TOWNSHIP
MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
CONNECTION
TO EXISTING
202 PARKWAY
TRAIL STUB
STUMP ROAD
9.
10.
HORSHAM ROAD
LOCATION REFERENCE PLAN
SCALE: 1”=1500’
i
ON
EV
LEGEND
PROPOSED SIDEWALK/PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EXISTING CROSS WALK
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
EASEMENT NEEDED
1.
PHOTO REFERENCE
i
KIOSK/INFORMATION
E
BLVD
RIV
AV
E
ND
HANCOCK
DH
RE
GENERAL
SHARE THE ROAD BIKE ROUTE
AD
RO
EXISTING PAVED TRAIL
US 202
PAINTED CROSS WALK
11.
MP
EXISTING MULTI-USE TRAIL
FUTURE
COMMUNITY
CENTER
STU
PROPOSED MULTI-USE TRAIL (OFF
ROAD ROUTE)
.
CT
D
US 202 PARKWAY TRAIL
RT
VILLAGE OF
NESHAMINY
FALLS
AMY CT.
THE ORCHARDS
i
12.
THE TERRACE AT
MONTGOMERY
COMMERCE DRIVE
JOSHUA CT.
VE
ORCHARD DRI
PROPOSED
SIDEWALK
CONNECTION
EXISTING CROSSING
TO THE VILLAGE
SHOPPING CENTER
PAGE
18
HORSHAM ROAD
14.
ROAD ROUTE)
i
16.
15.
R
EC
OR
RI
DO
CO
N
LEGEND
SE
ROUTE NOT FEASIBLE:
POTENTIAL FUTURE EXPANSION
DA
RY
P
EC
O
SCALE: 1”=1500’
LIN
TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS
ER
9
ALTERNATE ROUTE
HARTMAN ROAD
35.
STUMP ROAD
30
i
PO
W
US 202
CEDAR RUN
LANDSCAPES
13.
PAINTED CROSS WALK
CONNECTION
COMMERCE DRIVE
RT
ALTERNATE ROUTE
34.
ALTERNATE ROUTE
HARTMAN ROAD
33.
HORSHAM ROAD
463
HARTMAN
CORPORATE
CENTER
17.
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EXISTING CROSS WALK
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
18.
EASEMENT NEEDED
1.
PHOTO REFERENCE
i
KIOSK/INFORMATION
MONTGOMERY
CROSSING
CORPORATE DRIVE
PAGE
19
HARTMAN ROAD
CORPORATE DRIVE
LIN
EC
OR
R
ID
OR
COMMERCE DRIVE
PO
W
ER
DA
RY
P
SCALE: 1”=1500’
23.
ENC
REG
LEGEND
Y DR
CO
N
IVE
9
22.
EC
O
30
21.
SE
RT
STUMP ROAD
HARTMAN ROAD
US 202
HORSHAM ROAD
463
ROAD ROUTE)
PAINTED CROSS WALK
MONTGOMERY
OAKS
DOMORAH DRIVE
19.
CONNECTION
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EXISTING CROSS WALK
20.
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
DRAKE LANE
EASEMENT NEEDED
1.
PHOTO REFERENCE
i
KIOSK/INFORMATION
i
PRIMARY PECO POWER LINE CORRIDOR
24.
FUTURE
POWER LINE TRAIL
TO HORSHAM
PAGE
20
MONTGOMERY
GREENE
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
OVER LITTLE NESHAMINY
HORSHAM ROAD
463
US 202
6.
30
9
4.
CONNECTION TO
EXISTING TRAIL STUB
i
JOSEPH
AMBLER INN
5.
i
i
7.
UTE
EASEMENT NEEDED
1.
STUMP ROAD
8.
MONTGOMERY
TOWNSHIP
MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
9.
ALTERNATE ROUTE
10.
HORSHAM ROAD
SCALE: 1”=1500’
PAINTED CROSS WALK
CONNECTION
EXISTING SIDEWALK
11.
AMY CT.
THE ORCHARDS
THE TERRACE AT
MONTGOMERY
25.
JOSHUA CT.
