Centre Region Pedeslfian/Bicycle Trail Feasibility Study

Transcription

1 Centre Region Pedeslfian/Bicycle Trail Feasibility Study Financial Feasibility Prelimjnary Costs It is difficult to develop realistic cost estimates at this point in the planning process, as alignments, materials and designs have not been finalized. However, typical costs per mile for design and construction with other similar trail developments can be used as approximations. Across the country, costs for design and construction of asphalt trails has varied from $35,000 to $75,000 per mile (in 1995 dollars), depending on length and other factors. For a natural or limestone screening surface, costs have ranged from $20,000 to $50,000 per mile. The estimated costs are as follows: Phase 1 Section A & B Design/Survey Acquisition/Easements Construction Total $ 35,000 40, $170, ,000 Phase 2 Phase 3 Section E & F Design/S urvey Acquisition/Easements Constmction Total $ 30,000 30, $130, ,000 Detailed engineering study of the North Atherton Street crossing and Sections C & D Detailed Crossing Study Design/Survey Acquisition/Easements Construction* Total $ 25,000 35,000 40, $240, ,000 * Signal - $140,000; Bridge - $350,000; and Tunnel - $450,000 Potential Fjnancing Options There are funding sources available for the planning, design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities at the Federal, State and local levels. In addition, private corporations and utilities can also assist with funding through donations or easement rights. This section will briefly identify some of the potential sources. This is by no means an extensive list, and new sources may become available as time progresses. Pedestrian/bicycle projects typically involve multiple funding sources, requiring coordination and a bit of creativity. Although there are funds available, there are few sources which are set-aside exclusively for pedestrian/bicycle facilities. As a result, these facilities must compete for public and private funding with other transportation and recreation projects. A commitment and persistent 61

2 Centre Region Pedeslrian/Bicycle Trail Feasibility Study effort by local government, backed with community support, is necessary to identify and secure the proper public funding. Maintenance programs for these facilities are not usually separated in local or State budgets. Rather, they become part of an overall maintenance budget, which is typically the responsibility of local agencies. FEDERAL: The major source of funds at the Federal level ar~ those authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (P.L ). ISTEA, as this Act is commonly known, was enacted in order to facilitate the development of a comprehensi ve, national, intermodal surface transportation system. As such, ISTEA authorizes about $155 billion in funds for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation in fiscal years (FY) The bill's comprehensive coverage of transportation is reflected in its eight titles: Title I - Surface Transportation Title ill - Fed. Transit Act Amendments of 1991 Title V - Intermodal Transportation Title vn - Air Transportation Title II - Title IV - Title VI- Title Vill - Extension of Highway-Related Taxes and Highway Trust Fund Highway Safety Motor Carrier Act of 1991 Research Several programs under Title I exist for which pedestrian and bicycle facilities are eligible. Funds can come from either the National Highway System (NHS) or the Surface Transportation Program (STP) categories, although competition from highway and transit programs is strong. Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) funds list bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and abandoned railroad corridor conversions to trails as two of the ten specific activities on which TEA funds may be spent. States must spend at least 10% of their STP funds on these TEAs. $55 million ISTEA funds were allocated to Pennsylvania, however, there funds were completely committed to projects as of Title III funds can also be tapped. Bike trails, over and underpasses, parking facilities, and auxiliary facilities improve access to transit and enhance ridership. 90% of the costs of these facilities are eligible for Section 3, 9 and 18 funds. Planning costs are eligible as well. The Recreational Trails Trust Fund required that at least 30%, and up to 70% of funds in the program can be spent on non-motorized trail facilities. STATE: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has, in the past, administered two funding sources for bicycle/pedestrian facilities through the Department of Community Affairs and the Department of Environmental Resources. The funds used for the Keystone Community Grants are generated through Act 60 of This legislation called for creation of a permanent Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund to be financed by a $50 million bond issue and a dedicated 15% of the an nu ally collected state realty tranfer tax revenues. DCA was allocated $13 million from the bond funds and 25% of the realty transfer tax funds for the Community Grant Program. The bond issue component of the Keystone Program is three years in length and began in fiscal year The realty tax component will begin in fiscal year The Keystone Community Grants may be used for the development of new park and recreation areas and may include support facilities that serve park and recreation areas. Grants for these types of projects cannot exceed 50% of the eligible costs. With the recent reorganization of DCA and DER, funding for trails and other similar recreational facilities will be handled under the newly formed Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Specific details on the adminstration of these programs is unavailable at this time, but programs similar to the Keystone Community Grants Program will be administered. 62

