2017 Dedham Heritage Rail Trail

TOWN OF DEDHAM
HERITAGE RAIL TRAIL

FEASIBILITY STUDY 2017
PLANNING DEPARTMENT + ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully recognize the Town of Dedhams dedicated Planning and Environmental Departments staff,
including Richard McCarthy, Town Planner and Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator, each of whom
helped to guide this feasibility study effort. Their commitment to the town and its open space system will
yield positive benefits to all as they seek to evaluate projects like this potential rail trail.
Special thanks to the many representatives of the Town of Dedham for their commitment to evaluate the
feasibility of the Heritage Rail Trail. We also thank the many community members who came out for the
public and private forums to express their concerns in person. The recommendations contained in the
Heritage Rail Trail Feasibility Study represent our best professional judgment and expertise tempered by
the unique perspectives of each of the participants to the process.
Cheri Ruane, RLA

Vice President
Weston & Sampson
June 2017
Special thanks to:
Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator

Richard McCarthy, Town Planner
Residents of Dedham
Friends of the Dedham Heritage Rail Trail
Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending
Page | 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Background
2. Community Outreach and Public Process
3. Base Mapping and Existing Conditions
4. Rail Corridor Segments
5. Key Considerations
6. Preliminary Trail Alignment
7. Opinion of Probable Cost
8. Phasing and Implementation
9. Conclusion
Page | 2
Introduction and Background
Weston & Sampson was selected through a proposal process by the Town of Dedham to complete a
Feasibility Study for a proposed Heritage Rail Trail in Dedham, Massachusetts. A previous report from
2014, Dedham Greenway Concept Plan, by Rails to Trails Conservancy outlined general information about
rail to trail projects and offered initial considerations of strategies to overcome existing barriers to a
cohesive and continuous trail as well as opinions of probable cost.
While this information was a good start, the community requested a more in-depth look at what it would
take to address site-specific concerns along this particular corridor and include current estimates of
probable cost based on recently publicly bid projects in Massachusetts. Weston & Sampson has reviewed
the initial study and included some relevant information and findings from that document to provide
context and a cohesive summary of what will be required to construct the 1.33-mile rail trail currently
being considered.
It must be stated that most things are technically feasible given unlimited time and money. The question
is not one of ability to make this trail a reality, it is instead a determination of the value of the result in
light of the resources required to get there. The following study outlines those resources and as well as
the engineering considerations required to build a Heritage Rail Trail in Dedham.
From the 2014 Dedham Greenway Concept Plan:
Purpose and Needs Statement
The proposed Dedham Greenway from the Boston City Line to Dedham Square in Massachusetts would
create a 1.33-mile public green space along a former railroad corridor. This concept plan investigates the
opportunities and constraints affecting the proposed greenway and sets out design concepts that can be
utilized by the community for the next phase of implementation.
Greenways are one of the few practical strategies that have emerged as an antidote to the problems of
loss of open space, uncontrolled growth and fragmented communities; there are multiple ways that trails
and greenways can help build more livable communities. Greenways and trails are designed to produce
real, tangible benefits that can be summarized by four major outcomes:
Resource conservation: Greenways preserve precious open space, which is crucial to the long-term
livability and sustainability of a neighborhood or region.
Health and recreation: Greenways promote public health by creating safe opportunities for
individuals and families to engage in physical activities, such as walking and bicycling.
Community revitalization: In both urban neighborhoods and rural communities, greenways
encourage economic and community revitalization by stimulating small business creation and
improving community quality of life.
Alternative transportation: While originally created for recreation, thousands of bicycle
commuters now use greenways and trails to get to work, thereby reducing traffic congestion and
air pollution while building physical activity into their daily lives.
In addition to these tangible outcomes, greenways also produce important intangible benefits. When the
opportunity to build a new greenway arises, something remarkable often happens in a community.
Page | 3
Individuals, state and local government, the private sector and community-based groups unite in the
common purpose of building a greenway. Greenway building is community building.
Project Goals
The goals of this study are to define design alternatives for the greenway and to propose additional steps
required to proceed to the design and construction stage of the project.
Community Outreach and Public Process

This project required a robust engagement process with the public. We led a series of meetings with the
general public as well as organized groups both in favor and against the implementation of this rail trail.
Given that a potential rail trail will run immediately adjacent to the Avery Elementary School and the
Dedham High School Field we also made a presentation to the Dedham School Committee. On July 15,
2016 Weston & Sampson presented the feasibility study findings available at that time. The presentation
covered potential alignments of the trail corridor as it interfaces with the school. The school committee
voiced concerns about student safety. They also noted that the concept of a bypass route during school
hours may still impact student safety because of the vehicular and pedestrian congestion that has been
noted within the larger neighborhood. For the school committee to better understand the implications of
the rail trail they requested the town complete a circulation study of this area. The Planning Department
has begun to gather that data with an analysis forthcoming.
A site walk was held along the entire corridor so that site specific concerns and observations could be
made and documented. 800 post cards were sent via registered mail to both direct and indirect abutters
asking what they would like to see on the trail. Overall, we have had contact and feedback from hundreds
of abutters and Dedham residents, all of which has informed the findings of this study. The following table
lists the formal meetings:
DATE MEETING
03.19.16 Kick-off Meeting
04.29.16 Site Walk w/ MAPC
05.17.16 First Public Meeting
06.06.16 Dedham Abutter Meeting: Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending
06.09.16 Dedham Abutters Meeting
06.15.16 Dedham School Committee
07.19.16 Dedham Abutters Meeting: Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending
10.04.16 Rail Trail Site Walk w/ Abutters
Through the course of this study it has become clear that this potential rail trail has both strong supporters
and strong objectors. A series of letters to the editor in the Dedham Transcript have articulated both
perspectives. The residents of Dedham, in particular the direct and indirect abutters, are passionate about
this topic. Two organized groups have emerged around the potential rail trail project; Friends of the
Heritage Rail Trail and Dedham Tax Payers for Responsible Spending. It is worth noting that The Friends
of the Heritage Rail Trail raised funds to allow for additional meetings with consultants and outreach to
abutters. A mailing survey was sent to all direct abutters and all abutters within 300 of the rail corridor.
The results of this mailing are as follows:
Page | 4
Total # of Responses: 150 out of 433 (35%)
Direct Abutters: YES = 14, NO = 37 out of 144 (YES = 10% vs NO = 26%, DID NOT RESPOND =
64%
300 Abutters:
Total:
Base Mapping and Existing Site Conditions

We have developed base mapping from aerial imaging and Town of Dedham Assessors Maps. Those
graphics have been included as a base plan in Appendix A.
The summary of existing conditions findings can be found in Appendix B. In general, the existing rail bed
is in relatively good condition in that it is mostly stable with minimal signs of erosion. In areas where the
surfaces are compacted, currently used informally by pedestrians, or paved through previous efforts the
path is fairly passable and largely accessible for able-bodied pedestrians.
There are several lengths of former rail bed that are impassible in their current condition. They include
steep slopes up to Mount Vernon Street (where there was previously an underpass) and zones of
volunteer vegetative growth that is incredibly dense and hard to navigate. At River Street, a bridge that
spanned the roadway was removed due to large trucks being unable to make safe passage below leaving
the bridge abutments but little else.
There are a few locations where existing slopes exceed universally accessible limits of 5% for a sloped
walkway and 8.33% for a ramp with handrails. These areas can be regraded while being mindful of the
surrounding vegetation that is to be protected. Some of the existing trees need pruning or removal simply
because they have reached the end of their useful life. Removals will be kept to a minimum to maintain
existing screening between the rail bed and abutters.
Page | 5
Rail Corridor Segments
To succinctly and effectively describe both existing conditions and proposed requirements for a Rail Trail
facility in this location we have broken the overall 1.33-mile corridor into a series of smaller segments.
These segments are also used to describe a phased implementation strategy that allows for incremental
construction projects should full funding not be available all at once.
The rail bed has been divided into the following segments:
Segment A East Street to tennis courts (including Mt. Vernon Street)
Segment B Tennis courts to high school field parking lot
Segment C High School Field parking lot to Fairview Street
Segment D Fairview Street to Quincy Street Extension
Page | 6
Segment A East Street to tennis courts (including Mt. Vernon Street)
Existing conditions of Segment A include a well-worn surface through densely vegetated woodland and
limited exposure to abutters. The biggest challenge of this section is the crossing of Mount Vernon Street.
There was a former underpass for the railway use that was removed because of dangerous roadway
conditions and poor sight lines for drivers. When the underpass was filled a new road was installed with
a better curvature to support driver sight lines and traffic safety. Current conditions at the existing rail
bed elevation looking at Mount Vernon Street are shown on the following page.
Page | 7
Segment B has fairly level grades but a widely varying set of existing conditions for abutting uses and
access. The path right-of-way is very close to abutting residences on the south side of the corridor. To the
north there is less pressure due to recreational uses and parking lots. As the corridor moves to the east
you encounter an existing roadway that provides access to the Avery Elementary School as well as parking
lots for school use. The corridor was repurposed as a public road when the school was built and while a
usage agreement was drafted specifically to allow a future Rail Trail to be built, there is resistance to
putting a Rail Trail through the center of an active school complex due to existing traffic congestion at
drop off and pick up as well as student safety concerns during the school day. This segment ends as the
street turns south and a worn path that generally follows the existing former rail bed picks up.
Page | 8
Segment C High School Field Parking Lot to Fairview Street
Right in this area, east of the parking lot next to the high school field, is where a significant amount of
excess fill from the Avery School construction project was deposited. Many large, mature trees were
removed to accommodate this fill deposition, much to the significant disappointment of immediate
abutters whose backyards and homes that were once screened by mature vegetation are now exposed to
the rail corridor. In addition, the deposition of the fill material was not done in a way that accommodates
universal access. In addition to the materials and uneven surfacing, the slopes of the material along the
ridgeline of the soil berm exceed 5% and must either be re-graded or constructed with handrails and
landings at slopes not more than 8.33% in accordance with Massachusetts Architectural Access Board and
American with Disabilities Act requirements.
This segment of path extends to the Walnut Street Bridge. This bridge creates an underpass condition
along the rail corridor. This area, hidden from view by the bridge and abutments, is understood to
accommodate nefarious activities that the abutters are concerned about. There is visible evidence of
graffiti, drinking, and drug use in this area. Site security and screening of abutters will be critical in this
area.
Page | 9
This corridor alignment runs behind the large warehouse to the north east of the path on Google Maps.
To the southwest of the right-of-way are a series of smaller businesses that have encroached to varying
degrees on the railway property. Once past the long warehouse building there are a few residences that
sit much lower in elevation than the rail corridor. This creates an opportunity for visual access from path
users into peoples private homes including second floor rooms. Several of the abutters have explicitly
brought this to our attention at meetings and on-site walks.
A portion of this segment near the easement at Flanagan Place will require invasive species management
to eradicate sections of Japanese knotweed. During a site walk, residents requested the use of organic
methods of removal due to the proximity of nearby vegetable gardens.
Once you reach River Street you find yourself high above the roadway grades where a former railroad
bridge existed. We understand that this bridge was removed because larger trucks were hitting it on a
fairly regular basis and it was a safety concern. Rugged individuals have been able to navigate down the
top of the abutment structure to River Street, quickly dash across the street between fast-moving cars,
and ascend the eastern abutment structure to continue the walk.
Moving eastward beyond River Street there are several automotive and construction based businesses to
the north of the rail bed. Since the rail bed is considerably higher than the surrounding properties you can
Page | 10
see onto the roofs and into the yards of these businesses with ease. This elevation change may create the
potential for vandals to throw objects onto the businesses below.
To the south of the corridor are single and multi-family residences. Many have fences existing, some with
gates to access the right-of-way now. This segment would end at the Quincy Ave Extension which runs
from Whiting Avenue heading northeast and abuts the railway parcel. Selective tree removal, grading,
pavement and signage would be needed to make a safe and clear connection from this interim Rail Trail
terminus back to the public way. It appears there has been much encroachment at this end of the segment
by abutting businesses. The Town has committed to investigate this further.
Key Considerations:
Following is a summary of key considerations of factors that were reviewed and investigated throughout
the process of this study.
1. Property Ownership
By deed from the MBTA dated June 22, 1999, and recorded in Book 13545, Page 523 (the Deed),
the Town obtained the fee title to the entirety of an abandoned railroad right-of-way known as
the Dedham Secondary Branch (the Rail Corridor or Corridor). Described in the Deed as
Parcel B, the Corridor is 1.3 miles in length, and its boundaries are shown on railroad valuations
plans recorded with the Registry of Deeds and referenced in the Deed. The Deed also granted to
the Town the fee interest in a 6.3-acre parcel of land (Parcel A) now known as Gonzalez
Field. The Towns fee ownership of the Corridor in its entirety was recently confirmed by an April
11, 2017 title report obtained on the Towns behalf by Town Counsel.
Acting on behalf of the Town, the Board of Selectmen accepted the grant of the Rail Corridor for
general municipal purposes pursuant to authorization of the vote under Article 1 of the April 10,
2006 Special Town Meeting. The Selectmen had previously accepted the grant of Gonzalez Field
for active recreation purposes pursuant to authorization of the vote under Article 3 of the April
13, 1998 Town Meeting. It appears that authorization to acquire the Rail Corridor was
inadvertently omitted from the 1998 Town Meeting vote authorizing the acquisition of Gonzalez
Field, thus requiring the further authorization of Town Meeting and acceptance of the Board of
Selectmen with respect to the Rail Corridor in 2006.
2. Custody of the Rail Corridor
Following the Selectmens acceptance of the grant of the Rail Corridor, the Town then transferred
a portion of the Rail Corridor (the School Portion) to the care, custody and control of the School
Department for school purposes by the vote of the April 2, 2008 Town Meeting under Article 38.
Following the transfer of custody of the School Portion, and as part of the construction of the
Avery School, the Superintendent of Schools and the Town Administrator executed a Letter of
Commitment (See Appendix F) identifying the Rail Corridor as a future shared use path that would
eventually connect downtown Dedham with the new elementary school to the Readville
Commuter Rail Station, and committing to maintain a minimum of 50 feet of clearance (no
structures) within the Rail Corridor, together with access through the school driveway and the
Rail Corridor, in order to accommodate the future shared use path.
Page | 11
At present, based on the actions set forth above, the Rail Corridor is owned in its entirety by the
Town, and is held by the Town in part in the care, custody and control of the Board of Selectmen
for general municipal purposes, and in part by the School Department for school purposes, subject
to the Letter of Commitment as it may apply.
3. Proximity to the Avery Elementary School
There is continued discussion about the use of the railroad right-of-way for the construction of the
Avery Elementary School and a letter of commitment that was drafted in an effort to secure future
access for a rail trail facility in this location. It is important to note the Avery Elementary School was
designed, permitted and constructed just a few years ago which created the challenge of navigating
the rail trail around the school campuses. Further, this challenge was recognized after construction
and a commitment was made to work through this issue (see Appendix F Letter of Commitment).
The current school administration has voiced concerns about the confluence of rail trail users with
students at drop off, pick up, and during the school day. Current conditions have been reported as
congested and chaotic during drop off and pick up. The concern is that the addition of rail trail users
to this area will only further compound existing congestion and compromise student safety. As a
result, the school committee requested a traffic study be completed as part of this feasibility study.
We also recommend a circulation study be completed for key intersections near the elementary,
middle and high schools to provide critical information on the movement patterns in this area
(pedestrian and vehicular) to help make informed planning decisions. The circulation study has been
postponed to allow for the completion of the feasibility study and to better define the scope of the
circulation study.
4. Environmental Conditions of the Site as a former rail bed, there are concerns about potential
environmental issues.
The site is a former rail bed. While careful site characterization must be completed, there is
established precedent for projects of this nature. In fact, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection has even developed guidelines and best management practices (BMPs)
for the conversion of former railroad lines to recreation trails. If final design moves forward, a
Licensed Site Professional should be involved to develop initial site assessment, a soil
management plan, and compliance with the Department of Environmental Protection
requirements.
As part of this study an initial review of environmental reporting both on the site and in the
immediate vicinity was conducted. The findings showed that there are no open cases of
environmental threats in the immediate area and that the site must go through the standard
protocols of a rail to trail project through an LSP, but that no significant environmental events
have occurred on this particular corridor. The summary of our findings is attached in Appendix C.
Based on other rail to trail projects completed in Massachusetts, a soil management plan that will
be in full compliance with DEP requirements must be completed. This has been included in the
opinions of probable cost.
5. Access and Egress to the Corridor points of access to a potential rail trail must be established
including parking accommodations.
Multiple points of egress will allow for ease of use and improve site security.
Page | 12
Currently we are proposing potential points of access to a rail trail at East Street, Whiting Avenue
through the high school field parking lot, Quincy Avenue Extension and potentially Aiken Street
with future considerations at Flanagan Place. All points of access will be handicapped accessible.
While a trail of this length and location would see most users coming on foot or bike from the
local neighborhood, there will still be potential users who require vehicular transportation to a
trail facility. To provide a limited number of parking spaces for users in need we suggest a few
spots in the Gonzales Field complex be identified as for use by trail users when a sporting event
is not in progress. Also, spots within the parking lot next to the high school field is open on
weekends and could be used during that time for rail trail parking.
6. Privacy and Security of Abutters there is concern by abutting residents and business owners about
a loss of privacy and increased vandalism.
Certain business properties reported a history of vandalism during the time before the River
Street rail bridge was in place.
Abutters have reported current nefarious activity on the former rail bed including graffiti,
drinking, smoking and marijuana use. The town has been in discussions with the Town Manager
to include costs for fencing for Devaney Oil to meet Homeland Security needs.
At Mount Vernon Street and River Street where an underpass and a bridge were formerly in place
respectively to accommodate the intersection of the rail line and the vehicular roadways. The
possibility of reintroducing these two elements has caused concern for those living in close
proximity of these features perceived to be an attractive nuisance for nefarious behavior.
Elevation of path surface allows for views into some homes
There are also abutters whose homes sit very close to the rail road right-of-way. They have
concerns about people walking in such close proximity to their private residences. Their fears
include a reduction in privacy and security.
We have been made aware that during construction of the Avery Elementary School a large
volume of fill was placed along the path alignment. To make room for this fill several mature trees
were removed. This visually exposed several residences that had previously been enclosed and
screened by this vegetation from the former rail bed.
7. Cost of Construction
Previous estimates were perceived as inaccurate and too low. Some residents are wary of
approving a project that will end up costing much more than people expect.
Opponents have voiced concerns about competing needs within the town and that tax payer
dollars should not be allocated to this project.
Costs have been estimated based on current construction pricing and include soil management
required for the environmental considerations.
8. Cost of Operations and Maintenance
Typical annual path maintenance costs in New England are $5,000 / mile which includes mowing
(and landscape maintenance) and trash pickup.
The addition of this path would require an additional 300 man hours / year which equates to 15%
of a full-time employee.
Precedent examples of operation and maintenance costs are included in Appendix D.
Page | 13
It is important to note that additional decisions by the town would need to be made before
determining the municipal entity responsible for maintenance (such as the designated category
of open space.)
The estimates above are based on a minimal-maintenance vegetation strategy. This approach
would use native plantings which, once established, would become part of the surrounding,
existing plant community of the rail corridor. This is a departure from the previously completed
artistic renderings and is in response to feedback provided by the towns Park and Recreation
Department as well as discussions with the Dedham Residents for Responsible Spending.
Preliminary Trail Alignment