PHOTO REFERENCE
i
KIOSK/INFORMATION
ORCHARD DRIVE
1.
RED HAV
EASEMENT NEEDED
EN DRIVE
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
THE VILLAGE
SHOPPING
CENTER
STUMP ROAD
EXISTING CROSS WALK
ALTERNATE TRAIL ROUTE
FUTURE
COMMUNITY
CENTER
BLVD
.
CT
HANCOCK
PROPOSED MULTI-USE TRAIL (ON
ROAD ROUTE)
N
VO
E
D
GENERAL
LEGEND
US 202 PARKWAY TRAIL
i
US 202
RT
3.
ALTER
NATE
RO
HARTMAN ROAD
2.
VILLAGE OF
NESHAMINY
FALLS
i
COMMERCE DRIVE
EXTEND SIDEWALK
TO CREATE LINK TO
SHOPPING CENTER
26.
PAGE
21
COMMERCE DRIVE
SCALE: 1”=1500’
COMMERCE DRIVE
THE VILLAGE
SHOPPING
CENTER
SHARE THE ROAD ROUTE TO
AVOID MULTIPLE DRIVEWAY
CROSSINGS
STUMP ROAD
9
ORCHARD DRIVE
30
26.
27.
28.
WHISPERING
PINES PARK
LEGEND
ROAD ROUTE)
PAINTED CROSS WALK
R
DO
LIN
EXISTING CROSS WALK
PO
W
ER
EC
O
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
PHOTO REFERENCE
i
KIOSK/INFORMATION
SE
CO
N
1.
DA
RY
P
EASEMENT NEEDED
PAGE
22
CORPORATE DRIVE
EXISTING SIDEWALK
ENTERPRISE ROAD
RI
CONNECTION
EC
OR
JONATHAN DRIVE
RT
STUMP ROAD
HARTMAN ROAD
US 202
HORSHAM ROAD
463
SCALE: 1”=1500’
PE
REG
CO
30.
IVE
Y DR
9
ENC
30
HARTMAN ROAD
CORPORATE DRIVE
PO SEC
W ON
ER D
LIN ARY
EC
OR
RID
OR
STUMP ROAD
RT
COMMERCE DRIVE
HARTMAN ROAD
US 202
HORSHAM ROAD
463
LEGEND
ROAD ROUTE)
29.
PAINTED CROSS WALK
DOMORAH DRIVE
31.
19.
CONNECTION
PECO
ELECTRICITY
SUB-STATION
EXISTING SIDEWALK
CULVERT EXTENSION TO
ALLOW WALKWAY
CONSTRUCTION
i
20.
DRAKE LANE
EXISTING CROSS WALK
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
EASEMENT NEEDED
1.
PHOTO REFERENCE
i
KIOSK/INFORMATION
32.
PRIMARY
PECO POWER LINE CORRIDOR
i
24.
FUTURE
POWER LINE TRAIL
TO HORSHAM
CROSSING NEEDED
PAGE
23
RECOMMENDATIONS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The long-term success of the trail will rely
on a regular maintenance schedule. This
is important for the enjoyment of the trail
user as well as the risk management of the
Township, in its role as the trail operator. It
is anticipated that the proposed trail route
will be maintained by the Montgomery
Township Public Works Department,
in conjunction with the maintenance
performed at the Township Park facilities.
The following list represents a generalized
list of maintenance activities that may
pertain to the Connector Trail. A detailed
trail maintenance manual and schedule
should be provided by the trail design
consultant upon completion of detailed
design drawings for the trail.
Trails Maintenance Checklist
Activity
Mowing
Pruning
Tree Removal
Description
Maintain 4’ wide mow strip adjacent to trail.
Frequency
Notes
Monthly During Grow- Use Flail-Type Mower
ing Season
Prune woody plant material to
Annual. Check trail
maintain 4’ clear adjacent to trail after severe storms.
and provide 14’ vertical clearance.
Removal of hazard trees
Annual. Check trail
after severe storms.
Crack Seal/Resurfacing
As needed
Treat & Remove invasive vines
Signage
Trail Surface
Drainage Structures
Litter Removal
Trash Collection
Remove debris from inlets & swales Annual. Check trail
after severe storms.
