crosstown trail - City of Howell

Transcription

CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Howell Area Non-Motorized Trail Study
2003
L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T S & P L A N NERS, INC.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
MDOT PROJECT MANAGER
Soils
PAGE
Introduction
Kari Andrewes - MDOT, University Region
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
William Bamber – Oceola Township
Merry Bering – Howell Township
Lynne Herf – MDOT, Brighton TSC
Kelly Kolakowski – Genoa Township
6-7
Wetlands
7
Natural Corridors
7
Man-made Corridors
7
Ex. R.O.W. Classifications
8
Inventory and Analysis Process
8
Inventory & Analysis: Ex. R.O.W.
Classifications
Dan Hutcheson – Howell Parks and Recreation
6
8-9
Plans / Maps
Sue Lingle – Marion Township
Mike Peterson – Howell Public Schools
Inventory & Analysis: General Soils Map
10
Inventory & Analysis: General Wetlands Map
11
Jeff Prince – City of Howell Engineering
Inventory & Analysis: Corridors Map
12
Jeff Reid – MDOT, University Region
Inventory & Analysis Plan - A
13
Sharyn Rose – SEMCOG
Inventory & Analysis Plan – B
14
Robert Simpson – Oceola Township
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Rick Terres – Howell Public Schools
Public Input Meetings
Peter VonDrak – City of Howell
News Articles
William Wagoner – Livingston County
Planning
TRAIL ROUTING PLANS
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
15
16-17
Trail Routing Plan – A
18
Trail Routing Plan – B
19
TRAIL PHASING SUMMARIES
Non-Sequential Trail Option
20
INTRODUCTION
PAGE
Phase One Trail Options
21-23
Greenways / Trailways
1
Phase Two Trail Options
24-26
1-3
Phase Three Trail Option
26-27
Background
Study Goals and Objectives
Methodology and Planning Process
3
3-4
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
Study Area Limits
4
Physical Characteristics
4
Land Use
4
Environmental Concerns
4-5
Area Attractions
5-6
TRAIL PHASING PLANS
Trail Phasing Plan – A
28
Trail Phasing Plan – B
29
NON-SEQUENTIAL PHASE OPTION
PLANS AND PHOTOS
Non-Sequential Phase Option, TSB Rails-toTrails Spur, M-59 to Lucy Rd. Park
30-31
PHASE ONE TRAIL OPTION PLANS
AND PHOTOS
Phase One – Option A, S. Side of M-59 Spur,
Tooley Rd. to DE Corridor
32-35
i
©2004 MDOT/LAP, Inc.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PAGE
Phase One – Option B, Grand River Ave.
Spur, Tooley Rd. to De Corridor
36-39
Phase One – Option C, DE Corridor Spur, M59 to Grand River Ave. Spur
40-41
PHASE TWO TRAIL OPTION PLANS
AND PHOTOS
Phase Two – Option A, West Side Connectors
/ Extensions
42-47
Phase Two – Option B, Central Connectors /
Extensions
48-50
Phase Two – Option C, East Side Connectors /
Extensions
51-55
SUMMARY
In Closing
PAGE
73
Concerns Relative to Trail Development
73-74
Trail Recommendations & Noteworthy
Elements
74-75
Future Development Considerations
Conclusion
76
76-77
PHASE THREE TRAIL OPTION PLANS
AND PHOTOS
Phase Three - Option A, N. Side of M-59
Spur, Grand River Ave. to Birchwood Dr.
56-58
NON-MOTORIZED BRIDGE
CROSSINGS
Bridge Types
Potential Non-Motorized Bridge Crossings
Coordination and Approvals From Other
Agencies and Owners
59
59-60
60
AASHTO STANDARDS &
TYPICAL DETAILS
Design Criteria Source
61
Shared-Use Path Width Design Criteria
61
Trail Clearance Design Criteria
61
Boardwalk Railing Design Criteria
61
TYPICAL TRAIL DETAILS
Ex. R.O.W. Classifications Sections w/ Trail
62
Downtown Routing Alternatives
63-66
Various typical trail details
67-69
IMPLEMENTED TRAIL PHOTOS
70-71
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
State and Federal Grant Programs
72-73
i
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
INTRODUCTION:
GREENWAYS / TRAILWAYS
Greenways are private and/or public lands that are
assembled through ownership easements or rights-ofway to form corridors of permanent open space. These
corridors are often used to provide access for shareduse, non-motorized trailways for the general public.
Greenways include natural and man-made corridors that
link natural areas, recreation areas, schools, commercial
zones and cultural/community features to each other
and to populated areas. Natural corridors can include
rivers, streams, and ridge lines; while man-made
corridors include road rights-of-way, utility easements,
abandoned railroad
beds, and active
railroad rights-of-way.
Greenways provide
urban/suburban
residents access to
open space through
the use of trailways,
increasing recreational
and educational
experiences that might
otherwise not be
available to them.
tremendous growth, especially in the outlying townships
immediately adjacent to the City of Howell. Recognizing
the strain such population growth puts on an area's,
transportation recreation and natural systems, residents in
the Howell Area, along with other residents in the state,
began to express concerns about the lack of non-motorized
transportation facilities available to them. In recent years,
the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has
received a growing number of requests by constituents to
provide non-motorized facilities along state trunklines.
The Howell area contains two of these trunklines, M-59
and (M-43) Grand River Avenue, neither have adequate
non-motorized facilities.
The MDOT University
FIGURE 1
Statewide Present and Future Trails Map:
Map provided by Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Consequently,
greenways/trailways
are developing all
over the United
States as a way to
promote healthier,
safer communities and to provide for corridors of
public open space for future generations. Greenways/
trailways improve quality of life by providing valuable
outdoor recreation facilities and alternative modes of
transportation that reduce vehicular traffic and retain
wildlife habitat. They also benefit the local economy
by promoting recreational tourism and by making an
area more attractive to live, work, or open a business.
As greenways/trailways continue to develop, they give
testimony to the value that they bring to a community.
BACKGROUND
Livingston County is the fastest growing county in
the state of Michigan. The Howell area has also seen
1
Region Office, in an effort to bring some non-motorized
transportation opportunities to this growing area, submitted
an application and received Transportation Enhancement
Act (TEA) funds for the development of the City of Howell
and Vicinity Non-Motorized Transportation System Plan.
This plan later adopted the name that most local residents
and governmental entities had begun to refer to the possible
trail system as, The Crosstown Trail. The Crosstown Trail
project had been originally envisioned by local attendees of
a “Walkable Communities” conference. Attendees at the
conference, wanted to provide for an easement or route on
which Howell area residents could utilize to walk, bike or
roller blade for business, pleasure, or recreation. MDOT’s
and the City of Howell's stated purpose was similar to
this idea but with more definition to the specific area of
study. The city and MDOT were interested in developing a
seamless, non-motorized transportation system connecting
M-59, Latson Road, and I-96 BL (Grand River Avenue) to
provide for safe non-motorized transportation.
With this project being an area-wide
study, MDOT realized the need to establish
contacts in the local communities that this
trail would affect. To that end, a steering
committee was formed to assist MDOT in
successfully completing this study. This
steering committee consisted of delegates
from; City of Howell, Genoa Township,
Howell Township, Michigan Department
of Transportation, Howell Public Schools,
Oceola Township, Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments (SEMCOG),
Howell Parks and Recreation, Marion
Township, and Livingston County
Planning.
This steering committee
lent a local perspective to the planning
process with routing recommendations
and connection suggestions. They also
provided insight into future development
issues that could affect the trailway plan
and the specific non-motorized needs of
the area. In recent years, there has been
an increase in trailway planning and
development throughout the state as well
as southeast Livingston County (See Figure
1). As vehicular traffic increases, so has
the awareness to provide additional means
for safe, non-motorized transportation.
The potential exists in the Howell area
to connect several important community
elements such as parks, schools, public
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
facilities and businesses with a non-motorized trailway.
The steering committee identified these connections
as important in the trailway plan. They also, realized
the potential for increasing community support of the
trailway plan by working cooperatively within the steering
committee. During the planning process, it was also
discovered that the opportunity existed to possibly connect
the trailway proposed in this study with those proposed in
previous studies from the area. The Southeast Livingston
Greenways study was another collaborative non-motorized
facility planning effort that highlighted potential greenways
in areas immediately adjacent to and partially within the
study area (See Figure 2). Completed in November of
2000, this study’s steering committee had, among several
others, members from Genoa Township and Livingston
County Planning. As part of this earlier planning effort,
routes were identified in Genoa Township and they
have been included in our study. This connectivity will
FIGURE 2
Southeast Livingston Greenways
Master Plan Summary:
Map reprinted with permission from The Greenway
Collaborative, Inc. and Livingston County Planning
2
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
benefit the user of the Crosstown Trail by providing the
opportunity to utilize an ever-expanding trailway system.
It could also increase the chances of receiving grant
funding to build the Crosstown Trail, as better scores are
often given for requests that show a section of trailway that
has been identified in more than one plan.
•
As residential and commercial development continues,
the need for alternative means of transportation will
continue to grow. This trailway study will provide MDOT
and the other members of the steering committee with a
valuable tool to plan for future right-of-way acquisition
and to assist in securing funding for construction. The
plan, when implemented, should benefit the health,
safety, and general welfare of the entire Howell area with
continually improved non-motorized transportation and
recreation opportunities.
Identify existing shared-use path efforts within
the state and vicinity and collect technical data,
such as local community plans, zoning ordinances,
similar projects, MDOT and AASHTO guidelines,
for the development of trailway routes to connect
natural, cultural and scenic features (including
ecological habitat, historical landmarks and
aesthetic elements).
•
Propose the best routes and crossings to maximize
safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other forms
of non-motorized travel.
•
Incorporate barrier-free design throughout the
non-motorized transportation system.
•
Consider the need to develop appropriate local
ordinances for the non-motorized transportation
system and its users.
•
Consider the need for signs, branding, and other
methods to interact with public users.
•
Consider operations/maintenance relative to the
•
Recommend the development of standards for the
•
Work collaboratively with local interest groups,
planning officials and the general public by asking
for input “up front” in the planning process and
reacting to it in the design
The actual process of developing the routes for the
Crosstown Trail, Howell Area Non-Motorized Trail Study
was achieved by the sharing and analyzing of information
between the steering committee, the general public,
and MDOT at several review meetings and two public
presentations throughout 2003. Following this planning
process, preliminary plans were generated, presented, and
modified throughout this time period. After receipt of
public input, review among the steering committee, and
eventual modification, these routes were then presented
back to the steering committee for final acceptance.
STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following goals and objectives were developed
for the Howell Area Non-Motorized Trail Study based
on initial information provided by MDOT and subsequent
discussions with the steering committee. These goals
and objectives served as a guide for the planning process
throughout the study development.
•
Provide a basis for the shared-use path by
gathering existing data and researching trail related
issues from a local, state and national perspective
to provide insight and innovative solutions for
shared-use paths within the public right-of-way.
•
Work with local agencies and interest groups
through an “out reach program” to engage the
community in the design process and build long
range support for the trail system.
METHODOLOGY AND PLANNING
PROCESS
The Crosstown Trail, Howell Area Non-Motorized
Trail Study, was completed through the combined
efforts of MDOT and the project steering committee
with contributions from various other members of the
public through a series of review meetings and public
presentations held from late 2002 through 2003. Initial
meetings were held to clarify the project scope, collect
existing data, and develop a base map. Once the base map
was developed, the entire study area was explored and a
photographic inventory was taken to identify destinations
that might be desirable to link with the proposed trail
3
system. As part of this inventory and analysis, some typical
existing right-of-way classifications were developed that
could be applied to most every section of paved roadway
that this trail would encounter. Five classifications were
developed, each with their own set of characteristics
and challenges. The right-of-way classifications are as
follows: Downtown Commercial, Rural Residential/
Commercial, Urban Commercial, Urban Residential,
and Strip Commercial. (See Inventory and Analysis,
pages 8-9) Through this planning process, the steering
committee provided local insight to the study and a general
consensus was reached on the expectations and extent of
the study. Research and meetings continued through 2003,
eventually producing conceptual routing plans which were
reviewed and formulated into a preliminary routing plan.
This preliminary routing plan along with some design
development details, were presented to the public at an
open-house style, public input meeting on August 5, 2003.
The meeting was well attended by both the general public
and local media outlets (See Community Participation
pages 15-17). No significant changes to the preliminary
routing plan came from the public input meeting, so the
plan was finalized into the final trail routing plan. Realizing
the rather ambitious nature of the final trail routing plan, a
preliminary trail phasing plan and general cost estimates
were developed and presented to the steering committee.
After slight modification, the final trail phasing plan and
cost estimates were presented to the public at a final public
presentation on December 3, 2003. Upon completion of
the plans and cost estimates, a final accompanying report
was compiled for the trail study. This report contained
aerial oblique photos of trail routes, reduced copies of
all the plans, typical details, sketches, elevated crossings
report, and written descriptions of all the proposed routes,
among other items. Cost estimates for the trail phases and
crossings were included in an appendix to the report. The
report was finalized in February of 2004.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The physical characteristics of the study area are
reflective of those in the region. Typical of Livingston
County, the topography in the study area varies from level
terrain to steep slopes. For the most part, the difference
in elevation throughout the study area does not exceed 40
feet. The study area also has many land cover types such
as pockets of deciduous forest, marshes/wetlands, farm
fields, and the urbanized areas. The study area contains
two lakes, Thompson Lake and Earl Lake. The study area
also contains one river, South Branch of the Shiawassee
River and one creek, Bogue Creek. Also, contained within
the study area are numerous smaller ponds, impoundments,
feeder streams and drainage ditches. This diversity of land
cover and ample water resources contribute to a wealth
of varied habitats for numerous species of wildlife and
plants.
LAND USE
The study area possesses a combination of rural and
suburban characteristics. It has a noticeable cash crop
industry, mostly in the Northern reaches, and a definite
suburban retail/residential environment in the Eastern
and Western portions. The City of Howell is the only
urbanized area within the study area with significant
residential subdivision development located throughout
the rest of the study area. The Southern portion of the
study area also has a significant industrial presence with
more industry forecasted for the future Loop Road area.