The following pages include graphic and written descriptions of a preliminary trail alignment for
consideration. While the rail bed itself is the starting point for any rail trail there always community-
specific conditions that inform site-based adjustments and additional features to the rail bed that must
be deployed to make the project feasible.
Each plan segment includes a legend that describes the symbols used to show where interventions will be
made and what kind. Further explanations of those elements as well as images of what this construction
might looks like follow the plans.
Page | 14
Segment A East Street to the tennis courts (including Mt. Vernon Street underpass)
There has been discussion about a potential pedestrian bridge from the start of a proposed rail trail across
East Street to the Gonzales Recreation Field Complex. While this would certainly provide outstanding
pedestrian connectivity we anticipate the cost of construction to be prohibitive. In this location, we have
shown an at-grade pedestrian crosswalk that connects to existing sidewalks along East Avenue up to the
parking area for Gonzales Field where there would be handicapped parking available for trail visitors.
Once across East Street one encounters a fairly steep sloping lawn up to the original rail bed elevation.
This area would be graded to ensure universally accessible egress, excellent visibility for users and public
safety and clear wayfinding and signage identifying the proposed rail trail. The surface would be asphalt
to ensure longevity and ease of maintenance. The initial point of egress where the ramp will be required
will be 6 wide with the full width of 12 being accomplished at the top of the slope.
Selective removal of vegetation will only be completed within the construction access zone along with any
trees that are showing signs of decline or poor health and could potentially be a hazard to trail users in
the future. In some areas, there is poor drainage and stormwater collects into large puddles. These would
be managed through site grading and infiltration of stormwater back into the ground. Connections to
existing storm drain lines will be considered for overflow capacity during a major storm event.
To cross Mount Vernon Street, we recommend an underpass be constructed under the roadway. Formerly
there was an underpass in this location but it was subsequently filled and the roadway lowered. We
anticipate leaving the roadway intact and using a construction technique known as jacking to remove
the fill materials and insert a 10 x 12 concrete structure to support the span and provide pedestrian
access. This new underpass will be lit with security lighting. Security cameras like those used at other
Dedham parks and buildings have also been discussed at this location. The grading and drainage
operations of this effort will be significant as there are several large culverts currently in place to convey
Page | 15
stormwater under Mount Vernon Street. These must be relocated in conjunction with a larger drainage
renovation that will capture stormwater from the west end of the path and connect it into the larger town
system. As an alternative to the underpass, a switch-back pathway may be constructed up the
embankment to connect the rail trail to Mount Vernon Street.
Once past Mount Vernon Street the rail corridor limits are in very close proximity to one residential home
and deck. Given the recreational use to the north of the tennis courts, we are proposing a shift of the path
to hug the northern property line. Between the proposed Rail Trail and the southern property line the
design would call for earthwork that creates berms for screening and evergreen planting. Fencing would
be integrated alongside the path within the planting to ensure path users remained on the path. This area
also holds stormwater during wet periods and detention and conveyance of stormwater will be required
to ensure the path is well-constructed and has longevity in concert with surrounding utilities.
Page | 16
As you progress to the East along the rail corridor you arrive at the edge of the Avery Elementary School
access drive, the high school and athletic field is to the south of the roadway. This is the interface where
many people, including the school committee, have expressed concern about vehicular congestion, public
and student safety. In response to these concerns we have considered alternative path alignments (shown
in the graphic above) that can be in effect during school hours. Two pathway alternatives were developed
to address concerns during these hours. One option would use signage to instruct path users to bypass
the Avery School access drive and proceed behind the track and field to continue on the rail trail at the
high school field parking lot. Another option, moving west to east on the trail, would direct path users up
a handicap ramp to Mt Vernon Street, to the north of the tennis courts, behind the Dedham Pool Building
and the Avery School, up the ledge past the basketball courts and around the field to continue on the rail
trial at the high school field parking lot. When school is not in session in the evenings, on weekends and
all summer long, path users would be able to ride or walk along the access drive that connects directly
with the railway corridor. The Mount Vernon Street alternative will require an intensive ADA compliant
ramp to provide passage for pedestrians from the rail corridor elevation up to Mount Vernon Street. This
is reflected in the opinions of probable cost. Please see Key Considerations for additional information
related to the Avery Elementary School and usage agreements for a potential rail trail facility. It is
important to note that the school was built on the right-of-way of the rail bed. As a result, there was an
agreement between the town, the school and MAPC for the allowance of a recreational corridor through
the access road.
Page | 17
Segment B Alternative Mt. Vernon Street to north of Avery Elementary School to high
school field parking lot
An alternative route behind the Avery Elementary School was studied in more detail. Moving west to east,
this alternative route would require a switch back trail or ADA ramp leading up to Mt Vernon Street. The
route would then cross Mt Vernon, pass through the tennis court parking area and subsequently cross
Recreation Road. These crossings would incorporate pedestrian/bike crossing signals. As the path travels
to the north and then east of the pool building, a 6-foot-tall black vinyl chain link fence would separate
the path users from the school property. An intensive ADA compliant ramp would be required to reach
the higher elevations adjacent to the basketball court. The path would then continue along the outer edge
of the rectangular athletic field (requiring ledge removal) before connecting again to the existing rail
corridor.
Page | 18
Segment C High school athletic field parking lot to Whiting Avenue at Fairview Street
In this location, the elevation of the rail bed is optimal for a

potential rail trail facility. There is an existing bridge spanning
Walnut Street that creates a generous underpass once used by
the railway. This underpass would be painted and security
lighting installed. Security cameras have also been discussed for
inclusion at this location.
Some abutting residences have minimal vegetation and

screening between their private property and the rail corridor.
In these locations, we propose additional planting and regrading
as necessary to create a universally accessible trail with an
appropriate buffer to the nearby homes.
In locations where local businesses have begun to encroach on

the railway corridor, conversations with each property owner to
determine what alterations to their current operations will be required. The proposed rail trail will include
fencing at these locations to screen views of industrial usage from the path.
Page | 19
This segment runs in close proximity to some residences and due to the rail bed elevations, create
unwanted visual access into peoples homes up to their second floors. A shifting of the path alignment
away from these houses, coupled with re-grading and planting will provide a better buffer and mitigate
privacy concerns in these locations.
A pedestrian bridge is required at River Street. An at-grade

crossing at this location is not recommended due to traffic
speeds and limited visibility coming from the north. The
former bridge abutments remain in place and can be
reused, pending structural evaluation, for a pre-fabricated
bridge structure that will reconnect rail bed. The
businesses north of the path and east of River Street have
suggested vandalism occurred when the former bridge
existed. To protect these properties, we are proposing
fencing, planting and protective netting that will extend
20 in the air and prohibit projectiles from being thrown
from this part of the path.
The interim terminus of this proposed rail trail will include

a connection from the rail corridor to Whiting Avenue via Quincy Street Extension. This would require an
easement. An alternative interim terminus would be through an easement through the adjacent MBTA
property to the east/south-east. As you can see from the aerial photo and abutters maps there has been
significant encroachment on this property. Mitigation is in order if the town plans to use Quincy Street
Extension as a pedestrian connection. From a longer term perspective, the town has had conversations
with property owners in Dedham and Boston about continuing the rail trail to Readville Yard Station.
Page | 20
Opinion of Probable Cost
From an operational perspective, the town will need to dedicate seasonal and full time staff (as phases
are implemented) to manage the new public open space assets. Based on our research in other
Massachusetts municipalities we have determined that on average this facility will cost the town $7,500
in labor costs each year to operate and maintain in good order. This assumes that the town has all of the
necessary equipment to perform the work (vegetation, pavement, snow management).
Construction estimates are taken from recent bid pricing of comparable projects for publicly bid projects
in Massachusetts.
Page | 21
Page | 22
Conclusion
The prospect of a multi-use rail trail through this part of Dedham has been a polarizing concept amongst
direct and indirect abutters. There are some that are excited by the potential for dedicated pedestrian
and bike connections between homes and the schools as well as opportunities for exercise out of the way
of vehicles. Others see the costs of time and money to be too high given the maximum length of 1.33
miles. Throughout this feasibility study we have engaged with residents on both sides of the issue as well
as many who do not oppose the idea of a Heritage Rail Trail, but want the result to be safe and not have
a negative impact on abutters.
We have concluded that in order to create the Heritage Rail Trail from East Street to the Quincy Street
Extension along the original rail corridor, including an underpass at Mount Vernon Street and a bridge at
River Street, the total cost will be approximately $2,875,000. This price does not include lighting
($550,000) or a bridge to connect the rail trail with the Gonzales Athletic Complex ($3,100,000). The Town
is exploring grant funding as well as inclusion of this project on the Transportation Improvement Program
by MassDOT.
The best implementation strategy includes a phased approach to construction. By selecting smaller
segments of the corridor to be improved over time it disperses construction costs over a longer period
and allows people opposed to the concept of the path to see how a limited section would function as a
pilot program.
Appendices
A Base Plan by Segment
B Site Photos by Segment
C Summary of Environmental Findings from W&S LSP
D Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail Trails by Rails to Trails Conservancy
E Structural Cost Precedents for Bridges and Underpasses
F Letter of Commitment, Board of Selectman
G Direct/Indirect within 300 Abutter Survey Postcard
Page | 23
RAIL TRAIL SHIFT IN RAIL TRAIL ACCESSIBLE PARKING
RAIL TRAIL ON PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS ALTERNATE ROUTE
EXISTING SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
CROSS WALK BERM
N
ALTERNATE RAIL TRAIL ROUTE PLANTING 0 55 110 220
MATCH LINE SEGMENT B

CROWLEY AVENUE
EA
ST
ST
RE
ET
AVERY STREET
TREET
MT VERNON S
CLARK STREET ELMVIEW
ACE PLACE
PL
ELEANOR STREET
CIL
CE
R EET
S ST
ROW
BAR
SEGMENT A
East Street to Tennis Courts (Including Mt. Vernon Street Underpass)
APPENDIX A
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SHIFT IN RAIL TRAIL
RAIL TRAIL REGRADE AREA AS REQUIRED

CROSS WALK
BERM
ALTERNATE RAIL TRAIL ROUTE N
PLANTING
0 55 110 220
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
MATCH LINE
FENCE
SEGMENT A
HA
SS UE
ZE
A
C EN
LN
SEG H LINE
AV
TC
UT
PL
MEN
AC
C
MAT
E
N STREET
BARROWS E
STREET ELMVIEW PLAC
MT VERNO
WHITING AVENUE
UE SEGMENT B
EN
AV Tennis Courts to High School Field Parking Lot
NG
HITI
W
RAIL TRAIL SWITCH BACK OR ADA RAMP
CROSS WALK ADA RAMP
FENCE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LIGHT
ROAD
RECREATION
REET ST
MT VERNON
CLARK
STREET ELMVIEW PLACE
WHITING AVENUE
UE SEGMENT B ALTERNATIVE
Mt. Vernon EN
AV Street to North of Avery Elementary School to High School Field Parking Lot
ING
W HIT
RAIL TRAIL EXISTING PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS
REGRADE AREA AS REQUIRED PLANTING N

0 55 110 220
BERM FENCE
UE
EN
AV
SS
CA
HAZ
ELN
UT P
LAC
E
MATCH LINE
SEGMENT D
TREET
WALNUT S
WHITING AVENUE
SEGMENT C
High School Field Parking Lot to Fairview Street
RAIL TRAIL SHIFT IN RAIL TRAIL
REGRADE AREA AS REQUIRED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

N
PLANTING FENCE
0 55 110 220
PROTECTIVE NETTING + INTERIM TERMINUS
FENCE
MILTO
N STR
EET
LACE
GAN P
MATCH LINE
SEGMENT C
FLANA
N
SIO
EN
XT
TE
EE
TR
YS
ET
INC
RE
QU
ST
R
WHITING AVENUE VE
RI
T
FAIRVIEW
EE
STREET
TR
YS
INC
QU
SEGMENT D
Fairview Street to Quincy Street Extension
SEGMENT A - EXISTING PHOTOS
"11&/%*9#
SEGMENT B - EXISTING PHOTOS
SEGMENT B - ALTERNATE ROUTE BEHIND AVERY - EXISTING PHOTOS
SEGMENT C - EXISTING PHOTOS
SEGMENT D - EXISTING PHOTOS
APPENDIX
APPENDIX C C
85 Devonshire Street, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA 02109
Tel: 617.412.4480
TO: Cheri Ruane and Cassidy Chroust
FROM: Kenneth Gendron
DATE: August 29, 2016
SUBJECT: Summary of Dedham Rail Trail Environmental Findings
The DEP database was reviewed along with a request for an EDR including Sanborn Maps and historical
aerial photos. The DPE site map is attached. The blue dots represent sites closed with a Class A-2 RAO
(clean but not to background) or Permanent Solution Statement with No Conditions and the green dots
represent sites closed with a Class A-3 RAO which includes and Activity and Use Limitation (AUL). Red dots
represent open sites. The accompanying list with the red highlighted RTNS are the sites located in the
vicinity of the proposed rail trail that have been reviewed.
The EDR will take some time to come in because of the type of search requested.
However, of the 11 DEP sites along the trail, no issues have been found. All 11 RTNS have been either
closed or linked to closed sites. The one big one is the adjacent rail yard. It is closed, but with a deed
restriction. This site is at the end (or beginning) of the proposed rail trail and borders on Quincy Street.
The EDR report and appendices were reviewed. There was limited Sanborn coverage so they were not
helpful. There was a nice library of aerial photos dating back to 1938. There have not been many
significant changes throughout the area over time as it has been primarily residential with some
commercial development. The rail yard has been throughout that timeframe. There was no new
information in the EDR report itself.
Therefore, no significant environmental issues were found along the proposed rail trail with the exception
of the rail yard. There may be some soil management issues along the former rail line itself consistent with
historical use as a rail line and treated timbers. Of course there is always the risk of an undocumented spill
along the rail line itself, however, that is unlikely.
Enclosed: Dedham Rail Trail DEP Site Map
westonandsampson.com
Offices in: MA, CT, NH, VT, NY, NJ, PA, SC & FL
SearchableSites Page 1 of 6
Reportable Release Lookup
Locations Map Legend | Data Questions?
200 m
1000 ft
The search returned 201 results | Search Keywords >> 'DEDHAM' | Data last updated: 08/26/2016
There is a maximum limit of 200 records that can be displayed. You have exceeded the limit. 200 records have been displayed.
Page:1 of 2 Sorted by: Release Address GIS Previous Next
City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical
Files
Select RTN Town Address Location Aid Category Date Status Date Phase Class Type GIS
3-0000003 DEDHAM ALLIED DR DEDHAM PLACE NONE 1986-03-06 DEPNFA 1987-12-16 Files
ALLIED
3-0000795 DEDHAM 1 ALLIED DR NONE 1986-11-12 WCSPRM 1990-05-10 Files
CONTAINER CORP
DEDHAM PLACE
Hazardous
3-0026042 DEDHAM 3 ALLIED DR 42-17-29 N 71-36-22 TWO HR 2006-07-11 RAO 2006-11-03 A1 Files MAP
Material
W
3-0011343 DEDHAM 40 ALLIED DR RTE 128 120 DY 1994-07-21 RAO 1995-09-26 A2 Oil Files MAP
3-0012983 DEDHAM 40 ALLIED DR NEAR RTE 128 120 DY 1995-09-28 RAO 1996-01-16 A2 Oil Files MAP
3-0000902 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR ATLAS OIL NONE 1988-10-15 RAO 1995-06-28 A2 Files
OFF EAST ST EXIT
3-0010345 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR TWO HR 1993-12-22 RAO 1994-02-18 A1 Oil Files MAP
OF 128
3-0014384 DEDHAM 55 ALLIED DR NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1996-10-22 RAO 1997-10-22 A3 Oil Files MAP
68-116 ALLIED CUMMINS NORTH PHASE
3-0003152 DEDHAM NONE 1990-07-15 RAO 1996-07-29 Oil Files
DR ATLANTIC II
40 ALLIED ROOFING TAR Hazardous
3-0031063 DEDHAM 120 DY 2012-08-22 RAO 2013-06-13 A2 Files MAP
DRIVE RELEASE Material
3-0023159 DEDHAM AMES ST @ POLE #51/31 TWO HR 2003-09-09 RAO 2003-09-18 A1 Files MAP
3-0028967 DEDHAM 18 AMES ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2009-12-22 URAM 2010-01-08 Oil Files
PHASE
3-0002716 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST MOBIL STATION NONE 1991-10-15 RAO 2011-05-12 C1 Oil Files MAP
V
Oil and
PHASE
3-0021116 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2001-09-28 RAO 2011-05-12 Hazardous Files MAP
V
Material
EXXON MOBIL
3-0023153 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST TWO HR 2003-09-07 RTN CLOSED 2005-04-13 Oil Files MAP
STATION
3-0023994 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2004-06-23 RTN CLOSED 2005-04-13 Oil Files MAP
Oil and
MOBIL STATION
3-0025770 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST 72 HR 2006-03-29 RTN CLOSED 2007-01-26 Hazardous Files MAP
11658 FMLY 01-081
Material
3-0026537 DEDHAM 19 AMES ST MOBIL STATION 72 HR 2007-01-19 RTN CLOSED 2007-03-16 Oil Files MAP
3 AND 5 DENTAL OFFICE
3-0018370 DEDHAM TWO HR 1999-06-04 RAO 1999-06-16 A1 Files MAP
SCHOOL ST BLDG
3-0023068 DEDHAM 2-4 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2003-06-18 DPS 2003-10-28 Files MAP
3-0024795 DEDHAM 2 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2005-04-22 PSC 2015-11-24 PC Oil Files MAP
PHASE
3-0013374 DEDHAM 22 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1996-01-25 RAO 2006-12-04 A2 Oil Files MAP
V
http://public.dep.state.ma.us/SearchableSites2/Search_Results.aspx 8/29/2016

