Humboldt County Trails Master Plan r2s Recreation Research & Service University of Northern Iowa 2010 Humboldt County Trails Master Plan Research Team Reilly Branderhorst, MA Whitney Burger, MA Faculty Advisors Jill Lankford, MLA, MUP Sam Lankford, Ph.D. r2s Recreation Research and Service University of Northern Iowa www.uni.edu/step 2010 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 2 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Preparation for the Humboldt County Trails Master Plan began in 2009 as a cooperative effort between Humboldt County, the City of Humboldt, and the University of Northern Iowa’s Recreation Research & Service (r2s). A steering committee was created to gain insight and support from representatives within the county. This committee met to discuss the opportunities for a more comprehensive trail system within the county. This committee includes: Mindi O'Hern Recreation Director, City of Humboldt Mike Worthington Park Board Member, City of Humboldt Todd Lee Parks Department, City of Humboldt Chris Clarken Parks Department, City of Humboldt Jeanne Baugous Director, Humboldt County Conservation Board Mary Miner Humboldt County Conservation Board Member Dean Clasen Humboldt High School Cross Country Coach _____________________________________________________________________________________ 3 2010 r2s – University of Northern Iowa TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Vision of Humboldt County Trails .................................................................................................. 13 Benefits of Trails ............................................................................................................................ 14 Purpose of the Trails Master Plan ................................................................................................. 16 RESOURCE INVENTORY ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Demographic Profile ...................................................................................................................... 18 Transportation Corridors ............................................................................................................... 19 Highways ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Railways ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Topography & Land Use ................................................................................................................ 21 Waterways ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Priority Destinations ...................................................................................................................... 25 EXISTING TRAILS SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................ 27 State and Regional Trails System ................................................................................................... 28 Three Rivers Trail ........................................................................................................................... 29 Gotch Park Trail ............................................................................................................................. 31 Cottonwood Trail ........................................................................................................................... 32 NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 33 Steering Committee ...................................................................................................................... 34 Humboldt County Trails Survey ..................................................................................................... 35 TRAIL STANDARDS ................................................................................................................................................... 41 Shared Use Trail Standards............................................................................................................ 42 Trail Classifications ........................................................................................................................ 43 Surface Options ............................................................................................................................. 45 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 4 2010 Accessibility Requirements ............................................................................................................ 47 MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES .................................................................................................................................... 48 Maintenance Activities .................................................................................................................. 49 EASEMENTS & LAND ACQUISTION .......................................................................................................................... 50 PROPOSED TRAIL SEGMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 52 Short‐Term Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 55 Mid‐Term Priorities ....................................................................................................................... 61 Long‐Term Priorities ...................................................................................................................... 67 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 73 Federal Recreational Trails Program ............................................................................................. 74 State Recreational Trails Program ................................................................................................. 75 Federal Transportation Enhancement Program ............................................................................ 76 Iowa Department of Natural Resources‐Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) ............ 78 Vision Iowa, Community Attraction and Tourism Program .......................................................... 80 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 81 Appendix A: Railbanking Information...................................................................................................................... 82 Appendix B: Steering Committee Meeting Minutes ............................................................................................... 85 Appendix C: Humboldt County Trail Survey ............................................................................................................ 90 Appendix D: Shared Use Path Standards ................................................................................................................. 94 Appendix E: Accessibility Requirements ............................................................................................................... 120 Appendix F: Maintenance Activities ...................................................................................................................... 124 Appendix G: Easements ......................................................................................................................................... 131 Appendix H: Humboldt, IA Zoning Map ................................................................................................................. 140 Appendix I: Iowa Recreational Use Statute ........................................................................................................... 142 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 5 2010 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Humboldt County Population ................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2. Highway 3 Daily Traffic Counts ................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3. Highway 169 Daily Traffic Counts ............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 4. Active and Abandoned Railways in Humboldt County ............................................................................. 20 Figure 5. Humboldt County Floodplain Soils ........................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6. City of Humboldt Floodplain ..................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7. Priority Destinations‐Schools ................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8. Priority Destinations‐Public Services & Recreation Sites ......................................................................... 26 Figure 9. Northwest Iowa Trails Inventory .............................................................................................................. 28 Figure 10. Nearby Parks with Amenities ................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 11. Trailhead Amenities ................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 12. Three Rivers Trail .................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 13. Gotch Park Spur Map .............................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 14. Cottonwood Trail Map............................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 15. Number of Surveys Sent and Returned .................................................................................................. 36 Figure 16. Survey Results‐Trail Use ......................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 17. Survey Results‐Trail Activity ................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 18. Survey Results‐Barriers to Trail Use ....................................................................................................... 39 Figure 19. Survey Results‐Importance of Linking Trails ........................................................................................... 40 Figure 20. Survey Results‐Age & Length of Residence ............................................................................................ 40 Figure 21. Potential Trail Opportunities‐City of Humboldt ..................................................................................... 54 Figure 22. Potential Trail Opportunities‐Humboldt County .................................................................................... 66 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 6 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 7 2010 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 8 2010 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 9 2010 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 10 2010 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 11 2010 r2s – University of Northern Iowa INTRODUCTION
_____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 12 2010 Vision of Humboldt County Trails The vision for the Humboldt County trails system is to connect recreation areas with communities and neighborhoods, promoting wellness within the region. A comprehensive trails system will provide recreation opportunities for all as well as alternative transportation options. The Humboldt County Trails system will support regional economic development and tourism within the region and promote a sustainable and positive quality of life through the development of greenways. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 13 2010 Benefits of Trails Trail systems connect parks, neighborhoods, and community amenities, while also providing recreational benefits to community members and visitors. Urban expansion and a concern for the environment have helped to create new policies and initiatives designed to enhance a communities’ quality of life (Shafer, 2000). Funding is being designated to trail projects created to make cities more livable and provide alternative transportation. Developing a successful trail system encourages physical activity for individuals of all ages and backgrounds; preserves natural areas and increases awareness of the environment; links areas of interest within the community and county; as well as provides for economic development and expansion. The use of greenways has become a popular strategy in trail development. According to Lindsey (2003, p. 165), “Greenways are linear open spaces or parks along rivers, ridgelines, or historic infrastructure corridors such as canals or railroads that connect people with places and provide opportunities for recreation, conservation, and economic development.” Many times, these greenway spaces are home to trail systems. These greenway trails can offer alternate transportation routes and help to meet certain quality of life initiatives within a community. In both urban and rural areas, greenway trails have become a top development priority for recreational providers. One type of greenway that is popular is rail‐trails. “Rail‐trails are multiple use public recreation trails built on the rights‐of‐way of unused railroad corridors” (Moore, Graefe & Gitelson, 1994, p. 79). When railroads were a major source of transportation, they connected almost every city in the United States. Many of these routes have become obsolete and are being abandoned. These open spaces can now be easily turned into trail systems. Quality of Life There are numerous benefits that greenways and trails provide. Schafer, Lee, and Turner (2000), sought to better understand the role greenway trails play in promoting a positive, urban quality of life. When surveyed, citizens in selected communities indicated that they valued most the presence of natural areas, lack of pollution, accessible recreation, residents’ pride in their community, community identity, places for wildlife to live, and land use patterns to their city’s quality of life (Schafer, 2000). Results of their study indicate that greenway trails have the ability to increase a community’s quality of life by adding to its livability factor. A livable environment is one in which people feel balance and their experiences within the community are more enjoyable. The benefits of greenway trails in terms of quality of life items help to justify their development and implementation. Sustainability Along with contributing to an area’s quality of life, establishing greenways are a sustainable development practice within a community. Sustainable development can be defined as “a dynamic, _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 14 2010 complex process concerned with balancing the sometimes conflicting objectives of economic development, environmental protection, and equitable distribution” (Lindsey, 2003, p. 166). This type of development is thought to be profitable, green, and fair and researchers have created indicators to help make areas more sustainable. In his study, Lindsey (2003) adopts Berke and Conroy’s six principles of sustainability to provide a framework for trail planners to link goals for trail greenways with broad standards and develop indicators that measure progress towards goals. The six principles include harmony with nature, livable built environments, place‐based economy, equity, polluters pay, and responsible regionalism (Lindsey 2003). The development of goals and linking them to indicators to help measure progress is essential in trail development and can assist with making these areas greener, healthier, and more livable. Economic Benefits Trail systems can also provide many economic benefits for communities. A study conducted by the National Park Service and Penn State University, explored the total direct economic impact of trail use in Iowa, Florida and California. Trail users were surveyed and counted on each trail. Results show the average trail user in Iowa spent $9.21 per person, per day as a result of their trail visit, resulting in an economic impact of over $1.2 million annually (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1992). This study also investigated what effects trails have on adjacent and nearby property value. Results showed that most landowners who lived close to the trails actually used them frequently. They also experienced very few problems with the trails and felt that their proximity to them actually increased the value of their property (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1992). Physical Benefits In today’s society, physical well‐being and health are very important. According to the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, adults need at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic activity every week (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008). Trails provide the opportunity for people to take part in a variety of physical activities such as walking, bicycling, skating, jogging, snow‐shoeing or cross‐country skiing. In a study focused on promoting physical activity in rural communities, it was determined that among those who had access to trails, 39% utilized them (Brownson et al., 2000). Also, among those who used the trails, 55% said they had increased their physical activity level since they began using the trails (Brownson et al., 2000). In rural communities, access to these trails is often limited. Almost half of the respondents had to travel 15 miles or more to get to a trail. If trails were closer and more accessible to residents in rural areas, then most likely, even more people would use them as a form of physical activity. There is a need to create trails that are accessible for everyone’s benefit. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 15 2010 Purpose of the Trails Master Plan Goal of the Trails Master Plan: • This document initiates action to develop and manage a comprehensive trails system for Humboldt County. Objectives of the Trails Master Plan: • To identify recreation trail needs/desires of Humboldt County residents. • To identify existing and potential recreation trail resources in and around Humboldt County. • To identify goals, objectives and potential trail segments. • To identify trail standards, implementation methods, and management and maintenance strategies for a comprehensive county trails system. In 2005, the City of Humboldt adopted a master plan for the Parks and Recreation Department. This master plan identified community recreation needs and opportunities within the city. Recommendations and prioritized possible implementation strategies were identified. This plan identified one goal specific to recreational trails: Encourage trail development for bicycling, walking, jogging and skating within the region to connect recreation areas and promote wellness • Promote wellness/fitness by facilitating alternative transportation • Provide safe pathways for all ages and populations to link recreation facilities and cross neighborhood barriers (highways and waterways) • Coordinate the trail system with Humboldt County and regional agencies The Humboldt County Trails Master Plan will elaborate on the goal set forth in the City of Humboldt Parks & Recreation Master Plan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 16 2010 RESOURCE INVENTORY _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 17 2010 Demographic Profile The 2008 population estimate of Humboldt County was 9,514 with 23.9 persons per square mile (Census Bureau, 2009). The county is similar to the state in terms of persons under the age of 18 (21.5% in Humboldt County, 23.7% in the State of Iowa) and female population (50.4% in Humboldt County, 50.6% in the State of Iowa), while they have slightly higher percentage of the population over the age of 65 (20.2% in Humboldt County, 14.8% in the State of Iowa). The 2000 Census reported 10,381 people in Humboldt County, with 4,452 living in the city of Humboldt, and 911 living in Dakota City (Census Bureau, 2009). These two towns make up the dominant urban area of the county as they are located within one mile from each other. With nearly 50% of the population of the county living in the City of Humboldt, it can be difficult to provide services to those who are disbursed throughout the rest of the county. A well developed trail system should link other towns within the county to provide a regional trail network. Figure 1 indicates the population of Humboldt County by town. The city of Humboldt is also located within 20 miles of Fort Dodge, which is the largest community in the region with a reported population of 25,136 in 2000 (Census Bureau, 2009). Figure 1. Humboldt County Population Humboldt County 2000 Population
4452
911
327
556
107
431
57
299
61
21
306
145
174
Source: U.S. Census Report 2000 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 18 2010 Transportation Corridors Highways Within Humboldt County, there are two major transportation corridors. U.S. Highway 169 runs north to south through the entire county, while Iowa Highway 3 runs east to west. Highways can create barriers for bicyclists and pedestrians if they are not incorporated into the trail system correctly. Crossing busy roads must be carefully planned and executed. High traffic areas should include below‐
grade or above grade crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians or should be avoided all together. Figures 2 and 3 display the average daily traffic counts for each highway segment. Figure 2. Highway 3 Daily Traffic Counts Primary Route Section Description Annual Average Daily Traffic East limits of Gilmore City 2250 Intersection Co. Rd P33 2610 West Limits of Humboldt 3220 Intersection US 169 4540 th
Junction 5 St. 6000 East limits of Humboldt 4820 th
7 St. (Dakota City) 3680 East Junction Co. Rd P56 2440 Intersection Co. Rd P63 2020 Intersection Co. Rd P66 1900 West line of Wright Co. 1900 Source: Iowa Department of Transportation Figure 3. Highway 169 Daily Traffic Counts Primary Route Section Description Intersection Co. Rd C49 Junction Co. Rd C46 South limits of Humboldt Junction Summer Ave Intersection 4rd Ave S. Junction 3rd Ave N. Intersection IA 3 Intersection 16th Ave N. North limits of Humboldt Intersection Co. Rd C29 Intersection Co. Rd C26 South line of Kossuth Co. Annual Average Daily Traffic 6100 5500 6000 6300 5900 7000 8900 5700 4050 4090 3270 2540 Source: Iowa Department of Transportation _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 19 2010 Railways Currently, there are three active railroads running through Humboldt County, all of which are owned by Union Pacific. Two of the railways run through the northeast corner of the county while the other runs through the southwest corner, shown in Figure 4. Along with the active railroads, Humboldt County also has two abandoned railroads. These abandoned railways are many times converted into trails, also known as rail‐trails using the process of railbanking. “Railbanking is a method by which lines proposed for abandonment can be preserved for future rail use through interim conversion to trail use” (Rails‐to‐Trails Conservancy, 2010). Using this method preserves the railroad’s rights to transfer all forms of ownership, including easements, to a trail group and eliminates the need to acquire more land and easements. More information on railbanking is located in Appendix A. The Three Rivers Trails that is already established in Humboldt County was built using the railbanking method. Another abandoned railway runs north to south through the center of the county, seen in Figure 4. Currently, a short spur runs north from the Three Rivers Trail using this abandoned railway. The spur runs only a few miles and stops. After a review of recent aerial photos (2009), much of the abandoned railway has been converted to farmland. Figure 4. Active and Abandoned Railways in Humboldt County Active Rail Lines Source: Iowa Department of Transportation _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 20 2010 Topography & Land Use Humboldt County is located within the flat, expansive, and fertile farmland of the Des Moines Lobe. The Des Moines City Lobe is one of the eight landform regions in Iowa, all of which are distinct and contain their own diverse features. Beginning 15,000 years ago, the last glacier began to enter Iowa and reached its final destination 1,000 years later in present‐day Des Moines (Department of Natural Resources, 2009). Another 2,000 years afterward, the ice sheet was gone and in its place was “a poorly drained landscape of pebbly deposits from stagnant decaying ice, sand and gravel from swiftly flowing meltwater streams, as well as clay and peat from glacial lakes” (Department of Natural Resources, 2009). The Humboldt Complex is a collection of moraines, features that show stopping points in glacier recessions, during this time period. This period of time is also responsible for the mineral enriched glacial till, providing some of the most productive agricultural soils in the world. Agriculture is very important to those in Humboldt County. Humboldt County’s 606 farms cover 270,868 acres of land. These farms cover 97 percent of the surface land in the county. According to the Humboldt County Development Association, Humboldt County farmers raised 127,427 acres of corn, 115,902 acres of soybeans 96,333 hogs, and 11,677 head of cattle in 2002. An abundance of limestone is available in the city and county. Quarries are located on the north side of the city and many others are found throughout the west side of the county. This is a major benefit to Humboldt being within close proximity to useable building materials. Other mineral resources include multiple sand and gravel pits, natural gas, and areas of coal occurrence. Natural springs are also a valuable resource for the city. This resource has been used for economic profit in bottled water and is distributed throughout the state. It also provides quality drinking water for the town and its residents. The landscape in Humboldt County is relatively flat which allows for the construction of trails. However, the lack of landscape diversity in the county provides few corridors for trail development. The Des Moines River and its tributaries provide possible trail corridors throughout Humboldt County. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 21 2010 Waterways The Des Moines River runs through Humboldt County. It is the largest river flowing across the state of Iowa. The Des Moines River runs in two forks, the West Fork (the main branch) and the East Fork. Both originate in southwestern Minnesota and flow south into Iowa. The two forks join in southern Humboldt County, approximately 5 miles south of the City of Humboldt near Frank Gotch State Park. Water trails have been developed in Van Buren, Polk and Boone counties. These water trails are used for canoeing and kayaking. The river allows for a number of other leisure activities, such as, swimming, boating, waterskiing, and fishing. Riparian corridors follow rivers and waterways and are often established as greenways. These corridors usually have running water, moist and fertile soils, and well‐developed vegetation (Hellmund & Smith, 2006). Riparian corridors are found in the floodplain and are not well suited for development and construction. They are, however, often used for recreation, transportation and agriculture (Hellmund & Smith, 2006). The majority of riparian corridors found in Humboldt County pass through land used for agricultural purposes. These corridors often support a network of trails. Any development near these corridors must respect the waterway and the vegetation that is currently there. Conserving riparian corridors help preserve water quality, avoid pollution, regulate water quantity and flow, control water temperature, decrease erosion, and protect the aquatic habitat (Hellmund & Smith, 2006). An adequate buffer zone should be established to protect these corridors. A minimum buffer of 35 feet is needed when constructing along riparian corridors (Wenger, 1999). Humboldt County already utilizes the Des Moines River for ‘Riverfest’. This two‐day event is held at different parks throughout the county. Events such as kayaking, sand volleyball, ‘That Damn Skunk Race’ and concerts are available for residents. New trails near the river could lead to the development of new activities for this event. With all of the leisure and recreation opportunities offered by the river, it provides a great place to build trails. Trails offer an alternative way to reach the river and experience leisure. The river also provides an aesthetically pleasing view for trail users. Flooding is a concern when building near a river. Figure 5 displays the floodplains in the County of Humboldt. Trail design, management and maintenance considerations must be addressed in areas where flooding is an issue. The Iowa Trails 2000 handbook offers more information regarding trails within floodplains: _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 22 2010 The primary design issue associated with trails in floodways is trail surface. In natural areas, such as floodplain forest basins, natural surface trails are most appropriate. They will need yearly maintenance after the floodwaters recede, but they will not be seriously affected by flooding and will not adversely affect the environment. Care should be taken during yearly maintenance to restore the natural surface back to a firm and stable state that is accessible to all users. In urban floodways, hard‐surfaced trails can provide important links in a community's trail system, and can accommodate a variety of users. Trails in floodways should never be surfaced with any type of aggregate, as the trail will easily wash away. Concrete or asphalt surfacing is preferred. The following recommendations deal with trails in floodways: • Adhere to all environmental regulations and reviews. • Place trail at existing grade, to avoid the need for fill and to reduce disruptions to the floodway. • In areas with regular flooding, provide a means of closing the trail during high water. • Avoid the inclusion of support services within the floodway. Figure 5. Humboldt County Floodplain Soils Source: USDA‐NRCS _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 23 2010 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 24 2010 r2s – University of Northern Iowa Figure 6. City of Humboldt Floodplain Priority Destinations Trails provide a great way to connect priority destinations within Humboldt County. There are a number of popular destinations within the county that should be linked together. Priority destinations include schools, public services, and recreation sites. The figures below indicate which facilities are currently connected to the Three Rivers Trail and which are not. Those that are connected are able to be reached directly from the trail or use roadways to connect. The rural character of Humboldt County communities facilitates access on existing roadways from priority destinations to existing trails. Priority destinations that are not connected to the Three Rivers Trail should be considered for future development. These areas include Gilmore City – Bradgate School, Livermore Elementary, Lu Verne Elementary, Twin River Valley High School, Bode City Library, Livermore Public Library, Renwick Public Library, Spring Valley Golf Course, Lotts Park, and Pioneer Wildlife Area. These sites are all popular destinations that should be easily accessed by a trails system. Connections between priority destinations that are in relatively close proximity (1‐5 miles) to the existing trail system should be evaluated for barriers that inhibit use of the trails. For example, Highway 169 posses a barrier for cyclists and pedestrians who want to access Humboldt High School. This barrier needs to be acknowledged and addressed in the comprehensive trail system. Other barriers within the county such as waterways and distance must also be addressed to allow residents to safely and easily reach priority destinations within the county. Figure 7. Priority Destinations‐Schools Schools Location Clyde P Mease Elementary School Dakota City Gilmore City – Bradgate School Gilmore City Humboldt Junior High School Humboldt Humboldt High School Humboldt Humboldt Junior High School Humboldt Livermore Elementary School Livermore Lu Verne Elementary School Lu Verne Saint Mary’s School Humboldt Stephen H. Taft Elementary School Humboldt Twin River Valley High School Bode Source: Compiled for Master Plan using Mapquest Connected/Not connected to Three Rivers Trail Distance from Three Rivers Trail (in miles) Connected Not connected Connected Connected Connected Not connected Not connected Connected Connected Not connected 1.9 12.4 1 2 1.4 12.3 20.4 1.2 1.1 13.2 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 25 2010 Figure 8. Priority Destinations‐Public Services & Recreation Sites Public Services Location Bode City Library Humboldt Public Library Livermore Public Library Renwick Public Library Bode Post Office Bradgate Post Office Dakota City Post Office Hardy Post Office Humboldt Post Office Livermore Post Office Ottosen Post Office Bode Humboldt Livermore Renwick Bode Bradgate Dakota City Hardy Humboldt Livermore Ottosen Recreation Sites Location Humboldt County Fair Grounds Spring Valley Golf Course Bicknell Park Bradgate State Fishing Access Dakota City River Park Frank Gotch State Park George Beebe Park Hampson Hillside Park Herb Zinnel Park Iowa Park Joe Sheldon County Park John Brown Park Lake Nokomis Park Lotts Park Ottosen Marsh State Game Management Area Oxbow Park Pioneer Prairie Pothole Wildlife Area Rainbow Drive Park Riverside Park Humboldt Bode Humboldt Bradgate Dakota City Humboldt Humboldt Humboldt Dakota City Humboldt Humboldt Humboldt Humboldt Livermore Rutland Connected/Not connected to Three Rivers Trail Not connected Connected Not connected Not connected Not connected Connected Connected Not connected Connected Not connected Not connected Connected/Not connected to Three Rivers Trail Connected Not Connected Connected Connected Connected Connected Connected Connected Connected Connected Connected Connected Connected Not Connected Connected Humboldt Pioneer Connected Not Connected 1.2 13.2 Humboldt Humboldt Connected Connected 1 1.7 Connected Connected Connected Less than 1 Less than 1 1.2 Taft Park Dakota City Talisman Park Dakota City West River Ball Diamonds Humboldt Source: Compiled for Master Plan using Mapquest