The public school system occupies a large portion of the
Western part of the study area as well as smaller portions
throughout the other regions.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
STUDY AREA LIMITS
Reflective of the rest of the state over the past 100
years, some environmental degradation has occurred
to the ecology of the study area’s rivers, streams and
wetlands. This environmental damage can most likely be
attributed to past and current agricultural and industrial
practices within the river and stream corridors. Another
factor contributing to the damage is the increase of runoff created by the ever-increasing development of rural
areas. However, awareness of the causes of the area’s
environmental problems has never been more heightened,
and civic groups, non-profit agencies, local governments,
Trail Study primarily focused on areas immediately
adjacent to and contained within the triangle created by
M-59, Grand River Avenue, and the Detroit Edison utility
corridor just east of Latson Road. The area is contained
entirely within Livingston County and within portions of
the City of Howell, Howell Township, Genoa Township,
Oceola Township, and Marion Township (See Figure 3).
4
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
La
ke
H
LIVINGSTON COUNTY
ur
on
Oceola
Twp.
Genoa
Twp.
in
Marion
Twp.
City of Howell
aw
Ba
y
Shiawassee
Trail Study Area: Map of affected cities/
L
ak
e
M
ich
townships within Livingston County
local businesses and private individuals are all taking steps
to develop solutions to these issues. The plans being made
by the City of Howell to redevelop and reopen the Lucy
Road Park, a former landfill that was closed in 1988 due to
groundwater contamination concerns, is just one example
of a step being taken to improve the environment within
the study area.
AREA ATTRACTIONS
The Crosstown Trail study area offers many educational,
cultural, recreational, and entertainment opportunities.
Many of the area’s attractions are centered around the city
of Howell with several nicely restored historic properties.
Howell’s downtown is listed as a National Historic District
and offers many unique shopping and dining experiences.
Ingham
Jackson
Oakland
Livingston
Washtenaw
e
Lak
igan
FIGURE 3
Genesse
eE
ri
HOWELL
Sag
Howell
Twp.
The downtown is also the location of the Howell Opera
House, future home of the Livingston Arts Council. The
Council is currently restoring the Opera House to once
again be the cultural center of the Howell Area. Being the
county seat, Howell is also home to the Livingston County
Courthouse.
This Richardsonian-Romanesque style
building is listed in both the National and State Register
of Historic Places. The Howell District Carnegie Library
is yet another example of finely restored architecture in the
area and is a longtime educational and civic asset. The
turn-of-the-century Howell Depot is owned and operated
by the Livingston County Historical Society. This former
railroad depot, turned museum, is open for tours twice a
year and adds yet another historical attraction to the study
area.
5
The Howell area is home to three annual festivals
that attract visitors from around the state. The Michigan
Challenge Balloon Festival is held every June on the high
school campus, and features hot air balloon launches, a
carnival, arts festival, car show, and other activities. The
Howell Melon Festival is held in downtown Howell every
August. The Melon Festival celebrates the Howell area’s
agricultural history and features a parade, arts and crafts
show, car show, kids activities, and other entertainment.
The Festival of Lights is the final major festival of the
year in the Howell area. It is held every Friday after
Thanksgiving and is hosted by the Howell Chamber of
Commerce. The festival is centered around a nighttime
parade of illuminated floats through downtown Howell,
and kicks off the holiday shopping season. Yet another
annual attraction to the Howell area is the Howell Farmer’s
Market. The Farmer’s Market is held in downtown Howell
every Sunday from May through October. The Farmer’s
Market celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2003.
Excellent shopping can also be found in the area.
Along with the stores and boutiques in downtown Howell,
Howell Township is home to the Tanger Outlet Center, and
Genoa Township has an assortment of strip malls and big
box retailers in the Southeastern reaches of the study area.
The study area also offers ample indoor and outdoor
recreational opportunities. The City of Howell has
several parks for both active and passive recreation. The
centerpiece of this park system is the Howell City Park.
Located on the shores of Thompson Lake, which straddles
the border between the City of Howell and Oceola
Township, this park offers a swimming beach as well as
other more traditional park elements. Thompson Lake also
has a public access point for boating and fishing within the
city limits. Other fishing and boating activities can be had at
Earl Lake, Lake Chemung, the S. Branch of the Shiawassee
River, and several other ponds and streams throughout the
area. Ice-skating can be had indoors at the Grand Oaks Ice
Arena in Genoa Township and outdoors in the winter at
City Park. Besides the swimming opportunities afforded
by the area's natural water bodies, the Howell Aquatic
Center is open year-round for the general public's use.
The Aquatic Center is located at the heart of the Howell
Public School's High School Campus. The Howell Public
Schools offer several playgrounds and athletic fields at
various campuses throughout the study area. Adding
a natural educational element to the area’s recreational
opportunities is the Howell Nature Center. Located in
Marion Township, this center offers a wildlife exhibit area,
an injured animal rehab clinic, as well as summer camps
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
and other outdoor educational programs. The study area is
also close to some other excellent natural areas such as the
Brighton State Recreation Area, Kensington Metro Park,
Island Lake State Recreation Area, and the Oak Grove
State Game Area.
These are just a few of the great educational, cultural,
recreational, and entertainment opportunities available in
the Howell area. The proposed trailway routes suggested
in this study report attempt to take advantage of as many
of these opportunities as possible, as well as other points of
interest, within the study area.
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS:
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the trailway planning process, data is
collected pertinent to existing conditions found within the
study area. This information is called the site inventory.
The inventory deemed relevant to trailway planning is
then analyzed to help with the determination of the best
routing for the trailway and location of support facilities.
This process is referred to as site analysis. Together, the
site inventory and analysis provides the foundation for the
Crosstown Trail, Howell Area Non-Motorized Trail Study,
and will serve as a guide to each trail option within the
study area. Due to the relatively large scale of the study
area, some of the inventory and analysis is rather general in
nature. As sections of the trailway are developed, another
detailed site inventory and analysis of each specific area
should be conducted prior to construction planning,
especially pertaining to wetlands.
SOILS
The General Soils Map, page 10, indicates that our
area contains soils typically found throughout Livingston
County. The predominate soils in the study area are
the Miami-Conover Associations, Miami-Hillsdale
Associations, and the Miami-Brookston Associations.
The Miami-Hillsdale soils are well-drained and medium
to moderately coarse textured while the Miami-Conover
and Miami Brookston soils are well to poorly drained and
medium textured.
Soil characteristics are important to consider because
they will often be a determining factor in what type
of construction method is employed in the trailway
6
development. When constructing the trailway, detailed
soil borings are not always necessary, but when soil
characteristics are not eminently clear, detailed soil
borings can help minimize unexpected changes during
the construction process. For instance, special attention
should be paid to the soils near river corridors because
organic soils tend to predominate in these areas creating
the need for special consideration in the detailing of the
trailways construction. Soil borings assist trail designers
in the proper detailing of the trailway to maximize the
trailways life span.
WETLANDS
The General Wetlands Map, page 11, identifies
areas within the study area that the National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
have identified as possible wetland areas. The NWI
classifications most commonly found in the study area are
forested and emergent wetlands. It should be stated that
the NWI mapping system is extremely general in nature
and should not be relied on as a sole source for wetland
determination. Trailway sections that run through a
wetland, as determined by the general wetland map should
have a wetland assessment done by a professional assessor
prior to the final routing of the trailway in the field. A
permit from the MDEQ will be needed in order to construct
a trailway through a wetland. The trailway may require
special detailing, such as boardwalk sections, through
areas that traverse a wetland.
NATURAL CORRIDORS
Natural corridors include rivers, streams, natural
drains, county drains, floodplains, and wetlands associated
with these elements. This study area’s predominant natural
corridor is the South Branch of the Shiawassee River with
its associated wetlands, backwaters, and tributaries such
as Bogue Creek. Natural corridors preserve open space,
provide habitat for wildlife, and are often preferred for
trailway development over man-made corridors because of
their natural beauty. Natural corridors often provide better
pedestrian-vehicle separation and better opportunities for
viewing wildlife (See Corridors map, page 12). Special
consideration should be given to allow viewing of wildlife
along the trail sections in natural corridors while avoiding
excessive disturbance to the habitats contained in them.
While natural corridors are often preferred for trailways
they tend to cost more for implementation due to marginal
soils and clearing.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
MAN-MADE CORRIDORS
Man-made corridors are areas such as road rights-ofway, active railroad rights-of-way, abandoned railroads,
and utility corridors/easements. These corridors are useful
in trailway development because they are generally owned
by public or quasi-public entities, the right-of-way is
usually continuous for a relatively long span, and in some
instances, costs to implement the trailway in man-made
corridors are often lower than they are for natural corridors
(See Corridors map, page 12).
The most common man-made corridors are road rightsof-way. While roads vary in width, the most common road
right-of-way width is 33 feet from the road centerline
or 66 feet total. State trunkline rights-of-way, such as
Grand River Avenue and M-59, through our study area,
vary in width with +/- 75 feet to 150 feet total being the
approximate range on Grand River Avenue. With the
pending reconstruction of M-59 about to take place, the
total right-of-way widths along the portion of M-59 running
through our study area is in the process of changing to up to
300 feet in some areas.
The study area also contains two active railroad rightsof-way with the Tuscola Saginaw Bay Railroad (TSB)
running through the heart of Howell on an MDOT right-ofway and the CSX Railroad running through the Southern
reaches of our study area. The TSB railroad only sees
limited activity at this time, possibly one to two trains per
day and has a rather limited right-of-way width through
some sections of the downtown. The CSX Railroad is
highly active and has a rather wide right-of-way. If the
TSB Railroad right-of-way were to ever become available
this report suggests the utilization of that right-of-way for
a major portion of the Crosstown Trail. Putting a trailway
on an abandoned railroad bed is often the most affordable
way to implement a trailway.
Also, running through our study area is a utility
corridor/easement partially owned by Detroit Edison.
This corridor runs along the East edge of our study area
in a North/South orientation and would make an excellent
trailway route. Permission would have to be granted from
the power company, the transmission line company, and
any of the landowners that they have easements from in
order to implement a trailway in this corridor.
7
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
EX. R.O.W. CLASSIFICATIONS
Typical existing rights-of-way were developed that
could be applied to most every section of roadway that
this trailway would encounter. As the most prevalent
man-made corridor in the study area, the trailway would
rely heavily on road right-of-way for trailway routing
purposes.
Therefore, these individual right-of-way
classifications, were analyzed and presented in sections
with their own unique characteristics and challenges. The
five classifications are as follows: Downtown Commercial
(similar to downtown Howell),
Rural Residential/
Commercial (similar to M-59 near Brewer Rd.), Urban
Commercial (Similar to Grand River Ave. near Barnard
St.), Urban Residential (similar to Grand River Ave. near
Byron St.), and Strip Commercial (similar to Grand River
Ave. near Latson Rd.) (Please see Typical Ex. R.O.W.
Classification Sections, page 8-9). Later in the trailway
detail development stage of the planning process, these
sections are redrawn with a trailway included as part of
the right-of-way, with recommendations for changes to the
right-of-way to accommodate the trail. (Please see Typical
Ex. R.O.W. Classification Sections w/ Trail, page 62).
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS PROCESS
As part of the Inventory and Analysis phase the entire
study area was toured and photographed to document
existing elements that needed to be considered for trailway
routing purposes. These elements were then added to the
base map. (Please see the Inventory and Analysis Plan,
pages 13-14). Some of these items were merely noted
for updating the base map, while others were identified as
possible challenges or attributes to the trailway routing.
These elements were then overlayed over the base map and
utilized in the development of the final trailway routing
plan. The existing right-of-way classifications of the major
roadways of the study area were also shown on this plan
as well as a more detailed description/location of certain
typical conflicts that the trailway may encounter within
these rights-of way.
16’-17’
WIDE SIDEWALK
WITH MULTIPLE
CONFLICTS
BUSINESSES
LOCATED AT OR
NEAR RIGHT-OF-WAY
8’ PARKING LANE
CURB
7 LANES(2-PARKING, 4-TRAVEL, 1-TURN) - 70’
16’-17’
100’ RIGHT-OF-WAY
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL
- OLDER BUSINESSES ON ROAD R.O.W.
- ON-STREET PARKING, BIKES PROHIBITED ON EX. WALKS
- MULTIPLE CONFLICTS
8
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
SIGNAGE AND
UTILITY CONFLICTS
LARGE TREES AND
PLANTINGS COMMON
IN FRONT YARD AREAS
GRADE CONFLICTS
DITCH AND GUARD
RAIL CONFLICTS
4-12’ LANES WITH 10’ PAVED OR GRAVEL SHOULDER - 58’
100’ RIGHT-OF-WAY
RURAL RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL
- HOUSES/BUSINESSES SET BACK OFF ROAD
- LIMITED INTERFERENCE, LIMITED SIDEWALKS
- SOME GRADE, TREE, DITCH, AND WETLAND CONFLICTS
BUSINESSES
LOCATED AT OR
NEAR RIGHT-OF-WAY
LARGE SIGNAGE
CONFLICTS WITHIN OR
NEAR RIGHT-OF-WAY
UTILITY/ LARGE
TREE CONFLICTS
WITHIN OR NEAR
RIGHT-OF-WAY
PARKING LOTS ON/
NEAR RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE
SIGNAGE AND
DITCH CONFLICTS
GRADE CONFLICTS
CURB AND GUTTER
5 LANES (12’) - 60’
100’ RIGHT-OF-WAY
STRIP COMMERCIAL
- BUSINESSES/PARKING LOTS ON ROAD R.O.W.
- MULTIPLE DRIVE OPENINGS, LIMITED SIDEWALKS
- SIGNS, UTILITIES, PARKING LOT, AND DITCH CONFLICTS
LARGE TREES AND
PLANTINGS COMMON IN
FRONT YARD AREAS AND
WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY
UTILITY CONFLICTS
EXISTING 5’ SIDEWALKS
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
LIGHTING
CURB AND
GUTTER
5’
3 LANES (12’)- 36’
5’
86’ RIGHT-OF-WAY
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
- HOUSES SET BACK OFF ROAD
- LIMITED INTERFERENCE
- NARROW DRIVE OPENINGS
- FREQUENT EXISTING SIDEWALKS
- SOME TREE AND UTILITIES CONFLICTS
URBAN COMMERCIAL
- CONVERTED URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL
- NARROW DRIVE OPENINGS WITH FREQUENT TRAFFIC
- SOME TREE AND UTILITY CONFLICTS
9
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
Fox-Boyer-Oshtemo association: Steep or hilly, well-drained, moderately
coarse textured and coarse textured soils on moraines
Miami-Hillsdale association: Strongly sloping to hilly, well-drained, mediumtextured and moderately coarse textured soils on moraines and till plains
Spinks-Oakville-Boyer-Oshtemo association: Strongly sloping to hilly, welldrained, coarse-textured soils dominantly on moraines
Miami-Conover association: Nearly level to strongly sloping, well-drained and
somewhat poorly drained, medium-textured soils on till plains and moraines
Carlisle-Houghton-Gilford association: Nearly level, very poorly drained,
organic soils and moderately coarse textured soils on outwash plains, in glacial
drainageways, and on lake plains
Miami-Brookston association: Nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained and
poorly drained, medium-textured soils on till plains
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Texture refers to the surface layer of the major soils of each association.