Trail-side litter pickup
Monthly
Empty Trash Receptacles
Weekly
Inspection by Professional Engineer Every 2 years
Bridge Inspection
Graffiti Removal
Anticipated 15 year
cycle
Painting/Graffiti Removal
Encourage Carry In-Carry Out policy
Inspection conducted
by Municipal Engineer
Annual/As Needed
PAGE
24
RECOMMENDATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
The total length of the proposed Connector
Trail is approximately two (2) miles in
length. Implementation is assumed to
be completed in one phase. Depending
upon the timing of construction of the
Community Center, pieces of the trail could
potentially be constructed in conjunction
with that site work, independent of the
remainder of the trail.
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
The total cost of the Connector Trail will
potentially include easement acquisition
costs, design costs and actual construction
costs. Opinion of Probable Construction
Costs have been prepared for both the OffRoad Option (Option A) and the On-Road
(Option B) as described in this study. See
charts on following page.
PAGE
25
RECOMMENDATIONS
G GILMORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
&A ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
CLIENT:
MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP
PROJECT NAME:
POWERLINE CONNECTOR TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A (OFF ROAD)
PROJECT NUMBER:
DATE: 20-Nov-13
2013-03011
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
UNITS
QTY
UNIT
PRICE
SF
LS
LF
SY
SF
LS
LS
SY
LS
LS
LS
SY
SY
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
LF
LF
16,500
1
16,800
1,750
3,800
1
1
5,600
1
1
1
9,500
9,500
14
1
18
15
4
250
500
2,750
$
1.60
$ 20,000.00
$
1.50
$
3.00
$
35.18
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$
0.20
$ 25,000.00
$ 200,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$
16.50
$
10.00
$ 4,500.00
$ 5,000.00
$
150.00
$
150.00
$ 15,000.00
$
75.00
$
120.00
$
120.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
26,400.00
20,000.00
25,200.00
5,250.00
133,684.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
1,120.00
25,000.00
200,000.00
15,000.00
156,750.00
95,000.00
63,000.00
5,000.00
2,700.00
2,250.00
60,000.00
18,750.00
60,000.00
330,000.00
SF
LF
LF
EA
EA
150
8,400
620
1
4
$
55.00
$
3.00
$
100.00
$ 25,000.00
$
200.00
$
$
$
$
$
8,250.00
25,200.00
62,000.00
25,000.00
800.00
Subtotal:
15% Contingency:
15% Design/Engineering:
$
$
$
1,466,354.00
219,953.10
219,953.10
Total Estimated Construction Cost:
$
1,906,260.20
DESCRIPTION
Easement Acquisition
Mobilization
E & S: 18" Silt Fence
Clear/Grub
Remove Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thick)
Drainage Improvements/SWM
Grading
Seeding/Mulching
Landscaping
Pedestrian Bridge (12' Width, 80' Span)
Bypass Pumping for Bridge Installation
3" 19mm Superpave Wearing Course
6" Aggregate Subbase
PennDOT/ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
Pedestrian Refuge Island
Pedestrian Scale Stop Sign
Wayfinding Signage
Wayfinding/Information Kiosk
Split Rail Fencing
6' High Privacy Fencing
Double Sided Guard Rail (Hartman Road
Separation)
Segmental Block Retaining Wall
Line Striping
Painted Crosswalk (24")
Pedestrian Warning Signal
Pedestrian Warning Signage
AMOUNT
PAGE
26
RECOMMENDATIONS
G GILMORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
&A ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
CLIENT:
MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP
PROJECT NAME:
POWERLINE CONNECTOR TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION B (ON ROAD)
PROJECT NUMBER:
DATE: 20-Nov-13
2013-03011
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITS
DESCRIPTION
Easement Acquisition
Mobilization
E & S: Silt Fence 18"
Clear/Grub
Remove Concrete Sidewalk (4" Thick)
Grading
Drainage Improvements/SWM
Seeding/Mulching
Landscaping
Pedestrian Bridge (10' Width, 80' Span)
Bypass Pumping for Bridge Installation
3" 19mm Superpave Wearing Course
6" Aggregate Subbase
PennDOT/ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
Concrete Pavement