Files
3-0017238 DEDHAM 22 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1998-08-31 RTN CLOSED 1998-12-30 Files MAP
3-0006022 DEDHAM 23 BRIDGE ST RAY S AUTO NONE 1994-03-08 RAO 1995-03-22 A2 Files
PHASE
3-0003648 DEDHAM 27 BRIDGE ST SHELL SERV. STA. NONE 1991-07-15 RAO 2004-03-09 A2 Oil Files MAP
V
PHASE
3-0023652 DEDHAM 27 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2004-03-03 RAO 2006-09-29 A2 Files MAP
II
PHASE
3-0013759 DEDHAM 79 BRIDGE ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1996-05-14 RAO 2007-08-14 A2 Oil Files MAP
II
BARREL DUMPING
3-0001761 DEDHAM 150 BRIDGE ST NONE 1987-01-15 DEPNFA 1993-07-23
WETLAND
BP SERVICE PHASE
3-0002485 DEDHAM 367 BRIDGE ST NONE 1989-10-15 RAO 1996-06-17 A2 Oil Files
STATION III
22 BRIDGE GETTY SERVICE
3-0032274 DEDHAM 72 HR 2014-06-27 PSNC 2015-06-26 PN Oil Files MAP
STREET STATION
22 BRIDGE FORMER GETTY
3-0032761 DEDHAM TWO HR 2015-03-04 PSNC 2015-06-30 PN Oil Files MAP
STREET STATION
3-0026971 DEDHAM 26 BRYANT ST TOWN OFFICES 120 DY 2007-07-27 RAO 2008-07-25 B1 Oil Files MAP
3-0010021 DEDHAM 215 BUSSEY ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1993-10-06 RAO 1994-01-31 A4 Oil Files MAP
Oil and
COMMONWEALTH PHASE
3-0004540 DEDHAM 216 BUSSEY ST NONE 1993-10-01 RAO 2000-02-12 A4 Hazardous Files MAP
GAS IV
Material
BOSTON EDISON PHASE Hazardous
3-0019447 DEDHAM 11 CECIL PL 72 HR 2000-04-12 RAO 2003-04-22 C1 Files MAP
SUBSTATION 20 IV Material
NSTAR
3-0020431 DEDHAM 11 CECIL PL TWO HR 2001-03-01 RAO 2001-03-15 A2 Oil Files MAP
SUBSTATION 20
NSTAR ELECTRIC
3-0024094 DEDHAM 11 CECIL PL POWER STA 20 120 DY 2004-07-28 RAO 2004-07-28 A2 Files MAP
TRNSFMR 24B
NSTAR ELECTRIC
3-0024970 DEDHAM 11 CECIL PL POWER DISTR STA 120 DY 2005-06-15 RAO 2005-06-15 A2 Files MAP
20
11 CECIL NSTAR STATION
3-0030738 DEDHAM 72 HR 2012-03-27 RTN CLOSED 2012-06-04 Files MAP
PLACE #20
14 CHAUNCEY PHASE
3-0026355 DEDHAM HOMEOWNER TWO HR 2006-11-02 RAO 2009-02-13 A2 Oil Files MAP
ST II
Hazardous
3-0025257 DEDHAM CHURCHILL PL CHURCHILL PARK 72 HR 2005-09-21 RAO 2006-08-03 A2 Files MAP
Material
175
3-0025001 DEDHAM COMMERCIAL WES LAND TRUST 120 DY 2005-07-01 RAO 2005-09-13 A2 Oil Files MAP
CIR
400 Oil and
LOT 49 PHASE
3-0023517 DEDHAM COMMERCIAL 120 DY 2004-01-15 RAO 2006-11-29 A3 Hazardous Files MAP
RUSTCRAFT RD II
CIR Material
97 DALE RESIDENTIAL
3-0032668 DEDHAM TWO HR 2015-01-07 PSNC 2015-11-12 PN Oil Files MAP
STREET PROPERTY
3-0019832 DEDHAM 875 EAST ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2000-08-14 RAO 2007-03-22 C2 Oil Files MAP
Oil and
3-0026207 DEDHAM 875 EAST ST PROPERTY 120 DY 2006-07-12 DPS 2006-10-04 Hazardous Files MAP
Material
PHASE
3-0001362 DEDHAM 901 EAST ST TEXACO STATION NONE 1988-10-15 RAO 1996-11-22 A2 Oil Files
III
3-0010474 DEDHAM 901 EAST ST DEDHAM TEXACO TWO HR 1994-01-21 RAO 1996-11-22 Oil MAP
TEXACO SERVICE PHASE
3-0027223 DEDHAM 901 EAST ST 120 DY 2007-11-07 REMOPS 2015-02-25 Oil Files MAP
STA V
EASTWOOD
3-0010539 DEDHAM 1007 EAST ST 72 HR 1993-10-01 RAO 1994-03-17 A2 Oil Files MAP
NURSING HOME
PHASE
3-0019432 DEDHAM 1039 EAST ST NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2000-04-05 TMPS 2016-06-23 TF Oil Files MAP
IV
PHASE
3-0020943 DEDHAM 1069 EAST ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2001-07-27 REMOPS 2013-12-02 Oil Files MAP
V
EASTERN METAL PHASE
3-0004448 DEDHAM 1105 EAST ST NONE 1993-07-15 PSNC 2014-11-26 PN Oil Files MAP
MILL PRODUCTS II
ALONG
PHASE
3-0029306 DEDHAM EAST STREET DRIVEWAY TO NO TWO HR 2010-06-02 RTN CLOSED 2012-04-10 Oil Files MAP
II
1039 EAST ST
15 EASTERN
3-0015018 DEDHAM NEAR BRYANT ST 120 DY 1997-04-09 RAO 1997-04-09 A2 Oil Files MAP
AVE
Oil and
31 EASTERN
3-0014149 DEDHAM GULF STATION 72 HR 1996-08-26 RAO 1998-06-15 A2 Hazardous Files MAP
AVE
Material
31 EASTERN FROM HEATING Hazardous
AVE OIL TANK Material
Oil and
31 EASTERN
3-0017018 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1998-07-07 RAO 1999-07-01 B1 Hazardous Files MAP
AVE
Material
31 EASTERN CUMBERLAND
3-0024715 DEDHAM 72 HR 2005-03-23 RAO 2006-03-30 A2 Oil Files MAP
AVE FARMS
3-0001760 DEDHAM ELM ST ROADWAY SPILL NONE 1986-12-06 DEPNDS 1996-05-09 Files
DEDHAM
3-0026876 DEDHAM 55 ELM ST INSTITUTION FOR TWO HR 2007-06-05 RAO 2008-06-06 A2 Oil Files MAP
SAVINGS
Hazardous
3-0026841 DEDHAM 200 ELM ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2007-05-11 RTN CLOSED 2008-05-19 Files MAP
Material
FOUNDRY SAND Oil and
PHASE
3-0026872 DEDHAM 200 ELM ST SECONDARY DISP 120 DY 2007-05-11 RAO 2010-05-20 A3 Hazardous Files MAP
III
AREA Material
3-0001196 DEDHAM 250 ELM ST NONE 1988-10-15 RAO 2007-06-18 A3 Oil Files MAP

Files
HERSEY
PRODUCTS INC
Hazardous
3-0026857 DEDHAM 250 ELM ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2007-05-23 RTN CLOSED 2008-05-30 Files MAP
Material
30 ELMVIEW
3-0030264 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2011-08-30 RAO 2011-09-30 A2 Oil Files MAP
PLACE
ERNEST AND
MILTON Hazardous
3-0027172 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2007-10-11 URAM 2007-10-11 Files MAP
STREET TO Material
COMO RD
FAIRBANKS ST BOSTON EDISON
3-0012524 DEDHAM TWO HR 1995-05-27 RAO 1995-07-21 A1 Oil Files MAP
AT TAFT ST POLE 227/9
Oil and
FOX TELEVISION
3-0019739 DEDHAM 25 FOX DR 120 DY 2000-07-13 RAO 2001-02-09 B1 Hazardous Files MAP
STATION
Material
GREEN LODGE
GREEN LODGE
3-0010361 DEDHAM ELEMENTARY 72 HR 1993-12-27 RAO 1994-04-26 A2 Oil Files MAP
ST
SCHOOL
HASTINGS
ROADWAY
3-0026583 DEDHAM STREET AT TWO HR 2007-02-07 RAO 2007-03-27 A1 Oil Files MAP
RELEASE
LORRAINE ST
123 HAVEN Hazardous
3-0029555 DEDHAM POLE #70/14 TWO HR 2010-09-30 RAO 2010-10-29 A1 Files MAP
STREET Material
3-0012495 DEDHAM 146 HIGH ST POLE 72/10 TWO HR 1995-05-22 RAO 1995-07-21 A1 Oil Files MAP
EAST AND HIGH
3-0024072 DEDHAM 490 HIGH ST 72 HR 2004-07-22 RAO 2004-11-16 A2 Oil Files MAP
STREET ROTARY
HIGH STREET Hazardous
3-0024412 DEDHAM 491 HIGH ST 120 DY 2004-11-16 RAO 2005-02-01 B1 Files MAP
ROADWAY Material
NORFOLK
3-0019170 DEDHAM 649 HIGH ST REGISTRY OF TWO HR 2000-01-15 RAO 2000-03-14 A2 Oil Files MAP
DEEDS
I-95 SOUTH TRUCK TURNOUT
3-0014085 DEDHAM TWO HR 1996-08-02 RAO 1997-04-16 A1 Files MAP
(128) NR RT 135
I-95 SOUTH
REST STOP NORTH
3-0028064 DEDHAM (RTE 128 TWO HR 2008-10-10 RAO 2009-02-06 A2 Oil Files MAP
OF RTE 135
SOUTH)
5
BEHIND DEDHAM Hazardous
3-0017280 DEDHAM INCINERATOR TWO HR 1998-09-10 RAO 1998-11-09 A1 Files MAP
MALL Material
RD
INDUSTRIAL Hazardous
3-0018777 DEDHAM MBTA TWO HR 1999-09-22 RTN CLOSED 2001-07-04 Files MAP
AVE Material
INDUSTRIAL MBTA READVILLE
3-0002856 DEDHAM NONE 1991-01-15 RAO 2013-04-09 A3 Files MAP
DR YARD
8 INDUSTRIAL NORTH OF FIRE Hazardous
3-0029477 DEDHAM 120 DY 2010-08-31 URAM 2010-09-09 Files MAP
DR TRMT BLDG Material
8 INDUSTRIAL
3-0033411 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2016-02-15 PSNC 2016-03-29 PN Oil Files MAP
DR
300 LEGACY WHOLE FOODS
PLACE MARKET
3-0018611 DEDHAM LYONS ST LYONS BRIDGE TWO HR 1999-08-08 RAO 1999-10-15 A2 Oil Files MAP
58 MCDONALD PRECISION Hazardous
ST COATING INC Material
58 MCDONALD PRECISION Hazardous
3-0028522 DEDHAM 120 DY 2009-05-19 RAO 2009-12-31 Files
ST COATING INC Material
25 MCNEIL
3-0029666 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2010-11-23 RAO 2010-11-29 A1 Files MAP
WAY
180 MEADOW
3-0033544 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2016-04-26 PSNC 2016-05-31 PN Files MAP
ROAD
EMERGENCY
3-0004765 DEDHAM 29 MILTON ST NONE 1993-08-13 DEPNFA 1996-06-03 Oil
FUEL
160-168 FONTAINES AUTO
3-0015181 DEDHAM 120 DY 1997-06-06 DPS 1999-01-08 Oil MAP
MILTON ST SERVICE
160-168
3-0017858 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1999-01-08 RAO 1999-01-08 B1 Oil Files MAP
MILTON ST
PHASE
3-0014851 DEDHAM 180 MILTON ST NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1997-02-24 RAO 2001-05-14 C1 Oil Files MAP
II
GASOLINE PHASE
3-0001934 DEDHAM 197 MILTON ST NONE 1989-01-15 RAO 1996-01-02 A2 Files
STATION II
ADJACENT TO PHASE
3-0011441 DEDHAM 200 MILTON ST 120 DY 1994-08-22 RAO 1996-08-05 A3 Oil Files MAP
DEDHAM DPW II
155 MT
3-0010134 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1993-11-02 RAO 1994-01-09 A3 Oil Files MAP
VERNON ST
NEAR 129
3-0025591 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2006-01-18 RAO 2006-01-27 A1 Files MAP
JENNEY LN
3-0011216 DEDHAM NEEDHAM ST 262 NEEDHAM ST TWO HR 1994-06-29 RAO 1994-09-01 A1 Files MAP
3-0014931 DEDHAM NEEDHAM ST POLE #59 TWO HR 1997-04-10 RAO 1997-08-13 A2 Oil Files MAP
262 NEEDHAM ST SUSANNAS
3-0003713 DEDHAM NONE 1991-03-06 RAO 1997-08-10 Files
ST CHURCH
800
3-0028437 DEDHAM NEWBRIDGE NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2009-04-08 RAO 2009-06-08 A2 Files MAP
CIR
NORFOLK AND
COURT STS
100
OSJL SHOPPING Hazardous
3-0033710 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2016-07-22 UNCLASSIFIED 2016-07-22 Files
CENTER Material
HIGHWAY
3-0031420 DEDHAM LOWES FACILITY TWO HR 2013-03-11 RAO 2013-05-06 A1 Oil Files MAP

Files
306
PROVIDENCE
HIGHWAY
920-928
DEDHAM Hazardous
3-0032088 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2014-04-02 PSNC 2014-06-19 PN Files MAP
CABINET Material
HIGHWAY
PROVIDENCE CHEVROLET
3-0003732 DEDHAM NONE 1991-10-15 RAO 1994-07-05 A2 Files
HWY GALLERY
180
3-0016737 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE STOP N SHOP TWO HR 1998-04-27 RAO 1998-06-25 A1 Oil Files MAP
HWY
180
3-0019148 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2000-01-10 RAO 2000-03-22 A1 Oil Files MAP
HWY
287 Oil and
PHASE
3-0024049 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2004-07-13 RAO 2006-01-25 A2 Hazardous Files MAP
III
HWY Material
405
GASOLINE
3-0032228 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE TWO HR 2014-06-12 PSNC 2014-08-11 PN Oil Files MAP
STATION
HWY
580
RW REDMAN CO
3-0003370 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NONE 1990-10-15 RAO 2001-09-04 A3 Oil Files MAP
INC
HWY
580
3-0013614 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE RTE 1 72 HR 1996-03-27 RAO 1998-06-15 A3 Oil Files MAP
HWY
725-765
3-0010825 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE DEDHAM PLAZA 120 DY 1994-07-05 RAO 1995-07-03 A2 Oil Files MAP
HWY
805
FORMER Hazardous
3-0021412 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2002-01-17 RAO 2002-01-17 B1 Files MAP
CAMBRIDGE TIRE Material
HWY
825
DALCO REALTY
3-0030590 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2012-01-19 RAO 2012-01-25 B1 Oil Files MAP
TRUST
HWY
882
3-0010168 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NYNEX GARAGE 72 HR 1993-11-09 RAO 1994-03-08 A2 Oil Files MAP
HWY
945-947
NISSAN REALTY
3-0026560 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 120 DY 2007-01-25 RAO 2007-05-18 B1 Oil Files MAP
LLC
HWY
950
3-0029696 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2010-12-10 RAO 2011-04-12 A1 Oil Files MAP
HWY
1000
ALBANY
3-0001534 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NONE 1988-10-15 RAO 1994-02-05 A2 Files
INTERNATIONAL
HWY
405 Oil and
3-0021870 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE SUNOCO STATION 120 DY 2002-06-20 RAO 2011-12-19 A2 Hazardous Files MAP
HWY RT1 Material
PROVIDENCE DEDHAM
3-0010383 DEDHAM 72 HR 1993-12-31 RAO 1994-12-27 B1 Oil Files MAP
TPKE SHOPPING PLAZA
525
3-0010802 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE RT 1 72 HR 1994-04-06 RAO 1994-06-08 A1 Oil Files MAP
TPKE
525 Oil and
PHASE
3-0020483 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2001-01-19 RAO 2005-05-16 A2 Hazardous Files MAP
IV
TPKE Material
525
3-0020603 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2001-04-18 RTN CLOSED 2001-11-06 Oil Files MAP
TPKE
525
Hazardous
3-0023207 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2003-09-25 RTN CLOSED 2004-09-13 Files
Material
TPKE
525
FORMER SHELL
3-0023644 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE 72 HR 2004-02-27 RTN CLOSED 2004-09-13 Oil Files MAP
STATION
TPKE
990 CM SERVICE
3-0013490 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE TRAINING 120 DY 1996-02-26 RAO 2000-03-08 A2 Files MAP
TPKE CENTER
990
3-0019156 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE GM TRAINING CTR 120 DY 2000-01-07 RAO 2000-03-08 Oil Files MAP
TPKE
REAR 460
3-0015663 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE RTE 1 TWO HR 1997-10-29 RAO 1998-01-02 A2 Oil Files MAP
HWY
904 REAR STERGIS
3-0003992 DEDHAM PROVIDENCE ALUMINUM NONE 1993-10-01 DEPNDS 1996-06-06 Oil Files
HWY PRODUCTS
3-0000165 DEDHAM 11 RIVER ST HUGHES OIL CO NONE 1987-01-15 RAO 1995-08-03 B1 Files
Oil and
3-0015372 DEDHAM 12 RIVER ST BOSTON EDISON TWO HR 1997-08-03 RAO 1997-10-02 A1 Hazardous Files MAP
Material
Hazardous
3-0014069 DEDHAM 30 RIVER ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1996-07-25 RAO 1996-07-25 A2 Files MAP
Material
3-0002846 DEDHAM 41 RIVER ST NONE 1990-04-15 WCSPRM 1990-03-21 Files