Distance from Three Rivers Trail (in miles) 13.1 1.2 12.0 19.7 13.1 Less than 1 1 14.5 1.2 12.2 8 Distance from Three Rivers Trail (in miles) Less than 1 9 1 3 1.4 6.3 1.4 1.6 Less than 1 2 3.4 1.3 1.3 10.8 5.5 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 26 2010 EXISTING TRAILS SYSTEM _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 27 2010 State and Regional Trails System The State of Iowa Department of Transportation has developed a Statewide Trails Vision Map that represents potential connections throughout the state to link communities, parks, natural resources, shopping, employment and other amenities. Region V in Central Iowa, includes Pocahontas, Humboldt, Wright, Calhoun, Webster, and Hamilton counties. These counties have the opportunity to work together to create a comprehensive trail system. Figure 9 illustrates the extent to which Humboldt County has implemented the regional trail system. Existing trails in Humboldt County reach county boundaries on the east and west borders. It would be beneficial for Humboldt County to work with surrounding counties when expanding their trail system to create a cohesive regional trails system. Figure 9. Northwest Iowa Trails Inventory Source: Iowa Department of Transportation _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 28 2010 Three Rivers Trail In Humboldt County, there are three different trails and trail segments throughout the county. The Three Rivers Trail begins in Pocahontas County, travels through the entire south end of Humboldt County, and ends in Wright County, as seen in Figure 12. This trail is currently 33 miles long, with an additional 44 miles planned. The trail travels along the West Fork of the Des Moines River, then crosses the Boone River and the East Fork of the Des Moines River. The trail is open year‐round, with no restrictive hours or fees. The surface of this trail is crushed limestone and is 10 feet wide. This trail was established on an abandoned railbed. There are many uses for the Three Rivers Trail; hiking, nature viewing, biking, cross‐country skiing, snowmobiling, hunting (in Pocahontas County only), and equestrian (in Humboldt County with permission only). Along the trail, there are many parks and amenities for users to enjoy. This trail provides residents in Humboldt County the opportunity to take part in recreation, experience nature, become physically active and stimulate their economy, all while improving the counties quality of life. Figure 10. Nearby Parks with Amenities Camping
Fishing
Boat Ramp
Shelter
Frank A. Gotch Park Humboldt Izaak Walton Park
+
+
+
+
+
+
Lotts Creek Area
Oakdale Park
+
Joe Sheldon Park
+
Playground Picnic Area Restrooms
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Source: Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation Figure 11. Trailhead Amenities Rutland
Humboldt
Gotch State Park
Dakota City
Thor
Eagle Grove
Convenience Store
+
+
+
+
+
Groceries
Lodging
Restaurant
Camping
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Source: Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 29 2010 Figure X. Three Rivers Trail Source: Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation Figure 12. Three Rivers Trail Source: Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation _____________________________________________________________________________________ 30 2010 r2s – University of Northern Iowa Gotch Park Trail After the Three Rivers Trail passes through the City of Humboldt, it splits off to create a 6 mile spur. This spur runs south from Humboldt towards Gotch State Park. Unfortunately, due to easement issues, the spur does not run all the way to Gotch Park. It stops approximately 3 miles short of the park. Linking this spur with Gotch Park would be very beneficial and would allow for easy access to the park. Figure 13. Gotch Park Spur Map Source: University of Northern Iowa, GIS _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 31 2010 Cottonwood Trail In 1995, the City of Humboldt and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources partnered together to construct the Cottonwood Trail using R.E.A.P. funds. The Cottonwood Trail is a .75 mile trail located in a scenic urban setting adjacent to the west fork of the Des Moines River. The trail offers views of the Joe Reasoner Dam, high limestone bluffs and beautiful wooded landscape. The trail makes a connection between two heavily used parks in the Humboldt community while bypassing the busy traffic of U.S. Highway 169. In the summer of 2009, the Cottonwood Trail was paved with asphalt. Figure 14. Cottonwood Trail Map Source: City of Humboldt _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 32 2010 NEEDS ASSESSMENT _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 33 2010 Steering Committee
A steering committee was created to gain insight and support from representatives within the county. The committee met to discuss the opportunities for a more comprehensive trail system within Humboldt County and to serve as an advisory group throughout the development of the master plan. The formation of the group was necessary in order to provide guidance and an understanding of the region and its citizens. Steering committee members were chosen based on their roles within the community and the insight they could provide for the project. Many of individuals involved in the group are currently associated with the county trail system and were able to lend their experience and knowledge to the project. Members included the following: Mindi O'Hern – Recreation Director, City of Humboldt, Mike Worthington – Park Board Member, City of Humboldt, Todd Lee – Parks Department, City of Humboldt, Chris Clarken – Parks Department, City of Humboldt, Jeanne Baugous – Humboldt County Conservation Board, Mary Miner – Humboldt County Conservation Board Member, and Dean Clasen – Humboldt High School Cross Country Coach. The first steering committee meeting was held in Humboldt on October 9th, 2009. At this meeting, the project goal and timeline were introduced as well as initial research on trails completed by the research team. The steering committee members identified opportunities and weaknesses for the Humboldt County comprehensive trails system. The biggest opportunity that was identified was the economic impact that the trails can provide for the county. The biggest weakness was the potential cost for developing a more comprehensive trail system. In addition, the steering committee mapped potential trail segments within the city and county. Minutes from this meeting can be found in Appendix B. On April 9th, 2010, the second steering committee meeting was held. Potential routes were mapped based on feedback from the committee at the 1st meeting, a comprehensive resource inventory, existing state and regional trail plans and a survey of county residents. Routes and destinations were finalized for the master plan. Minutes from this meeting can be found in Appendix B. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 34 2010 Humboldt County Trails Survey Humboldt County residents were surveyed in order to receive input and help guide future development of the trail system. The survey consisted of two parts. The first section focused on the user characteristics such as frequency of use, type of activity, and barriers to trail use. The second section of the survey asked residents to map where they wanted trails to be developed within the county. A map was provided that included the Three Rivers Trail and major highways for their reference. Participants had the option of drawing routes for potential trail locations or describing what they wanted in a comment section. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix C. Three hundred and fifty households were randomly selected for this survey. The sample was taken from the July 2009 Wright‐Humboldt Regional Telephone Directory (addresses in Wright County were not used) and was proportionate to the population of each rural community located in Humboldt. County residents represent the majority of the sample to ensure proper representation. Residents were given two weeks to return the questionnaire using the prepaid envelope that was provided. A postcard reminder was sent to the households who had yet to return their survey. For those who no longer had the survey, a copy was placed on the City of Humboldt’s website. Figure 15 indicates the number of households that were surveyed from each rural community, along with the number of surveys that were returned. A total of 64 households returned the survey, which created a response rate of 18%. Seven surveys were returned due to inaccurate addresses. The low response rate indicates that the survey may not fully represent all populations within the community, but it did provide an opportunity for input from county residents. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 35 2010 Figure 15. Number of Surveys Sent and Returned 100
80
60
40
20
0
Surveys sent
Surveys returned Source: Humboldt County Trails Survey _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 36 2010 To analyze the results of the survey, the computer program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. Questions one and four were computed using frequency distributions, while questions two and three used descriptive statistics to determine characteristics of trail activity and barriers to trail use. The frequency distributions represent the percentage of responses for each option the respondent could mark on the survey. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they used trails as displayed in Figure 16. Each number in the table represents the percentage of responses. Based on these results, residents were aware of the trails but did not use them. The most frequently used trail was the Three Rivers Trail, followed by the Cottonwood Trail and Gotch Park Trail. This suggests that the Three Rivers Trail has been a successful alignment within Humboldt County. Figure 16. Survey Results‐Trail Use Unaware of trail Aware but did not use
1 – 5 times 6 – 10 times 11 – 15 times 15 times or more Three Rivers Trail 4.8 41 16.4 11.5 4.9 21.3 Cottonwood Trail 21.1 43.9 17.5 12.3 3.5 1.8 Gotch Park Trail 12.3 56.1 22.8 5.3 0 3.5 High School Fitness Trail 25.5 65.5 7.3 1.8 0 0 Joe Sheldon Park trails 29.1 65.5 3.6 1.8 0 0 Snowmobile trails 19.2 78.8 0 0 0 1.9 Source: Humboldt County Trails Survey _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 37 2010 Respondents were asked to mark the activities they participate in on the trails. Results are represented in Figure 17. Running, walking, and biking were the activities that most people chose when they used the trails. A non‐paved trail will meet the needs of many of the pedestrian trail users, along with the option of creating shared roadways for bikers (see The Trail Standards section for more information on shared paths). Figure 17. Survey Results‐Trail Activity Source: Humboldt County Trails Survey _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 38 2010 The third question asked participants to mark each barrier that limits their use of trails in Humboldt County. Figure 18 indicates the results of question three. Nearly half of respondents (43%) said that time was the major factor that inhibited their use of the county trails. Age (12%) and health (10%) were also factors. Physical barriers such as distance, lack of availability, poor transportation, were not considered as major barrier to use. Figure 18. Survey Results‐Barriers to Trail Use Source: Humboldt County Trails Survey _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 39 2010 Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of linking existing trails and linking communities who do not have current access to trails. Results are displayed in Figure 19. Each number in the table represents the percentage of responses. The majority of respondents indicated that linking existing trails was important. Linking communities to trails who do not have current access was also considered somewhat important. These results show support for creating links throughout the county. Figure 19. Survey Results‐Importance of Linking Trails Very Important Important Neutral Unimportant Not at all important It is important to link existing trails. 24.1 27.6 29.3 5.2 13.8 It is important to link communities to trails who do not have current access. 23.2 21.4 35.7 5.4 14.3 Source: Humboldt County Trails Survey Respondents were also asked demographic information such as, age, gender, zip code, and length of residency in their current community. Figure 20 displays age and length of residency statistics. Due to the age of the county population, it is important to consider programs that encourage participation and use of the county trails. Figure 20. Survey Results‐Age & Length of Residence Length of Residence
Age
71 ‐ 90
23%
50
25 ‐
33%
51 to 90
22%
51 ‐ 70
44%
0 to 10
15%
11 to 20
17%
21 to 50
46%
Source: Humboldt County Trails Survey Source: Humboldt County Trails Survey _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 40 2010 TRAIL STANDARDS _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 41 2010 Shared Use Trail Standards Design is crucial when planning and developing new trails. Trails must be safe and well‐designed for users’ safety and enjoyment. Three primary resources for bicycle facility design guidance are: • The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999 • The Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Chapter IX, 2009 • The Iowa Department of Transportations’ Iowa Trails 2000: A Handbook for Local Communities, 2000 Guidelines for trail design and implementation are outlined in the ‘Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities’ produced by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). These guidelines are universally accepted within the United States for bicycle facility design. These standards cover the following: • Width and Clearance • Design Speed • Horizontal Alignment • Grade • Sight Distance • Path Roadway Intersections • Signing and Marking • Pavement Structure • Structures • Drainage • Lighting • Restriction of Motor Vehicles Standards for shared‐use trails can be found in Appendix D. Any reference to the ASSHTO Guide in this project is taken from the 1999 version. A new version is planned to be released sometime in 2010. Please see the manual for any changes when it becomes available. The Iowa Trails 2000 Handbook provides design and implementation suggestions that are specific to the State of Iowa. Humboldt County should utilize all resources during the development of their trails system. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 42 2010 Trail Classifications
There are a variety of different trail types available for use. The type of trail and surface is determined by its projected use. Below are a number of different trail classifications and descriptions. Currently, the majority of trails in Humboldt County are shared‐use, county trails. Shared‐Use Paved Trails Hard‐surfaced trails for non‐motorized uses. • Neighborhood Trail‐is used to connect local residential areas to the citywide trail system o Typically 8 feet wide • City Trail‐ is used to create the core system of trails that traverse a city via greenways, open space, trail corridors, or following road rights‐of‐way o Typically 10 feet wide, 12 feet wide where volumes are high • County Trails‐ is similar to a city trail, only at a county level. County trails typically traverse the county via greenways, open space, trail corridors, or following road rights‐of‐way o Typically 10 feet wide • Regional Trail‐ traverses one or more cities, townships, or counties as part of the regional trail network. Regional trails typically follow greenways, open space, and designated trail corridors. They are often used to link regional parks and open spaces together, as well as being destinations unto themselves o Typically 10 feet wide, 12 feet where use volumes are high • State Trails‐ traverses one or more counties, anywhere in the state. State trails typically follow abandoned rail corridors, greenways, and large‐scale open spaces. They are almost always destination trails o Typically 10 feet wide (12‐foot trails are not as common as for regional trails due to lower levels of use) Natural Surface Trails Natural‐surface trails for non‐motorized and motorized uses. • Hiking Trails • Equestrian Trails • Mountain Biking Trails • Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trails _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 43 2010 Shared Roadways Bicycle routes and lanes that are part of the roadway. • Shared Roadway (No Bike Designation)‐ Roadways that are fully adequate for safe bicycle travel without signage or lane markings. Can be used in low‐volume, low‐speed areas. • Signed Shared Roadways‐ Identified routes that are suitable for bicyclists to reach certain priority destinations. Signs also make drivers aware of possible bicyclists. • Bike Lane or Bicycle Lane‐ A designated portion of the roadway defined by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) Shared roadways and bike lanes are much less complex and costly than building a new shared‐use path. These methods utilize what is already available within the community, the roads. Small changes such as signs or markings can make a road much more bicycle friendly for a low cost. In low‐volume, low‐speed areas, roads are safe for bicyclists and there should be no need for signage. As traffic volumes and speeds increase, there may be a need to add bike lane markings and/or widen lanes. This can usually be done by simply repainting the lines on the road. Bike lanes on shoulders are a common practice for rural highways and county roads. Shoulders provide many safety benefits. They allow room to avoid crashes, offer a place for vehicles to pull over if needed, and allow room for bicyclists and pedestrians. When implementing shoulders, the AASHTO Guide standards should be used. Humboldt County should strongly consider utilizing shared roadways and bike lanes. This is a very cost‐effective, safe way to connect priority destinations within the community. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 44 2010 Surface Options When choosing the surface for trails, one must consider the following: •
•
•
•
•
User needs Accessibility Cost of materials Cost of maintenance Life expectancy Based on those factors, you can choose either a hard or soft surface. Below you find pros and cons of each surface type. Hard Surface: •
More accommodating for multi‐use trails •
More expensive but requires less maintenance and can withstand frequent use Soft Surface: •
Less expensive •
Often does not hold up well under heavy use or varying weather conditions Hard Surfaces •
•
•
Asphalt • Works well for bicyclists or inline skaters, but typically can't be used by equestrians • Requires minor maintenance such as crack patching • Life expectancy of seven to 15 years • Flexible surface that will last longer with heavy use Concrete • Hardest surface • Expensive • Longest lasting, up to 25 years or more • Appropriate for urban areas with severe climate swings and susceptibility to flooding Crushed/granular stone (limestone, sandstone, crushed rock) • Can hold up well under heavy use • Complements aesthetic of natural landscape • Can accommodate nearly every trail user if crushed and compacted properly (except inline skaters) _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 45 2010 •
Soil cement • Cheaper than asphalt • Drainage is very important to prevent erosion Soft Surfaces •
•
Natural earth • Maintenance issues such as: fixing drainage problems, repairing eroded areas, removing new vegetation • Can be built by volunteers Wood chips • Blend well with the natural environment • Work well as parallel tread next to asphalt or concrete • Decompose rapidly • Do not accommodate wheelchair use • Require constant maintenance to keep width and surface steady • Entire surface needs replacement every two years • Can be built by volunteers Cost estimates per mile: •
•
•
•
•
•
Asphalt ‐ $200K ‐ $300K Concrete ‐ $300K ‐ $500K Crushed/granular stone ‐ $80K ‐ $120K Soil cement ‐ $60K ‐ $100K Natural Earth ‐ $50K ‐ $70K Wood Chips ‐ $65K ‐ $85K Source: Rails to Trails Conservancy (2007) _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 46 2010 Accessibility Requirements When developing new trails and facilities, they must comply with The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. This civil rights legislation prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. It guarantees the right to participate fully and equally in all aspects of life. Accessibility to transportation systems means providing usable facilities for the highest number of people possible. This includes the use of recreational trails. There are 48.9 million Americans with disabilities; 70 percent of all Americans will at some time in their lives have a temporary or permanent disability that makes such activities as stair climbing impossible. People may have mobility, visual and cognitive disabilities that affect how usable a facility may be for them. As our population grows older, the percentages of people with disabilities will increase. What we build today will be with us for many years. These designs need to accommodate as many users as possible. Humboldt County must utilize the accessibility requirements outlined in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. These requirements can be found in Appendix E. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 47 2010 MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 48 2010 Maintenance Activities Once trails are established they must be maintained regularly. This ensures that the trails are safe for users while still being aesthetically pleasing. Humboldt County must determine what maintenance issues are necessary for their area and create a plan a schedule for when these tasks will be completed. When assessing trail maintenance needs, the following groups of general maintenance categories should be considered: Tread Maintenance: Trail Maintenance – Vegetation: • Grading Tread (slump repair, etc) • Brushing/clearing areas • Remove fallen trees/branches • Spot surfacing • Hazard tree removal • Turnpike repair • Slope re‐vegetation • Surface replacement • Surface Repair • Back slope grooming • Remove loose rocks • Vista maintenance • Poison Ivy removal (herbicide) Drainage Maintenance: • Cleaning/repairing structures Structure Maintenance: o Culverts/waterbars • Bridge repair o Grade dips/drainage ditches • Cribbing/retaining wall repair •
Replacement of existing structures • Barrier/guardrail repair o Culverts/under drains • Steps/Peron repair • Install additional drainage structures • Fence/gate/style repair o Waterbars/culverts/grade • Shelter repair dips Sign Maintenance: Litter Clean up: • Sign repair/rehabilitation • Old dumps near trail
• Sign replacement • Current discarded litter
• Barricade/closure device repair More specific information about these maintenance issues can be found in the Pacific Northwest Trail Maintenance Manual, found in Appendix F.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 49 2010 r2s – University of Northern Iowa EASEMENTS & LAND ACQUISTION _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 50 2010 Easements are often used to facilitate trail development. The way an easement is arranged is dependent on specific conclusions of the property owners and the party to whom the easement will be offered. Following is basic information on easements referenced from www.findlaw.com. Conservation easements are typically used to support the development of trails and greenways. More information regarding easements can be found in Appendix G. What is an Easement An easement is commonly defined as a non‐possessory interest in another person's land. An easement is a property interest that allows the holder of the easement to use property that he or she does not own or possess. An easement does not allow the easement holder to occupy the land, or to exclude others from the land, unless they interfere with the easement holder's use. In contrast, the possessor of the land may continue to use the easement and may exclude everyone except the easement holder from the land. Land affected or "burdened" by an easement is called a "servient estate," while the land or person benefited by the easement is known as the "dominant estate." If the easement benefits a particular piece of land, it is said to be "appurtenant" to the land. If the easement only benefits an individual personally, not as an owner of a particular piece of land, the easement is termed "in gross." Most easements are affirmative, which means that they authorize use of another's land. Less common are negative easements, which usually involve preserving a person's access to light or view by limiting what can be done on neighboring or nearby property. Creation of an Easement Easements are usually created by conveyance in a deed, or some other written document such as a will or contract. Creation of an easement requires the same formalities as the transfer or creation of other interests in land ‐‐ typically: a written instrument, a signature, and proper delivery of the document. In limited circumstances, a court will create an easement by implying the existence of the easement based on the circumstances. Two common easements created by implication are easements of necessity and easements implied from quasi‐easements. Easements of necessity are typically implied to provide access to a landlocked piece of property. Easements implied from quasi‐easements are based on a landowner's prior utilization of part of his or her property for the benefit of another portion of his land. Other methods of establishing easements include prescriptive use (i.e. by the routine, adverse use of another's land), estoppel (a legal doctrine involving reliance on the words or actions of another person), custom, public trust, and condemnation. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 51 2010 PROPOSED TRAIL SEGMENTS _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 52 2010 A comprehensive trail system was identified based on input from the steering committee, survey of county residents, state and regional trail plans, and a comprehensive resource inventory. This system is mapped at two scales, one at the community scale for the City of Humboldt and one showing the entire county. Each trail segment was named based on its location, the route was described in detail, design considerations were provided, and a table with maintenance activities was included for those involved in the management of the trail. This trail system was divided into segments both at the community and county levels to assist in implementing the trails plan. Segments were prioritized into three categories by the steering committee – short‐term, mid‐term, and long‐term. Trail priorities are subject to change overtime, therefore constant monitoring of community development is essential to ensure that trail locations are considered in design and construction projects. Specific areas of concern include the Gotch to High School trail because of the proposed crossing of Highway 169, and also the High School to Joe Sheldon trail because of its potential path through zoned land and the riparian corridor. For more information on zoning, Appendix H includes the Humboldt, IA Zoning Map. Easement acquisition and knowledge of land ownership near potential trails is critical to the long term trail development in Humboldt County. Appendix I provides information on working with land owners and making land available to the public for recreational purposes though the Iowa Recreational Use Statute. Several steps are involved in the development process. The City of Humboldt Parks and Recreation and Humboldt County Conservation should be working toward the implementation of the entire system through a variety of strategies rather than focusing on one segment at a time. These strategies include coordination with county and city agencies, gaining easements prior to land subdivision, knowledge on funding sources, and working with regional and state agencies to develop joint planning and funding initiatives. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 53 2010 _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 54 2010 Figure 21. Potential Trail Opportunities‐City of Humboldt