LEGEND
Proposed Trailways
Roads
Soil Classifications
Boyer-Fox-Wasepi (MI018)
Houghton-Carlise-Adrian (MI022)
Miami-Conover-Brookston (MI017)
Miami-Hillsdale-Edwards (MI023)
Spinks-Houghton-Boyer (MI014)
1/2
1/4
0
Miles
1/2
Soil Information Provided By: State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO), State General Soil
Maps made by generalizing the detailed soil survey. The level of mapping is designed to be used
for broad planning and management uses covering state, regional , and multi-state areas.
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS: GENERAL SOILS MAP
10
This map is compiled from National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data sets. NWI digital data files are records of wetlands location
and classification as defined by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This dataset is one of a series available in county coverages
containing ground planimetric coordinates of wetlands point, line, and area features and wetlands attributes. The digital data
as well as the hardcopy maps that were used as the source for the digital data are produced and distributed by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service’s National Inventory project. The data provide consultants, planners, and resource managers with information on
wetland location and type. The purpose of this survey was not to map all wetlands and deepwater habitats, but rather, to use aerial
photointerpretation techniques to produce thematic maps that show, in most cases, the larger types that can be identified by such
techniques. The objective was to provide better geospatial information on wetlands than found on the USGS topoquads.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
LEGEND
Proposed Trailways
Roads
Wetland Classification
Aquatic Bed
Emergent
Forested
Open Water/Unkown Bottom
Scrub-Shrub
1/2
1/4
0
1/2
Miles
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS: GENERAL WETLANDS MAP
11
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
LEGEND
1/2
Active Railroad R.O.W.
Utility Corridor/Easement
Major Roadway R.O.W.
Rivers/Streams/Drains
1/4
0
1/2
Miles
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS: CORRIDORS MAP
12
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Th
om
ps
on
L
ak
e
LEGEND
Conflict Area
Existing Concrete/Bituminous Path
Proposed Path (by others)
R.O.W. Classification
Activity Generator/Possible Destination
Existing Traffic Light w/o Pedestrian Signal
Existing Traffic Light with Pedestrian Signal
Residential Node
Residential Node
(not shown on aerial)
1/8
0
Miles
1
2
3
4
5
-
Rural Residential/Commercial
Strip Commercial
Urban Residential
Downtown Commercial
Urban Commercial
Conflict Classification
1/4
1/4
A - Steep Grades
B - Stream Crossing
C - Wetland Area
D - Existing Guardrail
E - Below-Grade Railroad Crossing
F - Existing Ditch
G - Large Trees
H - Existing Parking Lot
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS PLAN - A
13
-
Rural Residential/Commercial
Strip Commercial
Urban Residential
Downtown Commercial
Urban Commercial
h
om
ps
1/4
E
ar
Residential Node
(not shown on aerial)
Existing Traffic Light with Pedestrian Signal
Residential Node
Miles
0
l L
ak
e
1/8
Existing Traffic Light w/o Pedestrian Signal
Activity Generator/Possible Destination
Conflict Area
Existing Concrete/Bituminous Path
Proposed Path (by others)
Lake
n
o
LEGEND
T
A - Steep Grades
B - Stream Crossing
C - Wetland Area
D - Existing Guardrail
E - Below-Grade Railroad Crossing
F - Existing Ditch
G - Large Trees
H - Existing Parking Lot
1
2
3
4
5
1/4
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
INVENTORY & ANALYSIS PLAN - B
14
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION:
PUBLIC INPUT MEETINGS
As part of the trailway planning process, two public
presentations were held. The first public presentation was
an input meeting held on August 5, 2003 at the Oceola
Township Hall. This was the first chance the public
had to review and comment on the preliminary trailway
routing plan. The presentation was run with a “drop-in”
format and was well attended by both the general public
and local media outlets (See News Articles, pages 16-17).
A vast majority of the input was favorable and as a result
no significant changes were made to the routing plan.
The most common positive response heard at the input
meetings was that the trailway would provide for outdoor
exercise in the form of walking, cycling, and jogging. The
most common concern heard at the input meeting was the
expense to build a trailway and the expense to maintain
it. Participants were provided with comment sheets that
they could fill out at the presentation or at home, to provide
suggestions to the trailway plan (Figure 4). The second
public presentation was held on December 3, 2003 at the
Livingston County Courthouse This presentation was held
to provide the public a chance to review the final trailway
routing plan, phasing plan, and development details and
provide any final comments.
COMMENT / SUGGESTION SHEET
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Howell Area Non-Motorized Trailway Study
Public Input Meeting
August 5, 2003
Please provide any comments or suggestions you may have regarding the trailway study in the space below. Thank you.
COMMENTS / SUGGESTIONS:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
If you don’t have time to fill this form out at the public input meeting, please feel free to fill it out at home and mail it to:
Landscape Architects and Planners, Inc.
Attn: Andrew Linebaugh
Oakland Center, 809 Center St., Suite 1
Lansing, MI 48906
FIGURE 4
Comment/Suggestion Sheet:
Copy of sheet used to gather public input at first
public input meeting.
15
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
NEWS ARTICLES
Paul Hickman discusses the trail proposal with Kari Settle of MDOT. “My
wife and I are only able to take walks in our subdivision right now,” he
said. “This trail would allow us to get out for longer walks.”
Plan for Crosstown Trail network excites
residents
Pathway to serve Howell, 4 townships
By Craig Sullivan / Special to The Detroit News
HOWELL -- Transportation officials have unveiled the
preliminary drawings for an ambitious network of trails that
would serve the city of Howell, and the surrounding townships of Howell, Oceola, Genoa and Marion.
The outline of the public pathway for pedestrians or bicyclists called Crosstown Trail forms a nearly 20-mile-long
triangle, which would follow M-59, Grand River Avenue and Latson Road.
The plan is the brainchild of the Crosstown Trail Steering Committee and the Michigan Department of
Transportation and its consulting firm, Landscape Architects & Planners, Inc. The development of the trail’s initial
design, which was funded by a $60,000 grant, began in February.
At a recent meeting, residents were given an opportunity to examine a series of aerial maps with outlines of the
proposed routes.
“I’d love this trail. I live on Brandon Street, so I’d able to hop right onto it and go for walks,” said John McMahon,
75, of Osceola Township, as he eyed one of the maps. “My only question is, ‘am I going to live long enough to use it?’ “
Because of the extensiveness of the trails, and the necessary involvement of several communities, officials say it’s
impossible at this stage to gauge the project’s cost or construction time.
Funding sources are being considered for the project. One option is to seek development grants from state agencies
such as the Department of Natural Resources. Another would be to have the Howell Area Recreation Authority, yet to
be established, seek a public vote on a millage request.
“It’s the perfect project for the authority,” said Peter Von Drak, the city of Howell’s manager and a member of the
Crosstown Trail Steering Committee. “It would be the authority’s crown jewel.”
Paul Hickman, who lives in a subdivision off Grand River Avenue in Oceola, said he also is enthusiastic about the
plan.
“My wife and I are only able to take walks in our subdivision right now,” he said. “This trail would allow us to get
out for longer walks of three or four miles.”
The surrounding terrain would dictate the trail’s surface material such as asphalt for bike lanes alongside roads and
wooden boardwalks above wetlands.
Officials envision the trail serving as an alternative to motorized transportation as well as for recreational use.
Trailheads with rest rooms and vehicle and bike parking near commercial sites would make the routes convenient for
shopping.
A series of paths running north/south from M-59 to Grand River Avenue would create smaller loops that would
be ideal for recreation. According to the maps, one possibility for a shorter circuit
within the trail would be to follow the south branch of the Shiawassee River from
Grand River Avenue to M-59. Another would be to follow a path north from VG’s
Supermarket to the Citizen’s Insurance building.
Robert Ford, of Landscape Architects & Planners, Inc., said a master plan will be
finalized based on suggestions from the public meeting. The next steps would be land
acquisition, then development.
“The tricky part will be gaining the cooperation of everyone,” Ford said. “For
plans like this, the devil is in the details. For instance, in dense urban areas, it can be
difficult securing easements from private landowners.”
Still, much of the route is ready to go, planners say. MDOT already has provided
10-foot-wide bike paths in its plans for the widening of M-59 next year. And
easements likely will be provided across public school land.
“The majority of this plan is in the public right of way. There are some areas
that cross private land. But the people we’ve talked to seem receptive to giving us
easements,” said Andrew Linebaugh, of Landscape Architects & Planners, Inc.
Through the city’s downtown, the trail traveling along Grand River Avenue would
take one of two routes. It would either turn north on Center Street, then east on
Clinton Street and finally south on Barnard Street to return to Grand River Avenue;
or, it would head south on Center Street, east on Sibley Street and return to Grand
River Avenue via National Street.
Craig Sullivan is a Metro Detroit free-lance writer.
What’s next
* A master plan for the
nearly 20-mile Crosstown
Trail is in the final design
stages. The trail is a joint
effort of community residents,
the Michigan Department
of Transportation and its
consulting firm, Landscape
Architects & Planners, Inc.
* Before construction,
officials will need to secure
easements through public
and private property.
* For information, call
(517) 485-5500.
INCLUDEPICTURE “http:
//www.detnews.com/pix/
folios/general/redarrow.gif” \*
MERGEFORMATINET Comment
on this story
MERGEFORMATINET Send this
story to a friend
MERGEFORMATINET Get Home
Delivery
Detroit News, August 12, 2003
16
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Daily Press & Argus, August 7, 2003
Hiking-biking trail plan unveiled
State outlines 15-mile route along Grand River through Howell and parts of Howell, Genoa and Marion townships
By Stephenie Koehn
News Staff Reporter
The state Department of Transportation
Tuesday unveiled a comprehensive plan for a biking-hiking path through the Howell area that would
render it an extremely “walkable” community. But
residents should not look for the project to happen
overnight.
“This is a very ambitious plan,” said
Andy Linebaugh, of Landscape Architects and Planners Inc., a Lansing firm working with MDOT to
design and plan the project. “It would make Howell
the most walkable community in southeast Michigan, by far. But it’s likely to take years to finish.”
Area residents gave the plan near unanimous approval during the Tuesday meeting, held at
the Oceola Township Hall, to provide information
and solicit public input.
“I’ve been waiting for this for 12 years,”
said downtown Howell resident Cathy Roth as she
examined maps and charts outlining out the project.
Roth said she and her husband recently purchased a
tandem bike and would love to see more bike paths
in the area.
The preliminary plan shows a triangular
main route encompassing roughly 15 miles. The
route travels along Grand River Avenue through
Howell, into Genoa Township, turning north just
east of Latson Road. It turns west at M-59 and follows M-59 west back to Grand River Avenue, Linebaugh said. The route includes the northern portion
of the city of Howell, and some of Howell, Oceola,
Genoa and Marion townships.
In addition to the proposed main route,
the detailed maps show alternate routes, already
existing portions such as the Howell path through
the McPherson Industrial Park, and a possible “railto-trails” option.
The proposed Southeast Livingston Greenway, which runs along a Detroit Edison easement
that parallels Latson Road, is shown as a possible
part of the main route and a number of off-shoot
trails are depicted.
“This is a conceptual stage,” said Kari
Settle, University Region planner for MDOT. “It
will eventually bring a sprawl-oriented area closer
together.”
The maps and an analysis of possible conflicts along the route have been prepared as part of a
study funded by a $60,000 federal grant, Settle said.
“As broad as this plan is, there’s no way to talk about
it except to say it’s a long-range plan,” Linebaugh
said. It could take years to construct. And it’s designed in phases so it can be changed as conditions
and realities warrant, he said.
No cost estimate is available yet, but
Linebaugh said similar projects have cost between
$35 and $75 per linear foot. For 15 miles of pathway
that would put the total cost somewhere between
$2.7 million and $5.9 million.
Except for the study, no funds have been
allocated to the project, he said. Funding might
come from a variety of sources, including matching
federal and state grants, foundation grants, bequests
or, possibly, a voter-approved trail authority levy, he
said.
“This plan gives you a backbone, or a
core, to work from,” said Bob Ford, owner of Landscape Architects and Planners. “Most of these plans
are good for eight to 10 years, then they need to be
updated.
Settle said she was pleased at the turnout
for the meeting, which included several municipal
officials and a couple dozen residents. Comments
by those attending the meeting will be taken into
consideration as the study proceeds, she added.
Livingston Community News, August 8, 2003
17
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
TRAIL ROUTING PLAN - A
18
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
TRAIL ROUTING PLAN - B
19
TRAILWAY PHASING:
OVERVIEW
Because of the extensive nature of the trailway
routing plan, a phased approach to the development of
the Crosstown Trail was pursued. The trailway routes are
broken up into four (4) phases, phase one through three,
and a non-sequential phase. Within phase one, three
(3) options are given. These options make-up the main
framework of the trailway, or the main triangle. Off of these
phase one trailway options, multiple phase two options are
provided, grouped according to location within the study
area. These phase two options are connectors between,
or extensions to, the main phase one trailway. One phase
three option is provided to further expand the trail system.
One non-sequential phase, a rails-to-trails option, was also
developed but because of the current active rail presence
it wasn’t deemed possible to predict a definitive sequence
for development. The phase one options were determined
based on the following criteria:
•
•
•
Phase One trails need to be key sections within the
overall trail plan and not just the easiest section of
trail to build.
Phase One trails need to be highly visible and act
as “momentum builders.”
Phase One trails should require limited or no
easement or right-of-way acquisition.
Most of the phase one trail options
include more than one entity of the steering
committee.