3 LOCAL: Since Federal and State funds often require local matches, funding sources from the local level are important. They become diverse and combined with private funds. Many local governments use sales and gasoline taxes to add to transportation funds, including pedestrian/bicycle facilities. Using sales taxes is not possible in Pennsylvania, but real estate taxes could be directed towards trails. Mitigation measures which result from development activities and dedications from property owners also contribute to the implementation of many facilities. Some municipalities have also incorporated development of trails in their mandatory dedication subdivision requirements. For example, a small section of the trail is already paved with asphalt, resulting from a dedication of land and construction from the Teaberry Ridge development. The largest source of local funds often comes from regular transportation budgets of municipalities and counties. Other local agencies, including Parks and Recreation Departments, also provide significant funding. Although there are few examples of actual implementation, a system of registration and licensing of bicycles could be developed into a significant funding source. If the corridor is purchased, significant potential exists to develop leasing agreements with local utilities. Electric, water, phone and cable companies are constantly looking for continuous corridors to lay cable, fiber optics, sewers, and other utilities. Since pedestrian/bicycle and utilities are considered compatible corridor uses, joint use of corridors is often observed. Private donations can also contribute to facility development. Citizen advocacy groups can help to solicit funds from individuals and private companies to "improve the community". Fundraising events like races and bicycle education can generate funds. All of these methods, however, require a strong citizen support group to drive the efforts. Land Acquisition Three main methods of securing rights-of-way are possible - purchase, leasing and easements. Table 6 highlights some of the pros and cons of each method. Leasing appears to have too many potential pitfalls, and is not as attractive as the other two options. Whether to acquire the corridor through purchase or a easement will depend on the outcome of a final engineering study, and after identification of specific funding sources. Some federal and state funding sources will only supply money for trail development on purchased lands, since the property owner will not own the improvements' in a leasing arrangement. The main issues with the community involve tax and liability issues, which can be addressed through other agreements. The residents may not support this facility if they must bear the liability and potential tax burden. The easement agreement can be written such that the public agency of sponsor bears the liability responsibility. Environmental liabilities can be a large issue with old railroad beds. The current owners must bear any cleanup responsibilities, if contamination is discovered. An easement would direct that responsibility with the current owners. What must be determined is the willingness of all of the owners to grant easements. While easements may be a more cost-effective method of implementation, if one or several owners in the corridor refused to grant them, the entire corridor is essentially useless. A municipality has eminent domain powers for the public good to condemn lands, but not for obtaining easements. In securing the right-of-way for the trail corridor, easements will be obtained whenever feasible. However, it may be necessary, in a limited number of cases, to purchase property for trail development. 63

4 Table 6 COMPARISON - LAND ACQUISITION OPTIONS Purchase I PROS CONS Have complete control over property, within codes All legal liabilities Own what improvements were made Responsible to maintain all land May be more costly Control use of tile land Can condemn for public benefit - eminent domai n Taxes Can put any structure into corridor Could sell easement rights to utilities Potential resale Assume potential contamination liabilities Municipality loses potential tax income Subject to any previous encumbrances Parcel subdivision needs to meet lot standards l easin g Lower initial cost Don't have complete control Maintenance may be responsibi lity of owner More legal costs in set-up and renewals Cost Could break lease at any time Could have lease broken or rates raised Could negotiate maintenance by others Must have reliable owner Environmental obligalions remain with owner Lease period could shield operating authority Higher long term cost ftom inflation - Maintenance may be lower Owner may not want to lease Owner has liability on trail May require a renewal period Easement One ti me cost Easement usually granted for a specific purpose Less expensive than purchase Beller than lease Would require only land necessary for trail Owner sti ll pays taxes Could be permanent, no need to renew Less liabil ity Insulation from inflation Liability can be transfered away from owner May have responsibility, but could lose investment Usually onl y a set time period before reverting back Conditions in lease may vary between landowners May affect access to state and/or federal funds Improvements enhance value LO owner, not leasor Improvements require owners' approval Property reverts back with improvements Others own property and responsible for taxes May not own improvements Must have reliable owner Owner could use land for any addi tional uses For a set purpose only Harder to obtain from landowner Easement conditions may vary between land owners May affect access to state and/or federal fund s 64