Short‐Term Priorities Cottonwood North Route Description The Cottonwood North is a trail segment that will extend the Cottonwood Trail north to connect to the Three Rivers Trail. This trail segment will address the barrier of crossing Highway 3 for bicyclists and pedestrians. The Cottonwood North segment is part of the potential loop through the City of Humboldt. This trail segment will begin at the north end of the Cottonwood Trail. Roadways will be utilized at the beginning of this segment: • North on N 15th St • West on 8th Ave N • North on 18th St N The City of Humboldt should evaluate these roadways to determine if they are safe for cyclists and pedestrians. Currently, these roads support a low volume of traffic. There should be minimal problems with people riding their bikes on this route. The trail will then cross Highway 3. Once the trail crosses Highway 3, there are two options for trail routes. Both options could be developed using a combination of hard and natural surfaces. Option 1. Constructed along the west side of the creek going north to Union Cemetery • Once you reach 16th Avenue N, create a paved shoulder to connect to paved roads inside cemetery • Pave shoulder on north side of the 16th Avenue N • At north end of road within the cemetery, create paved trail along the creek to connect to Three Rivers Trail Option 2. Utilize the roadways leading to the cemetery • North on 19th St N • Cross 16th Avenue N, pave shoulder • Use paved roads inside cemetery • At the north end of road within the cemetery, create paved trail north along property line to connect to Three Rivers Trail _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 55 2010 Design Considerations and Process This trail segment will utilize some roadways. Proper signage and/or markings should be used when necessary. The shared‐use portion of this trail should be paved. This surface option allows all users to enjoy the trails for a variety of activities. Crossing Highway 3 is a major design consideration for this trail segment. One option is to cross the highway at‐grade by slowing traffic or adding signs to alert drivers of a bicyclist and pedestrian crossing. Another option is to cross Highway 3 below‐grade by constructing a culvert or underpass. According to the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, prefabricated underpasses are available in aluminum, steel, and concrete and can be round, elliptical, arched, or box‐shaped. Trails with below‐grade crossings must meet design regulations such as AASHTO specifications, and require the expertise of engineers. Easements must be acquired for land needed for this trail segment. The proposed trail will go through approximately 6 parcels of land. These parcels of land may consist of 6 property owners or less. The majority of this land is zoned for multi‐family dwellings and general industrial purposes. Another portion of land is zoned for agriculture uses. This segment would require intradepartmental coordination within the City of Humboldt to pave shoulders and acquire easements. Management Responsibilities The City of Humboldt Parks Department will be responsible for managing and maintaining this trail segment. Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt Parks Dept City of Humboldt School District County Conservation Board Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X Litter Clean up X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 56 2010 Cottonwood South Route Description The Cottonwood South is a trail segment that will continue the Cottonwood Trail south to connect to the southern part of town. This trail segment will also be part of the potential loop through the City of Humboldt. Continuing from the south end of Cottonwood Trail: • East on 1st Ave N • South on N 9th St • West on Sumner Ave (use current bridge to cross river) • South on May St • From there, a shared‐use path will be constructed along the west side of the river • Trail will travel west to the Willow Ridge development and 14th Avenue S Design Considerations and Process This trail segment will utilize the existing bridge on Sumner Road to cross the river. This will allow cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross the river. The shared‐use portion of this trail should be paved. This surface option allows all users to enjoy the trails for a variety of activities. This trail segment will utilize some roadways. Proper signage and/or markings should be used when necessary. Easements must be acquired for land needed for this trail segment. The proposed trail will go through approximately 16 parcels of land. These parcels of land may consist of 16 property owners or less. A majority of this land is zoned for one family use. The Cottonwood South trail segment will require intradepartmental coordination within the City of Humboldt to acquire easements. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 57 2010 Management and Maintenance Responsibilities The City of Humboldt Parks Department will be responsible for managing and maintaining this trail segment. Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt Parks Dept City of Humboldt School District County Conservation Board Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X Litter Clean up X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 58 2010 Gotch Extension Route Description The Gotch Extension trail segment will connect the Gotch Park Spur to Gotch State Park. The Gotch Extension will extend the current trail south along the east side of the Des Moines River. This trail will then meet with Gotch Park Road at the entrance of Gotch State Park. The paved road inside the park will allow bicyclists to access the trail on the north end of Gotch Park. This extension will connect the City of Humboldt with one of the most popular recreation destinations in the county. Design Considerations and Process A crushed rock path would be created to connect the Gotch Park Spur to Gotch State Park. In the past, there have been easement issues with certain property owners prohibiting this trail from continuing. Discussion with these property owners should be initiated and options should be explored. Current alignment follows abandoned railway but could be changed if necessary to avoid infringement on the residents’ privacy. Techniques such as fencing, berms and/or planting can increase privacy for property owners. Easements must be acquired for land needed for this trail segment. Interdepartmental coordination will be needed between departments within Humboldt County to acquire easements. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 59 2010 Management and Maintenance Responsibilities The Humboldt County Conservation Board will be responsible for managing and maintaining the Gotch Extension trail segment. City of Humboldt Parks Dept Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt School District County Conservation Board Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 60 2010 Mid‐Term Priorities Gotch Bridge Route Description A pedestrian bridge is needed to connect the Gotch Park Spur to the south side of town. This bridge will cross the drainage ditch connecting the Gotch Park Spur to S 5th Street. This bridge will allow residents to conveniently and safely connect to the Gotch Park Spur. Design Considerations and Process Design standards for overpasses and bridges can be found in the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. These guidelines should be followed for construction of the Gotch Bridge. Management and Maintenance Strategies The City of Humboldt Parks Department will be responsible for managing and maintaining this pedestrian bridge. Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt Parks Dept County Conservation Board City of Humboldt School District Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X Litter Clean up X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 61 2010 Cottonwood West Route Description The Cottonwood West trail segment will connect Humboldt High School to the east side of Highway 169. This segment will also link the southern side of the city to the High School. This connection provides a way for cyclists and pedestrians to cross Highway 169. In addition, this trail segment could support extracurricular activities at the High School. Highway 169 creates a barrier for cyclists and pedestrians. There are two potential options for crossing this barrier. 1. Using proposed Cottonwood South trail segment a) West on 14th Avenue S (Option 1a) i. Cross Highway 169, below grade‐construct culvert under highway ii. Create paved trail to connect north to High School trail b) Continue Cottonwood South trail segment south along the river (Option 1b) i. West along fence line ii. Follow south along pond near Willow Ridge development iii. North to Highway 169 iv. Cross Highway 169, below grade‐construct culvert under highway v. Create paved trail to connect north to High School trail 2. Using proposed Cottonwood South trail segment a) West on 14th Avenue S b) North on 11th Street SW c) West on 10 Avenue SW d) North on 13th Street SW e) Cross Highway 169, at‐grade at 9th Avenue SW f) Create trail behind Humboldt Care Center along property line to connect to High School trail Design Considerations and Process The shared‐use portion of this trail should be paved. This surface option allows all users to enjoy the trails for a variety of activities. Option 1 of this trail segment suggests crossing Highway 169 below‐grade by constructing a culvert or underpass. According to the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, prefabricated underpasses are available in aluminum, steel, and concrete and can be round, elliptical, arched, or box‐shaped. Trails with below‐grade crossings must meet design regulations or guidance such as AASHTO specifications, and require the expertise of engineers. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 62 2010 Easements must be acquired for land needed for this trail segment. The proposed trail will go through approximately 10 parcels of land. These parcels of land may consist of 10 property owners or less. The Cottonwood West trail segment will require intradepartmental coordination within the City of Humboldt to acquire easements. Management and Maintenance Responsibilities The City of Humboldt Parks Department will be responsible for managing and maintaining this trail segment. Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt Parks Dept County Conservation Board City of Humboldt School District Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X Litter Clean up X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 63 2010 High School to Joe Sheldon Route Description This trail segment will connect Humboldt High School to Joe Sheldon Park. There are two options for this trail segment 1. Utilize roads to connect high school to Joe Sheldon Park a. West on Wildcat Road b. North on Sheldon Ave c. Utilize trails within Joe Sheldon park 2. Create shared‐use trail a. West from High School on Wildcat Road b. North on Forest Blvd (turns into 19th SW) c. Between houses 1803 and 1725 cut east along fence line towards river d. Follow west fork of Des Moines River to Joe Sheldon Park Design Considerations and Process This trail segment will utilize some roadways. Proper signage and/or markings should be used when necessary. Option of slowing down traffic where trail will utilize Co Hwy C44 should be explored. A natural surface or crushed rock path could be created to connect Humboldt High School to Joe Sheldon Park. Easements must be acquired for land needed for this trail segment. This will require coordination between the City of Humboldt and the County of Humboldt to pave road shoulders and acquire easements. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 64 2010 Management and Maintenance Responsibilities This trail segment will be managed and maintained by the City of Humboldt Parks Department. Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt Parks Dept City of Humboldt School District County Conservation Board Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X Litter Clean up X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 65 2010 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 66 2010 r2s – University of Northern Iowa Figure 22. Potential Trail Opportunities‐Humboldt County
Long‐Term Priorities Three Rivers Trail to Webster County Route Description Connect to Webster County by using a combination of created trails along the Des Moines River and county roads. Webster County is in the process of developing Soldier Creek Nature Trail that is running alongside Co Hwy P56/Nelson Ave/State Hwy 413 to connect to Kennedy Memorial County Park. •
•
•
•
•
•
Continue existing trail along north boundary of Gotch Park south along river Connect to portion of 270th St that is on the west side of Lone Tree Road/Co Hwy P56 Follow Lone Tree Road/Co Hwy P56 south to where it turns into 280th St Continue south on National Ave East on 120th St/Co Hwy C56 South on Co Hwy P56/Nelson Ave/State Hwy 413 into Webster County Design Considerations and Process A crushed rock path or paved shoulder would be created to connect the existing Three Rivers Trail south to Webster County. Lone Tree Road runs south and is located directly east of the Des Moines River, providing this potential alignment. To develop this trail, representatives from the City of Humboldt, Humboldt County, Webster County, and the City of Fort Dodge will need to coordinate and create a plan for implementation. Interdepartmental coordination is required to acquire easements for this trail segment. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 67 2010 Management and Maintenance Responsibilities The Humboldt County Conservation Board will be responsible for this trail segment. City of Humboldt Parks Dept Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt School District County Conservation Board Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 68 2010 North Three Rivers Trail Extension Route Description Connect the Three Rivers Trail within the City of Humboldt to Livermore using a combination of county roads and the East Fork of the Des Moines River. This trail will connect northern Humboldt County to both existing and proposed trails in the City of Humboldt, and potentially Webster County. There are two options for this trail route. 1. Option 1: a. North on existing spur off of Three Rivers Trail b. Create path going directly east to Co Hwy P56 c. North on Co Hwy P56 d. Continue north on Michigan Ave e. West on Co Hwy C23/150th St f. North on Montana Ave g. Cross Co Hwy C20/130th St near Livermore h. Continue north on Montana Ave i. East on 120th St j. North on Michigan Ave k. Option to follow creek’s alignment on the east side of Michigan Ave, or continue to use the roadway north 2. Option 2: a. North on existing spur off of Three Rivers Trail b. Create path going directly east to Co Hwy P56 c. North on Co Hwy P56 d. After crossing 160th St, pick up creek that crosses Co Hwy P56 and follow the alignment of the creek north toward Livermore e. Continue to follow the creek’s alignment north, ending at Hwy 169 Design Considerations and Process Until the trail hits the Des Moines River, it exists in county farmland and follows roadways. A limestone or paved walking and bike path could be created alongside the road, or a paved shoulder could be created for the biking population only. The Des Moines River provides one option for a passageway to reach the northern portion of the county. Three pedestrian bridges would have to be created to cross small branches of the river. Another option would be to use all existing roadways to reach the west side of Livermore where Lotts Park is located. At‐grade crossings would be used where the trail would cross roadways due to the low volume of traffic. In option 1 where the trail would cross Co Hwy C20 a below grade crossing should be evaluated. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 69 2010 This area also provides opportunities for trail development near Lotts Park and should be considered in future planning. Easements must be acquired for land needed for this trail segment. Interdepartmental coordination within the County of Humboldt will be needed to pace road shoulders and convey easements. Management and Maintenance Responsibilities The Humboldt County Conservation Board will be responsible for this trail segment. City of Humboldt Parks Dept Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt School District County Conservation Board Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X Litter Clean up X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 70 2010 Rutland Loop Route Description Create a small connection using the north spur of the Three Rivers Trail to the City of Rutland. •
•
•
•
•
North on existing spur off of Three Rivers Trail Create path going directly east to Co Hwy P56 North on Co Hwy P56 West on 200th St/State Hwy 367/Co Hwy C29 toward Rutland Meet Three Rivers Trail on west side of Rutland Design Considerations and Process A limestone or crushed rock path would be created to connect the north extension of the Three Rivers Trail to reach Co Hwy P56. A paved shoulder could be created along 200th St. to create a loop for bikers. Once 200th St. hits Rutland, trail users could pick up the Three Rivers Trail and continue northwest toward Bradgate or southeast toward Humboldt. Easements must be acquired for land needed for this trail segment. Interdepartmental coordination within the County of Humboldt will be needed to pace road shoulders and convey easements. Management and Maintenance Responsibilities The Humboldt County Conservation Board will be responsible for this trail segment. City of Humboldt Parks Dept Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt School District County Conservation Board Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X Litter Clean up X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 71 2010 Three Rivers Trail Loop Route Description Create a loop by using the existing trail that runs along the northern boundary of Gotch Park to connect to the Three Rivers Trail. •
•
•
Use existing trail along north boundary of Gotch Park, move east to 255th St Follow 255th St north, then east to meet Lone Tree Road Continue north on Lone Tree Road/Co Hwy P56 to connect to existing Three Rivers Trail Design Considerations and Process This trail begins by following gravel roads and then moves to a paved roadway to meet with the Three Rivers Trail. A separate path could be created alongside the road to allow for multiple trail users, or a paved shoulder could be developed on Lone Tree Road. This is already considered a connection with the Three Rivers Trail, however, signs should be used to indicate a shared roadway for motorists for safety purposes. Easements must be acquired for land needed for this trail segment. Interdepartmental coordination within the County of Humboldt will be needed to pace road shoulders and convey easements. Management and Maintenance Responsibilities The Humboldt County Conservation Board will be responsible for this trail segment. City of Humboldt Parks Dept Maintenance Activity City of Humboldt School District County Conservation Board Vegetation Maintenance X Tread Maintenance X Structure Maintenance X Drainage Maintenance X Sign Maintenance X Litter Clean up X _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 72 2010 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
_____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 73 2010 Federal Recreational Trails Program Intent of Program To provide and maintain motorized and non‐motorized recreational trails and trail‐related projects (trailheads, kiosks, lighting, etc.) Who is Eligible to Request Funding Public agencies, non‐profit organizations and private organizations (and/or individuals) are eligible to sponsor. Private sponsorship will require a public agency co‐sponsor. Qualifications for Funding Minimum 20 percent match is required. Trails resulting from successful applications must be maintained as a public facility for a minimum of 20 years. Type of Submittal Required Application forms are available from the Iowa Department of Transportation, and at: http://www.iowadot.gov/systems_planning/fedstate_rectrails.htm Type of Approval Required Iowa DOT recommendation; Iowa Transportation Commission approval. FHWA environmental concurrence is required. Projects must conform to federal funding requirements. Program’s Annual Funding Level Approximately $1,250,000. Application Deadline October 1. More Information/Applications Yvonne Diller Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Systems Planning 800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 515‐239‐1252 yvonne.diller@dot.iowa.gov _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 74 2010 State Recreational Trails Program Intent of Program To fund public recreational trails. Who is Eligible to Request Funding State agencies, counties or cities and non‐profit organizations may sponsor applications. Qualifications for Funding Minimum 25 percent local match is required. Volunteer services and other state grants are not eligible as matching funds. Proposed projects must be a part of a local, area‐wide, regional or statewide trail plan. Trails resulting from successful applications must be maintained as a public facility for a minimum of 20 years. Type of Submittal Required Application forms are available from the Iowa Department of Transportation, and at: http://www.iowadot.gov/systems_planning/fedstate_rectrails.htm Application Deadline July 1 Special Project Requirements Design must be approved by the Iowa DOT. The applicant must have an approved permit from the Iowa DOT resident maintenance engineer to perform any work within the state right‐of‐
way. Type of Approval Required DOT staff recommendations with Iowa Transportation Commission approval. Program’s Annual Funding Level Approximately $2,000,000 More Information/Applications Yvonne Diller Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Systems Planning 800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 515‐239‐1252 yvonne.diller@dot.iowa.gov _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 75 2010 Federal Transportation Enhancement Program Intent of Program To fund enhancement or preservation activities of transportation related projects. Activities fall into the following categories: • trails and bikeways • historic and archaeological • scenic and environmental Who is Eligible to Request Funding Public agencies and private non‐profit organizations (and/or individuals) are eligible to sponsor. Private sponsorship will require a public agency co‐sponsor. Qualifications for Funding Minimum 30 percent local match is required for statewide enhancements; 20 percent or more local match is required for regional enhancement projects as determined by RPA or MPO policies. Enhancements must have a direct relationship to the existing or planned surface transportation facilities. Projects or areas served by enhancement activities must fit one or more of the following categories: • facilities for pedestrians and bicycles • safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists • acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites • scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center sites) • landscaping and other scenic beautification • historic preservation • rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals) • preservation of abandoned railway corridors, including the conversion and use of those corridors for pedestrian or bicycle trails • control and removal of outdoor advertising • archaeological planning and research • mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff or to reduce vehicle‐caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity • transportation museums Type of Submittal Required Depending on regional or statewide impact of the project, applications can be submitted to either the Iowa Department of Transportation or the appropriate RPA or MPO. Statewide projects are those that go beyond regional or metropolitan boundaries, enhance the state transportation system, benefit state tourism, or are consistent with statewide planning. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 76 2010 Statewide projects require filing of an application on a form provided by the DOT. Applications are available from the Iowa DOT, and at: http://www.iowadot.gov/systems_planning/trans_enhance.htm Contact the appropriate RPA/MPO for application requirements for regional (non‐statewide) projects. Application Amount ‐ Minimum/Maximum: In order to offset administrative costs, minimum total project size for statewide enhancements will normally be $100,000. RPAs and MPOs may have different guidelines for regional/metropolitan applications. Application Deadline: October 1 for statewide project applications. RPAs and MPOs may have different deadlines for regional/metropolitan applications. Special Project Requirements: Federal Highway Administration environmental concurrence is required. Right‐of‐way activities must comply with applicable federal and state laws. Plans and specifications must be prepared by an Iowa licensed professional engineer/architect/landscape architect. If federal‐aid dollars are used for a consulting engineer/architect/ landscape architect, the Federal‐Aid Consultant Selection Process must be used. Approval by Iowa DOT for plans and specifications is required. Type of Approval Required RPAs/MPOs select regional (non‐statewide) projects for funding. DOT staff make recommendations to the Iowa Transportation Commission for funding of statewide projects. The Commission makes final awards for funding. Program’s Annual Funding Level Approximately $4.5 million for statewide projects. Approximately $4.5 million for regional projects. More Information/Applications Nancy Anania Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Systems Planning 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50010 515‐239‐1621 nancy.anania@dot.iowa.gov Troy Siefert Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Systems Planning 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50010 515‐239‐1369 troy.siefert@dot.iowa.gov _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 77 2010 Iowa Department of Natural Resources‐Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) Intent of Program REAP is a program in the State of Iowa that invests in the enhancement and protection of the state's natural and cultural resources. The program is funded from the state's Environment First Fund (Iowa gaming receipts) and from the sale of the natural resource license plate. Who is Eligible to Request Funding City Parks and Open Space (15% of REAP funds) ‐ These grants are 100%, so local matching funds are not required. This grant program is very competitive. Funds are not available for single or multipurpose athletic fields, baseball or softball diamonds, tennis courts, golf courses, and other organized sport facilities. Swimming pools and playground equipment are also ineligible. Parkland expansion and multi‐purpose recreation developments are typical projects funded under this REAP program. The amount of REAP grant money available to a city in any one year depends on its population. The population categories and respective grant amount ceilings are shown below: Population 0 ‐ 1,000 1,001 ‐ 5,000 5,001 ‐ 10,000 10,001 ‐ 25,000 25,001 ‐ 50,000 50,001 ‐ 75,000 Over 75,000 Maximum $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $200,000 $300,000 DNR Land Management (9% of REAP fund) ‐ This money is available to DNR for development and management of state conservation lands. Project examples are trail renovation, shower and rest room replacement, repairs to lodges, shelters, and cabins, and minor repair of dams, spillways, parking lots and beaches. While most of the funds have been directed to projects in state parks and recreation areas, they can also be used for improvements on state wildlife management areas and state forests. Type of Submittal Required Application forms are available from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and at: http://www.iowareap.com/ Program’s Annual Funding Level The program is authorized to receive $20 million per year until 2021, but the state legislature sets the amount of REAP funding every year. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 78 2010 Application Deadline August 15 More Information/Applications Ross Harrison Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wallace State Office Building, Des Moines, IA 50319 Phone: (515) 281‐5973 Email: Ross.Harrison@dnr.iowa.gov _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 79 2010 Vision Iowa, Community Attraction and Tourism Program Intent of Program The Community Attraction and Tourism (CAT) Program supports projects that promote recreational, cultural, educational or entertainment attractions that are available to the general public. There is no minimum or maximum award amount. Funding for the CAT program is through an appropriation by the Iowa legislature. Who is Eligible to Request Funding Eligible applicants include a city, county, public organization, or school district in cooperation with a city or county. Qualifications for Funding One‐third of the funds available through the CAT program shall be allocated to projects in cities with populations of 10,000 or less, and/or counties that are among the 33 least populated counties in Iowa. If any portion of these funds has not been awarded by April 1st, the funds shall be available for any community or county in the state. Type of Submittal Required Application forms are available from the Iowa Department of Economic Development, and at: http://www.iowalifechanging.com/vision/cat.aspx Application Deadline Quarterly deadlines for submission of CAT applications have been established. Those deadlines are: January 15th, April 15th, July 15th and October 15th. Applicants may be invited to make brief presentations. Interim decisions may be made at the board’s discretion. Program’s Annual Funding Level The CAT program receives $12 million annually through fiscal year 2013. More Information/Applications Alaina Santizo Vision Iowa Program Manager (515) 242‐4827 visioniowa@iowalifechanging.com _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 80 2010 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1999). Guide for the development of bicycle facilities. Brownson, R. C., Houseman, R. A., Brown, D. R., Jackson‐Thompson, J., King, A. C., Malone, B. R., & Sallis, J. F. (2000). Promoting physical activity in rural communities: Walking trail access, use, and effects. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18(3), 235‐241. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Retrieved September 4, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/index.html. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (2009). Geological survey. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/browse/landform.htm. Iowa Department of Transportation. (2010). Retrieved September 22, 2009 from http://www.iowadot.gov/ LePlante, John. (2010, January). Bicycle Facility Workshop. Iowa Bicycle Summit. Symposim conducted at the meeting of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition. Des Moines, IA. Lindsey, G. (2003). Sustainability and urban greenways: Indicators in Indianapolis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 165‐180. Moore, R.L., Graefe, A.R. & Gitelson, R.J. (1994). Living near greenways: Neighboring landowners’ experiences with and attitudes toward rail‐trails. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 12(1), 79‐93. Pacific Northwest Trail Association (2010). Pacific Northwest Trail Maintenance Manual, 81‐85. Retrieved January 23, 2010 from http://www.pnt.org/. Rails‐to‐Trails Conservancy. (2010). Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://www.railstotrails.org/index.html. Recreation, Research and Service, University of Northern Iowa. (2005). City of Humboldt Parks & Recreation Master Plan. Shafer, C. S., Lee, B. K., & Turner, S. (2000). A tale of three greenway trails: User perceptions related to quality of life. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 163‐178. United States Census Bureau. (2009). Census 2000 gateway. Retrieved November 4, 2009 from http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, & Pennsylvania State University (1992). The impacts of rail‐trails: A study of users and nearby property owners from three trails. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2008). Equestrian design guidebook for trails, trailheads and campgrounds. Wenger, S. (1999). A review of the scientific literature of riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation. Office of Public Service & Outreach Institute of Ecology University of Georgia. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 81 2010 Appendix A: Railbanking Information _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 82 2010 Fact Sheet
Railbanking—What, Where, Why, When and How
In 1983, concerned by the rapid contraction of America’s rail
network, the U.S. Congress amended the National Trails System
Act to create the railbanking program. Railbanking is a method by
which lines proposed for abandonment can be preserved for future
rail use through interim conversion to trail use.