Funding can sometimes be
more easily obtained through grants when
joint cooperation/ownership is shown in the
development of the trail. Phase two trail
options were then developed to create smaller
loops within the larger main framework of
the trail system. These options also provide
key linkages or extensions to key activity
generators or residential/commercial nodes
within the study area. Some of these options
rely heavily on private property easement
acquisitions so multiple options were
developed with the possibility that the steering
committee members or trail developers
may elect not to attempt to develop all the
options shown. A phase three option was
then developed to extend the trail system to
the rapidly growing Northern portion of the
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
study area. This option also provides important linkages
across the busy M-59 corridor. The non-sequential phase
should be given a top-priority as soon as the land becomes
available to the trail developers.
Depending on future funding availability, the phases
described above may need to be further studied and
subdivided or prioritized based on the wishes of the
steering committee. Also, instances may arise at a later
date that may make a certain trailway more desirable
than others, such as a land donation or adjacent new
development. In these instances, the steering committee
or trail developers should work together to re-prioritize
or re-configure the trail phasing. A supplemental general
cost estimate was developed for each phase of the trailway
plan, and is included in an appendix to the Crosstown Trail,
Howell Area Non-Motorized Trail Study report.
NON-SEQUENTIAL TRAIL OPTION
T.S.B. RAILS-TO-TRAILS SPUR, M-59 TO LUCY
ROAD PARK, +/- 2.75 MILES
This trail option should instantly be considered a first
priority if the railroad corridor were abandoned. This
routing has been given a non-sequential phasing to imply
that as soon as this rail corridor becomes available, the
trail developers should act as soon as possible to acquire
Sketch of Proposed T.S.B. Rails-to-Trails Spur
Looking West from Barnard Street
20
it for future trail development. Currently, the property this
railroad occupies is owned by the Michigan Department of
Transportation and is leased to the Tuscola and Saginaw
Bay Railroad Company. This lease comes up for renewal
periodically and trail developers should keep abreast of
its status. (If it appears that the railroad will remain on
the property for a long period of time, a rails-with-trails
alternative should be studied in further detail for possible
development.) This option is desirable to trail development
because the property is one long contiguous piece of
property with limited vehicular/drive crossings and it has
a ready-to-pave surface. It also links two phase one trail
options and provides direct access to Howell’s downtown
business district.
From West to East, this trail option would connect M59, with its phase one trail option, to several City of Howell
residential areas, parks, and civic entities. As described
in the Grand River Avenue spur, phase one trail option,
the historic downtown depot would make an excellent
trailhead, as would the Barnard Community Center. At
the Barnard Community Center, the existing parking and
restroom facilities could suffice for the trailhead with just
the addition of some bike parking, signage, and possibly
some seating needed to make it fully operational. The
existing railroad overpass over Grand River Avenue could
be retrofitted and utilized to provide an extremely safe
crossing of this busy thoroughfare. Future phases may
be able to be coordinated along this railroad corridor to
eventually extend through Howell, Genoa Township, and
beyond.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
the highway to alleviate the need for a wetland crossing
in this area. Also, considerable guardrail and steep grade
conflicts exist in the eastern reaches of this trail option
that might require special grading or small retaining walls
to be installed for the trail to be constructed in this area.
Particular attention should be paid during the development
of this trail option to keeping the paved surface of the trail
as far away from the roadway as possible. With high-speed
roads, such as M-59, comfort levels on the trail increase
greatly with greater separation from the road.
Starting from the west and going east, this trail option
would connect the Grand River Avenue/M-59 intersection
area to the public schools campus, some city of Howell
residential areas, Northwest Elementary, and eventually,
to future mixed-use developments in Oceola Township
near the intersection of Latson Road and M-59. It would
be beneficial if some land could be acquired, either in the
MDOT right-of-way or within the new developments in
Oceola Township, for the construction of a completely new
trailhead, complete with paved parking areas and restroom
facilities (vault toilets at a minimum). The current park and
ride facility along M-59 near Northwest Elementary could
be a useful alternate trailhead location with new restroom
facilities and the existing parking area.
This phase one trail option also incorporates the need
for three (3) above-grade pedestrian crossings over the
South Branch of the Shiawassee River, over the Tuscola
Saginaw Bay Railroad tracks, and over the Bogue Creek
PHASE ONE TRAIL OPTIONS
SOUTH SIDE OF M-59 SPUR,
TOOLEY ROAD TO DETROIT EDISON
CORRIDOR, +/- 5.4 MILES.
This phase one trailway serves the
established and fast developing portions
of the study area along the M-59 corridor
and would primarily consist of a shareduse bituminous pathway. With the future
reconstruction of M-59 into a divided
boulevard, some of the inventory and
analysis generated for this section of trail
routing may not be relevant when this trail
is finally developed. However, based on
the current inventory, this trail may need
some boardwalk sections near the Howell
School’s transportation facility, unless
steps are taken during the development of
Sketch of Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Crossing of Bogue Creek,
Looking West along the South side of M-59
21
(See pages 59-60 for a more complete description of these
crossings). This trail option would provide the Howell area
with a highly visible non-motorized facility along a busy
state highway that might be used by many students on a
daily basis as a safe and healthy way to get to school.
GRAND RIVER AVENUE SPUR, TOOLEY ROAD TO
DE CORRIDOR, +/- 6.5 MILES.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
drives it may be desirable to sign the trail within these areas
to suggest the walking of bicycles. Additional warning
signs could be established for motorists.
Due to the lack of sufficient right-of-way for the trail
along Grand River Avenue in downtown Howell, it was
deemed worthwhile to bypass this area and route the trail
around the downtown corridor in adjacent, parallel street
right-of-ways. Several examples of how this might be
constructed were developed and presented to the steering
committee and the City of Howell Planning Commission
(See Typical Trail Details, pages 63-66). Almost all of
the options presented involved unique design solutions
that have not been implemented extensively and therefore
further research into these options should be conducted
prior to development of this particular section of trail.
Ideally, if the trail option along the T.S.B. Railway
(see pages 20-21) were to become feasible prior to the
development of the trail through downtown Howell, the
majority of the trailway routing within road rights-of-way
through the Howell downtown could be avoided. With
the connection of the Grand River Avenue spur trail to the
T.S.B. Railway at the historic depot downtown and at the
T.S.B. Railway overpass, this section of rails-to-trails path,
would eliminate the need for the section of the Grand River
Avenue spur between Center Street and Catrell Street. This
scenario would allow trail users to access the downtown
area with fewer driveway crossings, be a less costly
construction method, and have better trailway continuity,
This phase one trail serves the busiest and most densely
populated section of the study area; the Grand River
Avenue corridor. This shared-use trail would primarily
consist of a combination of bituminous and concrete
pathway. However, based on the inventory and analysis
generated for this section, the possible need for some short
boardwalk sections may exist just west of Highlander Way
and in the eastern end of the corridor around Char Ann.
This phase crosses through almost every existing rightof-way classification identified in the study, bypassing the
only busy downtown corridor on Grand River Avenue.
Traversing from west to east, this trail option would
connect the Grand River Avenue/M-59 intersection
area to the public school’s campus, some city of Howell
residential areas, the downtown Howell commercial
district, the library, Livingston County offices, the
courthouse, the future Lucy Road Park, and the retail
areas and malls of Genoa Township near the Latson Road/
Grand River Avenue intersection. This trail option may
someday tie in with the Southeast Livingston Greenway,
trail proposed along Chilson Road, further expanding the
Crosstown Trail user’s non-motorized
transportation opportunities.
Where
this trail resides in the urban residential
and urban commercial right-of-way
classifications,
particularly
from
Prospect Street to National Street, the
path should most likely be constructed
of concrete to maintain neighborhood
character. Also, in Genoa Township
where this trail resides within the Grand
River Avenue right-of-way, the path
may be constructed of concrete to reflect
the township’s established Capital
Improvement Plan for this area.
With the majority of this trailway
being proposed within the busiest road
right-of-way in the study area, particular
attention should be paid to the proper
demarcation of crosswalks and drive
crossings. In areas with a particularly
Sketch of Proposed Grand River Avenue Spur, Looking East
heavy concentration of commercial
along Grand River Avenue underneath T.S.B. Railroad Overpass
22
while still maintaining the main route of the trail system
through the City of Howell. The steering committee, or
trail developers, may want to temporarily terminate the
development of the Grand River Avenue spur, phase one
trail, at the above intersections with the TSB Railway
Corridor until the future of the railroad operations on this
corridor is certain.
Along this phase one trail option, the downtown depot
would make an excellent choice for a trailhead. With its
central location and existing parking area all that would
be needed is a restroom facility, signage, and bike parking
to make this area a very important element of this phase
one trail option. Yet another opportunity for a trailhead on
this routing could be located near the large play structure
at Challenger Elementary School. This area, already a
very visible and natural interest generator along this trail
option, would serve as a good resting point on this route
and a great destination point for younger trail users and
families. This trailhead would require all new amenities
such as a curb cut and driveway on Grand River Avenue,
new parking area, and restroom facilities. This trailhead
would also require an easement from the Howell Public
School System in order to become a reality. An alternate
location for this trailhead would be at the Paul Bennett
Recreation Center, which will be described later in this
report in the phase two trail options section. With the reopening of Lucy Road Park and subsequent development
of parking and restroom facilities, this park would serve
as another excellent trail destination and centrally located
trailhead. This trail section would also require an overhead
pedestrian crossing at the South Branch of the Shiawassee
River (See pages 59-60 for a further description of this
crossing). Yet another item to consider in the
development of this phase one trail option,
would be the inclusion of the portion of the
phase two trail option from the West end of the
existing Industrial Park Bike Path to the Grand
River Avenue spur along the Highlander Way
right-of-way. This relatively short section of
path would help link an existing trail system to
the phase one trail spur and provide a safe nonmotorized transportation route to the school
campus for residents living in the Chateau
Howell manufactured housing development.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
system and act as the main North-South link between the
M-59 spur and Grand River Avenue spur phase one trail
options. This trail would be located entirely on land either
owned by Detroit Edison or on land which Detroit Edison
has an easement. Currently, this corridor is primarily
utilized to carry electrical poles and transmission lines.
An additional easement would have to be granted to the
trailway developers from not only Detroit Edison and their
transmission line company but by any private property
owners that simply have provided Detroit Edison with
an easement to cross their property. Oceola Township
officials have already started to work with land owners/
developers for these easements in the privately held
portion of the proposed route between McGunn Road and
M-59. Once permission to develop is established, this
shared-use trail would consist of a mixture of bituminous
path and elevated boardwalk sections. Field reviews of the
area show that this phase one trail option would probably
contain the most boardwalk of all the phase one trail
options. Traversing from north to south, this trail would
link the fast developing Latson Road/M-59 intersection
area to the established retail area near the Latson Road/
Grand River Avenue intersection, dissecting or abutting
several existing or planned residential developments along
the way. This trail would present limited road crossings
and offer opportunities for wildlife viewing. Also, its
connection of one of the busiest retail zones in the area to
an ever-expanding residential area, could affirm that this
trail will see extensive use, as a pleasant non-motorized
transportation alternative to the Latson Road corridor.
DETROIT EDISON CORRIDOR SPUR,
M-59 TO GRAND RIVER AVENUE, 3.1
MILES.
This phase one trailway would make-up
the Eastern boundary of the Crosstown Trail
Sketch of Proposed Detroit Edison Corridor Spur,
Looking North from Aster Drive
23
PHASE TWO TRAIL OPTIONS
WEST SIDE CONNECTORS/EXTENSIONS +/- 4.8
OVERALL MILES.
SOUTH BRANCH SHIAWASSEE RIVER GREENWAY
CONNECTOR, +/- 0.5 MILES.
This phase two trail would connect the Grand River
Avenue spur, phase one trail with the south side of M59 spur, phase one trail. The greenway option would
start near the intersection of Grand River Avenue and
Edgewood and would continue around the north side of the
commercial outlet until it hit the bank of the South Branch
of the Shiawassee River. At that point, it would follow the
river due north within a low-lying area set aside as green
space within the adjacent planned unit development, until it
reached M-59. Permission would need to be granted from
the resident association within the planned unit development
as well as from the developer of the commercial outlet for
this trail to become a reality. This trail would need to be
made almost entirely of elevated boardwalk and a permit
from the Department of Environmental Quality would
most likely be needed for development.
OUTLET MALL EXTENSION, TOOLEY ROAD TO
TANGER OUTLET CENTER, +/- 0.7 MILES.
This phase two trail option provides a multi-use,
bituminous trailway link between the phase one trail
options at the intersection of Tooley Road and M-59, to the
large retail complex at the far western end of the study area
known as the Tanger Outlet Center. The majority of this
trail will reside within the redesigned M-59 and Burkhart
Road right-of-ways. Permission will be needed from the
Tanger Outlet Center to extend the trail onto their property.
With the addition of some new restroom facilities, signage,
and some bike parking, the service parking lot area closest
to Burkhart Road within the outlet center would make an
excellent western trailhead. This phase two trail option
also incorporates the need for an above-grade crossing of
the CSX Railroad along M-59 (See pages 59-60 for a more
complete description of this crossing).
CITIZEN’S INSURANCE TO VG’S SUPERMARKET
CONNECTOR 0.5 MILES.
This phase two trail option would also connect the
Grand River Avenue spur, phase one trail with the south
side of M-59 spur, phase one trail. Citizen’s Insurance,
VG’s Supermarket, and the Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Company all would need to grant permission to develop
this primarily shared-use, bituminous path, as it would
reside solely on their property or within their easement. On
the northern end of the trail, the route follows the pipeline
easement for a short distance on Citizen’s Insurance
property and then continues south following an existing
gravel path system in the western reaches of the Citizen’s
property until it hits VG’s property. The trail would then
continue around the northern and eastern boundaries of the
VG’s property to Grand River Avenue. This trail option
may require some limited amounts of elevated boardwalk
in the Northern sections. It improves upon an existing
trail system that appears to be used rather extensively by
employees of Citizen’s Insurance. This trail would create
a loop within the western portion of the phase one trail
triangle.
SCHOOL CAMPUS/SOUTHWEST ELEMENTARY/
INDUSTRIAL PARK BIKE PATH CONNECTOR, +/2.4 MILES.
This phase two trail option provides numerous
connections between the Grand River Avenue spur and
M-59 spur, phase one trails. It also supplies connections to
several schools and connections to an existing bituminous
shared-use path. This trail option focuses primarily on the
Howell Public School’s main campus and will rely heavily
on permission from the school system to utilize their land.