Files
OAKLAND
LUMBER
COMPANY
DEDHAM/HYDE PHASE
3-0014699 DEDHAM 47 RIVER ST 120 DY 1997-01-21 RAO 1997-06-02 B2 Oil Files MAP
PARK LINE II
Oil and
DEDHAM DPW
3-0016985 DEDHAM 55 RIVER ST TWO HR 1998-06-29 RAO 1998-08-27 A1 Hazardous Files MAP
GARAGE
Material
3-0017258 DEDHAM 106 RIVER ST NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 1998-09-08 RAO 1999-01-14 A2 Oil Files MAP
3-0022684 DEDHAM 111 RIVER ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2003-03-20 RAO 2003-07-23 A2 Oil Files MAP
3-0032508 DEDHAM ROUTE 128 N EXIT 15B TWO HR 2014-10-27 PSNC 2014-12-23 PN Oil Files MAP
3-0011157 DEDHAM RTE 1 NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 1994-06-16 RAO 1994-08-11 A1 Oil Files MAP
WASHINGTON ST
3-0025105 DEDHAM RTE 1 TWO HR 2005-08-05 RAO 2005-09-22 A1 Oil Files MAP
AREA
ACROSS THE
3-0025255 DEDHAM RTE 1 STREET FROM TWO HR 2005-09-21 RAO 2005-11-28 A1 Oil Files MAP
MALL
3-0020659 DEDHAM RTE 109 BRG CHARLES RIVER TWO HR 2001-05-01 RAO 2001-07-05 A1 Files MAP
3-0020826 DEDHAM RTE 109 BRG CHARLES RIVER TWO HR 2001-06-04 RAO 2001-08-03 A1 Files MAP
RTE 128 AND
3-0019505 DEDHAM UNIVERSITY NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2000-05-03 RAO 2000-08-04 A1 Oil Files MAP
AVE
3-0019848 DEDHAM RTE 128 N AT ROUTE 1 TWO HR 2000-08-18 RAO 2001-08-17 A2 Oil Files MAP
EXIT 16 ON RTE
3-0022642 DEDHAM RTE 128 S TWO HR 2003-03-04 RAO 2003-05-02 A1 Oil Files MAP
109
Oil and
RTE 95 AND
3-0020352 DEDHAM EXIT 15 TWO HR 2001-01-26 RAO 2001-03-27 A1 Hazardous Files MAP
RTE 1
Material
RTE 95N
BETWEEN EXITS
3-0011709 DEDHAM UNIVERSITY TWO HR 1994-10-08 RAO 1995-03-01 A1 Oil Files MAP
12&13
AVE
Oil and
FMR FUEL OIL UST PHASE
3-0014555 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT 120 DY 1996-11-25 RAO 1999-06-14 A2 Hazardous Files MAP
B222 III
Material
NE CONCRETE PHASE
3-0001821 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT RD NONE 1989-01-15 RAO 1997-11-28 A3 Files
PIPE FMR III
FMR NE
3-0012587 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT RD CONCRETE PIPE 72 HR 1995-06-16 RTN CLOSED 1995-08-15 Oil Files MAP
CO
FMR STORAGE PHASE
3-0014556 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT RD 120 DY 1996-11-25 RAO 1997-11-28 A3 Oil Files MAP
BLDG B206 III
B310/ FRMR OIL PHASE
3-0014557 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT RD 120 DY 1996-11-25 RAO 1997-11-28 A3 Oil Files MAP
RELEASE III
Oil and
367-419 PARCELS 49 AND PHASE
3-0016844 DEDHAM 120 DY 1998-05-21 RAO 2011-05-23 B2 Hazardous Files MAP
RUSTCRAFT RD 52 II
Material
100
OFF PARKING Hazardous
3-0033417 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT 120 DY 2016-02-11 PSNC 2016-07-14 PN Files MAP
AREA - EAST SIDE Material
ROAD
180
3-0032157 DEDHAM RUSTCRAFT NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 2014-05-09 PSNC 2015-03-04 PN Oil Files MAP
ROAD
4 SANDERSON COMMERCIAL PHASE
AVE PROPERTY II
225
3-0004487 DEDHAM SCHOOLMASTER PROPERTY NONE 1993-07-15 DEPNFA 1996-06-06 Oil Files
LN
3-0019762 DEDHAM 50 SPRAGUE ST NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2000-07-26 RAO 2002-01-25 A1 Oil Files
427 SPRAGUE IN PUBLIC
ST ROADWAY
470 SPRAGUE
3-0000619 DEDHAM GENERAL FOODS NONE 1990-01-15 DPS 2010-07-19 Oil Files MAP
ST
480 SPRAGUE
STREET
125 STERGIS BELL ATLANTIC PHASE
WAY LEASED GARAGE V
120 STERGIS
3-0023792 DEDHAM STERGIS WAY TWO HR 2004-04-23 RAO 2004-04-28 A2 Oil Files MAP
WAY NEAR
POLE #366 -
3-0015676 DEDHAM STURGIS WAY 3-1,COMMERCIAL TWO HR 1997-11-03 RAO 1997-12-26 A1 Oil Files MAP
DRIVE
3-0013918 DEDHAM TARBOX ST END OF ST TWO HR 1996-06-20 RAO 2000-06-05 B1 Files MAP
322 TO 350
3-0018313 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1999-05-17 RAO 1999-09-09 A2 Oil Files MAP
WHITING AVE
980 TO 990
3-0018939 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1999-11-03 DPS 1999-11-03 Oil Files MAP
ST
Oil and
3-0015309 DEDHAM TURNER RD NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 1997-07-17 RAO 1997-09-15 A2 Hazardous Files MAP
Material
3-0027574 DEDHAM 70 TURNER ST NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2008-03-14 RAO 2008-12-15 A2 Oil Files MAP
UNIVERSITY
AVE
360 VETERANS
Hazardous
3-0014826 DEDHAM OF FOREIGN NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 1997-02-14 RTN CLOSED 1997-04-14 Files MAP
Material
WARS PKWY

Files
370 VETERANS PORT STATION
OF FOREIGN REYNOLDS IND
WARS PKWY
FMR NORFOLK
47 VILLAGE PHASE
3-0018579 DEDHAM CNTY CORR TWO HR 1999-07-30 RAO 2006-05-09 A2 Oil Files MAP
AVE II
FACILITY 3 567
NORFOLK PHASE
3-0000567 DEDHAM 47 VILLAGE ST NONE 1987-01-15 RAO 2006-05-09 Oil Files MAP
COUNTY JAIL IV
WASHINGTON
3-0017589 DEDHAM NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 1998-11-17 RAO 2002-11-25 B1 Oil Files MAP
ST
2
3-0001828 DEDHAM WASHINGTON CAR WASH NONE 1989-01-15 RAO 2003-09-22 A2 MAP
ST
3
3-0001350 DEDHAM WASHINGTON PROPERTY NONE 1988-10-15 DEPNDS 1996-05-10 Files
ST
106
DEDHAM SERVICE PHASE
3-0004518 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NONE 1993-07-15 RAO 2002-05-29 A2 Files MAP
CENTER II
ST
387
PHASE
3-0013169 DEDHAM WASHINGTON SCHOOL STREET 120 DY 1995-11-21 RAO 1999-02-26 A2 Oil Files MAP
II
ST
387
BELL ATLNATIC
3-0017328 DEDHAM WASHINGTON 72 HR 1998-09-21 RAO 1999-02-26 Oil Files MAP
CENTRAL OFFICE
ST
431
EXXON SERVICE PHASE
3-0000999 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NONE 1990-01-15 RAO 1996-12-03 B1 Files
STATION II
ST
436
PHASE
3-0017603 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NO LOCATION AID 72 HR 1998-11-19 RAO 2000-11-21 A2 Oil Files MAP
II
ST
436 WASHINGTON
3-0023751 DEDHAM WASHINGTON STREET FIRE TWO HR 2004-04-13 RAO 2004-06-09 A1 Oil Files MAP
ST STATION
616-700
REAR DEDHAM
3-0014634 DEDHAM WASHINGTON TWO HR 1996-12-16 RAO 1997-04-18 A2 Oil Files MAP
PLAZA
ST
1000
TEXACO SERVICE Hazardous
3-0004035 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NONE 1992-10-15 RAO 1994-09-20 A2 Files
STATION Material
ST
1000
TEXACO SERVICE PHASE Hazardous
3-0021779 DEDHAM WASHINGTON 120 DY 2002-05-21 RAO 2003-10-21 A2 Files MAP
STATION II Material
ST
1000
3-0022848 DEDHAM WASHINGTON TEXACO 72 HR 2003-05-09 RAO 2003-09-11 A2 Oil Files MAP
ST
1000
3-0022858 DEDHAM WASHINGTON TEXACO STATION 72 HR 2003-05-14 RAO 2003-09-11 A2 Oil Files MAP
ST
1000
3-0023004 DEDHAM WASHINGTON NO LOCATION AID 120 DY 2003-07-08 RAO 2003-09-11 A2 Oil Files MAP
ST
WELLESLEY
3-0003712 DEDHAM EXTENSION MWRA PROPERTY NONE 1990-02-16 PENNFA 1996-07-22 Oil Files
TUNL
CONSTRUCTION
3-0028267 DEDHAM 44 WEST ST TWO HR 2009-01-07 RAO 2009-02-13 A1 Files MAP
SITE
3-0028610 DEDHAM 45 WEST ST NO LOCATION AID TWO HR 2009-07-10 RAO 2009-08-21 A2 Files MAP
379-381 WEST
ST
724 WESTFIELD DEDHAM
3-0000750 DEDHAM NONE 1990-01-15 RAO 1997-03-17 A2 Files
ST COUNTRY CLUB
140 WHITING DEDHAM HIGH
AVE SCHOOL
310 WHITING
3-0002149 DEDHAM PROPERTY NONE 1989-04-15 RAO 1996-07-29 Files
AVE
Page:1 of 2 Previous Next
Maintenance Practices
and Costs of Rail -Trails
APPENDIX
APPENDIX D D
CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................4
Methodology ..........................................................................7
Major Maintenance Tasks ........................................................8
Administration ....................................................................8
Vegetation Grass, Trees, Herbicides and Invasives! ............9
Surface Repair, Clearing, Snow .......................................14
Drainage ...........................................................................18
Trailhead Amenities...........................................................19
Sanitation .........................................................................21
Signage ............................................................................22
Access Control ..................................................................23
Trail Features ....................................................................24
Other ................................................................................25
Conclusions ..........................................................................27
Appendix A: 2014 Survey Results ..........................................30
Appendix B: List of Participants ............................................ 42
Wallkill Valley Rail Trail, NY.
ABOUT US
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy serves as the national Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
voice for more than 160,000 members and Northeast Regional Office
supporters, 30,000 miles of rail-trails and 2133 Market Street, Suite 222
multiuse trails, and more than 8,000 miles of Camp Hill, PA 17011
potential trails waiting to be built, with a goal of Tel 717.238.1717 / Fax 717.238.7566
creating more walkable, bikeable communities
National Headquarters
in America. Since 1986, we have worked from 2121 Ward Court, NW, 5th Floor
coast to coast, supporting the development of Washington, D.C. 20037
thousands of miles of rail-trails for millions to Tel 202.331.9696 / Fax 202.223.9257
explore and enjoy.
railstotrails.org
TrailLink.com
2 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Produced by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

Carl Knoch
Tom Sexton
June 2015
The team wishes to recognize and thank RTC staff and others who contributed to the
accuracy and utility of this report. Thanks to the trail managers and RTC staff who
contributed photos for this report.
This study was made possible by the generous support of the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation,
Community and Conservation Partnership Program.
Allegheny River Trail, PA.
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
F
or the past three decades of rail-trail development, In the 10 years that RTCs Northeast Regional Office has
maintenance costs have generally been seen as being tracked technical inquiries, there has been a steady decline
expensive. These expenses, however, have remained in the number of maintenance-related request. There are
largely untracked on a state or national basis. Further, a likely several reasons for this decline. Rail-trail managers
comprehensive breakdown and ranking of maintenance and others share maintenance methods through a variety
priorities did not exist. of networks, in addition to providing direct assistance
to one another. Earlier documents on maintenance best
To better understand this issue, RTC conducted a management practices have also likely been helpful. In
comprehensive survey of trail maintenance costs. Results addition, many individual trails have been combined into
of this study show that, contrary to popular belief, larger systems, thus creating economies of scale. Volunteer
maintenance costs are not as high as many perceive them programs also have grown in size and dependability and
to be. In fact, when taking into account for volunteers, have taken on more responsibility.
this study found that maintenance costs on average range
from $500 to $1,000 per trail mile per year depending on Finally, it is evident that maintenance also has been
surface. deferred.
Therefore, it is possible that although maintenance costs

have declined over time, perception of those costs has
remained the same.
Trail managers and local stakeholders often cite the need

for dedicated state or federal funding to help pay for trail
maintenance. Up to this point, RTC has lacked sufficient
data to make that case effectively to decision-makers
at the state or federal level. This study was initiated to
bring some clarity to this issue. Whether in a town hall
meeting or a discussion with a member of Congress about
the reauthorization of federal funding, more accuracy
regarding rail-trail maintenance costs is required.
Because funding for rail-trails is difficult to secure,

over-estimating maintenance costs can inadvertently
give opponents easy leverage to speak against rail-trail
development. In addition, funders often question if all
aspects of any community development project should
be funded by state and federal grants, particularly
maintenance-related costs, which are often perceived as a
local issue.
This study presents a more comprehensive understanding

of rail-trail maintenance, as has been done for other rail-
trail issues such as construction costs, economic impact
and rails-with-trails. Such an approach enables the rail-trail
community to focus its limited resources more effectively
on addressing the most critical issues.
St. John Valley Heritage Trail, ME.

This publication is the third in a series of similar works Of all the 2014 participants, 37 percent represented rural
prepared by the RTC Northeast Regional Office. The rail-trails, 14 percent urban, 13 percent suburban and 36
first was released in 1996 in collaboration with a U.S. percent mixed. The mixed category contained primarily a
Department of Agriculture AmeriCorps staff member rural/suburban combination.
based in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The second
was released in 2005 and, as with this document, was In addition to identifying the types and frequency of
made possible through a Growing Greener grant from maintenance tasks, this study sought for the first time to
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of secure data on the cost of rail-trail maintenance. Almost
Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation 50 percent of the 200 trail managers provided a total
and Conservation. maintenance cost, though far fewer had an actual budget.
With the help of several veteran trail managers, RTC went
Each successive study has grown in size and scope and, a step further and prepared an additional 44-question
ideally, usefulness. The 1996 study contained 40 questions survey that broke down the cost of each task. Only 25
and received responses from 60 rail-trail managers. managers completed this survey, and many of these
The 2005 study expanded to 70 questions and 100 required repeated follow-up by e-mail and phone.
respondents. This latest version asked 117 questions and
drew answers from 200 respondents.
Figure 1. Map of Trail Groups Participating in Study

State and county managers said that it was too difficult have greater value. This research indicates that the more
to separate these costs from larger existing budgets. Small likely explanation for why these costs are not tracked
entities and private nonprofits said they simply did not more rigorously is that rail-trails do not require as much
have the capacity to track these figures. maintenance as some fear or promote. This finding is
critical in the ongoing case for funding support for rail-
If the need for maintenance funding is so critical, however, trails.
it would stand to reason that this data would be more
available or that completion of the questionnaire would
Snow covered bridge on the Piscataquog Trail in NH.