Pedestrian Refuge Island
Pedestrian Scale Stop Sign
Wayfinding Signage
Wayfinding/Information Kiosk
Double Sided Guardrail (Hartman Road
Separation)
6' Privacy Fencing
Line Striping
Painted Crosswalk (24")
Thermoplastic Sharrow Marking
Bicycle Safe Inlet Grates
Share the Road Signs
Pedestrian Warning Signal
Pedestrian Warning Signage
SF
LS
LF
SY
SF
LS
LS
SY
LS
LS
LS
SY
SY
EA
SY
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
37,205 $
1
$
17,600 $
1,750 $
1,500 $
1
$
1
$
6,000 $
1
$
1
$
1
$
3,500 $
3,500 $
14
$
3,150 $
1
$
18
$
15
$
4
$
550
$
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
500
3,150
1,160
40
10
40
1
4
Subtotal:
15% Contingency:
15% Design/Engineering:
Total Estimated Construction Cost:
UNIT
PRICE
QTY
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.60
20,000.00
1.50
3.00
35.18
50,000.00
50,000.00
0.20
25,000.00
200,000.00
15,000.00
16.50
10.00
4,500.00
27.00
5,000.00
150.00
150.00
15,000.00
120.00
125.00
3.00
100.00
300.00
750.00
150.00
25,000.00
200.00
AMOUNT
$
59,528.00
$
20,000.00
$
26,400.00
$
5,250.00
$
52,770.00
$
50,000.00
$
50,000.00
$
1,200.00
$
25,000.00
$ 200,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
57,750.00
$
35,000.00
$
63,000.00
$
85,050.00
$
5,000.00
$
2,700.00
$
2,250.00
$
60,000.00
$
66,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
62,500.00
9,450.00
116,000.00
12,000.00
7,500.00
6,000.00
25,000.00
800.00
$ 1,121,148.00
$ 168,172.20
$ 168,172.20
$ 1,457,492.40
PAGE
27
FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
Trail development continues to be a high priority for grantors. It is recommended to
discuss the project with Regional Advisors from each potential funding source to have
the best opportunity to secure funds for implementation. The following represents a
comprehensive list of current potential grant sources specifically for regional trail projects:
Montgomery County Open Space Funds
Montgomery County has a history of supporting trail development throughout the County,
dedicating over $2.8 million through 2016. Although most of this funding has already
been allocated, the County’s commitment to regional trails indicates that future funding
may become available. Due to the connectivity of the proposed connector trail to the 202
Parkway Trail and the Power Line Trail, there may also be opportunities for multi-municipal
partnerships. http://www.montcopa.org/
Act 13: Marcellus Shale Impact Fees
Act 13/Impact Fee provides for the imposition of an unconventional gas well fee (also
called an impact fee), and the distribution of those funds to local and state governments.
Act 13/Impact Fee also contains provisions regarding how the impact fee may be spent. A
significant portion of the funds collected will be distributed directly to local governments
to cover the local impacts of drilling. Also, several state agencies will receive funding to be
used for a variety of other purposes. More information can be found at:
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/filing_resources/issues_laws_regulations/act_13_impact_fee_.
aspx
DVRPC Regional Trails Program
This program, administered by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, with
funding from the William Penn Foundation, aims to capitalize upon opportunities for
trail development by providing funding for targeted, priority trail design, construction
and planning projects that will promote a truly connected, regional network of multi-use
trails with Philadelphia and Camden as its hub. The program will also provide technical
assistance to trail developers, counties, municipalities and nonprofit organizations.
Although funding is currently depleted, additional funding may be added due to the
success of the program. More information can be found at:
http://www.dvrpc.org/RegionalTrailsProgram/
PAGE
28
RECOMMENDATIONS
PA DCNR Bureau of Recreation and Conservation
One of the priorities for these grants are regionally significant trail development in the
state. Grant applications are slated to open January 15, 2014 and are due April 16, 2014.