This shared-use, bituminous path links together Highlander
Way Middle School, McPherson Middle School, Howell
High School, the Howell Aquatic Center, Challenger
Elementary School, Voyager Elementary School, the Paul
Bennett Recreation Center, Southwest Elementary School,
and the Industrial Park Bike Path. The trail option would
take advantage of an 8’ wide concrete walkway already
established along the east entry to the school campus.
With the connection of this trail option to the Industrial
Park Bike Path, it would provide a convenient route to
school for several young people living in the Chateau
Howell manufactured home community.
The large
parking areas associated with the school campus make it
a natural choice for the establishment of a trailhead. Yet
another opportunity for a trailhead along this route exists
at the Paul Bennett Recreation Center. The addition of
restroom facilities to the parking lot would make this
already popular community facility an excellent starting or
ending point along this trail.
These connectors could possibly see considerable
student traffic and additional traffic from citizen’s looking
for non-motorized access to school activities and facilities,
such as the Aquatic Center.
24
SLEAFORD ROAD TO M-59 EXTENSION, +/- 0.7
MILES.
This phase two trail option proposes to connect
the established residential areas around Sleaford Road,
Fox Hills Drive, and the new Jonathon’s Landing to the
proposed trail along M-59. This trail is proposed as a
shared-use bituminous facility and will reside entirely in
the Grand River Avenue right-of-way. This trail option
could provide residents in these established and growing
(in the case of Jonathon’s Landing) neighborhoods with a
non-motorized transportation facility connecting to the rest
of the trail system and to the Tanger Outlet Center.
CENTRAL CONNECTORS/EXTENSIONS, +/- 2.5
OVERALL MILES.
LOOP ROAD CONNECTOR, INDUSTRIAL PARK
BIKE PATH TO LUCY ROAD PARK, +/- 1.7 MILES.
This phase two trail option proposes to connect the
south end of the existing Industrial Park Bike Path to Lucy
Road Park. The majority of this shared-use, bituminous
path would reside within the Lucy Road and future loop
road rights-of-way in the southern reaches of our study
area. Some of the trail route would also be contained
within the private property of Altec and the Chateau
Howell manufactured home community. Permission would
be needed from these entities prior to the implementation
of this trailway. Some extensive security fencing might
have to be considered along this route where the trail
option crosses the Altec industrial parcel. This trail option
proposes to expand on the opportunities created by the
existing Industrial Park Bike Path and provide direct nonmotorized access to the eventual redeveloped Lucy Road
Park. This trail option would be the final segment of a
southern loop to the Crosstown Trail, and could be expanded
further to the south to the residential developments planned
along Lucy Road in Marion Township.
NORTHWEST ELEMENTARY EXTENSION, +/- 0.3
MILES.
This phase two trail option will connect the Northwest
Elementary School to the south side of M-59 spur, phase
one trail. This shared-use bituminous trail will reside
between the existing ball fields and the newer residential
neighborhood to the east of the school property. It would
be nearly entirely on school property so the school system
would need to give permission for the use of their property.
The existing south parking lot at the school would make an
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
excellent start to a trailhead. The addition of some restroom
and bike parking facilities as well as some directional
signage would combine with the existing parking lot to
make a centrally located access point to the Crosstown
Trail. This trailway has the potential to see extensive use
by local students on a daily basis.
CITY PARK EXTENSION, +/- 0.5 MILES.
This phase two trail option serves to connect Howell’s
City Park to the south side of M-59 spur, phase one trail
option. For the most part, this shared-use bituminous,
or possibly concrete, trail would be contained within the
Michigan Avenue, Pauline Street, and Thurber Street
rights-of-way. However, at least one easement would have
to be secured from a private property owner to connect
City Park to Thurber Street. City Park would also make
an excellent centrally located trailhead for the system. The
park’s existing facilities would probably just need to be
complimented with some directional signage to finalize
it as a trailhead. As a destination to City Park, this trail
option has the potential to be popular with all ages of area
residents.
EAST SIDE CONNECTORS, +/- 6.9 OVERALL
MILES
HUTCHINGS ELEMENTARY TO OCEOLA
TOWNSHIP HALL EXTENSION +/- 1.1 MILES.
This phase two trail option proposes to connect the
Oceola Township Hall and Hutchings Elementary School
to the south side of M-59 spur, phase one trail. This option
is being considered a shared-use bituminous trail that
would be primarily contained within the Latson Road rightof-way. Part of the trail would also be contained within the
school property and follow the school’s main entry drive.
An opportunity exists to create a trailhead at the Oceola
Township Hall as part of this trail option. Some restrooms,
bike parking and signage could be combined with the
existing hall parking lot to create another excellent trail
access point for this fast growing portion of the study area.
Alternatively, the same elements, and most likely a new
small parking lot, could be created within the Hutchings
Elementary campus to serve the same purpose. This trail
option could serve as a non-motorized access to the new
mixed-use developments centered around the Latson Road/
M-59 intersection.
25
GRAND RIVER AVENUE TO LATSON ROAD
ELEMENTARY EXTENSION, +/- 0.8 MILES.
This phase two trail option extends the Detroit Edison
corridor spur, phase one trail option Southward to connect
to the Latson Road Elementary School. This shared-use,
bituminous trailway would be contained, for most of its
length, within the Detroit Edison corridor until it abuts the
Latson Road right-of-way. A section of elevated boardwalk
might be needed on the most southerly portion of this trail
option to traverse a small wetland. As an alternate to
the boardwalk, permission could be requested from the
Prentiss Estates Apartment complex to run the trail along
the south edge of their property, in order to bypass this wet
area. A completely new trailhead is being proposed at the
Latson Road Elementary School with a small parking lot,
restrooms, directional signage and other amenities to act
as the main southeast access point to the trail system. This
trail option would tie into the existing pathway facilities
currently installed along Grand River Avenue in Genoa
Township.
OAKCREST EXTENSION, +/- 0.25 MILES
This phase two trail option is an extension to the south
side of the M-59 spur, phase one trail. It connects the
entrance to a residential area at Bonny Brook Dr. to M-59,
within the Oakcrest right-of-way. This trail is proposed to
be a shared-use, bituminous trail.
HICKORY HILLS TO HUTCHINGS ELEMENTARY
CONNECTOR, +/- 1.3 MILES
This phase two trailway has been proposed by other
trail advocates in the study area and adopted into the
Crosstown Trail, Howell Area Non-Motorized Trailway
Study. The goal of this shared-use, bituminous path is to
connect the Hickory Hill residential development at the
northwest corner of the Eager Road/ M-59 intersection
with the Hutchings Elementary School. For some of the
route, the trailway can be contained within the Eager Road
right-of-way, but a large portion of this trailway will have
to cross private property. Oceola Township officials have
already begun discussion with some of these landowners
to obtain their permission for the future implementation
of this trail. This trail will need to have a small-scale
pedestrian bridge over a stream along Eager Road, adjacent
to the existing vehicle bridge. This trail will provide a nonmotorized route to the school for the students living in this
fast developing portion of the study area.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
GOLF CLUB ROAD BIKE LANE, +/- 2.2 MILES.
This phase two option is proposed to provide on-road
bike lanes, 4’ wide minimum, to Golf Club Road in the
eastern half of our study area. These bike lanes would
connect to the Grand River Avenue spur, phase one trail
with the Detroit Edison Corridor spur phase one trail. The
completion of this option would essentially help to create a
loop for cyclists around the main retail developments in the
southeast corner of the study area and would provide nonmotorized transportation options to residents along Golf
Club Road and the Detroit Edison corridor.
EAGER ROAD BIKE LANES, +/- 1.25 MILES
This phase two option is proposed to connect the south
side of M-59 spur, phase one trail, to the proposed Golf
Club Road Bike Lanes, phase two option These bike lanes
should be designed on each side of the roadway with a 4’
width minimum in areas lacking curb and gutter. In the
recently redeveloped portions of Eager Road with curb and
gutter, the lanes should have a 5’ minimum width from
the face of the curb. This option would provide a nonmotorized link for the developing Eager Road corridor to
the shared-use path proposed along M-59 as well as to the
rest of the Crosstown Trail system.
PHASE THREE TRAIL OPTIONS
NORTH SIDE OF M-59 SPUR, GRAND RIVER
AVENUE TO BIRCHWOOD DRIVE, +/- 4.3 MILES
This phase three trailway will serve to expand the
Crosstown Trail System to the ever-developing north side
of M-59. This trail is being proposed as a shared-use,
bituminous pathway. As discussed earlier in the study,
the future reconstruction of M-59 will greatly alter the
existing corridor. However, steeply graded side slopes
and guardrail conflicts may still exist along this route that
may require some special construction means. Particular
attention should be paid during the development of this
trail to keeping the paved surface of the trail as far away
from the road as possible.
From west to east, this trail option would connect the
Grand River Avenue/ M-59 intersection to the future Rolling
Oaks Park on Brewer Road. The second portion of this
trail would connect to the residential development at Byron
26
and M-59 to the entrance of the Hickory Hills residential
development at Birchwood Drive and Eager Road. This
trailway would link together numerous residential and
mixed-use developments currently in place or proposed
along the north side of the M-59 corridor. The future
Rolling Oaks Park could serve as an excellent trailhead for
this trail option. Adequate parking and restroom facilities
should be planned to accommodate park and trail users
alike. This trail option also incorporated the need for
three (3) above-grade pedestrian crossings over the South
Branch of the Shiawasee River, over the Tuscola-Saginaw
Bay Railroad tracks, and the Bogue Creek. This trail also
points out the possibility of constructing two (2) pedestrian
underpasses under M-59 at the Tuscola-Saginaw Bay
Railroad tracks, and at the Bogue Creek (See pages 59-60
for a more thorough discussion of these above and belowgrade crossings). If the Tuscola-Saginaw Bay Railroad
corridor were abandoned and subsequently developed
into a trail, as proposed earlier in this study, prior to the
development of this phase three option, the rails-to-trails
option could function as the underpass and eliminate
the need to develop an underpass adjacent to the tracks.
These underpasses would provide the users of the eastern
portion of this phase three trail option with unhindered
access to the south side of M-59 spur, phase one trail and
the remainder of the entire Crosstown Trail. As the north
side of M-59 continues to develop at a rather rapid pace,
the trail developers may want to consider moving this trail
option into the phase two category in place of some of the
smaller phase two trail segments. Either way, this segment
will serve to round out the entire Crosstown Trail system,
and provide non-motorized transportation opportunities to
an ever-growing user group along this busy corridor.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
27
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
TRAIL PHASING PLAN - A
28
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
TRAIL PHASING PLAN - B
29
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
N0N-SEQUENTIAL PHASE
T.S.B. RAILS -TO-TRAILS SPUR
M-59 To Lucy Road Park
M-59
Gr
an
d
Ri
ve
rA
ve
.
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
3
NOTES:
3
1
Trail routing within converted railroad
corridor.
4 Possible opportunity for wetland overlook
2
Signed and painted crosswalks at minor
roadway intersections, typ.
5 Connect trail to Jenny McPherson Park,
3
Connect trail to West Street Park.
deck near historic depot.
Barnard Community Center, and Page Field,
this area, typ. Utilize existing facilities at
Barnard Community Center for trailhead.
30
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
N0N-SEQUENTIAL PHASE
T.S.B. RAILS -TO-TRAILS SPUR
M-59 To Lucy Road Park
1
Barnard
Community
Center
1
2
Grand Riv
er Ave.
1
2
3
3
2
NOTES:
1
Convert railroad overpass into pedestrian
overpass at Grand River Avenue.
2
Connect trail to County governmental complex.
3
Connect trail to future redeveloped Lucy Road
Park.
3
31
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PHASE ONE - OPTION A
SOUTH SIDE OF M-59 SPUR
Tooley Rd. to Detroit Edison Corridor
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
5
4
1
Trail routing within the M-59 R.O.W.,typ.
2
Pedestrian Bridge over the S. Branch of the
Shiawassee River, see pages 59-60.
3
Signed and painted crosswalk at minor roadway
intersections, typ.
4
Possible elevated boardwalk needed this area
5
Proposed installation of signalized pedestrian
crosswalk at existing traffic light.
Grand River Ave.
NOTES:
M-
59
Voyager
Elementary
School
32
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
1
3
2
4
1
1
2
3
2
3
NOTES:
Pedestrian Bridge over the T.S.B. Railroad, see pages
59-60.
2
Alternate trailhead location, at exiting MDOT Park
and Ride facility if retained in M-59 reconstruction.
3
4
Pedestrian bridge over Bogue Creek, see pages 59-60.
ke
son La
Thomp
M-59
1
33
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
3
NOTES:
Possible small retaining walls with guardrail needed,
this area.
2
Possible culvert needed, this area.
M-59
1
Eager Rd.
34
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
1
2
1
2
2
1
M
-5
9
NOTES:
1
crosswalk with countdown timer at existing traffic
light.
2
Trailhead within MDOT R.O.W. or within new
development, this area
Latson Rd.
35
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PHASE ONE - OPTION B
GRAND RIVER AVENUE SPUR
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
3
5
1
Trail routing within the Grand River Avenue
R.O.W.,typ.
2
Pedestrian bridge over the S. Branch of the
3
Trail could benefit from Traffic Access Management
principles to limit driveway openings and widths, this
area.
4
Possible elevated boardwalk needed, this area.
5
Possibly move driveway crossings from existing
relatively low-volume, signalized pedestrian
crosswalks to a more mid-block location where
R.O.W. allows
Grand River Ave.
NOTES:
M-
59
Howell High
School
Challenger
Elementary
School
36
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
.
y Rdd.
LLuuccy R
Grand Riv
er Ave.
Barnard
Community
Center
1
2
By
r
on
St
.
Barnard St.
1
1
2
a
Gr
2
ve
Ri
5
ve
rA
4
nd
3
.
3
NOTES:
1 Trailhead at Challenger Elementary
Playground.
2 Possible concrete trail within the Urban
6
Residential & Urban Commercial R.O.W.
classification area, Prospect to National St.
5
3 Connect phase one trail to possible rails-to-
4
trails option at depot.
4 Bypass Grand River Avenue downtown
commercial right-of-way classification on
parallel street right of ways, see pages 63-66.
Possibly sign trail to suggest walking of bikes,
this area, typ.