METHODOLOGY
T
he comparisons illustrated in this study are mostly Links to the online survey were sent to approximately
between the 2005 and 2014 findings. The 1996 300 trail management organizations contained in RTCs
study contained too many check all that apply national trails database as of January 6, 2014. Reminders
questions, which resulted in multiple answers and thus to participate were sent to those organizations that did not
participation greater than 100 percent; comparison of the immediately respond.
latter two studies was more reliable, as the answers in each
added up to 100 percent. Further, not all the same trails Of the responding trail management organizations, 95
were surveyed in the three studies. Unfortunately, only indicated that they had a trail maintenance budget. A
including those trails that participated in all three studies follow-up survey to gather more detailed maintenance cost
would have yielded too low a number to be significant. information was sent to these 95 organizations. This was
not an online survey but a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet,
The 2014 study began with a review of the earlier studies with 48 maintenance tasks as rows. Columns captured
to determine which topics required updating. Our labor hours, hourly labor cost, volunteer hours, equipment
technical assistance team provided additional insights of costs, material costs, contracted services and total cost.
the questions they typically are asked. We then did a review
to determine what, if any, recent literature addressed the Many follow-up emails, phone calls and personal pleas
topics of trail maintenance activities and associated cost. were made over several months to encourage participation
in this phase of the study.
We then developed a survey instrument that would collect
as much information as possible regarding the most
important topics. During this process, we realized that
there were different sets of questions for different trail
surface types. This increased the number of questions in
the survey to an overwhelming 195, which could prove
prohibitive to trail managers.
This potential problem was solved by the decision to create

the cost survey in Survey Monkey. Using this vehicle, we
could provide trail managers with a link to the online
survey, and they could take the survey at their convenience.
This also enabled us reduce the number of questions by
utilizing the skip logic in Survey Monkey, the manager of
an asphalt-surfaced trail, for example, could skip all of
the questions not applicable to their surface type.
To make comparisons across the trails, we limited our

query to states with four seasons. We did not send
invitations to trail managers in the southern tier of states. Trail side mowing along the Perkiomen Tail in PA.

MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
T
he 2005 study indicated that trail group
volunteers performed maintenance tasks on 46 Municipal government
percent of the survey trails. In the 2014 study, Non-profit

this percentage increased to 58 percent. Municipal
government was the second most cited entity for County government
2005
performing maintenance tasks after trail-group volunteers, State government 2014
at 32 percent in 2005 and jumping to 43 percent in 2014.
The percent of municipal governments owning trails Other
remained nearly the same in the two studies, at 30 percent Federal government
and 34 percent in 2005 and 2014, respectively.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 3. Trail Maintenance Funders (2014 Survey)

Trail group volunteers
Municipal government staff
Community volunteer groups
County government staff

Of the trail managers who indicated that they had a
State government staff 2005
2014
budget specifically for trail maintenance, the figures for
individuals with mandatory
that budget ranged from less than $500 to more than
Non-profit paid staff
$700,000. This range is nearly identical to that reported
Other
in the 2005 study.
Federal government staff
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Figure 2. Who Performs Maintenance (2014 Survey) Tracking annual users

Although not strictly a maintenance issue, the number
of annual users of a trail does affect maintenance needs.
Fifty four percent of our respondents indicated that they
Administration do not currently track the number of trail users; another
23 percent indicated that they guess or estimate. Of those
Written trail maintenance plan trail managers who do conduct user counts, 16 percent do
We were surprised that 60 percent of the responding a manual count, and 23 percent conduct the count using
trail managers indicated they do not have a written trail an automated counter of some type. The reported annul
maintenance plan. A written maintenance plan will save usage ranged from 2,000 to more than 2 million.
time and money and contribute to a better experience for
trail users.
Funding trail maintenance Do not track annual users
In the 2014 survey, municipal government was the Estimate/guess

leading funder of trail maintenance, mentioned by 42
percent of respondents. This is a significant increase from Automated counter
the 2005 maintenance study, when 26 percent mentioned

municipal government funding. Funding by a nonprofit Manual count
fell slightly from 34 percent in 2005 to 32 percent in 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
2014.
Figure 4. Tracking by Trail Managers (2014 Survey)

Hours of operation
Consistent with the 2005 trail
maintenance and operations study,
two-thirds of the trails surveyed in
2014 are open on a dawn-to-dusk
schedule.
Vegetation
Grass, Trees,
Herbicides and
Invasives!
Mowing Perkiomen Rail Trail, PA.
Sixty percent of detailed cost survey
respondents reported that mowing
was a labor-intensive maintenance
MOWING
activity and a significant component 80
of the annual maintenance budget.
We conducted a correlation 70
analysis to determine if there

was a relationship between labor 60
hours and the length of trails. The

50
graph below reveals that such a
Trail Length in Miles
y = 0.1019x
R = -0.113
relationship does not exist. 40

Series1
Based on the data provided in the 30

Linear (Series1)
detailed cost analysis, it is apparent

that the amount of time and 20
expense associated with mowing is

really a function of how the trail was 10
designed. Some trails have a lot of

0
grassy areas on the shoulders of the 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
trail tread, while others have crushed Hours for Mowing
stone or other shoulder materials Figure 5. Correlation analysis shows no relationship between labor
that dont require periodic mowing. hours and length of trails.

Perkiomen Rail Trail, PA Rio Grande Rail Trail, CO

20 miles 20 miles
Annual mowing costs $12,542 Annual mowing costs $2,112
The Perkiomen Trail has a significant amount of grass along the

shoulders of the trail and fencing that needs to be cut around manually.
On the other hand, the Rio Grande Trail has more native vegetation or
stone shoulders that do not require frequent mowing.

Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA Lackawanna River Heritage Trail, PA
21.1 miles 19.9 miles
The mowing cost for these two trails is fairly close on a per mile basis.
The Heritage Rail Trail has a parallel rail bed along most of its length
that requires herbicide treatment but no mowing. The Lackawanna Trail
allows natural vegetation to grow along the shoulders or has placed
stone shoulders.

Lititz-Warwick Trailway, PA Oil Creek State Park Trail, PA

3 miles 9.7 miles
Annual Hours mowing 240 Annual hours mowing 240
The Lititz-Warwick Trailway has significant amounts of grassy areas

that require mowing along trail edges in a primarily suburban setting.
Oil Creek State Park Trail is more rural and relies on natural vegetation
along the trail edges that does not require much maintenance.
Surprisingly, however, both reported 240 hours was required for mowing
each year. This example appears to indicate that there is no correlation
between labor hours and costs.

Vegetation Management
We asked trail managers how much time they dedicate to
vegetation management along the trail because this work
is the second most labor-intensive, costly maintenance
item reported by respondents to the detailed cost analysis
survey. Of these respondents, 62 percent reported on this
maintenance activity. The amount of time reported on a
per-mile basis varied from as little as 0.25 hours per mile
to 106 hours per mile (most of this work is carried out by
volunteers).
We provided a list of 12 tasks to 2014 maintenance survey Volunteers trimming brush, Three Rivers Heritage
respondents when asking about their management of trail- Trail, PA.
side vegetation. More than 90 percent of our respondents
reported that they do litter cleanup, tree pruning, fallen
tree removal, tree removal as a safety issue, and mowing.
Removal of invasive tree species is becoming an On average, respondents said they spent 13.5 hours per
increasingly necessary maintenance task. In the 2005 mile on vegetation management. The cost of vegetation
report, 36 percent of respondents reported invasive species management varied widely, from less than $100 for a four-
removal as an important task; in 2014, almost 93 percent mile trail to more than $55,000 for a 24-mile trail. Much
reported it as a major activity. of this work is carried out by trail management staff or
volunteers, although some trail organizations do contract
In the 2005 survey, about a third of the respondents out this type of work. Volunteers should have some degree
indicated that they used a chemical herbicide to control of training and supervision, especially when working with
vegetation. That percentage increased to 55 percent in the an herbicide.
2014 survey. Seventy-five percent of 2014 respondents
reported that trail maintenance staff has responsibility for
application of the herbicide. This activity was contracted
out by only 14 percent of the respondents.
Tree Removal
Tree removal was a significant maintenance task reported
in our detailed maintenance cost analysis survey. Most of
the reported costs were in excess of $1,000. Forty percent
of the reporting trails indicated that they contracted out
this activity. There are a number of reasons stated for
removing trees. In some cases storms cause tress to block
the trail. In others, a dead tree presents a potential hazard
to trail users and is removed before limbs come crashing
down on the trail.
Tree down on Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.

Surface Repair, Clearing, Snow

In the 2014 study we asked respondents to identify the
predominant trail surface material based on six choices:
asphalt, concrete, crushed stone, original railroad cinders,
dirt/soil and boardwalk. The number of responses for
concrete, railroad cinders, dirt and boardwalk were so small
(seven or fewer) that analysis was not possible. Therefore,
we concentrated our analysis on asphalt and crushed stone.
In the 2005 study, 45 percent of respondents indicated that

their trails were composed of asphalt, and 41 percent said
crushed stone. In 2014, asphalt increased to 52 percent,
and crushed stone decreased to 34 percent. This increase in
asphalt could either be because of increased use of asphalt
surfaced trails or the samples included in the survey. In
some cases, state policy dictates that trails must have an
Beaver caused erosion damage, Ashuelot Rail-Trail, NH.
asphalt surface.
Asphalt
Maintenance of Non-asphalt Trails
The labor hours and resulting cost of repairs to non-asphalt
trails varied widely among survey respondents. Labor Crushed stone 2005
hours reported for repairs ranged from 0.2 hours per mile 2014
for an 11-mile trail in Pennsylvania to 9.3 hours per mile

for a three-mile trail in Massachusetts. The total cost of Other
making repairs varied from a low of $31 to a high of nearly

$13,000. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Not only did these costs vary widely across our sample, Figure 6. Predominant Trail Surfaces (2014 Survey)
but they also varied widely from year to year. The major
cause of damage to non-asphalt trails was because of water
erosion, as reported by 55 percent of survey respondents.
The second biggest cause for repairs is because of

vegetation, as reported by 25 percent of survey
respondents. This can be caused by grass growing through
non-asphalt trail surface, vegetation encroaching on trail
edges or proliferation of invasive species. Controlling
damage caused by vegetation encroachment is manageable
with a program of regular, scheduled inspection and
preventative maintenance.
Uncontrolled weed growth through trail surface.

Regrading of some or the entire surface is another
requirement in non-asphalt trail maintenance. The amount
of labor hours involved to perform this task varied widely,
from 14 hours to regrade a three-mile trail to two hours
to regrade a 10-mile trail. The nature of the re-grading
process and the type of equipment used contribute to this
variability. A good estimate of the average, based on those
reporting this activity, is two hours per mile for re-grading
a non-asphalt surface trail.
Maintenance of Asphalt Surfaced Trails

New to the 2014 were questions regarding causes of
damage to asphalt trails. Survey respondents could list
multiple causes of damage. As shown in Figure 7, tree
roots are by far the leading cause of damage to an asphalt
trail surface at 63 percent. The frost/freeze cycle and water
erosion rank second and third, at 44 and 43 percent,
respectively.
Respondents to the detailed maintenance cost survey

submitted significant costs for repair of asphalt-surfaced
trails. Examples include $9,600 for a 71-mile trail; $7,350
for a three-mile trail; and $7,200 for 39-mile trail. Only 30
percent of trail managers reported any asphalt repair. Only Tree root damage Manhan Rail Trail, MA.
eight percent of managers of asphalt-surface trails reported
that they seal-coated their trail. On a three-mile trail, the
cost of the sealant material was $4,000 and the labor to
apply it took 24 hours, or three work days.
Another task required for maintenance of asphalt trails is
crack sealing. The Willard Munger State Trail in Minnesota
Tree roots reported spending 240 hours sealing cracks on the 71-
Frost/freeze cycle
mile trail. Thats $5,760 in labor costs and $2,500 in
material costs. Similarly, the Oil Creek State Park Trail in
Water erosion Pennsylvania had labor costs of $935 and material costs
Sub-surface failure
of $1,500 to seal cracks along the 9.7-mile asphalt trail.
Lack of a crack-sealing program can lead to vegetation
Vegatation (grass, weeds growing up through the cracks, and this will contribute to
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% deterioration of the asphalt surface.
Figure 7. Sources of Surface Damage (2014 Survey)

Maintenance of crushed stone

More than one-half, or 56 percent, of 2014 respondents Water erosion
with a predominantly crushed stone surfaced trail Vegatation (grass, weeds)

reported that their trail had been resurfaced since original Other
construction. This is a decrease from two-thirds in the
Frost/freeze cycle
2005 study. In 2014, the most mentioned interval for
resurfacing was 10 years or longer, compared with nine Sub-surface failure
years in the 2005 study. Tree roots
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Consistent with the 2005 study, 71 percent of respondents
indicated that crushed surface trails are primarily repaired Figure 8. Sources of Damage to Crushed Stone Surface
manually, with a rakes, shovels and other hand tools. Light (2014 Survey)
duty power equipment such as a Bobcat was used to repair
damage by 42 percent of the respondents, and 32 percent
responded that they utilized heavy equipment such as
a grader. The type of equipment used is dictated by the
Surface Clearing of Trail
severity of the damage to the crushed stone surfaced trail.
For the purpose of the survey, trail clearing was defined
Forty-four percent of our survey respondents indicated that as the removal of material such as leaves, sticks and stones
their crushed stone trail had been regraded since its original from the trail surface. A third of the respondents to our
construction. This maintenance activity is carried out on detailed cost survey indicated that time was spent clearing
an as-needed basis by 70 percent of the trail managers. the surface of the trail. This activity was mostly confined
to asphalt surfaced trails. On average, surface clearing took
Water erosion is the most frequently mentioned cause of
3.5 hours per mile, at an average cost of $22.25 per hour.
damage to a crushed stone surfaced trail, with 77 percent
of respondents reporting it the 2014 study.
Water erosion is the most

frequently mentioned cause
of damage to a crushed stone
surfaced trail.
Vegetation encroaching through the trail surface was the

second most common cause of damage to a crushed stone
trail, with one-third of respondents citing this cause. Less
Erosion damage to stone dust trail.
than 2 percent of respondents indicated tree roots as a
cause of damage to a crushed stone surface trail.

Maintenance of Pavement Markings Snow Removal
Pavement markings are generally associated with asphalt-
surfaced trails. This study found that a painted center line
was the most common type of pavement marking. Other
pavement markings are safety or instructional in nature.
Some markings are painted on the trail surface, while
others are applied thermally. The detailed cost analysis
revealed that this activity, while not reported by many
respondents, varied in cost from $19 per mile to $140 per
mile.
Winter use of the Torrey C. Brown Trail, MD.
In the general maintenance study, 33 percent of

respondents reported that they removed snow from
portions of the trail, and 9 percent reported that they
remove snow from the entire length of the trail. Generally,
full or partial snow removal was more common on trails in
urban or suburban areas.
According to respondents to the detailed cost study who

reported snow removal (25 percent), the time and cost
of snow removal varied widely. Time spent ranged from
500 hours on the 71-mile Traverse Area Recreation Trail
in Michigan to 15 hours on the 24-mile Three Rivers
Heritage Trail in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This activity
varied widely from year to year based on the frequency and
amount of snowfall.
Some trail managers who did not report clearing snow

from the trail surface did report that they cleared snow
from trailhead parking lots. Trails can get a great deal of
winter use if potential trail users have a place to park. Cross
country skiing is a popular activity on many rail-trails in
snow country. The Heritage Rail Trail County Park in
Pennsylvania spent $600 clearing trailhead parking lots
for skiers but does not clear the trail surface. In 2014,
63 percent of respondents reported doing trailhead snow
removal, compared with half that number in 2005.
Pavement markings, Hanover Trolley Trail, PA.

Drainage
Maintenance of drainage areas is critical to helping
minimize the damage to both asphalt and crushed stone
surfaced trails caused by water erosion. As we found in the
2005 survey, this activity is primarily carried out manually
with the use of rakes and shovels. In both surveys, this
manual activity was reported by 70 percent or more of the
respondents.
Manual (rake, shovel, etc.
Power equipment Culvert failure, Allegheny River Trail, PA.
Self-cleaning design 2005

2014
Other
Clearing of drainage swales and culverts
Periodically investing several hundred or even several
Flush with water thousand dollars in maintaining trail drainage systems and
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
culverts can prevent catastrophic damage to a trail when a
major water event occurs.
Figure 9. Drainage Activities (2014 Survey)
Forty-one percent of
respondents to the detailed
cost analysis survey
reported spending staff and
volunteer hours on this
task. A quarter of those
reporting indicated that
this activity was carried out
entirely by volunteers.
Volunteers on the four-mile

Greater Hazelton Rails to
Trails in Pennsylvania spent
60 hours on this task.
Of those trail management

organizations that reported
carrying out this this
activity, the cost varied
from $85 per mile to $350
per mile. Cost depended
Culvert failure, Manhan Rail Trails, MA.

on the type of drainage system used along the trail, the
number of culverts that required cleaning and the method
Trailhead Amenities
used to clean drainage swales and culverts. Between 2005 and 2014, dramatic changes were made
in the types of facilities that trail managers provide at
The Montgomery County Pennsylvania Regional Trail trailheads.
maintenance schedule requires that drains, pipes, culverts
and inlets are cleared out three times per year and must be In 2005, only 58 percent of the survey respondents
checked after all heavy rainfalls. All leaf litter, branches and indicated that they provided an information kiosk at the
other debris are required to be removed at inlets and along trailheads. In the 2014 survey, however, 83 percent of
drainage swales. respondents indicated that an information kiosk was part
of the trailhead facility.
The West Penn trail maintenance plan calls for clearing
drainage swales twice a year or as needed. Most of this Availability of a permanent restroom facility increased from
work is done with rakes and shovels. Some larger ditches 25 percent in 2005 to 43 percent in 2014. Availability of
may require the use of a backhoe. portable toilet facilities at trailheads increased from 33
percent in 2005 to 45 percent in 2014, and the availability
of trash receptacles increased from 42 percent to 61 percent
over the decade between surveys.
Drainage swale in need of cleaning. Down East Sunrise Trail, ME.