5 Operation and Maintenance Costs In developing a detailed budget for operating and maintaining the proposed trail it is necessary to take into consideration all aspects of trail design. At this time a detailed budget can not be developed because the trail specifics and the operating entity have not yet been determined. In planning the maintenance schedule for the trail facility the following general trail maintenance activities need to be taken into consideration: Mow trail shoulders Trim trees, shrubs, and tall grass to maintain adequate sight distance Replace missing and damaged regulatory and directional signs Repaint worn pavement markings Repair trail surface (patching or grading) Clean drainage system (culverts, catch basins, and other drainage structures) Sweep to remove leaves, mud, gravel, and other debris Pick up trash and empty receptacles Maintain furniture and other support facilities Remove graffiti Remove fallen trees Clean and replace lights (in tunnels and at road crossings) Spray for weed control Remove snow and ice Maintain emergency telephones Typically the largest expense in the maintenance budget is related to drainage facilities and repairs necessary due to inadequate drainage. Trail managers caution that it is imperative that drainage be a priority concern in the final design of the trail because a well designed facility requires less major maintenance in the future. Because the character of every trail is different general estimates of the unit costs for maintenance are not available. In order to assist agencies in deriving potential operating and maintenance costs a survey of 190 Rail Trails in the United States was conducted by the Rails to Trails Conservancy national headquarters in Washington DC. The survey is to date the most comprehensive listing of maintenance costs for existing rails to trails facilities. The information provided includes the trail name, state, length, type of surface (asphalt, crushed limestone, gravel, ballast, grass, wood chips, dirt, cinder, and sand), total annual maintenance cost, and maintenance cost per mile. The information although general in nature provides a national average maintenance cost per mile of $1,857. Costs per mile ranged from a low of $5 to a high of $40,000. The range of the costs can be attributed to differences in the organization operating and maintaining the facilities, number of bridges/tunnels on the trail, annual usage of the trail, area's weather conditions, width of maintained right-of-way, number of treads, type of surface of the trail and other variables. The national chapter hopes to obtain more detailed information on these trails in the future. A number of trail operators within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were contacted to determine their operating and maintenance costs. For many of the trails, operations and maintenance is handled by the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), or the Parks and Recreation Departments for governments at the municipal, regional, or county level; several trails are being maintained by non-profit agencies. The majority of established trails that have been in existence for at least five years in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are operated by agencies that also maintain a number of recreation facilities and the maintenance costs for each trail facility are not itemized on an annual basis. It is important to keep in mind that the operating entity will have a direct bearing on the costs associated with maintenance. The equipment necessary for repairs and skill of the labor force will have a bearing on whether future maintenance will have to be contracted to an outside company or agency. 65

6 To illustrate a representative sample of the trail facilities in the Commonwealth the following is a sampling of the information extracted from the national survey: Average Type of Maintenance Maintenance Trail Mileaee Surface CostlYear Cost/Year Alle~henv Snowmobile Looo 1.8 G, B, Gr, D $10,000 $5,556 North Central National Scenic Trail 6.8 B, Gr, 0 $20,000 $2,941 Minister Creek Trail 0.6 Gr, D $1,500 $2,500 Plainfield Two Recreation Trail 6.7 CL,G $15,000 $2,239 Armstrong Trail 48.0 G,B $100,000 $2,083 Lehigh Gorge State Park Trail 26.0 CL,B $52,000 $2,000 Twin Lakes Trail 1.3 Gr, D $2,500 $1,923 Oil Creek State Park Trail 8.0 A $11,000 $1,375 Marienville ATV lbike Trail 3.8 CL, G, Gr,D $5,000 $1,316 LeTort Soring Run Nature Trail 1.0 B,Gr $1,000 $1,000 Mill Creek Looo Trail 3.1 Gr, D $2,000 $645 Nat'! Trails Towpath Bike Trail of Palmer 7.8 A $4,000 $513 Pvmatuning St.1te Park Trail 4.2 B $2,000 $476 Struble Trail 5.0 A $2,250 $450 Heart's Content X-C Ski Trail 3.7 Gr,D $1,500 $405 Tidioute Riverside RecTrek Trail 2.5 B $1,000 $400 Cumberland Co. BikerlHiker Trail 5.3 CL $2,000 $377 Arrowhead Trail 4.0 A, B $1,000 $250 RoCkY Gao ATVlBike Trail 0.4 Gr,D $100 $250 Conewago Trail 5.0 B $1,215 $243 Lancaster Junction Trail 2.5 B $600 $240 Philadelphia to Valley Forge Bikewav 11.5 A, B $2,500 $217 Switchback Railroad Trail 18.0 B $2,250 $125 Stony Valley Railroad Grade 22.0 CL $1,500 $68 AVERAGE COST PER MILE $1.150 A=Asphalt; CL=Crushed Limestone; G=Gravel; B=Ballast; G=Grass; WC=Wood Chips; D=Dirt; C=Cinder; S=Sand As shown above the average annual cost per mile for maintenance of the Commonwealth trails is $ This represents a variety of surfaces as well of operating entities. In collecting information on trails from Centre, Blair, and Indiana County estimates for annual maintenance range from $600 - $1.500 per mile of trail. 66

7 Potential Implementation and Operatinl,! Entities Several options exist relative to an organization or entity which would be responsible for implementing the project. Four options which appear to be the most feasible include: 1. Centre Region Council of Governments (COG), through the Centre Regional Recreation Authority (CRRA) 2. Individual Municipalities (College, Ferguson, Patton Townships and State College Borough) 3. Individual Municipalities and Major Property Owners (Toftrees Planned Community, Penn State University, State College Area School District) 4. Non-Profit Organization The following narrative briefly describes each option. 1. COG/CRRA Because of the strong linkages between the Borough of State College and College, Ferguson, Halfmoon, Harris, and Patton Townships, the municipalities formed the Centre Region COG in 1969 to promote the regional delivery of community services. These community services are delivered through the COG Administration Office, Code Administration Office, Schlow Memorial Library, Alpha Volunteer Fire Company Administrator, Parks and Recreation Department, and Centre Regional Planning Commission (CRPC). Responsibility for the completion of the Feasibility Study was assigned to the Parks and Recreation Department by the COG General Forum. Oversight of the Parks and Recreation Department is provided by a six member board of citizens representing State College Borough, College, Ferguson, Harris and Patton Townships, and the State College Area School District. The members of the Parks and Recreation Board also serve in a dual role as the Centre Regional Recreation Authority. The Recreation Authority was established in 1970 for the purpose of operating two regional swimming pool facilities, and was also established to address any future need for regional ownership and/or operation of recreational facilities. Thus, the CRRA is legally permitted to implement and operate a regional public use facility like the proposed trail. The CRRA has exhibited a proven track record in the operation and maintenance of regional swim facilities. In addition to the regional swim facilities, in their dual role as the Parks and Recreation Board, the CRRA members are responsible for overseeing the maintenance of approximately 350 acres of public park facilities by the Parks and Recreation Department. The proposed trail would link two of the largest public parks already maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department, Tudek Park and Sunset Park. In addition, the proposed trail provides a public open space corridor which would facilitate access to other public trails and parks maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department. If the COG/CRRA option is utilized, two basic approaches could be utilized for the design and construction of the proposed trail: A. Each municipality would be responsible for the capital costs of designing and constructing the trail. In the Centre Region, historically the municipalities have been responsible for the initial development of public parks, and for ongoing capital purchases of equipment. The Parks and Recreation Department has then been responsible for the operations and maintenance of the facilities. 67

8 The municipalities could elect to fund the design and construction with revenues from their annual budget, or could secure funding for design and construction from other sources. Commonly utilized sources include bond issues, surface transportation funds from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PADOT), grants administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), and/or gifts or grants from private organizations. B. The CRRA would be responsible for the capital costs of designing and constructing the trail. The CRRA could utilize funding committed by the municipalities through the COG Budget process to design and construct the trail. Funds would be provided according to the formula for municipal shares which is utilized to prepare the COG Budget. The CRRA could also elect to secure funding for design and construction from the same outside sources available to the municipalities, such as surface transportation funds from P ADOT, DCNR grants, and/or gifts or grants from private organizations. Under either approach, once the trail is designed and developed at least two options exist for municipal contributions for operating and maintaining the trail: A. Each municipality could contribute funds for maintenance through the standard COG Budget process. B. Each municipality could contribute funds for maintenance based on the miles of bike trails located in the municipal boundaries. If the COG/CRRA option is utilized, other issues would also need to be addressed, such as how future capital improvement costs will be distributed among the municipalities, and whether the interconnections to the trail would be included in the overall project or be the responsibility of the respective municipality. However, the CRRA represents an established organization through which these issues can be resolved, and through which the implementation of the project can be coordinated among the various municipalities and property owners. 2. Individual Municipalities Four municipalities would be affected by the proposed trail, College, Patton and Ferguson Townships, and State College Borough. Each of the four municipalities has experience in implementing public parks and open space projects. The municipalities could individually design, develop, and maintain the portions of the trail within their respective area, using staff or outside consulting services. The costs of these activities would be borne by each individual municipality, and all decisions relative to the design and level of maintenance would rest with each municipality. Coordination between the municipalities would be of paramount importance, given the myriad of details about the specific design of the facility, acquisition of land or easements, and the regulations governing operations on the trail. Although it is likely that the trail could be implemented and operated successfully by each municipality, construction of the project will depend on the availability of funds. Because financial resources available to the municipalities are limited, it is possible that sections of the trail could be implemented at different times. In addition, many other efforts would be duplicated as each municipality advanced its section of the project. Certain economies of scale relative to acquisition of right-of-way and construction cost would not be realized if these efforts are not directly coordinated. 68

9 3. Individual Municipalitjes/Ma jor Property Owners One variation to implementation by each municipality would be to assign responsibility for certain sections of the trail to three major property owners in the project corridor: l) Toftrees Planned Community; 2) Penn State University; 3) State College Area School District. Together, these three property owners control at least two-thirds of the project corridor. For the sections of the proposed trail not owned by Toftrees, Penn State, or the school district, the individual municipalities would be responsible for design, development, and maintenance of the trail. However, the extent to which the remaining sections of the proposed trail are fully developed is dependent on the willingness and ability of the three property owners to devote funds to the project. Also, liability issues and the cost for ongoing maintenance could influence the decisions of the individual property owners relative to developing a formal trail. One possible approach is that the three property owners would design and develop the trail according to a consistent set of standards, and then transfer responsibility for ownership and maintenance of the trail to the individual municipality or CRRA. For the public sector, the benefit of this approach would be reduced costs for initial development of the trail, and potentially reduced costs for ongoing maintenance. t. However, coordination between the municipalities and property owners would be of paramount importance. There would be no guarantee that all sections of the trail would be implemented at the same time, and many efforts could be duplicated as each entity advanced its portion of the project. 4. Non-Profit Organization One method of implementing trail projects which has been successful in certain areas, particularly with rails-to-trails conversions, has been the formation of a private, non-profit organization to obtain land and implement the project. In neighboring counties in Central Pennsylvania, at least two rail-trails have recently been developed under the auspices of nonprofit organizations. Although similar non-profit organizations have not been organized in the Centre Region, this option is a feasible approach for implementing this project. Cost benefits may be realized because the trail would be developed outside of the public sector's procurement regulations, and the entire project corridor would be developed by one entity. However, the success of this option would also depend on close coordination with local government officials, property owners, and residents. Because of interconnections with other trails and public use facilities, and the need to obtain subdivision and land development approvals in each municipality, local officials would have to be closely involved in the project. One drawback of this option is that local officials and residents may not retain control over the operations and maintenance of the facility. Should a decision be made to implement the proposed trail, the project could be advanced through a combination of the options and approaches discussed above. For example, design and construction of the trail could be accomplished by one organization, and responsibility for operating the trail assumed by another organization. 69

10 Centre Region PedeslrianlBicycle Trail Feasibility Study However, the preferred option for implementing this project is for COG to authorize the CRRA to design, develop, and operate the trail. The CRRA represents an established organization with a proven track record in administering the development and operation of regional public use facilities. By developing and operating the trail under the control of one organization, duplication of efforts by individual municipalities or other organizations could be avoided. Every effort should be made to obtain outside funding from grants or other programs to finance the costs for design and construction of the trail. If outside sources are obtained for design and construction, municipalities would not have to bear the costs in their individual budgets, which would remove a significant obstacle to the development of the trail. Funding for capital costs should be deferred pending completion of a project budget, based on specific estimated design and development costs and anticipated outside funding. Section A & B of the trail should be maintained by the Centre Regional Recreation Authority with maintenance costs shared according to the COG formula. Maintenance for the other sections of the trail will be determined as they are developed. 70