The grants typically require an 80-20 or 50-50 match. More information can be found at:
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/grants/c2p2programguidance/index.htm
PA DCED Greenways, Trails and Recreation Grant Program
Funding for projects which involve development, rehabilitation and improvements to
public parks, recreation areas, greenways, trails and river conservation. Grants shall be
awarded to eligible applicants for projects that do not exceed $250,000. Most projects
require a 50% local match of the total project cost. Applications from municipalities with a
population of fewer than 5,000 require a 20% match of the total project cost. Match may
be cash or non-cash and must be directly related to the approved scope of work. More
information can be fount at: http://www.newpa.com/find-and-apply-for-funding/fundingand-program-finder/greenways-trails-and-recreation-program-gtrp
MAP-21
Under MAP-21, programs continue for active transportation programs including
Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School and Recreational Trails programs.
More information can be found at: http://www.fta.dot.gov/map21/
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
Transportation Alternatives (TA) are Federal highway and transit funds set-aside under the
Surface Transportation Program (STP) for community-based “non-traditional” projects
designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the nation’s
inter-modal transportation system. The TE funding category, which has historically funded
many pedestrian and bicycle supportive projects such as streetscape improvements, was
originally established by Congress in 1991 under the IS-TEA transportation authorization
legislation, and was most recently affirmed as TA under the Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The next selection cycle for the PA Transportation
Alternatives Projects may occur in FY2014. More information can be found at:
http://www.dvrpc.org/TA/
PAGE
29
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recreational Trails Program
MAP-21 authorized funding for the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) as a setaside of the
new Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) (23 U.S.C. 213). The RTP funding is the
same as the FY 2009 amount (unless the State opts out; see below): whatever a State
received for the RTP in FY 2009 (as revised) will be the RTP amount. This will be up to
$84.16 million nationwide, annually, for FY 2013 and 2014. More information can be found
at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/overview/map21.cfm
Safe Routes To School
MAP-21 establishes a new program to provide for a variety of alternative transportation
projects that were previously eligible activities under separately funded programs. This
program is funded at a level equal to two percent of the total of all MAP-21 authorized
Federal-aid highway and highway research funds, with the amount for each State set aside
from the State’s formula apportionments. Unless a State opts out, it must use a specified
portion of its TA funds for recreational trails projects. Safe Routes to Schools Program is an
eligible activity under this program. More information can be found at: http://www.dot.
state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/CPDM.nsf/SRTSHomepage
PECO Green Region Grants
The aim of these grants is to assist communities in their efforts to acquire and improve
open lands. Green Region grants are available to municipalities in amounts up to $10,000.
The grants can be used with other funding sources to cover a wide variety of planning
and direct expenses associated with developing and implementing open space programs,
including consulting fees, surveys, environmental assessments, habitat improvement, and
capital improvements for passive recreation More information can be found at:
https://www.peco.com/Community/CharitableGiving/GreenRegion/Pages/GrantDetails.
aspx and the Green Region Program Administrator, Holly Harper (610)353-5587.
PAGE
30
PERMITTING AND COORDINATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Penn-DOT) will require
permitting for all trail construction which occurs within a State owned
road rights-of-way. State owned roads within our project area include:
1)
S.R. 0463 (Horsham Road)
2)
Hartman Road
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will require:
1)
Permitting for pedestrian bridge stream crossings. It is likely the General Permit Seven (GP-7) will be required for a Minor Road Crossing.
2)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for construction disturbance greater than one (1) acre in size. This permit is coordinated through the Montgomery County Conservation District in conjunction with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control permitting that is required.
Montgomery County Conservation District will require:
1)
Permitting for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures
Montgomery Township will require:
1)
Grading Permit and review of proposed storm-water management design by the Township Engineer.
2)
Approval of plans and specifications by the Board of Supervisors in order to authorize the solicitation of bids for construction.