Information kiosk
Parking lot just for trail users
Picnic tables/benches
Trash receptacles Between 2005 and
Portable toilet facility
2014, dramatic
Permanent toilet facility
Shared public parking lot changes were made in
2005
Potable water the types of facilities
Shared private/commercial 2014
that trail managers
On street parking
Other provide at trailheads.
Commercial consessions
Telephone
Vending Machines
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 10. Trailhead Features (2014 Survey)
In 2005, 51 percent of the respondents reported trailheads Amenities

featuring picnic tables and benches; that number increased
The cost of maintaining amenities such as picnic tables and
to 73 percent in 2014. Telephones at trailheads fell from
benches varied among trail managers reporting detailed
13 percent in 2005 to 3 percent in 2014, consistent with
cost information. It was most strongly correlated to the
an overall decline in public phones in the United States.
length of the trails, as longer trails required more benches
In 2005 only 43 percent of survey respondents reported and picnic tables to maintain. For example, the 71-mile
the availability of picnic tables and benches along the trail. Willard Munger State Trail in Minnesota spent $1,260 on
Today, 76 percent of trail managers report that picnic maintenance of amenities, while the eight-mile section of
tables or benches are provided along their trails. the Ghost Town Trail in Pennsylvania spent only $25. This
type of maintenance spending likely also varies on a year to
year basis.
Trailheads
Respondents were asked to provide a detailed cost for
several aspects of trailhead maintenance, including
landscaping, toilet facilities and kiosks. For the majority
of those reporting, landscaping at trailheads was carried
out by volunteers. Volunteer hours annually ranged from
as few as eight to as many as 500. The largest cost item
at trailheads was maintenance of restroom facilities. The
lowest cost item was maintenance of informational kiosks
at the trailhead.
Trailhead signage, Youghiogheny Rive Trail, Great

Allegheny Passage, PA.

Sanitation
Litter Clean-Up
More than half of the trail managers who responded to
the detailed trail maintenance cost survey reported on the
number of hours spent cleaning up litter. Although the
amount of time spent on litter removal is greater along
urban trails, rural trails also require this task. Friends of
the Riverfront, which manages the 24-mile Three Rivers
Heritage Trail system in Pittsburgh, spends 2,000 hours
annually on litter control. The 56-mile Trail of the Coeur
d Alenes in Idaho spends 300 hours on litter cleanup.
Restroom Maintenance Cub Scouts help with litter clean-up on the Heritage
Maintenance of restroom facilities, whether at trailheads Rail Trail County Park, PA.
or along the trail, can be an ongoing annual expense.
Respondents to the detailed cost analysis survey provided
information about maintenance of both permanent
facilities and portable toilets. Costs varied widely. The
Heritage Rail Trail County Park in Pennsylvania has both
permanent and portable toilets at trailheads along the
21- mile trail. Maintenance costs for these facilities were
reported at more than $14,000 a year.
Earth Day trash pick up along the Capital Greenbelt,

Harrisburg, PA.
Permanent toilet facility along the Pine Creek Rail

Trail, PA.

Signage
The 2014 survey revealed that trail managers are increasing
the number and types of signs along trails, which adds to
the need for maintenance. Posted trail identification signs
increased from 75 percent in 2005 to 91 percent in 2014.
More trails have mileage markers as well, an increase from
55 percent in 2005 to 74 percent in 2014. The placement
of interpretive signs has also grown substantially, from
31 percent in 2005 to 57 percent in 2014. All of this
additional signage helps to provide a better trail experience.
However, 76 percent of trail managers reported that their
signs were subject to vandalism.
Repair and Maintenance of Signage Welcome sign, Ashuelot Rail Trail, NH.
Another major maintenance task is the repair and

maintenance of trail signage. More than 40 percent of
respondents reported this as a significant maintenance
activity. In this case, trail length is correlated with cost:
typically, the longer the trail the more signs that need to be
maintained and the more time and cost is involved.
The four-mile Path of the Flood Trail in Pennsylvania

reported spending two hours on signage repair and
maintenance, and the 26-mile Catskill Scenic Trail in New
York reported spending 135 hours on this work.
More than 75 percent of the respondents to the general

maintenance survey reported that vandalism was the major
cause of damage requiring signage repair and maintenance.
Greenline Trail sign used for target practice.

Access Control
Maintenance of Gates and Bollards Fencing
Gates and bollards are used to keep automobiles and other A majority of the respondents to our survey, 51 percent,
motorized vehicles off of trails that are intended only for indicated that they had some type of fencing along their
non-motorized use. While maintenance costs associated trail. Most common was split rail wooden fencing, which
with gates and bollards were reported by only 15 percent of was mentioned by 45 percent of the respondents. Over
detailed cost analysis respondents, most indicated costs of time this becomes a maintenance issue, as posts and rails
between $2,300 and $5,000. rot or become damaged in some way.
Fencing generally is deployed along trails to protect trail

users from a potential danger, such as a steep slope, or to
prevent them from entering adjacent properties. In the
detailed cost analysis, we looked at three types of typical
trail side fencing: wooden, chain link and vinyl.
Of these three types, wooden fencing was reported to

require the most maintenance. Thirty percent of the
detailed cost survey respondents reported time repairing
wooden fencing. This maintenance can take the form of
replacing fencing that had rotted or fencing that had been
damaged by accident or acts of vandalism. Only 8 percent
of respondents reported repairs to chain link fence. No
respondents reported repairs to vinyl fencing.
Bollard at intersection, Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, MA.
Damaged split rail fence along the Pine Creek Rail Trail, PA.

Trail Features
Bridges
A full 88 percent of the trail managers indicated that
they have at least one bridge along their trail. The most
common 61 percent are original railroad bridges.
The second most common type of bridge is new bike/
pedestrian bridges with vehicle capacity. Surprisingly, 43
percent of respondents indicated that their bridges are
not inspected on a regular basis by a certified inspectors
or professional engineers. Fortunately, the number of
trail managers reporting that their bridges are inspected
increased from 33 percent in 2005 to 57 percent in 2014.
The most frequent interval for bridge inspections reported
in 2014 was two to three years, which is a shorter interval
Split rail fencing, Pine Creek Rail Trail, PA. than that reported in 2005.
Scott Glen Bridge, Ghost Town Trail, PA.

Tunnels or Culverts Average Labor Rate
Tunnels are one of the most distinctive features of many Fifty nine percent of the respondents to the detailed
rail-trails. In our 2014 survey, 41 percent of the surveyed maintenance cost survey reported labor rates for various
trails reported that they had a tunnel on the trail, an trail maintenance activities. The rates ranged from a low of
increase of 14 percent from those reporting in 2005. Forty $10 per hour to a high of $75 per hour. Most labor rates
percent of the tunnels are illuminated, mostly on a dusk- were clustered around $25 per hour plus or minus $5. The
to-dawn basis, with lighting triggered by a light sensor and average labor rate for all activities was $22.25.
powered by a municipal utility.
Contracted Services
Many trail maintenance activities were carried out by trail
management organizations and volunteers. Some, however,
are better performed by outside contractors. In the survey,
activities most commonly reported as being completed by
contractors included tree removal, restroom maintenance,
Other herbicide application, bridge inspections and clearing of
drainage culverts and mowing.
Vandalism and Illegal Dumping

A third of the respondents to our detailed cost analysis
survey reported that they spent time repairing trails due
to acts of vandalism or dumping along the corridor.
Managers of four trails between 21 and 26 miles long
in predominantly suburban/rural environments spent
between 40 and 150 hours repairing trails after acts of
vandalism or illegal dumping.
Cleaning-up illegal dumping along the Hanover Trolley Volunteers painting over graffiti.
Trail, PA.

Howard Tunnel, Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.

CONCLUSIONS
T o better understand this issue, RTC conducted a

comprehensive survey of trail maintenance costs.
Results of this study show that, contrary to popular belief,
maintenance costs are not as high as expected. Per mile
yearly average costs for rail-trail maintenance assessed in
this study ranged from $1,000 to $2,000, depending on
whether the trail was asphalt or stone dust. This assessment
supports the findings of the more detailed budgets that
a few dozen trail managers provided, which averaged
$2,026 per mile per year. This figure includes the value of
volunteer service, which was assigned an equivalent hourly
rate. When compared against the finding that 58 percent
of trails reported using volunteers, both of the annual cost
Tree pruning even occurs in the dead of winter, Three
figures may decrease significantly.
Rivers Heritage Trail, PA.
Several additional significant findings from this study are
summarized below.
Damage to asphalt trails from tree roots is Invasive species concerns nearly tripled in
significant and growing. importance from 2005 to 2014.
More than 60 percent of asphalt trail managers reported Some invasive species can be disproportionally destructive
tree roots as the major source of trail damage. Clearly, as compared with native vegetation because natural control
more asphalt trails are being built rather than stone dust mechanisms do not exist in their new environment. This
trails (as required by some departments of transportation study found an increase in herbicide use, which is needed
and metropolitan planning organizations); the true to control some invasive species. As a secondary issue,
costs of these facilities needs to be better understood because trail groups rely heavily on volunteers and only
and shared. Replacing asphalt after several years is costly contract out a small percent of herbicide application to
and frequently becomes a rebuild that is often funded professionals, it is logical to question if volunteers are
by Transportation Enhancement (TE) programs or adequately trained. Municipal workers, who would have
Transportation Alternatives Programs (TAP). This costly adequate training, may be doing most of the herbicide
maintenance requirement might be prevented with better application; however, this potential safety issue may
construction standards and possible use of root barriers in warrant further examination.
certain segments of a trail or periodic trenching to cut root
growth. The removal of healthy trees several years after the
trail is built is not the only option.
As an additional way to save money, several trail groups

could work together to purchase materials or share
equipment. State Departments of Natural Resources
might use Recreation Trails Program funding to purchase
equipment that can be used by any trail.

CONCLUSIONS
Surprisingly, the survey found that Cost per activity.

60 percent of rail-trails do not have Based upon the detailed cost analysis survey, we were able
maintenance plans. to determine the percentage that each activity represents
This is surprising not only from a management perspective, in a typical trail maintenance budget. Data on asphalt and
but from a liability standpoint. All trail managers should non-asphalt surfaces have been combined.
have proof that they exercise a reasonable amount of
due diligence to ensure that the trails are safe. Many
government-owned and maintained rail-trails are included Table 2 Typical Maintenance Budget
under larger park or civil works maintenance schedules.
Percent of
As a result, managers may believe that specific safety Maintenance Activity
Budget
assurance for trails is not required. However, any trail that
is owned, maintained or operated by a private, nonprofit Surface clearing of trail 10.8%
organization should have a detailed safety management and
maintenance plan with a schedule of tasks and inspections Mowing 12.0%
of related structures and facilities.
Vegetation management (leaf clearing,
11.2%
pruning, etc.)
Keep trail-side land clear of trash and
Estimating per-mile costs. 11.5%
debris
A total of 95 survey respondents provided an annual
Whole tree removal 5.4%
budget amount required to maintain their trail
representing 40 percent of the trails included in the survey.
Using the interquartile range (IQR) of those 95 trails gave Application of herbicides or pesticides 2.3%
us a total annual budget amount for maintenance. We
Clearing of drainage channels and
determined that, of the sample group, annual maintenance 5.4%
culverts
cost per mile in 20132014 averaged $1,006 for a
crushed stone trail and $1,971 for a paved asphalt trail. Surface maintenance of parking areas 2.7%
These figures do not include any extensive or exceptional
repairs and are assumed to include only the most basic
Litter clean up, trash cans 2.7%
maintenance tasks needed to keep the trail usable.
Maintenance of toilets at trailheads 13.0%

Table 1. Estimated Costs Per Mile
Asphalt Non-Asphalt Maintenance of toilets along the trail 1.2%
Source
Surface Surface
RTC Maintenance &
Trailhead parking snow removal 1.1%
Operations Report - $1,971/mile $1,006/mile
2014
RTC Maintenance Repair/maintenance of signs 6.3%
& Operations 2004 $1,458/mile $1,478/mile
Recovery from illegal acts of
Report 5.3%
vandalism/dumping
Other trail maintenance activities 9.1%

CONCLUSIONS
Summary
Trail managers and local stakeholders often cite the need This study presents a more comprehensive understanding
for dedicated state or federal funding to help pay for trail of rail-trail maintenance, as has been done for other rail-
maintenance. Up to this point, RTC has lacked sufficient trail issues such as construction costs, economic impact
data to make that case effectively to decision-makers at and rails-with-trails. Such an approach enables the rail-trail
the state or federal level. This study was initiated to bring community to focus its limited resources more effectively
some clarity to this issue. Because funding for rail-trails is on addressing the most critical issues.
difficult to secure, over-estimating maintenance costs can
inadvertently give opponents easy leverage to speak against
rail-trail development. In addition, funders often question
if all aspects of any community development project
should be funded by state and federal grants, particularly
maintenance-related costs, which are often perceived as a
local issue.
Volunteers clear storm damage along trail in Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.

APPENDIX A 2014 SURVEY RESULTS
Please answer the following questions as completely 5. Who owns the land under the trail? If more than
and accurately as possible. If it is necessary to have one, please indicate an approximate percentage.
more than one person in your organization answer 23% Federal government
different questions based on their personal areas of 43% State government
experience and expertise, please do so. 34% Municipal government
42% County government
Please provide accurate information about the
31% Railroad
person to be contacted if any follow-up information is
9.9% Single private owner
needed.
46% Non-profit entity
1. Please provide you name and contact information 21% Utility
Name 12% Multiple private owners
Title/Agency
Email 6. On a general basis, who PERFORMS maintenance
Phone of the trail? If more than one, please indicate an
2. What is your Trail Name and state: approximate percentage.
Trail name 58% Trail Group Volunteers
State 39% Other volunteer community groups
Mileage (please specify)
13% Individuals with mandatory
community service
ADMINISTRATIVE 4% Federal government
3. What is the trail surrounding Environment (check 21% State government
all that apply): 33% County government
43% Municipal government
37% Rural
12% Non-profit entity (paid staff)
12% Urban
12% Other (specify)
13% Suburban
38% Mixed 7. Do you have a written Trail Maintenance Plan?
4. What are the permitted uses on your trail? (check 40% Yes
all that apply) 60% No
3% ATV 8. Who FUNDS maintenance of the trail? If

99% Bike more than one, please indicate an approximate
79% Cross Country Skiing percentage.
Fishing
40% Horseback Riding 6% Federal government
56% Inline skating 31% County government
66% Mountain Biking 32% Non-profit entity
16% Snowmobile 25% State government
100% Walking 42% Municipal government
86% Wheelchair Access 14% Other (specify)

Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations
9. What is the annual maintenance budget for this 16. How do you track annual users:
trail? (Average for all respondents that provided a budget.) 54% Do not currently track the number
$66,430 of annual users (Skip to 18)
23% Estimate / guess
9.a. If known, please provide the dollar amounts 16% Manual count
for the following within your maintenance program. 23% Automated counter
(Insufficient data)
17. How many users does your trail have on an
Labor annual basis?
Equipment
Supplies Varied
18. What are the hours of operation of your trail?

10. How is the maintenance funded?
7% Federally legislated (REC Trails 63% Dawn until dusk
funding) 30% Open 24/7
24% State Budget 7% Other
49% Municipal Budget
9% Unique funding streams or fees
collected through the community
(e.g. hotel tax)?
39% Local Fundraising activities (please SURFACE - GENERAL
describe)
29% In-kind Donations 19. What is the average width of your trail?
6% 6ft.
11. Is the trail covered by liability insurance? 16% 8ft.
77% Yes (If yes go to 12) 60% 10ft.
23% No (If no go to 15) 15% 12ft.
3% Other (specify)
12. What is your coverage amount ?
20. What surface material exists on any sections of
Most indicated $1 - 2 Million
your trail? (check all that apply)
13. Who is your carrier? 76% Asphalt
7% Concrete
Various
55% Crushed Stone
14. What is your annual cost? 9% Cinders
21% Dirt/ Soil
Various
8% Other (specify)
15. In what year was the trail first opened for public
use?
Various

21. Please indicate any reused or recycled materials 26. At what frequency (in years)?
used in the surface of your trail? 41% Recurring
69% None 27% 3 to 5
1% Tires or other rubber 23% 6 to 10
0% Glassphalt 9% 10 plus
19% Asphalt / pavement milling
2% Coal ash (cinders) 27. Do you have a crack sealing programing?
8% Quarry waste from stone/rock 35% Yes (If yes go to 28)
processing (tailings, etc.)
65% No (If no go to 29)
5% Other (specify)
28. At what frequency (in years)?
22. What is the predominant surface material on
your trail? 78% Recurring
13% 3 to 5
52% Asphalt (Go to 23)
9% 6 to 10
2% Concrete (Go to 35)
0% 10 plus
40% Crushed Stone (Go to 43)
4% Original railroad cinders (Go to 53) 29. What are the major causes of damage to your
4% Dirt / Soil (Go to 59) asphalt surfaced trail?
0% Boardwalk (Go to 65)
5% Other (specify) (Go to 72) 43% Water/erosion
63% Tree roots
20% Vegetation (grass, weeds)
25% Sub surface failure
SURFACE - ASPHALT 44% Frost/freeze cycle
23. Has your trail been repaved or resurfaced since
the original paving construction? 30. Is snow removed from your trail?
35% Yes (If yes go to 24) 9% Yes, fully

65% No (If no go to 29) 33% Yes, partially
58% No
45% Recurring 31. How is the surface of your trail kept clear of
3% 3 to 5 trash and debris? (Check all that apply)
7% 6 to 10
9% Street sweeper
45% 10 plus
18% Rotary brush
65% Blower
25. Has your trail been seal-coated since the original
58% Manual (broom, rake, etc.)
paving?
7% Other (specify)
25% Yes (If yes go to 26)

32. Does your trail employ pavement markings? 38. Is snow removed from your trail?
(Check all that apply.) 33% Yes fully
51% No (if no skip to 72) 0% Yes partially
49% Yes 67% No
39. How is the surface of your trail kept clear of

33. Do you indicate a Center Line of the trail?
trash and debris? (Check all that apply)
44% Yes
33% Street sweeper
24% Painted
33% Rotary brush
4% Thermal transfer
100% Blower
51% No
0% Manual (broom, rake, chainsaw, etc)
Other (specify)
34. Do you employ other safety markings?
61% Yes: 40. Does your trail employ pavement markings?
35% Painted (Check all that apply.)
14% Thermal transfer
67% Yes (if yes go to 41)
35% No
41. Do you indicate a center line of the trail?