5 Utilize existing signalized pedestrian crosswalk.
6 Signed and painted crosswalk at minor roadway
intersections, typ.
3
4
37
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
2
1
3
EAR
1
L L
AK
E
4
2
2
5
6
3
1
4
3
7
NOTES:
1 Proposed installation of signalized pedestrian
4
crosswalk with countdown timer at possible
future traffic light.
7
2 Trail routing within future redeveloped Lucy
Road R.O.W., typ.
3 Connect phase one trail to future redeveloped
Lucy Road Park with possible trailhead.
4 Proposed installation of signalized pedestrian
crosswalk at existing traffic light. Connect to
proposed phase two bike lanes on Golf Club
Road.
5 Connect phase one trail to proposed Southeast
Livingston Greenways trail on Chilson Rd. with
existing signalized pedestrian crosswalk.
Earl Lake
Thompson
Lake
b
f
ol
G
u
Cl
.
Dr
6 Trail could benefit from Traffic Access
Management principles to limit driveway
openings and widths, this area.
Grand River Ave.
7 Possible elevated boardwalk needed, this area.
38
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
3
2
5
6
6
7
NOTES:
1
2
Utilize existing signalized pedestrian crosswalk,
possibly add countdown timer for Grand River
Ave. crossing.
3
Possibly sign trail to suggest walking of bikes in
the strip commercial R.O.W. classification, typ.
4
crosswalk with countdown time at existing
traffic light.
5 Possible concrete trail within Genoa Twp.
6 Connect phase one trail to existing trail, typ.
7 Utilize existing signalized pedestrian crosswalk,
possibly retime traffic lights to increase
pedestrian crossing time and add countdown
timers in all directions.
39
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PHASE ONE - OPTION C
DETROIT EDISON CORRIDOR SPUR
M-59 To Grand River Avenue
1
1
2
3
2
3
M-59
4
2
Lats
on R
d
.
1
NOTES:
5
3
1
Connect trail to proposed mixed-use development,
this area.
2
Trail routing entirely within Detroit Edison corridor,
typ.
3
Possible elevated boardwalk or culverts needed, this
area.
4
Signed and painted (upon paving of McGunn)
crosswalks at minor roadway sections, typ.
5
Possible elevated boardwalk needed, this area
40
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Av
e.
PHASE ONE - OPTION C
DETROIT EDISON CORRIDOR SPUR
M-59 To Grand River Avenue
G
ra
nd
Ri
ve
r
Latson Rd.
1
2
1
2
3
2
4
3
2
1
Golf Club Rd.
4
4
Lats
o
n Rd
.
3
NOTES:
1
Connect phase one trail to phase two bike lanes
proposed on Golf Club Road.
2
3
Connect trail to existing residential development, typ.
4
Connect trail to existing concrete trail along Grand
River Avenue.
41
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PHASE TWO - OPTION A
WEST SIDE CONNECTORS/EXTENSIONS
-South Branch Shiawassee River Greenway Connector
-Sleaford To M-59 Extension
Gran
d Ri
ver A
ve.
1
River
Downs
M-59
2
4
1
4
1
5
2
2
3
3
3
NOTES:
4
1
Trail routing within Grand River. Avenue R.O.W., typ.
2
Signed and painted crosswalks at minor roadway
intersections, typ.
3
Trail routing within commercial property and River
Downs development, typ.
4
Probable elevated boardwalk needed, majority of trail
along river.
5
Possible elevated river overlook decks along trail, this
area.
42
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Outlet Mall Extension, Tooley Rd. to Tanger Outlet Center
1
3
2
5
1
1
3
6
7
4
2
2
3
NOTES:
1
Trailhead at Tanger Outlet Center Service Parking Lot.
2
Trail routing within Burkhart Rd. R.O.W., typ.
3
Proposed installation of signalized pedestrian crosswalk at
existing traffic light.
4
Pedestrian bridge over the C.S.X. railroad, see pages 59-60.
5
Trail routing within M-59 R.O.W., typ.
6
Proposed installation of dual-phase signalized pedestrian
crosswalk with elevated boulevard refuge island at M-59
crossing
7
Proposed installation of signalized pedestrian crosswalk
with countdown timers at existing traffic light for Grand
River Ave. crossing.
Grand
Tanger Outlet
Center
River A
ve.
59
M-
I-96
43
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Citizen's Insurance To V.G.'s Supermarket Connector
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
Gran
NOTES:
1
Trail routing within Citizen’s Insurance and V.G.’s
Supermarket properties, typ.
2
Connect phase two trail to existing hiking paths
within Citizen’s Insurance property.
3
Trail routing within Panhandle Eastern Pipeline
Company easement, typ.
Citizen's
Insurance
d Ri
ver A
ve.
V.G.'s
Supermarket
M-59
44
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
School Campus/SW Elementary/Industrial Park Bike Path Connector
1
2
3
3
2
1
3
4
4
1
2
Grand River
Ave.
1
Connect phase two trail to existing sidewalk on
Highlander Way.
2
Trail routing within school property, this area, typ.
3
Signed and painted crosswalks at minor roadway/
school driveway intersections, typ.
Byron St.
NOTES:
Howell High
School
M-59
45
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
School Campus/SW Elementary/Industrial Park Bike Path Connector
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
Grand River
Ave.
1
Connect phase two trail to existing concrete path
with signed and painted crosswalk.
2
Utilize existing concrete path within school
campus, typ.
3
Possible trailhead within school campus, this area.
Byron St.
NOTES:
Howell High
School
M-59
46
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
School Campus/SW Elementary/Industrial Park Path Connector
1
3
2
1
4
2
2
5
1
3
3
NOTES:
Utilize existing signalized pedestrian crosswalk at
Grand River Ave.
2
Trail routing within Highlander Way R.O.W., typ
3
Connect phase two trail to existing Industrial Park Bike
Path at railroad tracks.
4
Utilize existing signalized pedestrian crosswalk at
Grand River Avenue.
5
Possible alternate trailhead, to trailhead proposed at
Challenger Elementary, within Recreation Center
property
Howell
High
School
Grand River Ave.
1
47
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PHASE TWO - OPTION B
CENTRAL CONNECTORS/EXTENSIONS
-Northwest Elementary Extension
-City Park Extension
2
4
3
1
1
1
2
3
2
3
4
4
5
Trailhead at elementary school South parking lot
3
Trail routing within Michigan Ave., Pauline St, and
Thurber St. right-of-ways, typ.
4
Signed and painted crosswalk at minor roadway
intersections, typ.
5
Connect phase two trail with City Park. Utilize City
Park's existing amenities as a trailhead.
City
Park
nA
ve
2
iga
Trail routing within school property
Mi
ch
1
.
NOTES:
NW
Elementary
M-59
48
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Loop Road Connector, Industrial Park Bike Path to Lucy Road Park
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
NOTES:
1
Connect phase two trail to Industrial Park Bike Path
with signed and painted crosswalk at Mason Road.
2
Trail routing within industrial property, possible
security fencing needed, this area.
3
Trail routing within manufactured home community
property and along drive, this area.
I-96
d.
R
on
s
Ma
Mic
hig
an
Av
e.
49
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Loop Road Connector, Industrial Park Bike Path to Lucy Road Park
1
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
3
2
NOTES:
1
Signed and painted crosswalk at D-19.
2
Trail routing within future Loop Rd. Right-of-Way,
typ.
3
Trail routing within future redeveloped Lucy Rd.
R.O.W.
4
Connect phase two trail to future redeveloped Lucy
Rd. Park with possible trailhead.
Grand River Ave.
Lucy
Road Park
I-96
50
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PHASE TWO - OPTION C
EAST SIDE CONNECTORS/EXTENSIONS
Hutchings Elementary To Oceola Twp. Hall Extension
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
2
4
5
3
NOTES:
Alternate trailhead location at Hutchings
Elementary School.
2
Trail routing along entrance drive to
Hutchings Elementary School.
3
Proposed installation of dual-phase,
signalized, pedestrian crosswalk with
elevated boulevard refuge island at M-59.
4
Trail routing within Latson Road R.O.W.
5
Trailhead within Oceola Township Hall
property.
59
M-
1
Hutchings
Elementary
School
Oceola
Twp. Hall
Latson Rd.
51
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Grand River Ave. To Latson Road Elementary School Extension
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
5
4
2
3
NOTES:
Signed and painted crosswalk with possible
installation of raised center lane refuge island.
Trail routing within Latson Rd. R.O.W. , typ.
5
Trailhead within Latson Rd. Elementary property.
.
4
rA
ve
Ri
ve
3
Latson Rd.
Elementary
School
nd
Trail routing within Detriot Edison corridor, typ.
ra
2
Latson Rd.
G
1
52
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Hickory Hills To Hutchings Elementary Connector
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
NOTES:
1
Possible elevated boardwalk or small-scale
pedestrian bridge needed, this area.
Trail routing within Eager Rd. R.O.W., typ.
3
Trail routing within private property this area, typ.
tso
Hutchings
Elementary
School
nR
d.
M-
59
2
La
53
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Golf Club Road Bike Lanes
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
Latson
Go
lf C
lub
Rd.
Rd
.
Earl Lake
Thompson
Lake
.
lub
Rd
Earl Lake
lf C
o
G
d.
er R
Eag
NOTES:
1
Bike lane installation with redevelopment of
Golf Club Rd
ve.
Grand River A
54
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
-Eager Road Bike Lanes
-Oakcrest Extension
1
2
3
3
3
1
Earl Lake
2
2
Eager
Rd.
1
M-59
1
1
NOTES:
1
Bike lane installation with
redevelopment of Eager Rd.
2 Proposed installation of signage
and striping for bike lanes, at a
minimum, this area.
3 Trail routing within Oakcrest
R.O.W. to entrance to residential
subdivision.
55
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PHASE THREE - OPTION A
North Side of M-59 Spur, Grand River Ave. to Birchwood Dr.
1
2
5
1
1
3
4
2
2
1
crosswalk with countdown timers at existing
traffic light for Grand River Avenue crossing.
2
Signed and painted crosswalks at minor roadway
intersections, typ.
3
Trail routing within M-59 R.O.W., typ.
4
Pedestrian bridge over the South Branch of the
5
Connect phase three trail to future Rolling Oaks
Park. Utilize proposed facilities within park as
trailhead.
Grand River Ave.
NOTES:
M-
59
Howell High
School
56
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
2
1
3
3
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
3
Pedestrian bridge over the T.S.B. railroad and
pedestrian underpass to connect to phase one trail
spur. See pages 59-60.
Pedestrian bridge over the Bogue Creek and
pedestrian underpass to connect to phase one trail
spur. See pages 59-60.
Northwest
Elementary
M-5
9
NOTES:
Oak G
rove
57
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
PHASE DESCRIPTION:
1
Connect trail to phase two trail option at entry to
Hickory Hills Subdivision.
2
Trail routing within Eager Road R.O.W., typ.
Eager Rd.
9
M-5
58
NON-MOTORIZED BRIDGE
CROSSINGS:
BRIDGE TYPES
Prefabricated steel truss bridges are commonly used
for non-motorized/pedestrian trail bridges. They can be
furnished in spans from 20 feet to 200 feet and can be
furnished in a variety of styles, finishes and dimensions to
match the desired use.
Precast concrete beam bridges can also be designed
for use as pedestrian bridges. Spans of lengths up to
approximately 120 feet are practical with box beam
shapes.
Modern timber bridges are either deck panels of
relatively short spans or girders consisting of laminated
boards for longer spans.
Because of the length of the structures required we
would propose prefabricated steel truss bridges for any of
the locations considered. For the bridges over railroads we
recommend “Through” type trusses that have horizontal
members over the bridge. For the bridges over water we
recommend “H” type trusses that do not have horizontal
members over the bridge. The height of the truss varies
with the span length. For the spans considered for this trail
the H - truss height above the deck would not be greater
than the required railing height and therefore would not
obstruct views from the bridges.
POTENTIAL NON-MOTORIZED BRIDGE
CROSSINGS
Five potential non-motorized bridge crossings have
been identified. From west to east, within the M-59
corridor, there would be; a crossing of the CSX Railroad,
a crossing of the South Branch of the Shiawassee River,
the TSBY Railroad, and a crossing of Bogue Creek. The
fifth location would be a crossing of the South Branch of
the Shiawassee River within the Grand River Avenue right
of way.
The first three locations along M-59 will have new
vehicle bridges constructed, possibly in the year 2005.
The M-59 bridge over Boque Creek has already been
reconstructed and widened in advance of the other
reconstruction work. No road work is currently proposed
along the Grand River Avenue route.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
In addition to crossings parallel to the main routing
the study is considering below grade crossings from one
side of M-59 to the other side at the TSBY Railroad and
at Boque Creek. A below grade crossing at the South
Branch of the Shiawassee River is not feasible within the
proposed structure due to the low clearance of the arched
structure. A separate tunnel consisting of precast concrete
box culverts could be considered near this location.
The proposed vehicle bridge at the first location is a
3-span structure, with a total length of 140 feet, 6 inches.
The bridge is over a single railroad track and has a vertical
clearance of greater than 23 feet. The center span over
the railroad has a length of 49 feet 6 inches. Options for
the non-motorized trail include a single span for the total
length or 3 spans matching the proposed vehicle bridge
spans.
A single span prefabricated steel “Through” truss
bridge is recommended for this location over the railroad.
The cost of constructing piers adjacent to the railroad to
support a three span bridge is estimated to exceed the
additional cost of the superstructure for the single span
option.
The proposed vehicle bridge at the second location is
a single span precast concrete 3-sided arch with earth fill
over the structure.
The proposed structure length (transverse to M-59) is
based on using slopes with a one vertical to four horizontal
slope. The trail could be accommodated by changing the
slopes to 1 vertical to three horizontal, without lengthening
the structure. The headwall and wingwall heights would
need to be increased and railings added to accommodate
the trail. If this work is done after M-59 is re-built the costs
would be significantly higher.
The proposed vehicle bridge at the third location is a
3 span structure, with a total length of 123 feet, 9 inches.
The bridge is over a single railroad track and has a vertical
clearance of greater than 23 feet. The center span over
the railroad has a length of 41 feet 3 inches. Two separate
bridges will be built for eastbound and westbound M-59.
A single span prefabricated steel “Through” truss
bridge is recommended for this location over the railroad.
The cost of constructing piers adjacent to the railroad to
59
support a three span bridge is estimated to exceed the
difference in cost of the superstructure for the single span
option compared to a three span option.
A below grade crossing can be easily accommodated
at this location with the proposed 3 span vehicle bridge.
The railroad requires significantly more vertical clearance
than the trail, therefore the trail could be built under the
end spans and still have more than 10 feet over the trail. If
provisions for the trail under the bridge are included in the
bridge design the pier crash walls and slope paving could
be modified to accommodate the trail at considerably less
cost than if the work were done after the vehicle bridge is
built.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
COORDINATION AND APPROVALS
FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND OWNERS
The railroad crossings would require approvals from
the railroads and formal agreements.
Each of the river crossings would require a permit
to construct from the MDEQ Geological and Land
Management Division.
The existing vehicle bridge at the fourth location is a
single span concrete box beam structure with a length of
approximately 100 feet.
A single span prefabricated steel “H” truss bridge is
recommended for this location over the water. Constructing
piers in the floodplain to support a three span bridge
would be opposed by the MDEQ due to the impacts on
the hydraulic capacity of the structure. The new structure
should have a length of approximately length of 100 feet to
match the existing vehicle bridge.
A below grade crossing at this location would be hard
to construct under the existing bridge. The underclearance
required would force the trail to be built near the existing
waterway and very near the normal water surface elevation.
The trail could be flooded in storm events, however since
this is a lake outlet the fluctuation in water levels may be
relatively small.
The existing vehicle bridge at the fifth location is a
single span concrete arch structure.
A single span prefabricated steel “H” truss bridge is
recommended for this location over the water. The new
structure should have a length of approximately 80 feet.
The structure should be longer than the existing structure
to set abutments back from the edge of water. The east
abutments will need to be designed to accommodate the
existing storm sewer outlet located on the east side of the
river.
60
AASHTO STANDARDS &
TYPICAL DETAILS:
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
DESIGN CRITERIA SOURCE
Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officals,
(AASHTO), Copyright 1999
SHARED-USE PATH WIDTH
DESIGN CRITERIA
Two Directional SharedUse Path - 10’ wide
recommended
A Reduced-Width Path,
8’ wide min., should
only be used when the
following
conditions
prevail:
1) Bicycle traffic
is expected to be
low, even on peak
days or during peak
hours.
2) Pedestrian use
of the facility is not
expected to be more
than occasional.
3) There will be
good horizontal and
vertical alignment
providing safe and
frequent passing
opportunities.
4) During normal
maintenance
activities, the path
will not be subjected
to maintnance
vehicle loading
conditions that
would cause pavement edge damage.
TRAIL CLEARANCE DESIGN CRITERIA
Vertical clearance to obstructions - 8’ minimum undercrossings and tunnels - 10’ is desired clearance from
shoulder - 2’ minimum/ 3’ preferred to provide clearance
from trees, poles, walls, fence, guard rails or other lateral
obstructions.
BOARDWALK RAILING DESIGN
CRITERIA
Railings on boardwalks should be a minimum of 3’-6” in
height.
Note: These standards are guidelines which should be used
for the construction of trailways in order to obtain funding from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) and the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT).
61
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
TYPICAL TRAIL DETAILS:
EXISTING R.O.W. CLASSIFICATION
SECTIONS WITH TRAIL
MAINTAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
POSSIBLE SHORT SECTIONS
OF RETAINING WALL NEEDED
IN CERTAIN AREAS
IMPLEMENTED TRAIL
REGRADE DITCHLINE & RELOCATE
TRAIL BEHIND ANY GUARDRAIL
POSSIBLY NARROW SHOULDERS TO
ACCOMMODATE TRAIL
4-12’ LANES W/ 10’ PAVED OR GRAVEL SHOULDER- 58’
100’ RIGHT-OF-WAY
RURAL RESIDENTIAL/ COMMERCIAL
- HOUSES/ BUSINESSES SET BACK OFF THE ROAD
- LIMITED INTERFERENCE, LIMITED SIDEWALKS
- SOME GRADE, TREE, DITCH, AND WETLAND CONFLICTS
INITIATE LARGE SIGNAGE RELOCATION TO
OUTSIDE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
POSSIBLY ERECT GUARD AT EXISTING PARKING
LOTS
IMPLEMENTED TRAIL
REGRADE DITCH LINE & RELOCATE
REGULATORY SIGNS, AS NECESSARY
EXISTING CURB &
GUTTER TYP.
5 LANES (12’)- 60’
100’ RIGHT-OF-WAY
STRIP COMMERCIAL
- BUSINESSES/ PARKING LOTS ON ROAD R.O.W.
- MULTIPLE DRIVE OPENINGS, LIMITED SIDEWALKS
- SIGNS, UTILITIES, PARKING LOT, AND DITCH CONFLICTS
REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK
WITH TRAIL. POSSIBLE
CONCRETE TRAIL NEEDED.
INCLUDE SIGNS TO CAUTION
TRAIL USERS OF DRIVEWAYS
AVOID EXISTING LARGE TREES AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING,
TYP.
EXISTING 5’ SIDEWALK
EXISTING CURB &
GUTTER TYP.
3 LANES (12) - 36’
5’
86’ RIGHT-OF-WAY
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
-HOUSES SET BACK OFF ROAD
- NARROW DRIVE OPENINGS
- SOME TREE AND UTILITIES CONFLICTS
URBAN COMMERCIAL
-
CONVERTED URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL
LIMITED INTERFERENCE
NARROW DRIVE OPENINGS WITH FREQUENT TRAFFIC
FREQUENT EXISTING SIDEWALKS
SOME TREE AND UTILITY CONFLICTS
62
DOWNTOWN ROUTING ALTERNATIVES
SIBLEY STREET
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
63
INTERSECTIONS
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
64
CLINTON STREET - CENTER TO WALNUT
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
65
CLINTON STREET - WALNUT TO MICHIGAN
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
66
VARIOUS TYPICAL TRAIL DETAILS
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
INFORMATIONAL SIGN KIOSK
BIKE PARKING
VAULT TOILETS
HINGED STEEL
TRAILWAY
BOLLARD
PAVED PARKING LOT
ROAD
TYPICAL TRAILHEAD & ACCESS PARKING
MULTI-USE TRAILWAY
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN
WITH WARNING BEACON
TRAILWAY STOP SIGN
WARNING PAVEMENT
MARKING
CROSSWALK PAVEMENT
MARKING
HINGED STEEL
BOLLARD
“STOP” PAVEMENT
MARKING
ADVANCE
CROSSING SIGN
WARNING PAVEMENT
MARKING
TYPICAL ROAD CROSSING
NO EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT (MID-BLOCK)
67
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
WARNING PAVEMENT MARKING
4-WAY STOP SIGN
ROADWAY
TRAILWAY STOP SIGN
CLEAR VISION STRIP
WARNING PAVEMENT
MARKING
CLEAR VISION STRIP
MULTI-USE TRAILWAY
“STOP” PAVEMENT
MARKING
HINGED STEEL
BOLLARD
CROSSWALK
PAVEMENT MARKING
STOP BAR PAVEMENT
MARKING
ADVANCE CROSSING SIGN
TYPICAL ADJACENT PATH CROSSING
CLEAR VISION STRIP
“DO NOT BLOCK CROSSWALK” SIGN
DRIVEWAY
RED YIELD SIGN
HINGED STEEL BOLLARD
MULTI-USE TRAILWAY
“YIELD” PAVEMENT MARKING
CROSSWALK PAVEMENT MARKING
TYPICAL COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS
68
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
TRAIL-USER STOP SIGN
MULTI-USE TRAILWAY WITH
“STOP” PAVEMENT MARKING
PAINTED STEEL, HINGED
BOLLARD WITH REFLECTOR
MATERIAL ALL SIDES IN
GROUND SLEEVE
TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION
66’ RIGHT-OF-WAY
TYPICAL BOLLARD
IMPLEMENTATION DETAIL
SAFETY GUARD RAIL
STONE RIP-RAP
STEEL SHEET PILE FOR RETAINING WALL
RAILROAD TRACKS
TYPICAL UNDERBRIDGE CROSSING
TYPICAL RIVER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
TYPICAL BOARDWALK APPLICATION
69
IMPLEMENTED TRAIL PHOTOS:
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Dill Park Trailway. Photograph showing a pedestrian
bridge crossing over the Looking Glass River in Dewitt,
Michigan.
Lansing River Trail. Photograph viewing a
combination of boardwalk and asphalt trailway along
the Grand River in Lansing, Michigan.
Moores River Drive. Photograph showing an example
of pedestrian and vehicle separation between Moores
River Drive and the Grand River in Lansing, Michigan.
Lansing River Trail. Photograph showing pedestrian
and vehicle separation by crossing under the Saginaw
Street bridge in Lansing, Michigan.
Moores River Drive. Photograph showing a handicap
accessible fishing pier along Moores River Drive in
Lansing, Michigan.
Industrial Park Bike Path. Photograph showing a
portion of Howell's Industrial Park Bike Path at it's
western termination point.
70
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
Marshall Riverwalk. Photograph showing a concrete
portion of a non-motorized trailway with amenities and
lighting in Marshall, Michigan.
Marshall Riverwalk. Photograph showing a handicap
accessible ramp portion of a trailway along the
Kalamazoo River in Marshall, Michigan.
Trestle Park. Photograph showing landscape
plantings along a trailway and a pedestrian bridge
crossing at Trestle Park in Adrian, Michigan.
Cascade Township Trailway. Photograph showing an
example of an asphalt trailway within a road right-ofway in Cascade Twp., Michigan.
Northern Tier Trail. Photograph showing an asphalt
trail in East Lansing, Michigan.
71
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES:
STATE AND FEDERAL GRANT
PROGRAMS
MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST
FUND (MNRTF)
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
recommendations are prepared by the Board. The Board’s
recommended applications must be submitted to the
Legislature for approval and appropriation of funds before
grants can be issued. Development grant applications are
accepted each year no later than April 1st. Acquisition
grant applications are accepted no later than April 1st and
again no later than August 1st.
The MNRTF is available to the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR), any local unit of government
(including school districts), or any combination of units in
which authority is legally constituted to provide recreation.
These funds are utilized to acquire land for outdoor
recreation and natural resources protection and to develop
facilities for outdoor recreational opportunities such as
trailways. The MNRTF is supported by revenue and
interest accrued to the Trust from oil and gas exploration
and sales from state land.
Applicants applying for the MNRTF are required to
have a current community recreation plan approved by the
DNR. The plan must demonstrate the need for the project
designated in the MNRTF application. To be eligible for
grant funding in Round 1, new recreation plans or plan
revisions must be submitted to the DNR for review in
February and must have DNR approval by March. To
be eligible for grant funding in Round 2 new plans or
revisions must be submitted for review by July and must
have MDNR approval by August.
Based on grant funding from previous years, there
may be as much as 20 to 25 million dollars available for
MNRTF grants in the next few years. No more than 25%
of the grant funds allotted each year can be awarded to
development projects. The maximum development grant
is $500,000 and the minimum is $15,000. There is no
minimum or maximum for acquisition grants. At least a
25% match on either acquisition or development projects
is required from local applicants. This match can be
either cash, donations of labor, and/or materials, force
account labor with the local applicants work force, or any
combination there of.
For information regarding the MNRTF, go to the
website, www.michigan.gov/dnr, or call the MDNR Grants
Management Section at 517-373-9125.
Grant applications under the MNRTF are calculated
and scored by the DNR Grants Management Section
(GMS), following the evaluation criteria set forth by the
Board including Special Initiatives of the Board. The
following Special Initiatives have been established, in
2003, for the MNRTF:
1) Acquisition of land or development of trailways
that contribute to an overall state trail system.
2) Acquisition of land within an identified winter
deer yard.
3) Acquisition of land that provides ecological
connections or buffer areas that protect critical
wildlife habitat.
Projects that meet one or more of the Special Initiatives
will be given additional points. The MNRTF grant award
TEA 21 (TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR
THE 21ST CENTURY)
Ten percent of the Surface Transportation Fund is
set aside for transportation enhancement activities. In
TEA 21, the term transportation enhancement activities
means: 1) Provision of facilities for pedestrians and
bicycles; 2) Provision of safety and educational activities
for pedestrians and bicyclists; 3) Acquisition of scenic
easements and scenic or historic sites; 4) Scenic or
historic highway programs (including the provision of
tourist and welcome center facilities); 5) Landscaping
and other scenic beautification; 6) Historic preservation;
7) Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation
buildings, structures, or facilities (including the conversion
and use of it for pedestrian or bicycle trails); 8) Preservation
of abandoned railway corridors (including historic railroad
facilities and canals); 9) Control and removal of outdoor
advertising; 10) Archeological planning and research; 11)
Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due
to highway runoff or to reduce vehicle-caused wildlife
mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity; 12)
Establishment of transportation museums. The ten percent
set aside can only be spent on these type of activities.
MDOT, who distributes these federal monies, has combined
72
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
the above activities into four broad categories:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Non-motorized facilities
Transportation aesthetics
Water quality and wildlife mortality
Historic preservation
Recently MDOT changed the application process for
enhancement monies. Applications can now be submitted
on a continuous basis. There is no longer a deadline
for submission. This program was authorized through
October 2003 and was given a five (5) month extension
w/ allocations of funds to state departments given on a
monthly basis until SAFETEA, the new transportation
spending bill to replace TEA-21, is established. MDOT
is continuing to accept enhancement applications but will
not make any awards until the new funding is in place.
MDOT anticipates awarding monies twice a year upon
reauthorization. Applications must be submitted by an
Act 51 agency. These agencies can apply for funding with
a match as low as 20% for the application to receive full
consideration. However, a larger match will increase the
likelihood of receiving funding. All applications must be
reviewed and approved by the MDOT Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). The MPO for Livingston County is
SEMCOG, with the main contact being Christopher Mann,
Transportation Department Coordinator, (313) 961-4266.
Amber Thelen, MDOT Enhancement Program Analyst is
available for information at (517) 241-1456.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
(LWCF)
This federal program, administered in Michigan by
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR),
funds the planning, acquisition, and development of land
for federal and non-federal (known as “state-side”) outdoor
recreation. This program has recently been brought
back from dormancy with funding for 2003 and beyond
reaching at least $4 million per year. State agencies and
local municipalities are eligible for state-side LWCF
funds. These funds can generally be used to acquire
land, build or repair recreation or park facilities, provide
riding and hiking trails, enhance recreational access, and
provide wildlife and hunting areas. The program matches
up to 50% of the cost of a project. The MDNR contact
for LWCF funding is James Wood, Manager, Resource
Protection Section, Grants Administration Division, MDR,
(517) 241-2480.
Funding opportunities information provided in part by the
Rails to Trails Conservancy, Michigan Field Office.
SUMMARY:
IN CLOSING
Trail Study began in earnest in 2002 and ended in late
2003. Many questions were addressed and valuable input
was obtained through several meetings held between,
MDOT, the Steering Committee, the design consultants,
and the general public at several working meetings
and public input meetings held in 2002 and throughout
2003. Through the development and modifications of the
Crosstown Trail, Howell Area Non-Motorized Trail Study,
the above-mentioned parties have put in place a framework
for the development of a successful non-motorized
transportation network. This study will act as a vital tool
for securing necessary funding for the development of
this community recreation and transportation asset. The
following are some items of special note to consider when
further developing and implementing the trail detailed in
this study:
CONCERNS RELATIVE TO TRAILWAY
DEVELOPMENT
PREVENTING CRIME
One issue often raised when developing non-motorized
trail plans is the issue of crime on trail sytems. This is
not a new concern. Consequently, it has been addressed
by many communities as well as the Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy. In studies conducted on developed trail
systems, it has been found that crime rates on trails are
relatively proportional to the crime rates within their areas.
There is no evidence that trails actually increase crime.
This information can be found in “Rail-Trails and Safe
Communities” written by Tammy Tracy & Hugh Morris
of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. To ensure crime is
minimized on community trail systems, it is recommended
that steps be taken from the start to provide community
policing. One method used to fight crime along trails is
to encourage use. Self-policing through regular citizen
use is the most effective means of discouraging crime.
Another effective means is to coordinate the patrolling of
the trails among the various public safety forces in the area.
Using the trails provides a certain amount of policing, but
organized policing efforts have proven successful in the
past and are the recommended method to prevent crime on
the trail system.
73
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
PROHIBITING VEHICLE USE
Another issue often raised in relation to non-motorized
trails is the prevention of motorized vehicle access to
the trail without restricting emergency vehicles. This is
a common concern with trail system development. The
best way to limit unauthorized motorized vehicle access
is through the use of removable vehicle barriers such as
hinged bollards. With this method, the emergency vehicles
would always have keys to the base of the bollards to gain
access to the trail. This is not an ideal situation, but it
should be considered when motorized vehicle access to the
trail system is a concern. These bollards also serve as a
warning to trail users that they are entering a portion of the
trail intersected by vehicles.
PREVENTING LITTER/ MAINTENANCE
Preventing litter along the trail is another issue often
raised with trail system development. Often times, this is
not a problem for community trails because the community
takes pride in keeping the trail clean and litter free. If litter
becomes a problem, organizing groups of people (friends
groups) to adopt sections of the trail is an effective method
to deal with this issue. This not only helps to maintain litter
on the trail, but it helps to build a sense of ownership in the
trail users. With a community trail system, infrastructure
maintenance responsibilities (repairs, resurfacing, etc.)
often fall on the shoulders of the local community that
the trail section in need of maintenance crosses through.
These costs are often handled through the communities
regular transportation / roadway or parks and recreation
department funds. These costs can sometimes be offset
with the assistance of donated labor or cash donations.
Multi-jurisdictional trailway entities can also be formed
under various public acts to establish a single trail authority.
An individual from each jurisdiction that contains the trail
can then be appointed to this authority, and this authority
could then raise funds to maintain the entire trail system,
helping to spread the cost out evenly among the individual
jurisdictions.
EMINENT DOMAIN
Acquiring properties for the development of trails
through eminent domain is another issue often raised
with trailway planning.
Acquiring properties for the
development of a trail through eminent domain is not a
common practice. The purpose of the Steering Committee
planning approach is to initiate the development of a
community-based trail system, that is supported by a
large portion of the community. Eminent domain does
not reflect the philosophy of trail development through
community support, and should be avoided.
TREE REMOVAL
Finally, cutting down trees to develop a trail system is
yet another issue often raised with trail development. The
preservation of trees is an important factor in designing
trails. Typically, trails are designed around significant
trees. Trees add to the aesthetic value of the trail system,
and cutting them down could be detrimental to the trailway
effort. In some instances though, particularly along smaller
road right-of-ways and within dense woodlots, some trees
have to be sacrificed for proper trail routing. In these
instances, reforestation or individual tree replacing efforts
can be a positive response to the tree loss.
TRAILWAY RECOMMENDATIONS AND
NOTEWORTHY ELEMENTS
STANDARDS
It is recommended that trailway development follow
American Association of State Highway Traffic and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. These
standards are established by the Federal Government,
and are required in order to obtain funding from the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and
the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).
These standards also provide for safe trails and ensure the
integrity of trails, thus reducing future maintenance costs.
(See AASHTO Guidelines, page 61) The Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines should also be followed
to provide all inclusive trail access to the general public;
this is also required in order to receive funding from the
state and federal government for trail development.
VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN SEPARATION
It is ideal when developing shared-use paths (trails),
to provide pedestrian users with a comfortable separation
from parallel vehicular traffic. This is often most difficult
in situations requiring the trail to be routed within narrow
road right-of-ways. It is recommended by the AASHTO
that a shared-use path be separated from an adjacent
roadway shoulder by a distance greater than five (5) ft.
74
In instances where the trail edge is located closer than 5
ft to the edge of the road shoulder, a physical barrier or
guard rail is recommended. Unfortunately, it is not always
possible to provide for a greater than 5 ft. separation due
to an urban environment, excess topography, extensive
vegetation, and /or bodies of water. In some instances, it
might be prudent to switch the trail to on-street designated
bike lanes on each side of the road, at a minimum width
of 4 ft. In other instances, such as those which merely
intend to miss mature trees along a road right-of-way,
private property owners may be willing to grant the
trailway developers an easement to move the trail out
of the right-of-way and onto their property to spare the
trees. In instances where the trail routing is located within
city residential street right-of-ways, it may be prudent to
suggest the walking of bikes on these essentially widened
sidewalks. This problem might not arise if bike traffic isn’t
more than occasional and proper signage is established to
keep bike speeds at a minimum (See Various Typical Trail
Details, pages 67-69).
ROAD AND COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY
CROSSINGS
Road and commercial driveway crossings are one of
the most important safety considerations when developing
trail systems. Every effort should be made to utilize underbridge/overpass crossings or existing signalized at-grade
road crossings, when routing trails. When these type of
crossings are not possible, road and commercial driveway
crossings should be designed according to AASHTO and
the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MMUTCD) standards. One key item to consider when
designing at-grade crossings is visibility. Clear vision
strips should be maintained at all crossings, but especially
at commercial driveway and adjacent path crossings. At
adjacent path crossings, the path/roadway intersection
visibility can be increased by moving the pathway closer
to the intersection. In downtown areas with roadside
parking, visibility can be greatly increased by creating
curb bulb-outs, on each side of the road, allowing a trailuser a slightly elevated point of refuge in place of a parking
space. Bulb-outs also slow traffic and decrease the length
of the crossing. Another option to consider implementing
at mid-block crossings where a center turn-lane is present,
is the installation of elevated boulevard refuge islands in
place of the turn-lane in that particular area. This allows
the trail user to only have to focus on crossing half the
roadway at a time. At some of the main intersections, such
as M-59 / Latson Rd. and M-59 / Grand River Ave., in
which a center boulevard will exist, the installation of two
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
pedestrian signals should be considered. This will allow
trail users to cross only one set of directional lanes, with a
signal, and then wait on the boulevard for the other signal
to allow for the crossing of the remaining directional lanes.
Permission to install new crossings and pedestrian signals
is often not easily attained from the county and state
roadway agencies, and will almost always require a full
traffic engineering analysis to prove its safe and warranted.
Examples of some of these crossings are identified in the
Various Typical Trail Details on pages 67-69.
SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS
It is also recommended that adequate signage and
pavement markings be used along a developed nonmotorized trail system. These items can make vehicle and
trail users aware of approaching intersections, obstructions,
emergency phones, and use restrictions. Signage can
also inform users of mileage, trail head locations,
historically significant areas, and environmentally
sensitive areas. Signage design and detail development
should be considered in the next stage of the trail system
development process. Pavement markings should also
follow MMUTCD standards (See Various Typical Trail
Details, pages 67-69).
TRAILHEADS
Trailheads are also an important part of trail system
development. Trailheads provide points of access and
resting/relieving areas for trail users. This trail study takes
advantage of existing and future parks and other civic/
school entities located along the trail system routing to
fulfill trailhead space needs. However, it is felt that some
additional property may need to be obtained near the M-59/
Latson Rd. intersection for the establishment of a trailhead
in this highly visible corner of the trail system. Trailheads
should, at a minimum, contain restroom facilities and
parking opportunities. Other items to consider including
at trailheads are; seating, waste receptacles, drinking
fountains, bike parking, informational signage (kiosks),
and directional signage (See Various Typical Trail Details,
pages 67-69).
75
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
CONSIDERATIONS
During the development of this trail study, it became
apparent that some current and/or future developments
in the far reaches of the study area should eventually be
served by the trail system, but were not identified in this
study. At the current time, these developments might not
be significant enough to warrant inclusion in the current
trail system planning or significant barriers exist that
exclude inclusion. However, we would like to identify
these areas of future development consideration, for the
trail developers to be mindful of in future preparations.
Upon the possible redevelopment of the MDOT
Burkhart Road Interchange, a non-motorized component
should be considered to connect the nearby developing
manufactured home community to the Tanger Outlet Center
and its currently planned phase two trail. This Burkhart
Road connection could also serve future conventional
subdivisions that are planned for this area. MDOT would
certainly have to play a significant role in the development
of this connection for it to ever become a reality
If the Tuscola, Saginaw Bay Railroad were to ever be
abandoned, and the Rails-to-Trails option developed, future
consideration should be given to acquiring and developing
that remaining rail corridor into a trail that could eventually
connect the Howell area to adjacent communities and other
trail systems along this corridor.
With the recent approval of a new elementary school
to be built South of I-96 on D-19 in Marion Township
and the possibility of other development in this area,
future consideration should be given to a non-motorized
connection down D-19 to this area. This would require
transversing I-96 somehow, and might possibly have
to wait until the D-19 interchange was redeveloped.
Regardless, as with the Burkhart Road connection, MDOT
would once again have to be a significant player in this
scheme, for it ever to become feasible.
Yet another future connection to be considered, would
be the continuation of the Loop Road connector, phase two
trail Southward down Lucy Road to serve future residential
developments planned for this area. This development
should coincide with the future redevelopment of Lucy
Road, South of the future Loop Rd. intersection.
The future I-96 interchange proposed at Latson Road
would be the final development that could benefit the
Crosstown Trail with a non-motorized connection. With
the addition of a non-motorized component into this
interchange, a connection could be made between the phase
two trail proposed along Latson Rd. and the Southeast
Livingston Greenways non-motorized component planned
along Nixon Road.
CONCLUSION
Trail Study is intended to act as a tool for the local entities
serving on the Steering Committee and MDOT to use
to promote and develop an area-wide shared-use trail
system. The study provides the opportunity for the local
communities involved, to address concerns and provide
input concerning the development of the trail, very early
in the planning process. This, we hope, will help to get
all affected entities of the trail to reach a consensus about
its direction and scope prior to continuing on with the trail
system’s development. This study, with its master plans
and report, is not intended as a construction document, or to
stand alone. It is intended as a facilitator to be used as the
basis for and in conjunction with other future supplemental
plans and documents to provide a comprehensive planning
approach to a trail system in the Howell area. This study
should not be considered a static document but should be
open-ended with the ability to grow or change with each
affected communities future development opportunities.
This study is the first step in the process of developing
a successful trail system. The Steering Committee, or
trail developers, can help this trail system to become a
reality by lobbying each community government served
by the trail system, to adopt this plan into their 5-year
recreation master plan, if they have one, or in any of their
other municipal master plans or documents. If accepted
by the local communities, a prudent next step would be
for the trail developers to proceed with the initiation of the
easements, if necessary, and road right-of-way approvals
required from the appropriate parties. In conjunction with
this step, the developers should use this study to obtain the
necessary funding to acquire these easements, if necessary,
and initiate further detailed studies and construction
documents of the selected routes. Also needed prior to trail
construction would be any necessary state and local permits
required to proceed with construction. With local and state
approval of the plans for the selected trail phase, funding
76
should be sought for the actual costs of the construction
of the trail. Additional public meetings should be held
throughout this development process to help build support
for the project and correct any misconceptions that might
arise relating to the trail.
According to the Surgeon General’s Report on
Physical Activity and Health of 1996, 60% of Americans
are not regularly active and 25% are not active at all. This
report also suggests that creating safe places for people to
bicycle and walk will be critical to persuading sedentary
people to become more active. Ultimately the decision
to be active lies with the individual, however, how
communities choose to develop their built environment can
influence that decision. Lack of convenient, inexpensive
outlets for recreation opportunities is a reason commonly
cited by populations as barriers to regular exercise. The
Howell area communities can use the proposed trail system
contained in this study as a tool to help break down these
barriers to exercise. The trails contained in this study
are designed to connect users with other area recreational
elements in the study area and surrounding communities in
order to create a broader network of exercise opportunities.
The trail system also connects users to many retail and
civic entities in the study area. The utilization of trails
for daily transportation needs to these entities, instead of
driving, also reduces traffic congestion and auto emissions
further benefiting the overall environmental health of the
area.
Trailways / greenways are developing all over the
United States as a way to protect valuable open space
and provide alternative modes of transportation. As
development pressures continue to mount in our rural and
suburban areas, these valuable open spaces become less
and less accessible. MDOT, as well as the Howell area
residents, have realized the need to put a plan in place to
ensure the general public’s access to; open space, healthier
life-style opportunities, and safe, alternative modes of
transportation. The proactive response chosen by MDOT
to fulfill this need, the Crosstown Trail, Howell Area Trail
Study, will provide the impetus that hopefully culminates in
the development of a successful community-supported trail
system to serve the needs of current and future generations
of Howell area residents.
CROSSTOWN TRAIL
77

crosstown trail - City of Howell

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