PAGE
31
APPENDIX
PHOTO REFERENCES:
1- 202 PARKWAY STUB
2- SWALE AT JOSEPH AMBLER INN
3- PARKING AT JOSEPH AMBLER INN
4- WOODED AREA AT JOSEPH AMBLER INN
5- POTENTIAL STREAM CROSSING LOCATION
6- EXISTING TRAIL SYSTEM AT MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
7- EXISTING MUNICIPAL COMPLEX ENTRANCE DRIVE
8- EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE AT MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
9- EAST SIDE OF MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
10- CORNER OF HORSHAM & STUMP ROADS
11- EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WEST OF FUTURE
COMMUNITY CENTER SITE
12- SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF FUTURE COMMUNITY CENTER SITE
13- SOUTHERN SIDE OF CEDAR RUN LANDSCAPE PARCEL
14- SOUTHERN SIDE OF TEVA PARCEL
15- LAWN STRIP BETWEEN TEVA & HARTMAN CORPORATE CENTER
16- HARTMAN CORPORATE CENTER ENTRANCE DRIVE
17- HORSHAM ROAD AT POWER LINE LOOKING EAST
18- EXISTING WALKWAY ALONG HARTMAN ROAD
19-HARTMAN ROAD AND DOMORAH DRIVE
20- HARTMAN ROAD - SOUTH OF DOMORAH DRIVE
21- HARTMAN ROAD - ADJACENT WET AREA
22- HARTMAN ROAD - HEAD WALL
23- HARTMAN ROAD - UTILITY POLE AND SLOPE
24- LINK TO FUTURE POWER LINE TRAIL
25- STUMP ROAD AND COMMERCE DRIVE
26- MISSING SIDEWALK CONNECTION TO COMMERCE DRIVE
27- CROSSING TO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
28- COMMERCE DRIVE
29- DOMORAH DRIVE - EXISTING GRATE
30- COMMERCE DRIVE AND DOMORAH CONNECTION
31- PECO CORRIDOR
32- PECO CORRIDOR AND PUBLIC WORKS
33- EXISTING WALK ALONG HORSHAM ROAD AT TEVA
34- EXISTING WALK ADJACENT TO WETLANDS
35- EXISTING WALK ALONG HARTMAN ROAD AT TEVA
1. 202 PARKWAY STUB
2. SWALE AT JOSEPH AMBLER INN
3. PARKING AT JOSEPH AMBLER INN
4. WOODED AREA AT JOSEPH AMBLER INN
5. POTENTIAL STREAM CROSSING LOCATION
6. EXISTING TRAIL SYSTEM AT MUNICIPAL
COMPLEX
7. EXISTING MUNICIPAL COMPLEX ENTRANCE
DRIVE
8. EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE AT MUNICIPAL
COMPLEX
9. EAST SIDE OF MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
11. EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WEST
OF FUTURE COMMUNITY CENTER SITE
10. CORNER OF HORSHAM & STUMP ROADS
12. SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF COMMUNITY
CENTER SITE
13.
SOUTHERN SIDE OF CEDAR RUN
LANDSCAPE PARCEL
15. LAWN STRIP BETWEEN TEVA & HARTMAN
CORPORATE CENTER
14. SOUTHERN SIDE OF TEVA PARCEL
16. HARTMAN CORPORATE CENTER ENTRANCE
DRIVE
17. HORSHAM AT POWER LINE LOOKING EAST
18. EXISTING WALK ALONG HARTMAN ROAD
19. HARTMAN ROAD & DOMORAH DRIVE
20. HARTMAN ROAD - SOUTH OF DOMORAH DR.
21. HARTMAN ROAD - ADJACENT WET AREA
22. HARTMAN ROAD - HEAD WALL
23. HARTMAN ROAD - UTILITY POLE & SLOPE
24. LINK TO FUTURE POWER LINE TRAIL
25. STUMP ROAD AND COMMERCE DRIVE
26. MISSING SIDEWALK CONNECTION TO
COMMERCE DRIVE
30' TYPICAL WIDTH
27. CROSSING TO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
28. COMMERCE DRIVE
29. DOMORAH DRIVE - EXISTING GRATE
30. COMMERCE DRIVE AND DOMORAH DRIVE
31. PECO CORRIDOR
32. PECO CORRIDOR AND PUBLIC WORKS
33. EXISTING WALK ALONG HORSHAM ROAD AT
TEVA
35. EXISTING WALK ALONG HARTMAN ROAD AT
TEVA
34. EXISTING WALK ADJACENT TO WETLANDS
M ONT GOME RY C OUNTY
Primary Trail Network
Lehigh County
Bucks County
IK
E
BUTLER
RN
P
VIS
VI
RD LLE
DA
AV
E
T
PH
I
BLAIR MILL RD
TU
SY
LVA
NIA
RD
152
CHELTENHAM
K
AVE
NN
Springfield
PE
SWEDE
RD
SA
ND
Y
HIL
L
3
RID
I-476
202
Delaware
County
D
ILL
R
STATE
BEL
MO
UE
AVEN
Narberth
GU
LPH
MERY
MONTGO
0
1/2
1
AVE
1
RD
R
LANCASTE
Montgomery
County
Planning
Commission
NT
RD
E
23
Lower
Merion
GM
RD
N
11
I-76
SWAY
Y L
IN
LL
LKI
KE
EXPRES
RIN
UY
SC H
ESSWAY
PR
CONSH
OH
OC
LL
SP
GU
X
I-76 E
HU
YLKI
West
Conshohocken
MA
TS
ONS FOR
D
E
PIK
RD
LPH
320
SC
CIT
RD
E A
V
Conshohocken
COUNTY E
XP
MIDR
I-276
Upper
Merion
City of
Philadelphia
15
E
PIK
FAYETTE ST
RD
VA
1
GE
ES
SW
AY
MARKLEY ST
GERMANTOWN PIKE
RIV
MCPC
9. Power Line Trail
10. Schuylkill East Trail
11. Schuylkill River Trail
12. Stony Creek Trail
13. Sunrise Trail
14. West County Trail
15. Wissahickon Green Ribbon Trail
16. 202 Trail
EE
PIKE
PIKE
DEKALB
RD
Y
VALLEY
FORGE
NATIONAL
HISTORICAL
PARK
Cheltenham
TOOKANY CR
DEKALB
RD
VALLEY
AVE
GS
LIN
PAW
E
E
LL
422
RD
Whitemarsh
P
ER
RG
FO
23
John James
Audubon
Center at
Mill Grove
2
CHURCH
Fort
Washington
State Park
UTH
O
LYM
RD
YP
RD
ST
Bridgeport
EG
Lower
Perkiomen
Valley Park
Lock 60 at the
Schuylkill
Canal Park
PARK
RD
EV I L L E
RD
T
Hope Lodge
PAPER MILL RD
PIKE
AVE
COLLEG
LI N
FI
3RD
1. Chester Valley Trail
2. Cresheim Trail
3. Cross County Trail
4. Evansburg Trail
5. Liberty Bell Trail
6. Manatawny Trail
7. Pennypack Trail
8. Perkiomen Trail
T
YP
EG
11
H
4T
LB
MAIN ST
KEIM ST
S TRAPPE RD
29
BL
Norristown
KA
ROAD
LINE
TOWNSHIP
E
202
DE
R
M
TE
G
ST
CHARLOTTE
LEWIS RD
AV
RD
BLACK ROCK
ROCK RD
Completed Trail
In Design/Future Construction
Proposed Trail
Freight Station
County-Owned Land
State-Owned Land
Valley Forge National Historical Park
Historic Sites
11
SECOND
Upper
Schuylkill
Valley Park
K
AC
Chester County
8
422
Royersford
WHITEHALL
SOUDERTON -
RO
AD
LAYFIELD
ILLE RD
LBERTSV
GI
MAN
Y
E
10
Upper
Providence
EXPRESSWA
Lower
Providence
The Highlands
73
73
RD
Plymouth
N
ST
AIRY
PIK
T
TTS
TO
WN
5
RD
ER ST
OV
ATE ST
ST
HAN
422
PO
West
Norriton
RIDGE PIKE
TOWNSHIP LINE RD
RD
Trappe
ST
S
202
Norristown
Farm Park
Collegeville
K
MAIN
East
Norriton
Jenkintown
KE
73
EN
E
AV
NY
11
RIDGE PIKE
Whitpain
7
Rockledge
RD
CK
ON
GT
RD
HS
HIG
KE
IS
HO
PI
D
EL
Pottstown
PI
SW
AY
PI
PIKE
12
MANTOWN PIKE
GER
113
RR
HO
KE
GE
D
RI
363
MO
NS
IN
M
Pottsgrove
Manor
4
Ambler
CO
R
FA
ST
Lower
Pottsgrove
TOWNSHIP LINE RD
611
YOR
PIKE
STUMP RD
EvansMumbower
Mill 202
5
Peter Wentz
Farmstead
Upper
Dublin
IN
232
Abington
RD
A
ST
P
Evansburg
State Park
15
I-476
Worcester
Skippack
8
Perkiomen
SH
HE
63
Lorimer
Park
N
XPRESSWAY
0 E
10
E
AM
663
A TA W
West
Pottsgrove
EL
WA
LE
RD
OLD
IL
E
6
AV
FA
Limerick
Berks
County
GR
AM
Upper
Pottsgrove
Upper
Gwynedd
SKIPPACK
Central
Perkiomen
Valley Park
TH
3
EK
13
Sunrise
Mill
SW
Towamencin
9
Schwenksville
FORT
BE
KE
UT
14
73
100
RD
RR
M
73
BIG
OW
IST
NO
Lower
Gwynedd
PIKE
Lower
Salford
Pennypacker
Mills
N
309
North
Wales
WELSH
PI
RO
G
BI
63
Lower
Frederick
73
New
Hanover
Morgan
Log House
63
63
M
RD
SI
ON
I-276
RD
LI
Douglass
TE
N
29
14
RD
EX
Upper
Moreland
RD
S
HOFFMANSVILLE
152
WELSH
7
Bryn
Athyn
263
E
Lansdale
RD
9
3
BYBERRY
RE
Upper
Frederick
4
ST
Horsham
RD
PIK
63
EA
HORSHAM
ON
Hatboro
EXP
Upper
Salford
RT
H
ST
ON
GT
SKIP
PACK RD
NO
EA
KE
SUMNEYTOWN
N
611
PI
Green
Lane
MAIN ST
RD
KNIGHT RD
RN
PI
KE
N
463
OW
ROAD
KE
TU
IL
EASTON
8
PI
Franconia
563
HARLEYSVILLE PIKE
RD
PIKE
A
EK
OLD
Green
Lane
Park
ENT
RD
WN
KUTZTO
NN
SY
LV
AN
I
ALL
FORTY
PE
Graeme
Park
M
Montgomery
COWPATH RD
Hatfield
Borough
BRIDGE
Red
Hill
Hatfield
LI
Lower
Moreland
ON
GD
IN
NT
HU
Salford
Marlborough
16
202
M
RD
Upper
Hanover
113
HE
RK
Pennsburg
5
PIKE
LE
YO
East
Greenville
RIDGE
29
DERTON
D
OL
SOU
GRAVEL
RD
332
HOLL
OW RD
TH
RD
BE
Souderton
LE
FORGE
IL
LINE
Telford
FOOT
YV
RD
ER
LM
ON
COUNTY
G
2 Miles
Montgomery County Courthouse - Planning Commission
PO Box 311 Norristown PA 19404-0311
(p) 610 278-3722 (f) 610 278-3941
www.montcopa.org/plancom
30
AVENUE
Click on any red trail number/name or
green park/historic site name for a link to
individual websites.
See individual trail brochures for trailhead
access to parking, public transit, restrooms,
water, and other information.
0
Scale
1:66,000
1
0
I
0.6
0.6
1
I
1
1
1
Mil"

POWER LINE TRAIL CONNECTOR

Transcription

Similar documents

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony - Great Rivers United Way

SSTF - TUHAYE.mxd - South Summit Trails Foundation

Rannel`s Kettle Run Nature Preserve

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

Pooh Trail Brochure - Barrington Conservation Commission

The Supply Pond and Queach Preserves

armand bayou nature center - Harris County Commissioner Precinct 2

Trail Profile: Shelby Forest Woodland Trail Meeman

Hamerton Zoo Park Picture Trail

MICHIGANDER BICYCLE TOUR 2016