SURFACE CONCRETE 100% Yes
35. Have sections of your trail been re-poured or 0% Painted
resurfaced since the original paving construction? 0% Thermal transfer
25% Yes (If yes go to 36) 0% No
42. Do you employ other safety markings?
36. At what frequency (in years)? 100% Yes:
Recurring 0% Painted
3 to 5 0% Thermal transfer
6 to 10 0% No
10 plus
37. What are the major causes of damage to your SURFACE CRUSHED/GRANULAR STONE
concrete surfaced trail?
43. How was trail surface applied?
67% Water/erosion
33% Tree roots 60% Paving machine
0% Vegetation (grass, weeds) 21% Box spreader
0% Sub surface failure 23% Tailgate from dump truck
33% Frost/freeze cycle 11% Bucket spread from loader
33% Other 0% Wheelbarrow or other manual
8% Other (specify)
44. Has your trail been re-surfaced since the original 49. What are the major causes of damage to your
construction? crushed stone surfaced trail:
56% Yes (If yes go to 45) 77% Water/erosion
48% No (If no go to 46) 2% Tree roots
45. At what frequency (in years)? 3% Sub surface failure
17% Frost/freeze cycle
32% Recurring
27% Other (specify)
3% 3 to 5 years
21% 6 to 10 years
44% 10 years or longer 50. How are damages to your trail surface repaired:
32% Grader or other heavy equipment
42% Light duty power equipment
46. How is the surface material compacted?
40% Dragging
14% Not
71% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.)
38% Steel drum roller (static)
13% Other (specify)
47% Steel drum roller (vibratory)
5% Rubber tired roller
0% Rammer 51. Has your trail been re-graded since the original
7% Vibratory plates construction?
10% Other (specify) 44% Yes (If yes go to 34a)
47. If applicable, please indicate the size of
aggregate used for your trail surface. 52. At what frequency (in years)?
40% Unknown 74% Recurring
10% 1A 4% 2 to 3 years
0% 1B 3% 2A 4% 4 to 5 years
19% 6 to 10 years
0% 2B 2% 2RC
30% AASHTO #10
2% DSA
18% Other (specify) SURFACE ORIGINAL RAILROAD CINDERS
53. How was the surface prepared after removal of
the rails and ties
48. Do you use any type of soil or aggregate binder?
97% No 11% Light duty power equipment
3% Yes 33% Dragging
22% Other (specify)

54. How was the surface material compacted ? SURFACE DIRT/SOIL

20% Steel drum roller (static)
80% Steel drum roller (vibratory) 59. How was the surface prepared?
0% Rubber tired roller
0% Rammer
43% Light duty power equipment
0% Vibratory plates
15% Dragging
0% Other (specify)
29% Manual (rake, shovel, etc)
Other (specify)
55. What are the major causes of damage to your
cinder surfaced trail?
60. How was the surface material compacted?
87% Water/erosion 20% Steel drum roller (static)
0% Tree roots 20% Steel drum roller (vibratory)
25% Vegetation (grass, weeds) 20% Rubber tired roller
13% Sub surface failure 20% Rammer
50% Frost/freeze cycle 20% Vibratory plates
40% Other (specify)
56. How are damages to your trail surface repaired?
63% Grader or other heavy equipment 61. What are the major causes of damage to your
63% Light duty power equipment dirt/soil surfaced trail?
25% Dragging
71% Water/erosion
50% Manual (rake, shovel, etc)
14% Tree roots
Other (specify)
14% Sub surface failure
57. Has your trail been re-graded since the original 29% Frost/freeze cycle
construction? 43% Other (specify)
29% No (If no go to 65) 62. How are damages to your trail surface repaired?
58. At what frequency (in years)? 71% Light duty power equipment
100% Recurring 0% Dragging
0% 2 to 3 years 71% Manual (rake, shovel, etc)
0% 4 to 5 years 0% Other (specify)
0% 6 to 10 years
63. Has your trail been re-graded since the original
construction?

64. At what age / frequency (in years)? 69. How old is the boardwalk segment of your trail?
33% Recurring 23% 1 to 3 years
0% 2 to 3 years 42% 4 to 9 years
33% 4 to 5 years 26% 10 to 20 years
33% 6 to 10 years 10% More than 20 years
70. Has your boardwalk been re-decked since its

SURFACE BOARDWALK original construction?
65. Does you trail contain any segments of 67% No (If no go to 72)
boardwalk?
18% Yes (If yes go to 66) 71. At what frequency has re-decking occurred?
82% No (If no go to 53) 11% 2 to 3 years
0% 4 to 5 years
66. How long is the boardwalk segment of your trail? 22% 6 to 10 years
0% 10 feet or less 67% More than 10 years
23% 10 to 50 feet
19% 51 to 100 feet
29% 101 to 500 feet
8% 501 to 1,000 feet ADJACENT LAND AND VEGETATION
19% 1,001 feet or more
72. Does annual or perennial vegetation grow along
your trail?
67. How wide is the boardwalk segment of your trail?
28% 5 to 7 feet
3% No (if no go to 75)
37% 8 to 10 feet
28% 11 to 12 feet
6% Greater than 12 feet 73. Do you use any herbicides or pesticides in your
trail maintenance?
68. What is the decking material of the boardwalk? 45% Yes (If yes go to 73a)
6% Wood ( pine, oak, et.) not pressure
treated If yes, please list:
0% Wood (teak, red wood, etc.)
84% Wood pressure treated 74. Who is responsible for herbicide/pesticide
3% Synthetic wood (Trex, application (check all that apply)
NewTechWood, ArmorGuard etc.)
0% Concrete 77% Trail maintenance staff
7% Other 20% Volunteers
14% Contractor

75. Do trees grow along your trail? 79. How are drainage areas kept clear? (Check all
100% Yes that apply.)
0% No 56% Power equipment (backhoe, etc.)
76. If planting new trees, what is the distance 3% Flush with water
between the trees and the edge of the trail? 25% Self-cleaning design
5% Other (specify)
15% 8
7% 10
6% 12
5% 20 PARKING, TRAILHEADS, and SANITATION
7% other?
80. How many trailheads are there along your trail?
77. Please indicate any activities that are performed 5% None
relative to trail side vegetation. (Check all that apply.) 26% 1-3
93% Litter clean-up 28% 3-5
91% Tree pruning 26% 5-10
30% Tree and shrub planting 12% 10-15
90% Tree removal - Safety 4% Other (please specify)
44% Tree removal - Health
93% Tree removal - Fallen 81. Please indicate the features of your trailheads.
26% Tree removal - Aesthetics (improve (Check all that apply.)
view shed)
78% Parking lot just for trail users
92% Mowing
22% Shared private/commercial parking
40% Leaf removal lot
62% Invasive species removal 43% Permanent toilet facility
27% Flower and ground cover planting 83% Information kiosk
3% Other (specify) 31% Potable water
5% Any other commercial concession
78. How is drainage accommodated? (Check all that 3% Telephone
apply.) 43% Shared public parking lot
80% Trail surface is crowned or sloped 45% Portable toilet facility
76% Trail-side drainage channels 17% On-street parking
(ditches, gullies) 61% Trash receptacles
72% Culverts 3% Vending machines
5% Other (specify) 73% Picnic tables/benches
13% Other (specify)

82. What is the primary surface material for your 60% Traffic control for cars at crossings
trailhead parking area(s)? 75% Trail rules and regulations
53% Asphalt 25% Property boundary sign (no
trespassing)
38% Crushed Stone
57% Interpretive signs
0% Cinders
28% Wayfinding on trail
6% Dirt / Soil
20% Wayfinding (off trail)
3% Other (specify)
2% No trail specific signage
12% Other (specify)
83. Is snow removed from your trailhead parking
lots?
86. Do you experience vandalism of your signs?
63% Yes
76% Yes
37% No
24% No
84. Aside from trailheads, are any of these

87. Please indicate any techniques you use to
amenities provided along your trail. (Check all that
separate users by direction of travel or use? (e.g.
apply.)
pedestrian vs. bicycle) Check all that apply.
22% Permanent toilet facility
68% None
52% Informational kiosk
13% Pavement markings
24% Potable water
23% Signs
7% Any other commercial concession
3% Physical separation
62% Interpretive signage
3% Different surface type
22% Portable toilet facility
4% Separate tread (Bridle or carriage
43% Trash receptacles path)
1% Vending machines 3% Other (specify)
76% Picnic tables/benches
8% Other (specify) 88. Is your trail patrolled by any professional policing
authority?
SIGNS, ACCESS CONTROL AND PUBLIC 35% No (If no go to 90)
SAFETY
89. Police agency type:
85. What types of signs do you use? (Check all that
apply.)
5% State police or state sheriff
42% Municipal police
91% Trail identification sign (welcome 33% Park or trail rangers
to ABC Trail)
74% Mile marker 20% Other (specify)
6% Quarter miles
7% 1/10 mile
77% Traffic control for trail users (stop,
yield)

90. Is your trail patrolled by a volunteer or a non- 96. Do you have emergency call boxes on along your
police group (e.g. crime watch)? trail or trailhead?
30% Yes 3% Yes
70% No 97% No
91. Do you have an on-going problem with any of the 97. How is vehicular access to your trail controlled?
following activities on the trail? (Check all that apply.) (Check all that apply.)
49% Dumping 22% Vehicular access is not controlled
12% Crimes against persons 45% Gates
28% After hours use 26% Fixed bollards
17% Trespass 54% Removable bollards
71% Vandalism 11% Other (specify)
21% Crimes against property
22% Other (specify) 98. Do you use fencing along your trail?
92. Are your trailheads lighted? 36% No (if no go to 101)
99. What types of fencing do you use?
18% Chain link
93. During what times?
45% Split rail
75% Dusk until dawn 7% Woven Wire
25% Other 3% Stockade
27% Other (specify)
94. How are the lights controlled? (Check all that
apply.) 100. What is the average height of the fence (in
13% Always on INCHES)?
4% Manual switch 48 most common
25% Clock / timer
75% Light / dark sensor
4% Motion sensor
18% Other (specify)
95. How are the lights powered?

96% Municipal power supply
4% Solar panel
0% Battery

101. In what areas have you made accommodation 104. What is the deck material on your bridges?
for ADA standards or handicapped accessibility? (Check all that apply.)
78% Parking 74% Wood
50% Restrooms 9% Synthetic lumber
35% Picnic tables 1% Rubber
12% Visitors Center 11% Metal
15% Interpretive areas 16% Asphalt
75% Grade of trail 36% Concrete
61% Grade of access to trail 11% Stone/dirt/cinders
67% Trail Surface Other (specify)
3% Our trail has specific features for
individuals with sight, hearing, or
other impairments. 105. Do you have railings on your bridges?
5% Other (specify) 97% Yes (If yes go to 106)
106. What is the height of the fence/railing (in

INCHES)?
BRIDGES, TUNNELS and ROAD CROSSINGS
48 most common
102. Do you have any bridges on your trail?
107. Are your bridges inspected on a regular basis by
a certified inspector or professional engineer?
57% Yes
43% No
103. What types of bridges do you have?

61% Existing railroad bridge 0% Recurring
33% Pre-Fabricated 66% 2 to 3 years
9% New Bike/Ped (no vehicular
capacity) 23% 4 to 5 years
40% New bike/ped (with vehicle 11% 6 to 10 years
capacity)
16% Small foot bridge(less than 5 109. Do you have any tunnels or culverts for user
wide)
passage under roads etc.
8% Other (specify)

110. Are your tunnels lighted? 114 Do you paint/stain/treat bridge structures or
40% Yes decks, tunnel/underpass walls, etc?
60% No 45% Yes (If yes go to 115)
111. During what times?
31% 24/7 115. At what frequency (in years)?
61% Dusk to dawn 68% Recurring
8% Other (please specify time of day/ 0% 2 to 3 years
night) 10% 4 to 5 years
23% 6 to 10 years
112. How are lights controlled?
23% Always on 116. How are at-grade crossings of roads controlled?
0% Manual switch (Check all that apply.)
31% Clock / timer 89% Stop sign for trail users
46% Light / dark sensor 17% Yield sign for trail users
0% Motion sensor 17% Traffic signal (red, yellow, green)
Other (specify) 69% Ped /bike crossing sign
17% Stop sign for road users
113. How are the lights powered? 20% Yield sign for road users
92% Municipal power supply 30% Pedestrian crossing signal (walk)
8% Solar 51% Road striping
0% Battery Other (specify)
0% Generator
41 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of 200 Rail-Trails Rails to Trails Conservancy / 41

APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface

Tahoe City Public Utility District Multi-use trails CA 1991 20 Asphalt
Bizz Johnson National Recreation Trail CA 1983 25.4 Ballast, Gravel
Fort Collins City Trails CO 1998 36 Concrete
Rio Grande Trail CO 1987 42 Asphalt
Middlebury Greenway CT 2008 5 Asphalt
Sue Grossman Still River Greenway CT 1995 3 Asphalt
Trumbull Rails to Trails CT 2006 7 Crushed Stone
Farmington Canal Heritage Trail CT 2010 56 Asphalt
Metropolitan Branch Trail DC 2000 3.5 Asphalt
Prairie Farmer Recreational Trail IA 1999 22 Asphalt
Raccoon River Valley Trail IA 1990 89 Asphalt, Concrete
Gay Lea Wilson Trail IA 2000 17 Asphalt, Concrete
Ashton-Tetonia Rail Trail ID 1913 30 Crushed Stone
Latah Trail ID 1984 16 Asphalt
Trail of the Coeur dAlenes Recreational Trailway ID 2006 73 Asphalt
Wood River Trail ID 1990 22 Asphalt
Route of the Hiawatha ID &MT 1986 15 Ballast, Dirt, Gravel
George Rogers Clark Discovery Trail IL 2010 9.2 Concrete
Forest Preserves of Cook County IL 2009 100 Crushed Stone
Burnham Greenway IL 2004 2.5 Asphalt
Millennium Trail and Greenway IL 2003 8 Crushed Stone
Great Western Trail IL 1990 12 Crushed Stone
Illinois Prairie Path IL 1966 62 Crushed Stone
DeKalb Nature Trail IL 1985 1.2 Asphalt
Oak Savannah Trail IN 2010 8 Asphalt
Nickel Plate Trail IN 2012 35 Crushed Stone
Pumpkinvine Nature Trails IN 1996 20 Asphalt
Delphi Historic Trails IN 2008 10 Crushed Stone
Zionsville Rail Trail IN 1997 3.75 Asphalt
Monon Trail IN 1997 9 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Brighton East Rail Trail KY 1998 2 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Narrow Gauge Rail Trail MA 2010 3 Crushed Stone
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail MA 1992 6.8 Asphalt
Cape Cod Rail Trail MA 2011 22 Asphalt
Methuen Rail Trail MA 1995 2.4 Crushed Stone
Danvers Rail Trail MA 1994 4.3 Crushed Stone
Old Colony Rail Trail MA 1992 3 Asphalt
Southwick Rail Trail MA 1994 6 Asphalt
Springfield Riverfront Bikeway/Walkway MA 1994 3.7 Asphalt
Ashuwillticook Rail Trail MA 2003 11 Asphalt
Gwynns Falls Trail MD 2005 15 Asphalt

Jones Falls Trail MD 2006 9.1 Asphalt
Herring Run Trail MD 1978 2.5 Asphalt
Stony Run Trail MD 2013 2.9 Asphalt
Three Notch Trail MD 2013 7 Asphalt
Gilchrest Trail MD 2011 1.2 Asphalt
Broadneck Trail MD 2000 6.6 Asphalt
Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Trail MD 1983 10.25 Asphalt
Baltimore Washington International Airport Trail MD 2013 12.5 Asphalt
Torrey C. Brown/Northern Central Railroad Trail MD 1984 20 Crushed Stone
Baltimore & Annapolis Trail MD 1991 14 Asphalt
Catonsville Short Line Trail MD 2013 3.5 Dirt, Gravel
St. John Valley Heritage Trail ME 1998 29 Crushed Stone
Bangor Aroostook Trail & Aroostook Valley Trail ME 1999 61 Gravel, Dirt, Soil
Aroostook Valley Trail ME 1991 28 Crushed Stone, Dirt
Polly Ann Trail MI 1998 30 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Riverfront Trail MI 2005 2.25 Asphalt
Kalamazoo River Valley Trail MI 1999 17 Asphalt
Clinton River Trail MI 2004 1 Crushed Stone
Flint River Trail MI 2009 20 Asphalt
Leelanau Trail MI 1987 20 Asphalt
I-275 Metro Trail MI mid-1970s 30 Asphalt
Conner Creek Greenway MI 2009 9.5 Asphalt
Traverse Area Recreation Trail MI 1831 10.5 Asphalt
Little Traverse Wheelway MI 1996 26 Asphalt
Dakota Rail Regional Trail MN 2002 12.4 Asphalt
Rocori Trail MN 2005 12.9 Asphalt
Paul Bunyan and Cuyuna State Trails MN 2004 128 Asphalt
Kenilworth Regional Trail MN 2005 0.15 Asphalt
Central Lakes State Trail MN 1986 55 Asphalt
Willard Munger State Trail (Gateway Segment) MN 1993 18 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Bruce Vento Trail MN 2010 23 Asphalt
Willard Munger State Trail (Matthew Lourey State Trail) MN 1980 80 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Cannon Valley Trail MN 1986 20 Asphalt
Dairyland Trail MN 1995 6.2 Crushed Stone
Lake Wobegon Trail MN 1999 54 Asphalt
Sakatah Singing Hills State Trail MN 1980 38 Asphalt
Duluth Winnipeg and Pacific Trail MN 1985 8 Gravel
Douglas State Trail MN 1974 26 Asphalt
MKT Nature and Fitness Trail MO 1982 8.9 Concrete, Crushed Stone
Northern Rail Trail NH 1995 23 Crushed Stone
Sugar River Trail NH 1997 9 Dirt, Soil