Railbanking can be requested by either a public agency or a
qualified private organization at the time that the railroad files for
abandonment with the Surface Transportation Board (STB),
formerly the Interstate Commerce Commission. The railbanking
request must be sent to the STB in Washington, D.C., and must at
the very minimum include a Statement of Willingness To Assume
Financial Responsibility. Since the abandoning railroad company
must agree to negotiate a railbanking agreement, a copy of the
request for railbanking must be served on the railroad at the same
time it is sent to the STB.
A Public Use Condition (PUC) request is a separate request
that is complementary to a request for railbanking. If a PUC
request is made to the STB, the STB will place a restriction on the
abandon­ment that prevents the railroad company from selling off
or other­wise disposing of any property or trail-related structures,
such as bridges or culverts, for a period of 180 days after the
abandonment is authorized. This PUC gives the prospective trail
manager some breathing room for preparing an offer to the
railroad. (The PUC is also a good backup device should the
railroad not agree to railbanking since the STB will issue a PUC
regardless of whether the railroad agrees.)
There are several other important points regarding railbanking:
1. A railbanking request is not a contract and does not commit
the interested party to acquire any property or to accept any
liability. It invites negotiation with the railroad company under
the umbrella of railbanking. A party filing a “Statement of
Willingness To Assume Financial Responsibility” is not
accepting any financial responsibility. It is merely expressing an
interest in possibly doing so.
2. The tracks and ties on a railbanked line can be removed.
However, bridges and trestles must remain in place, and no
permanent structures can be built on the right-of-way.
3. Under railbanking, there will likely still be an actual sale of the
property, and the railroad will likely still want compensation.
Railbanking is not generally a method for obtaining a free trail.
4. Some railroad rights-of-way contain easements that revert back
to adjacent landowners when an abandonment is consummated.
However, if a line is railbanked, the corridor is treated as if it
had not been abandoned. As a result, the integrity of the
corridor is maintained, and any reversions that could break it
up into small pieces are prevented.
5. A railbanked line is subject to possible future restoration of rail
service. The abandoning railroad can apply to the STB to
resume rail service on a railbanked corridor. The terms and
conditions of a transfer back to rail service would be determined
by the STB.
6. The boilerplate letter can only be filed on a rail line that is still
under the authority of the STB. The STB has authority over
the corridor until the railroad files a notice of consummation,
which must be filed within one year of the abandonment
decision (unless the railroad requests an extension). If no
notice of consummation is filed by the railroad within one
year, abandonment authorization lapses. Railbanking requests
are due within the period specified in the applicable notice of
abandonment. However, late-filed requests will be accepted for
good cause so long as the STB retains authority to do so.
A more thorough discussion of railbanking and other legal
issues related to rails-to-trails conversions can be found in Secrets of
Successful Rail-Trails: An Acquisition and Organizing Manual for
Converting Rails into Trails, available online at www.railstotrails.org.
On the back is a sample of a request for both a Public Use
Condition and a Trail Use Condition created by the STB. The items in
italics are to be completed by the prospective trail agency or group.
National Headquarters
1100 17th Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
tel
202.331.9696
fax
202.331.9680
[Date]
Mr. Vernon A. Williams
Secretary
Surface Transportation Board
395 E Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20423-0001
Re: [Name of Railroad Company] Abandonment in [Name of County and State] , [STB Docket Number]
Dear Mr. Williams:
This request is filed on behalf of [Agency Name] which is a [political subdivision or government agency interested in transportation and/or natural resources,
private public interest organization interested in conservation and/or recreation, etc.], which is hereinafter referred to as ‘proponent’.
While not taking a position on the merits of this abandonment, proponent requests issuance of a Public Use Condition as well as a Certificate or
Notice of Interim Trail Use rather than an outright abandonment authorization between [endpoint a] and [endpoint b].
A. Public Use Condition
Proponent requests the STB to find that this property is suitable for other public use, specifically trail use, and to place the following conditions on
the abandonment:
1. An order prohibiting the carrier from disposing of the corridor, other than the tracks, ties and signal equipment, except of public use on reasonable terms. The justification for this condition is that [example: the rail corridor in question is along a scenic river and will connect a public park to
a major residential area. The corridor would make an excellent recreational trail and conversion of the property to trail use is in accordance with local
plans. In addition, the corridor provides important wildlife habitat and greenspace and its preservation as a recreational trail is consistent with that
end.] The time period sought is 180 days from the effective date of the abandonment authorization. Proponent needs this much time because
[example: we have not had an opportunity to assemble or to review title information, complete a trail plan or commence negotiations with the carrier.]
2. An order barring removal or destruction of potential trail-related structures such as bridges, trestles, culverts and tunnels. The justification for
this condition is that these structures have considerable value for recreational trail purposes. The time period requested is 180 days from the
effective date of the abandonment authorization for the same reason as indicated above.
B. Interim Trail Use
The railroad right-of-way in this proceeding is suitable for railbanking. In addition to the public use conditions sought above, Proponent also makes
the following request:
STATEMENT OF WILLINGNESS TO ASSUME FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
In order to establish interim trail use and rail banking under section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. §1247(d), and 49 C.F.R.
§1152.29, [Agency Name] is willing to assume full responsibility for management of, for any legal liability arising out of the transfer or use of (unless
the user is immune from liability, in which case it need only indemnify the railroad against any potential liability), and for the payment of any and
all taxes that may be levied or assessed against the right-of-way owned by [Name of Railroad Company] and operated by [Name of Operator if different
than Railroad Company].
The property, known as the [Property Name] extends from railroad milepost [Milepost Number] near [endpoint a] to railroad milepost [Milepost
Number] near [endpoint b] a distance of [number] miles in [County Name] County, [State]. The right-of-way is part of a line of railroad proposed for
abandonment in STB Docket No. AB-xx (Sub-no. yy).
A map depicting the right-of-way is attached.
[Agency Name] acknowledges that use of the right-of-way is subject to the user’s continuing to meet its responsibilities described above and subject to
possible future reconstruction and reactivation of the right-of-way for rail service.
By my signature below, I certify service upon [Railroad Company and Address], by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, first class, on [date].
Respectfully submitted,
[Name]
On behalf of [Agency]
National Headquarters
1100 17th Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
tel
202.331.9696
fax
202.331.9680
Appendix B: Steering Committee Meeting Minutes _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 85 2010 October 9th Meeting Minutes 1. Introductions 2. Project Goal o To create a plan and initiate action to develop a comprehensive trails master plan 3. Timeline and project planning process o Adjustments: o Public input meeting to take place in December o Analyze results of public meeting in December and January 4. Planning team initial research o Overview of area resources, trails, etc. o Trail benefits 5. Opportunities and weaknesses of a comprehensive Humboldt County potential trail system • Opportunities: o Connections between cities and counties* o Economic impact * o Linking trails o Connect communities via trails for programs and activities o Jobs due to development and maintenance o Tourism o River and trail connection o Public support of trails • Weaknesses o Money* o Land acquisition and easements* o Public knowledge o Economy o Too many projects going on o Bridging issues o Floodways and flood areas o Need connections to larger trails o Landowners *top opportunities and weaknesses 6. Mapping of potential trails 1. Priority areas • 5th St. South to Three Rivers Trail • Cottonwood Trail linking to Three Rivers Trail North • Connect Gotch Three Rivers Trail Spur to Gotch Park 2. Possible amenities/communities to connect • High School Grounds • Jim Heinz Sports Complex & Racquetball Club • Willow Ridge Park • Worthington Hillside Park • Lake Nokomis Park • Joe Sheldon Park • Aquatics Center _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 86 2010 •
Riverside Park 3. Potential future areas • Make a connection to Webster County and trails in Webster County • Pedestrian bridge connecting 9th St. South area with Southward Cottonwood Trail extension 7. Humboldt County resident workshop • Discuss opportunities for connection • Wednesday night • Hold at Oxbow • Use pictures, no graphs or charts • Create slideshow • Discuss options for bridges • Discuss types of surfacing 8. Optional trail walk Followed Todd Lee and Chris Clarkson to hear ideas for trail development in Humboldt Stop #1: End of Gotch Park spur • Land owner at end of trail having issues with easements • Gotch Park is 2 – 3 miles from end of trail • On Des Moines river • Old railroad • Still owned by railroad company • Possibility of not following rail bed if people will not give up their land • City owns land on the other side of the river Stop #2: Connection opportunity between Gotch Park spur and 5th St. South • Build bridge over drainage ditch • Old cemetery along trail being researched • Link south part of town • Create a loop Stop #3: Cottonwood trail • Recently paved • Busiest trail in town • Runs along river • Starts at dam Stop #4: Connection opportunity for Cottonwood trail • Start at private recreation center and sports complex • Go across the highway to connect to cemetery Stop #5: Cemetery • Possibility of using paved roads in cemetery area • Could build trail along drainage ditch next to cemetery • Privately owned quarry nearby • Landowners near cemetery are open to trail development • Wanting to connect to Three Rivers Trail that would be about 200 yards away _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 87 2010 April 9th Meeting Minutes I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Review of October meeting Review of Timeline Main Components of Master Plan a. Resource Inventory b. Existing Trails System c. Needs Assessment d. Trail Standards e. Management and Maintenance Strategies f. Easements and Land Acquisition g. Proposed Trails & Trail Segments h. Funding Opportunities Identification of Potential Trails a. The following were used to determine trail routes: i. Advisory Committee Recommendations ii. Resource Inventory iii. Iowa Department of Transportation Trails Plan iv. Humboldt County Trails Survey Humboldt County Survey a. Distributed to 350 randomly selected residents b. 7 non‐deliverable c. 63 returned Survey comments a. *See page 4 ‐5 of document Survey Results a. Trail use b. Trail activity c. Importance of linking trails Maps a. Advisory Board priority areas and amenities to connect – City of Humboldt b. Advisory Board priority areas and future development – Humboldt County c. Survey map results – Humboldt County d. Iowa Department of Transportation Regional map e. Potential Trail Opportunities – City of Humboldt *add streets to map i. High School to Joe Sheldon 1. Road option a. Will need a paved shoulder b. 230th St west, north on Sheldon Ave 2. Paved/limestone trail option a. North from high school along city boundary into Joe Sheldon Park and then along water – county territory b. Possible to connect with trails in park c. Future development planned for park – nature center d. Look into easements – possible farm easement issue ii. Cottonwood North 1. Cottonwood trail to Three Rivers Trail 2. Easement issue between Hwy 3 and 16th St _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 88 2010 IX.
X.
3. Road option a. Use roads to reach cemetery, use cemetery roads, then connect to Three Rivers Trail through field 4. Create path along creek option a. Use roads to meet creek at Highway 3, build a paved path along east side of creek, go to west side of creek to cross 16th St (create paved shoulder), use cemetery roads to connect to Three Rivers Trail through field b. Look at ownership near sports complex c. Springville Senior Living close by – possible user group/supporter 5. Must cross Highway 3 a. Have talked to DOT about crossing at‐grade. They are open to working something out – slowing down traffic, etc. b. May need survey from the state c. Bridge to cross creek could equal $125,000 6. Easement from cemetery to Three Rivers Trail should work out fine – have been contacted but not written up iii. Cottonwood South 1. West side of river 2. Use pre‐existing bridge over Sumner Ave (planned reconstruction) to cross river 3. Will need to cross river again towards south – bridge? iv. Gotch Bridge 1. Build bridge to connect Gotch Park Spur to south end of town 2. Connect Gotch and 11th or 5th? v. Gotch Extension 1. Extend Gotch Park Spur to Gotch State Park 2. Easement issue – need to be contacted vi. Gotch to High School 1. North of Willow Ridge cross 169 2. Contact DOT about construction plans for 169 3. Possible culvert on 14th Ave SW a. Use creek to go under 169 – culvert on both sides 4. Bridge near river f. Potential Trail Opportunities – Humboldt County Shared Roadway Options a. Shared Roadway (No Bike Designation) ‐ Adequate for safe bicycle travel without signage or lane markings. Used in low‐volume, low‐speed areas b. Signed Shared Roadways‐ Suitable for bicyclists to reach certain priority destinations. Signs also make drivers aware of possible bicyclists c. Bike Lane‐Designated portion of the roadway defined by striping, signing, and pavement markings Creating Bike Lanes a. Restriping i. “The most common, cheapest, & easiest way to provide a bike lane network” b. Restriping techniques i. Narrow travel lanes ii. Remove/reallocate/rearrange parking iii. Remove travel lanes _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 89 2010 Appendix C: Humboldt County Trail Survey _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 90 2010 !
!"#$%&'()*%"+(,)-./0&)1".23,)
"#$!%&'(!)*!+,-.)/0'!120!+,-.)/0'!%),2'(!13$!&2!'#$!43)5$66!)*!0$7$/)4&28!1!
'31&/!-16'$3!4/129!!"#$!%&'(!)*!+,-.)/0'!:13;6!120!<$53$1'&)2!-16'$3!4/12!
$6'1./&6#$0!'#$!8)1/!')!$25),318$!'31&/!0$7$/)4-$2'!*)3!.&5(5/&28=!>1/;&28=!
?)88&28=!120!6;1'&28!>&'#&2!'#$!3$8&)2!')!5)22$5'!3$53$1'&)2!13$16!120!43)-)'$!
>$//2$669!!"#$!2$@'!6'$4!&2!53$1'&28!1!'31&/!4/12!&6!')!3$5$&7$!&24,'!*3)-!+,-.)/0'!
%),2'(!3$6&0$2'69!!"#&6!4/12!>&//!.$!,6$0!')!8,&0$!'#$!*,',3$!0$7$/)4-$2'!)*!'#$!
+,-.)/0'!%),2'(!'31&/!6(6'$-9!
!
A$!$25),318$!(),3!413'&5&41'&)2!&2!'#&6!6,37$(!&2!)30$3!')!#17$!1!.$''$3!
,20$36'120&28!)*!3$6&0$2'6B!>12'6!120!2$$06!&2!'$3-6!)*!'31&/!3),'$6=!6,3*15&28=!
120!43&)3&'(!13$169!!:/$16$!126>$3!'#$!C,$6'&)26!)2!'#$!2$@'!418$=!120!'#$2!',32!&'!
)7$3!')!031>!&2!'31&/!3),'$6!(),!*$$/!6#),/0!.$!0$7$/)4$0!&2!+,-.)/0'!%),2'(!&2!
'#$!*,',3$9!
!
A#$2!(),!#17$!5)-4/$'$0!'#$!6,37$(=!4/$16$!,6$!'#$!$25/)6$0!$27$/)4$!')!-1&/!
,6!(),3!C,$6'&)221&3$!.(!4/.56)7(69!!A$!1443$5&1'$!(),3!#$/4!&2!'#&6!43)?$5'!120!
/));!*)3>130!')!3$5$&7&28!(),3!&24,'9!
!
D*!(),!#17$!12(!*,3'#$3!C,$6'&)26=!4/$16$!5)2'15'E!
!
!
F&20&!GH+$32!
<$53$1'&)2!I&3$5')3!
%&'(!)*!+,-.)/0'!
:#)2$E!JKJLMMNLJOOP!
Q-1&/E!3$5#.'R5&9#,-.)/0'9&19,6!
Humboldt
County
Trail
Survey
1. Please
check
the
box
that
indicates
how
many
times
you
have
used
each
trail
in
the
past
year.
Unaware
of
trail
Aware
but
did
not
use
1
–
5
times
6
–
10
times
11
–
15
times
15
times
or
more
Three
Rivers
Trail






Cottonwood
Trail






Gotch
Park
Trail
























High
School
Fitness
Trail
Joe
Sheldon
Park
trails
Snowmobile
trails
2. If
you
have
used
any
of
the
existing
trails,
in
what
activity
do
you
participate?
Mark
all
that
apply.
Biking
Horseback
riding
Running/walking
Cross
country
skiing
In‐line
skating
Other,
please
explain
Snowmobiling
3. Please
mark
each
barrier
that
limits
your
use
of
trails
in
Humboldt
County.
Time
No
information
Distance
Lack
of
availability
No
companions
Health
Lack
of
safety
Age
Not
interesting
Poor
transportation
Overcrowded
Poor
maintenance
4. Please
check
the
box
that
indicates
the
importance
of
each
statement.
Very
Important
Important
Neutral
Unimportant
Not
at
all
important
It
is
important
to
link
existing
trails.





It
is
important
to
link
communities
to
trails
who
do
not
have
current
access.





5. Demographics:
Are
you:
Male
Female
Community
where
you
live
with
zip
code:
Length
of
residency
in
your
current
community:
(OVER)
Age:
Use
the
following
map
to
indicate
where
you
believe
new
trails
should
be
developed
in
Humboldt
County.
You
can
draw
in
lines
for
potential
trail
locations,
or
describe
the
location
in
the
comment
section
below.
Please
provide
any
additional
information
that
could
help
in
the
planning
process.
Comments:
Appendix D: Shared Use Path Standards _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 94 2010 guide for the development of bicycle facilities
33
Shared Use Paths
Shared Use Paths
Shared use paths are facilities on exclusive right-of-way and with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Shared use paths are sometimes
referred to as trails; however, in many states the term trail means an unimproved recreational facility. Care should be taken in using these terms
interchangeably. Where shared use paths are called trails, they should
meet all design criteria for shared use paths to be designated as bicycle
facilities. Users are non-motorized and may include but are not limited
to: bicyclists, in-line skaters, roller skaters, wheelchair users (both
non-motorized and motorized) and pedestrians, including walkers, runners, people with baby strollers, people walking dogs, etc. These
facilities are most commonly designed for two-way travel, and the guidance herein assumes a two-way facility is planned unless otherwise
stated.
Shared use paths can serve a variety of purposes. They can provide users
with a shortcut through a residential neighborhood (e.g., a connection
between two cul-de-sac streets). Located in a park, they can provide an
enjoyable recreational opportunity. Shared use paths can be located
along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, abandoned or active railroad and utility rights-of-way, limited access freeways, within college campuses or
within and between parks. Shared use paths can also provide bicycle access to areas that are otherwise served only by limited access highways
closed to bicycles. Appropriate locations can be identified during the
planning process. Examples of shared use paths are shown in Figures 15
and 16.
Shared use paths should be thought of as a complementary system of
off-road transportation routes for bicyclists and others that serves as a
necessary extension to the roadway network. Shared use paths should
not be used to preclude on-road bicycle facilities, but rather to supplement a system of on-road bike lanes, wide outside lanes, paved
shoulders and bike routes. There are some similarities between the design criteria for shared use paths and highways (e.g., horizontal
alignment, sight distance requirements, signing and markings). On the
other hand, some criteria (e.g., horizontal and vertical clearance requirements, grades and pavement structure) are dictated by operating
characteristics of bicycles that are substantially different from those of
motor vehicles. The designer should always be aware of the similarities
and differences between bicycles and motor vehicles and of how these
similarities and differences influence the design of shared use paths. The
remainder of this section provides guidance on each of the factors that
should be considered in designing safe and functional shared use paths.
Figure 15. Example of a Shared Use Path
Figure 16. Example of a Shared Use Path
Separation Between Shared Use Paths and Roadways
When two-way shared use paths are located immediately adjacent to a
roadway, some operational problems are likely to occur. In some cases,
paths along highways for short sections are permissible, given an appropriate level of separation between facilities, as in Figure 16. Some
Design
Shared Use Paths
34
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
problems with paths located immediately adjacent to roadways are as
follows:
Design
Shared Use Paths
1.
Unless separated, they require one direction of bicycle traffic to
ride against motor vehicle traffic, contrary to normal rules of the
road.
2.
When the path ends, bicyclists going against traffic will tend to
continue to travel on the wrong side of the street. Likewise, bicyclists approaching a shared use path often travel on the wrong
side of the street in getting to the path. Wrong-way travel by bicyclists is a major cause of bicycle/automobile crashes and
should be discouraged at every opportunity.
3.
At intersections, motorists entering or crossing the roadway often will not notice bicyclists approaching from their right, as
they are not expecting contra-flow vehicles. Motorists turning to
exit the roadway may likewise fail to notice the bicyclist. Even
bicyclists coming from the left often go unnoticed, especially
when sight distances are limited.
4.
Signs posted for roadway users are backwards for contra-flow
bike traffic; therefore these cyclists are unable to read the information without stopping and turning around.
5.
When the available right-of-way is too narrow to accommodate
all highway and shared use path features, it may be prudent to
consider a reduction of the existing or proposed widths of the
various highway (and bikeway) cross-sectional elements (i.e.,
lane and shoulder widths, etc.). However, any reduction to less
than AASHTO Green Book 1 (or other applicable) design criteria
must be supported by a documented engineering analysis.
6.
Many bicyclists will use the roadway instead of the shared use
path because they have found the roadway to be more convenient, better maintained, or safer. Bicyclists using the roadway
may be harassed by some motorists who feel that in all cases bicyclists should be on the adjacent path.
7.
Although the shared use path should be given the same priority
through intersections as the parallel highway, motorists falsely
expect bicyclists to stop or yield at all cross-streets and driveways. Efforts to require or encourage bicyclists to yield or stop at
each cross-street and driveway are inappropriate and frequently
ignored by bicyclists.
8.
Stopped cross-street motor vehicle traffic or vehicles exiting side
streets or driveways may block the path crossing.
9.
Because of the proximity of motor vehicle traffic to opposing bicycle traffic, barriers are often necessary to keep motor vehicles
out of shared use paths and bicyclists out of traffic lanes. These
barriers can represent an obstruction to bicyclists and motorists,
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
35
can complicate maintenance of the facility, and can cause other
problems as well.
For the above reasons, other types of bikeways are likely to be better
suited to accommodate bicycle traffic along highway corridors, depending upon traffic conditions. Shared use paths should not be considered a
substitute for street improvements even when the path is located adjacent to the highway, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient
to ride on these paths compared with the streets, particularly for utility
trips.
When two-way shared use paths are located adjacent to a roadway,
wide separation between a shared use path and the adjacent highway is
desirable to demonstrate to both the bicyclist and the motorist that the
path functions as an independent facility for bicyclists and others. When
this is not possible and the distance between the edge of the shoulder
and the shared use path is less than 1.5 m (5 feet), a suitable physical barrier is recommended. Such barriers serve both to prevent path users from
making unwanted movements between the path and the highway shoulder and to reinforce the concept that the path is an independent facility.
Where used, the barrier should be a minimum of 1.1 m (42 inches) high,
to prevent bicyclists from toppling over it. A barrier between a shared use
path and adjacent highway should not impair sight distance at intersections, and should be designed to not be a hazard to errant motorists.
Width and Clearance
The paved width and the operating width required for a shared use path
are primary design considerations. Figure 17 depicts a shared use path
on a separated right of way. Under most conditions, a recommended
paved width for a two-directional shared use path is 3.0 m (10 feet). In
0.9 m (3 ft) min.
1.8 m (6 ft) max.
1.2 m (4 ft) min.
1.5 m (5 ft) max.
1.2 m (4 ft) min.
1.5 m (5 ft) max.
0.9 m (3 ft) min.
1.8 m (6 ft) max.
1.6 ma
slope x.
x.
1:6 ma
slope
0.6 m
(2 ft)
graded
area
Width of shared use path 3.0 m (10 ft) recommended
0.6 m
(2 ft)
graded
area
Figure 17. Cross Section of Two-Way Shared Use Path on Separated Right-of-Way
Design
Shared Use Paths
36
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
rare instances, a reduced width of 2.4 m (8 feet) can be adequate. This reduced width should be used only where the following conditions
prevail: (1) bicycle traffic is expected to be low, even on peak days or
during peak hours, (2) pedestrian use of the facility is not expected to be
more than occasional, (3) there will be good horizontal and vertical
alignment providing safe and frequent passing opportunities, and (4) during normal maintenance activities the path will not be subjected to
maintenance vehicle loading conditions that would cause pavement
edge damage. Under certain conditions it may be necessary or desirable
to increase the width of a shared use path to 3.6 m (12 feet), or even 4.2
m (14 feet), due to substantial use by bicycles, joggers, skaters and pedestrians, use by large maintenance vehicles, and/or steep grades.
The minimum width of a one-directional shared use path is 1.8 m (6
feet). It should be recognized, however, that one-way paths often will be
used as two-way facilities unless effective measures are taken to assure
one-way operation. Without such enforcement, it should be assumed
that shared use paths will be used as two-way facilities by both pedestrians and bicyclists and designed accordingly.
A minimum 0.6-m (2-foot) wide graded area with a maximum 1:6 slope
should be maintained adjacent to both sides of the path; however, 0.9 m
(3 feet) or more is desirable to provide clearance from trees, poles, walls,
fences, guardrails or other lateral obstructions. Where the path is adjacent to canals, ditches or slopes down steeper than 1:3, a wider
separation should be considered. A minimum 1.5 m (5-foot) separation
from the edge of the path pavement to the top of the slope is desirable.
Depending on the height of embankment and condition at the bottom, a
physical barrier, such as dense shrubbery, railing or chain link fence,
may need to be provided. (See Figure 18.)
Figure 18. Safety Rail Between Shared Use
Path and Adjacent Slope and Waterway
The vertical clearance to obstructions should be a minimum of 2.5 m (8
feet). However, vertical clearance may need to be greater to permit passage of maintenance and emergency vehicles. In undercrossings and
tunnels, 3.0 m (10 feet) is desirable for adequate vertical shy distance.
Design Speed
The speed a bicyclist travels is dependent on several factors, including
the type and condition of the bicycle; the purpose of the trip; the condition, location and grade of the path; the speed and direction of any
prevailing winds; the number and types of users on the path; and the
physical condition of the bicyclist. Shared use paths should be designed
for a selected speed that is at least as high as the preferred speed of the
faster bicyclists. In general, a minimum design speed of 30 km/h (20
mph) should be used. Although bicyclists can travel faster than this, to do
so would be inappropriate in a mixed-use setting. Design and traffic controls can be used to deter excessive speed and faster cyclists can be
encouraged to use the roadway system. Lower design speeds should not
be selected to artificially lower user speeds. When a downgrade exceeds
4 percent, or where strong prevailing tailwinds exist, a design speed of
50 km/h (30 mph) or more is advisable.
Design
Shared Use Paths
guide for development of bicycle facilities
37
On unpaved paths, where bicyclists tend to ride more slowly, a lower
design speed of 25 km/h (15 mph) can be used. Similarly, where the
grades or the prevailing winds dictate, a higher design speed of 40 km/h
(25 mph) can be used. Since bicycles have a higher tendency to skid on
unpaved surfaces, horizontal curvature design should take into account
lower coefficients of friction.
Horizontal Alignment
Unlike an automobile, a bicycle must be leaned while cornering to prevent it from falling outward due to the generation of centrifugal force.
The balance of centrifugal force due to cornering, and the bicycle’s
downward force due to its weight, act through the bicycle/operator combined center of mass and must intersect a line that connects the front and
rear tire contact points.
If bicyclists pedal through sharp turns and lean too far, the pedal will
strike the ground because of a sharp lean angle. Although pedal heights
are different for different makes of bikes, the pedal generally will strike
the ground when the lean angle reaches about 25o. However, casual bicyclists usually do not like to lean too drastically, and 15-20o is
considered the maximum lean angle. Assuming an operator who sits
straight in the seat, a simple equation can determine the minimum radius
of curvature for any given lean angle:
For Metric Units:
0.0079 V 2
R =
tan θ
Where:
R = Minimum radius of
curvature (m)
V = Design Speed (km/h)
θ = Lean angle from the
vertical (degrees)
For English Units:
0.067 V 2
R =
tan θ
Where:
R = Minimum radius of
curvature (ft)
V = Design Speed (mph)
θ = Lean angle from the
vertical (degrees)
However, when the lean angle approaches 20o, the minimum radius of
curvature negotiable by a bicycle becomes a function of the
superelevation rate of the pathway surface, the coefficient of friction between the bicycle tires and the surface, and the speed of the bicycle. For
this situation, the minimum design radius of curvature can be derived
from the following formula:
For Metric Units:
V2
R =
 e

127
+ f
 100 
Where:
R = Minimum radius of
= curvature (m)
V = Design Speed (km/h)
e = Rate of bikeway
= superelevation (percent)
f = Coefficient of friction
For English Units:
V2
R =
 e

15
+ f
 100 
Where:
R = Minimum radius of
= curvature (ft)
V = Design Speed (mph)
e = Rate of bikeway
= superelevation (percent)
f = Coefficient of friction
Design
Shared Use Paths
38
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
Since most shared use paths built in the United States must also meet the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ADA guidelines require that cross slopes not exceed 2-3 percent to avoid the severe
difficulties that greater cross slopes can create for people using wheelchairs. Thus, for most shared use paths, the maximum superelevation
rate will be 3 percent. When transitioning a 3 percent superelevation, a
minimum 7.5-m (25-foot) transition distance should be provided between the end and beginning of consecutive and reversing horizontal
curves.
The coefficient of friction depends upon speed; surface type, roughness,
and condition; tire type and condition; and whether the surface is wet or
dry. Friction factors used for design should be selected based upon the
point at which centrifugal force causes the bicyclist to recognize a feeling of discomfort and instinctively act to avoid higher speed.
Extrapolating from values used in highway design, design friction factors
for paved shared use paths can be assumed to vary from 0.31 at 20 km/h
(12 mph) to 0.21 at 50 km/h (30 mph). Although there are no data available for unpaved surfaces, it is suggested that friction factors be reduced
by 50 percent to allow a sufficient margin of safety.
Based upon various design speeds of 20-50 km/h (12-30 mph) and a desirable maximum lean angle of 15o, minimum radii of curvature for a
paved path can be selected from Table 1.
Table 1. Desirable Minimum Radii for Paved Shared Use Paths
Based on 15° Lean Angle
Design Speed (V)
km/h
(mph)
20
(12)
30
(20)
40
(25)
50
(30)
Minimum Radius (R)
m
(ft)
12
(36)
27
(100)
47
(156)
74
(225)
Where a greater lean angle can be tolerated, the minimum radii of curvature for a 2 percent superelevation rate and various design speeds of
20-50 km/h (12-30 mph) can be taken from Table 2.
Table 2. Minimum Radii for Paved Shared Use Paths
Based on 2% Superelevation Rates and 20° Lean Angle
Design Speed (V)
km/h
(mph)
20
(12)
30
(20)
40
(25)
50
(30)
Design
Shared Use Paths
Friction Factor (f)
(paved surface)
0.31
0.28
0.25
0.21
Minimum Radius (R)
m
(ft)
10
(30)
24
(90)
47
(155)
86
(260)
guide for development of bicycle facilities
39
However, when a lean angle of 20o is used, more horizontal space will
be taken up by the bicyclist taking the curve and more width needs to be
provided. In these cases the pathway width should be increased and a
center line placed down the middle of the path.
When curve radii smaller than those shown in Table 2 must be used because of limited right-of-way, topographical features or other
considerations, standard curve warning signs and supplemental pavement markings should be installed in accordance with the MUTCD 2.
The negative effects of sharper curves can also be partially offset by widening the pavement through the curves.
Grade
Grades on shared use paths should be kept to a minimum, especially on
long inclines. Grades greater than 5 percent are undesirable because the
ascents are difficult for many bicyclists to climb and the descents cause
some bicyclists to exceed the speeds at which they are competent or
comfortable. On some shared use paths, where terrain dictates, designers may need to exceed the 5 percent grade recommended for bicycles
for some short sections. As a general guide, the following grade restrictions and grade lengths are suggested:*
5-6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11+%
for up to 240 m (800 ft)
for up to 120 m (400 ft)
for up to 90 m (300 ft)
for up to 60 m (200 ft)
for up to 30 m (100 ft)
for up to 15 m (50 ft)
Grades steeper than 3 percent may not be practical for shared use paths
with crushed stone or other unpaved surfaces for both handling and
drainage erosion reasons.
Options to mitigate excessive grades:
❍ When using a longer grade, an additional 1.2-1.8 m (4-6 feet) of
width to permit slower speed bicyclists to dismount and walk may
be considered.
❍ Provide signing that alerts bicyclists to the maximum percent of
grade (MUTCD 2).
❍ Provide recommended descent speed signing.
❍ Exceed minimum stopping sight distances.
❍ Exceed minimum horizontal clearances, recovery area and/or protective bike rails.
*See Chapter 2—Other Design Considerations, Accessibility Requirements, p. 69.
Design
Shared Use Paths
40
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
❍ When possible, use a wider path [1.2-1.8 m (4-6 feet) addition recommended] and a series of short switchbacks to contain the speed
of descending bicyclists.
Sight Distance
To provide bicyclists with an opportunity to see and react to the unexpected, a shared use path should be designed with adequate stopping
sight distances. The distance required to bring a bicycle to a full controlled stop is a function of the bicyclist’s perception and brake reaction
time, the initial speed of the bicycle, the coefficient of friction between
the tires and the pavement, and the braking ability of the bicycle.
Figure 19 indicates the minimum stopping sight distance for various design speeds and grades based on a total perception and brake reaction
time of 2.5 seconds and a coefficient of friction of 0.25 to account for the
poor wet weather braking characteristics of many bicycles. For two-way
shared use paths, the sight distance in the descending direction, that is,
where “G” is negative, will control the design.
Table 3 is used to select the minimum length of vertical curve necessary
to provide minimum stopping sight distance at various speeds on crest
vertical curves. The eye height of the bicyclist is assumed to be 1400 mm
(4 1/2 feet) and the object height is assumed to be 0 mm (0 inches) to recognize that impediments to bicycle travel exist at pavement level.
Table 4 indicates the minimum clearance that should be used for line of
sight obstructions for horizontal curves. The lateral clearance is obtained
by entering Table 4 with the stopping sight distance from Figure 19 and
the proposed horizontal radius of curvature.
Bicyclists frequently ride side-by-side on shared use paths, and on narrow
paths bicyclists have a tendency to ride near the middle of the path. For
these reasons, and because of the higher potential for bicycle crashes, lateral clearances on horizontal curves should be calculated based on the sum
of the stopping sight distances for bicyclists traveling in opposite directions
around the curve. Where this is not possible or feasible, consideration
should be given to widening the path through the curve, installing a yellow
center line stripe, installing a “Curve Ahead” warning sign in accordance
with the MUTCD 2, or some combination of these alternatives.
Design
Shared Use Paths
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
S =
V2
V
+
254 (f ± G) 1.4
Where: S
V
f
G
=
=
=
=
Descend
Ascend
41
------
stopping sight distance (m)
velocity (km/h)
coefficient of friction (use 0.25)
grade (m/m) (rise/run)
Figure 19. Metric Units.
Minimum Stopping Sight Distance
vs. Grades for Various Design Speeds
Design
Shared Use Paths
42
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
Descend
Ascend
------
S =
V2
+ 3.67V
30 (f ± G)
Where: S
V
f
G
=
=
=
=
stopping sight distance (ft)
velocity (mph)
coefficient of friction (use 0.25)
grade (ft/ft) (rise/run)
Figure 19. English Units.
Minimum Stopping Sight Distance
vs. Grades for Various Design Speeds.
Design
Shared Use Paths
guide for development of bicycle facilities
43
Table 3. Metric Units. Minimum Length of Crest Vertical Curve (L) Based on Stopping Sight Distance
A
(%)
S = Stopping Sight Distance (m)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
2
3
4
5
75
80
85
90
95
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
87
97
107
7
17
27
37
47
57
67
77
91
103 116 129 143
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
100 114 129 145 161 179
4
14
24
34
44
54
64
75
88
105 121 137 155 174 193 214
6
3
13
23
33
43
54
65
77
91
7
10
20
30
40
51
63
76
90
106 123 141 160 181 203 226 250
8
5
15
25
35
46
58
71
86
103 121 140 161 183 206 231 258 286
9
9
19
29
39
51
65
80
97
116 136 158 181 206 232 260 290 321
10
2
12
22
32
44
57
72
89
108 129 151 175 201 229 258 289 322 357
11
5
15
25
35
48
63
80
98
119 141 166 193 221 251 284 318 355 393
12
7
17
27
39
53
69
87
107 130 154 181 210 241 274 310 347 387 429
13
8
18
29
42
57
74
94
116 140 167 196 228 261 297 335 376 419 464
14
10
20
31
45
61
80
101 125 151 180 211 245 281 320 361 405 451 500
15
1
11
21
33
48
66
86
108 134 162 193 226 263 301 343 387 434 483 536
16
3
13
23
36
51
70
91
116 143 173 206 241 280 321 366 413 463 516 571
17
4
14
24
38
55
74
97
123 152 184 219 257 298 342 389 439 492 548 607
18
4
14
26
40
58
79
103 130 161 194 231 272 315 362 411 464 521 580 643
19
5
15
27
42
61
83
109 137 170 205 244 287 333 382 434 490 550 612 679
20
6
16
29
45
64
88
114 145 179 216 257 302 350 402 457 516 579 645 714
21
7
17
30
47
68
92
120 152 188 227 270 317 368 422 480 542 608 677 750
22
7
18
31
49
71
96
126 159 196 238 283 281 385 442 503 568 636 709 786
23
8
18
33
51
74
101 131 166 205 248 296 347 403 462 526 593 665 741 821
24
8
19
34
54
77
105 137 174 214 259 309 362 420 482 549 619 694 774 857
25
9
20
36
56
80
109 143 181 223 270 321 377 438 502 571 645 723 806 893
when S > L
L = 2S-
280
A
AS 2
280
Height of cyclist eye - 1400 mm
Height of object - 0 mm
when S < L
L=
Shaded area represents S = L
L = Minimum Length of Vertical Curve (m)
A = Algebraic Grade Difference (%)
S = Stopping Sight Distance (m)
Minimum Length of Vertical Curve = 1 m
Design
Shared Use Paths
44
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
Table 3. English Units. Minimum Length of Crest Vertical Curve (L) Based on Stopping Sight Distance
A
(%)
S = Stopping Sight Distance (ft)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
20
60
100
140
2
3
4
5
260
280
300
30
70
110
150
180
220
260
300
15
55
95
135
175
215
256
300
348
400
20
60
100
140
180
222
269
320
376
436
500
6
10
50
90
130
171
216
267
323
384
451
523
600
7
31
71
111
152
199
252
311
376
448
526
610
700
8
8
48
88
128
174
228
288
356
430
512
601
697
800
9
20
60
100
144
196
256
324
400
484
576
676
784
900
10
30
70
111
160
218
284
360
444
538
640
751
871
1000
11
38
78
122
176
240
313
396
489
592
704
826
958
1100
85
133
192
261
341
432
533
645
768
901
1045 1200
1132 1300
12
5
45
13
11
51
92
144
208
283
370
468
578
699
832
976
14
16
56
100
156
224
305
398
504
622
753
896
1052 1220 1400
15
20
60
107
167
240
327
427
540
667
807
960
1127 1307 1500
16
24
64
114
178
256
348
455
576
711
860
1024 1202 1394 1600
17
27
68
121
189
272
370
484
612
756
914
1088 1277 1481 1700
18
30
72
128
200
288
392
512
648
800
968
1152 1352 1568 1800
19
33
76
135
211
304
414
540
684
844
1022 1216 1427 1655 1900
20
35
80
142
222
320
436
569
720
889
1076 1280 1502 1742 2000
21
37
84
149
233
336
457
597
756
933
1129 1344 1577 1829 2100
22
39
88
156
244
352
479
626
792
978
1183 1408 1652 1916 2200
23
41
92
164
256
368
501
654
828
1022 1237 1472 1728 2004 2300
24
3
43
96
171
267
384
523
683
864
1067 1291 1536 1803 2091 2400
25
4
44
100
177
278
400
544
711
900
1111 1344 1600 1878 2178 2500
when S > L L = 2S –
900
A
when S < L L =
AS2
900
Height of cyclist’s eye – 4 1/2 ft
Height of object – 0 ft
Design
Shared Use Paths
Shaded area represents S = L
L = Minimum Length of Vertical Curve (ft)
A = Algebraic Grade Difference (%)
S = Stopping Sight Distance (ft)
Minimum Length of Vertical Curve = 3 ft.
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
45
Table 4. Metric Units. Minimum Lateral Clearance (M) for Horizontal Curves
For Metric Units:
S
For English Units:
= Stopping Sight Distance (m)
S = Stopping Sight Distance (ft)
R = Radius of centerline of lane (m)
R = Radius of centerline of lane (ft)
M = Distance from centerline of
lane to obstruction (m)
M = Distance from centerline of
lane to obstruction (ft)
R
(m)
S = Stopping Sight Distance (m)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
15 0.8 1.8 3.2 4.9 6.9 9.1 11
14
50
55
60
65
70
75
14
16
19
14
16
80
85
90
95 100
18
21
23
6.1 7.4 8.7 10
12
13
15
17
19
21
23
8
9.2 10
12
13
15
16
7.9 8.9 10
11
12
10 1.2 2.7 4.6 6.8 9.3
20 0.6 1.4 2.4 3.8 5.4 7.2 9.2 11
25 0.5 1.1
2
3.1 4.4 5.9 7.6 9.5 11
50 0.3 0.6
1
1.6 2.2
75 0.2 0.4 0.7
1
1.5
3
3.9
2
2.7 3.4 4.1
100 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.5
2
125 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6
5
5.9 6.9
2.5 3.1 3.8 4.5 5.2 6.1
2
2.5
3
1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5
7
3.6 4.2 4.9 5.6 6.3 7.2
3.5 4.1 4.7 5.3
175
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6
200
0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8
225
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7
250
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8
275
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5
3
3.5
4
1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.5
1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8
2
6
8.9 9.9
0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7
1
3
8
150
300
1
5
4.6 5.1 5.8 6.4 7.1
4
2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5
4.5
5
4
4.5
5
5.5
4
4.5
5
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6
1
1.3 1.5 1.8
2
6.7 7.5 8.3
2.3 2.7
3
5.6 6.2
3.4 3.8 4.2
Design
Shared Use Paths
46
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
R
(ft)
S = Stopping Sight Distance (ft)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
25
2.0
7.6
15.9
50
1.0
3.9
8.7
15.2 23.0 31.9 41.5
75
0.7
2.7
5.9
10.4 16.1 22.8 30.4 38.8 47.8 57.4 67.2
95
0.5
2.1
4.7
8.3
12.9 18.3 24.7 31.8 39.5 48.0 56.9 66.3 75.9 85.8
125 0.4
1.6
3.6
6.3
9.9
14.1 19.1 24.7 31.0 37.9 45.4 53.3 61.7 70.6 79.7
155 0.3
1.3
2.9
5.1
8.0
11.5 15.5 20.2 25.4 31.2 37.4 44.2 51.4 59.1 67.1
175 0.3
1.1
2.6
4.6
7.1
10.2 13.8 18.0 22.6 27.8 33.5 39.6 46.1 53.1 60.5
200 0.3
1.0
2.2
4.0
6.2
8.9
12.1 15.8 19.9 24.5 29.5 34.9 40.8 47.0 53.7
225 0.2
0.9
2.0
3.5
5.5
8.0
10.8 14.1 17.8 21.9 26.4 31.3 36.5 42.2 48.2
250 0.2
0.8
1.8
3.2
5.0
7.2
9.7
12.7 16.0 19.7 23.8 28.3 33.1 38.2 43.7
275 0.2
0.7
1.6
2.9
4.5
6.5
8.9
11.6 14.6 18.0 21.7 25.8 30.2 34.9 39.9
300 0.2
0.7
1.5
2.7
4.2
6.0
8.1
10.6 13.4 16.5 19.9 23.7 27.7 32.1 36.7
350 0.1
0.6
1.3
2.3
3.6
5.1
7.0
9.1
11.5 14.2 17.1 20.4 23.9 27.6 31.7
390 0.1
0.5
1.2
2.1
3.2
4.6
6.3
8.2
10.3 12.8 15.4 18.3 21.5 24.9 28.5
500 0.1
0.4
0.9
1.6
2.5
3.6
4.9
6.4
8.1
10.0 12.1 14.3 16.8 19.5 22.3
565
0.4
0.8
1.4
2.2
3.2
4.3
5.7
7.2
8.8
10.7 12.7 14.9 17.3 19.8
600
0.3
0.8
1.3
2.1
3.0
4.1
5.3
6.7
8.3
10.1 12.0 14.0 16.3 18.7
700
0.3
0.6
1.1
1.8
2.6
3.5
4.6
5.8
7.1
8.6
10.3 12.0 14.0 16.0
800
0.3
0.6
1.0
1.6
2.2
3.1
4.0
5.1
6.2
7.6
9.0
10.5 12.2 14.0
900
0.2
0.5
0.9
1.4
2.0
2.7
3.6
4.5
5.6
6.7
8.0
9.4
10.9 12.5
1000
0.2
0.5
0.8
1.3
1.8
2.4
3.2
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.2
8.4
9.8
11.2
Table 4. English Units. Minimum Lateral Clearance (M) for Horizontal Curves
Path-Roadway Intersections
Intersections between paths and roadways are often the most critical issue in shared use path design. Due to the potential conflicts at these
junctions, careful design is of paramount importance to the safety of path
users and motorists alike. The solutions provided in this chapter should
be considered guidelines, not absolutes. Each intersection is unique and
will require sound engineering judgment on the part of the designer as to
the appropriate solution.
There are three basic categories of path-roadway intersections:
midblock, adjacent path and complex. The following discussion provides guidance for each of these categories. Each of these intersection
types may cross any number of roadway lanes, divided or undivided,
with varying speeds and volumes of motor vehicle traffic, and may be
uncontrolled, or more typically, sign or signal controlled. Only at-grade
crossings are addressed in this section.
Design
Shared Use Paths
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
47
Midblock Crossings
Varies - see MUTCD Section 9B
30 m (100 ft)
W1-1
Midblock type crossings are the most straightforward of the three configurations. Figure 20 shows an example of a midblock crossing. Midblock
crossings should be far enough away from existing intersections between
roadways to be clearly separate from the activity that occurs as motorists
approach these intersections (such as merging movements, acceleration/
deceleration or preparations to enter turn lanes). There are many other
variables to consider when designing this type of intersection, including
right of way assignment, traffic control devices, sight distance for both bicyclists and motor vehicle operators, refuge island use, access control,
and pavement marking. These issues are discussed in more detail later in
this section.
2.4 m 10 m 2.4 m
(8 ft) (30 ft) (8 ft)
Roadway
Intersection traffic control devices as warranted
depending on conditions.
See MUTCD.
Path
15 m
1.2 m (4 ft)
1.5 m (5 ft)
1.2 m (4 ft)
W2-1
Figure 20. Midblock Type Path Crossing
Another important consideration for midblock crossings is the treatment
for a skewed crossing. Figure 21 depicts a path realignment to achieve a
90-degree crossing. A minimum 45-degree crossing angle may be acceptable to minimize right-of-way requirements.
Design
Shared Use Paths
48
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
Roadway
Figure 21. Typical Redesign of a Diagonal Road Crossing
Adjacent Path Crossings
Adjacent path crossings occur where a path crosses a roadway at an existing intersection between two roadways, whether it is a T-intersection
(including driveways) or a simple four-legged intersection (Figure 22). It
is preferable that this type of crossing be carefully integrated close to the
intersection so as to allow motorists and path users alike to recognize
each other as intersecting traffic. With this configuration, the path user is
faced with potential conflicts with motor vehicles turning left (A) and
right (B) from the parallel roadway, and on the crossed roadway (C, D, E).
The major road may be either the parallel or crossed roadway. Right-ofway assignment, traffic control devices, and separation distance between the roadway and path are also important variables which greatly
affect the design of this intersection. Further complicating the situation is
the possibility of the conflicts being unexpected by both path users and
motorists. Clear sight lines across corners are especially important.
In a Type A turning movement (see Figure 22), it may be advisable to prohibit permissive left turns on a high-volume parallel roadway and highuse path crossings. For turning movement Type B, as small as practical
corner turning radius may be required to reduce the speeds of motor vehicles. For Type C and D movements, it may be advisable to prohibit
right-turns-on-red and place a stop bar in advance of the path crossing.
To account for vehicle movement E, it may require an all-red phase to
protect the path users.
Design
Shared Use Paths
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
49
Parallel Roadway
Intersecting Roadway
Path
Figure 22. Example of Adjacent Path Intersection
Complex Intersection Crossings
Complex intersection crossings constitute all other path-roadway or
driveway junctions. These may include a variety of configurations at
which the path crosses directly through an existing intersection between
two (or more) roadways and there may be any number of motor vehicle
turning movements.
Improvements to complex crossings must be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Some suggested treatments which may be considered include: (1) move the crossing, (2) install a signal, (3) change
signalization timing, or (4) provide a refuge island and make a two-step
crossing for path users. Particularly for complex intersection crossings, it
is critical that the designer treat each situation as a unique challenge
which requires creativity as well as sound engineering judgment. The
safe passage of all modes through the intersection is the goal to be
achieved.
Assigning Right of Way
Volume, speed and highway classification should not be the only criteria
to consider when assigning right of way at a path crossing. The comfort
and convenience of the path user, and the unique behavioral characteristics of the path user and motorist alike, must also be taken into
consideration.
Regarding behavior, it must be recognized that some path users may
have:
❍ very low delay tolerance
❍ a strong desire to maintain momentum
Design
Shared Use Paths
50
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
❍ little traffic knowledge (particularly children)
❍ sometimes a “regulations don’t apply to me” mentality
Assigning incorrect priority or being overly restrictive in an attempt to
protect the path user can lead to confusion and unsafe practices by both
path users and motorists, increasing the potential for a collision.
Other Intersection Design Issues
Regardless of the type of path-roadway intersection, there are several
other design issues to consider.
Traffic Signals/Stop Signs: A regulatory traffic control device should be
installed at all path-roadway intersections. Warrants from the MUTCD 2
combined with sound engineering judgment should also be considered
when determining the type of traffic control device to be installed.
Traffic signals for path-roadway intersections are appropriate under certain circumstances. The MUTCD 2 lists 11 warrants for traffic signals,
and although path crossings are not addressed, bicycle traffic on the path
may be functionally classified as vehicular traffic and the warrants applied accordingly.
For manually-operated signal actuation mechanisms, the bicyclist signal
button should be located in a position that is easily accessible from the
path and 1.2 m (4 feet) above the ground, so that bicyclists will not have
to dismount to activate the signal. Another method of activating the signal is to provide a detector loop in the path pavement; however, this
must be supplemented with a manually-activated signal, since the loop
detector will not respond to pedestrians. On signalized divided roadways, a push button should also be located in the median to account for
those path users who may have been trapped in the refuge area.
Path stop signs should be placed as close to the intended stopping point
as possible, and should be supplemented with a stop bar. Four-way stops
at path-roadway intersections are not recommended because of frequent
confusion about or disregard for right of way rules. Yield signs may be
acceptable at some locations, such as low-volume, low-speed neighborhood streets. Sign type, size and location should be in accordance with
the MUTCD 2. Care should be taken to ensure that shared use path signs
are located so that motorists are not confused by them, and that roadway
signs are placed so that bicyclists are not confused by them.
Transition Zones: Where shared use paths terminate at existing roads, it
is important to integrate the path into the existing system of roadways.
Care should be taken to properly design the terminals to transition the
traffic into a safe merging or diverging situation. Appropriate signing is
necessary to warn and direct both bicyclists and motorists regarding
these transition areas.
With this in mind, the designer should consider each path-roadway intersection along the length of the path as a potential entry/exit point.
Design
Shared Use Paths
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
51
Intersection design should also consider the movements of path users
who either enter the path from the road, or plan to exit the path and use
the roadway for the remainder of their trip.
Sight Distance: Sight distance is a principal element of roadway and
path intersection design. There are generally three sight distance issues
that apply to junctions: (1) stopping sight distance, (2) intersection sight
distance, and (3) decision sight distance.
Stopping sight distance is covered by Figure 19 and Table 3 of this chapter, along with the accompanying text in that section. Improving
appropriate intersection sight distances for approaching motorists can
increase the likelihood that they will notice path users who are approaching the intersection. This can be achieved by increasing the
standard perception-reaction time value of 2.5 seconds for motorists’
stopping sight distance or by using the most appropriate decision sight
distance value from Table III-3 in the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book 1), although none of these
specifically address path crossings.
Decision sight distance may also be applied to bicyclists, but differs in
concept from the motorist-based application. For bicyclists, it involves
providing clear sight lines that are based on the distances that approaching motor vehicles will travel in the amount of time a bicyclist takes to
fully clear the intersection from a “stop-go” decision point located at the
stopping sight distance from the pavement edge. This concept acknowledges bicyclists’ desire to maintain momentum.
Approach Treatments: Shared use path intersections and approaches
should be on relatively flat grades. Stopping sight distance at intersections should be evaluated and adequate warning signs should be
provided to allow bicyclists to stop before reaching the intersection, especially on downgrades. Unpaved shared use paths should be provided
with paved aprons extending a minimum of 3 m (10 feet) from paved
road surfaces.
Ramp Widths: Ramps for curbs at intersections should be at least the
same width as the shared use path. Curb cuts and ramps should provide a
smooth transition between the shared use path and the roadway. A 1.5 m
(5-foot) radius or flare may be considered to facilitate right turns for bicycles. This same consideration could also be applied to intersections of
two shared use paths.
Refuge Islands: Refuge islands should be considered for path-roadway
intersections in which one or more of the following apply: (1) high volumes of roadway traffic and/or speeds create unacceptable conditions
for path users, (2) roadway width is excessive given the available crossing time, or (3) the crossing will be used by a number of people who
cross more slowly, such as the elderly, schoolchildren, persons with disabilities, etc.
The refuge area should be large enough to accommodate platoons of users, including groups of pedestrians, groups of bicyclists, individual
tandem bicycles (which are considerably longer than standard bicycles),
Design
Shared Use Paths
52
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
wheelchairs, people with baby strollers and equestrians (if this is a permitted path use). The area may be designed with the storage aligned
across the island or longitudinally (see example in Figure 23). Adequate
space should be provided so that those in the refuge area do not feel
threatened by passing motor vehicles while waiting to finish the crossing.
Cut-through at grade
Raised islands
L
L
Path
W (offset) = Y
2
X
For Metric Units:
2
L = WV , where V < 70 km/h
155
Y = Width of refuge:
2.0 m (6 ft) = poor
2.5 m (8 ft) = satisfactory
3.0 m (10 ft) = good
For English Units:
2
L = WV , where V < 45 mph
60
L = WV, where V ≥ 45 mph
Figure 23. Specification for a Created Refuge Area
Shared Use Paths
Roadway
X = Length of island should be 2 m (6 ft)
or greater
L = 0.62 WV, where V ≥ 70 km/h
Design
Y
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
53
Signing and Marking
Adequate signing and marking are essential on shared use paths, especially to alert bicyclists to potential conflicts and to convey regulatory
messages to both bicyclists and motorists at highway intersections. In addition, guide signing, such as to indicate directions, destinations,
distances, route numbers and names of crossing streets, should be used
in the same manner as on highways. In general, uniform application of
traffic control devices, as described in the MUTCD 2, provides minimum
traffic control measures which should be applied.
A designer should consider a 100-mm (4-inch) wide yellow center line
stripe to separate opposite directions of travel. This stripe should be broken where adequate passing sight distance exists, and solid in other
locations, or where passing by bicycles should be discouraged. This may
be particularly beneficial in the following circumstances: (1) for heavy
volumes of bicycles and/or other users, (2) on curves with restricted sight
distance, and (3) on unlighted paths where nighttime riding is expected.
White edge lines can also be very beneficial where bicycle traffic is expected during early evening hours.
General guidance on signing and marking is provided in the MUTCD 2.
Care should be exercised in the choice of pavement marking materials.
Additional signing can also be helpful to encourage users to share the
path and follow path user etiquette such as giving audible signals before
passing on the left. Warning signs should also be used in areas where the
recommended criteria herein cannot be met due to physical constraints.
Reduced versions [450 mm x 450 mm (18” x 18”)] of the signs in Section
9B-13 of the MUTCD 2 may be used to warn users of sharp curves, intersections, etc.
Pavement markings at a crossing should accomplish two things: channel
path users to cross at a clearly defined location and provide a clear message to motorists that this particular section of the road must be shared
with other users.
For the path user, stop signs, stop bar pavement markings, yield signs,
caution signs or other devices should be used as applicable.
For a roadway user, a clear message must be presented in a location
where it will be seen by that user. Traditional treatments have included
the bicycle crossing sign (WII-I), the pedestrian crossing sign (WIIA-2),
the pedestrian crosswalk lines [double 150-mm (6-inch) lines spaced not
less than 1.8 m (6 feet) apart], or flashing yellow lights at the crosswalk.
However, signs are frequently placed at the side of the road, out of motorists’ line of sight, and historically, flashing yellow lights have also
been used at non-crosswalk applications. In recent years, new applications have been developed, including the following, which may be
suitable for urban and suburban settings, but may not be suitable for rural
areas:
❍ “Zebra-style" or colorized pavement crosswalks, which are far
more visible than traditional designs.
Design
Shared Use Paths
54
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
❍ Raised platform crosswalks, which can be useful to define roadway
space for non-motorized users and stress the need for motorists to
yield to that space.
❍ Pedestrian-friendly intersection crossings, which incorporate appropriate signal heads and infrared motion detectors, pressure mats
or other technologies.
❍ Midblock neck-downs or intersection curb-bulbs at the crossing to
shorten the crossing distance.
The above suggestions should be considered on a case-by-case basis and
should always be evaluated with regard to the safest overall method for
accommodating both path users and roadway users.
Pavement Structure
Hard, all-weather pavement surfaces are usually preferred over those of
crushed aggregate, sand, clay or stabilized earth since these materials
provide a much lower level of service and require higher maintenance.
However, operating agencies that have chosen crushed aggregate as
their surface material have found that they can achieve a completed path
in less time and at less cost than with asphalt or concrete. Also, they have
found that skaters were not drawn to the path, and bicyclists’ speeds
were lower, making the path more comfortable for other users. In areas
that are subjected to frequent or even occasional flooding or drainage
problems, or in areas of steep terrain, unpaved surfaces will often erode
and are not recommended.
Good quality all-weather pavement structures can be constructed of asphalt or Portland cement concrete. Because of wide variations in soils,
loads, materials, construction practices and varying costs of pavement
materials, it is not practical to present specific or recommended typical
structural sections that will be applicable nationwide. In areas where climates are extreme, the effects of freeze-thaw cycles should be
anticipated in the design phase. Attention to local governing conditions
and the principles outlined in this section is needed. Experience in highway pavement, together with sound engineering judgment, can assist in
the selection and design of a proper path pavement structure and may
identify energy-conserving practices, such as the use of sulfur-extended
asphalt, asphalt emulsions and fused waste.
Designing and selecting pavement sections for shared use paths is in
many ways similar to designing and selecting highway pavement sections. A soils investigation should be conducted to determine the loadcarrying capabilities of the native soil, unimproved shoulder or former
railroad bed (if ballast has been removed), and the need for any special
provisions.
While loads on shared use paths will be substantially less than highway
loads, paths should be designed to sustain without damage wheel loads
of occasional emergency, patrol, maintenance and other motor vehicles
expected to use or cross the path.
Design
Shared Use Paths
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
55
It is important to construct and maintain a smooth riding surface on
shared use paths. Pavements should be machine laid; soil sterilants
should be used where necessary to prevent vegetation from erupting
through the pavement. On Portland cement concrete pavements, the
transverse joints, necessary to control cracking, should be saw cut to provide a smooth ride. On the other hand, skid resistance qualities should
not be sacrificed for the sake of smoothness. Broom finish or burlap drag
concrete surfaces are preferred.
When motor vehicles are driven on shared use paths, their wheels often
will be at or very near the edges of the path. Since this can cause edge
damage that, in turn, will reduce the effective operating width of the
path, adequate edge support should be provided. Edge support can be either in the form of stabilized shoulders or constructing additional
pavement width or thickness. Constructing a typical pavement width of
3.0 m (10 feet), where right-of-way and other conditions permit, lessens
the edge raveling problem and offers two additional advantages over
shoulder construction on shared use paths. First, it allows additional maneuvering space for bicyclists, and second, the additional construction
cost can be less than the cost of constructing shoulders because a separate construction operation is eliminated.
At unpaved highway or driveway crossings of shared use paths, the highway or driveway should be paved a minimum of 3 m (10 feet) on each
side of the crossing to reduce the amount of gravel being scattered along
the path by motor vehicles. The pavement structure at the crossing
should be adequate to sustain the expected loading at that location.
Structures
An overpass, underpass, bridge or facility on a highway bridge may be
necessary to provide continuity to a shared use path. An example of a
small bridge structure used to provide path continuity is shown in Figure
24. A bicycle facility on a highway structure is shown in Figure 25.
On new structures, the minimum clear width should be the same as the
approach paved shared use path, plus the minimum 0.6-m (2-foot) wide
clear areas. Carrying the clear areas across the structures has two advantages.
First, the clear width provides a minimum horizontal shy distance from
the railing or barrier, and second, it provides needed maneuvering space
to avoid conflicts with pedestrians and other bicyclists who are stopped
on the bridge. Access by emergency, patrol and maintenance vehicles
should be considered in establishing the design clearances of structures
on shared use paths. Similarly, vertical clearance may be dictated by occasional motor vehicles using the path. Where practical, a vertical
clearance of 3 m (10 feet) is desirable for adequate vertical shy distance.
Figure 24. Bridge Structure to Provide Bike
Path Continuity
Railings, fences or barriers on both sides of a path on a structure should
be a minimum of 1.1 m (42 inches) high.
Design
Shared Use Paths
56
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
Bridges should be designed for pedestrian live loadings. Where maintenance and emergency vehicles may be expected to cross the bridge, the
design should accommodate them. On all bridge decks, special care
should be taken to ensure that bicycle-safe expansion joints are used,
and that decking materials that become slippery when wet are avoided.
Where it is necessary to retrofit a shared use path onto an existing highway bridge, several alternatives should be considered in light of what the
geometrics of the bridge will allow.
Figure 25. Shared Use Path (Far Right)
on a Grade Separation Structure;
Note Bike Lane and Sidewalk.
One option is to carry the shared use path across the bridge on one side.
This should be done where 1) the bridge facility will connect to a path at
both ends, 2) sufficient width exists on that side of the bridge or can be
obtained by widening or restriping lanes, and 3) provisions are made to
physically separate bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic as discussed
previously.
A second option is to provide either wide curb lanes or bicycle lanes
over the bridge. This may be advisable where 1) the shared use path transitions into bicycle lanes at one end of the bridge and 2) sufficient width
exists or can be obtained by widening or restriping. This option should
only be exercised if the bike lane or wide outside lane can be accessed
without increasing the potential for wrong-way riding or inappropriate
crossing movements.
Because of the large number of variables involved in retrofitting bicycle
facilities onto existing bridges, compromises in desirable design criteria
are often inevitable. Therefore, the width to be provided is best determined by the designer, on a case-by-case basis, after thoroughly
considering all the variables.
Drainage
The recommended minimum pavement cross slope of 2 percent adequately provides for drainage. Sloping in one direction instead of
crowning is preferred and usually simplifies the drainage and surface
construction. A smooth surface is essential to prevent water ponding and
ice formation. On unpaved shared use paths, particular attention should
be paid to drainage to avoid erosion.
Where a shared use path is constructed on the side of a hill, a ditch of
suitable dimensions should be placed on the uphill side to intercept the
hillside drainage. Such ditches should be designed so that no undue obstacle is presented to bicyclists. Where necessary, catch basins with
drains should be provided to carry the intercepted water under the path.
Drainage grates and manhole covers should be located outside the travel
path of bicyclists. To assist in preventing erosion in the area adjacent to
the shared use path, the design should include considerations for preserving the natural ground cover. Seeding, mulching and sodding of
adjacent slopes, swales and other erodible areas should be included in
the project plans. Also see Chapter 2, Shared Roadways, for information
on drainage grates.
Design
Shared Use Paths
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
57
Lighting
Fixed-source lighting improves visibility along paths and at intersections.
In addition, lighting allows the bicyclist to see the path direction, surface
conditions and obstacles. Lighting for shared use paths is important and
should be considered where night usage is expected, such as paths serving college students or commuters, and at highway intersections.
Lighting should also be considered through underpasses or tunnels, and
when nighttime security could be an issue. Depending on the location,
average maintained horizontal illumination levels of 5 lux to 22 lux
should be considered. Where special security problems exist, higher illumination levels may be considered. Light standards (poles) should meet
the recommended horizontal and vertical clearances. Luminaires and
standards should be at a scale appropriate for a pedestrian.
Restriction of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Shared use paths may need some form of physical barrier at highway intersections to prevent unauthorized motor vehicles from using the
facilities. Provisions can be made for a lockable, removable (or reclining)
barrier post to permit entrance by authorized vehicles. Posts or bollards
should be set back beyond the clear zone on the crossing highway or be
of a breakaway design. The post should be permanently reflectorized for
nighttime visibility and painted a bright color for improved daytime visibility. Striping an envelope around the post is recommended as shown in
Figure 26. When more than one post is used, an odd number of posts at
1.5-m (5-foot) spacing is desirable. Wider spacing can allow entry to motor vehicles, while narrower spacing might prevent entry by adult
tricycles, wheelchair users, and bicycles with trailers.
3m
(10 ft)
Bike Path
Center Line
Stripe
0.3 m (1 ft)
0.3 m (1 ft)
100 mm (4 in) Yellow Stripe
Figure 26. Barrier Post Striping
An alternative method of restricting entry of motor vehicles is to split the
entry way into two 1.5-m (5-foot) sections separated by low landscaping.
Emergency vehicles can still enter if necessary by straddling the landscaping. The higher maintenance costs associated with landscaping
should be acknowledged before this alternative method is selected.
Design
Shared Use Paths
58
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
Undesirability of Sidewalks as Shared Use Paths
Utilizing or providing a sidewalk as a shared use path is unsatisfactory
for a variety of reasons. Sidewalks are typically designed for pedestrian
speeds and maneuverability and are not safe for higher speed bicycle
use. Conflicts are common between pedestrians traveling at low speeds
(exiting stores, parked cars, etc.) and bicyclists, as are conflicts with fixed
objects (e.g., parking meters, utility poles, sign posts, bus benches, trees,
fire hydrants, mail boxes, etc.) Walkers, joggers, skateboarders and
roller skaters can, and often do, change their speed and direction almost
instantaneously, leaving bicyclists insufficient reaction time to avoid collisions.
Similarly, pedestrians often have difficulty predicting the direction an
oncoming bicyclist will take. At intersections, motorists are often not
looking for bicyclists (who are traveling at higher speeds than pedestrians) entering the crosswalk area, particularly when motorists are making
a turn. Sight distance is often impaired by buildings, walls, property
fences and shrubs along sidewalks, especially at driveways. In addition,
bicyclists and pedestrians often prefer to ride or walk side-by-side when
traveling in pairs. Sidewalks are typically too narrow to enable this to occur without serious conflicts between users.
It is especially inappropriate to sign a sidewalk as a shared use path or
designated bike route if to do so would prohibit bicyclists from using an
alternate facility that might better serve their needs.
It is important to recognize that the development of extremely wide sidewalks does not necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle travel.
Wide sidewalks might encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase potential for conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections, as well
as with pedestrians and fixed objects. For guidance on when and how to
designate sidewalks as signed bikeways, see page 20.
Shared Use with Motorbikes, Horses and
Snowmobiles
Even where lawful, it is undesirable to mix mopeds or motorbikes with
bicycles and pedestrians on the same facility. In general, mopeds should
not be allowed on shared use paths because of conflicts with the slower
moving bicyclists and other users. Mopeds also diminish the quiet, relaxing experience most users desire on shared use paths. In some cases
where an alternate route for mopeds does not exist, additional width,
signing and striping should be used to minimize conflicts. Increased patrolling by law enforcement personnel is also recommended to enforce
speed limits and other rules of the road.
It is usually not desirable to mix horse riding and bicycle traffic on the
same shared use path. Bicyclists are often not aware of the need for
slower speeds and additional operating space near horses. Horses can be
startled easily and may be unpredictable if they perceive approaching bicyclists as a danger. In addition, pavement requirements for bicycle
Design
Shared Use Paths
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
59
travel are not suitable for horses. For these reasons, a bridle trail separate
from the shared use path is recommended to accommodate horses.
In winter sports areas during the winter months there is usually insufficient bicycle traffic to justify plowing snow, and managers of shared use
paths may allow them to be used by cross country skiers or snowmobile
operators.
Design
Shared Use Paths
Appendix E: Accessibility Requirements _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 120 2010 guide for the development of bicycle facilities
69
other problems. In addition, maps can provide information on Rules of
the Road, bicycle safety tips and interfacing with mass transit.
Accessibility Requirements
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. It
guarantees the right to participate fully and equally in all aspects of life.
Accessibility to transportation systems means providing usable facilities
for the highest number of people possible.
Accessible features can benefit almost everyone. What is helpful for a
wheelchair user, e.g., curb ramps, will also benefit bicyclists. Low grades
and cross slopes not only make a facility usable for people with mobility
impairments, but can also improve a transportation circulation system
for all pedestrians, bicyclists and inline skaters. There are 48.9 million
Americans with disabilities; 70 percent of all Americans will at some
time in their lives have a temporary or permanent disability that makes
such activities as stair climbing impossible. People may have mobility,
visual and cognitive disabilities that affect how usable a facility may be
for them. As our population grows older, the percentages of people with
disabilities will increase. What we build today will be with us for many
years. These designs need to accommodate as many users as possible.
When choosing bicycling or walking as a transportation mode, users often want a convenient, direct route that will not exhaust their energy in
getting to their destination. This can be especially true for people with
disabilities. Saving energy often is the reason a person chooses driving
over cycling and walking. Designers of shared use paths need to keep in
mind that well-designed accessible facilities are usually more functional
for all users, with and without disabilities.
Federal ADA standards have been developed for buildings and their
sites, but not for outdoor developed areas. Some states and localities
have developed their own standards for outdoor accessibility that must
be followed. Federal standards for this development, which would include shared use paths, are in the process of being drafted by a
Committee of Federal agencies and interested organizations. It is understood that constructing facilities in the outdoors may have certain
limitations that may make it difficult to build fully accessible paths. The
conditions that would prevent full accessibility include those that:
❍ Cause harm to significant natural, cultural, historic or religious
characteristics of a site
❍ Alter the fundamental experience of the setting or intended purpose of the trail
❍ Require construction methods that are prohibited by federal, state
or local regulations
❍ Involve terrain characteristics (e.g., slope, soils, geologic or
aquatic) that prevent compliance with the technical provision
Design
Other Design Considerations
70
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
Many of the provisions being developed by the Regulatory Negotiation
Committee on Outdoor Developed Areas, such as surface treatment,
minimum path width, changes in the level surface, and passing space,
will automatically be met in the construction of a path suitable for bicycle travel.
Once these provisions are adopted, they should be consulted when designing bicycle facilities.
What if an existing path is not accessible? Do as much as possible to remove the barriers. Good signing at the trail access points that identify
situations that could be difficult to traverse (such as steep grade and cross
slope, narrow width and uneven surface conditions) will help users determine for themselves whether to use the path.
Rationale for Accessible Design
Understanding how people with various disabilities function in the outdoor transportation environment is the first step in trying to
accommodate their design needs.
Wheelchair Users—Low running grades, preferably below 5 percent, are
desirable because exertion is needed to push up, and controlling the
wheelchair going down on steep grades is a problem.
Cross slopes should be no more than 2-3 percent. The greater the cross
slope the greater the gravity pull on the wheelchair to turn into the slope.
Combining a steep running grade with a steep cross slope increases the
difficulty of maneuvering a wheelchair. On a hardened or paved surface,
a 2 percent cross slope will drain off water in most cases.
Amenities, such as phones, water fountains and pedestrian-actuated signal controls, need to be placed no higher than 2.4 m (4 feet) from the
ground level. Wheelchair users have a lower reach range and a lower
sight perspective of the environment. The buttons on actuated signals
need to be large, protruding and easy to push for those who have limited
mobility in their hands. The buttons also need to be placed in an accessible path of travel for a wheelchair user.
Visually Impaired—Most sighted people get their directional and spatial
cues visually. People who are totally blind get their cues from sound and
touch. People with low vision (78 percent of the legally blind population) may have an additional advantage of detecting contrasting colors.
Older people often lose their hearing and vision at the same time, creating a compound difficulty. Older individuals, who lose their vision
gradually, may not be trained in wayfinding techniques. Cars are getting
quieter, curb radii wider, and street crossings longer. All these factors
contribute to a hostile pedestrian environment, especially for the visually
impaired.
Curb ramps are typically thought of as an accommodation for bicyclists
and wheelchair users, but they can be used by the visually impaired as a
warning of the transition from the path to the street. If they fail to detect
Design
Other Design Considerations
guide for the development of bicycle facilities
71
the ramp, they are at risk of walking into the street, which may result in
serious consequences. If the ramp grade is low, a visually impaired person may not detect the transition. Detectable warnings and contrasting
colors at the bottom of ramps may help detect the presence of a curb
ramp. A tradeoff may exist between the visually impaired and mobility
impaired when using truncated domed surfaces, because maneuverability may be more difficult for both the bicyclist and the mobility impaired.
People with Limited Cognitive Abilities—We are learning that children
under the age of 12 do not often think about the rules of the road (path),
even when they have been taught. Their ability to take in and perceive
the road environment, and then perform the multiple tasks needed to
make fast decisions, may not be developed. Planners and designers need
to take into account the mixing of faster moving modes with pedestrians
when determining facility design, especially if the path is a school route.
Adults with cognitive disabilities may benefit from easy-to-interpret
signs. This may be particularly important when a path intersects with another path or street.
Design
Other Design Considerations
Appendix F: Maintenance Activities _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 124 2010 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES When assessing trail maintenance needs, the following groups of general maintenance categories should be considered. Some of the more common maintenance activities required to remedy deficiencies identified during the annual trail evaluation could include: Trail Maintenance – Vegetation: • Brushing/clearing areas • Remove fallen trees/branches • Hazard tree removal • Slope re‐vegetation • Back slope grooming • Vista maintenance • Poison Ivy removal (herbicide) Structure Maintenance: • Bridge repair • Cribbing/retaining wall repair • Barrier/guardrail repair • Steps/Peron repair • Fence/gate/style repair • Shelter repair Sign Maintenance: • Sign repair/rehabilitation • Sign replacement • Barricade/closure device repair Tread Maintenance: • Grading Tread (slump repair, etc) • Spot surfacing • Turnpike repair • Surface replacement • Surface Repair • Remove loose rocks Drainage Maintenance: • Cleaning/repairing structures o Culverts/waterbars o Grade dips/drainage ditches • Replacement of existing structures o Culverts/under drains • Install additional drainage structures o Waterbars/culverts/grade dips Litter Clean up: • Old dumps near trail
• Current discarded litter
Trail Maintenance‐Vegetation: All side branches extending into the trail clearing should be cut flush with the parent branch or stem, leaving no stubs. This is safer, lasts longer, and also allows for the wound to heal naturally. Small trees and shrubs within the tread should be grubbed out to prevent tripping. Holes should be filled and compacted. Trees and brush outside the tread (but inside the trail clearing) should be cut as close to the ground as possible, leaving no sharp or pointed stumps or stems. Unless prohibited by ROS setting, using power mowers in open grassy areas or power brush saws in brushy areas should be considered. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 125 2010 r2s – University of Northern Iowa Fallen branches and trees should be removed except for a few large trees/logs near access points. On larger logs, remove a section only the width of the tread to further restrict unwanted use. In high use sections of the trail or near camping areas, dead or dying trees that have a high possibility of falling across the trail or camping area should be removed. In Primitive ROS areas, only those trees that may be a serious hazard to users should be removed. Tread Maintenance: When tread repair is needed; it should be restored to the original design condition, free of loose stones, rock points, stumps, and roots. Attention should be given to dips and out sloping so that water does not collect on the trail. Drainage Maintenance: Proper drainage protects the trail from erosion damage. Trails should be routinely inspected to ensure that all culverts, dips, waterbars, drainage ditches, etc. are free of debris and ready to function properly at all times – especially during the rainy season or spring runoff. Routine maintenance is not only necessary, but valuable in terms of labor, material, and money saved on emergency repairs, and in the number of days the trail is useable. If repairs are necessary, they should meet or exceed the original construction specifications. Trail and Support Structure Maintenance: The major consideration in structure maintenance is safety. Bridges, stiles, boardwalks and all support structures should be routinely inspected to ensure safe conditions and intended function (see bridge inspection requirement in Chapter 5). The trail crew should provide minor maintenance of structures. Deficiencies requiring major efforts should be planned as a separate project. Unsafe structures should not remain unattended. If work must be temporarily deferred, an alternate trail route should provide a bypass of the hazard. FREQUENCY OF MAINTENANCE Most trail segments need maintenance about three times a year. Prior to Memorial Day – This may be the maintenance period that involves the most work. The objective is to get the trail ready for the spring hikers. In addition to general trail cleanup, some of the more important tasks are to: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Remove tree limbs and fallen trees from the trail, and prune encroaching limbs as needed. Repaint or replace the blazes if they are faded or missing. Make sure that all signs and trails emblems are in place and well maintained. Inspect for water in the trail and take corrective action. Carefully inspect all bridges – immediate safety needs should be met and tasks that are too large for immediate action noted. Maintain all trailheads, campsites, and other support structures. Keep a list of larger jobs or those that require different tools that will require attention at some other time. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 126 2010 •
•
Schedule time for major projects that were identified – round up tools and helpers. Pick up litter. Mid‐Summer – Early July is a good time to take care of annual growth so that the trail is kept clear and relatively easy to hike. Weeds and briars should not assault the hiker. Some of the key jobs for mid‐summer are to: •
•
•
•
•
•
Mow or cut all weeds, brambles, briars, and high grass encroaching on the trail. On sections of the trail that pass though fields or other places receiving direct sunlight, mowing may have to be done on a more frequent basis – perhaps monthly throughout the summer. Brambles and briars may need to be grubbed out by the roots to prevent rapid regrowth. Prune all brush and overhanging limbs that have grown into the trail clearing – all blazes and signs must be visible. Complete the larger jobs that could not be completed the previous spring. Maintain and improve waterbars, drainage ditches, and all trail structures. Be alert for noxious or exotic plant species – remove, kill, or inventory them for future vegetative management projects. Pick up litter Fall ‐ Fall maintenance is geared toward preparing the trail for the winter months. This is a time for: •
•
•
•
Finish any uncompleted jobs and recheck blazes and signs – replace and repair as necessary. Be sure campsites and shelters are clean and in good repair. Contact landowners to thank them for their support. Pick up litter. ORGANIZING THE CREW Experience and knowledge of the trail will help determine what tools to take and how many people to recruit. The most efficient way to manage trail crews goes by various names – the “overseer” system, the ”trail sponsor” system, the “adopt‐a‐trail” system. The key is that one person is responsible for a particular segment of trail on a permanent basis, if possible. It is their responsibility to see that the trail segment is maintained, either working by themselves or by recruiting helpers. The advantage of this system is that the adopter becomes well acquainted with the segment, can deal efficiently with problem areas, and can judge how much and how often work is needed to keep the segment maintained. A disadvantage of this system is that a segment can become so familiar that problems are overlooked or it becomes boring for the adopter. One way to overcome this problem is to rotate adopters between segments every few years. The annual trail evaluation or pre‐workday trip by the adopter can serve as an assessment of the work to be done and will facilitate crew organization. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 127 2010 The exact kind and number of tools for a crew varies from one part of the country to another. In general, tools, which are capable of cutting weeds, pruning branches, removing logs, digging and leveling trail, and cleaning waterbars, are desirable. It is advantageous to rotate tools among trail workers to provide relief from repetitive motion and effort. CLEANUP The trail must be cleared of all debris following clearing or heavy maintenance. Maintenance results should appear neat and hardly noticeable to a hiker. Inadequate clean up can spoil even the most thorough clearing job. One person on the crew should be assigned the responsibility for this job. All cut growth should be carried off the trail and scattered – not piled. If eroding gullies are nearby, the cut material can be placed in the gully to slow the water and catch sediment. All flagging, construction stakes and debris, litter, etc., should be removed. MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION TIPS Work should be organized so every section of trail is left as complete and finished as possible. Use should be found for as much disturbed material as possible. On every trail there are points where excess material must be removed and sections where material will be needed. Rock and soil removed from a cut on one section can be used as fill on another nearby section. A trail does not have to be worked progressively from beginning to end. Priority should be given to sections needing the most attention. The cut sections may be worked first, followed by the fill areas. Water diversions should be installed prior to trail surfacing work to allow for natural drying and easier working conditions. If two crews are working along the same trail, work assignments and locations should be scheduled to allow for exchange of equipment and materials. When constructing new trail, a short, unworked section should be left next to access roads until last – this eliminates premature use. As construction and maintenance is finished in a segment, clean up should also be completed. Postponing trailside clean up until later is poor procedure – it seldom gets done. Time should be taken to do the job correctly the first time around to avoid having to repeat the task Clearing Flagging should be carried for temporary trail marking or to identify work to be done. For light pruning work that is within easy reach, hand pruning shears are quicker and easier than long handled loppers. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 128 2010 A couple of large downed logs should be left near trail access points to discourage wheeled motorized vehicle use. Farther down the trail, a section the width of the trail tread can be cut out of large fallen logs for the same purpose. All main stems should be cut as close to the ground as possible – or grubbed out. It is very important to avoid leaving short stubs (trippers) as they are a safety hazard. Cut hardwood stems resprout easily, therefore grubbing is the preferred method as it is a one time treatment. Larger logs should be carried to the downhill side of the trail and placed perpendicular to the face of the hill to prevent them from rolling and creating a safety hazard. If a branch needs to be pruned, it should be cut next to the trunk to make it look natural and let the wound heal properly. Larger limbs should be undercut first to prevent peeling the bark from the trunk when the limb falls. Conifer branches and weak trees, such as alder, are easily weighted down with heavy snow or rain and may require extra clearing. Signs When using Carsonite posts, the optional anchor at the bottom should always be installed. This makes them even harder for vandals to remove from the ground while adding little expense. When installing wooden posts, a piece of scrap lumber should be nailed to the lower part of the post. It is easier to nail it parallel to the post – this method is just as effective as a perpendicular arrangement and allows for a smaller posthole. Painting Clean, neat ways to carry and apply paint should be practiced. The following suggestions should be considered: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A 1” wide brush spreads wider during painting. Some prefer using a 2” brush and little pressure so that the blaze doesn’t get to wide. To illustrate the proper blaze size, a dollar bill is very close to 2” x 6”. Flat gray or brown spray paint should be carried for use in obliterating old trail blazes. Old gloves, a wire brush, and a 2 ½” paint scraper are handy tools. Paint can be kept in an old, snap‐top detergent bottle. Applying small amounts of paint to the brush can ensure a neater job. A paintbrush and a small can (to hold paint) are easily carried inside a gallon paint bucket. For comfort, a piece of hose can be slipped over the paint bucket handle or it can be replaced with a wooden handle. Cans lined with plastic bags make for easy cleanup. Extra plastic bags kept in the vehicle are handy. Brushes can be wrapped in plastic so they won’t dry out until cleaned at home. Another method is to bring along mineral spirits or water (depending on the type of paint used) to cover the bristles of the brush. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 129 2010 This can be stored in a sturdy, sealable container. Extra care should be taken to avoid leakage. Taken from Pacific Northwest Trail Maintenance Manual, pgs. 81 – 88. Found on the Pacific Northwest Trail Association’s website http://www.pnt.org/ _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 130 2010 Appendix G: Easements _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 131 2010 Legal "Scope" of Easements After an easement is created, questions often arise concerning the location, dimensions, and scope of the interest. These questions must be resolved on a case‐by‐case basis, and are impacted by the method of the easement's creation. Questions involving matters clearly covered by the written document, or the prior use or necessity that created the easement, may be resolved relatively easily. However, sometimes the written document, prior use, or necessity does not clearly resolve the question of scope. Written documents creating easements are often vague or incomplete, and inferences from prior use or necessity are imprecise. In these cases, the parties' intent is uncertain and must be construed by the courts. Rights and Remedies Under an Easement As a general rule, an easement holder has a right to do "whatever is reasonably convenient or necessary in order to enjoy fully the purposes for which the easement was granted," as long as he or she does not place an unreasonable burden on the servient land. Conversely, the owner of the servient land may make any use of that land that does not unduly interfere with the easement holder's use of the easement. What constitutes an undue burden depends upon the facts of each individual situation. For instance, an increase in traffic over an easement giving access to a beach resort may not necessarily constitute an undue burden. But, the traffic resulting from changing a dominant estate from private use to a commercial business might constitute an additional burden on the servient estate. Reasonable use of an easement is not fixed at a particular point in time. The concept of reasonableness includes a consideration of changes in the surrounding area, as well as technological developments. For instance, courts have allowed an easement holder to convert a railroad right of way to a recreational trail, cut trees within an access easement, and replace a low‐pressure gas pipeline with high‐pressure equipment. If a court determines that a servient estate is unduly burdened by an unreasonable use of the easement, the servient estate holder has several potential legal remedies. These include court orders restricting the dominant owner to an appropriate enjoyment of the easement, monetary damages when the easement holder exceeds the scope of his or her rights and injures the servient estate, and in some cases extinguishment of the easement. Likewise, remedies exist for interference by the servient owner. Interference with an easement is a form of trespass, and courts frequently order the removal of an obstruction to an easement, i.e. by ordering the removal of encroaching structures at the servient owner's expense. If interference with an easement causes diminution in the value of the dominant estate, courts may also award compensatory damages to the easement holder. Transferability The transferability of easements must also be considered when undertaking a real estate transaction. An easement's transferability depends on its nature (i.e. whether it is appurtenant _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 132 2010 or in gross). In general, an easement appurtenant is transferred with the dominant property even if this is not mentioned in the transferring document. But, the document transferring the dominant estate may expressly provide that the easement shall not pass with the land. Because easements in gross are treated as a right of personal enjoyment for the original holder, they are generally not transferable. Recreational rights such as hunting, camping and fishing are the most common examples of nontransferable easements in gross. However, several states have enacted statutes designed to facilitate the transfer of easements in gross. The transfer of easements in gross for commercial uses such as telephones, pipelines, transmission lines, and railroads is often permitted. Other Legal Issues to Consider Courts generally assume easements are created to last forever, unless otherwise indicated in the document creating the easement. Despite this, an individual granting an easement should avoid any potential legal or interpretive problem by expressly providing that the easement is permanent. Although permanent easements are the norm, they can be terminated in a number of ways. For instance, an easement may be created for a limited time or conditional duration, so that the easement ends when the time passes or the condition occurs. Easements of limited duration are commonly used to provide temporary access to a dominant estate pending the completion of construction work. An easement may also be terminated when an individual owning the dominant estate purchases the servient estate, or when the holder of an easement releases his or her right in the easement to the owner of the servient estate. This release must be in writing. Abandonment of an easement can also extinguish the interest, but as a general rule mere nonuse of an easement does constitute abandonment. Under some circumstances, misuse or the sale of a servient estate may terminate an easement. Finally, condemnation of an easement by a public authority, or condemnation of the servient estate for a purpose that conflicts with the easement, terminates an existing easement. Easements: Getting Legal Help Easements give an easement holder the right to use or to prevent the use of property he or she does not own or possess. This places the easement holder and the possessor of the servient estate in the unique position of simultaneously utilizing the same piece of land. The prevalence of easements and their non‐possessory nature creates a unique set of considerations in drafting, interpretation and implementation. It is essential to have a basic understanding of the manner in which they are created, their scope, transferability, and methods of termination. Whether an individual or a business wishes to create an easement, purchase property burdened by an easement, or determine the nature of a property interest, the assistance of a land use attorney can be an invaluable asset. Uses of Easements _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 133 2010 Once an easement is created, the holder of the easement rights has the right and the duty to maintain the easement for its stated purpose, unless otherwise agreed between the holder of the easement rights and the owner of the underlying property. The holder of the easement rights can make repairs and improvements to the easement, provided that those repairs or improvements do not interfere with the rights of the owner of the property through which the easement exists. Termination of Easements Unlike other types of interests in land, easements may be terminated by abandonment under certain circumstances. The easement holder's simply stating a desire to abandon the easement is not enough, because words alone are legally insufficient to constitute abandonment. However, if the easement holder intends to abandon an easement and also takes actions which demonstrate that intent, that may be sufficient to show abandonment of the easement, and the easement may be terminated. An action that qualifies as showing "intent to abandon" an easement is an easement holder's non‐use of the easement for an extended period of time. Easements and Transfer of Land When land is transferred ‐‐ by purchase, lease, or otherwise ‐‐ one issue that should be kept in mind is that of easements that may (or may not) be tied to the land. Easement Appurtenant When the title is transferred, the easement typically remains with the property. This case is known as an easement appurtenant. This type of easement "runs with the land," which means that if the property is bought or sold, it is bought or sold with the easement in place. The easement essentially becomes part of the legal description. If a parcel of property with an easement across it is sub‐divided into smaller lots and sold to different people, and the geography is such that each of the smaller lots can benefit from the easement, then each will usually be permitted to use the easement. Easement in Gross Traditionally, easements in gross were easements that could not be transferred and were not tied to a particular piece of land. A person could grant an easement across a residence to a neighbor, but this type of easement would not continue if the neighbor (holder of the easement rights) sold the property. Today, courts typically refer to these types of easements as "personal" easements. Nevertheless, an easement that began as personal may be transferable, particularly if it is a commercial easement, such as a utility easement. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 134 2010 Types of Easements Affirmative and Negative Easements Most easements fall under one of two categories: affirmative easements and negative easements. As will be discussed below, the key difference is whether the person holding the easement right is allowed to do something (affirmative) or required to not do something. Affirmative Easements An affirmative easement gives the easement holder the right to do something, and requires that the property owner do something ‐‐ such as allowing another access to or across a certain piece of property. Most easements fall into this category. Negative Easements A negative easement is a promise not to do something with a certain piece of property, such as not building a structure more than one story high or not blocking a mountain view by constructing a fence. There are not many negative residential easements in existence today as such architectural specifications are typically covered by rules and regulations promulgated by homeowners' associations. These documents are usually entitled Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions, often referred to as CC&Rs. A negative easement is sometimes referred to as an easement of light and air, and in most states cannot be created by implication. Express and Implied Easements A key question in the law of easements is whether the right to use the land (the easement itself) is express or implied. As is explained in more detail below, the main difference between the two is that an express easement is created by an agreement or document, while an implied easement arises through certain circumstances. Express Easements An express easement is created by a deed or by a will. Thus, it must be in writing. An express easement can also be created when the owner of a certain piece of property conveys the land to another, but saves or reserves an easement in it. This arrangement is known as an "easement by reservation." Implied Easements As mentioned above, even when no document or agreement has created an express easement, an easement right may still be understood (or "implied") by a situation or circumstances. To create an easement by implication, three requirements must be met: _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 135 2010 The easement must be at least reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the original piece of property. The land must be divided (or "severed"), so that the owner of a parcel is either selling part and retaining part, or subdividing the property and selling pieces to different new owners. The use for which the implied easement is claimed must have existed prior to the severance or sale. Necessity Easements The courts will find an "easement by necessity" if two parcels are so situated that an easement over one parcel of land is strictly necessary to the use and enjoyment of the other parcel of land. The creation of this sort of easement requires that at one time, both parcels of land were either joined as one or were owned by the same owner. Prior use of the easement, however, is not required. The most common example of an easement by necessity is landlocked property, so that access to a public road can only be gained by having a right of way over an adjoining parcel of land. The legal theory is that the landlocked parcel was accidentally created, and the land owner forgot to include an easement or method of access to reach the road. Permissive Easements A permissive easement is simply permission to use the land of another. It is essentially a license, which is fully revocable at any time by the property owner. In order to be completely certain that a permissive easement will not morph into a prescriptive easement, some landowners erect signs stating the grant of the permissive easement or license. Such signs ‐‐ often found on private roadways ‐‐ typically state: "This is a private roadway. Use of this road is permissive and may be revoked at any time by the owner." Prescriptive Easements An easement by prescription is one that is gained under principles of a legal concept known as "adverse possession", under which someone other than the original property owner gains use or ownership rights to certain property. Prescriptive easements often arise on rural land when landowners fail to realize part of their land is being used, perhaps by an adjoining neighbor. Fences built in incorrect locations often result in the creation of prescriptive easements. If a person uses another's land for more than the statute of limitations period prescribed by state laws on adverse possession, that person may be able to derive an easement by prescription. Under adverse possession laws, the use of the land must be open, notorious, hostile, and continuous for a specified number of years as required by law in each state. Prescriptive Easement Requirements The time period for obtaining an easement by adverse possession does not begin to run until the one seeking adverse possession actually trespasses on the land. Thus, a negative easement _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 136 2010 cannot be acquired by prescription because no trespass takes place. The use of the easement must truly be adverse to the rights of the landowner of the property through which the easement is sought and must be without the landowner's permission. If the use is with permission, it is not adverse. There must be a demonstration of continuous and uninterrupted use throughout the statute of limitations period prescribed by state law. If the use is too infrequent for a reasonable landowner to bother protesting, the continuity requirement will probably not be satisfied. "Tacking" the Time Requirement Subsequent parties in the same position to the land using the right of way adversely can add up the time to meet the required statute of limitations. This situation is known as "tacking". Thus, a prescriptive easement need not be exclusive; it can be shared among several users. Conservation Easements A conservation easement (a type of express easement) is created by a voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and another party ‐‐ usually the government ‐‐ which restricts the development of a piece of land. Under certain specific conditions, conservation easements are recognized by the U. S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If IRS requirements are met, the landowner may qualify for certain tax incentives. The requirements for a conservation easement approved by the IRS are as follows: • The easement must have a valid conservation purpose; that is, the easement holder must be satisfied that protection of the land or resources is justified for conservation reasons. Different land trusts and government entities have different requirements that must be satisfied. Generally, the IRS requires purposes such as the following: • Outdoor recreation by, or the education of, the general public • Protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants • Preservation of open space • Preservation of historically important land area or buildings • The agreement must be completely voluntary: no one can force a landowner to enter into a conservation easement agreement. A conservation easement may be either donated or sold by a landowner to an easement holder. • The agreement must be legally binding. It is recorded as a Deed of Conservation Easement. The agreement is binding on both present and future owners of the property. Both the landowner and the qualified easement holder must be in a position to enforce the terms of the agreement. This requirement recognizes the easement holder's responsibility for periodic inspection of the property with the landowner. • The agreement must be permanent and irrevocable. A conservation easement must be permanent in order to qualify for the income and estate tax benefits provided by the IRS. If a conservation easement is valid for a set period of time only, for instance, ten years, the landowner may be eligible for certain property tax benefits but is not eligible for federal and state income and estate tax benefits. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 137 2010 •
•
The easement must be held by a qualified easement holder, i.e., a government entity or a land trust. While any government entity can hold an easement, those most likely to hold conservation easements include city and county governments and certain federal agencies, such as the U. S. Forest Service and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A land trust is a private, nonprofit corporation. The easement must restrict development of the land. Ownership of land includes a number of legally recognized rights, including the rights to subdivide, sell, farm, cut timber, and build. The goal of devising a conservation easement is the landowner's voluntary agreement to give up one or more of these rights in order to protect certain natural resources. Prohibitions could include such matters as limitations on roads, structures, drilling, or excavating. The landowner could retain certain rights as long as those rights did not interfere with the conservation goals of the easement. For example, the landowner could retain the right to use the land, to restrict public access, and even to construct additional structures on certain sites. Tax Deductions and Conservation Easements When a landowner donates a permanent conservation easement to a land trust, the landowner may deduct the value of the easement from federal and state income taxes. The value of an easement is the difference between the fair market value of the land without the restriction and the fair market value after the restriction. If the value of the parcel exceeds $5000.00, the value of the conservation easement must be computed by a certified appraiser. The landowner can deduct up to 30 percent of the adjusted gross income over a period of six years until the value of the easement is exhausted, if the property has been held for investment purposes for more than twelve months. Property Entry and Inspection The organization that holds the easement has the right to enter and inspect the property and is legally obligated to assure that the property is in compliance with the terms of the easement. Preservation Easements Similar to conservation easements, preservation easements protect against undesirable development or indirect deterioration. Preservation easements may provide the most effective legal tool for the protection of privately owned historic properties. Such easements are usually expressly‐created and incorporated into formal preservation easement deeds. Preservation easements can prohibit such actions as: • Alteration of the structure's significant features, • Changes in the usage of the building and land or subdivision, and • Topographic changes to the property. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 138 2010 Preservation Easements and Taxes The property continues on the tax rolls at its current use designation rather than its value if developed, thereby giving the property owner certain tax benefits. The same standards are used as in conservation easements to determine the qualified tax deduction. The donor is entitled to a charitable contribution deduction in the amount of the fair market value of the donated interest. However, an easement to preserve a historic structure must protect a structure or area listed in the National Register (or located in a National Register district) and certified by the Secretary of the Interior as being of historic significance to the district. The donation of an easement over an historically important land area includes land that is either independently significant and meets National Register criteria for evaluation, or is adjacent to a property listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (in a case where the physical or environmental features of the land area contribute to the historic or cultural integrity of the property). "Historically Important" Land The definition of a historically important land area includes structures or land area within a registered historic district, except buildings that cannot reasonably be considered as contributing to the significance of the district. To qualify as a preservation easement, the donation must be protected in perpetuity. Because of this point, rights of mortgagers must be carefully set out in the easement to avoid loss of the easement in the event of foreclosure. _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 139 2010 Appendix H: Humboldt, IA Zoning Map _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 140 2010 Appendix I: Iowa Recreational Use Statute _____________________________________________________________________________________ r2s – University of Northern Iowa 142 2010 Iowa Recreational Use Statute
CODE OF IOWA
TITLE XI NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBTITLE 2 LANDS AND WATERS
CHAPTER 461C PUBLIC USE OF PRIVATE LANDS AND WATERS
461C.1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to encourage private owners of land to make land and
water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability
toward persons entering thereon for such purposes.
461C.2 Definitions
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Charge" means any consideration, the admission price or fee asked in return for
invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land.
2. "Holder" means the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant or person in
control of the premises; provided, however, holder shall not mean the state of Iowa, its
political subdivisions, or any public body or any agencies, departments, boards or
commissions thereof.
3. "Land" means abandoned or inactive surface mines, caves, and land used for
agricultural purposes, including marshlands, timber, grasslands and the privately owned
roads, water, water courses, private ways and buildings, structures and machinery or
equipment appurtenant thereto.
4. "Recreational purpose" means the following or any combination thereof: Hunting,
trapping, horseback riding, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking,
pleasure driving, motorcycling, nature study, water skiing, snowmobiling, other summer
and winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific
sites while going to and from or actually engaged therein.
461C.3 Liability of owner limited
Except as specifically recognized by or provided in section 461C.6, an owner of land
owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational
purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on
such premises to persons entering for such purposes.
461C.4 Users not invitees or licensees
Except as specifically recognized by or provided in section 461C.6, a holder of land who
either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use such
property for recreational purposes does not thereby:
1. Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose.
2. Confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom the duty of
care is owed.
3. Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused
by an act or omission of such persons.
461C.5 Duties and liabilities of owner of leased land
Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of sections 461C.3 and 461C.4 shall be
deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land leased, or any interest or
right therein transferred to, or the subject of any agreement with, the United States or any
agency thereof, or the state or any agency or subdivision thereof, for recreational
purposes.
461C.6 When liability lies against owner
Nothing in this chapter limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists:
1. For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use,
structure, or activity.
2. For injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons
who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof, except that in the case of land
or any interest or right therein, leased or transferred to, or the subject of any agreement
with, the United States or any agency thereof or the state or any agency thereof or
subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the holder for such lease, interest,
right or agreement, shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this section.
461C.7 Construction of law
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to:
1. Create a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to persons or property.
2. Relieve any person using the land of another for recreational purposes from any
obligation which the person may have in the absence of this chapter to exercise care in
the use of such land and in the person's activities thereon, or from the legal consequences
of failure to employ such care.
3. Amend, repeal or modify the common law doctrine of attractive nuisance.