Goffstown Rail Trail NH 2005 5.5 Crushed Stone
Windham Rail Trail NH 2000 4 Asphalt
Winnipesaukee River Trail NH 2005 7.9 Crushed Stone
WOW Trail NH 1990 1.3 Asphalt
Derry Rail Trail NH 2004 4.5 Asphalt
Gloucester Township Health & Fitness Trail NJ 2001 2 Asphalt
Henry Hudson Trail NJ 1995 24.5 Asphalt
Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park NJ 1980 80 Crushed Stone
Barnegat Branch Trail NJ 1971 15.6 rushed Stone
Middlesex Greenway NJ 2006 3.1 Asphalt
Columbia Trail NJ 1990 7.5 Crushed Stone
Paulinskill Valley Rail Trail NJ 1992 27 Cinders, Dirt, Grass, Ballast
Traction Line Recreation Trail NJ 1986 3 Asphalt
Dutchess Rail Trail NY 1991 13.5 Asphalt
Oswego County Recreation Trail NY 1979 24.35 Original railroad cinders
Joseph B. Clarke Rail Trail NY 1998 2.5 Asphalt
Ontario Pathway NY 1992 23.5 Cinders, Grass, Gravel
Town of Ballston Veterans Bike Path. NY 1960 3.6 Asphalt
Auburn Trail NY 1993 10 Crushed Stone
Clarence Bike Paths NY 2004 10.2 Asphalt
Hudson Valley Rail Trail NY 1824 3.6 Asphalt
Pat McGee Trail NY 1987 13 Crushed Stone
South Hill Recreation Way NY 1988 3.4 Crushed Stone
Wallkill Valley Rail Trail NY 2000 24 Asphalt, Cinders, Gravel
Harlem Valley Rail Trail NY 1978 17 Asphalt
Genesee Valley Greenway NY 1992 90 Original railroad cinders
Catskill Scenic Trail NY 1990 26 Original railroad cinders
Catharine Valley Trail State Park NY 2002 10 Crushed Stone
Ballston Veterans Bike Path NY 1994 20 Asphalt
Vestal Rail Trail NY 2002 5 Asphalt
Heritage Trail NY 1996 11 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Hockhocking Adena Bikeway OH 1990 21 Asphalt
Kokosing Gap Trail OH 1982 13.5 Asphalt
4-C Bicentennial Trail and Peace Path OH 1972 2.5 Asphalt
Fairfield Heritage Trail OH 1999 9.3 Asphalt
Infirmary Mound Park trails OH 1991 7 Asphalt, Dirt
Taft Reserve Trails OH 1992 8 Asphalt, Dirt
Lobdell Reserve Trails OH 1992 8 Asphalt, Dirt
Holmes County Trail OH 1995 15 Asphalt
Richland B&O Trail OH 1999 18.4 Asphalt
Lebanon - Countryside YMCA Trail OH 2011 8 Asphalt

Cleveland Metro Parks OH 1990 250 Asphalt, Crushed Stone, Dirt
Heart of Ohio Trail OH 1989 16 Asphalt
MetroParks Bikeway OH 1990 11 Asphalt
Bike & Hike / Towpath / Freedom OH 1966 60.4 Asphalt
Simon Kenton Trail OH 2003 18 Asphalt
Alum Creek Trail OH 2010 20 Asphalt
Hock-Hocking Adena Bikeway OH 1992 22 Asphalt
Slippery Elm Trail OH 1995 13.5 Asphalt
Creekside trail and others OH 2005 62 Asphalt. Concrete
Deschutes River Railbed Trail OR 2008 16 Dirt, Soil
Crushed Stone. Asphalt,
Deschutes River Trail (some surfacing cut off) OR 1989 24
Ballast, Cinders
OC&E and Woodsline State Trail OR 1994 108 Woodchips
Panhandle Trail in Allegheny County PA 1999 7.5 Crushed Stone
Chester Valley Trail PA 2007 11.5 Asphalt
Capital Area Greenbelt PA 1978 22 Asphalt
Five Star Trail PA 1990 7.75 Crushed Stone
McClintock Trail PA 1996 3.5 Asphalt
Trout Island Trail PA 1980 2.5 Asphalt
Greater Hazleton Rails to Trails PA 2011 6 Crushed Stone
Steel Valley Trail PA 1988 19 Asphalt
Warren/North Warren Bike/Hike Trail PA 2011 3 Asphalt
Allegheny River Trail PA 1983 34.2 Asphalt
Sandy Creek Trail PA 1998 12 Asphalt
Great Allegheny Passage (Yough River Trail) PA 2000 185 Crushed Stone
Path of the Flood Trail PA 2012 9 Asphalt, Ballast
Luzerne County National Recreation Trail PA 1989 1.8 Crushed Stone
Ghost Town Trail PA 1992 18 Crushed Stone
Stavich Bike Trail PA 1983 7 Asphalt
Swatara Rail Trail PA 1994 10 Crushed Stone
Roaring Run Trail PA 2005 5 Crushed Stone
Clarion-Little Toby Trail PA 1994 18 Crushed Stone
Lebanon Valley Rail-Trail PA 1987 15.5 Crushed Stone
Lehigh Gorge Trail PA 1994 26 Original railroad cinders
Queen City Trail PA 2008 1 Asphalt
Montour Trail PA 1985 47 Crushed Stone
Pine Creek Rail Trail - Tioga County PA 2001 27 Crushed Stone
Great Allegheny Passage - Somerset County Segment PA 2001 42 Crushed Stone
Butler Freeport Community Trail Council PA 1997 20.4 Crushed Stone
Warwick Trial system PA 1992 6 Asphalt
Perkiomen Trail PA 2010 20 Crushed Stone


Lackawanna River Heritage Trail PA 1986 35 Crushed Stone
Oil Creek State Park Bike Trail PA 1998 9.7 Asphalt
Great Allegheny Passage PA 1996 150 Crushed Stone
Delaware Canal State Park PA 2003 60 Crushed Stone
West Penn Trail PA 1991 15 Crushed Stone
Three Rivers Heritage Trail PA 1986 24 Asphalt
D&H Rail-Trail PA 1997 38 Original railroad cinders
York County Heritage Rail Trail PA 1999 23.5 Crushed Stone
The Lower Trail PA 1998 17 Crushed Stone
Redbank Valley Trail PA 1999 51 Crushed Stone
Armstrong Trail PA 1992 36 Crushed Stone
Plainfield Township Trail PA 1991 6.7 Crushed Stone
Pine Creek Rail Trail - Lycoming County PA 1992 38 Crushed Stone
Blue and White Trails PA 2002 2 Asphalt
Delaware Canal State Park Towpath PA 1940 60 Crushed Stone, Dirt
Coal and Coke Trail PA 2007 5 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Five Star Trail PA 1997 7.5 Crushed Stone
Ironton Rail Trail PA 1995 9.2 Asphalt
West Penn Trail PA 2002 15 Crushed Stone
Panhandle Trail - Washington County PA & WV 1999 17 Crushed Stone
William ONeill/South County Bike Path RI 2013 8 Asphalt
Shelby Farms Greenline Trail TN 1966 6 Asphalt
High Bridge Trail State Park VA 2007 30.9 Crushed Stone
Virginia Capital Trail VA 2005 16 Asphalt, Boardwalk
Southern Tip Bike & Hike Trail VA 2008 2.6 Asphalt
New River Trail State Park VA 2007 57 Asphalt
Virginia Blue Ridge Railway Trail VA 1987 7 Crushed Stone
Dahlgren Railroad Heritage Trail VA 1998 15.7 Dirt, Soil
Washington & Old Dominion Trail VA 2001 45 Asphalt
Burlington Bike Path VT 1987 25 Asphalt
Klickitat Trail WA 2002 31 Gravel, Dirt
Ozaukee Interurban Trail WI 1963 29.5 Asphalt
Hank Aaron State Trail WI 2006 14 Asphalt
Gandy Dancer Trail WI 2001 20.3 Crushed Stone
Badger and Glacial Drumlin State Trails WI 1984 60 Crushed Stone
Southwest Path WI 2010 4.5 Asphalt
Mon River WV 2008 6 Crushed Stone
Caperton Trail WV 1999 6 Asphalt
Deckers Creek Trail WV 1999 19 Asphalt, Crushed Stone

Pine Creek Trail, PA.

National Headquarters
2121 Ward Court, NW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20037
tel 202.331.9696
railtrail@railstotrails.org
railstotrails.org
www.TrailLink.com
B-16-381 9/3/2010
HUGH FARREN PED. BRIDGE Page 1B of 30
COST ESTIMATE
Alternate No. 2 - Precast Double-T
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QTY. UNITS UNIT PRICE COST
102.510 INDIVIDUAL TREE PROTECTION 11 EA $295.90 $3,255

103.000 TREE REMOVED 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000
114.100 DEMOLITION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE OF BRIDGE NO. 108.4 SY $1,000.00 $108,400
115.100 DEMOLITION OF BRIDGE NO. 1 LS $145,000.00 $145,000
120.100 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION 1650 CY $50.00 $82,500
151.000 GRAVEL BORROW 27 CY $40.00 $1,080
151.220 GRAVEL BORROW FOR SIDEWALK 120 CY $40.00 $4,800
156.100 CRUSHED STONE FOR BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS 205 TON $52.50 $10,763
460.000 HOT MIX ASPHALT 16.3 TON $142.00 $2,315
482.300 SAWING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 200 FT $3.63 $726
580.000 CURB REMOVE AND RESET 90 FT $18.00 $1,620
701.000 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 540 SY $55.00 $29,700
751.000 LOAM BORROW 50 CY $40.00 $2,000
765.000 SEEDING 2200 SY $1.90 $4,180
820.100 HIGHWAY LIGHTING - ROADWAY 820.101 R&R 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000
877.000 SIGN POST REMOVED AND RESET 3 EA $100.00 $300
901.000 4000 PSI, 1.5 IN., 565 CEMENT CONCRETE 167.5 CY $700.00 $117,250
904.200 5000 PSI, 3/4 IN., 685 SILICA FUME MODIFIED CEMENT CONCRETE 25 CY $700.00 $17,500
910.100 STEEL REINFORCEMENT FOR STRUCTURES - EPOXY COATED 1700 LB $4.00 $6,800
912.000 DRILLING AND GROUTING DOWELS 152 EA $55.50 $8,436
932.000 ELASTOMERIC BRIDGE BEARING PAD 3 SF $500.00 $1,500
945.503 DRILLED SHAFT 4.0 FOOT DIAMETER 600 FT $669.00 $401,400
945.603 PERMANENT CASING 4.0 FOOT DIAMETER 600 FT $497.50 $298,500
947.000 TEST PILE 20 FT $700.00 $14,000
975.500 ALUMINUM HANDRAIL 3108 FT $10.00 $31,080
975.600 ALUMINUM GUARDRAIL 1554 FT $200.00 $310,800
995.000 BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE, BRIDGE NO. 1 LS $86,275.00 $86,275
995.100 PRECAST BRIDGE SUB STRUCTURE & RAMPS 1 LS $709,300.00 $709,300
SUB TOTAL $2,407,479
20 % DESIGN CONTINGENCY $2,888,975
20 % CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $3,466,770
TOTAL $3,466,770
SAY $3,500,000
APPENDIX
APPENDIX E E
B-16-381 9/3/2010
HUGH FARREN PED. BRIDGE Page 1A of 30
COST ESTIMATE
Alternate No. 1 - Prefabricated Steel Truss
ITEM # DESCRIPTION QTY. UNITS UNIT PRICE COST
102.510 INDIVIDUAL TREE PROTECTION 11 EA $295.90 $3,255

103.000 TREE REMOVED 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000
114.100 DEMOLITION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE OF BRIDGE NO. 108.4 SY $1,000.00 $108,400
115.100 DEMOLITION OF BRIDGE NO. 1 LS $145,000.00 $145,000
120.100 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION 1650 CY $50.00 $82,500
151.000 GRAVEL BORROW 27 CY $40.00 $1,080
151.220 GRAVEL BORROW FOR SIDEWALK 120 CY $40.00 $4,800
156.100 CRUSHED STONE FOR BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS 205 TON $52.50 $10,763
460.000 HOT MIX ASPHALT 16.3 TON $142.00 $2,315
482.300 SAWING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 200 FT $3.63 $726
580.000 CURB REMOVE AND RESET 90 FT $18.00 $1,620
701.000 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 540 SY $55.00 $29,700
751.000 LOAM BORROW 50 CY $40.00 $2,000
765.000 SEEDING 2200 SY $1.90 $4,180
820.100 HIGHWAY LIGHTING - ROADWAY 820.101 R&R 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000
877.000 SIGN POST REMOVED AND RESET 3 EA $100.00 $300
901.000 4000 PSI, 1.5 IN., 565 CEMENT CONCRETE 167.5 CY $700.00 $117,250
904.200 5000 PSI, 3/4 IN., 685 SILICA FUME MODIFIED CEMENT CONCRETE 25 CY $700.00 $17,500
910.100 STEEL REINFORCEMENT FOR STRUCTURES - EPOXY COATED 1700 LB $4.00 $6,800
912.000 DRILLING AND GROUTING DOWELS 152 EA $55.50 $8,436
932.000 ELASTOMERIC BRIDGE BEARING PAD 3 SF $500.00 $1,500
945.503 DRILLED SHAFT 4.0 FOOT DIAMETER 600 FT $669.00 $401,400
945.603 PERMANENT CASING 4.0 FOOT DIAMETER 600 FT $497.50 $298,500
947.000 TEST PILE 20 FT $700.00 $14,000
975.500 ALUMINUM HANDRAIL 2712 FT $10.00 $27,120
975.600 ALUMINUM GUARDRAIL 1356 FT $200.00 $271,200
995.000 BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE, BRIDGE NO. 1 LS $183,700.00 $183,700
995.100 PRECAST BRIDGE SUB STRUCTURE & RAMPS 1 LS $572,500.00 $572,500
SUB TOTAL $2,324,544
20 % DESIGN CONTINGENCY $2,789,453
20 % CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $3,347,343
TOTAL $3,347,343
SAY $3,300,000
APPENDIX F

2017 Dedham Heritage Rail Trail

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Dedham Heritage Rail Trail

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOWN OF DEDHAM

HERITAGE RAIL TRAIL

PLANNING DEPARTMENT + ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT

Cheri Ruane, RLA

Special thanks to:

Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator

1. Introduction and Background

2. Community Outreach and Public Process

3. Base Mapping and Existing Conditions

4. Rail Corridor Segments

6. Preliminary Trail Alignment

7. Opinion of Probable Cost

8. Phasing and Implementation

From the 2014 Dedham Greenway Concept Plan:

Purpose and Needs Statement

Community Outreach and Public Process

Base Mapping and Existing Site Conditions

Segment A East Street to tennis courts (including Mt. Vernon Street)

Segment B Tennis courts to high school field parking lot

Segment C High School Field parking lot to Fairview Street

Segment D Fairview Street to Quincy Street Extension

2. Custody of the Rail Corridor

3. Proximity to the Avery Elementary School

8. Cost of Operations and Maintenance

Preliminary Trail Alignment

In this location, the elevation of the rail bed is optimal for a

Some abutting residences have minimal vegetation and

In locations where local businesses have begun to encroach on

A pedestrian bridge is required at River Street. An at-grade

The interim terminus of this proposed rail trail will include

MATCH LINE SEGMENT B

RAIL TRAIL REGRADE AREA AS REQUIRED

CROSS WALK ADA RAMP

FENCE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LIGHT

REGRADE AREA AS REQUIRED PLANTING N

REGRADE AREA AS REQUIRED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

TO: Cheri Ruane and Cassidy Chroust

FROM: Kenneth Gendron

DATE: August 29, 2016

SUBJECT: Summary of Dedham Rail Trail Environmental Findings

Enclosed: Dedham Rail Trail DEP Site Map

Reportable Release Lookup

Locations Map Legend | Data Questions?

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical

City/ Release Site Name Reporting Notification Compliance RAO Chemical

Page:1 of 2 Previous Next

Executive Summary .................................................................4

Major Maintenance Tasks ........................................................8

Appendix A: 2014 Survey Results ..........................................30

Appendix B: List of Participants ............................................ 42

Wallkill Valley Rail Trail, NY.

2 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails

Produced by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

Allegheny River Trail, PA.

Rails to Trails Conservancy / 3

Therefore, it is possible that although maintenance costs

Trail managers and local stakeholders often cite the need

Because funding for rail-trails is difficult to secure,

This study presents a more comprehensive understanding

St. John Valley Heritage Trail, ME.

4 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails