Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Resolution No. 11-30
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 11- 3D A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY OF TIGARD'S GREENWAY TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, from June 2010, a combined citizens and technical committee working with a three-firm consultant team gathered information and conducted research for the development of the city's first- ever Greenway Trail System Master Plan(F.XHIBT A);and WHEREAS, in addition to the oversight of the citizen steering committee, development of the Greenway Trail System Master Plan (GTSMP)included several other public involvement activities, such as an interactive project webpage, two open houses,staff participation in a Neighborhood Network open house,and a survey questionnaire mailed to 1,500 residences;and WHEREAS, news stories regarding the development of the master plan have appeared on the city webpage,in the Tigard Cityscape,and in the Oregonian Newspaper;and WHEREAS, e-copies of the draft and revised GTSMP have been available on the project website and paper copies have been available in the Tigard Public Library and at the front counter of the Tigard Permit Center;and WHEREAS,the Park System Master Plan adopted in 2009 contains the official map of the greenway trail system;and WHEREAS, this network includes eight trails: Fanno Creek Trail,Tualatin River Trail, the Westside Trail, Washington Square Loop Trail, Summer Creek Trail, Pathfinder-Genesis Trail, Krueger Creek Trail,and"Tigard Street"Trail;and WHEREAS, the current and earlier park system master plans all provide a macro-level analysis of the trail network and a conceptual map of trail alignments;and WHEREAS,the GTSMP builds off the latest parks master plan and provides the micro-level detail and analysis needed to complete the greenway trail system;and WHEREAS, the GTSMP fulfills Action Measure 8.2.i of the Comprehensive Plan, "Complete a trail system master plan to guide the development of the trail system and facilitate progress toward its completion;" and WHEREAS, since conditions and priorities will shift over time, the GTSMP should be comprehensively reviewed and updated at least every five years;and WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the GTSMP on May 9, 2011, and recommended its acceptance, subject to a follow-up study of overlooked opportunities for greenway trails within underserved areas of the community;and WHEREAS, Planning Commission has reviewed the GTSMP and found it to consistent with and supportive of the Comprehensive Plan and the needs of the greenway trail system;and WHEREAS, council has reviewed the GTSMP, and found it to be consistent with and supportive of the Comprehensive Plan and the needs of the greenway trail system and that acceptance of the master plan would be in the best interests of the city;and WHEREAS, the plan before council sets realistic timelines and provides a balanced framework for completing the greenway trail system as conceptually identified in the adopted Park System Master Plan. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The council accepts the City of Tigard's Greemvay Trail System Master Plan (Exhibit A). SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. .k PASSED: This f lY day of 2011. yor-City of Tigar ATTEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard P� Gk C Exhibit A Resolution No. 11- p Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DRAFT June 2011 PREPARED BY: KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES, INC. ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN Acknowledgements The City of Tigard appreciates the efforts of the numerous residents and other walking/bicycling enthusiasts who participated in the development of this plan. Their creativity, energy, and commitment were the driving force behind this planning effort. In addition,the following residents, staff, and other agency and organization members contributed regularly to the Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan. CITY OF TIGARD STAFF Duane Roberts Mike McCarthy Judith Gray Martin McKnight Steve Martin Gary Pagenstecher PROJECT STAKEHOLDER GROUP Scott Bernhard Brigitte Partington Bob Bothman Robert Spurlock John Bucsek Doug Vorwaller Basil Christopher Phil Wentz David Leinberger Paul Whitney Eric Lindstrom Steve Wolcott CONSULTANT TEAM Jamie Parks &Jessica Horning- Kittelson&Associates, Inc. Mike Tresidder&Hannah Kapell-Alta Planning+ Design Wendy Wente- Mason,Bruce&Girard This project is partially funded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. This TGM grant is financed, in part, by Federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), local government, and State of Oregon funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of Oregon. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Table of Contents Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................................................i 1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 2. Planning Framework............................................................................................................4 3. Existing Conditions..............................................................................................................6 4. Greenway Trails Classification System..............................................................................33 5. Trail Design Guidelines......................................................................................................44 6. Evaluation Process.............................................................................................................90 7. Recommended Greenway Trails .......................................................................................94 8. Implementation Plan.......................................................................................................133 Appendix A. Public Input Appendix B. Greenway Trail Alignment Feasibility Assessment Appendix C. Environmental Assessment Appendix D. Evaluation Matrix V TIGARD ,1. I , Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan seeks to improve opportunities for active transportation (walking and bicycling), recreation, and nature education in Tigard and the surrounding region by increasing the connectivity of the existing trail network and setting priorities for future trail development. Greenway trails complement the city's neighborhood trails (short trails that provide direct off-street connections between destinations within the city), sidewalks, and bicycle lanes; connect distant parts of Tigard and surrounding cities; and facilitate long-distance non-motorized travel. Improvements to the greenway trail system recommended in this Plan will help the city make progress toward State and regional goals to reduce single occupant vehicular travel, create a balanced transportation system, and improve air quality. The resulting trail system will also provide an inexpensive transportation option to Tigard residents and facilitate healthier lifestyles. ObjectivesProject Vision& GOwnwayF / are / key component / the non-motortzed MI / l FI F I / trails facilitate hl connections to local / ,4 F/ / I and connect 71g/rd raddents.I A F/ the region's adensive traff netwont The 71g/rd /, TmH System Master Plan I enhance / se WF t/Is within the City by: • / I / hiformadon to fadHiate completing and W/ft trails wd/ FI / and propos4 dot h I / I w the / .:JI I trad Y • Ad&wft Fanno crnk / r F/ Square / Loop, I / / / FI .I '/ / JI J4 77o/rd F SummerCreekandKruegerCreekF / 1 • Contributing F/ the presence of pleasant Y/ and I 1 /a Il /.:/ greenway F / fir pedesolan and / I F unsportationthe W,and, • Continuft to promote e/ 11 I*Wles,improved air qualify, M ::/ Y:/ access to R / and opportunitlerfir F I To sad*the I the succes#W 71gard e,l WTraff F,l Master Plan wfik • Increase apportunffiesfir / I I I / I I and accessbW trandt by 1dendffft and / / I / F / IimprovementprojOcts that h/ I /: thegrsenwWF / I /: • Create IframeworkI I .! .! III Ithe remainkVsections / I ...I I trail F,! through recommended revisions to the Cley's TSP,Capital Improvement Prop=and en~ng and development FI I I I and, • I ,I F locations fir potential newI .:.I 'I F I I as / meanstofurther promote sustainable, non-auto &mWand ..I F Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Executive Summary Planning Process & Public Involvement City staff, trail experts, stakeholder groups, and Tigard residents helped guide the identification, evaluation,and prioritization of trails addressed in this Plan via multiple venues: ■ Project Website Interactive Map & Comment Tool: A website featuring an interactive map allowed users to provide comments on existing trails, potential new trail alignments, and other locations where a trail would benefit the community. ■ Greenway Trail System Neighborhood Surveys: During the summer of 2010, city staff distributed a survey to 1,500 residents within 1/4 mile of select trails to assess reception to potential improvements, in-fills, and extensions of these trails. ■ Open Houses: Two public open houses - one including Spanish language interpreters - were held in January 2011, enabling residents and other interested individuals to provide feedback on potential trail alignments,express concerns,and share ideas for improvements. ■ Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC): The SAC included private citizens and representatives from coordinating agencies, and met regularly over the course of the planning process. The input received from each of these sources and venues was included in the evaluation and prioritization of trail alternatives. Existing Greenway Trails The Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan builds upon previous city planning efforts and provides recommendations for completing seven of the eight greenway trails addressed in the 2009 Tigard Parks System Master Plan Update: - Fanno Creek Trail Tualatin River Trail ■ Krueger Creek Trail Summer Creek Trail ■ Pathfinder Genesis Washington Square Loop ■ Tigard Street Trail Trail The planned Westside Trail, a Metro regional trail which will pass through Tigard, is subject to a separate ODOT-funded planning process and is not addressed in this Plan; however, potential for connections to this and other regional trails was considered when evaluating trail projects. OPPORTUNITIES •Provide low cost,low environmental impact,healthy transportation options for Tigard residents by developing a connected trails network. •Create Safe Routes to School opportunities for students throughout Tigard. " J Yi AW, 4 � - ; •Provide opportunities for nature education. •Develop and link to regional trail facilities that facilitate long-distance transportation and recreational trips and contribute to State,regional,and local planning goals. •Leverage Tigard's investment in bicyle lanes,sidewalks,transit,and other ,. multimodal facilities. CHALLENGES •Lack of connectivity between existing greenway trails within Tigard and the surrounding region. •Need to minimize trail impacts on wetlands,riparian areas,and sensistive habitat. •Lack of bicycle and pedestrian friendly east-west connections over Highway 217 or a bicycle and pedestrian friendly north-south route east of Highway - - = 217. •Large portions of Tigard that are not served by trails (more than 1/2 mile from existing trails). •Limited funding and land availability for filling gaps in the existing trail network. City of Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan o Ir t 0 II !Ua 000 oiler °Untai�n Tra'o 000 oop o % o M o p � Q�P1.7��°gypBeavertonCD s �' 4 �? D 1 � 4� i ti/ I � I � i 00 0P I J 0P ' WAL-NWT r` ❑ WALNUT a �..i� f \' d o caIaROE BILL'MOUNTA_Ifl BULL MOUNTAIN co i CBEEF BENB a i Trail Network Street Network Key Destinations Y 4e tiTualatin River Trail N Freeway School Property King / DURHAMM aFanno Creek Trail //Arterial Parks C i t y aPathfinder Genesis /u Collector Q Transit Centers ►—""I � tiSummer Creek Trail Local © Library tiNeighborhood Trails Bike Lanes Wetlands 1= �• od° Other Existing Trails r�Urban Growth Boundary o� •°o Planned Trails i o 03 o�ooao400 i o T u a I a t i n F Tualatin River Greenway(to Wilsonville) 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles April 2011 o ' 03 1 (D (D _ oov � a o o-0 N Portland O_e° 17 w �/�. G Y (� Z LOCUST . -. k Q OAK -4 y � U A ¢ PFAFFLE HAW'S - 17 DA TMOUTH WALNUT � ' 000000 �• �y,P? O� /,�� `!� I'' �—�-��`� 7C 5� s �••� G r-- I U �1�� D P tiy9y 6R/// 217 HAMPTON o J GAARDE MCDONA11113 L 4 I y I 217 Lake Oswego BON r� �J BONITA +J tl < - cLb Cl, O lo d 'a O D DURHAM S. go, C V h o, d �Y a ����•r 0900 o `, 00 Durham 'fanned Tonquin Trail (to Wilsonville)y o EXISTING & CURRENTLY PLANNED TRAILS TIGARD, OR. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Executive Summary Tigard Trail Classification System The Tigard trail system consists of a core system of regional trails that serve as the backbone of the trails network, supported by a complementary system of community trails and neighborhood trails. This hierarchical system of trails provides community members high quality trail opportunities throughout the City of Tigard and pedestrian/bicycle connectivity to other parts of the Portland Metro region. AT Regional Trails v : Community Trails Neighborhood Trails Span multiple jurisdictions Connect to regional trails and Paved or unpaved trails that and provide connections to . areas of local interest, provide local connections to a regionally-important parks including schools, transit bicycle-or pedestrian- and other destinations. hubs, parks, and other oriented destination, such as destinations. Used locally for a bus stop, school, Accommodate • recreational transportation trips and shorter family and for provide • Provide critical commuting purposes. •••• • • connections for • • users of all ages. and formalize "demand • minimize negative impacts. Approx.10-14'wide Approx.8-10'wide Approx.3-8'wide 2'gravel shoulder 1-2'gravel shoulder Optional shoulder Paved or smooth surface Paved or smooth surface Paved or soft surface The Tigard trail classification system recommends standard sections and design guidelines for different types of facilities and presents additional information on supporting features and amenities. The classification system also helps to establish when to widen existing trails and best practices for transitions from unpaved to paved trail facilities. vi 2 • Asphalt is the most common Boardwalk may be used in surface for multi use trails,as it is sensistive areas such as stream suitable for a variety of users and is ,„�environment zones and in areas of _ less jarring on people's joints than ^° +1 steep slopes. Boardwalk construction concrete.The edges can crumble over is typically much more expensive than time and an overlay or renovation is traditional paved paths and typically needed every 15-20 years. lasts 10 years. � r Permeable Asphalt is similar toBark Chip/Mulch is an r, asphalt,but it allows rain to seep inexpensive and easily applied surface. through the surface,reducing run-off. However,bicyclists and pedestrians in Permeable surfaces must be regularly wheelchairs may not be able to use a maintained to prevent pores from mulch path. Bark chip must be top filling. dressed annually and lasts 1 3 years. Lighting improves trail safety by Marked Crosswalks increase increasing visibility during non-daylight trail user visibility at street crossings.A hours.There are many lighting options crosswalk can be combined with i• available for trails,including solar- warning lights or flashers. Paths can be powered LEDs that can provide over 4 `"curved to orient users toward 100,000 hours of pathway lighting. oncoming traffic,slowing their pace. sPECMPJD E ayfinding Signs show direction _moi Curb Ramps provide an accessible PEC PATH of travel,location of destinations,and _t route from the roadway to the trail.A ` no„ other information.Wayfinding signs trail without a curb ramp can be aHrza provide information to help trail users challenging to someone in a select routes,locate off-road facilities, wheelchair,as well as to cyclists and identify geographical features. crossing at an intersection . Interpretive Signs enrich the trail 7 Emergency Call Stations help user experience,focus attention on c.� provide fast notification and response unique community attributes such as toemergency situations.Emergency natural and cultural resources,and �:, phones or call buttons act as a crime provide educational opportunities. r deterrent and provide additional sense of safety/security for trail users. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Executive Summary Evaluation Process The project team evaluated multiple alternative alignments for the majority of the potential greenway trail segments addressed in this Plan. Where feasible, both greenway and upland or on- street alternative alignments were considered.The table below describes the primary criteria taken into account to evaluate and prioritize alignment options. Most of the evaluation criteria are based on qualitative assessments conducted during site visits and feedback obtained from stakeholders. Many of these criteria do not use a quantitative scoring or weighting systems; however, where possible, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other readily obtainable information were used to inform the evaluation for each criteria. EVALUATION CRITERIA DefinitionCriteria Connectivity Evaluates connectivity and access to residential, . Provides the most direct access to destinations,such as major commercial or employment areas as well as employers and commercial centers schools. . Minimizes out of direction travel Safety and Security Addresses the safety concerns of trail users • Surrounding area is open and visible from all angles traveling along the trail.The better the sightlines, . Trail users have good lines of sight along the trail and to the higher the score. immediate adjacent surrounding area • No buildings or large structures obscure views of the trail User Experience Measures the quality of the users'experience of the . Limits proximity of the trail major roads trail.Considers potential views,environmental . Limits views of industrial/commercial activity aesthetics,comfort and characteristics such as noise,and air quality. • Minimizes level of noise from surrounding land uses such as roadways and railroads • Potential and ease of providing amenities(e.g.directional signage) Topographical Considers topographical constraints and the ease of . Minimizes number of slopes associated with option Constraints providing for ADA accessibility.Higher scores if . If present,slopes are minimized earth moving,retaining walls and long ramps are not needed or minimized. • Ample room to grade trail to meet ADA accessibility • Minimizes length of ramps needed Environmental Evaluates whether each alignment minimizes • Minimizes impacts to floodplain,wetland,or Clean Water Impacts environmental impacts. Services designated Sensitive Areas,or Goal 5 habitat Cost Scores options based on the cost of design, . Minimizes cost of easement/acquisition engineering,and/or construction,based on the . Minimizes cost of design/engineering/construction minimum cost estimates(the low design cost option). • Minimizes cost of maintenance Right-of-Way Addresses the number of property owners that the . Alignment on land that is owned by the City of Tigard,Metro, city will need to work with in order to construct the or other public body alignment. • Minimizes impacts on private property viii Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Executive Summary Recommended Trail Projects Based on the results of the trail evaluation, 16 projects that are currently feasible and would provide benefits (e.g., transportation, nature education, safe routes to school) to Tigard residents were identified as priority projects and assigned a High, Medium, or Low priority ranking. ■ High-priority projects - have a significant amount of demand or public support, provide public benefits, have limited challenges, and are the most feasible projects for construction in the short term (one to 10 years). High-priority projects are recommended for inclusion in the 2012-2017 city Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) update.' ■ Medium-priority projects- are good candidates for filling gaps in the trail network or providing connections to destinations in the medium term (five to 15 years),but do not have as much demand, face additional hurdles, and/or would be more difficult to construct than the high priority projects. ■ Low-priority projects - are recommended projects that fill gaps in the trail network, provide connections to destinations, and/or contribute to regional trail connectivity,but may be more difficult to construct due to right-of-way, slopes, environmental considerations, or community support. These projects are feasible for construction in the long term (10 or more years). Several projects were not prioritized due to existing constraints or because they fell outside the scope of the current planning effort, but should not be removed from consideration in future planning efforts. These projects are described in detail in Chapter 7. In addition, multiple "key on- street connections" were identified involving small, feasible projects—primarily involving bicycle boulevard treatments, sidewalk infill, or crossing improvements—that provide bicycle and pedestrian friendly on-street connections where a greenway trail alignment is not currently feasible or is not a short-term priority. Note that the priority ranking of projects are subject to change based on available funding; changing priorities; public support; opportunities to develop trails coincidental with new development/redevelopment, roadway or other infrastructure improvements; and other factors. Project identification (ID) numbers are shown for identification purposes only and do not indicate the relative rank or importance of individual projects within their priority category. 'The City of Tigard defines a CIP project as"any public facility project that improves or adds value to Tigard's infrastructure,costs$50,000 or more,and has a useful life or extends the useful life of a facility for five years or more." ix City of Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan B 4, Trail �d r•' } g11]°T' er Mountain +��—.....• `` j a 'ca o CD Beaverton CD h � I co OLLS FERRY I �N A Y i } f 1 G U KIPP" - \ o� P I e WAL-NWi I y! 2 � r---I� + WpLNUT 6 B c o I I ca r 1 N 1 L r u); BULLlmoUNTAI�N�' ) BULL MOUNTAIN BEEF BENB Recommended Projects Street Network Key Destinations iou High Priority N Freeway School Property K i n g DURHAM iou Medium Priority /V Arterial Parks C i t y i iou Low Priority ---1 — Collector Q Transit Centers • o o Alternative or Conceptual Alignment Local © Library 0i40,Key On-Street Connection K Bike Lanes f�Urban Growth Boundary a Existing Trails 63 Wetlands oma° Planned Regional Trails o�od h OGp�� I � • ••--•-•., o° Tualatin F Tualatin River Greenway(to Wilsonville) ®�, o �_� o 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles April 2011 0 0 9 03 0 0 -0 cn ��o® I Portland ■ I ME S9 0� 017 O '-L UST ON :OAK 41 PINE Ql IM PF FF L F A AIN D MOUTH 77). H A 217 WALNUT UT 7r "'IfON 217 r�fj s7 QP d GA,ARDE MCDONALID G 3 217 Lake Oswego —�o BONITA BONITA < 0 L7— c A c� c DURHAM ec)o s5 paoa os"o kT O M X lq CramC-11� r22l N C6 Dl 0 -P D2 0 1A Durham a Q, anned Tonquin Trail (toWilsonville)4o RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS TIGARD, OR. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Executive Summary PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDED PROJECT LIST* Opinion r.16 P ($1,000) Priority "/AFaWnno Creek Woodard Park to Grant(partially funded) $670 High N/A Fanno Creek Grant to Main (partially funded) $300 High N/A Westside Trail Planned Portland to Tualatin Expansion N/A High (currently being planned as part of a separate ODOT funded project) A Tigard Street Fanno Creek/Tigard Street to Tigard $498-$770 High Transit Center B Krueger Creek Walnut Street to Jack Park $111 -$209 High C&C1 Fanno Creek 74th Avenue Sidepath, Bonita Road to $552-$1,528 High Durham Road D1 &D2 Fanno Creek&Tualatin 85th Avenue Trail to Durham City/Ki-A-Kuts $131 -$3,088 High River E Pathfinder-Genesis Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Court Trail $725 High F Summer Creek Summer Crest Drive and Tigard Street $516-$969 High Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements, Fowler Nature Education Trail G Fanno Creek Tigard Public Library to Milton TBD Medium Court/Bonita Road H Fanno Creek Tiedeman Avenue Crossing Realignment $139-$274 Medium I Tigard Street Fanno Creek/North Dakota Street to TBD' Medium Tiedeman Avenue J Tualatin River 108th Avenue Grading and Existing Trail $26-$254 Medium Improvements K Tualatin River 108th Avenue to Pacific Highway Extension $1,746-$2,354 Medium L Washington Square Fanno Creek to Highway 217 Sidewalk $183 Medium Loop and Bikeway Improvements M Fanno Creek Durham Road to Tualatin River Trail $1,320-$1,943 Low N Ascension Ascension Trail Improvements $332-$590 Low O Washington Square Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard Sidewalk $666 Low Loop and Bikeway Improvements P Krueger Creek& Summer Creek Trail to Mary Woodard $473-$518 Low Summer Creek School 1Cost opinion depends upon the final configuration of the Tiedeman/North Dakota realignment project.The initial cost opinion for a railside alignment from Tiedeman to North Dakota Street(given current street alignments)was $278,000. *This project list is intended to address only projects related to the eight greenway trails identified in the 1999 Tigard Park System Master Plan which are the focus of the Greenway Trails Master Plan.This list does not preclude other trail projects from consideration for funding. xii Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Executive Summary Implementation To facilitate implementation of the recommended greenway trails, this Plan identifies minor changes to regulatory amendments, a financial strategy, and an action plan. These are summarized here,with additional detail provided in the Implementation chapter of the Plan. ■ Recommended Regulatory Amendments - The City of Tigard Transportation System Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code and Public Improvement Design Standards guide the development of pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including greenway trails. Minor policy and regulatory changes are recommended to prioritize, program, fund and construct projects on the recommended greenway trails project list. ■ Financial Strategy- Fully implementing the recommended greenway trails will require funding. Existing,potential and anticipated funding sources that are available to the City of Tigard to fund greenway trails were identified, and potential funding sources available for each trail have been considered for each of the recommended greenway trail projects. ■ Action Plan - The action plan is provided to guide the City of Tigard toward the vision identified in this Plan and to provide a framework for constructing the proposed trails, strategically implementing prioritized projects, acquiring right-of-way, and creating a long-term strategy for developing the recommended trail projects, as well as other future trail projects.The Action Plan has two parts: Land Acquisition provides a summary of how the city can expand the greenway trail system by taking advantage of opportunities to acquire land for trails through acquisition, easements and right-of-way vacations. Implementation Strategies links specific funding opportunities with recommended projects to implement the recommended greenway trails and outlines a proposed implementation strategy for acquiring the resources to fund the recommended greenway trails. xiii Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION The Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan seeks to ,,.. improve opportunities for active transportation (walking and bicycling), recreation, and nature education in Tigard and the ' surrounding region by increasing the connectivity of the existing trail network and setting priorities for future trail 2 LL development. Greenway trails are a key component of the Tigard transportation system. These trails complement the city's neighborhood trails (short trails that provide direct off- street connections between destinations within the city), sidewalks, and bicycle lanes; connect distant parts of Tigard - and surrounding cities; and facilitate long-distance non- = - motorized travel. Improvements to the greenway trail system recommended in this Plan are consistent with State Transportation Planning objectives and Metro regional planning objectives to reduce single occupant vehicular travel, create a balanced city-wide transportation system, and improve air quality. The resulting trail system will also provide an inexpensive transportation option to Tigard residents and facilitate healthier lifestyles. The Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan builds upon previous city planning efforts and provides recommendations for completing seven of the eight greenway trails addressed in the 2009 Tigard Parks System Master Plan Update: ■ Fanno Creek Trail ■ Tigard Street Trail Washington Square ■ Krueger Creek Trail ■ Tualatin River Trail Loop Trail ■ Pathfinder Genesis Trail ■ Summer Creek Trail The planned Westside Trail,a Metro regional trail which will pass through Tigard, is subject to a separate ODOT-funded planning process and is not addressed in this Plan; however, potential for connections to this and other regional trails was considered when evaluating trail projects. Funding for this plan was provided through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Transportation Growth Management Program (TGM). When completed, the Plan's Prioritized Recommended Project List will be incorporated into the city's Transportation System Plan 1 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Introduction (TSP), and recommended projects will be considered for future funding as part of the city's Public Facilities Capital Investment Plan. Plan Organization The Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan is organized as eight chapters and three appendices.These include: • Chapter 1: Introduction describes the purpose of the Plan and the organization of this document. • Chapter 2: Planning Framework describes the project vision and objectives, the planning process,and public involvement in the Plan development. • Chapter 3: Existing Conditions describes the existing and planned greenway trail network in Tigard and the surrounding region, existing plans and policies that impact trail development, land use issues, and opportunities and constraints related to greenway trail connectivity in Tigard. • Chapter 4: Greenway Trail Classifications and Typical Sections defines a classification system for greenway trails (regional, community, neighborhood) and provides standard cross-sections for each trail classification. • Chapter 5: Design Guidelines provides design guidelines for greenway trails, including: pavement width and type,lighting,signage,and amenities. • Chapter 6: Evaluation Process describes the criteria used to evaluate and prioritize potential greenway trail projects. • Chapter 7: Recommended Greenway Trail Projects presents specific project recommendations for filling gaps in Tigard's existing greenway trail system and increasing regional trail connectivity. Recommendations include planning level cost estimates and are prioritized as short, medium, and long-term projects for inclusion in the city's Capital Investment Plan. • Chapter 8: Implementation Plan presents strategies for the city to pursue to achieve the recommended improvements to the greenway trail system, including policy revisions and potential funding sources. • Appendices include a summary of public input on the Plan received through the public outreach efforts described in Chapter 2, the detailed descriptions and feasibility analyses for all of the potential trail alignments evaluated throughout the planning process, the environmental assessment of potential trail alignments, and an evaluation 2 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Introduction matrix showing the performance of all evaluated potential trail alignments against the prioritization criteria described in Chapter 6. 3 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Planning Framework 2. PLANNING FRAMEWORK This chapter summarizes the vision and objectives of the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan, as well as the planning process and public involvement strategies used in the Plan development. Vision and Objectives To facilitate a successful project, the project team and stakeholders developed a project vision and objectives to guide project activities and outcomes. The Vision statement describes the Plan's primary purpose and overarching goals, while the Objectives define specific elements of the Vision and describe how the Vision will be accomplished. VISION Greenway trails are a key component of the non-motorized transportation network; these trails facilitate convenient connections to local destinations, and connect Tigard residents to the region's extensive trail network. The Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan will enhance greenway trails within the city by: • Providing information to facilitate completing and upgrading trails (existing and proposed)that compose the city's greenway trail network; • Addressing the Fanno Creek, Washington Square Loop, Tualatin River, Pathfinder- Genesis,Tigard Street, Summer Creek and Krueger Creek trails; • Contributing to the presence of pleasant and uninterrupted greenway trails for pedestrian and bicyclist transportation in the city; and, • Continuing to promote healthier lifestyles, improved air quality, increased access to transit,and opportunities for non-auto travel. OBJECTIVES To satisfy the Vision,the successful Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan will: • Increase opportunities for walking, bicycling, and accessing transit by identifying and developing trail improvement projects that complete the greenway trail system; 4 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Planning Framework • Create a framework for implementing the remaining sections of the greenway trail system through recommended revisions to the city's TSP, Capital Improvement Program and engineering and development standards; and, • Identify locations for potential new greenway trails as a means to further promote sustainable,non-auto travel and healthy lifestyles. Planning Process, Public & Agency Involvement City staff, trail experts, stakeholder groups, and Tigard residents helped guide the identification, evaluation, and prioritization of trails addressed in this Plan. Public involvement included the following key components: • Project Website Interactive Map & Comment Tool: During the data collection phase of the project,the project team created a website featuring an interactive map that allowed users to provide comments on existing trails, potential new trail alignments, and other locations where a trail may be feasible and would benefit the community. • Greenway Trail System Neighborhood Surveys: During the summer of 2010, city staff distributed a neighborhood survey to 1,500 residents within 1/4 mile of potential Kruger Creek, Pathfinder-Genesis, and Summer Creek Trail alignments. City staff performed the survey to assess neighborhood reception to potential improvements,in-fills,and extensions of these trails. • Open Houses: Two public open houses - one including Spanish language materials and interpreters - were held in January 2011, enabling residents and other interested individuals to provide feedback on potential trail alignments, express concerns, and share ideas for improvements. • Stakeholder Advisory Committee: A Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) identified bicycle/pedestrian, community, environmental, and other issues related to trails from the standpoint of various interest groups and organizations. The SAC included private citizens and representatives from coordinating agencies, and met regularly over the course of the planning process. The input received from each of these sources and venues was included in the evaluation and prioritization of trail alternatives. Appendix A provides a detailed summary of the public comments received through the project website, open houses, and neighborhood survey. 5 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter summarizes background information regarding the City of Tigard's existing policies and plans, land use and connectivity, existing and planned greenway trails, and opportunities to improve greenway trail connectivity. Tigard is a community of approximately 47,500 residents, with a total land area of 11.5 square miles. The city's population has grown by some 15% since the 2000 Census and is expected to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Tigard was a rural community for much of its history and the vast majority of its population growth has occurred since 1970.2 Consequently,many of the city's developed areas are characterized by the disconnected street networks popular for subdivisions built in the 1970s and 1980s. The result is out-of-direction connections that discourage bicycle and pedestrian travel for many trips.The Greenway Trail System, along with the Neighborhood Trails System, can connect the different activity hubs within the city and make Tigard more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Existing Trail-Related Policies and Plans The following subsections discuss pertinent transportation related goals and policies from the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Metro's Regional Trails and Greenways Plan, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Tigard Transportation System Plan, Tigard Park System Master Plan and Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan. Also discussed below are environmental regulatory rules as well as potential on-going and planned non-trail-related projects that may influence the Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan. Standards and guidance related to trail design and amenities are discussed in Chapter 5 of this Plan. OREGON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN The Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan is consistent with the vision expressed in the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan envisions a transportation system where: • People can bicycle or walk safely and conveniently to all destinations within reasonable walking or bicycling distance; 2 http://tom.mipaca.com/Oregon/TigardHistory.php 6 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions • People can walk or ride to and from their transit stops and have a comfortable and convenient place to wait or transfer; • Touring bicyclists can enjoy Oregon's natural beauty on roads and highways that are designed for bicycle travel; • Appropriate transportation choices are available to all; and • Streets, roads and highways are designed to encourage bicycling and walking. The Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan's vision and objectives support this statewide vision of facilitating bicycle and pedestrian travel and active outdoor recreation. METRO'S REGIONAL TRAILS AND GREENWAYS PLAN Metro's Regional Trails and Greenways Plan describes existing regional trails and greenways and proposes over twenty-five additional (and/or extensions of) existing trails or greenways. Four of these trails either currently pass through Tigard or are planned to pass through Tigard. These are the Fanno Creek Trail,the Westside Trail,the Tualatin River Trail,and the Washington Square Loop Trail. The Fanno Creek, Tualatin River and Washington Square Loop Trails are incorporated into the scope of the Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan. The Westside Trail is identified in the plan, but is not studied in specific detail since it is currently being master planned as part of an on- going regional project. The Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan will provide the technical information needed to implement the greenway trail system so that Tigard residents are well connected to the local trails and on-street facilities that can take them to local and regional destinations. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan will address two of the goals enumerated in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan.These two goals and the associated policies are given below. Chapter 8, Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Spaces • Goal 8.2 - Create a citywide network of interconnected on and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails. Policy 1 -The city shall create an interconnected regional and local system of on and off-road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods,parks, open spaces,major urban activity centers, and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and easements on private property. 7 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions Policy 2 -The city shall design and build greenway trails and paths to minimize their impact on the environment,including on wildlife corridors and on rare,and state or federally listed species. Chapter 12 Transportation,Section 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathways • Goal 12 - Transportation which requires local jurisdictions to provide and encourage a safe,convenient,and economic transportation system. Policy for Chapter 12, Section 5 -The city shall locate bicycle/pedestrian corridors in a manner which provides pedestrian and bicycle users safe and convenient movement in all parts of the city by developing the pathway system shown in the adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan. CITY OF TIGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN The goals and policies discussed below are included in the Draft 2035 Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) released in June 2010. Final and full adoption of the Draft 2035 TSP is pending approval from City Council. • Goal 1 - Land Use and Transportation Coordination - Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the community. Policy 3 -The city shall maintain and enhance transportation functionality by emphasizing multi- modal travel options for all types of land uses. Policy 4-The city shall promote land uses and transportation investments that promote balanced transportation options. Policy 9 -The city shall coordinate with private and public developers to provide access via safe, efficient,and balanced transportation system. • Goal 3 -Multi-Modal Transportation System Policy 2 -The city shall develop and maintain neighborhood and local connections to provide efficient circulation in and out of neighborhoods. Policy 4 -The city shall develop and implement public street standards that recognize the multi- purpose nature of the street right-of-way. Policy 5 -The city shall design all public streets within Tigard to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. 8 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions Policy 7-The city shall require and/or facilitate the construction of off-street trails to develop pedestrian and bicycle connections that cannot be provided by a street. Policy 8-The city shall require appropriate access to bicycle and pedestrian facilities for all schools, parks, public facilities,and commercial areas. • Goal 4-Safe Transportation System Policy 3 -The city shall coordinate with the appropriate agencies to provide safe,secure, connected, and desirable pedestrian,bicycle,and public transit facilities. Policy 4 -The city shall consider the intended uses of a street during the design to promote safety, efficiency,and multi-modal needs. Supporting TSP Strategies In addition to the goals and policies from the current Draft 2035 TSP, there are also strategies identified in the TSP that are consistent with the purpose and goals of the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan.The most pertinent of these strategies are listed below. • Create a more complete network of pedestrian facilities by prioritizing gaps within the current sidewalk and trail system. • Develop pedestrian and bicycle corridors to neighborhoods, schools, parks, recreation users,activity centers,and transit stops. • Prioritize transit, pedestrian, and bicycle investments in areas serving high proportion of disadvantaged or transit dependent communities. • Fill in gaps in the bicycle network to provide for greater citywide bicycle mobility. • Develop bicycle routes that connect neighborhoods, schools, parks, recreation users, and activity centers. • Develop a bicycle signage program to help cyclists find routes on relatively level terrain with low vehicle traffic volumes. • Improve pedestrian crossing treatments at high traffic volume streets and/or locations with high levels of pedestrian demand (e.g.,schools,retail centers,transit stops). 9 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN The recommendations contained in the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan will take into consideration existing park locations, recommendations to improve Tigard parks, as well as recommendations to improve trail connectivity between the parks as documented in the Tigard Park System Master Plan. The Park System Master Plan identifies trail opportunities to further connect existing and proposed parks by bicycle and pedestrian trails. The currently planned trails discussed later in this chapter already capture the primary trail linkage opportunities recommended in Chapter 6 of the Tigard Park System Master Plan.As the development of the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan moves forward, the recommendations in the Tigard Park System Plan will continue to be integrated. TIGARD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS PLAN The recommendations contained in the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan will inform the recommendations of the Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan. Connectivity to neighborhood trails as well as regional trails will be considered when prioritizing greenway trail projects. The vision and objectives presented in the Neighborhood Trails Plan are similar to those for the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan. As a result, the Neighborhood Trails Plan will be closely integrated into the Greenway Trails System Master Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY RULES Projects within environmentally sensitive areas, will need to comply with federal, state, and local environmental regulations.Typically, ground disturbing activities associated with trail projects will have some level of impacts on biological and possibly wetland or water resources. If a project is likely to impact wetlands or water resources,the following laws and regulations could apply: • National Environmental Policy Act(lead federal agency varies) • Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(administered by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers) • Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification (administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) • Oregon Removal Fill Law(administered by the Oregon Department of State Lands) • Water Quality Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors (administered by Washington County's Clean Water Services) If a project is likely to impact protected species or their habitats,the following laws and regulations could apply: 10 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions • National Environmental Policy Act(lead federal agency varies) • Federal Endangered Species Act (administered by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service) • Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) • State Endangered Species Act (administered by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Oregon Department of Agriculture) • Oregon Fish Passage Law(administered by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) POTENTIAL ON-GOING OR PLANNED PROJECTS AFFECTING G REE NWAY TRAI LS Discussions with City of Tigard staff identified one planned non-trail related project that is anticipated to affect the Greenway Trails System Master Plan; the realignment of Tiedeman Avenue to connect with North Dakota Street.This project and its relation to the potential Tigard Street Trail is discussed later in this Plan. Trail-related on-going and/or currently planned projects are discussed below in the sub-section titled Existing and Currently Planned Greenway Trails. Existing Land Uses and Major Trail Destinations This section summarizes current land use issues in Tigard as they relate to greenway trails. Particular attention is given to major destinations for pedestrian and bicycle trips,and areas within the city where connectivity is a major barrier to non-motorized transportation. Tigard's current boundaries generally are defined by Scholis Ferry Road to the north, I-5 to the east, the Tualatin River to the south, and SW Barrows Road and a saw-toothed line extending as far as SW 154th Avenue to the west. Figure 1 shows the existing natural features,transportation network and land use designations within Tigard. As also shown in Figure 1, Tigard possesses several facilities that divide the city, including Oregon 99W, which crosses the city from southwest to northeast, and the Portland & Western Railroad, Fanno Creek, and Oregon 217, all of which cross the city from northwest to southeast. Figure 1 shows the majority of Tigard is zoned for residential uses, and most of the city is comprised of single-family residential development. Connecting these residential areas to one another and to commercial, recreational, and transit destinations was a key priority for the Neighborhood Trails Plan completed in 2009. The Greenway Trails System Master Plan will build on the Neighborhood Trails Plan and strive to further connect Tigard's residential areas to the primary shopping, schools, recreational, and other top destinations for pedestrian and bicycle travel within 11 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions Tigard. The Greenway Trails System Master Plan also aims to call attention to potential additional connections to TriMet's transit service within Tigard. Each of these land uses, the corresponding activity hubs within Tigard,and transit service within Tigard are discussed below. SHOPPING Commercial land-uses in Tigard are located in three key areas: Washington Square, the Oregon 99W corridor, and downtown Tigard. Washington Square is located adjacent to Oregon 217 along the boundary between Tigard and Beaverton. The area is anchored by the Washington Square Mall, a large shopping center with over 1 million square feet of retail space, and includes numerous shopping destinations and several office buildings. The area also is a designated Regional Center in the Metro 2040 Plan. Because of these features, Washington Square has the potential to be a key destination for non- motorized trips. Connecting surrounding residential areas to Washington Square is particularly important. Washington Square also is served by TriMet's WES Commuter Rail service making pedestrian and bicycle connections even more important. The Oregon 99W corridor is another primary location for commercial activity in Tigard. As shown in Figure 1,almost all land adjacent to Oregon 99W is zoned for commercial uses. For the most part, this development comprises traditional strip malls and large retailers, including several major grocery stores. Finally, downtown Tigard is located adjacent to Oregon 99W on Main Street between SW Greenburg Road and SW Johnson Street. Downtown serves as a community center for Tigard residents and includes numerous pedestrian-oriented shops and restaurants. Consequently, connectivity improvements that allow residents to more easily access the destinations on Oregon 99W and in downtown will greatly benefit pedestrian and bicycle conditions. SCHOOLS Another key priority for the Greenway Trails System Master Plan is to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to schools by supplementing Tigard's neighborhood trails with greenway trails. Increasing the number of children walking and biking to school has the potential to both reduce traffic congestion and increase physical activity. A total of eight schools owned by the Tigard- Tualatin School District are located within the City of Tigard. These school properties are spread throughout the city. While most are located in residential areas, several properties are also within commercial areas along Oregon 99W or Washington Square. 12 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions PARKS As with schools, improved connections to recreational areas are a project priority. Better access to parks improves livability for residents and is one of the goals of the Transportation System Plan (TSP).Tigard's open spaces are generally concentrated along greenways located within the city. For example, several of Tigard's parks are located along the Fanno Creek Greenway. Other large parks of note include Cook Park located along the Tualatin River in the southern portion of Tigard and Summerlake Park in northwest Tigard. In addition to these large-acre parks, several smaller parks are located throughout Tigard. Finally, the Tigard Senior Center located south of downtown, and Tigard Swim Center located at Tigard High School, are other important destinations for non- motorized trips that should be considered during the planning and prioritization process. 13 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions TRANSIT Tigard is served by several existing TriMet bus routes, as shown in Table 1. Bus stop locations are also displayed in Figure 1. Table 1 Existing Tigard Transit Service Route Number Route Name Description 12 Barbur Boulevard Service along Oregon 99W for full length of city 38 Boones Ferry Road Service along 72"'Avenue between Oregon 217 to Lower Boones Ferry Road 43 Taylor's Ferry Road Service along Greenburg and Washington Square Road connecting to Hall Boulevard 45 Garden Home Service along Scholls Ferry,121't Avenue,and Walnut Street to Tigard Transit Center 56 Scholls Ferry Service south along Scholls Ferry to Washington Square 62 Murray Boulevard Service east along Scholls Ferry to Washington Square 64X Marquam Hill/Tigard TC Express bus with service along Oregon 99W east of Tigard Transit Center 76 Beaverton/Tualatin North/South service along Washington Square Road,Greenburg,Main Street,Commercial,Hall,and Durham 78 Beaverton/Lake Oswego Service to Washington Square along Washington Square Road,Greenburg, Main,Hunziker,Hampton,and 69th 92X South Beaverton Express Express bus with service along Scholls Ferry from Hall to Conestoga. 94 Sherwood-Pacific Highway Express Express bus with service along Oregon 99W for full length of city 14 City of Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 2011 V S) �1^ �� l ll }} o �J------------- 1 0 17 5°•� LOCUST J' r; SCN OLLS FERR I ¢ OAK ✓� GO H co - f PFA—LE 3 HAINES � � \ WALNUT�F -_ ��J„ S DARTMOUTH r LIwo it ---I❑ }� s WALNUT ppp P UT QQ. ti �2 � r 11. o 1 y • FR �� �t L i 1. ., I_iQ U 9� • HAMPTON \ 217 �L 17 p O !�L--i H C —' GAARDEMCDONALD 17 I 11 P BONITA -�7 I I BU IL MOUNTAIN BONITA " i t = _BEEF 6E t O� w C �4P / H 0 H Major Destinations Transportation Network Land Use *Community Center ?Freeway —i Commercial I� ` K i n g l .' DURHAM o c *Mall NArterial Industrial C i t Yi _ y ® Library //Collector Mixed Use 3 -1 Medical Care FacilitiesLocal Residential e� - H o y School Property Bike Lanes Parks I Q Transit Centers _ °I Existing Trails Government Property [� � Ei • Bus Stop 03 Wetlands Q$Goal 5 Resource V D U r h a m Tualatin J 0 91 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 EXISTING DESTINATIONS, TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, AND LAND USES o Miles TIGARD, OR. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions In addition to existing bus routes, Tigard is served by TriMet's WES Commuter Rail. The WES commuter rail runs from Wilsonville to Beaverton Transit Center and includes stations in downtown Tigard and near Washington Square in Beaverton.WES Commuter Rail provides service to destinations throughout the Portland region, making high-quality non-motorized access to the stations in and near Tigard another project priority. Per the city's draft 2035 TSP released in June 2010, transit amenities and service improvements include: • Adding amenities such as benches, shelters, and real-time information to transit stops on the Highway 99W corridor to support the existing high frequency bus service; • Implementing local bus connector service from the Tigard Triangle to Downtown Tigard and/or Washing Square Mall; and • Conducting high capacity transit planning alternatives analysis to improve and enhance transit service provided to Tigard residents. Existing and Currently Planned Greenway Trails The following two sub-sections present information on the existing greenway trails in Tigard and current plans to extend those trails and/or add new trails. Improving the connectivity of these trails and further integrating them into the existing and planned local bicycle and pedestrian network is the primary focus of the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan. EXISTING GREENWAY TRAILS The existing greenway trails in Tigard are Fanno Creek, Tualatin River, Pathfinder-Genesis, and Summer Creek. Table 2 summarizes the approximate limits of each existing trail within Tigard as well as key information regarding each trail's physical condition. Figure 2 illustrates the existing greenway trails in Tigard noted in Table 2. 17 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions Table 2 Existing Greenway Trails Comments on Existing Name Limits within Tigard Physical Conditions Fanno Creek Trail Scholls Ferry south to McDonald.Alignment is The existing trail is paved primarily off-street and adjacent to Fanno Creek Section near Deeann Court is known for several,abrupt 90-degree turns Tualatin River Trail Follows the Tualatin River The Tualatin River trail is a mixture of land trail and waterway trail.The land trails are primarily paved with a few short unpaved sections Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Has a"Y"-shaped alignment.It extends south Consists of paved and unpaved sections.Many are in from Walnut Street.One fork of the"Y" poor condition.These poor condition sections generally extends close to SW Gaarde Street.The other are narrow,overgrown with vegetation,and not ADA fork of the"Y"extends to SW Fairhaven Street accessible Summer Creek Trail Currently loops around Summerlake with a The existing trail is paved few extensions into adjacent neighborhoods CURRENTLY PLANNED GREENWAY TRAILS The currently planned greenway trails as identified in the Park System Master Plan include extensions of Fanno Creek, Pathfinder-Genesis, Summer Creek, Tualatin River, and Westside trails. The currently planned trails also include a new alignment of the Krueger Creek Trail (realigned from the route proposed in the 1999 Park System Master Plan) and the new Washington Square Loop Trail. Conditions on these trails are summarized in Table 3. Figure 2 shows the general locations of currently planned trails. The planned Westside Trail, a Metro regional trail which will pass through Tigard, is subject to a separate ODOT-funded planning process and is not addressed in this Plan. However, it is discussed in this Plan for the purpose of identifying greenway trail connectivity throughout Tigard and for the purpose of identifying opportunities to improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility and access within Tigard and from Tigard to other cities in the Portland region. 18 City of Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 2011 0 0 ®!^ a D oop0cb �l fl Iain T 11e�V'II 91 0 -0 TT oiler °Un OOC ro°00000000 00 0 - 0 ��� D 411! - U W W __ o 0 o s m ��fR ���� 00 0° W06P1 Beaverton o i o� ov i 0 '� ! o Portland C7_1 �ij ey c� I o o cQ 00_ � 17 � . I ; �u j o% ' r U ILO e FQT o� � � Sc ' s�0 SOIiOLL U Q J ti i ._.. .. ....__ � � PINE I I _ O PFAFFLE OJ b I HAINES \� Oct 0P it~iEI ,rte. y V _ WALNUT DARTMOUTH I 1 ' °f1t �_—_I�1 O WALNUT WALNUT j • a I�L� y��zi !� U q 217 HAMPTON O 1! • = 8 O j� ty O OO L I GAARDE I L _ I S " I )0 BULLMOUNTA�N 17 Lake Oswego I ' BU!LL MOUNTAIN P -1.0 BONITA BONITA 0 I � r I r I a (1)) 0 BEEF BEND + $ O C 03 0 — r-V - p� Trail Network Street Network Key Destinations a�� �'� ��y oo J 10 0 tiTualatin River Trail ?Freeway School Property ° K i n g ! �e°°�z O� � _ DURHAM n JQQE 0p0 q°l O aFanno Creek Trail //Arterial Parks C i t Y — L (� , 0000000 OSIN w ko aPathfinder Genesis Collector Transit Centers tiSummer Creek Trail Local ® Library tiNeighborhood Trails Bike Lanes W Wetlands o ° °°°°O° -1 �° °' • 0 O E aOther Existing Trails h-r'Urban Growth Boundary •0•••• • 00 a o •°o Planned Trails ••.•••• o° 000 D u r h a m o 0000 ° ®� �® °0000 6 ! ' T u a l a t i n O N Tualatin River Greenway (to Wilsonville) 0 ° � __i ® P,6lanned Tonquin Trail (to Wilsonville) 0 0.25 0.5 1 EXISTING & CURRENTLY PLANNED TRAILS o Miles TIGARD, OR. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions Table 3 Currently Planned Greenway Trails Name Potential Alignment Comments Extensions of Fanno Creek Trail Three potential alignments have been identified for Once these extensions are complete,the Fanno • Bonita Road to Durham Road the extension from Bonita to Durham Road to Creek Trail will run the full length of Tigard city existing trail limits from north to south(Scholls Ferry Road to • Durham Road to Existing Trail the Tualatin River Trail).This will be a regionally significant connection. Extension of Pathfinder-Genesis Extend the trail north of Walnut Street connecting Extension is in planning stages. Trail to Fanno Creek Trail around or near Woodard City Park. Extension of Summer Creek Trail Extend the trail east from Summerlake Park passing Extension is in planning stages. through or adjacent to open greenspace,continue east parallel to Katherine Street and connect into Fanno Creek Trail north of Tiedeman and south of North Dakota. Tigard Street Trail This trail is planned to extend from Tiedeman to Extension is in the planning stages. Main Street along an inactive railroad corridor, linking Fanno Creek Trail,downtown,and the Tigard Transit Center. Krueger Trail Trail is planned to extend from the Summer Creek A segment of the proposed Krueger Trail exists extension from an open greenspace area southwest today as an unpaved/soft trail.Approximately along Jack City Park and into green space between half of the proposed alignment passes through SW Ascension Drive and SW Essex Drive. city-owned riparian natural area.The other half, the upper portion,primarily passes through privately owned land. Washington Square Loop Planned to connect to Fanno Creek Trail near North In the planning stages;will be a regionally Dakota and extend to the northeast along Ash significant connection. Creek. Extension of Tualatin River Trail The future Tualatin River Trail will extend along the A 16-mile trail to connect the Tualatin and Tualatin River passing outside Tigard city limits and Willamette Rivers;a portion of this land and intersecting with the future Westside Trail water trail passes through Tigard. extension south of Tigard. Extension of Westside Trail Planned to follow power line alignment south Once built,will be a regional connection north through the western portion of Tigard. to Beaverton and Portland and south to King City and Tualatin.This will be a regionally significant connection. Opportunities and Constraints for Greenway Trail Connectivity The following sub-sections discuss opportunities and constraints for expanding greenway trail connectivity and for expanding the area the greenway trail system serves. Connectivity in Tigard is hampered by the physical barriers created by the Portland & Western Railroad, Fanno Creek, and Oregon 217. All three of these parallel each other and run generally from southeast to northwest through the eastern portion of the city. The result of these barriers is that only a few facilities are available to travel from northeast to southwest within Tigard (e.g. Scholls Ferry Road, North Dakota Street, Oregon 99W, and Bonita Road). These facilities are by nature higher use and less friendly for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Thus, providing a well- integrated set of greenway and neighborhood trail connections to allow travelers to bypass busier thoroughfares are preferred where possible. 21 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions GAPS IN THE GREENWAY TRAIL SYSTEM AND OPPORTUNITIES TO FILL GAPS There are gaps in the existing greenway trail system and there are areas of Tigard that are under served or not served at all by the existing greenway trail system. Current plans to expand the greenway trail system address many of these gaps in connectivity and service area. However,there is a need for additional expansion to more comprehensively improve trail connectivity and increase the greenway trail service area. Existing Bicycle/Pedestrian Connectivity and Greenway Trails'Service Area The existing greenway trail connectivity is poor, particularly when considering the trails as a means for transportation as opposed to a place for recreation. Figure 2 illustrates existing and planned greenway trails and neighborhood trails as well as existing streets with bicycle lanes. The Fanno Creek Trail provides the most mobility and access for bicyclists and pedestrians in Tigard because it connects residents to potential trip destinations. Fanno Creek Trail is the primary existing pedestrian and bicycle facility in the city providing north-south connectivity and serving as a connection to the Metro regional trail system. In contrast,the existing portion of the Summer Creek Trail that circles Summer Lake does not have a strong connection to other trails or bicycle/pedestrian facilities in Tigard nor is it connected to a regional trail. Therefore, it is operating as a place of recreation for bicycles and pedestrians. Similarly, the existing Pathfinder-Genesis Trail provides some north-south mobility in central Tigard, but does not have any strong connections to other trails or bicycle/pedestrian facilities, nor does it provide any connection between different land use types. It also is operating as a place for recreation or as a local neighborhood connector. Finally, the existing Tualatin River Trail provides some east-west mobility in southern Tigard but does not connect into any other bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Currently, with the exception of the Fanno Creek Trail, the existing greenway trails in Tigard lack sufficient connectivity to be widely used as means for non-auto travel (as opposed to recreation). The current greenway trails also leave large portions of Tigard further than a half mile from an access to the existing greenway trail system. Figure 3 illustrates access points along the existing trails. Quarter mile and half mile buffers were drawn from the existing access points to identify areas in Tigard in need of better greenway trail system access.The largest areas of Tigard in need of improved trail access (i.e., areas further than a half mile from existing greenway trail access) are southwest Tigard, the area south of Gaarde Street/McDonald Street and north of Durham Road, and areas northeast of Highway 217. 22 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions Connectivity and Service Area Improvements with Currently Planned Greenway Trail Expansions The planned extensions of the greenway trail system and the planned neighborhood trails, also shown in Figure 3,will increase connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians in Tigard. Similarly,these extensions will also increase the number of residents who are within at least a half mile or quarter mile of access to the greenway trail system. The planned extension of Summer Creek Trail and Pathfinder-Genesis Trail to connect into Fanno Creek Trail will provide greater east-west and north-south connectivity within Tigard and a connection to destinations beyond the city limits. This will help transform Summer Creek and Pathfinder-Genesis Trails from recreational areas to trails that can be used for transportation. Similarly, the planned Washington Square Loop Trail will help connect Tigard's residential land uses west of Highway 217 with the hub of commercial and employment activities east of Highway 217, facilitating bicycle and pedestrian travel as an alternative to the automobile. The Washington Square Loop Trail will also extend outside the city limits, providing another regional connection; this is particularly significant because it will provide substantial east-west connectivity for Tigard residents. The southern extension of the Fanno Creek Trail to connect with the Tualatin River Trail will create a continuous north-south link through Tigard and is particularly significant for bicycle/pedestrian connectivity due to its broader regional connectivity. The planned Westside Trail extension south through the western portion of Tigard will provide a second north-south bicycle/pedestrian facility to complement the north-south connectivity Fanno Creek provides on the east side of the city. 23 City of Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 2011 o /'1 0 p 000 D oopOW° a OO o � (!) Mountain Tr000000000° pO 0 -0 b 0 7 �\ ° Q1 N (1 ed GOOpe000QOo°°°° 0 0 O n \ °°° CD N O- �a�� o °°° ` Beaverton O � � i `!. � � o � - , 9 ° � o 0 ° �� '� ' o Portland O - -- — --- — -----I 0 o s I 8 � _� 17 I i f O L� LO ST � � rl O VO SOHOLLS FERRY+6 OAK J r \ U PINE \ I I - 0 PFAFFLE Z foff$ 7 HAINES \ Oct / n PXI — O �� 217 y OQ O WALNUT 9l` • DARTMOUTH t r O Q WALNUT h Q i' • v �L.QtiNZ/�F C�) O HAMPTON 7 IIP ti 0 �O I � \ O I O o O �G �"—"--- — I — Q// G ✓ O 'L GAAR:DE — MCDONA D ® _ L -2• I 0 I >>(no� BULMO �-n') -i ,`'` Lake Oswego L 17 , J B•NILA BONITA C I J I BULL MOUNTAIN ® / — (BEEF BEND + $ w C 0 _ 0 Trail Network Street Network G Trail Access Points e��F� �� _ o F���y °°o°° � 05 �o tiTualatin River Trail N Freeway Access Buffer King / DURHAM �eo° —� j °°°°° ° 010 0l� aFanno Creek Trail Arterial 0 - 0.25 miles C i t y I — -� , °o°°°°�eOSIN w ko-La m aPathfinder Genesis Collector 0.25 - 0.5 miles z tea\\lOuCrar� School Property � oSummer Creek Trail Local s_rO oNeighborhood Trails Bike Lanes i Urban Growth Boundary oo°° ° °°°°°O o g° °°° ° °° oOther Existing Trails Transit Centers wetlands o a ' ® ®®° ° 0 oSQ) Library 0 °00o Planned Trails °°o°° � Q Ap v N Tualatin River Greenway (to Wilsonville)k°°°°°°°°° Tualatin °°° o �°���__i ® Planned Tonquin Trail (tom vv nsuii�,,,_, rr', o � o 0 0.25 0.5 1 EXISTING GREENWAY TRAILS SERVICE AREA Miles TIGARD, OR. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions Creating Krueger Trail will connect a portion of residents in the southwest area of Tigard (where access to the existing greenway trail system is poor) to the Summer Creek Trail and in turn to the Fanno Creek and Washington Square Loop Trails. These connections will provide mobility and access for bicyclists and pedestrians to commercial and employment activities within and beyond Tigard. The pieces of planned neighborhood trails shown in Figure 3 will help fill in smaller gaps to help residents access the longer greenway trail alignments. There also are a number of bicycle lane and sidewalk extensions and additions identified in the city's current draft 2035 TSP that will further increase connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists in Tigard. Additional Opportunities for Improved Connectivity and Improved Trail Service Area As noted above,the current plans for expanding the greenway trails contribute greatly to improved pedestrian and bicycle connectivity for Tigard residents. However, there are additional opportunities to continue to build on the connectivity created by the current plans. At the broadest level, the city is lacking east-west connections across the city and a north-south connection east of Highway 217 for pedestrians and bicyclists. At a more detailed level, there are some specific opportunities to connect planned and/or existing trails to create a grid of trails within Tigard and some opportunities to extend bike lanes on key roadway facilities to provide better connections to existing and planned greenway trails. Figure 4 illustrates opportunities to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in Tigard. The opportunities shown in Figure S are discussed below. East-West Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections The east-west pedestrian/bicycle connections shown in Figure 3 tend to be fragmented,require out of direction travel and/or do not connect to regionally significant locations such as the Tigard Transit Center. There are two opportunities to improve east-west connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians. 1. East-West Connection Opportunity #1 - In an ideal setting, or one where there was a blank canvas from which to work, there would be a continuous east-west greenway trail connection extending from the western edge of unincorporated Tigard near 164th Avenue east to Fanno Creek Trail (a currently planned portion of Fanno Creek). This new east-west trail would parallel Gaarde Street and McDonald Street about a quarter-mile or half-mile to the south. This would provide an east-west connection for residents living in the relatively 27 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions isolated (in terms of bicycle and pedestrian trails) southwest region of Tigard as well as the similarly isolated residents south of Gaarde Street and north of Durham Road. 2. East-West Connection Opportunity #2 - Similar to the opportunity discussed above, a second east-west connection from the planned western edge of Krueger Trail to the western city boundary would further connect residents, in the relatively isolated southwest portion of Tigard, to bicycle and pedestrian facilities that can take them to destinations throughout and beyond the city. Both new proposed east-west trail connections would be a significant contribution to pedestrian/bicycle connectivity within Tigard and would open up bicycle and pedestrian travel to numerous regional destinations. The new east-west connections would also connect into the proposed Westside Trail extension providing additional access to Metro's regional trail system. Opportunities to Create a Grid of Trails for Pedestrians and Bicyclists in Tigard There are four extensions of currently planned or existing greenway trails that could help create a grid of pedestrian and bicyclist trails in west Tigard.These are: 1. The planned Krueger Trail could be extended further south to connect into the southern proposed east-west connection (East-West Connection Opportunity#1 discussed above). 2. A similar extension south could also be constructed for the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail to connect into the southern proposed east-west connection (East-West Connection Opportunity#1 discussed above). 3. The southwest portion of Krueger Trail could also be extended to connect to the planned Westside Trail extension. 4. The northern end of Krueger Trail could be extended to connect to 135th Avenue. This would be beneficial because 135th Avenue is equipped with bicycle lanes and crosses the planned Summer Creek Trail further north. These additional connections would create a grid of greenway trails for bicyclists and pedestrians to travel throughout Tigard west of Highway 217. The grid would be connected to the eastern portion of Tigard via the Fanno Creek and Washington Square Loop Trails. Collectively, these proposed extensions and additions would place all Tigard residents west of Highway 217 within a half-mile of a greenway trail that could then connect them to Metro's regional trail system. 28 City of Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 2011 0 0 ®!^ a 11 ooppO� o 0 O Q N operMount010nTr(000000000 0 0 - O �� ; D 4;'\! ,.' 0 ° � v l O O -s N (l ed Go—- O 0 C7 y� °Q) 9� (D- O- P�oor °� * B e a v e rt o n ���J i v , '� �i o� °� �� I Portland r o 17 C7_1 1 ' L jr' I LOsr p r a y _ `s FERR � w j ��� � � 1( SONO N s�0 S FERR _... .. SOIiOLL U Q J ti J -. ° i ._.. .. ....__ � � PINE �nl� I VV !� PFAFFLE Q b 0P \ Z S NES 0 DARTMOUZf TH D Q I - �('��J �-t WALNUT n ®•. P�? O,c�i __ I,_—_ 0� 217 HAMPrON as ti� 9 o z o Q O QG o GAARDE fl —_ MCDONA D ® - I ` 4 )O BULL'MOUNTAIN - Lake Oswego �0 17 n >U B•NITA BONITA �-./0 BUILL MOUNTAIN �- --- — �� ¢ , Q BE BEND 03 0 00 I 0 Trail Network Street Network Connectivity Improvement Area ° 100 tiTualatin River Trail ?Freeway -- ®System Connectivity ° K i n g ! �e°°�z O°°° 0)_ DURHAM n JQQE 0p0 Ol� � aFanno Creek Trail NArterial ® °Bike Lane Connectivity City , °00°°° ps�eg X Pathfinder Genesis Collector 40 North-South Connectivity - _J to�a�e a _ tiSummer Creek Trail Local ® Library t� 0- tiNeighborhood Trails Bike Lanes Q Transit Centers ,,C),00 o ° °°°°°°o -1 °' °- _ � �• - Ami a 0 o z•aOther ExistingTrails School Property o ••. Planned Trails h-rj Urban Growth Boundary 0°° o °°� D U r h a mC)o c OO p QO ° Tualatin " Tualatin River Greenwayto Wilsonville® o ° i o Planned Tonquin Trail (to Wilsonville)y 0� 0 0.25 0.5 1 OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY Miles TIGARD. OR. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions East Tigard Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections East of Highway 217 the planned Washington Square Loop Trail will help increase bicycle/pedestrian connectivity for residents across Tigard and will help increase trail service coverage east of Highway 217. A complementary north-south greenway trail or pedestrian/bicycle facility of some sort east of Highway 217 would further enhance bicycle/pedestrian connectivity and the trail service area. Based on a review of existing maps and conditions, there are no immediate clear locations for such a trail or facility; a potential alignment could be north-south along or parallel to 68th Avenue (see area 7 in Figure 4). Bicycle Lane Extensions Finally, three locations are depicted in Figure 4 where extending existing bicycle lanes would help increase bicycle connectivity in locations critical for accessing the greenway trail system. These locations are along Barrows Road, 121St Avenue, and Walnut Street (areas 8, 9, and 10 in Figure 4, respectively).These bicycle lane extensions would help further enhance overall bicycle connectivity within Tigard. CHALLENGES TO FILLING GAPS AND INCREASING SERVICE AREA There are three fundamental challenges to filling gaps in the trail system and expanding the service area of the trail system; they are: funding, land availability/acquisition, and topographical constraints. Funding for trail construction is an overarching constraint for the currently planned greenway trail system expansion as well as any additional expansions identified as part of this master plan development. The more the greenway trail system is developed to serve bicycle and pedestrian activity for the purpose of transportation (e.g., serving trips that would have previously been taken by automobile) the easier it will be to secure supporting funds from regional, state, and/or federal programs. The availability and acquisition of land will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis for the proposed and planned trails. In some instances, feasible alignments may be found on publically owned lands and in others, easements will have to be placed on private property as it is sold or redeveloped. However,there are no mechanisms or legal basis for placing easements on properties for the purpose of constructing greenway trails. Therefore, when proposed alignments traverse private property, constructing those portions of trails will require consent and cooperation from private land owners. 31 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Existing Conditions Similarly, topographical constraints will need to be addressed on a trail specific basis such that environmentally sensitive areas are protected and trails are constructed in the most cost-effective way while meeting trail standards of safety and accessibility. As this project to develop the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan moves forward, these constraints will be considered and addressed to the fullest extent possible within the scope of the master plan. The primary goal will be to provide sufficient guidance for the city to begin to implement the highest priority greenway trail extensions and to effectively plan to implement subsequent priorities. 32 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System 4. GREENWAY TRAILS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM This chapter outlines a classification system recommended for the Tigard trail system, recommends standard sections and guidelines for each facility type, and presents additional information on supporting features and amenities. The information in this section also touches on factors that affect the ability and desire to widen existing trail facilities, as well as best practices for transitions from unpaved to paved trail facilities. Tigard Trail Classifications A hierarchical trail system consists of a core system of regional trails that serve as the backbone of the trails network, which are supported by a complementary system of community trails and neighborhood trails (see Exhibit 1). This hierarchical system of trails provides community members high quality trail opportunities throughout the City of Tigard and pedestrian/bicycle connectivity to other parts of the Portland Metro region. The trails system will connect communities,neighborhoods, schools,parks,and other public areas. Table 4 provides a quick reference chart for the various types of trails and the proposed vision and purpose of each type. ARE.L v NEIGHBORHOOD S`SgP TRAILS ER G- �4�ao P 4 � u o g N z +Q 3 TUALATIN RIVER TRAIL REGIONALTRAIL COMMUNITY TRAIL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAIL Exhibit 1.Hierarchical Trail System in Tigard. 33 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System Table 4 Trail Vision and Purpose Neighborhood Trail Trail Hierarchy Regional Trail Community Trail Urban Trail Natural Trail Accommodate long bicycle rides. Provides recreational Used locally for shorter Provide critical connections, Formalize commonly-used opportunities for families and recreational trips,family encouraging short bicycle and connection or connection Vision users of all ages.Maybe accessed outings,and for pedestrian trips for through sensitive habitat that minimizes negative by auto at a trailhead.Supports commuting purposes. transportation and recreation. transportation trips. impacts. Provides a local Connects to regional trails Provides a local connection to a connection to a Spans multiple jurisdictions and and areas of local interest, bicycle or pedestrian-oriented pedestrian-oriented provides connections to Purpose including schools,transit destination,such as a bus stop, destination,such as a bus regionally-important parks and hubs,parks,and other school,neighborhood park,or stop,school, other destinations. destinations. local retail. neighborhood park,or local retail. REGIONAL TRAILS Regional trails connect residents within the city to adjacent communities—Hillsboro, Portland, unincorporated Washington County, and the greater Portland metropolitan region—and to regionally significant features such as the Tualatin River Wildlife Refuge, Cooper Mountain Natural Area, and other areas. There are four regional trails in Tigard identified in Metro's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). • Fanno Creek Greenway Trail: This trail begins at Willamette Park on the Willamette River Greenway,just south of downtown Portland. It stretches 15 miles to the west and south through Beaverton, Tigard, Durham, and ends at the Tualatin River in Tualatin. Approximately half of the trail is complete. • Westside Trail: Following the power line corridor,the Westside Trail will pass through the western end of Tigard, connecting 16 miles from the Tualatin River to Forest Park, the Willamette River Greenway, and the 40-Mile Loop at the St. Johns Bridge in Portland. • Washington Square Loop: This trail will provide an additional loop from the Fanno Creek Greenway, passing through the Washington Square area and connecting back to the Fanno Creek Greenway in Beaverton. • Tualatin River Trail: This trail follows along the Tualatin River at Tigard's southern boundary with Tualatin. The Metro Regional Trails map calls for the extension of this trail further west to connect into the planned Westside Trail. 34 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System COMMUNITYTRAILS Community trails link important land uses and areas of interest within Tigard, including retail areas, schools, parks, transit centers, churches, major employers, libraries, and other desirable areas. Community Trails also connect users to adjacent communities and the regional trail system. Community trails within Tigard include the following: • Pathfinder-Genesis Trail: This trail extends south from Walnut Street. One fork of the "Y" extends close to SW Gaarde Street.The other fork of the"Y" extends to SW Fairhaven Street. • Summer Creek Trail: This trail primarily loops around Summer Lake with a few extensions into adjacent neighborhoods. • Park Trails:Trails in parks include Cook Park, Durham Park,and Englewood Park. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS Neighborhood trails primarily serve pedestrians with safe and direct connections to local features such as schools, parks, natural areas, and community centers. Some neighborhood trails may also be appropriate for bicycling and skating. While neighborhood trails may have their own right-of- way, others may follow neighborhood streets for a short segment, in which case pedestrians are accommodated with a sidewalk or shared-use path and bicyclists share the roadway with vehicles. There are two classes of neighborhood trails: • Urban Trails are typically paved or made of a smooth surface to accommodate most trail users, and are found in more urban areas to provide an accessible connection to a neighborhood park or other destination. One example of an urban trail is Aspen Ridge Drive to 122nd Avenue extension. • Natural Trails are soft-surface trails Exhibit 2. Natural neighborhood trail provides typically found in undeveloped parks a cut-through to Twality Middle School from and natural areas and aim to provide a SW 92nd Avenue. natural outdoor experience. These trails are usually for pedestrians only. Examples of natural trails include: 35 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System • Twality Middle School to SW 92nd Avenue (see Exhibit 2); • Lauren Lane Extension; • Thornwood Trail to Autumnview Street; and • Alpine Crest Way Extension to Bull Mountain Road. Recommended Cross Sections for Greenway Trail Classifications The City of Tigard has standard cross-sections for"pedestrian paths or bikeways."The standards do not include guidelines for multi-use trails. Shown in Exhibit 3, the standards dictate a five-foot minimum width for pedestrian ways and ten-foot minimum for multi-use paths.They further state: • Concrete shall be 3,000 P.S.I.at 28 days, 6 sac mix,slump range of 11/2"-3"; • Concrete panels shall be square, 3/n." deep scribes at joints 5 feet apart, edged on 4 sides and have a light broom finish; • Fabric to be a woven geotextile (Amoco 2006) or approved equal; and • Compact and sterilize subgrade. 5' MIN. 2 112" A.C. 4" OF P.G.G. ON 4" OF 3/4"-0 2% SLOPE TO STREET FABRIC' Exhibit 3.Existing"Pedestrian Paths and Bikeways"Design Standards3 In addition, city code 18.810.110 states that the minimum width of a bikeway should be five feet per bicycle travel lane,and that the minimum width of an off-road multi-use path should be ten feet. Eight feet is acceptable, given environmental or other constraints. For a natural neighborhood trail, the minimum width is five feet. 3Source:http://www.tigard- or.gov/city hall/departments/cd/capital construction/standard details/docs/pdfs/street-combined.pdf 36 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System The Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards (1998) specify that bikeways should meet the requirements of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999). Additional guidance is provided as follows: Bikeways not within a street shall be constructed upon compacted subgrade that has been sterilized. If it is an asphaltic concrete bikeway, it should be constructed to one of the following pavementsection designs: • 4 inches of asphalt concrete(full depth); • 2Y2 inches of asphalt concrete with 4 inches of 4"- 0"rock base;or • 4 inches of Portland cement concrete. Design standards regarding horizontal alignment,grade,sight distance, intersections,signing, marking, structures, drainage and lighting shall conform to the AASHTO standards. When bikeways are integrated with a curb all inlet grates shall be designed to protect the bicyclist from the grate or opening. Table 5 provides a quick reference chart for the various types of trails and the accepted guidelines. The following cross-sections illustrate standard treatments for most trails in Tigard. This section includes guidance from other trail design documents, including: • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999. www.transportation.org • AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways, 2001.www.transportation.org • City of Tigard, Public Improvement Design Standards, 1998. • City of Tigard,Transportation System Plan, Draft 2010. • Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD), 2009. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov • Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 1994. • Metro, Green Trails: Guidelines for Building Environmentally Friendly Trails,2004. 37 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System Table 5 Recommended Trail Sections Neighborhood Trail Regional Trail Community Trail Urban Trail Natural Trail Facility Type Shared-use path Shared-use path Shared-use path/sidewalk Soft surface trail Users Bicyclists Bicyclists Bicyclists Bicyclists Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Wheelchairs Wheelchairs Wheelchairs*" Baby strollers Baby strollers Baby strollers Skaters Skaters* Skaters* Width Approx.10-14 ft Approx.8-10 ft 3-8 ft 3-8 ft 2 ft gravel shoulders 1-2 ft gravel shoulders 1-2 ft gravel shoulders 1-2 ft gravel shoulders (optional) (optional) Surface Paved or other smooth- Paved or other smooth- Paved or other smooth-rolling Earth,gravel,wood rolling surface to rolling surface to surface to accommodate all chips,or other soft accommodate all trail users accommodate all trail users trail users surface material Source:design guidelines adapted from the documents listed above. Notes: *Depends upon chosen trail surface-inline skates and skateboards will not roll well on surfaces other than asphalt or concrete. #Paved park trails may still be too steep to safely accommodate wheelchair and other disabled users. 38 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System REGIONAL TRAILS Regional trails generally have their own right-of-way and have minimal conflict with automobile traffic. These trails are designed to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidance, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) standards and other state and federal guidelines, which make them eligible for state and federal transportation funding. Regional trails serve bicyclists, pedestrians,wheelchair users,skaters,and others. Exhibit 4 illustrates a typical shared-use path design that is appropriate for regional trails and some community trails. This trail is designed to accommodate two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic, typically has its own right-of-way, and can accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicles. This type of trail is typically paved (asphalt or concrete) but can also be a surface that provides a smooth surface, as long as it meets ADA requirements. Wider gravel shoulders should be provided for runners/joggers if space allows. 10, VERTICAL CLEAR ZONE hil-W1111.1 ......... Exhibit 4.Regional Trail Design. 39 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System COMMUNITYTRAILS Most community trails in Tigard are off-street shared-use paths that meet state and federal standards. However, some community trails may follow neighborhood streets for a short stretch, in which case pedestrians are accommodated with a sidewalk or shared-use path and bicyclists share the roadway with vehicles. Community trails provide access for most, if not all, trail users within neighborhoods, parks, green spaces, and other recreational areas. They are similar to regional trails in that they typically have their own right-of-way and serve only non-motorized users. These trails should be at least eight feet wide, wider if heavy bicycle use is anticipated. Exhibit 5 illustrates a typical community trail design. ■ . VERTICAL CLEAR ZONE I Exhibit 5.Community Trail Design. 40 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System NEIGHBORHOOD TRAILS Neighborhood trails primarily serve pedestrians with safe and direct connections to local features. Efforts should be made to ensure that at least one ADA accessible trail is available and serves the most desirable parts of the area (e.g.,picnic areas,viewpoints,playground equipment). Urban Neighborhood Trails Neighborhood trails can be paved to accommodate most trail users. Where they provide a direct connection to a park or other neighborhood attraction, urban trails have their own right-of-way, separated from the street system (Exhibit 6). Many of the existing demand trail locations in Tigard pass closely between two houses. In these situations, it is important to consider the privacy of the homeowners and to provide sufficient landscaping and amenities to make the trail an important community asset. The width of urban neighborhood trails depends on their predicted usage. Heavily-used urban neighborhood trails should optimally have a 12-foot right-of-way with a centered eight-foot wide paved surface and two tow-foot planter strips. Eight feet is the minimum width generally recommended for a two-way multi-use path that will experience significant use, and is compliant with Tigard design standards. In less-heavily trafficked areas,paved neighborhood trails can be as narrow as four feet to allow for one-directional pedestrian travel, and even narrower if constraints exist. If such a trail is long,bulb- outs should be provided,to allow pedestrians to pass each other. t_— 20 1 12 Exhibit 6.Urban Neighborhood Trail Design. Natural Neighborhood Trails Natural trails are usually considered when a trail is desired next to a natural resource or if the expected use will be minimal, as in the case of minor neighborhood trails.They are also appropriate 41 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System where a paved trail would be incompatible with the surroundings. Natural trails should take into account issues such as drainage, erosion, compaction/impaction from anticipated use, presence of waterways and sensitive riparian areas, habitat areas, environmental guidelines, such as Green Trails: Guidelines for Environmentally Friendly Trails by Metro, and regulations including Clean Water Services code for trails in water quality resource areas. They should be designed to minimize illegal activity and trash dumping. Trail width will depend on the number and characteristics of intended users and the width of available right-of-way. For example, narrower paths intended only for walking use may be necessary in constrained areas. Larger areas with natural trails (i.e., natural parks and green spaces) should have a complimentary accessible route that meets or exceeds ADA standards in addition to the natural trail.A soft surface trail should have a five-foot to eight-foot trail width, and can be as narrow as three feet if constraints exist4. As these trails are designed to protect habitats and minimize impacts on the environment, narrow widths are desired. In addition, natural trails have a tendency to widen on their own, due to dogs or people walking side-by-side. The trail width should include one or two-foot shoulders where possible (Exhibit 7), which can be planted with a bio-swale or low shrubbery. This area is meant to prevent the tunnel effect that can occur if fences come directly up to the edge of the trail. Clearance to overhead obstructions should be eight feet minimum,with 10 feet of clearance recommended. 4 Natural neighborhood trails are not formal paved urban trails, and can vary from the City of Tigard 'pedestrian paths and bikeways' standards discussed on page 27.Due to low expected usage,lack of available right-of-way, and in order to fit in with the residential character that is typically their context, natural neighborhood trails can be narrower than the standard five feet minimum. 42 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Greenway Trails Classification System f .t a. i A A A Exhibit 7.Natural Neighborhood Trail Design. 43 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines 5. TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES This chapter presents typical surfacing options and design elements for greenway trails. The first section of this chapter presents an overview and typical sections of both soft and hard trail surfacing options, as well as a variety of design elements, including retaining walls, lighting, trail crossings, and other features. The second section provides a cost sheet of all surface options and design elements. The chapter closes with an analysis of the trade-offs between different surfacing options and a consideration of typical design features. The trail classification system described in Chapter 4 aids in identification of the design guidelines and options appropriate to a specific trail or trail segment.The guidelines in this document are not requirements, and flexibility should be used for specific site contexts and constraints. Recommended designs are based on the city's existing standards for design and construction, the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and the City of Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan. Additional federal guidelines and design best practices include: • Alta Planning + Design. (2009). What's Under Foot? Multi-use Trail Surfacing Options.http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/AltaTrailSurface.pdf • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1999).AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.Washington,DC.www.transportation.org • Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).Washington,DC. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov • Federal Highway Administration. (2005). Report HRT-04-100, Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/ • Federal Highway Administration. (1999). Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access.http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalks/index.htm • National Center on Accessibility. (Fall 2001, revised October 2007). Trail surfaces: what do I need to know now?http://www.ncaonline.org • United States Access Board. (2007).Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines(PROWAG). Washington,D.C.http://www.access-board.gov/PROWAC/alterations/guide.htm • Metro. (No Date).Green Trails:Guidelines for environmentally friendly trails. Environmental Impacts of Trails Metro's Green Trails guide provides a framework for minimizing environmental impacts of greenway trails. The guide opens with the following principles for assessing potential trail corridors in urbanized settings: 44 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines 1. Best case: Look for long-established routes or boundaries that may already have become trail routes, such as fence lines, old trolley lines, railroad lines, social trails (also known as demand trails) and utility corridors. 2. Next best case: Use an alignment or human imposed"edge"between two adjacent different land uses such as the boundary between a developed area and an adjacent natural area. 3. Last resort: Use a right-of-way along an established transportation corridor. The guide recommends avoiding or minimizing impacts in riparian areas, but states that trails should avoid high-quality resources in lieu of already-disturbed areas, in particular locations where social or demand trails exist.The guide also notes that bringing a new trail into an area can provide an opportunity to restore a disturbed area. Examples of restoration projects include replacing non- native plants with native vegetation and rehabilitating wet meadow systems in urban greenspaces whose hydrology is affected by old roads. PROTECTING VEGETATION AND HABITATS Where trails are adjacent to or cross sensitive habitat, they should be elevated, such as on a boardwalk. Native vegetation or other barriers can be used to prevent trail users from diverting off the trail. Setbacks and perpendicularly crossing streams also minimize impacts to sensitive habitats. Culvert sizes for stream crossings should be determined by an environmental engineer. Trails in water resource areas should be surfaced with materials that allow infiltration of rainfall and that will not be washed by runoff into the water resource area. ADA Compliance Where possible, shared-use paths should be designed according to ADA standards. Greenway trails may face constraints that make meeting ADA standards difficult and sometimes prohibitive. Prohibitive impacts include harm to significant; cultural or natural resources, a significant change in the intended purpose of the trail, requirements of construction methods that are against federal, state or local regulations, or presence of terrain characteristics that prevent compliance. Exhibit B. The transition from the trail to the sidewalk at an intersection should be ADA guidelines for trails include: accessible for pedestrians in wheelchairs. 45 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines • Minimum clear width of three feet, and where less than five feet a passing space should be provided at least every 100 feet. • Signs shall be provided indicating the length of the accessible trail segment. • Curb ramps shall be provided at roadway crossings and curbs. Tactile warning strips and auditory crossing signals are recommended. • The trail surface shall be firm and stable.5 Slopes typically should not exceed five percent. However certain conditions may require the use of steeper slope.For conditions exceeding a five percent slope,the recommendations are as follows: • Up to an 8.3 percent slope for a 200-foot maximum run, landings or resting intervals must be provided at a minimum of 20 feet. If steeper segments are incorporated into the shared-use path,the total running grade that exceeds 8.3 percent should be less than 30 percent of the total trail length. • Up to a ten percent slope for a 30-foot maximum run, with resting intervals spaced every 30 feet at a minimum. • Up to 12.5 percent slope for a ten-foot maximum run, with resting intervals spaced at ten feet minimum.6 Surfacing Options There are many options related to trail surfacing. This choice determines the types of users who can enjoy the trail, as well as construction cost, maintenance cost, and other factors. The most common surfacing material for a paved path is concrete, asphalt, or permeable asphalt, while unpaved paths can be surfaced with gravel, bark chips, or other natural materials. Cost estimates per linear foot of each surface option are provided in the following section,while the final section of 5 The Forest Service Accessibility Guidelines defines a firm surface as a trail surface that is not noticeably distorted or compressed by the passage of a device that simulates a person who uses a wheelchair. Where rights-of-way are available, paths can be made more accessible by creating side paths that meander away from a roadway that exceeds a 5% slope. Additionally, the National Center on Accessibility has detailed information:http://www.ncaonline.org 6 FHWA.(2001).Designing Sidewalks and Trails forAccess, Chapter 14: Shared Use Path Design,Section 14.5.1: Grade.http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/sidewalks214.htm 46 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines the chapter discusses trade-offs and factors that affect surface material choice for a particular trail location. SOFT SURFACE (JOINT-FRIENDLY) OPTIONS In locations where environmental sensitivity or the characteristics of the trail environment do not make a paved trail appropriate, many options exist for soft-surface trails. Soft surfaces such as gravel, dirt, and even asphalt are less jarring on the joints than concrete. Fitness experts encourage people to avoid concrete surfaces for healthier knees and joints. For these reasons, runners and joggers often prefer softer surfaces than asphalt or concrete. An unpaved track can be provided parallel to the main trail segment for running. Wider soft surface shoulders or a parallel trail may be appropriate through a park, where slower-moving pedestrians would prefer a route out of the way of faster-moving bicyclists. Nike Grind The Nike Grind surface was developed for the Nike Reuse- A-Shoe program in 1993. The rubber from post-consumer, non-metal-containing athletic shoes is used to create a trail surface that is used primarily on running tracks. The surface is too soft for bicycles to traverse easily, and heavy _ loads should be avoided. Maintenance includes reapplication of the binding agent every five to six years, and surface must be kept clean of dirt and sand. The surface Exhibit 9.Nike Grind at the Atlas Track. must be replaced after ten years. Gravel/Crusher Fines As a natural trail surface,gravel is a practical option for narrow facilities that will not see significant traffic. Gravel surfacing provides a more stable footing that will be less likely to collect rain water 17— in the winter. Gravel is made from rounded rocks, while crusher fines (also called native pit-run fines) , 1• are made from angular rocks. rr . Exhibit 10.Crusher Fines Trail. 47 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Costs for gravel trails include grading, vegetation clearing, aggregate base, and crusher fines. Maintenance of gravel paths includes annual inspection and repair of low spots or ruts to avoid erosion and tripping hazards. Gravel trails should last five to seven years. Exhibit 11. shows a standard cross-section of a gravel trail. wiGTH vARIES F 2%CROSS SLOPE k1 1, 5 5�� � �� J'CHl1SHtf{F IHtu C AGGREGATE BASE GEQlTX71LE FABRIC CL^41PAL7E1:SUBCZAC€ 5 5 JNDISTMeED CARM Exhibit 11.Gravel Cross-Section. Decomposed Granite Widely used in California and the Southwestern United States, decomposed granite or DG is crushed granite particles, often a byproduct of granite quarries. DG provides an inexpensive paving option for soft surface trails in areas where granite is a local product. It provides a surface texture similar to lightly compacted sand. In areas exposed to significant rainfall and/or flooding puddling occurs and DG can deteriorate rapidly. DG paths on hillsides are prone to erosion. DG paths used for public access should have edging to keep the DG in place. Redwood header board or steel are commonly used for edging. A DG path with steel edging will cost about the same as a concrete path. Costs for DG paving include grading, vegetation clearing, edging, geotextile fabric, aggregate base, and decomposed granite fines. A heavily used DG path will need to have low spots or washout areas filled in and recompacted each year and complete reconstruction every five to seven years. DG with stabilizers or resin will last much longer, seven to ten years, but will have very little permeability. Stabilized DG will have a texture similar to asphalt with loose sand or grit on the surface and will cost similar to asphalt. 48 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Bark Chip/Mulch Also known as wood mulch,bark chip is an inexpensive and easily-applied trail surface. However, bicyclists, roller bladers, and pedestrians in wheelchairs may not be able to use a mulch path. Bark chip is installed by placing a three R inch layer of mulch on the trail surface,raking and shaping, I k then applying a second three inches of mulch after initial 4 compaction and settlement. Bark chip must be top-dressed annually, and lasts from one to three years. Wood mulch Exhibit 12.Bark Chip Trail. decays rapidly when exposed to moisture, sun, wind, and heat.Standard elements of a bark mulch or other natural surface trail are shown in Exhibit 13. . �C7Y11 VARi_S FWIS71{3R GE FLWH 2%SLOPE 'WrtH PATH EtIGE � k ��� � �11 r 9rwzK+�,]LCx1;noG�4 tRT�RiM�{+;Q;FAP.tQTIQnJ 5 }'Lihl{II NLtpq 4'A30W..GA.TF.R%Sf GEDTEIRIL€FAMC COMR4CTE49AGPbOE UN&*TURb€l E"N Exhibit 13.Bark Mulch or Filbert Shell Cross-Section. Bark mulch or wood chips should not be used in the floodway (reserved area of the flood plain), in stream approaches, on portions of the trail with surface cross-drainage, or where trail drainage would transport the material to channels or wetland, as their decomposition in water can lower dissolved oxygen levels, contribute harmful tannins, and cause or exacerbate other water quality issues.? 7 Metro. (2004).Green Trails:Guidelines for environmentally friendly trails. 49 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Filbert Shells While filbert shells are aesthetically appealing,shells must be raked regularly to keep them in place. They should be re-topped every five years,and last seven to ten years. Native Soil Depending on the soil type, native soil trails can be an inexpensive and context-sensitive pleasing natural trail surface. High clay content soils or soils in wet areas can become muddy and take a long time to dry out. A soil survey can be used to determine the potential for a native soil trail. Annual maintenance of native soil trails includes correcting drainage issues like low muddy spots, removing trail edges where berms tend to build up and where uphill slopes erode onto the trails. Similar to paved multi-use paths,the trail surface should be kept free of debris, loose gravel, leaves and stray branches. Decomposing leaf matter on the trail will trap water, block drainage and create muddy areas. The life span of a native soil trail will depend on the soil type, climate and maintenance.Areas with poorer soils, heavy rainfall and little or no maintenance,trails will need to be rebuilt every five years. HARD SURFACE OPTIONS Standard surfacing materials for a paved path are concrete or asphalt. Permeable options are also available to minimize drainage issues in sensitive areas. Concrete The use of concrete surfacing for paths has proven to be the most suitable for long-term use (Exhibit 14. ). ..v— Using modern construction practices, concrete provides a smooth ride with low maintenance costs that is suitable for all users. Runners may prefer to use the softer surface along the sides of the trail. Concrete paths cost more to build than asphalt paths, yet they do not become brittle, cracked and rough v with age, or deformed by roots and weeds as with asphalt. They last approximately 30 years, and must be periodically inspected for uplift and settlement, Exhibit 14.Concrete Trail Surface. and repaired as needed. Exhibit 15. shows a typical section of a concrete trail. 50 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines 2' 2' CLEAR WIDTH VARIES CLEAR 1 —15"RADIUS EMER FINISH WELVEo WIRE W5H T —256 CRASS SLOPE ASTM A995 -------------- ---------------------- 4'CQNCRETE PAVING LIGHT BROOM FINISH PF;RPENDII �AR TQ WVTH OF PATH 4`AWREGATE BASE I'MOTEXTILE FABRIC VNCISTUR6Ld EARTI1 NOTES: 1E FR L SEC700N COW MUNI ONDEOFECHREPOR1 2) PLACE SAW CUT CONYRM JOINTS AS SEEN ON PLAN Exhibit 15.Concrete Trail Cross-Section.$ Recycled Concrete Aggregate(RCA) RCA is granular material manufactured by removing, crushing, and processing hydraulic-cement concrete pavement for reuse with a hydraulic cementing medium to produce fresh paving concrete. Except for removing steel, impurities, and contaminates, this process is identical to the process used to produce aggregate from virgin stone materials. Adding RCA to concrete pavement may reduce costs, depending on availability of RCA vs.virgin stone materials.9 Fly Ash Fly ash is a fine, glass-like powder recovered from gases created by coal-fired electric power generation. U.S. power plants produce millions of tons of fly ash annually, which is usually dumped in landfills. Fly ash is an inexpensive replacement for Portland cement used in concrete, while it improves strength, segregation, and ease of pumping of the concrete. The techniques for working with this type of concrete are standard for the industry and will not impact the budget of a job. S Note: The "clear" shoulders shown on the cross-section should be kept empty of buildings or fences; however, low-lying vegetation or bioswale plantings are encouraged in these areas. Depth of subbase should be determined by a soil analysis. 9 Additional information is available at:httl2://www.fhwa.dot.gov/12avement/tSO4037.cfm 51 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Pervious Concrete Pervious concrete allows rain to seep through the surface and percolate into the soil reducing run- off. The water is never trapped as it is on normal concrete paving. The use of pervious pavement systems attenuates the peak discharge of storm water into drainage systems. Regions that receive a lot of rain, and a small amount of snow in the winter are good places for pervious-surface asphalt. It is less successful in regions that receive a lot of snow and ice during the winter months as the asphalt tends to crack, similar to normal pavement. Pervious concrete lasts for approximately 15 years and requires a sweep and pressure wash four times per year. Asphalt Asphalt is the most common surface treatment for multi-use paths. The material composition and construction methods used can significantly affect the longevity of the pathway. Thicker asphalt sections and a well-prepared subgrade will reduce deformation over time and reduce long-term maintenance costs.Asphalt is suitable for a wide variety of trail users and is less jarring on people's joints than concrete. Exhibit 16. shows a typical section of an asphalt trail. 2- 2- CLEAR WIDTI I VARIES CLEAR 1" j 2%CROSS SLOPE T � / „i� �� � 51 �,J l•f J !/ � 3X C<,RSS''C''ASPHALT CAVING k AGGREGATE BASE GEOTEX-PLE FABRIC h IJNpl$T RBEC1 EARTH Exhibit 16.Asphalt Trail Cross-Section. The edges of asphalt often crumble over time, and the material is prone to cracking, doming, heaving, and settling.To improve the lifespan of the trail, provide an adequate pavement structural section to support the maintenance vehicles that will be using the trail. Also, if maintenance vehicles will be on the trail,then ten feet is the minimum width recommended.The added load of a vehicle on a narrower trail will cause the edges to crumble. Based on observations and analysis of similar existing asphalt paths, the pavement surfacing will need an overlay or extensive replacement and renovation every 15 to 20 years. However, this extensive replacement could be mitigated and the expense reduced with preventative maintenance measures such as chip-sealing every five to eight years. Chip seal is not recommended for use near 52 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines water resources due to the potential for excess oil to be washed off the surface. Deteriorated sections are easier to remove and replace than concrete. Recycled Materials in Asphalt10 Asphalt typically used for a paved trail tread can be composed of recycled materials that otherwise would end up in a landfill in-lieu of new base material. This reuse of materials reduces hauling- related energy consumption and construction waste management.These materials include: • Glassphalt: A mixture of traditional asphalt and recycled glass. The glass is used to replace some of the sand that would otherwise be found in asphalt. Glassphalt can be installed using the same equipment and procedures as conventional asphalt. • Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP): RAP can be used as an aggregate in the hot recycling of asphalt paving mixtures. RAP is routinely accepted in asphalt paving mixtures as an aggregate substitute and as a portion of the binder in nearly all 50 states. Substitution rates of 10 to 50 percent or more, depending on state specifications, are normally introduced in pavements,and recently developed technology has even made it possible to recycle 90 to 100 percent RAP in hot mix.httl2://www.fliwa.dot.gov/12avement/recycling/ral2/index.cfm og_v/pavement/recycling/ral2/index.cfm • Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC): Also known as asphalt rubber hot mix, uses crumb rubber from scrap tires. Below is a list of the benefits of rubberized asphalt according to the Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Technology Center,"RAC: • Can save as much as $22,000 per mile of trail (or one lane of roadway) over conventional asphalt when resurfacing with a two-inch-thick layer • Is highly skid-resistant, quieter, and resists shoving and rutting when a gapgraded mix is used • Provides excellent, long-lasting color contrast for striping and marking • Resists reflective cracking to Bondurant,Julie and Thompson,Laura. (2009). Trail Planning in California Communities. 11 Source:www.rubberizedasphaILorglindex.hlm 53 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Uses approximately 2,000 waste tires per trail mile (or one lane of roadway) for a two-inch resurfacing project Pervious Asphalt Similar in appearance to traditional asphalt, pervious asphalt allows rain to seep through the surface, reducing run-off. Trails that are along bodies of water or that may have flooding problems should consider using this surface. Exhibit 17.Asphalt Trail Surface. Exhibit 18.Permeable Trail Surface. ADJOINING HARD AND SOFT TRAILS Where a paved trail provides access to unpaved lower-order trails, users may benefit from additional signage, parking, or other information. In Tigard, one example of this transition is on the Tualatin River Trail in Cook Park. Where users can only continue a trail on the unpaved section, signs should be posted in advance so that road cyclists with narrow tires or pedestrians in wheelchairs are not forced to turn around unexpectedly. If bicycles are prohibited on the unpaved trail, short-term parking staples should be provided to allow people to ride to access the trail,and leave their bicycles behind. Information such as map kiosks can be helpful for trail users to determine alternate routes or routes within the unpaved trail section. BOARDWALK Boardwalk construction may be used in sensitive areas such as stream environment zones and in areas of steep slopes. Boardwalk construction is typically much more expensive than traditional paved paths. Cyclists may prefer paved paths over boardwalks because of the smoother surface and 54 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines better traction typically associated with paved applications. Their use should be considered in relation to environmental needs,budget,and potential user needs and management issues. Trail width should be a minimum of 10 feet when no rail is used. A 12 foot width is preferred in areas with high anticipated use and whenever rails are used. AASHTO recommends carrying the clear area (or 2 foot space on either side of trail) across the structure.This provides an appropriate horizontal shy distance from the railing and allows for maneuvering space to avoid conflicts with users stopped on the structure.A 10 foot width is recommended only for low-use areas. Exhibit 19. depicts typical elements of a boardwalk. Trail height should be set to allow for small animal movement under the structure, a minimum of six inches above grade. Trails less than 30" above grade may not require a railing according to current building standards. Six inch curb rails may be used. Trails higher than 30" above grade require a 42" high rail. It should be noted that AASHTO recommends 42" high railings on any structured path. Paths should also be designed to structurally support the weight of a small truck or a light-weight maintenance vehicle. Boardwalk maintenance should include frequent inspection for structural integrity and immediate replacement of any defective pieces. The life span of a boardwalk will depend entirely on the materials used.Typically a wood boardwalk will last ten years. CHAMFER TOP OF POST 112'SHADOW LINE CUT r 6X8 POST �. 2x4 DECKING M„ 2x8 JOIST FASTENED WITH HANGER +'- I 4x12 BEAM r' 2x12 END JOIST FASTENED WITH BRACKET V2"DIA,CARRIAGE BOLTS IF DISTANCE ABOVE GROUND IS LESS THAN 30';A MGH RAILING IS NOT REQUIRED,ONLY A DETECTABLE BASE. III_ _ (2)112"DIA.MACHINE BOLTS I I BEAM SEAT BRACKET W!LATERAL SUPPORT 11 I1I T_�- 1! k— 1 i 1 --!'. L=1 I I E EXISTING GRADE HELICAL PIER EXTENSION SECTION HELICAL PIER FOR CROSS SUPPORT HELICAL PIER NUMBER AND SIZE OF HELIX PLATES VARY DEPENDING ON PIER LOAD AND SOIL CONDITIOP Exhibit 19.Boardwalk Cross-Section. 55 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines SIDE PATHS Shared-use paths that are located directly adjacent to roadways and within the street right-of-way are ` called 'side paths' (Exhibit 20. ). Side paths serve both bicyclists and pedestrians and are wider than a standard sidewalk. Side paths should have a buffer of at least five feet from the roadway or a physical barrier (AASHTO). At intersections, the side path should turn toward the street so path users cross at intersections. Exhibit 20.Side Path. However, drivers at intersections or entering and existing driveways may not be expecting bicyclists traveling adjacent to the roadway and sometimes against the flow of traffic. Because bicyclists are expected to stop at every intersection on a side path even along a main street that has right-of-way, riding on a side path is slower than on-street riding and many commuter or long-distance riders may prefer riding in the street. SHARED LANE MARKINGS Shared lane markings are high-visibility pavement markings that help position bicyclists within the travel lane (Exhibit 21. ). These l I markings are often used on streets where dedicated bike lanes are f desirable but are not possible due to physical or other constraints. Shared lane markings are placed strategically in the travel lane to poor alert motorists of bicycle traffic, while also encouraging cyclists to zone ride at an appropriate distance from the "door zone" of adjacent parked cars.While the City of Tigard does not presently use shared 9.5' lane markings, these markings have been successfully used in many communities throughout the U.S,including in Oregon. Shared Exhibit 21. Shared Lane lane markings made of thermoplastic tend to last longer than those Marking Placement GuidanceFor Streets With On-Street using traditional paint. Parking. 56 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Trail Design Features In addition to trail surface material,there are many other design elements that range from essential to the development of the trail,to amenities that benefit trail users and minimize trail impacts.This section addresses those features. Cost estimates are provided in Tables 8 and 9. BRIDGES Bridges should be at least as wide as the paved path, with a minimum of two feet clear horizontally on either side. The vertical space between the bottom rail and the deck surface should be a minimum of 3.5 inches or 9 to 12 inches for consistency with non head entrapment of playground railing fixtures for children. Decking material must be firm and stable. Bridge types with low profiles to provide minimal obstruction to flood flows, such as reinforced or pre-stressed concrete slab bridges or rolled steel beam bridges, are recommended. For longer spans, prefabricated steel truss spans are economical choices. j; i Te_' Exhibit 22.Single Span Concrete Bridge. Exhibit 23.Steel Beam Bridge. -x� Y tk � Exhibit 24.Prefabricated Steel Truss Bridge. Exhibit 25.Concrete Stress Ribbon Bridge. (Source:http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ structures/CreativeCrossings.htmll. 57 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Bridges can be designed to pass over the sensitive habitat area, crossing streams as close to perpendicular as possible. Pilings should be located outside of the sensitive resource area, and vegetation or a barrier can be provided to discourage trail users from walking off of the trail. Some bridge designs, such as the 'concrete stress ribbon bridge' in Redding, California, can span long distances;the bridge pictured in Exhibit 25. is 13-feet wide and 420-feet long. Additional resource for developing environmentally-sensitive bridge structures: • Metro.Green Trails:Guidelines for environmentally friendly trails. • National Trails Training Partnership, Creative Crossings: innovative trail bridge and overpass designs.http//www.americantrails.org/resources/structures/CreativeCrossin sg html TRAIL CROSSINGS A key consideration of trail design is connections to the on-street bikeway and sidewalk networks, as well as design of safe and convenient trail crossings of roadways. Whether or not the trail continues on the far side of the street, many trail users are likely to cross in order to continue their trip. Evaluation of path crossings involves analysis of vehicular and anticipated path user traffic patterns,including: • Vehicle speeds • Path user profile (age distribution, • Street width destinations served, particularly safe routes to school • Traffic volumes (average daily opportunities) traffic and peak hour traffic) • Sight distance In addition,all trails approaching roadways should include warning signs both for vehicles and path users (discussed following), access to the sidewalk or roadway via curb ramps, and bollards to differentiate the trail from the roadway. Table 6 summarizes guidelines for at-grade trail crossings. 58 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Table 6 Summary of Path/Roadway At-Grade Crossing Recommendations 12 Vehicle AD Vehicle 'Diii to Vehicle ADT Vehicle AD OOO > 12,000 to 15,000 > 15,00 12yOOO Roadway Speed Limit(mph)* Type i 35 40 30 35 40 30 35 40 30 35 40 2 Lanes 1 1 1/1+ 1 1 1/1+ 1 1 1+/3 1 1/1+ 1+/3 313Lanes 1 1 1/1+ 1 1/1+ 1/1+ 1/1+ 1/1+ 1+/3 1/1+ 1+/3 10/3 Multi-Lane (4+) w/ raised 1 1 1/1+ 1 1/1+ 1+/3 1/1+ 1/1+ 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 median*** Multi-Lane (4+) w/o 1 1/1+ 1+/3 1/1+ 1/1+ 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 1+/3 raised median "General Notes: Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks,or other dangers,without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices.Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians.Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements(e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing,enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations;good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding which treatment to use. For each pathway-roadway crossing, an engineering study is needed to determine the proper location. For each engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed,sight distance, vehicle mix, etc. may be needed at other sites. **Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mi/h marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. ***The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 ft(1.2 m)wide and 6 ft(1.8 m) long to adequately serve as a refuge area for pedestrians in accordance with MUTCD and AASHTO guidelines. A two-way center turn lane is not considered a median. 1=Type 1 Crossings. Ladder-style crosswalks with appropriate signage should be used. 1/1+=With the higher volumes and speeds,enhanced treatments should be used, including marked ladder style crosswalks, median refuge, flashing beacons, and/or in-pavement flashers. Ensure there are sufficient gaps through signal timing, as well as sight distance. 1+/3=Carefully analyze signal warrants using a combination of Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume or 5, School Crossing (depending on school presence)and Equivalent Adult Unit(EAU)factoring(see MUTCD, Chapter 4).Make sure to project pathway usage based on future potential demand. Consider bicycle/pedestrian half signals in lieu of full signals. For those intersections not meeting warrants or where engineering judgment or cost recommends against signalization, implement Type 1 enhanced crosswalk markings with marked ladder style crosswalks, median refuge, flashing beacons, and/or in-pavement flashers. Ensure there are sufficient gaps through signal timing, as well as sight distance. 12 This table is based on information contained in the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Study, "Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations," February 2002. 59 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines REGULATORY AND WARNING SIGNING Regulatory signs indicate to trail and road users the traffic regulations which apply at a specific time or place. Warning signs indicate in advance conditions on or adjacent to a road or trail that will normally require caution and may require a • reduction in vehicle speed. < > W11- The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires yield lines and "Yield Here to Pedestrians" signs at all TRAI L uncontrolled crossings of a multi-lane roadway. The MUTCD X-ING VV11-15p includes a trail crossing sign (Exhibit 26. ), which may be used where both bicyclists and pedestrians might be crossing the Exhibit 26. Required Signing At roadway, such as at an intersection with a shared-use path. All Uncontrolled Trail Crossings Of Multi-Lane Roadways. Intersection Warning (W2-1 through W2-5) signs may be used on a roadway, street, or shared-use path in advance of an intersection to indicate the presence of an intersection and the possibility of turning or entering traffic.A trail-sized stop sign (111-1) should be placed on a pathway about 5 feet before the intersection. BOLLARDS Bollards are an effective way of keeping motor •; vehicle traffic off of trails. They are relatively inexpensive and can be installed to be removed to allow passage of maintenance or emergency vehicles. A single bollard located in the center of a trail entrance can be enough to keep cars out while multiple closely spaced bollards or bollards with a chain in between may be used to separate a path from a parallel roadway. Minimize the use of bollards to avoid creating Exhibit 27. Bollards Are Used At Road Crossings obstacles for bicyclists. Bollards, particularly solid To Keep Motor Vehicle Traffic Off Trails. bollards, have caused serious injury to bicyclists. Instead, design the path entry and use signage to alert drivers that motor vehicles are prohibited. Bollards also are used to slow down cyclists approaching a street crossing. 60 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Flexible bollards and posts are designed to give way on impact and can be used instead of steel or solid posts. These bollards are typically made of plastic that is bolted to the roadway and bend and return to their original position when hit. They are intended to deter access, but allow vehicles through in an emergency. Bollards typically are installed using one of two methods: 1) The bollard is attached to the surface by mechanical means (bolting the bollards or using epoxy glue and bolts (see Exhibit 28.). 2) The bollard is set into concrete footing in the ground (see Exhibit 29.). Flexible Bollards Heavy Duty Round Bollard Flexible to 90° Column In-ground r4'i 5� a a a Flexible Insert l 1 Source: Lighthouse Bollards Source: Andian Sales Source: Reliance Foundry Co. Ltd Exhibit 28.Flexible Bollards. Exhibit 29.Removable Bollards. Where removable bollards are used, the top of the mount point should be flush with the path's surface so as not to create a hazard or potentially be damaged by snow removal devices when the bollard is not in place.At the time of this publication,flexible bollards that do not leave an anchored mounting device on the path or roadway surface when removed are not commercially available. All posts shall be permanently reflectorized for nighttime visibility and painted a bright color for improved daytime visibility. Exhibit 31. shows a recommended pavement striping pattern to reduce the risk of user collisions with the bollard. 61 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Is 3 m Bike Path 75 inin(3 ire) 1 r (10 R) Center Line max.nlc Stripe 0.61�Lrltii 0.3 m (1 ft) 4 { 0.3m (1ft) � 150 mm(6 in)� 10�- 100 mm(4 in)Yellow Stripe max.rise 1.525 m ramp f48 in) Exhibit 31.Bollard Striping. Exhibit 30.Curb Ramp Maximum Rise. When more than one post is used, an odd number of posts at five-foot spacing is desirable. Wider spacing can allow entry by adult tricycles,wheelchair users and bicycles with trailers. CURB RAMPS Properly designed curb ramps ensure that the trail is accessible from the roadway.A trail without a curb ramp can be useless to someone in a wheelchair. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides guidance for accessible curb ramps: the landing at the top of a ramp shall be at least four feet long and at least the same width as the ramp itself. It shall slope no more than 1:50 (2.0%) in any direction. If the ramp runs directly into a crosswalk, the landing at the bottom will be in the roadway.The landing,four feet long,shall be completely contained within the crosswalk and should have a running slope less than 1:20 (5.0%). If the ramp lands on a dropped landing within the sidewalk or corner area where someone in a wheelchair may have to change direction, the landing must be a minimum of five feet long and at least as wide as the ramp,although a width of five feet is preferred. Raised tactile devices (also known as truncated domes) alert people with visual impairments to changes in the pedestrian environment and should be used at the base of curb ramps and the edge of depressed corners. MARKED CROSSWALKS Signage should always be used at a marked and unsignalized crossing. The marked crosswalk can be combined with other treatments, such as warning lights or flashers. Paths can be curved to orient users toward oncoming traffic, slowing their pace, and make them aware of oncoming vehicles. Vegetation and other obstacles should be kept out of the sight line for motorists and path users. Table 7 provides guidelines for unsignalized trail crossings; additional engineering judgment should be used to determine the appropriate level of traffic control and design. 62 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Table 7 Unsignalized Trail Crossing Guidelines Crossing IrPostedl MW &rail T Sight Woe 1W. Speed rStreet Treatments-A _reatments A. lines Residential <15,000 =<25 MPH "Path Xing"warning signs "Stop"regulatory signs,slowing 155' /Collector <15,000 =<35 MPH techniques(bollards/geometry) 250' Collector <12,000 =<35 MPH Raised crosswalk,warning signs "Stop"regulatory signs,slowing techniques(bollards/geometry) Arterial13 >15,000 Median refuge and/or active "Stop"regulatory signs,slowing warnings,signs techniques(bollards/geometry) RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACON (RRFB) Also known as Light Emitting Diode (LED) Rapid-Flash System, Stutter Flash or LED Beacons, RRFBs are user- activated amber LEDs that supplement warning signs at unsignalized intersections or mid-block crossings. rr They use an irregular flash pattern that is similar to r. emergency flashers on police vehicles, are highly visible to motorists, and can be manually activated or use a detection system. !` - RRFBs are less expensive than traffic signals or hybrid Exhibit 32.RRFB. signals such as HAWKS, but have been shown to increase driver yielding behavior at crosswalks significantly when supplementing standard pedestrian crossing warning signs and markings. TRAIL CROSSINGS AT EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Crossings within 350 feet of an existing signalized intersection with pedestrian crosswalks are typically diverted to the signalized intersection for safety purposes. For this option to be effective, barriers and signing may be needed to direct shared-use path users to the signalized crossings. In most cases, signal modifications would be made to add pedestrian detection and to comply with ADA. 13 Trail crossings of multi-lane higher-volume arterials may be unsignalized where some or all of the following characteristics apply: excellent sight distance,sufficient crossing opportunities (more than 60 gaps per hour,defined as a space in traffic of sufficient length for a pedestrian traveling 3.5 ft/sec to cross),median refuges,and/or active warning devices like flashing beacons or in-pavement flashers. Such crossings would not be appropriate; however,if a significant number of schoolchildren used the path. 63 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines New signalized crossings may be recommended for crossings that meet pedestrian, school, or modified warrants, are located more than 250 feet from an existing signalized intersection and where 85th percentile travel speeds are 40 mph and above and/or Average Daily Trips (ADT) exceeds 15,000 vehicles. Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or volume, requires additional review by a registered engineer to identify sight lines, potential impacts on traffic progression, timing with adjacent signals,capacity,and safety. Shared-use path signals are normally activated by push buttons, but also may be triggered by motion detectors. The maximum delay for activation of the signal should be two minutes, with minimum t crossing times determined by the width of the street. The signals may rest on flashing yellow or green for motorists when not activated, and should be supplemented by standard advanced warning signs. Exhibit 33.Signalized Crossing Of Trail At A Multi-Lane Street. MANAGING MULTIPLE TRAIL USERS On trails that have high bicycle and pedestrian use, conflicts can arise between faster-moving bicyclists and slower bicyclists, as well as pedestrians and other users. On trails with widths appropriate to their classification and level of use, striping the centerline identifies which side of the trail users should be on (see Exhibit 34). Where additional width is required, such as along a regional trail that passes through a park, bicyclists and pedestrians can be physically separated (Exhibit 37). A separate pedestrian path should be provided if possible. Differing surfaces suitable to each user group foster visual separation and clarity of where each user group should be. When trail corridors are constrained, physical separation could be provided in the form of a small hump or other crossable barrier. The bicycle path should be located on whichever side of the path will result in the fewest number of anticipated pedestrian crossings. For example, the bike path should not be placed adjacent to large numbers of destinations. Site analysis of each project is required to determine expected pedestrian behavior. 64 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines r Wmin vertical clearance -----------------------------• Furnishing: i Furnishing Zone ' Zone 6' 2' 10'min 2' 0 0A Exhibit 34.Centerline Striping Encourages Exhibit 35. Recommended Cross-Section Trail Users To Provide Space For Other Of Trail With Separated Bicycle And Users To Pass. Pedestrian Paths. Edge Treatments FENCING Fencing is a means of assuring safety for both trail users and neighboring residents by preventing unwanted access onto or off of the v trail. By definition, significant lengths of the Tigard neighborhood trail corridors are Solid wood F""` surrounded on both sides by residential Exhibit 36 Example Wooden Fence properties. However, fencing both sides of the trail right-of-way can result in a "tunnel" effect with the perception of being trapped, resulting in a detrimental effect on the trail user experience. The narrow width of many corridors in the study area compounds this tunnel effect.Additionally, fencing could decrease public safety by preventing community surveillance of the trail. As a general policy, fencing requests should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If credible evidence exists that trespassing and crime issues on a specific property is a result of the development of the trail, then installing fencing should be considered. There are numerous fencing types that can be considered. Solid fencing that does not allow any visual access to the trail should be discouraged. Fencing that allows a balance between the need for privacy, while simultaneously 65 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines allowing informal surveillance of the trail should be encouraged. If fencing is requested purely for privacy reasons,vegetative buffers should be considered. Exhibit 39 shows an example of a wooden fencing option, and Exhibits 40 and 41 each show additional examples of different types of fences that have been used along trails. In addition to these, fencing can be made of metal or dense vegetation, or trails can be left with an open boundary, as discussed below. AL Exhibit 37. Post And Wire Exhibit 38. Wooden Safety Exhibit 39.Metal Fencing. Fence. Fence. DENSE VEGETATION Dense vegetation can be used to define the trail corridor and increase privacy, particularly in locations with preexisting plants. The major expense of this option is maintenance, which includes watering and trimming vegetation semi-regularly to maintain adequate path clearance. OPEN BOUNDARY In locations without significant vegetation,it is an option to maintain an open boundary around the trail. Users will tend to walk through an open area, so this option is not practical for areas where privacy or trespassing is a concern of landowners. Lighting Lighting improves the safety of the trail or path user by increasing visibility during non-daylight hours. Lighting should consider the surrounding land use to minimize light pollution in sensitive areas. The fixtures should be installed near benches, drinking fountains, bicycle racks, trailheads, and roadway and trail crossings. Depending on the location, average maintained horizontal illumination levels of 5 lux to 22 lux should be considered (AASHTO). Where special security problems exist,higher illumination levels may be considered. 66 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Light standards (poles) should be installed to meet the recommended horizontal and vertical clearances from trail users. In addition to full height light standards, bollards also provide an effective mounting location for pathway lighting. Their low height and frequent locations reduce light pollution by keeping the illumination source close to the trail surface. There are many types of lighting bollards available. Solar powered bollards lit by LEDs can last about 20 times longer than incandescent bulbs and provide pathway lighting for over 100,000 hours. PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING Pedestrian-scale lighting improves safety and enables the facility to be used year-round, particularly on winter afternoons. Adequate lighting is crucial for encouraging commuters to use the trails during winter months. However, lighting can be detrimental to sensitive habitats and undesired by neighbors. Minimizing glare, maintaining a dark night sky, and protecting the light from vandalism are the three main issues lighting design should consider. Lights should not have a visible source, either to the trail users or to neighboring residences, as it can blind users and pollute the night sky. In addition, globes, acorns and other light types that are not reflected or shielded on the top light the sky and should be avoided. Low-level lighting, such as very short poles or bollards, can be problematic due to their easy access for vandalism (Exhibit 40). If lights are desired,some neighborhood-scale options are available.A few of these include: • In-ground lighting- dim lights which indicate the extent of the path; • Bollards -low-level lighting,susceptible to vandalism; and • Solar lighting-best used in situations where running power to the trail would be costly or undesirable. Pedestrian scale lighting can have screens to deter the glare from affecting neighbors. In addition, lights can be programmed to detect motion to be actuated, or can dim or turn off later in the night. Lighting should not be used near sensitive wildlife habitat areas. 67 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Exhibit 40.Lighting Bollard. Exhibit 41. Solar Lighting Is Used Along The Source:Knight Pedestrian Lighting Metropolitan Branch Trail In Washington, D.C. Source:http://www.thewashcycie.com SOLAR LIGHTING Solar lighting is increasingly seen as a viable source for illumination of bicycle and pedestrian pathways.Benefits of solar power include: • Reduced carbon emissions • Potential cost reduction of infrastructure and related maintenance • Increased flexibility in trail lighting design A pathway illumination element is generally comprised of a photovoltaic panel, luminary unit, pole, battery, and connecting cabling. The scalability of the system allows for easy linear extension of the system, or placement of additional poles to increase the existing level of illumination. Examples of existing multi-use trails lit by solar power include trails on the University of Wisconsin campus; multi-use trails in the City of Pflugerville, Texas; and the Metropolitan Branch Trail in Washington D.C. (Exhibit 41). Signing Signs along the Tigard Greenway Trails system can indicate to pedestrians and bicyclists their direction of travel, location of destinations, and other information. Regulatory and warning signs 68 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines for both trail and road users was previously discussed in the trail crossings section. Other types of signs include guide and information signs, which indicate information for route selection, for locating off-road facilities,or for identifying geographical features or points of interest. Signing style and imagery should be consistent throughout the trail to provide the trail user with a sense of continuity, orientation, and safety. Signs can impart a unique theme so path users know which path they are following and where it goes. A trail theme creates a cohesive and memorable trail, while establishing a distinct identity or "sense of place." The theme brands a trail segment or system with unifying materials, elements, images and colors. These features define the system as a unique place and provide a reason for people to experience it. A unifying theme serves to inform subsequent design elements from site furnishings to interpretive information. The theme can be conveyed in a variety of ways: engraved stone, medallions, bollards, and mile markers. However, the trail should not be over signed; where possible, incorporate signage into trailside vertical elements such as bollards. Type of Sign Sign Typeo LocationlFrequency Mileage markers Bollard Every'/mile,starting from city line. Directional signs Blade Where the trail crosses major roadways Etiquette signs Horizontal At major and minor trailheads Informational kiosks Map and kiosk At major trailheads MILEAGE MARKERS Mileage markers provide wayfinding information and act as a reference for maintenance crews or police officers, who track activity on the trail. Mileage markers should be placed at quarter to half mile increments along the corridor and should begin at a trailhead or at the city line. Mileage markers are also attractive to users who target exercise for set distances. A variety of schemas for beginning to track mileage have been used on trails regionally. Typical starting places for mileage markers include: • Distance from the main trailhead • Traditional railroad mileage (for rail- trails, shows distance from a junction • Distance from downtown center or other railroad reference point) • Distance from the city line • River mileage Some communities recommend not installing the mile marker sign until all of the gaps are 69 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines completed.14 However,it is preferable to mark the trail continuously and infill appropriate markers when the gaps are closed. While Metro does not have a regional standard, the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District (THPRD) is conducting a study to recommend wayfinding guidelines. The City of Tigard should consider adopting the recommendations of the study for visual continuity along the greenway system. The city could establish a mileage system for trails within Tigard, such as the Pathfinder Genesis Trail (Exhibit 42. -Exhibit 46). Ti■ ■. . Ll ■ City ■ • . ■ I . ■ e FannoCreekTrail r s BICYCLISTS Always control your speed WOODARD PEDESTRIANS Be aiert and courteous BIZ mils Alcoholic beverages prohibited 0 No motorized vehicles i 2 minutes 4 minutes Exhibit 42. Exhibit 43.Directional Sign. Exhibit 44.Trail Etiquette Sign. Mileage Marker. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS Directional signs provide orientation to the trail user and emphasize trail continuity.At a minimum, street names should be called out at all trail intersections with roadways (Exhibit 45. ). Directional signage should identify key destinations along the trail route and include schools,parks,municipal centres,trails, and other points of interest. 14 Jordan River Trail,UT.http://www.recreation.slco.org/planning/PDFdocs/5 Trail Standards.pdf 70 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines TRAIL ETIQUETTE SIGNS Establishing goals and policies sets a common framework for understanding trail rules and regulations. Rights and responsibilities of trail usage should be stated at main trail - - access points. Once rules and regulations are established, . the trail managing agency has a means of enforcement. Local ordinances may be adopted to help enforce trail - policies. Penalties such as fines or community service may be imposed in response to non-compliance. Exhibit 45. Street Crossings Can Be Indicated By Pavement Markings. INFORMATIONAL KIOSKS Interpretive signage provides enrichment to the trail user experience, focuses attention on the unique attributes of the local community, and provides educational opportunities. Natural and cultural resources in trail corridors may provide opportunities for interpretation. Bicycle Parking In some locations along the trail system, it may be appropriate to provide bicycle parking, in order to enable trail users to continue along an unpaved trail segment, or to provide a user more flexibility. Bicycle racks permit the locking of the bicycle frame and at least one wheel to the rack and support the bicycle in a stable position without damage to wheels, frame or components. Racks should be placed outside of the clear right- of-way,particularly at trailheads or trail start-or end-points. Exhibit 47. shows the space requirements of a standard bicycle rack. y: =•� " � s Exhibit 46. Bicycle Racks And Informational Kiosks Benefit Trail Users At Trailhead Locations. t Exhibit 47.Staple Rack Parking Configuration. 71 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Other Amenities A variety of additional amenities can be provided to improve the user experience on trails in Tigard and to provide a sense of place and continuity on the trail system. PEDESTRIAN-SCALE FURNITURE ....4, Providing benches at key rest areas and viewpoints L - encourages people of all ages to use the trail by ensuring that they have a place to rest along the way. Benches can be simple (e.g., wood slates) or more ornate (e.g., stone, wrought iron concrete). PICNIC TABLES Providing picnic tables with benches at key rest areas and viewpoints encourages people of all ages to use the trail by ensuring that they have a place to rest along the way. Picnic areas encourage families and other groups to use the trail and promote positive interactions between users. LANDSCAPING AND BIOSWALES Landscape features,including street trees or trees along paths,can enhance the visual environment and improve the path user experience.Trees can also provide shade from heat and protection from rain. Bioswales are natural landscape elements that manage water runoff from a paved surface,such as a trail. Plants in the swale trap pollutants and silt from entering a river system. 72 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines DOG BAG STATIONS - At parks and popular dog-walking areas, dog bag stations can be provided to encourage users to pick up after their = _ dogs. Such a station can include bags only, or offer a trash receptacle,and signage. s s'X,'s3 TRASH CANS B'sv. G STL PLNTE " LOCNNUN4IT -'" Litter receptacles should be placed at access points such as trailheads. Litter should be picked up once a week and T X d'[NOM.J z_"1 SA3 after any p evenon , except special events held the trailt where specially designed trash cans have been installed throughout Tigard. ,116X11R' 9NPP°RT P°ST STL RPF If maintenance funds are not available to meet trash S.STL.CAP BIL APE 10�' SCR..L.-UT m" G—PIPE removal needs, it is best to remove trash receptacles. o s,EMEE°MENT Neighborhood volunteers, friends groups, alternative BLAT CPTbN3 �E o YE-RECYCLECA.ASIIC community service crews,and inmate labor can be used in N°TES ❑GREFN'RECYCLE°PIASi1C ,.,PIL SIL.ME1.®EPS CMTF➢Wl21NC RICH£PO%Y THEN D-CL- 'N__1 R REV"RECYCLEO PIABTEN[4XEUWIPCLYESTER PdN°ERCOATE°24ACK. "RECWdOG-RECYCEEO AASIC 2.„n'X33w-PLo.EXP�Ns,°NN°RSCS�RRs2°P°N. o oR addition to maintenance staff. r ART INSTALLATIONS Local artists can be commissioned to provide art for the trail system, making it uniquely distinct. Many trail art installations are functional as well as aesthetic, as they may provide places to sit and play on. 73 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines RESTROOMS Restrooms benefit path users, especially in more remote areas where other facilities do not exist. Restrooms can be sited at major trailheads or at other strategic locations �- along the path system. EMERGENCY CALL BOXES Call boxes can be provided to enable trail users to make emergency calls to 911. These stations can help provide fast notification and response to emergency situations on trails. Call boxes can act as a crime deterrent and alleviate personal safety concerns; however, call boxes can also increase fears by indicating such a measure is necessary. - In addition, call boxes require either a land line or cell reception,which can be expensive. 74 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Soft-Surface Trail Design Elements Soft-surface trails accommodate walking and hiking in a variety of contexts and are generally defined by the presence of functional - 40 drainage, trail structures and bridges where required, but are generally an unmodified natural soil surface. Typical width varies from 12 inches to 36 inches and vegetation should Exhibit 48. Rolling grade is the preferred design be maintained clear on both sides of the trail pattern for sustainable trails. tread for a minimum of 12 inches. See Metro's Green Trails guide for specific recommendations about minimizing environmental impacts of soft surface trails. CONTROLLING EROSION Earthen trails must be sloped so that their surfaces shed water and the materials supporting the tread remain structurally sound. Favorable drainage gradients are achieved by out-sloping the trail tread and by means of rolling dips or drain knicks. It is essential to limit both slope length and gradient of trail runoff to control erosion. The following drainage practices are commonly prescribed and are essential to the long-term stability of earthen trails and protection of the resources where runoff is directed: • Avoid trail grades in excess of 12 percent. It is very difficult to control drainage on steep grades,and erosion on steep grades is expensive to remediate. • Maintain positive surface drainage by means of out-sloped, in-sloped, or crowned sections having cross slopes of three percent to five percent. • Maintain only the width of tread necessary to support the designated uses. • Roll grades or undulate the trail profile frequently to disperse water from the tread. • Prevent erosion at outlets of rolling dips and culverts. Drainage outlets should be armored with rock to prevent erosion. Brush or native organic debris can be spread in lead-off ditches to slow the velocity of the runoff and facilitate the deposition of sediments. Even well-functioning rolling dips require maintenance. 75 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines • Under-drains (culverts) and associated ditches should be used only as a last resort as these facilities require regular inspection and maintenance, and severe damage can result from their failure. • Avoid long sustained grades that concentrate flows. Install grade breaks to get stormwater off the trail and to allow trail users a rest. • Avoid discharging trail runoff onto fill slopes and unprotected soils.Fill slopes should be armored where runoff is discharged onto them or the runoff should be conveyed in a down drain to a location where sediments can be deposited and the flow infiltrated. Retaining Walls Large rocks or boulders are recommended over wood for building retaining walls. Unlike wood, rock does not rot, and the weight of the rocks provides structural strength. Retaining walls are used to construct turning platforms for switchbacks, provide support for the outer edge of the trail in rough areas, and to construct partial bench trails. LAP Excavated - Bench 4 Fdl Maleual itEOM Relaming W.111 Exhibit 49.Retaining Wall Cross-Section. Exhibit 50.Retaining Wall Detail. 76 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Switchback Switchbacks provide a level turning DOM platform for trail users. The turning ABRIN. 1�UPHEL BARRIER platform should be crowned to provide R& good drainage. The upper leg of the 9D" GRADE STAKE 20°6 MIN. AT CENTER GRADE INSLOPE 10% switchback is in-sloped and the lower leg is DOWNHILL out-sloped. Natural barriers (large boulders or trees) can be placed between the upper and lower leg of a switchback to discourage "shortcutting." When a series of TOPVIEW switchbacks are needed, they should be Exhibit 51.Recommended Switchback Configuration. staggered to prevent water accumulation. Armored Trail In areas where the trail must pass through AggregareTnpping soggy or flat terrain where drain dips or �... rolling grade are not feasible, raising the tread can keep the trail surface drier. — :::::;.. ..: ;; Organic soils are removed and a rock base 1'RATL is put in place to allow water to continue Exhibit 52.Armored Trail Detail. to flow between the rocks. Medium sized rocks lock the larger rock into place, and an aggregate topping creates a level tread surface. This approach can be labor intensive and costly, and is recommended in situations where an alternate route does not exist. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Stairs Stairs can help stabilize steep slopes and keep tread in place. Cribbed lumber stairs backfilled with crushed gravel are a cost-effective but durable solution. Trail users should not have to alter their stride to ascend. '1RA!€_ n i v }TiEAO PLAN VIEW a -BACKFILL WITH CRUSHED )9' MINUS GRAVEL, COMPACTED i1"-12" TO THE FULL DEPTH OF THE RISER 2% MAX. —3 TREAD a I� TWO 2"x8" SiOFS ATTACHED TO 4`X8' FRONT WITH GALVA— NIZED 20 PENNY NAILS TRAIL. AT MAX 10% SLOPE ELEVATION CROSS—SECTION Exhibit 53.Soft-Surface Trail Stair Detail. 78 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Opportunities for Trail Widening Several existing trails, particularly the Fanno Creek Trail and Tualatin River Trail, are insufficiently wide for their respective designated trail classification.As regional trails, Fanno Creek and Tualatin River trails should be 10-12 feet in width along their entire lengths. When trails are too narrow for their expected uses, conflicts can arise between trail users. On a narrow trail, bicyclists may not have sufficient space to comfortably pass pedestrians, particularly those with small children or pets. Groups of bicyclists and pedestrians tend to travel side-by-side, which may block other trail users from passing. This can also lead to conflicts at trail access points, particularly where bollards are used. TRAIL WIDENING CONSTRAINTS Existing trails can be widened by paving shoulder areas and using additional right-of-way. Several factors may complicate trail widening: ■ Ditch or grade - if widening the trail requires significant infill or grading to achieve a reasonable or required slope,the cost could be higher than the demand. ■ Adjacent railroad - trails frequently share right-of-way with railroads, and where trail widening would encroach on the `setback' from the paved edge of the trail to the centerline of the closest railroad track, it could be prohibitively expensive. Setbacks can be as narrow as eight feet where separation is provided and an agreement is made with the railroad agency, while the agency can require 50 feet on private property, or not allow the trail at all.15 ■ Adjacent roadway - trails that are within roadway right-of-ways may be expensive or difficult to widen; it may be possible to provide a separate sidewalk or on-street option for bicyclists in these locations. ■ Sensitive environment-if the trail is adjacent to or travels through sensitive wetland or other habitats, widening may have detrimental effect and should be avoided where possible. is FHWA,Rails-with-Trails:Lessons Learned. (2002). 79 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines ALTERNATIVES TO WIDENING Where widening the trail is challenging or impossible, other techniques can be used to manage multiple uses and reduce potential conflicts. Options include using differing surfaces or pavement markings to delineate space for different users, striping a trail centerline, or posting user guidelines. Differing Surfaces Differing surfaces suitable to each user group foster visual separation and clarity of where each user group should be. When trail corridors are constrained, the approach is often to locate the two different trail surfaces side by side with no separation. Striping a Centerline A common practice for delineating user space on a trail is to stripe a centerline.When many people are using a trail or at a busy area, trail users will tend to stay within their designated areas and provide space for others to pass them. In Posting User Etiquette Exhibit 54. Centerline Striping Informing trail users of acceptable trail etiquette is a common Encourages Trail Users To Leave Space For Passing. issue when multiple user types are anticipated. Yielding the right-of-way is a courtesy and yet a necessary part of a safe trail experience involving multiple trail users. Trail right-of- way information should be posted at trail access points and along the trail. The message must be clear and easy to YIELD understand. Where appropriate, trail etiquette systems TO should instruct trail users to the yielding of cyclists to pedestrians and equestrians and the yielding of pedestrians to M equestrians. Exhibit 55. User Guidelines Can Be Posted To Instruct Users About Expected Behavior. 80 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Cost Estimates This section presents unit prices used to develop planning level cost estimates for proposed trail improvement projects identified in this Plan. Cost estimates for specific improvements consider design needs that impact construction and maintenance costs such as steep slopes, poor soils, and the presence of wetland or water features that require retaining walls, board walk, or drainage facilities. In addition, the unit price formula used to estimate costs for trail projects includes low (level ground), medium (some design features), and high ranges (many design features) when design features are required. These cost estimates will require refinement after engineering analysis. Cost estimates are also exclusive of right-of-way acquisition and contingencies. Regardless of surface material,all trails will require site demolition, clearing and grading, and other construction requirements. The estimates in Table 8 and Table 9 include a reasonable estimate of these costs. 81 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Table 8 Trail Surface Construction Raw Costs by Linear Feet (LF)16 Annual Maintenance Surface Type SF 6'Trail 8'Trail 10'Trail 12'Trail 14'Trail Estimate(SF) Soft Surfaces Nike Grind $31.00 $186.00 $248.00 $310.00 N/A N/A $3.00 Gravel $3.00 $18.00 $24.00 $30.00 N/A N/A $0.50 Decomposed Granite $3.00 $18.00 $24.00 $30.00 N/A N/A $0.50 Stabilized DG $6.00 $36.00 $48.00 $60.00 N/A N/A $0.70 Crusher fines $3.00 $18.00 $24.00 $30.00 N/A N/A $0.50 Filbert shells $5.75 $34.50 $46.00 $57.50 N/A N/A $1.25 Native soil $1.25 $7.50 $10.00 $12.50 N/A N/A $0.70 Nike Grind $31.00 $186.00 $248.00 $310.00 N/A N/A $0.30 Hard Surfaces Concrete $11.75 $70.50 $94.00 $117.50 $141.00 $164.50 $0.40 Permeable concrete $115.00 N/A $920.00 $1,150.00 $1,380.00 $1,610.00 $0.65 Asphalt $6.00 N/A $48.00 $60.00 $72.00 $84.00 $0.35 Permeable asphalt $8.75 N/A $70.00 $87.50 $105.00 $122.50 $0.75 Glassphalt $7.50 N/A $60.00 $75.00 $90.00 $105.00 $0.40 Other Wood decking $32.00 $192.00 $256.00 $320.00 $384.00 $448.00 $3.00 16 Costs are unburdened; estimates will include engineering/construction management (20%), Mobilization (15%)and A&E fees (20%).Costs are based on recent trail projects in the region and indexed to inflation. 82 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Table 9 Design Element Raw Costs17 Design Element Cost Unit Description Retaining wall $235.00 LF Cast-in-place,6' Bridge,precise concrete $1,225.00 LF 14'wide,60'span Bridge,wood laminate $980.00 LF 14'wide,80'span Riprap(parallel to stream) $99.90 LF 10'wide swath per linear foot of trail parallel to stream/river Wetland mitigation $262.50 LF Cast-in-place concrete stairs $192.00 LF Crossing Elements Sign $250.00 EA Bollard-fixed $550.00 EA Bollard-removable $750.00 EA Curb ramp $1,000 EA Tactile warning strip $250.00 EA Crosswalk $7,465.00 EA High-visibility Signal $49,000.00 EA Pavement markings,acrylic waterborne $0.34 LF white 4"wide Pavement markings,thermoplastic $1.13 LF white 4"wide Lighting Light fixture,standard $2,500-$7,500 EA Solar light fixture $3,500 EA Bicycle Parking Staple rack $100.00 EA Does not include installation Soft Surface Trail Design Elements Rock wall stairs $26.67 LF Retaining wall $80.00 LF Switchback $2,700.00 EA Armored trail $11.67 LF Trade-offs The level of design treatments appropriate or necessary for a particular trail or trail segment depend on terrain and soil conditions,presence of wetlands or steep slopes,proximity of neighbors, street and creek crossings, as well as anticipated and desired use. The Tigard Greenway Trails 17 Costs are unburdened; estimates will include engineering/construction management (20%), Mobilization (15%)and A&E fees (20%). 83 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Master Plan will identify appropriate design treatments and options for specific trail sections in subsequent tasks; this section takes a more general approach to trade-offs between design elements. PATH SURFACING OPTIONS ANALYSIS The surfacing material of a path contributes to the overall feel of the trail and can affect which users can comfortably utilize the trail. Whether or not a trail is paved can encourage or deter neighborhood support for the trail, if they consider a paved trail to be an invitation for outsiders to pass through their community, or if they have safety or aesthetic concerns about an unpaved trail. The selection of trail surface treatments should take into consideration that some patterns and joints may cause vibrations that are uncomfortable for wheelchair users. It also is desirable that the surface be stable,firm and slip resistant. In arriving at a recommended trail surface,several key criteria should be considered,including: • Initial Capital Cost- Trail surface costs vary dramatically and dollars to build trails are scarce. Construction costs include excavation, subbase preparation, aggregate base placement,and application of the selected trail surface. • Maintenance and Long Term Durability- The anticipated life of a trail surface can vary from a single year (bark surface in a moist climate) to 25+ years (concrete). In addition, each trail surface has varying maintenance needs that will require regular to sporadic inspections and follow up depending on the material selected. Some surface repairs can be made with volunteer effort such as on a bark surface trail, while others such as a concrete surface will require skilled craftsmen to perform the repair. • Existing Soil and Environmental Conditions - Soil conditions are predetermined and play a critical role in surfacing selection. In addition, when considering the use of a permeable concrete or asphalt surface, the success rate of these surfaces is directly correlated to the permeability of the soil and climatic conditions. The lower the permeability and moisture, the greater risk of failure. Importantly, much of Tigard has poorly-drained clay soils. • Anticipated Use/Functionality-Who are the anticipated users of the trail?Will the trail surface need to accommodate equestrians, wheelchairs, maintenance vehicles, bicycles, etc.? Does the trail provide critical access to a popular destination for many users or is it a local access route to a community park? Multiple use trails attempt to meet the needs 84 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines of all anticipated trail users. This may not be feasible with a single trail surface. Considering the shoulder area as a usable surface, it is possible to provide enough width to accommodate use by those preferring a softer material. Each surface also has varying degrees of roughness and therefore accommodates varying users. In-line skates, for example, cannot be used on a chip seal surface or most permeable concrete surfaces due to the coarseness of the finished surface. • Funding Source - The funding source for the trail may dictate the trail surface characteristics. If the trail has federal funds and is being administered through ODOT, the funding agency will need to review and approve the selected trail surface. • Susceptibility to Vandalism - Trail surfaces are not usually thought of as being susceptible to vandalism, but the characteristics of the varying surfaces do lend themselves to a variety of vandalism including movement of materials such as gravel or bark,graffiti on hard surfaces,arson (wood and rubber surfaces),and deformation. • Aesthetics - Each trail surface has varying aesthetic characteristics that should fit with the overall design concept desired for the project and for the neighborhood in which the trail is located. Table 10 provides an analysis of path surfacing options. The ranking of each surface option is as follows: • O- Option does not meet criteria • 0- Option has neutral or moderate positive impact to criteria • •- Best solution to satisfy criteria 85 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Table 10 Alternatives Analysis for Trail Surface Options a, on C C vii N � N CL r6 yu x > = y u O � O pCL x Q a+ C Alternative N E o °i °' o Soft Surface Options Nike Grind Co O 0 O 0 Gravel 7 Crusher Fines 0 co O 0 � Wood Mulch 0 O 0 0 Filbert Shells 0 O 0 7 U 7 0 Native Soil 0 O 0 Hard Surface Options Concrete 0 = 0 Permeable Concrete 0 0 0 `/ 0 0 Asphalt 0 J .J 0 0 0 Permeable Asphalt 0 0 0 0 `/ 0 0 86 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines DESIGN ELEMENT OPTIONS ANALYSIS All cost estimates will account for necessary design treatments, such as the need for boardwalks in wetlands or retaining walls or stairs in areas with steep slopes. The minimum (low) cost estimate will therefore include necessary design treatments.Where possible or appropriate,the low cost will assume an unpaved trail surface, as well as no crossing elements, signing, lighting, or other amenities.A high level of treatment, depending on the location, may consider a 12 foot trail paved with permeable asphalt,which would have wayfinding signage,lighting,and bicycle parking. Factors to consider when determining the high,medium,and low design elements include: ■ Is the design appropriate to the expected or desired use of the trail? For example, if the trail provides access to a park with walking trails,ADA accessibility may be desired. ■ Does the design enhance users' experience of the trail? For example, trail lighting may be appropriate along a commute route, but not necessary or desirable along a more residential corridor. ■ Does the design minimize negative impacts to wildlife resources, including habitats and wetland areas? ■ Does the design minimize negative impacts to neighbors? ■ Is the design consistent with agency permitting requirements? Is the design easy to maintain? As the specific trails or trail segments are developed, these considerations will be used to determine appropriate design features and to develop cost estimates. DESIGN ELEMENT BY TRAIL CLASSIFICATION Chapter 3 recommends a hierarchical trail classification system for the Tigard Greenways. This system defines regional,community, and neighborhood trails based on expected use and user types, and can be used to generally determine appropriate surface and design features. In some cases, trails will not conform to specific design types (e.g., a regional trail through a sensitive environmental area may be unpaved with fewer amenities than a standard regional trail),but these guidelines represent design of typical trails. Table 11 provides an overview of typical design for trails by classification. Specific design and type of elements depends on the local context of the trail and city staff judgment; the recommendations 87 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines in the table outline typical design elements. In subsequent tasks, each proposed trail or trail section will be classified according to this system, and cost estimates will be developed that correspond to these guidelines. 88 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Trail Design Guidelines Table 11 Trail Design Types and Recommended Guidelines Neighborhood Trail 17 Regional Trail Community Trail Urban Trail Natural Trail Facility Type Shared-use path Shared-use path Shared-use path/sidewalk Soft surface trail Users • Bicyclists • Bicyclists • Bicyclists • Pedestrians • Pedestrians • Pedestrians • Pedestrians • Wheelchairs • Wheelchairs • Wheelchairs19 • Baby strollers • Baby strollers • Baby strollers • Skaters • Skaters18 • Skaters18 Width20 Approx.10-14 ft Approx.8-10 ft 3-8 ft 3-8 ft 2 ft gravel shoulders 1-2 ft gravel shoulders 1-2 ft gravel shoulders 1-2 ft clear shoulders or 10'bike path with 4'soft- (optional) (optional) surface pedestrian path Surface Paved or other smooth-rolling Paved or other smooth- Paved or other smooth- Earth,gravel,wood surface to accommodate all rolling surface to rolling surface to chips,or other soft trail users: accommodate all trail users: accommodate all trail surface material: • Concrete/permeable • Concrete/permeable users: • Gravel/crusher fines concrete concrete • Concrete/permeable • Bark chip • Asphalt/permeable • Asphalt/permeable concrete • Filbert shells asphalt/glassphalt asphalt/glassphalt • Asphalt/permeable • Native soil • Nike Grind asphalt/glassphalt • Gravel/crusher fines • Nike Grind • Gravel/crusher fines Intersection • Bollards • Bollards • Bollards • Bollards TreatmentS21 • Curb ramps • Curb ramps • Curb ramps • Curb ramps • Marked crosswalks • Marked crosswalks • Marked crosswalks • Signalized crossings • Signalized crossings Signing • Mileage markers • Mileage markers • Directional signs • Directional signs • Directional signs • Directional signs • Informational kiosks • Trail etiquette signs • Trail etiquette signs • Informational kiosks • Informational kiosks Other • Bicycle parking • Bicycle parking Features22 • Trail centerline • Trail centerline 18 Depends upon chosen trail surface. 19 Paved park trails may still be too steep to safely accommodate wheelchair and other disabled users. 28 Width varies from recommendations for regional trails used in Metro documents (10-12') due to anticipated use and desire to appeal to a variety of users over a long term planning horizon.Widths are recommendations only; constraints may require narrower trail widths. 21 Intersection treatments depend on roadway characteristics and engineering judgment. 22 All trail classifications may require bridges,boardwalk,or retaining walls. 89 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Evaluation Process 6. EVALUATION PROCESS This chapter describes the process used to evaluate and prioritize potential greenway trail alignments and improvements to existing greenway trails. The potential projects evaluated in this Plan are currently unfunded. Trail projects that are currently partially or completely funded, such as the Woodard Park/Grant Avenue and the Grant Avenue/Main Street segments of the Fanno Creek Trail are not addressed in this Plan. The planned Westside Trail, a Metro regional trail which will pass through Tigard, is subject to a separate ODOT-funded planning process and also is not addressed in this Plan; however, potential for connections to this and other regional trails was considered when evaluating trail projects. The initial list of potential greenway trail alignments was identified and refined by the City of Tigard, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), and Tigard residents through two public open houses and a project website. All parties assessed each potential greenway trail or on-street alternative alignment using evaluation criteria identified by the SAC and project team. These criteria consider: network connectivity; safety and security; user experience; topography; environmental impacts; cost; right-of-way availability; and public input. The assessment rates each alignment as to whether it "satisfies", "somewhat satisfies", or "does not satisfy" each evaluation criteria. The project team then assigned an overall High, Medium, Low, or Not Recommended priority ranking based on the individual evaluation criteria and a qualitative assessment of potential benefits and challenges associated with the project location.The remainder of this chapter describes the evaluation criteria,methodology,and prioritization results. Multiple alternative alignments were evaluated for the majority of the potential greenway trail segments addressed in this Plan.Where feasible,both greenway and upland or on-street alternative alignments were considered. Table 12 describes the primary criteria taken into account to evaluate and prioritize alignment options. For the evaluation, each potential alignment was ranked based on whether it fully satisfies the criteria (Tier 1), somewhat satisfied the criteria (Tier 2), or does not meet the criteria (Tier 3). Most of the evaluation criteria are based on qualitative assessments conducted during site visits and feedback obtained from stakeholders. Many of these criteria do not use a quantitative scoring or weighting systems; however, where possible, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other readily obtainable information were used to inform the evaluation for each criteria. 90 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Evaluation Process Appendix B includes the Technical Memorandums, which present the detailed feasibility assessments of all potential trail alignments evaluated throughout the planning process.Appendix C includes the Environmental Report, which presents a high-level evaluation of the environmental impacts of potential trail alignments.Appendix D provides a matrix summary of the evaluation and prioritization results for each greenway trail. 91 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Evaluation Process Table 12 Evaluation Criteria x t P Criteria Definition Data Source Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Connectivity The number/quality of connections to GIS—parks,schools,open space, Alignment provides the most direct access to Alignment provides connections to existing Alignment does not provide connections existing trails,sidewalks,or bike lanes and trails,and transit layers;field visit destinations,such as major employers and trails,sidewalks,or destinations,but may to existing trails,sidewalks,or access to residential,commercial,or commercial centers and minimizes out of direction require out of direction travel. destinations. employment areas and schools. travel. Safety and Security Addresses the safety concerns of trail users Field visit,public input Area surrounding alignment is open and visible from Portions of the alignment have poor sight Majority of the alignment has poor sight traveling along the trail.The better the all angles.Trail users have good lines of sight along lines or obscured views. lines or obscured views. sightlines,the higher the score. the trail and immediate adjacent surrounding areas. No buildings or large structures obscure views of the trail. User Experience The quality of the users'experience on the Field visit,aerial maps Alignment minimizes noise levels from surrounding Portions of alignment are impacted by Majority of alignment is impacted by trail.Considers potential views,aesthetics, land uses(e.g.,roads/railroads),limits views of noise,undesirable views,or other noise,undesirable views,or other comfort,and characteristics such as noise and industrial/commercial activity,and has potential to characteristics of surrounding land uses. characteristics of surrounding land uses. air quality.For this criterion,priority is given include amenities(e.g.,directional signage). to off-street,greenway alignments. Topographical Constraints The ease of constructing a trail and providing GIS—slope layer;field verification Alignment does not include slopes greater than 15%. Alignment may include a slope greater than Alignment includes slopes greater than for ADA accessibility in an area,given existing Ample room is available to grade trail to meet ADA 15%,but earth moving and ramp lengths 15%.Earth moving,retaining walls and slopes. accessibility. are minimized. long ramps are needed. Environmental Impacts The impact of a trail alignment on GIS—floodplain,wetlands,significant Alignment is not located within floodplain,wetlands, Portions of alignment are located in Majority of alignment is located in environmental resources(e.g.,floodplains, habitat;field verification; or sensitive areas.Alignment is environmentally- floodplain or wetlands. wetlands or sensitive areas. wetlands,Clean Water Services designated Environmental Report conducted by preferred option identified in the Environmental Sensitive Areas,and Goal 5 habitat). Mason,Bruce&Girard Report. Cost The cost of design,engineering,and/or GIS—length of trail,design costs Alignment minimizes cost of easements,acquisition, Alignment involves some additional costs Alignment involves significant additional construction of a trail alignment,based on outlined in Technical Memo#2 design,engineering,construction,and maintenance. related to acquisition,design,engineering, costs related to acquisition,design, the minimum(low design option)cost construction,and/or maintenance. engineering,construction,and/or estimates. maintenance. Right-of-Way The number of property owners that the city GIS—land ownership,Regional Land Alignment is on land owned by the City of Tigard, Alignment is not entirely on land that is The majority of the alignment is on will need to work with to construct a trail Information System(RLIS)tax lots; Metro,or another public body. owned by a public body,but minimizes private property. alignment. aerial maps;field verification impacts on private property. Public Input Public support for a trail alignment, Feedback received through open Majority of public feedback received is supportive of Public feedback received does not show Majority of public feedback received is particularly among residents in the houses,project website, trail alignment. clear support for or against a trail not supportive of trail alignment. immediate area served by the trail. neighborhood surveys,Stakeholder alignment. Advisory Committee(SAC),and other or communications. No feedback received on alignment. 93 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails 7. RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAILS The project team evaluated each potential alignment using the criteria described above and assigned a High, Medium, or Low priority ranking based on overall satisfaction of evaluation criteria. This evaluation resulted in 16 recommended projects that are feasible and would provide benefits (e.g., transportation,nature education,safe routes to school)to Tigard residents. The priority ranking of each recommended project was further informed by a qualitative assessment of potential benefits and challenges associated with the project location and information obtained from field work, City of Tigard staff, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and the public. Through this process,the project team grouped the 16 recommended projects into four categories: ■ High-priority projects - have a significant amount of demand or public support, provide public benefits, have limited challenges, and are the most feasible projects for construction in the short term (one to ten years). High-priority projects are recommended for inclusion in the 2012-2017 city Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) update.23 ■ Medium-priority projects - are good candidates for filling gaps in the trail network or providing connections to destinations in the medium term (five to 15 years), but do not have as much demand, face additional hurdles, and/or would be more difficult to construct than the high priority projects. ■ Low-priority projects - are recommended projects that fill gaps in the trail network, provide connections to destinations, and/or contribute to regional trail connectivity, but may be more difficult to construct due to right-of-way, slopes, environmental considerations, or community support. These projects are feasible for construction in the long term (10 or more years). ■ Key on-street connections - are small, feasible projects that primarily involve bicycle boulevard treatments, sidewalk infill, or crossing improvements. They provide bicycle and pedestrian friendly on-street connections where a greenway trail alignment is not feasible or is not a short-term priority. These small projects do not meet the $50,000 23 The City of Tigard defines a CIP project as "any public facility project that improves or adds value to Tigard's infrastructure,costs$50,000 or more,and has a useful life or extends the useful life of a facility for five years or more. 94 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails minimum cost threshold for inclusion in the CIP, but they could be funded individually in the short term (one to five years) as funding becomes available or grouped together and included in the CIP as a larger"Tigard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements"project. Several projects were not prioritized due to existing constraints or because they fell outside the scope of the current planning effort, but should not be removed from consideration in future planning efforts.These projects are described at the end of this chapter. Note that the priority ranking of projects are subject to change based on available funding; changing priorities; public support; opportunities to develop trails coincidental with new development/redevelopment, roadway or other infrastructure improvements; and other factors. The purpose of this prioritization exercise is to assist the City of Tigard in apportioning available funding to the highest priority greenway trail projects and to inform the city of other priority projects that may be positioned for future funding as it becomes available. Project identification (ID) numbers shown do not indicate the relative rank or importance of individual projects within their priority category. Project List Figure 5 shows the locations of all recommended trail alignments and trail alignments that were evaluated, but not recommended. Table 13 shows the summary results of the project evaluation and prioritization process. Note,the project list shown below is intended to address only projects related to the eight greenway trails identified in the 1999 Tigard Park System Master Plan which are the focus of the Greenway Trails Master Plan. This list does not preclude other trail projects from consideration for funding. 9S City of Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 2011 0 ® 1 0 doe 000�cg U� l 0 �+ M�untalll�CoD0000000 �� 0 o SCO �j �� 00 O �• (lied o0ep00o00000o p Q C) �� 00 W N Q Pia o� Beaverton o D i 0� CD o � oo0� 0 I o �� Portland O C7_1 17 0 -- -- --I --- — _ 0 0 o 5e��� i� I ���ps p 11�I Esi L' o J r; 1 LOCUST r r a ti SONOLLs FERRY �� G w 0 I C� o Y N L i SvO gGHOLLS FERR .`. O OAK OCL Q J PINE S1 — _. O PFAFFLE F A Esl Oct V HAIN �j 0 �o P ''77,. �o Q 17 �Q O J WALNUT D _ .. F I..I A C _ Q DARTMOUTH D G� WALNUT p0 I " B /) Q ° SQA y°�2i S6 O ° 4 �ti9 Pq HAMPTON � j a I , 217 0 �o .. v 0 O G OO o _ PG I _ ) 0 I (n� 'BULLMOUNTA�N $3 L a k e O s w e g o >j - `,� `'I BONITA f BONITA 17 �0 BULL MOUNTAIN t 0 I Q 0 J,z I z $ 0 � BEEF BEND O� a� y o •i �° ! _ '' V 0 Recommended Projects Street Network Key Destinations �. e �� � C1 1D# High Priority ti Freeway School Property ° K i n g ! DURHAMp6gO� i�# Medium Priority ~Arterial Parks C i t Y $5 s� � D ale� w �# Low Priority — j — L _ ko N Collector Q Transit CentersuC �q a • o o Alternative or Conceptual m M a\\lOr Alignment N Local ® Library 1 t m �# Key On-Street Connection K 9 0 0000 I 5J g N Bike Lanes J� Urban Growth Boundary ��.•••• o 000 D1 aExisting Trails �,• � o � .�' �--"--- "� o ,`� o � g Wetlands �•• - o D2 00 a Planned Regional Trails ®®®.•• o og0 c ®® 0o Durham o � o 0 0� II C� N Oma® 0 Q N �� °0000000© v© ® T u a I a t i n Planned Ton uin Trail to Wilsonville o° Tualatin River Greenway (to Wilsonville) ©oma q ( )y 0 o 0 0.25 0.5 1 RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS o Miles TIGARD, OR. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails Table 13 Prioritized Project List ID Trail Name Description Alignments' Cost Opinion($1,000) Priority N/A Fanno Creek Woodard Park to Grant(partially funded) $670 High N/A Fanno Creek Grant to Main(partially funded) $300 High N/A Westside Trail Planned Beaverton to Tualatin Expansion N/A High (currently being planned as part of a separate ODOT funded project) A Tigard Street Fanno Creek/Tigard Streetto Tigard Transit 1B,2A $498-$770 High Center B Krueger Creek Walnut Street to Jack Park N/A $111-$209 High C&C1 Fanno Creek 74`h Avenue Sidepath,Bonita Road to 3E $552-$1,528 High Durham Road D1&D2 Fanno Creek&Tualatin 85`h Avenue Trail to Durham City/Ki-A-Kuts 1C $131-$3,088 High River E Pathfinder-Genesis Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Court Trail 1B $725 High F Summer Creek Summer Crest Drive and Tigard Street 2E,3C,4C $516-$969 High Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements, Fowler Nature Education Trail G Fanno Creek Tigard Public Library to Milton Court/Bonita N/A TBD Medium Road H Fanno Creek Tiedeman Avenue Crossing Realignment 5B $139-$274 Medium I Tigard Street Fanno Creek/North Dakota Street to 1B TBD2 Medium Tiedeman Street J Tualatin River 108`h Avenue Grading and Existing Trail 2 $26-$254 Medium Improvements K Tualatin River 108`h Avenue to Pacific Highway Extension 3A $1,746-$2,345 Medium L Washington Square Fanno Creek to Highway 217 Sidewalk and 1B $183 Medium Loop Bikeway Improvements M Fanno Creek Durham Road to Tualatin River Trail 4D $1,320-$1,943 Low N Ascension Ascension Trail Improvements 4 $332-$590 Low O Washington Square Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard Sidewalk and 2B $666 Low Loop Bikeway Improvements P Krueger Creek& Summer Creek Trail to Mary Woodard 2B $473-$518 Low Summer Creek School Alternative alignments were identified and evaluated in Appendix B:Special Issues Reports 1 and 2. z Cost opinion is dependent upon the final configuration of the Tiedeman/North Dakota realignment project.The initial cost opinion for a rail side alignment from Tiedeman to North Dakota Street(given current street alignments)was$278,000. 99 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails Recommended Project Details The following individual project sheets highlight the key benefits and issues of each recommended trail project. A design option and preliminary planning-level cost estimates are included for each of these trails. Potential funding sources for each project are identified in the Implementation chapter. For additional information on design concepts and elements recommended for greenway trail projects (e.g. typical cross section drawings, photos of trail amenities), please see the design guidelines chapter of this Plan. KEY ON-STREET CONNECTIONS The following projects are on-street links that are identified in the TSP as bike routes but serve as alternatives or interim links in the greenway trail network. They can provide continuity where a greenway trail alignment is desired, but property ownership, environmental resources, or cost render the project a long-term goal. ■ S1 - Summer Creek Trail - Hawks Beard Bicycle Boulevard (Alignment 113): This segment would connect an existing trail between SW 1351h Avenue and Barrows Road with the Summerlake Park Trails. Improvements would include bicycle boulevard treatments on Hawks Beard Street and SW 130th Avenue. (Planning-level cost: $6,000) ■ S2 - Krueger Creek Trail - Katherine Street to Jack Park Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements (Alignment 113): This segment would provide an on-street bicycle connection from Mary Woodard Elementary to Jack Park along SW 125th Avenue, SW Karen Street,and SW 127th Avenue. (Planning-level cost: $6,000) ■ S3 - Fanno Creek Trail - Fanno Creek Drive Bikeway Improvements (Alignment 2D): This segment would provide an on-street connection between Fanno Creek Drive and Bonita Road. Improvements would consist of bicycle boulevard markings on the low- speed,low-volume Fanno Creek Drive. (Planning-level cost: $4,600) ■ S4 - Fanno Creek Trail - Bonita/Durham Road Bicycle Boulevard (Alignment 3D): This segment would respond to resident requests for additional bicycle friendly connections between Bonita and Durham Road, providing bicycle boulevard improvements such as shared lane markings and wayfinding signage. (Planning-level cost: $16,000) ■ S5 - Fanno Creek Trail - Durham Road to 85th Avenue Bikeway Improvements (Alignment 4C): This segment would connect high-priority expansions of the Fanno Creek Trail to the 85th Avenue and Tualatin Trail. This on-street alignment would make 100 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails use of existing bike lanes on Durham Road and include bicycle boulevard treatments on SW 851h Avenue. (Planning-level cost: $6,500) ■ S6 - Krueger Creek Trail - Walnut Street to Ascension Trail Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements (Alignments 2B and 313): This segment provides a bicycle/pedestrian friendly connection between Walnut Street and the existing Ascension Trail at SW Fern Street.24 (Planning-level cost: $5,000) ■ S7 - Pathfinder-Genesis Trail - 107th Court to 115th Avenue: This short connection provides a direct sidewalk and on-street link from the southern "Y" of the Pathfinder- Genesis to an existing trail segment.This project would include minor improvements such as signage to improve ease of navigation between existing trail segments. (Planning-level cost: $1,000) ■ S8 - Pathfinder-Genesis Trail - 115th Avenue to Gaarde Street: This short connection provides a direct sidewalk and on-street link from the 118th Court trail entrance to Gaarde Street. This project would include minor improvements such as signage to improve ease of navigation between existing trail segments. (Planning-level cost: $1,000) ■ S9 - Washington Square Loop Trail - Hall Boulevard to Portland Urban Trail Number 5: This segment would connect the existing Hall Boulevard bike lanes and proposed on-street segments of the Washington Square Loop Trail to Metzger Park and the Portland Urban Trail Number 5,which ends at SW Dickinson and SW 65th.This project would include improvements such as shared lane markings, wayfinding signage, and several short "neighborhood trail" connections where direct street connections are not available. (Planning-level cost: TBD). 24 Parts of this segment exist as a pedestrian corridor. The route follows a driveway easement from SW Rockingham Drive, continues up several staircases and paved trail segments behind houses, then connects to SW Broadmoor Place via another driveway easement. 101 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails Short-Term Recommended Project Details TIGARD STREET TRAIL- FANNO CREEK/TIGARD STREET TO TIGARD TRANSIT CENTER (ALIGNMENT 1B & ALIGNMENT 2) Summary Cost Opinion This segment follows the inactive rail corridor Length: 3,296' (686'new sidewalk) along Tigard Street from Tiedeman Avenue to Main Medium Design Option: Street. Tigard Street currently has no sidewalks or Design: 12' asphalt with pavement markings pedestrian amenities. The corridor is currently a 16- (Main Street to Tiedeman), 10' asphalt side foot gravel path that could be developed to path(Tiedeman to Fanno Creek), crosswalk accommodate a variety of mixed use trail sections, and signage,lane markings depending on projected usage. The trail's existing Planning-level cost:$770,000 gravel (rail bed rock) surface is very rough and not comfortable for walking Low Design Option: The corridor may extend under the Pacific • Design:8' asphalt side path(with 4'bark Highway bridge to provide an entryway plaza chip running path from Main Street to treatment along Main Street; however, due to Tiedeman),sidewalk(Tiedeman to Fanno ODOT restrictions on pedestrian crossings within Creek), crosswalk and signage 250 feet of a rail crossing, trail users will be diverted ' Planning-level cost:$498,000 to the existing crossing of Main Street at Tigard Street to access the Tigard Transit Center. The alignment would make use of existing sidewalks and a bicycle/pedestrian bridge on Tigard Street to connect to the Fanno Creek Trail and a proposed on-street connection to the Summer Creek Trail. Improvements would include a sidepath on Tigard Street. Opportunities Constraints • Connects to Fanno Creek Park • May require long-term widening of Tigard • Connects to proposed on-street connection to Street pedestrian bridge to accommodate Summer Creek Park user volumes. • Connects to an existing bike/pedestrian • Minor out of direction travel required to bridge cross Main Street • Connects to a regional transit center • Provides pedestrian amenities in a corridor with no sidewalks • Existing right-of-way can accommodate multiple users and regional trail guidelines 103 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails TIGARD STREET TRAIL- FANNO CREEK/TIGARD STREET TO A TIGARD TRANSIT CENTER (ALIGNMENT 1B & ALIGNMENT 2) TK o hi 7 410_ k RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL rRJJECT$ Tl'ARD.OR 104 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails KRUEGER CREEK TRAIL — WALNUT STREET TO JACK PARK B Summary Cost Opinion The city has previously planned this trail that Length:487 connects the existing Jack Park Trail to the fire High Design Option: station parking lot and Walnut Street. In addition Design: 12'permeable asphalt trail, to completing a link in the Krueger Creek Trail,this concrete bridge trail would provide a new creek crossing and Planning-level cost:$209,000 connect Jack Park to additional parking near the Medium Design Option: fire station. • Design: 10' asphalt trail,wood bridge • Planning-level cost:$147,000 Opportunities Low Design Option: • Provides a connection between an existing Design:6' gravel trail,wood bridge park and the fire station parking lot . Planning-level cost:$111,000 • Narrow crossing of Krueger Creek could allow for a bridge outside of wetland Constraints • Existing wetland mitigation near project site tt� F F -fib •• .,w, Ilk 00 I -W'F-r s r( E • RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS soF,et PGP RO,OR. 105 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails FANNO CREEK TRAIL — 74TH AVENUE SIDEPATH, BONITA ROAD TO DURHAM ROAD (ALIGNMENT 3E) Summary Cost Opinion This segment connects Bonita Road to Durham Road Length: via a sidepath along the west side of SW 741h • 4,923' Avenue. This alignment would provide additional • Includes crossing treatments on Bonita and protection from traffic and respond to resident Durham Roads requests for a direct pedestrian-friendly route from High Design Option: Bonita Road to Durham Elementary, but would not require wetland mitigation or bridges. Design: permeable asphalt,RRFB signal island/refuge island While an east side alignment would minimize • Planning-level cost:$1,008,000 conflicts at driveways, the railroad is double-track to accommodate WES vehicles. As a result, there is Medium Design Option: insufficient separation between the potential • Design: 10' asphalt, crosswalk and refuge location of a side path on the east side of 741h and the island railroad. • Planning-level cost:$595,000 Low Design Option: • Design: 10' asphalt, crosswalk Opportunities . Planning-level cost:$552,000 • Provides a connection extending Fanno Creek Trail south. Neighborhood connector(Alignment Cl): • Relatively inexpensive compared to options • Design: 6' gravel,boardwalk,wood bridge along the creek • Planning-level cost:$520,000 Constraints • Environment less appealing than a streamside alignment • More expensive than on-street alternative • ODOT railroad crossing permit required to develop pedestrian crossing within 250'of tracks • Right-of-way acquisition;alignment crosses 16 privately-owned properties. 106 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails FANNO CREEK TRAIL - 74TH AVENUE SIDEPATH, BONITA C ROAD TO DURHAM ROAD (ALIGNMENT 3E) r 4. 7.7 e f. � .a 144« R a_y- RECOMMENDED GREENWRY TRAIL PROJECTS -' TIGARD,OR. 107 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails FANNO CREEK TRAIL — 85TH AVENUE TRAIL TO DURHAM CITY/KI-A-KUTS Summary Cost Opinion This trail section provides a key connection to the Option Dl Tualatin River Trail, Durham, and the Ki-A-Kuts Length: 1,148' Bridge. This section would bypass the Cook Park High Design Option: access trail that currently requires out-of-direction travel and creates user conflicts. This alignment • Design: 12'permeable asphalt,fence, would leverage the city's investment in bike lanes permitting,underpass,lighting,fencing • Planning-level cost:$3,088,000 on Hall Boulevard by completing a direct north- south route through Tigard from Portland to Medium Design Option: Durham/Tualatin. This direct, primarily on-street • Design: 10' asphalt,fence,permitting, route will provide an alternative to the off-street underpass,lighting,fencing Fanno Creek Trail alignment(proposed in projects • Planning-level cost:$2,975,000 G, C, and M) for commuters, thus reducing Low Design Option: conflicts between multiple trail user groups on a Design: 6'gravel,fence,permitting, these segments of the Fanno Creek and Tualatin underpass,lighting,fencing River Trails. • Planning-level cost:$2,874,000 Alignment option D1 would create a new underpass under the raised railroad, avoiding Clean Water Services' Oak Savannah Restoration Option D2 area. In accordance with Union Pacific standards, Length: 1,407' a culvert tunnel would be required to cross under High Design Option: the railroad tracks with a minimum of 8 0 Design: 12'permeable asphalt,fence, feet separation between the top of the culvert permitting tunnel and the track bed, as well as 100 feet of 0 Planning-level cost: $393,000 fence running parallel to the railroad tracks in either direction at the entrances to the tunnel Medium Design Option: to prevent unlawful access to the tracks. The • Design: 10' asphalt,fence,permitting recommended height of the tunnel is 12 feet, with • Planning-level cost:$255,000 10 feet the minimum height. The approximate Low Design Option: distance required for the tunnel is 50 feet, based a Design: 6'gravel,fence,permitting on field measurements of the existing ballast and . Planning-level cost:$131,000 track dimensions. At this length, it is recommended that the tunnel be lighted to increase safety for trail users. Opportunities 0 Connects to the Tualatin River Trail,bike Option D2 would travel south along a former lanes on Hall Boulevard,and Durham Road maintenance road on the edge of the restoration a Does not require out of direction travel area and the railroad to an existing underpass. Constraints • Close proximity to railroad • High cost of new railroad underpass(D1) • Potential disturbance of CWS restoration area(D2) 108 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails FANNO CREEK TRAIL — 85TH AVENUE TRAIL TO DURHAM D CITY/KI—A—KUTS • ��> — �^ t4 ,+ r 7n,—Ad,il h of r }• a. ,aj 3�.,.�'�• ,�' a } :I •� irk. ss A .a o Y50 50o RECOMMENDED OREENWAYTRAIL PROJECTS --- TI GARD,OR. 109 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails PATHFINDER-GENESIS TRAIL — FANNO CREEK TO 107TH COURT (ALIGNMENT 1B) JW Summary Cost Opinion This segment would follow the greenway north of Length: Walnut Street to provide a mixed streamside and • 1,609'(320'in wetland) on-street connection from the Pathfinder-Genesis to Fanno Creek Trail. This segment includes Medium Design Option: crossing enhancements on Walnut Street and Design: 10' asphalt, signage, acquisition, provides a direct and user friendly connection permitting, curb ramps, crosswalk • Planning-level cost: $725,465 between the two trails. The majority of this segment is located in wetlands and private property. Portions of this trail could be constructed as boardwalk to lessen environmental impacts and reduce the impact of seasonal flooding. Opportunities Constraints • Closes a gap between two existing trails • Portions of trail through wetlands • Connects to Woodard Park • 535 feet of alignment travels through one • Creates a more pleasant user experience than privately-owned residential parcel on-street option r";I IJ. ar ._ tA 1, ^ _a � F ~► 9i, / 'err `r� ' ' Aw - - RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS TIOARD,OR. 110 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails SUMMER CREEK TRAIL — SUMMER CREST DRIVE AND TIGARD STREET SIDEWALK AND BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS (ALIGNMENTS 2E, 3C, AND 4C), FOWLER NATURE EDUCATION TRAIL AO Summary Cost Opinion This segment would provide sidewalk and on- Medium Design Option: street bikeway improvements to connect the • Length:5,891' existing Summer Creek and Fanno Creek Trails. • Design: 10' asphalt(1,801'),permitting, This alignment would respond to resident requests pavement markings(4,090'),sidewalks for improved pedestrian/bicycle connectivity and (1,255'),crosswalk,RRFB,wayfinding signs safe walking routes to school in an area where • Planning-level cost:$709,000 streamside routes are not currently feasible. The Low Design Option: project would include spur connections at Gallo Len th:5,891' Avenue and 116th to link to an existing trail g segment and connect residents south of Summer ' Design: 10' asphalt(1,801'),permitting, Creek to the trail network. pavement markings(4,090'),crosswalk, wayfinding signs West of Gallo Avenue, improvements would � Planning-level cost:$256,000 include: wayfinding, "bicycle boulevard" treatments (e.g. sharrow pavement markings, route Connections: signage), sidewalk infill, and crossing • Spur at 116th Avenue: (6' gravel/boardwalk, improvements at 121St Avenue. East of Gallo 330'):$224,000 Avenue, where traffic volumes are higher and on- • Spur at Fanno Creek Trail(10' asphalt,264'): street bicycle facilities would require roadway $36,000 widening, a side path would provide access along the southern side of Tigard Street. As part of this project the existing nature education trail through the Fowler school property would be maintained as a soft-surface pedestrian nature trail and efforts would be made to eliminate usage of other demand trails in the area. Opportunities Constraints • Provides bicycle and pedestrian friendly links • All of Alignment 4C encroaches on the edge to Summer Creek and Fanno Creek Trails of'strictly limit'habitat • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities • If the property south of Tigard Street is • Creates a new off-street path developed as a park by the city,the sidepath • Provides nature education opportunities and west of Gallo will be considered half street provides an established alternative to improvements,which will impact project multiple demand paths costs. 111 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails SUMMER CREEK TRAIL - SUMMER CREST DRIVE AND TIGARD STREET SIDEWALK AND BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS F (ALIGNMENTS 2E, 3C, AND 4C), FOWLER NATURE EDUCATION TRAIL r - s - -. •,, !-t iv Fof '. IF i 1 Y � s .il.. - F f .-.• .. � 'fir.��n'� =t.. :��`" _ =�. .1.�:s.:: _� .� �, :-f.73*: �-� v 3I5 i5R 1,5W RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS Feel TIGA 112 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails Medium-Term Recommended Project Details FANNO CREEK TRAIL — TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY TO MILTON COURT/BONITA ROAD Summary Cost Opinion This conceptual alignment would connect the Tigard High,medium, and low design options will be Public Library to Bonita Park/Road, fulfilling frequent developed after potential alignment options resident requests for a safe, established route for are defined. children and pedestrians between these two major destinations.In addition to providing a key link in the non-motorized transportation network, this link would serve as a community resource providing unique educational and recreational opportunities. Because of uncertainty regarding the future development of properties in this area, any trail alignment in the vicinity of the creek will need to be developed and refined through extensive citizen and property owner engagement. Beyond the environs of the creek, the preferred alignment follows the existing upland demand trail located on the Metro-owned "Brown" property. An aesthetically pleasing, artful trail design incorporating elements that reduce environmental impacts (e.g. boardwalks, suspension bridges with footings outside of wetlands and riparian areas) are highly recommended for this segment.Recommended trail amenities include lighting, fencing, and interpretive signage to increase security, improve user experience, and discourage users from straying from the established trail. Opportunities • Improves trail use and user comfort • Potential to bring trail to regional standards • Would provide an alternative route than existing library section of trail • Uses existing demand trail alignment Constraints • Reduces neighborhood connections • Requires one creek crossing • Places trail through a wetland and floodplain 113 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails FANNO CREEK TRAIL - TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY TO MILTON G COURT/BONITA ROAD (ALIGNMENT 2A, 2B) Lei_}t1 �-'1Y ! r i P}, 111♦♦♦ { r � r tea. -- �`--h1��, f u��^��k• f r .°�' -- o no soo I,000 RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS Feel TIGARD,OR. 114 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails FANNO CREEK TRAIL — TIEDEMAN AVENUE CROSSING H REALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT 5B) Summary Cost Opinion This alignment would improve the difficult Fanno Length:450' Creek Trail crossing of Tiedeman Avenue. The city is High Design Option:Alignment constructing short-term improvements, including: Design: 12'permeable asphalt,precast signage, curb ramps, and high-visibility crossings. concrete bridge,fencing This alignment would additionally eliminate the 90 . Planning-level cost:$274,000 degree turns currently required in this segment and Medium Design Option:Alignment cross Fanno Creek via a bridge near the existing road bridge. The trail would connect to the Fanno Creek Design: 10'asphalt,wood bridge, Trail in Woodard City Park. The land this alignment Planning-level cost:$173,000 crosses is currently owned by Metro under the terms Low Design Option:Length:Alignment of a life estate. Trail use is prohibited on the property • Design:6' gravel,wood bridge until the life estate is relinquished and would be • Planning-level cost:$139,000 subject to Metro approval thereafter. Opportunities • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities • Improves safety and user comfort on a popular segment of a regional trail Constraints • Majority of trail in flood plain • Crossing improvements on Tiedemann Avenue • Requires bridge over Fanno Creek • 105'in'strictly limit'habitat area 115 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails FANNO CREEK TRAIL - TIEDEMAN AVENUE CROSSING H REALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT 5B) fe R ,,,'sem• q a-y —.._.— .. — i"— < r s ' t r R _ iyw. 4 o izs no »i RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS TIGA RD,OR. 116 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails TIGARD STREET TRAIL — FANNO CREEK/NORTH DAKOTA I STREET TO TIEDEMAN AVENUE (ALIGNMENT 1B) Summary Cost Opinion This segment would connect the Fanno Creek and Length:to be determined Tigard Street Trails. Scheduled reconstruction of the High Design Option:Alignment A North Dakota Street bridge (tentatively set for 2015) • Design: 10' asphaltibike lanes,precast combined with the proposed closing of the Tiedeman concrete bridge,crosswalk and signage, railroad crossing and realignment of Tiedeman to fencing connect to North Dakota Street presents an opportunity Planning-level cost:to be determined to add accommodations for cyclists and pedestrians and improve safety and user experience on this link to the Fanno Creek Trail. The final alignment of this project will be dependent upon the final configuration of the Tiedeman/North Dakota realignment project. The future alignment could be a sidepath along Tiedeman Avenue or an off- street trail that follows the rail corridor from Tiedeman Avenue to North Dakota Street. An on-street or sidepath connection will be provided along North Dakota Street to the Fanno Creek Trail entrance. This alignment may require coordination with the railroad to obtain additional easements and ODOT to obtain a pedestrian crossing permit near the railroad crossing at Tiedeman Avenue. Opportunities Constraints • Connects to Fanno Creek Trail • Proximity to multiple businesses,some • Uses full length of inactive rail corridor using corridor for informal parking • Requires additional rail corridor easements 117 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails TIGARD STREET TRAIL - FANNO CREEK/NORTH DAKOTA STREET TO TIEDEMAN AVENUE (ALIGNMENT 1B) ik *.JL It a 125 250 500 RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS F.9 TIGA RD. 118 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails TUALATIN RIVER TRAIL — 108TH AVENUE GRADING AND EXISTING TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS (ALIGNMENT 2A) Summary Cost Opinion In several areas the existing Tualatin River asphalt Length trail surface is degraded and there are abrupt • Spot improvements changes in trail surface, width, direction, and slope. • 250'for 108th entrance redesign This segment currently ends at a 90 degree turn and • 800'for Cook Park link steep slope (approximately 20 percent grade) at 108th High Design Option: Avenue. Improvements for this segment would include: Design: signage,lighting,grading, 12' permeable asphalt,acquisition,permitting bringing the current alignment up to regional � Planning-level cost:$254,000 standards by repairing asphalt and adopting a uniform 10-foot section where possible, paving an Medium Design Option: existing soft surface trail segment in Cook Park to • Design: signage, 10' asphalt,acquisition, increase ADA and bicycle accessibility, and adding a permitting stairway and/or obtaining an easement to straighten • Planning-level cost:$139,000 the curve and lessen the grade of the 108th Avenue Low Design Option: trail entrance. Seasonal flooding in Cook Park and . Design: signage,8' asphalt patching the environmental impacts of paved and unpaved Planning-level cost:$26,000 trail surfaces in this area should be evaluated in more detail prior to implementation. Opportunities Constraints • Improves user experience and safety on an Potential high cost and property issues existing high use trail related to 108th Avenue entrance changes • Enhances accessibility and connections to Trail widening/straightening may require residential and recreational uses removing several large trees 119 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails TUALATIN RIVER TRAIL - 108TH AVENUE GRADING AND EXISTING TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS (ALIGNMENT 2A) ire r 5+ M fir. +'- lr' 'f ��.- _�• +' S•� -K _rte ti _ 3E _' •JI.' ,�' : .I 4. N r_ r r M R - ell p - RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS �• TI GA RD.OR. 120 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails TUALATIN RIVER TRAIL — 108TH AVENUE TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY EXTENSION (ALIGNMENT 2A) Summary Cost Opinion This segment would pass outside of Tigard city Length limits and intersect with Pacific Highway and the • 3,314' future Westside Trail extension. This alignment High Design Option: extends the existing trail from 108t'' Avenue through a wooded city-owned parcel. An on-street ' Design:Alignment B, 12'permeable alternative to this trail is not available south of asphalt,precast concrete bridge, Durham Road, which is over 0.5 miles north of the undercrossing,permitting, acquisition Tualatin River at Pacific Highway. • Planning-level cost:$2,354,000 Medium Design Option: • Design:Alignment B, 10' asphalt,wood bridge,undercrossing,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost: $1,746,000 Opportunities Constraints • Connects two regional trails(Tualatin and • Crosses 11 private properties proposed Westside) 0 Steep slopes require grading,bridging,and • Provides a bicycle/pedestrian route where no drainage on-street alternative is available • Outside of city limits • Connects to bike lanes on Pacific Highway • Requires stream crossing and Pacific Highway underpass 121 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails TUALATIN RIVER TRAIL - 108TH AVENUE TO PACIFIC K HIGHWAY EXTENSION (ALIGNMENT 2A) 01 Ar r,_ �"r r L ,moo .tea H .fit .. 0 x5a SOo I,00o RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRA4 PROJECTS TIOARD.OR. 122 Tigard Greenway Trails System MasterPlan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails WASHINGTON SQUARE LOOP TRAIL — FANNO CREEK TO HIGHWAY 217 SIDEWALK AND BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS (ALIGNMENT 1B) Summary Cost Opinion This segment provides an on-street connection from Length: Fanno Creek Trail to Highway 217. An off-street • 61057' greenway alignment is not currently feasible in this Low Design Option:Alignment B area due to environmental impacts, private property 0 Design:pavement markings,signs, impacts, and the high cost of developing a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 217 to serve an crosswalks,sidewalk and bike lanes on off-road alignment. This on-street alignment would North Dakota Street,southbound bike make use of existing sidewalks and bike lanes on lane on Greenburg Road • Planning-level cost:$183,000 Greenburg and bicycle/pedestrian improvements implemented in conjunction with the North Dakota Street bridge reconstruction (tentatively scheduled for Opportunities 2015). Improvements would include: a southbound bike lane on Greenburg, crossing improvements on ' Connects an existing trail to an existing bicycle route Greenburg and Tiedeman Avenue, additional signage, Completes a link in a planned regional pavement markings, and safety improvements. Bike trail lanes and sidewalks should be incorporated as part of the scheduled rebuild of the North Dakota bridge.If the Constraints Greenburg/Highway 217 interchange is rebuilt in conjunction with the planned widening of Highway • Less pleasant user experience 217, further bicycle and pedestrian improvements to this segment should be considered. 123 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails WASHINGTON SQUARE LOOP TRAIL - FANNO CREEK TO HIGHWAY 217 SIDEWALK AND BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS L (ALIGNMENT 1B) Mp FUR, I M j o ]50 50o i,000 RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS' Feel TIGARD,OR. 124 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails Long-Term Recommended Project Details FANNO CREEK TRAIL — DURHAM ROAD TO TUALATIN RIVER M TRAIL (ALIGNMENT 4D) Summary Cost Opinion This segment would connect high-priority Length:2,151' expansions of the Fanno Creek Trail to the existing Tualatin River Trail. This alignment would make High Design Option: use of existing upland demand trails between • Design: 12'permeable asphalt/boardwalk, Durham Road and existing sections of the Tualatin precast concrete bridge,fencing,permitting, River Trail east of the railroad tracks. The acquisition alignment is located primarily outside of the • Planning-level cost:$1,943,000 railroad right-of-way on three parcels held in a Medium Design Option: living trust and two parcels held by the same . Design: 10' asphaltiboardwalk,wood bridge, owner. This alignment would require a stream fencing,permitting, acquisition crossing parallel to the existing railroad bridge. . Planning-level cost:$1,797,000 Construction of this alignment would require Low Design Option: coordination with private property owners, the railroad, and the City of Durham (the alignment is • Design: 6'gravel/boardwalk,wood bridge, outside Tigard city limits and passes through a fencing,permitting,acquisition parcel owned by the City of Durham). • Planning-level cost:$1,320,000 Opportunities Constraints • Connects to the Cook Park Access Trail • Outside of Tigard city limits • Close proximity to railroad and crosses five private properties 125 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails FANNO CREEK TRAIL - DURHAM ROAD TO TUALATIN RIVER M TRAIL (ALIGNMENT 4D) W4 ,1W 14 to : 13191 "" Y 40 � " `� a � • � Ary^' _ Ar rl trey' . 1 � •�� -i o ss>> a,000 RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS Feel TIGA RD,OR. 126 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails ASCENSION TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS (ALIGNMENT 4) N Summary Cost Opinion The Ascension Trail is a soft surface trail though a High Design Option:Alignment gulley, leading from SW Fern Street to SW Mistletoe • Length:3,718 Drive. The trail includes stairs,wood retaining walls, • Design:6' gravel trail,wood bridge, and a bridge over the creek. Several accessways cribbed stairs,retaining wall,armored provide connections to adjacent properties. trail,improvements to Lauren Lane Improvements would include installing "cribbed" switchbacks stairs (terraced earth stairs supported by logs or • Planning-level cost:$590,000 other materials), retaining walls, and "armored" trail Medium Design Option:Alignment sections where rock is used to harden the trail surface. Improvements to the switchbacks from SW • Length:3,145' Lauren Lane are also included • Design:6'bark mulch trail,wood bridge, cribbed stairs,retaining wall,armored Opportunities trail,improvements to Lauren Lane • Uses existing soft surface trail switchbacks • Trail context and presence of alternate routes • Planning-level cost:$485,000 makes this a scenic walking route Low Design Option:Alignment Constraints • Length:3,145' • Narrow trail corridor • 4'native surface trail,wood bridge, • Significant slopes would prohibit bicycle use cribbed stairs,retaining wall,armored • Majority of trail through'strictly limit'habitat trail area • Planning-level cost:$332,000 127 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails ASCENSION TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS (ALIGNMENT 4) N 34f , rr 55 � et J' Fr ' r �f r.• eefJ� � J'x'�� �.•�ri { A. -/� y--Yf� `ti'' e1 ,fit• � _ �I r1k r`,r�rr ' r i 4, :r o ns 5rso i.soo RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS Feet TIGARD,OR. 128 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails WASHINGTON SQUARE LOOP — HIGHWAY 217 TO HALL BOULEVARD SIDEWALK AND BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS O (ALIGNMENT 2B) Summary Cost Opinion This segment would provide a bicycle/pedestrian Length: 2,946' (1,520' of sidewalk missing on the friendly on-street connection between Highway north side of Oak and 2,150'between 95th and Hall 217 and Hall Boulevard. This project would on the south side of Oak). continue previous on-street improvements on Low Design Option:Alignment B North Dakota Street and Greenburg Street from • Design:shared lane markings,signs, the Fanno Creek Trail to Highway 217. sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$666,000 Opportunities Constraints • Provides a direct connection to • Less pleasant user experience Washington Square • Connects to an existing bicycle route • Completes a link in a planned regional trail €r _ J- - 7 _ 7 1. 'Y•' alip fV o ]50 5001,a0a RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PROJECTS Fl. TIGA 129 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails KRUEGER CREEK TRAIL — SUMMERLAKE PARK TRAILS TO P KATHERINE STREET Summary Cost Opinion This segment would improve safe routes to school Length: 1,063 by providing a connection between the existing Medium Design Option: paved trails in Summerlake Park and Mary 0 Design: 10' asphalt/boardwalk Woodward Elementary School. . Planning-level cost:$518,000 The alignment would skirt the edge of the school Low Design Option: property, connecting to an existing concrete 0 Design: 6' gravel/boardwalk sidewalk on the west side of the school property. An existing paved trail connects to the school fence • Planning-level cost:$473,000 and is subject to a public pedestrian and bicyclist easement. With the school's approval, the fence could be removed, opening a connection to Winterlake Drive. Opportunities Constraints • Provides a safe route to school connection • Requires coordination with school between two parks • Partially through wetland it el �� r 1} [ s Idi RECOMMENDED GREENWAY TRAIL PR AOR. TI GA 130 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails Other Project Details Several projects were identified and/or evaluated during the development of the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan that were not identified as current high,medium, or low priority projects due to existing constraints or because they fell outside the scope of the current planning effort. Although these projects have not currently been assigned a priority in this Plan, they should not be removed from consideration in future planning efforts. ■ Fanno Creek Trail - Library to Fanno Creek Drive Improvements: The segment of the Fanno Creek Trail south of the library is characterized by many sharp twists and 90- degree turns. This project considers straightening several curves, grading and repaving the connection between Char Court and Fanno Creek Drive, and removing encroachments (e.g. fences, blackberries) on the existing trail. The final alignment and improvements will depend upon the results of the planning process for recommended project"G", detailed above. (Planning level cost: $485,000-$733,000) ■ Fanno Creek Trail-Scholls Ferry Road Underpass Improvements:The Fanno Creek Trail undercrossing of Scholls Ferry Road experiences seasonal flooding which leaves the crossing temporarily unusable due to standing water and residual mud. Pavement on this section of the trail is also degraded. Improving this crossing is a priority, however, Washington County - not the city of Tigard - is responsible for maintenance of this segment of the Fanno Creek Trail. In addition, environmental conditions and regulations preclude a short-term, low cost "fix" to the flooding problem. The City of Tigard will continue to work with Washington County to identify potential improvements such as raising the trail or installing a wall along the creek. (Planning level cost: TBD) ■ Krueger Creek Trail - Summer Creek to Jack Park: This greenway trail connection from the existing Summerlake Park Trail to Jack Park was identified as a potential trail in the 1999 Tigard Park System Plan.Although this alignment is not currently identified as a priority project due to environmental and property constraints, it should not be removed from consideration in future planning efforts, should conditions change or opportunities for trail development arise. (Planning level cost: $1.4 million) ■ Summer Creek Trail - Summerlake Park to Gallo Avenue: This greenway trail connection from the existing Summerlake Park Trail to the existing Gallo Avenue neighborhood Trail was identified as a potential trail in the 1999 Tigard Park System Plan. Although this alignment is not currently identified as a priority project due to 131 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Recommended Greenway Trails environmental and property constraints and neighborhood resistance, it should not be removed from consideration in future planning efforts, should conditions change or opportunities for trail development arise. (Planning level cost: $4.545.5 million) ■ Washington Square Loop Trail - Fanno Creek to 61St Avenue: This greenway trail connection from the existing Fanno Creek Trail is identified as a potential regional trail in the 1999 Tigard Park System Plan and Metro Regional Trails Map. Although this alignment is not currently identified as a priority project due to the high cost of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 217, environmental concerns, and property constraints, it should not be removed from consideration in future planning efforts, should conditions change or opportunities for trail development arise. (Planning level cost: $11 million-$16 million) ■ Fanno Creek Trail - Bonita Road to Durham Road Greenway: This greenway connection from Bonita Road to Durham Road was identified as a potential alignment to fill a gap in the existing Fanno Creek Trail in the 1999 Tigard Park System Plan and the Fanno Creek Trail Action Plan. The 74th Avenue side path has been identified as a short- term, high-priority alternative for this segment due to current environmental and property constraints associated with the greenway alignment. However, the greenway alignment should not be removed from consideration in future planning efforts, should conditions change or opportunities for trail development arise. (Planning level cost: $9.4 million- $4.6 million) ■ Race Walk Track: The feasibility of a loop trail that could also serve as a competitive race walking track was considered during development of this Plan. Race walk tracks require a complete loop that is open and visible to an official standing in the middle of the course. No areas were identified that would be suitable for this type of facility and also serve an active transportation function. The Fanno and Tigard Street Trails could be developed to form a loop, but development and vegetation would limit its visibility from a single point in the center. 132 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan S. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This chapter outlines measures to assist the City of Tigard in implementation of the recommended Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan project list.The text has three parts: ■ Recommended Regulatory Amendments outlining recommended amendments to existing regulations and policies that support the development of greenway trail projects in Tigard. ■ A Financial Strategy identifying existing and available funding sources that represent funding opportunities for trail projects. ■ An Action Plan for constructing the proposed trails, strategically implementing prioritized projects, acquiring right-of-way, and creating a long-term strategy for developing the recommended trail projects,as well as other future trail projects. Regulatory Amendments This section recommends specific policy and regulatory changes to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan (TSP), Community Development Code, and public improvement design standards necessary to prioritize, program, fund, and construct projects on the recommended projects list in Chapter 7. Existing regulatory language relevant to development of greenway trails in the City of Tigard was provided in Chapter 3. This chapter discusses recommended changes to the policies, which are provided in bold for additions, and strike-through for deletions. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2009) The Tigard 2027: Comprehensive Plan provides the policy basis of Tigard's land use planning program and guides the city's actions relating to the use of land in the city. Originally written in 1983, the 2009 update is the first complete update of the Plan. Chapter 8 of the Plan primarily discusses greenway trails in Tigard. Chapter 8:Parks,Recreation, Trails, and Open Spaces The overarching goal of the Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces element of the Comprehensive Plan (Goal 8) is, "to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of recreational facilities, including destination resorts." Greenway trails provide recreational opportunities, as well as enabling non-motorized access to recreational opportunities,and are promoted through this Goal. 133 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Goal 8.1 is to "provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both (A) developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and (B) undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system." Specific policies and actions relating to the proposed greenway trail system include: ■ Policy 7: "The city shall ensure public safety is a consideration in the planning, design, and management of parks,open spaces,and trails." ■ Policy 16: "The city shall continue to encourage and recognize the important role of volunteers and community groups in meeting city park,trail, open space, and recreation needs, and in building stewardship and promoting community pride." ■ Policy 20: "The city shall continue to improve access to neighborhood parks and other facilities in order to serve all citizens, regardless of ability." Action v. "Coordinate with and support Metro,Oregon State Parks,the National Park Service,and other agencies that provide parks,open spaces,trails,and recreational activities in or near Tigard." Action xi. "Utilize alternative methods to acquire and develop open space,parks,and trails, including local improvement districts,purchase of easements and development rights,life estates, etc." Action xii. "Work to increase grants and donations from new sources for operating and capital funding." Action xix. "Make parks,trails,and open spaces universally accessible by as many people as possible by adhering to the United States Access Board accessibility guidance and standards, AASHTO design guidance,and Metro trail standards,where possible." Action xxi. "Continue to seek the assistance of volunteer groups to help in developing and maintaining parks,trails,and open spaces." Another key goal for the development of greenway trails is Goal 8.2: "Create a citywide network of interconnected on and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails." This goal addresses how the city should develop and maintain a complete trail system. Policies related to this goal that impact planning and development of greenway trails include: ■ Policy 1: "The city shall create an interconnected regional and local system of on and off- road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, major urban 134 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan activity centers, and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and easements on private property." ■ Policy 2: "The city shall design and build greenway trails and paths to minimize their impact on the environment, including on wildlife corridors and on rare, and state or federally listed species." Action i. "Cemplete a Update the trail system master plan every five years to guide the development of the trail system and facilitate progress toward its completion." Action ii. "Complete a citywide inventory and prioritization of opportunities for short pathway connections that increase bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and complement the greenway and on street bicycle/pedestrian systems." Action iii."Develop trail standards for the many trail systems, sizes,and materials needed in different settings as well as guidelines for trail/roadway crossing treatments." Action v."Coordinate trail development and maintenance activities with natural resource management objectives and activities." Action vi."Where appropriate,furnish trails with amenities, such as benches, drinking fountains,parking and staging areas, and other services." Action vii."Use automated systems to systematically map and document trail easements, right-of- way dedications,proposed alignments,and current trail locations." Action viii.Provide distinctive wayfinding,street signs,and mileage markers along the trail system to increase the visibility,ease of navigation,and user-friendliness of Tigard's bicycle and pedestrian trail system. Action ix.Provide interpretive signage along greenway trails for its educational value and as a means of keeping trail users on the trail to reduce encroachment into greenway natural areas. The recommended amendment to Goal 8.2 clarifies that signs are not 'amenities' that enhance the trail experience,but are important elements of trail design for user comfort and safety. 135 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan CITY OF TIGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (2010) The-2035 Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) was adopted in late 2011. Goal 1 - Land Use and Transportation Coordination aims to, "Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the community."A relevant policy reads, ■ Policy 9. "The city shall coordinate with private and public developers to provide access for all transportation modes via a safe,efficient,and balanced transportation system." Goal 3 focuses on the multi-modal transportation system. Relevant policies include: ■ Policy 7. "The city shall require and/or facilitate the construction of off-street trails to develop pedestrian and bicycle connections that cannot be provided by a street." ■ Policy 8. "The city shall requiFe appFeepFiate aeeess to bieyele and pedes*,-;_,„ L-w-Ai;*;oS, €AP all provide bicycle and pedestrian routes to school and other destinations by requiring appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, trails, and on-street bicycle routes to schools,parks, public facilities,and commercial areas." Finally, Goal 4 addresses the desire for a safe transportation system: ■ Policy 3. "The city shall coordinate with the appropriate agencies to provide safe, secure, connected,and desirable pedestrian,bicycle,and public transit facilities." TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Elements of Tigard's Community Development Code that are pertinent to the development and use of greenway trails include requirements for bicycle parking and conditions of development approval. Bicycle Parking Tigard's Community Development Code addresses bicycle parking standards in Section 18.765.50. Elements relating to potential for providing bicycle parking along a greenway trail corridor include: ■ B. 1. "When possible,bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover." ■ D. "Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material,i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete, other pervious paving surfaces, or similar material. This surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained." In addition, design requirements support the use of user-friendly and secure bicycle parking. Table 18.765.2 specifies quantities of bicycle parking required based on land uses. Community recreation 136 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan uses require three bicycle parking spaces per 1,000 square feet,with a minimum of two spaces.The existing language supports providing bicycle parking at parks and trailheads. Conditions of Development Approval The Land Partitions Approval process requires consideration of dedicating land for greenways adjoining and within the floodplain where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain.The requirement specifies that, "the area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan." Similarly, the Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways section of the Street and Utility Improvement Standards (Section 18.810.110) requires that, "developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the city's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development." This section also specifies that the minimum width of an off-road multi-use path should be ten feet.Eight feet is acceptable, given environmental or other constraints. For a natural neighborhood trail, the minimum width is five feet.These widths are sufficient,although the city should consider providing additional guidance for where a width greater than ten feet is desired, as proposed in the Public Improvement Design Standards section following(see Table 14). PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS The Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards (1998) specify that bikeways should meet the requirements of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities(1999; update pending).Additional guidance from the Public Design Standards is provided as follows: "Bikeways not within a street shall be constructed upon compacted subgrade that has been sterilized. If it is an asphaltic concrete bikeway, it should be constructed to one of the following pavement section designs: • 4 inches of asphalt concrete(full depth); • 21/z inches of asphalt concrete with 4 inches of 3/"-0"rock base;or • 4 inches of Portland cement concrete. Design standards regarding horizontal alignment, grade, sight distance, intersections, signing, marking, structures, drainage and lighting shall conform to 137 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan the AASHTO standards. When bikeways are integrated with a curb, all inlet grates shall be designed to protect the bicyclist from the grate or opening." The current AASHTO guidelines provide general guidance for minimum design of shared use paths or trails. However, the guidelines do not recommend specific widths and surface types above the minimums, based on anticipated uses. Tigard would benefit from guidelines that specify recommended design characteristics and amenities for different types of trails. Table 1 provides a quick reference chart for the hierarchical trail typology and the guidelines developed for the Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan in collaboration with City of Tigard staff, Metro, and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). Recommended text to accompany the table is provided below. The Tigard Greenways trail classification system defines regional, community, and neighborhood trails based on expected use and user types. This hierarchy can be used to generally determine appropriate surface and design features. In some cases, trails will not conform to specific design types (e.g., a regional trail through a physically constrained area may be narrower than recommended for a short distance),but these guidelines represent design of typical trails. Table 14 provides an overview of typical design for trails by classification. Specific design and type of elements depends on the local context of the trail and city staff judgment;the recommendations in the table outline typical design elements. 138 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Table 14 Trail Design Types and Recommended Guidelines Neighborhood Trail Regional Trail Community Trail Urban Trail Natural Trail Facility Type Shared-use path Shared-use path Shared-use path/sidewalk Soft surface trail Users Bicyclists Bicyclists Bicyclists Bicyclists Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Wheelchairs Wheelchairs Wheelchairs" Baby strollers Baby strollers Baby strollers Skaters Skaters" Skaters" Width Approx.10-14 ft Approx 8-10 ft 3-8 ft 3-8 ft 2 ft gravel shoulders 1-2 ft gravel shoulders 1-2 ft gravel shoulders 1-2 ft gravel shoulders or 10'bike path with 4'soft- (optional) (optional) surface pedestrian path Surface Paved or other smooth- Paved or other smooth- Paved or other smooth-rolling Earth,gravel,wood rolling surface to rolling surface to surface to accommodate all chips,or other soft accommodate all trail users accommodate all trail users trail users surface material Financial Strategy Fully implementing the recommended greenway trail projects will require a well-planned funding strategy. This section identifies existing, potential, and anticipated sources of funding to guide project programming. A variety of potential funding sources are available to help pay for future trails, including federal, state, regional, local, and private sector programs. Most of these programs are competitive and involve the completion of extensive applications with clear documentation of project need, costs, and benefits. Several of these sources are currently being utilized in Tigard, while others present new opportunities for the city to fund greenway trail projects. EXISTING FUNDING SOURCES The City of Tigard has historically pursued a variety of strategies to implement greenway trails. In particular, a Parks Bond - approved by voters in 2010 (Measure 34-181) - is a general obligation bond of $17 million to acquire, preserve and protect open spaces, water quality, habitat, and parkland. Eighty percent of these funds are reserved for land acquisitions, such as the city's 25 Depends upon chosen trail surface-inline skates and skateboards will not roll well on surfaces other than asphalt or concrete. 26 Paved park trails may still be too steep to safely accommodate wheelchair and other disabled users. 139 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan acquisition of the "Fowler property" near Fowler Middle School. The fund dedicates most of the remaining 20 percent for improvements and development on parkland, including trail development. In addition, in the FY 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), $25,000 of Park System Development Charges was allocated to the development of the Fanno Creek Trail from Main Street to Grant Street. The CIP also allocated $141,000 annually for "citywide sidewalk and pedestrian improvements,"which includes short trail connections to fill existing gaps in the pedestrian system. POTENTIAL AND ANTICIPATED FUNDING SOURCES Federal Funding Sources Federal funding is primarily distributed through a number of programs established by Congress. The latest surface transportation authorization, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), was enacted in August 2005 as Public Law 109-59. SAFETEA-LU authorized the federal surface transportation programs for highways,highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005-2009. SAFETEA-LU legislation expired on September 30, 2009, but at the time of writing had been extended for a fifth time to September 30, 2011. It is expected that Congress will adopt a new multiyear surface transportation authorization bill by this date. Therefore, the continued availability of any listed SAFETEA-LU programs is not guaranteed, nor is it possible to predict their future funding levels or policy guidance.There is a high probability that earmark-based funding programs will not be included in the next reauthorization. Nevertheless, many of these programs have been authorized in some form in repeated federal transportation reauthorization acts,and thus may continue to provide capital for improvements. In Oregon, federal monies are administered through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter- modal connections. Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education programs,and projects must relate to the surface transportation system. There are a number of programs identified within SAFETEA-LU that are applicable to bicycle and pedestrian projects.These programs are discussed below. ■ More information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/index.htm 140 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Transportation Enhancements A federal program administered by the Oregon Departments of Transportation, the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program is funded by a set-aside of Surface Transportation Program (STP) monies. Ten percent of STP funds are designated for TE activities, which include the "provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists,"and the"preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails)" 23 USC Section 190 (a)(35). Other TE categories are Historic Preservation; Landscaping and Scenic Beautification; and Environmental Mitigation. Projects must serve a transportation need. TE grants can be used to build a variety of pedestrian, bicycle,streetscape,and other improvements that enhance the cultural,aesthetic, or environmental value of transportation systems.The statewide grant process is competitive. ■ More information: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/LGS/enhancement.shtml Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) of the federal transportation bill provides funding to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, and equestrian use. These monies are available for both paved and unpaved trails, but may not be used to improve roads for general passenger vehicle use or to provide shoulders or sidewalks along roads. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for: ■ Maintenance and restoration of existing trails ■ Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment ■ Construction of new trails, including unpaved trails ■ Acquisition or easements of property for trails ■ State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a state's RTP dollars) ■ Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a state's RTP dollars) In Oregon, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) administers the Recreational Trails Program as a grant program.This grant is specifically designed to pay for recreational trail projects rather than transportation-specific projects. 141 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan ■ More information: http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/GRANTS/trails.shtml Transportation,Community,and System Preservation Program The Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program provides federal funding for transit-oriented development, traffic calming, and other projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts, and provide efficient access to jobs, services, and trade centers. The program is intended to provide communities with the resources to explore the integration of their transportation system with community preservation and environmental activities. The TCSP Program funds require a 20 percent match. Because TCSP program is one of many programs authorized under SAFETEA-LU, current funding has only been extended through September 30, 2011, and program officials are not currently accepting applications for 2011. In most years, Congress has identified projects to be selected for funding through the TCSP program. Relatively few Oregon communities have received monies from this program since 1999,and a majority of projects are highway-related efforts. ■ More information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/ Land and Water Conservation Fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) provides grants for planning and acquiring outdoor recreation areas and facilities, including trails. Funds can be used for right-of-way acquisition and construction. The program is administered by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department as a grant program. Any Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan projects located in future parks could benefit from planning and land acquisition funding through the LWCF. Trail corridor acquisition can be funded with LWCF grants as well,but historically few trails have been proposed compared to parks. ■ More info: http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/GRANTS/Iwcf.shtml State Funding Sources Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Grants The Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant Program is a competitive grant program providing approximately $5 million every two years to Oregon cities, counties and ODOT regional and district offices for design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Proposed facilities must be within public rights-of-way. Grant applications are reviewed and prioritized by the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Tigard has received$389,366 for four projects,the most recent of which was in 2009. 142 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan ■ More information: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/grantsl.shtml Oregon Parks and Recreation Local Government Grants The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) administers a Local Government Grants program using Oregon Lottery revenues. The grants may pay for acquisition, development, and major rehabilitation projects for public outdoor park and recreation areas and facilities. The amount of money available for grants varies depending on the approved OPRD budget. Grants are available for three categories of projects: small projects (maximum $50,000 request),large projects (maximum $750,000 request, or $1,000,000 for land acquisition), and small community planning projects (maximum$25,000 request). ■ More information: http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/GRANTS/local.shtml Statewide Transportation Improvement Program The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is ODOT's short-term capital improvement program, providing project funding and scheduling information for the department and Metro. STIP project lists are updated every two years, with four-year project lists. The current cycle covers projects from 2010-2013, and the 2012-2015 STIP is under development. Project lists are developed through the coordinated efforts of ODOT, federal and local governments, Area Commissions on Transportation,tribal governments, and the public. In developing this program, ODOT must verify that the identified projects comply with the Oregon Transportation Plan, ODOT Modal Plans, Corridor Plans, local comprehensive plans, and SAFETEA- LU planning requirements. Projects are not required to be located on the state highway system to be eligible for this fund. Stand-alone bicycle/pedestrian projects are an eligible funding category, and multi-modal roadway projects that contain a planned pedestrian or bicycle improvement can also be funded. Oregon STIP funds currently have paid for or will pay for numerous stand-alone bicycle/pedestrian projects and programs, including infrastructure improvements, preliminary engineering, construction, and rehabilitation of numerous trail segments and transportation demand management programs. ■ More information: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/STIP/ Urban Trails Fund The Urban Trails Fund (UTF) was created in 2009 by the Oregon Legislature, as part of HB 2001 (the Jobs and Transportation Act). The purpose of the Urban Trails Fund was to develop shared-use paths for non-motorized vehicles and pedestrians, within urban growth boundaries, to provide or improve links to roads and highways, footpaths, bike trails, and public transit. The UTF was 143 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan specifically created in response to a gap in the current funding stream for projects outside of the public right-of-way that provide non-motorized transportation links. The Urban Trails Fund was initially created by a one-time appropriation of$1.0 million, and was managed as a competitive grant program by ODOT. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee was the public advisory committee overseeing the Urban Trails Fund. The intention of the first round of funding was to demonstrate the value of the program with the hope that the Oregon Legislature will authorize additional program dollars in the future. ■ More information: None available online; ODOT contact is Pat Rogers Fisher. (patricia.r.fisher@odot.state.or.us) Oregon Revised Statute 366.514 Often referred to as the "Oregon Bicycle Bill," this law applies equally to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The statute's intent is to ensure that future roads be built to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel.The statute requires the provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on all Major Arterial and Collector roadway construction, reconstruction, or relocation projects where conditions permit. The statute also requires that in any fiscal year, at least one percent of highway funds allocated to a jurisdiction must be used for bicycle/pedestrian projects. This amount could increase to 1.5 percent or higher in the future and could, therefore, present a greater opportunity for funding bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ■ More information: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/bike bill.shtml Metro Transportation Improvement Program Funding(MTIP) The MTIP comprises federal transportation funds coordinated by Metro. Funds can be used for Preliminary Engineering, ROW acquisition, and construction. The MTIP Program document includes projects selected by Metro to receive regional flexible funds. It is updated every two years and incorporated into the State TIP. The top funding priority of the most recent (2010-13) MTIP is to "complete gaps in roads, trails, streets or transit routes to improve circulation within regional centers and town centers." Another key priority is to "complete gaps in transit service, automobile, pedestrians, and bike routes between employers and potential employees, and between businesses and potential customers." Regional flexible funds come from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) selects transportation programs and projects to be funded. JPACT has $24 million to allocate,and will be developing a project list in spring 2011. 144 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan ■ More information: http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=19681 Regional Funding Sources Natural Areas Bond Measure Approved by voters in 2006, the Natural Areas Bond Measure provides $227.4 million regionally for protection of natural areas and lands near rivers and streams. The bond measure has three distinct funding programs: Regional Share, Local Share,and Capital Grants. Twenty-seven regional target areas are identified for regional natural area bond funding. Metro Council approved acquisition plans for these projects in 2007. The Fanno Creek Linkages and Trail are an identified priority, with the project's goal of completing "a continuous greenway trail from the Tualatin River into a highly urbanized,'walker-challenged' area of Portland, and further protect water quality along Fanno Creek and its tributaries." A Tier I Objective is to connect the mainstem of Fanno Creek between Cook Park and Woodard Park in Tigard. The Westside Trail is another priority that will provide a continuous trail corridor from the Tualatin River through Tigard to the Willamette River Greenway. The local share includes $44 million in bond funds for protecting water quality, improving parks and natural areas, preserving wildlife habitat, and providing greater access to nature for people all over the region. Tigard used the local funding to purchase a 1.1-acre property on Fanno Creek between Hall Boulevard and Main Street adjacent to Fanno Creek Park. The Nature in Neighborhoods grant program has $15 million to fund "projects that preserve or enhance natural features and their ecological functions on public lands in neighborhoods, and help ensure that every community enjoys clean water and nature as an element of its character and livability." Neighborhoods, community groups, nonprofit organizations,schools, cities, counties and public park providers are eligible to apply for funding. ■ More information: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=16894 Regional Travel Options Grants The Regional Travel Options grants are available to reduce the number of people driving alone, improve air quality, and address community health issues. In the 2011-2013 funding cycle, $533,000 was available. The City of Tigard received $25,000 to develop a walking map and wayfinding system for Downtown Tigard. ■ More information: httl2://www.oregonmetro.govlindex.cfm/go/by.web/id=21470 145 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Non-Traditional Grant Funding Sources Kodak American Greenways Program Grants Administered by The Conservation Fund and the National Geographic Society, the American Greenways Program provides 'seed' funding for the planning and design of small greenways projects. In 2010, the program awarded half of the grants to greenways projects that involve natural,cultural,and/or socio-political historical themes. Applications for funds can be made by local, regional, or state-wide non-profit organizations and public agencies. The maximum award is $2,500, but most range from $500 to $1,500. Kodak American Greenways Program monies may be used to fund unpaved trail development. In Oregon, the Conservation Fund assisted the Oregon Board and Department of Forestry's acquisition of 25,000 acres adjacent to Gilchist State Forest. The fund assisted with development of a rail-to-trail along the historic Mission Zanja irrigation canal in Los Angeles,California. ■ More information: http://www.conservationfund.org/kodak awards Bikes Belong Grant Program The Bikes Belong Coalition of bicycle suppliers and retailers has awarded $1.7 million and leveraged an additional $650 million since its inception in 1999. The program funds corridor improvements, mountain bike trails, BMX parks, trails, and park access. It is funded by the Bikes Belong Employee Pro Purchase Program. In Oregon, the Bikes Belong Grant Program provided $7,500 to the City of Gresham for the Gresham-Fairview Trail in 2006, and $10,000 to the Bicycle Transportation Alliance of Portland for the Springwater Connector Trail in 2011. ■ More information: http://www.bikesbelong.org/grants/ Active Living by Design Grants The Robert Wood Johnson (RWJ) Foundation established the Active Living by Design (ALbD) Grant Program in 2001. Grants are awarded to promote healthy communities and lifestyles. The grant program funded and provided technical assistance to 25 community partnerships that developed and implemented local projects to support physical activity and active living, including development of parks, trails, and other bicycle commuting opportunities. The grant provided $200,000 over five years to each site, as well as providing technical assistance.While this program has not been funded since, it is a good example of community health partnership grants that may become available in the future. ■ More information: http://activeIivingbydesign.org/what-we-do/aIbd-grant-program 146 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Local Funding Sources General Obligation Bonds(Parks Bond) Local bond measures, or levies, are usually initiated by voter-approved general obligation bonds for specific projects. Bond measures are typically limited by time, based on the debt load of the local government or the project under focus. Funding from bond measures can be used for right-of-way acquisition, engineering, design, and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. While bond measures are often used by cities for local match in grant applications,transportation-specific bond measures featuring a significant bicycle/pedestrian facility element have passed in other communities,such as Seattle's "Closing the Gap"measure. As previously mentioned, Tigard voters approved a general obligation bond for parks acquisition and development in 2010.Twenty percent,or up to $3.4 million of the$17 million bond can be used for improvements to existing parks, including trail development. The remainder of the money is set-aside for acquisition of park land, which would aid the development of the recommended greenway trails projects. ■ More information: http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/parks/parks bond fag.asp Private Sector Funding Opportunities Residents and other community members are excellent resources for garnering support and enthusiasm for bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. The City of Tigard should work with volunteers to substantially reduce implementation and maintenance costs. Local schools, community groups, or a dedicated neighbors group may help sponsor projects, possibly by working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties can be formed to help clear right-of-way where needed. Local construction companies can donate or discount services. The city should look to its residents for additional funding ideas to expedite the completion of the bicycle and pedestrian system. Volunteer Services Local businesses can help defray some of the costs associated with trail and greenway development.Some examples include: ■ Donations of services,equipment,and labor ■ Contribution of employee volunteer time ■ Cash donations ■ Discounted materials 147 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan ■ Adopt- a-trail (for on-going maintenance assistance) Neighborhood and other community groups including Eagle Scouts for a community-service project can develop some of the natural surface trails, particularly those that are on city-owned land.A city coordinator currently manages a volunteer planting program along streams, which could assist with natural surface trail landscaping.The city could develop a booklet of trails that would be appropriate for volunteer efforts. A good local example of this type of volunteerism is the SW Trails Group, a neighborhood group that has built several neighborhood trails in SW Portland.27 Volunteer work parties have built stairs, wooden bridges, and have organized an experiment to gravel a trail - by providing a pile of gravel at the trailhead and asking walkers to fill a bucket and help spread the gravel on the trail. The group also has assisted the city in the development of a trail map and lead regular group walks around the neighborhood. Foundations Some trail elements, particularly if they are related to educational, civic, or environmental goals or projects, can be funded through private foundations. Funding opportunities through local foundations have a higher probability of success and should be approached before pursuing national foundation funds. Some local foundations include the Ford Family Foundation and the Meyer Memorial Trust. Land Trusts Land Trusts are local, regional, or statewide nonprofit conservation organizations directly involved in helping protect natural, scenic, recreational, agricultural, historic, or cultural property. Land trusts work to preserve open land that is important to the communities and regions where they operate. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) has assisted the City of Tigard with natural area acquisitions in the past and will continue to be a good resource for land acquisition. Service Clubs Community organizations have been very successful holding fundraisers and providing volunteer labor for trail building and maintenance activities. Local examples include 4-H, Boy Scouts of America,Rotary Club,Portland Community College service clubs,and others. 27 http://explorepdx.com/swtrails.html 148 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Individual Sponsors Individuals, businesses, or corporations can contribute donations to sponsor sections of trail or project elements. The City of Tigard has previously obtained grants and donations from private parties to assist in developing other types of park and recreation facilities. Plaques or other forms of recognition are typically placed on constructed pieces in the trail corridor or at a prominent entry point. Sponsorship is a good way to fund trail elements such as benches, trash receptacles, and interpretive areas. Sections of trail can also be sponsored through a "Buy a Foot" program. Community members can purchase a section of trail at a fixed cost per linear foot and have their names (or dedication) inscribed along the facility(e.g.in concrete or on a boardwalk). Action Plan The action plan recommends a strategy for the City of Tigard to select, design, and construct priority greenway trail projects and to periodically update the Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan project list. The action plan considers interim actions and improvements that are needed to coordinate the completion of the greenway trail system. The Action Plan has two parts: ■ Land Acquisition provides a summary of how the city can expand the greenway trail system by taking advantage of opportunities to acquire land for trails through acquisition,easements and right-of-way vacations. ■ Implementation Strategies link specific funding opportunities with recommended projects to implement the recommended greenway trails and outlines a proposed implementation strategy for acquiring the resources to fund the recommended greenway trails. LAND ACQUISITION Future opportunities to implement greenway trails may occur as land changes ownership or as landowners become more receptive to allowing a trail through their property. Greenway trails should be developed cooperatively alongside adjacent private construction and can be incorporated into adjacent roadway improvements. The relationship of the parties in a shared-use corridor will be driven to a great extent by which entity holds the dominant property interest. The type of property control influences both the ease 149 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan of implementing the project and the liability burden. There are three types of property arrangement: purchases,easements,and licenses. Purchases Where a property owner may have concerns about allowing an easement for a trail through a property, the City of Tigard or Metro could consider purchasing the corridor. Metro has acquired several parcels along proposed greenway trail alignments, and Metro and the City of Tigard are currently in negotiations about the use of Metro-acquired trail easements. Local management and use of land purchased outright by Metro is subject to Metro Council approval of a Management Plan prepared by the local jurisdiction. To date, the city has prepared Metro-approved Management Plans for two Metro-acquired sites. Future easements should be established through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that determines whether Metro will give the parcels to Tigard, or whether Tigard will maintain and manage the trails on Metro land. Public ownership of the trail corridor internalizes liability and coordination efforts. The city is treated differently from other property owners due to its unique status as a sovereign entity. This option transfers basic liability to the City of Tigard and would give the city the authority to locate a trail in the corridor. Property acquisition procedures in Tigard are laid out in great detail in the Property Acquisition Procedures workbook (updated 2007) developed by the Tigard attorney's office based on state and federal property laws. Some of the sections most pertinent to trails include the following: ■ "The city has the power to acquire property, both within and outside its corporate limits, for a wide variety of purposes. Cities may acquire a variety of property interests, including fee title, easements, and leasehold interests. Fee title or easements may be acquired through dedication, negotiated purchase, or condemnation. Leasehold interest will be acquired either through a direct lease of property from the owner, or by a sublease or "assignment" of these rights of a current tenant. With rare exception, subleases or assignments of lease rights require the consent of the owner of the property in question..." ■ "Regardless of the form of interest to be acquired, or the technique used for acquisition, certain investigations must be undertaken before acquisition of any real property interest. These investigations are commonly lumped together under the term "due diligence". An early and thorough due diligence study of the desired property is essential for protection of the city and the public. .. ." 150 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan ■ "As soon as a property has been identified for acquisition, and even before the owner is contacted, investigation into suitability of the property for its intended purpose can begin. The first step in this process is to determine the form of property interest the city needs. For some acquisitions (trails, [et al]),easement interests may suffice. . . . " ■ "For properties less than $20,000 in value, an administrative determination of market value, based on review of the value of other properties in the area, may be used instead of a formal appraisal. Such a determination is more appropriately used where the property to be acquired consists of narrow right-of-way strips. . . . In such cases the cost of a formal appraisal is probably not justified.. .." ■ "The city's approved form of purchase and sale agreement contains a period of time . . . during which the city can conduct any and all tests, studies and investigations of the property it deems appropriate. .. ." ■ "In this era of heightened awareness of possible environmental problems,and in light of the comprehensive federal and state statutory scheme imposing liability on owners of property for environmental hazards, the city attorney strongly recommends an environmental site assessment be performed with regard to every property the city intends to acquire. ..." Acquiring land for greenway trails is expensive and the timing can be difficult for the city to acquire land while houses are for sale. The Parks Bond and resources from Metro aid the city in purchasing land for a greenway trail. Easements Full public ownership of a parcel is not always necessary for trail development and is not an option in many cases. Typically,easements are acquired when the landowner is willing to forego use of the property and development rights for an extended period. The landowner retains the title to the land while relinquishing most of the day-to-day management of the property. The easement is attached to the property title, so the easement survives property transfer. A model easement agreement should: ■ Guarantee exclusive use or uses compatible ■ Be granted in perpetuity ■ Include air rights if there is any possible need for a structure 151 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan ■ Broadly define purpose of the easement and identify all conceivable activities, uses, invitees, and vehicular types allowed to avoid any need to renegotiate with fee interest owner in future ■ State that all structures and fixtures installed as part of a trail are property of grantee ■ Include subsurface rights for use by utility franchises Major landowners will likely desire an easement agreement to address potential issues. Through cooperative negotiation,the following issues should be addressed in an easement agreement: ■ Access needs related to maintenance,etc. ■ Trail management plan ■ Future improvements or modifications to the trail Trail Use of Utility Easements Trail access can be negotiated as part of any sewer, storm-drain, and water line easements the city negotiates. Other utilities, such as gas or electricity, normally are extended within public rights-of- way or blanket utility easements, as opposed to stand alone easements. Every time the city initiates a sewer capital project, it could seek authority for a trail. In the case of sewer lines in new developments, this authority may not be needed, because bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to a street or greenway trail is required by code every 330 feet. The proposed new authority would not add new requirements above the existing ones. Sewer funds cannot be used for any other use than sewer-related improvements. In the case of sewer lines in older areas, negotiation and legal fees associated with a trail provision in a sewer agreement would need to come from a source other than sewer funds. In addition, private owners may be amenable to providing a utility easement but not to providing access for a trail. Licenses A license is usually a fixed-term agreement that provides limited rights to the licensee for use of the property. Typically, these are employed in situations when the property cannot be sold (e.g. a publicly-owned, active electrical utility corridor), or the owner wants to retain use of and everyday control over the property. The trail management authority obtains permission to build and operate a trail. But it will have little control over the property, and may be subject to some stringent requirements that complicate trail development and operation. A model license agreement should: 152 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan ■ Provide an acceptable term length with an option to renew ■ Identify all conceivable activities,uses,invitees,and vehicular types ■ Provide clarity on maintenance responsibilities ■ Specify limits on other uses of license property As with easement agreements, property owners would want a license agreement to address issues of concern to them. Through cooperative negotiation,the following issues should be addressed in a license agreement: ■ Access needs related to maintenance,etc. ■ Trail management plan ■ Future improvements or modifications to the trail IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Chapter 7 recommends a list of priority trail projects, based on evaluation criteria and input from the City of Tigard, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), and Tigard residents through two public open houses and a project website. This section presents the phased cost estimates and proposes an implementation strategy. Phased Cost Estimates Chapter 7 recommends that high-priority projects be included in the 2012-2017 Tigard Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) updates. Medium-priority projects fill gaps in the trail network or provide connections to destinations. Finally, low-priority projects are more difficult to construct due to right-of-way, slopes, environmental considerations, or community support and are recommended for construction in the long term. Chapter 7 recommends almost 7.5 miles of greenway trails and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. The total costs for the projects will range from $10 to $18 million, while high-priority projects will cost between$3.5 and$8.2 million,as shown in Table 15 through Table 17. 153 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Table 15 Short-Term Project Cost Estimates ID Trail Name Description Alignments' Cost Opinion($1,000) N/A Fanno Creek Woodard Park to Grant(currently funded) $670 N/A Fanno Creek Grant to Main(currently funded) $300 N/A Westside Trail Planned Beaverton to Tualatin Expansion(currently N/A being planned as part of a separate ODOT funded project) A Tigard Street Fanno Creek/Tigard Street to Tigard Transit Center 113,2A $498-$770 B Krueger Creek Walnut Street to Jack Park N/A $111-$209 C&C1 Fanno Creek 74`h Avenue Sidepath,Bonita Road to Durham Road 3E $552-$1,528 D1&D2 Fanno Creek&Tualatin 85`h Avenue Trail to Durham City/Ki-A-Kuts 1C $131-$3,088 River E Pathfinder-Genesis Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Court Trail 113 $715 F Summer Creek Summer Crest Drive and Tigard Street Sidewalk and 2E,3C,4C $516-$969 Bikeway Improvements,Fowler Nature Education Trail Total Short-Term Projects $3,493-$8,249 Table 16 Medium-Term Project Cost Estimates Cost Opinion Trail Name Description Alignments' ($1,000) WM A G1&G2 Fanno Creek Tigard Public Library to Milton Court/Bonita Road 2A,213 $992-$2,358 H Fanno Creek Tiedeman Avenue Crossing Realignment 513 $139-$274 I Tigard Street Fanno Creek/North Dakota Street to Tiedeman Avenue 16 TBD' J Tualatin River 108`h Avenue Grading and Existing Trail Improvements 2 $26-$254 K Tualatin River 108`h Avenue to Pacific Highway Extension 3A $1,746-$2,345 L Washington Square Fanno Creek to Highway 217 Sidewalk and Bikeway 113 $183 Loop Improvements Total Medium-Term Projects $3,364-$5,692 154 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Table 17 Long-Term Project Cost Estimates ID Trail Name Description Alignments' Cost Opinion($1,000) M Fanno Creek Durham Road to Tualatin River Trail 4D $1,320-$1,943 N Ascension Ascension Trail Improvements 4 $332-$590 O Washington Square Loop Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard Sidewalk and Bikeway 2B $666 Improvements P Krueger Creek&Summer Summer Creek Trail to Mary Woodard School 2B $473-$518 Creek Total Long-Term Projects $2,791-$3,717 155 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Funding Strategy Table 18 summarizes relevant details of funding sources that are the most likely for Tigard to use for implementing the recommended greenway trail segments. Table 18 Recommended Funding Source Overview Required Funding/Application Funding Source Amount Available Match Cycle Eligible Project Types $6.5 mill—competitive and$2 mill discretionary minimum Must serve a transportation need Transportation Enhancements (2008-2011) 10.27% Biennial,even years (i.e.travel reduction>%mile $2.1 mill distributed to 32 minimum Trails only,sidewalks only if Recreational Trails Program projects in 2010 20% Annual completing a missing link Land and Water Conservation $29.3 mil for 981 projects minimum Right-of-way acquisition and Fund in OR 50% Annual construction Bicycle and Pedestrian Program minimum Grants $5 mill every two years 10%match Biennial,even years Within public rights-of-way only Oregon Parks and Recreation Local minimum Park and recreation facilities; Government Grants $4 mill 50% Annual includes trails Statewide Transportation $83.2 mill(2011-2013 Improvement Program cycle) None Biennial,even years All;must be on the STIP list Metro Transportation Improvement Program Funding (MTI P) $24 mill None Biennial,even years All Tigard Parks Bond Measure $3.4 mill N/A N/A Trails in existing parks Kodak American Greenways Program Grants $2,500 maximum None Annual Greenways,paved or unpaved minimum Bikes Belong Grant $10,000 maximum 50% Three times per year Bike paths,trails and bridges Less expensive or unpaved projects(i.e.project cost estimate Volunteer Services N/A N/A N/A less than$5,000) Based on this information, Table 19 links likely funding sources to the specific project recommendations. Funding availability is primarily dependent on whether the proposed alignment is on-street or if it is a trail. Additional considerations include whether the trail is located within a park and if the proposed alignment requires right-of-way acquisition. 156 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Table 19 Recommended Funding Sources for Proposed Projects Funding Sources v c � LL r £ M i Oq 3 to v m (7 U O N O y M d ad O T c —^ v m v 3 c W 'L MC f0 U O GF a0+ H O 00 L M y J M c 3 v u YU c v v O `o o c \ a V CO CL m v _ c u ^ a ` ti W Project M W Mm a ~ £ 'm Short-Term Projects A Tigard Street Trail-Fanno Creek/Tigard Street to Tigard Transit Center(Alignments 1B and 2A) x x x x x B Walnut Street to Jack Park x x x x x C&C1 Fanno Creek Trail—74th Avenue Sidepath,Bonita Road to Durham Road(Alignment 3E) x x x x x D1&D2 85`h Avenue Trail to Durham City/Ki-A-Kuts x x x x x x x E Pathfinder Genesis Trail-Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Court Trail (Alignment 113) x x x x x F Summer Creek Trail—Summer Crest Drive and Tigard Street Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements(Alignments 2E,3C,and 4C) x x x x Medium-Term Projects G1&G2 Fanno CreekTrail—Tigard Public Library to Milton Court/Bonita Road(Alignment 2B) x x x x x x x H Fanno Creek Trail—Tiedeman Avenue Crossing Realignment (Alignment 5B) x x x x x I Tigard Street Trail—Fanno Creek/North Dakota Street to Tiedeman Avenue(Alignment 1B) x I x I x x x x J Tualatin River Trail—108th Avenue Grading and Existing Trail Improvements(Alignment 2A) x x x K Tualatin River Trail—108th Avenue to Pacific Highway Extension(Alignment 2A) x x x x x x L Washington Square Loop Trail—Fanno Creek to Highway 217 Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements(Alignment 113) x x x x Long-Term Projects M Fanno Creek Trail—Durham Road to Tualatin River Trail x x x x x x N Ascension Trail Improvements(Alignment 4) x x x x O Washington Square Loop—Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements(Alignment 2B) x x x x x P Summer Creek Trail to Mary Woodard School x x x x x x 157 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Implementation Plan Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Appendices APPENDICES • Public Feedback • Greenway Trail Alignment Feasibility Assessment (Specific Issues/Tech Memos 1&2) • Environmental Assessment • Evaluation Matrix Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Appendix A.Public Input APPENDIX A. PUBLIC INPUT „ Tigard Greenways T,GARD Trail System Master Plan PUBLIC FEEDBACK - OPEN HOUSES # 1 & #2 Date: January 17,2011 Project#: 10622.0 To: Duane Roberts,Steve Martin, Seth Brumley SAC Members CC: Mike Tresidder and Hannah Kapell,Alta From: Brian Ray,Jamie Parks,Jessica Horning, and Erin Ferguson Project: Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Subject: Public Feedback Received at Open Houses #1 & #2 Date:January 12 & 13,2011 Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Location: Open House#1 -Tigard Public Library, Community Room Open House #2-Bonita Villa Apartments, Community Room GENERAL COMMENT FORM RESPONSES: • Design Standards: o "Curb ramps, information kiosks, and my favorite design was the decomposed granite” o "I like the native soil because it looks more natural." o "Need signs to lead people to the trails and help them find where they're going once they're on them. Need a warning sign to alert drivers to the large number of kids crossing Bonita to get to the park." o "I would like to see concrete or decomposed granite with a smooth surface." o "More lighting in the heavily treed areas." • Evaluation Criteria: o "Safety&Security" FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\10622 - TIGARD GREENWAYS PLANS�MTGS�OPEN HOUSE�NOTES�OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS FINAL.DOC Agenda - SAC Meeting #2 Project#: 10622.0 July 28, 2010 Page 2 o "The connectivity will be my choice because I don't know how they will be able to connect everything together." o "Will these places be lit at night? Wheelchair access?" o "Observation of natural area for wildlife that in a narrow corridor will not be there and sensitive land will suffer." • Trail Locations: o "I would like to see the Fanno Creek Trail expanded first, I am new to the area,but I think that all of these are wonderful ideas and would be important to the community." o "Fanno Creek will be my pick because it's where I live. Please do it first." o "We want to be able to walk to the library and Transit Center...and enjoy the walk! A safe, convenient link to the library and Transit Center (from Bonita) is most important. Also need a visible, 'concrete' safety net for pedestrians, including safe crosswalks to the Library and Bonita Park and pedestrian countdown lights. The bridges on Fanno Creek are a bit of a safety concern for unattended kids." o "Tualatin River Trail-great idea! Currently the walk from work (on SW Garden PI & 99) is dangerous walking down Durham. This is a much safer route. I'm a new mom and looking to lose weight in the bad economy. This would be excellent to push a stroller." o "Summer Creek extension - Bad idea using option 3A. Annual flooding will continually destroy trail. Sensitive wildlife will be negatively impacted. Consider optional route using Summer Crest Dr. to Tigard Dr. to Tigard St. Need x-walk @ 121St and sidewalks on Summer Crest Dr." o "No trail on Summer Creek. This is a sensitive wetland that often floods. No bridges either!" o "There is a family of beavers that live just west of 121St in Summer Creek. Burrow is on south side of river. Boardwalk would significantly impact them if built along shore of creek in that area." o "Tigard Street would be good place to start just because I live around there and it would be nice to have a nice place to walk with my daughter and my husband because he need to lose weight!" o "Fanno Creek connecting Scholls Ferry to Hall Blvd and then Hall Blvd to Allen Blvd." • How would you prioritize trail investments in Tigard? Mark each trail with 1 for highest priority and 7 is lowest priority: o Fanno Creek Trail ■ Average priority=2 (Individual rankings: 3, 1, 1, 1,4, 1) o Krueger Creek Trail Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Tigard, Oregon Agenda - SAC Meeting #2 Project#: 10622.0 July 28, 2010 Page 3 ■ Average priority=5 (Individual rankings: 3, 6, 6, 5, 6) o Pathfinder-Genesis Trail ■ Average priority=4 (Individual rankings: 3, 4, 5, 6, 5) o Tualatin River Trail ■ Average priority=5 (Individual rankings: 7,5,3,2, 7) o Summer Creek Trail ■ Average priority=6 (Individual rankings: 3, 7,4, 7, 7, 7, 7, 2) o Tigard Street Trail ■ Average priority=3 (Individual rankings: 7,2, 2, 4, 1) o Washington Square Loop Trail ■ Average priority=4 (Individual rankings: 5,3, 7,3,3) • Other: o "I really like this idea as long as it can be safe for the people." o "No bridge over Summer Creek for neighborhood connectivity due to impacts on wildlife corridor and creek hydraulics." o "I don't think that this will promote violence. I think it will improve our community." o "Thanks for cutting back the brush on the Hall to Allen section [Fanno Creek]. Good job!" TRAIL ALIGNMENT MAP COMMENTS/MARK-UPS: • Summer Creek Trail o Not great after the wildlife moves away [regarding user experience criteria for Alignment 3A] o Does not meet criteria [regarding environmental impacts criteria for Alignment 3A] o No [alignment 2A,east of Mary Woodard Elementary; and alignment 3A] o Bald Eagle nest [alignment 2A,just west of 121St] o Wetlands sensitive wildlife [alignment 3A] o No Bridge! [alignment 3A near 116th] o Heavy flooding all the way across multiple times per year [alignment 3A near 116th] o No [on "sidepath and sidewalk along Tigard Avenue"bubble, alignment 4C] o Improved crossing needed [alignment 313/41) crossing of 1151h] Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Tigard, Oregon Agenda - SAC Meeting #2 Project#: 10622.0 July 28, 2010 Page 4 o [Potential on street alignment highlighted by multiple people from existing Summer Creek Trail exit, along Summer Crest Drive and Tigard Street to Fanno Creek Trail] o Crosswalk? [121St and Summer Crest/Tigard] o Some sidewalk required [on Tigard St east of 115111] • Fanno Creek Trail o Needs boardwalk [section of existing trail between Tigard St and Fowler Middle School highlighted] o Trail extension past library needed! [star on Fanno Creek Trail between Library and Char Ct] o [arrow to previous comment] There is already one! Which goes past the Fanno Pt Condos-so use that! o Brown area very secluded,need light along way. o Access to skate park [from Bonita Park and Library] o [Multiple links highlighted between Bonita Park, Library, skate park, and Transit Center] o We could walk to school and the trail. [Highlighted alignment B on Durham to Tualatin section] • Washington Square Loop Trail o Safe bike route to W.S.! [Star at intersection of Fanno Creek and Washington Square trails] • Pathfinder-Genesis o Alignment A from Pathfinder to Fanno Creek highlighted. OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED & PROJECT TEAM NOTES: • Design Features (e.g.lighting,signage) o Desire for lighting, especially near the transit center o Lights will be important on the section of Fanno Creek just south of the library due to its secluded location o Desire for wayfinding signs • Key Destinations o Some people already cut through the Brown and Fields properties to get to the library and WES stop. Several people were interested in having a trail option. o Could we consider the possibility of running the trail alongside the WES tracks? Comment that it would be much more convenient if there were additional WES stops so that they didn't have to travel so far to reach the existing stop. Desire to Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Tigard, Oregon Agenda - SAC Meeting #2 Project#: 10622.0 July 28, 2010 Page 5 have a direct connection to WES. [looking at the map that covered the area in the vicinity of the Bonita Apts.] o Trail connections to both Tigard HS and Durham HS would be really beneficial to students, most of whom currently take the bus o The library is a major community center. A Fanno Creek connection from the south to the library would help a lot of people o The extension of the Tualatin River Trail to 99W would provide a good alternative to Durham,which lacks sidewalks in many places. o A connection to Cook Park from neighborhoods to the north would be nice o A connection to Summerlake Park from neighborhoods to the east. An on-street connection could still be really valuable here if it is well-signed, because the street network in the area is so disconnected. • Environmental Issues/Concerns o The project team should prioritize upland and/or on-street options o Summer Creek is a unique habitat within the UGB, which would be harmed by a trail o Multiple citizens concerned with the environmental impact of a trail along the summer creek segment that goes behind the elementary school. • Other Issues/Comments o Seasonal flooding of existing and potential trail segments is a major issue/concern. o The Tualatin River Trail extension alignment option A would have significant impacts to private property owners o Concerns about personal safety,potential gang activity o Concern that teens were hanging out on an old previously completed trail segments and creating a safety issue. o More trails would encourage more Tigard residents to exercise, particularly those with kids o From a cyclists viewpoint, more on road segments would be better from a transportation viewpoint. That could also be served by a bike boulevard treatment of some streets. Another thought, as it pertains to cycling, is to create wide enough trails that would encourage parents to take their children out on rides through our parks. So linking existing trails in parks would help create longer trails to safely ride. This could also help with any safe routes to school programs. Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Tigard, Oregon 1/25/2011 Tigard Greenways Trail Comment Form... KITTELSON DAPS COMMENTS FOR "TIGARD GREENWAYS TRAIL COMMENT FORM" —Back to the map 1. 1111111111111111C Added January 10 2011 thanks POWERED BY Go ugle 2. Added January 09 2011 �y 5 avx� We do not want a trail behind our property because we value the natural area as it is complete with its abundant wildlife. We also believe that a trail and/or boardwalk would be a continuous maintenance issue due to the flooding which completely covers the greens pace along the creeks eve ra I times per year.Our privacy,security and property vaIues are additional reasons for us to fight this proposal with everything we've got! y t SVV Bath®. m' a � � n Pp EKED BY C"le Map data @1dl"&dgle 3. -Lt ,wrsaiDr � Added January 092011 Summer S[ $ We DO NOT want trail behind our house.It will take away our privacy and lower the value of our house. st � POWERED BY 1 4p dA Q20V Google 4. °' , Added October27 2010 % L N Summer Creek runs behind our house as marked on the map.There is an existing path on the far side(South?)ofthe —5W Anton or evergreen trees from our house.In the Tigard trails plan will a new path be put in along the edge of the water(north?ofthe t"�k' -cis trees?I have heard this was being considered in the past.I hope this is not part ofthe trails plan.We have complete privacy now and that is an assestto the value of our home.In addition,that area floods in the winter during heavyrains and 6W MirMew Lt would Iikelywash out a path.Another request is to put in more benches in Summer Lake Park bythe lake.I am slightly edake `SW Summer S{ disabled and like to walk in the park but need to sit and rest at intervals. 3�r15 II � POWERED BY G04C Map data Q2011 Google 5. ° C� Added October 27 2010 M N SW Anton Clr C Summer Creek runs behind our house as marked on the map.There is an ebsting path on the far side(South?)of the evergreen trees from our house.In the Tigard trails plan will a new path be put in along the edge of the water(north?ofthe iae try cistrees?I have heard this was being considered in the past.I hope this is not part of the trails plan.We have complete privacy now and that is an assest to the value of our home.In addition,that area floods in the winter during heavy rains and svtr MirMew Lt would likely was h out a path.Another request is to put in more benches in Summer Lake Park by the lake.I am slightly �� SW Summer St disabled and like to walk in the park but need to sit and rest at intervals. arlake a��t POWERED BY C08Ie Map data 02011 Google map.project.kittelson.com/.../admin 1/2 1/25/2011 Tigard Greenways Trail Comment Form... 6. i st &,A-T gars Si Added August 23 2010 If Why hasn't the City installed across walk in this area?Traffic is often heavy.Very few people obey the speed limit.Children use this crossing daily to get to Fowler Middle School. A' sw,Klan Wood POWERED By N "P S POD81C M&data 82011 GoogLfP Comment system and all overlain data©2007-2010 Kittelson&Associates,Inc.Unless othen%ise noted.(Log in?) map.project.kittelson.com/.../admin 212 City of Tigard . . Memorandum To: Greenway Trail System Master Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee From: Tim Lehrbach, Planning Assistant Re: Greenway Trail System Neighborhood Surveys Date: December 17, 2010 As a part of the development of the City of Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan, (Project Co- Manager) Duane Roberts and I conducted a survey to assess neighborhood reception to potential improvements,in-fills, and extensions of the Krueger Creek, Pathfinder-Genesis, and Summer Creek greenway trails. The methodology and results are detailed briefly here and will be presented at the Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting on January 6, 2011. The three neighborhoods in question were selected for surveying because limited progress has been made in implementing the greenway trail extending through each; no improvement projects currently are in the pipeline for any of the three; and,lastly, relatively little is known about each neighborhood's attitudes and desires regarding the completion of their respective trail. I have attached the survey materials we distributed along with tables summarizing the returns and printouts of all comments received from the neighbors we surveyed. Methodology A total of 1,500 surveys were distributed, 500 each to neighbors of the Krueger Creek,Pathfinder-Genesis, and Summer Creek greenway trails. For each trail the study population was determined by using GIS to map each greenway,the area within a one-eighth (1/a) mile radius of the greenway, and the area within a one- quarter ('/a) mile radius. Lists of the owners of all property within each area were generated, and from these lists random samples were selected to form a survey sample for each trail. Each sample was roughly equally distributed among the three mapped areas for that trail. The surveys asked questions about the respondents'present and projected use of the subject trail and their level of support for potential improvements. Participants also were invited to provide comments on any aspect of the trail system. In order to permit anonymous comments,the surveys contained no mark or text to identify the recipients. At the same time participants were asked to mark the zone (along the trail greenway,within one-eighth mile, or within one-quarter mile) where her/his home is located. Participants also could provide their contact information if they wished their names to be added to an email list for on- going information about the trails study. Results Krueger Creek Of 500 surveys sent to neighbors of the proposed Krueger Creek Trail, 99 completed surveys were returned. Of these, 18 were from households located along the greenway, 44 were from households located within one-eighth mile of the greenway,and 36 were from households located within one-quarter mile. One respondent did not report her or his location. Overall support for completing the entire length of the trail was 62%. This included 50%of those located along the greenway, 61%in the one-eighth mile radius, and 66% in the one-quarter mile radius. Among respondents who did not support completing the entire trail, 19% said they were neutral, and 19% said they were opposed to completing the entire trail. Respondents who were opposed to completing the entire trail were asked if they supported installing one or more segments, and 37% said yes. Respondents who said they supported the installation of one or more segments of the trail were also asked if anyone in their family was likely to use the segment(s) they support. 92%answered yes, including 82% along the greenway and over 93% in the two radii around the greenway. Twenty-nine of the 99 survey respondents provided written comments. Twenty comments expressed general support for the greenway trail system or touted the health, bike-friendly, and wildlife access benefits of the proposed trail. Six comments emphasized the importance of connectivity with other trails and transportation systems. Eighteen comments focused on impacts to neighborhood livability,including privacy concerns,crime and nuisances,trail maintenance,and trailhead parking. Twelve respondents were concerned about the cost of the project to the city,and seven were concerned that private property would be taken from owners. Four neighbors were worried about the impact to the floodplain and homes at risk from flooding. Seven comments referred to the intrusion on wildlife habitat or conditioned their approval of any project on protecting the city's natural and wildlife spaces. Pathfinder-Genesis Of 500 surveys sent to neighbors of the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail, 152 completed surveys were returned. Of these,32 were from households located along the greenway, 63 were from households located within one- eighth mile of the greenway, and 56 were from households located within one-quarter mile. One respondent did not report her or his location. Seventy-three percent of respondents said that a member of their household currently uses the existing Pathfinder-Genesis Trail. This included 84%of those located along the greenway, 76%in the one-eighth mile radius, and 63%in the one-quarter mile radius. Of those who reported that their household uses the trail, frequency of usage in the past month (May/June 2010) was distributed as follows: 56% said 0-5 times, 13% said 6-10 times, 14% said 11-20 times, and 17% said daily. The neighbors surveyed were asked about their level of support for improvements to the existing segments of the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail and for potential extensions. Support for improving—defined as paving, repaving,widening, etc.—the existing trail segments was 64%, including 75% of respondents who live along the greenway. Extending the trail to connect with Gaarde Street was supported by 59% of all respondents, and extending the trail to connect with the Fanno Creek Trail was supported by 73% of all respondents. There was little variation among the three survey areas in level of support for these two trail extensions. Finally, 79% of respondents said their family was likely to use the trail if it is improved or extended. Ninety-two of the 152 survey respondents provided written comments,including 59 identifying their highest priority for improving or extending the trail. Extending the trail to connect with Woodard Park and the Fanno Creek Trail was the most frequently named priority, receiving 24 mentions. Extending to Gaarde Street was identified by 11 respondents,while another six supported extensions generally. Maintaining the trail without improving or extending was favored by 12 respondents. Ten people chose paving or widening existing segments as the highest priority. Other priorities identified included patrolling the trail,installing wayfinding signs,lights, and handrails,improving the crossing between Woodard Park and Fowler Middle School at Tiedeman Avenue (a segment of the Fanno Creek Trail), and making the existing Pathfinder- Genesis Trail more bike-friendly. Fourteen people wrote to express general support for the trails system. Eleven respondents said they were concerned about cost or felt the city should spend money on sidewalks first. Eighteen comments raised concerns about trail safety,including crime or nuisances,trail slope, slippery surfaces, and street crossings. Seven comments referred to the intrusion on wildlife habitat or conditioned their approval of any project on protecting the city's natural and wildlife spaces. Summer Creek Of 500 surveys sent to neighbors of the Summer Creek Trail greenway, 107 completed surveys were returned. Of these, 30 were from households located along the proposed greenway, 34 were from households located within one-eighth mile of the greenway, and 42 were from households located within one-quarter mile. One respondent did not report her or his location. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said that a member of their household currently uses the existing Summer Creek Trail. This includes 67% of those located along the greenway, 85% in the one-eighth mile radius, and 79% in the one-quarter mile radius. Of those who reported that their household uses the trail, frequency of usage in the past month (May/June 2010) was distributed as follows: 46% said 0-5 times,22% said 6-10 times, 18% said 11-20 times, and 14% said daily. The neighbors surveyed were asked about their level of support for improvements to the existing segments of the Summer Creek Trail, for filling gaps between the existing segments, and for an extension to connect with the Fanno Creek Trail. Support for improving—defined as paving,repaving,widening,etc.—the existing trail segments was 58%,including 37% of respondents who live along the greenway. Filling gaps in the existing trail was supported by 68% of all respondents, and extending the trail to connect with the Fanno Creek Trail was supported by 70% of all respondents. Support for all three projects was highest in the one-eighth mile radius area. Finally, 79% of respondents said their family was likely to use the trail if it is improved or extended. Fifty-five of the 107 survey respondents provided written comments. Specifically,the recipients of this survey were asked to identify their highest priority for improving,infilling, or extending the trail. Thirteen stated that infilling or connecting gaps between trail segments was the highest priority for the Summer Creek Trail. Twelve respondents named the proposed extension to connect with the Fanno Creek Trail as the highest priority, and nine respondents mentioned extensions generally. Four people favored adding lighting,while various other improvements were proposed by ten people. Five people in the Summer Creek survey area wrote to express general support for the trails system. Six respondents were concerned about the city spending money on trails over other priorities. Eight comments raised concerns about trail safety,including crime or nuisances and street crossings. Five comments referred to the intrusion on wildlife habitat, and another three to properly maintaining the floodplain. Krueger Creek Survey Dear Neighborhood Resident or Business Owner: You are receiving this letter because you live or own a business located within a quarter-mile of an official Tigard greenway trail route, specifically, the Krueger Creek Trail (see map on other side of this page). Your assistance is needed to gather vital information about the trail and any concerns or preferences you may have about it. Please read on and respond to the enclosed survey. Tigard's official greenway trail system includes seven trails. At present, the biggest problem associated with the trail system is gaps between segments. Figuring out how to fill these gaps is the main focus of the Greenway Trail System Master Plan, now under preparation. The emphasis of the planning effort is on developing the timely, practical, and solutions-oriented information needed to coordinate the completion of the mapped system. In line with this, the master plan work scope includes a long list of trail-specific questions. Some of these questions focus on the Krueger Creek Trail. The Greenway Trail System Master Plan is intended to reflect community wishes and desires. As a neighborhood resident or business owner, the City wants to know what you think. This is why we are seeking your ideas and opinions. No segments of the Krueger Creek Trail have been completed as yet. The primary purpose of the present survey is to help identify neighborhood priorities for constructing all or some of the trail. To help accomplish this,we ask that you share your thoughts about the trail with us by completing the enclosed survey and returning it in the enclosed postage paid envelope. The 11-month Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan project is just now getting underway. Many other involvement opportunities will be available during the course of the study through open houses, meetings,webpage comments, and so on. This survey is part of a broader outreach effort. The survey results and all written comments will be provided to the stakeholder advisory committee,which includes citizens who oversee the study. The results and all comments also will be posted on the project website without identifying who they came from (check City of Tigard website in July for link to forthcoming project website). If you provide your name and contact information at the end of the survey, this will not be associated with your posted comments. Thank you for taking the time to give us your input. Please call or email Duane Roberts, Project Planner, or Steve Martin, Parks and Facilities Manager, should you have any questions. Duane Roberts, 503-718-2444, duane(a�tiard-or.gov Steve Martin, 503-718-2583, steve(a�tiard-or.gov Sincerely, Duane Roberts Steve Martin Project Planner Parks and Facilities Manager L �N L L M� a� 0 m E E 00 v co � No� u W �o 0 z J �a n ❑ 00 e' J ti V a �� N ❑ Dr rr /� pW 3AV i ISM RRI II U LSU 0 c� a Z oma Yj ll - 7ou� Hl •J ma 1 • � U H 1 • . 1 � 1 1 • • - •� 1 1 � 1 • • 1 • . 1 1 . •,.;•,.; � +►♦iia- ���::=.>��f�`� �i♦♦:'e .Willy ♦♦♦ TIM ������ -♦`♦moi Krueger Creek Trail Survey Results **PLEASE SEE RESULTS TABLE FOR BREAKDOWN BY PROXIMITY TO TRAIL.** 1. How close do you live to the mapped trail route? (check one): 18(18%) Within area identified as "A" on the enclosed map. (Directly on the route) 44 (44%) Within area identified as "B" on the map. 3636%) Within area identified as "C" on the map. z. Which statement most closely describes your feelings about completing the entire length of the Krueger Creek Trail as shown on the map? (check one): 61 (62%) I think it's a good idea. 19(19%) I think it's a bad idea. 19 (19%) I'm neutral. I don't have an opinion either way. 3. If you think completing all of the trail is a bad idea, do you support installing one or more trail segments? 7 37% Yes 12 (63%) No 4. If you support installing one or more segments of the trail only,which segment(s) do you support installing? Please also mark the specific locations on the enclosed map and return it, along with the survey sheets,using the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Mary Woodward to Jack Park (4 mentions) Jack Park to Gaarde St. (1 mention) Jack Park to Bull Mountain (2 mentions) only segments on property owned by the City—no acquisitions (1 mention). 5. If recommending the installation of one or more trail segments, are you or any member of your household likely to use the segment(s) if installed? 61(92%) Yes 5 (8%) No Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan Survey Results: KRUEGER CREEK Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Gen Comments Contact Yes 7 61 No 12 5 Good 61 Bad 19 Neutral 19 Response 5 49 29 No Response/Invalid 0 801 94 33 50 70 TOTAL 991 99 99 991 99 99 %Yes 37 92 %No 63 8 %Good 62 %Bad 19 %Neutral 19 %Response 100 19 5 67 49 29 %No Response/Invalid 0 81 951 331 51 71 Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Gen Comments Contact Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Gen Comments Contact Yes 1 9 Yes 5 25 No 2 2 No 6 1 Good 9 Good 27 Bad 2 Bad 11 Neutral 7 Neutral 6 Response 0 9 4 Response 4 22 13 No Response/Invalid 0 15 18 7 9 14 No Response/Invalid 0 33 40 18 22 31 TOTAL 181 18 18 18 18 18 I TOTAL 44 44 44 44 44 44 %Yes 33 82 %Yes 45 96 %No 67 18 %No 55 4 %Good 50 %Good 61 %Bad 11 %Bad 25 %Neutral 39 %Neutral 14 %Response 100 17r 61 50 22 %Response 100 25 9 59 50 30 No Response/Invalid 0 83 39 50 78 %No Response/Invalid 0 75 91 41 50 70 Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Gen Comments Contact Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Gen Comments Contact Yes 1 26 Yes 0 1 No 4 2 No 0 0 Good 24 Good 1 Bad 6 Bad 0 Neutral 6 Neutral 0 Response 1 18 12 Response 0 0 0 No Response/Invalid 0 31 35 8 18 24 No Response/Invalid 0 1 1 0 1 1 TOTAL 36 36 36 36 36 36 TOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 %Yes 20 93 %Yes 0 100 %No 80 7 %No 0 0 %Good 66 %Good 100 %Bad 17 %Bad 0 %Neutral 17 %Neutral 0 %Response 100 14 3 78 50 33 %Response 100 0 0 100 0 0 No Response/Invalid 0 86 97 22 50 67 %No Response/Invalid 1 01 1001 100 0 100 100 Krueger Creek Trail Survey Results— General Citizen Comments This makes me very angry! I figured you people would get around to destroying the last little bit of preserved territory in the area! This thing is gonna be going right in our backyard. We highly oppose you invading our privacy. Also yer causing traumatic damage to the wildlife that used to exist. We've lived here for over twenty years& watched it diminish. We have seen many species disappear. This is a known repeat blue crane nesting area (i.e. extremely shy species) that you want to put the trail right through it. Since the school starting messing with it we have seen deer, raccoons, pheasant, owls, etc. all disappear, not to mention for 19 years the creek has been fine. Now it's altering and has eaten away about 4 feet of my yard! This is a wildlife sanctuary basely still! You guys have to build on everything? Dang! Leave the rest alone. Preserve what is left, give the animals an area to exist not a place for this human intrusion! Also there are lots of kids that use that platform area to party as it is. Ya,that's a good idea... give them a venue right through my yard! If this thing goes in I am sure teenagers&etc. will be drinking and such back there. I will be bothering police on a daily basis.There is already more than enough nature trails around. This is altering the flow of the creek already and doing damage to my yard. We highly oppose this! Hard to read map! From what I have read, I'm in the 1/8t" mile buffer area and my home will be taken by rule of eminent domain. I have lived in my home for 38 years, raised 5 sons and numerous cats and dogs and other pets. I will not give up my home! Please contact me and let me know what your intentions are. Don't you know we are in recession—City doesn't need to spend more. WAKE UP! Poorly designed questions. Hard to read map. My concern with the trail ending at Mary Woodward Elementary is the opening of the area to strangers. I had a child at Mary Woodward and would not have been happy with the fact the school is connected by trails allowing entrance/exit easily to strangers. To me, it is clearly a child safety issue. Thank you for allowing input from the neighborhood. Will only further despoil or disturb the natural habitat of wildlife!! Also, isn't the city looking at a budget crisis,therefore making this a "nice to have" in lieu of a necessity? My wife and I are elderly, retired, and would not use the trails. I am concerned about costs—nothing was said in the letter—I would not support this trail plan if: (1)taxes go up; (2) bonds sold & need to be paid off; (3) assessments made for those nearby. Thank you. It looks like the trail runs behind our house... Perhaps it is an uncompleted segment, but this is the first we've ever heard of this trail. How much will it cost. Any considerations regarding wildlife. Providing adequate corridors and connections. How will this bring wildlife closer to homes. What companies will be doing the construction work. 12/16/2010 Krueger Creek Citizen Comments 1 1. We enjoy the green space and we have seen a number of deer and at least one coyote (several years ago) right on Katherine and on 121St north of Walnut. 2. We would enjoy using an extended trail system. 3. We would be a little concerned about misuse of the trail—as far as"kids" partying and the sale of drugs or whatever at certain points. In reference to the above—we have varied frequency of late night and early morning"action" at the Mary Woodward school and the green space/trail/park area adjacent to the school parking lot. We believe it is a good practice to regularly patrol the parking areas of the Woodward School, and any other parking areas associated with the trails. How do you propose putting in the trail in residential areas? How would the buffer zones work or function? We live in Zone C and Summer Creek is behind us, literally in our backyard. I never heard of Krueger Creek. Does it run through the residential areas? It's not reflected on the map. i think the trail is a good idea, but I am concerned that it not be too intrusive in neighborhoods. I would not want to lose the privacy we have, so I would not want a trail put in behind us. Listen to the neighbors in meetings and this survey. I feel that neighborhood trails are valuable and worthwhile community investments. In addition, I am impressed with the City of Tigard and the City staff. From Jack Park to Mary Woodward seems like an OK idea. The rest of the trail seems like a waste of taxpayer resources. I can't tell in detail where exactly this trail is planned to go through properties. It would be nice to know but impossible to see specific through the hatch marks on map. Concerned about deer being imposed upon even more so than they have been already. Bull Mt. people like to be detached from roads below so please consider not extending clear up the mountain! I don't mind walking or driving down the road to hike Summer Lake now so a trail would not change that. Please make trail bike friendly also. Very confusing. Looks like proposed trail would go right through my backyard—yet I don't understand how it would be possible. Map doesn't show nearly enough detail. I support a segment from Jack Park to Mary Woodward.A trail that links Jack Park, Mary Woodward, and Summer Lake Park would be ideal. Good idea! Our family would use the entire trail. You should contact Tigard Boy Scout Troops 799, 423, 419 to see if they need Eagle Scout projects. That way much of the work can be done at no cost to the City. All look great All—great idea! It looks like most of the trail would be going through existing neighborhoods—I don't think that's feasible without negative impact to those neighborhoods' livability or property values and the difficulty of obtaining right of way needs to be considered—looking at the map it appears the trail is going right through existing homes. 12/16/2010 Krueger Creek Citizen Comments 2 We live 1 block away from the Ascension Trail and use it frequently in the summer. I think that the more trails and parks we have in this area, the better. The resident deer are a constant source of amusement (and frustration when they covet our roses). I support your idea of developing downtown Tigard with parks, outdoor amphitheatres, enhanced MAX, roller skating areas and the whole nine yards—flower and coffee vendors, antiques, etc. I don't mind this project. I would rather you work on one project at a time. The area by my property floods every year. This area is also home to many animals and birds. Why would you want to disturb their habitat? Where will the animals go? I feel the money you are spending could be put to better use such as funding the schools, roads, library, pool, and the list goes on and on. Due to the flooding I have many concerns on how this trail will be constructed and maintained. If you change the area then my property has more of a chance of flooding. The creek is already changing its course slowly, over time. I have concerns about people that will not keep their dogs on leashes and pick up after them. Trash and dog manure does not make me happy. I feel this is a bad idea. We already have trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, lots of schools nearby where people can run and walk. Spending money to build in a flood plain makes no sense. Displacing the animals is wrong. I am not thrilled to have raccoons, skunks,coyotes coming in and out of my backyard, but on the other hand where will they live if you disturb their homes? Protect this land and creek—leave it alone. I hope this isn't already a done deal! Install all Great idea! Hope to connect with Fanno Creek Trail!! Install none, especially the ones right next to homes. My neighbors and I have been talking about the impact Krueger Trail would have on our area. It is apparent it would have a negative impact on the existing wildlife (we have already destroyed a great deal of their habitat). It is bad enough that we have the existing trail next to Ascension Dr. People seldom use the trail (we have nice sidewalks). Those who do use the trail are sometimes noisy and some of them have dogs (not always on leashes). It is sad to acknowledge that we have a deer hamstrung apparently by a dog. In my thinking we need to use a little kindness. Connecting Krueger Creek Trail to the existing small trail would be a mistake. It certainly would have a negative effect on nature in the area. The current street system has already been developed without trails in mind. I have been living here for over 25 years before the streets were rammed through Bull Mountain. If planning would have been correct and transparent then,the trails could have easily been planned. Now, streets are even difficult to complete. I think using the current street and sidewalk system to connect the proposed trail is currently the best and least cost option. I think it would be good to route the section from Gaarde to Jack Park onto existing sidewalks and improvement of the irregular sidewalks on 1281H My only reservation for this type of project is for the unexpected consequences there may be. We moved from Southeast PDX and there were problems because transients were able to camp on the 205 bike path and use that as a base for burglary and other crimes against the residents. There was some legal issues over jurisdiction, so the local police couldn't seem to rout them out. Don't want that happening here. 12/16/2010 Krueger Creek Citizen Comments 3 NE end of Krueger Creek Trail needs to have connections to Summer Lake Park and Fanno Creek trails. SW end of Krueger Creek Trail needs to connect with unimproved trail up Fanno Creek ravine. I assume routing of Krueger Creek Trail is concept only and details are to be determined? Have you considered routing central portion of Krueger Creek Trail to connect with greenspace/unimproved trails east of Benchview? (see markup attached) I'm neutral because I'm in the % mile buffer. It looks like the people in the 1/81" mile buffer are impacted more by this trail. While trails are a wonderful thing in theory, if it goes by your bedroom window it's not so great. I would like to see a proper map which shows actual streets that you can see, making an opinion easier to construct. I would like to see a map showing how close to real houses this trail is. What is the financial impact of this project? What additional debt will need to be incurred to complete this project? Great! Trails encourage residents to get outside and walk in a healthier environment than a busy road. Great! When I moved here, my best friend congratulated me because I moved right in the middle of a great biking area. Even though he lived in Milwaukie on the east side, he was familiar with Tigard's trails.We purchased this home partly because of the lay out of Summer Lake Park. It is kind of like a miniature Sunriver. Sunriver is designed to be biker friendly for shopping and all other activities.Just this weekend a friend of mine rode his bike from over past Bridgeport shopping center to my house by Summer Lake to have me help him on a project. He used his Bike Tigard map for the best route. My wife has a friend who is a surgeon, and her husband is a successful contractor and they want to move their family to the west side. They are looking for a flat area that is good for bike riding. I gave them one of the Bike Tigard maps. More bike trails will attract more health conscious people to the Tigard area. I think it is in a silly place. Right now it is going through backyards, etc.which is not feasible—from Essex to Jack Park.Also going to Mary Woodward and ending seems like a segment—it should go connect with the Fanno Creek trail at Fowler so we don't just have lots of segments, but really useful trails—maybe a side trail to Mary Woodward but not one that just stops there. How about waiting until we dig ourselves out of this recession before spending our tax dollars on something that is not necessary at this time. Develop some fiscal responsibility for a change. We don't need a "new downtown"Tigard—we don't need a trail through neighborhood wetlands—we do need pot holes fixed. We do need a better way to get in and out of the post office parking lot without constantly blocking up traffic on Main Street. Get your priorities straight. We are in a recession now— we all have no money for these unnecessary "dream" projects at this time! Save this money for something more useful and that is absolutely necessary. Sure go ahead and throw this comment in the trash and do what you are going to do anyway. 12/16/2010 Krueger Creek Citizen Comments 4 We moved to Tigard about one year ago. We've been very happy with the City's focus on parks and green spaces. It is a beautiful city to call home! It doesn't look as if the trail will directly intersect our property, but it is hard to tell exactly how the trail will impact people's residences/property. If the trail was directly adjacent to my property, I would have concern with the additional foot traffic past my home (and the potential for litter, vandalism, and theft on my property and the neighborhood). Hopefully a part of the planning includes helping homeowners on the trail manage ther safety and privacy. I am all for outdoor recreational opportunities in our City. However, I am passionately in favor of maintaining the few remaining "wildspaces" in our area. Bull Mountain has been virtually raped by developers over the years and a primary reason we built our current home where we did, was to be near one of those few places. If more people were NEAR green areas, I believe there would be more of them preserved. However, putting people INSIDE those areas, lessens them. Should this trail go through, it will greatly impact the ever-diminishing wildlife here. If there were more areas in Tigard for wildlife, it wouldn't be a big problem. Now though,there's nowhere else for wildlife to go. Since there are lots of places for people to hike, let's leave these few places for wildlife,to wildlife. On THIS trail—an emphatic NO from me! Thanks for the info and opportunity to express my opinion. I like trails and do a lot of walking but usually drive to the two local wildlife refuges. But I can't afford to live in Tigard any longer and am moving—so have no comments. I am not sure what kind of impact this has on the neighborhood? We are adamantly opposed to installing a walking trail along the Krueger Creek greenway. There are enough trails already, especially including streets already in existence that can supplement the trail. When we purchased our house two years ago we asked point blank at the community meetings if a trail was planned, and were told no by the engineer, it wouldn't be sooner than 10 years in planning. At that same time we asked about the completion of 116th through from Katherine. Besides a desire for our privacy I have listed the reasons below which are the basis of our opinion: (1)The money should be spent on street repairs in these same areas. (2) The area can flood with little warning along Summer Lake Creek, within 1 hour if the dam at Summer Lake breaches up to 2 feet. (3) Wildlife protection in this area need protecting at current level. (4) Garbage left now along creeks is at a high level, if a path goes through there will be even more garbage we homeowners need to pick up. (5) Parking at path entrances is not available, check along the road by Fowler Middle School. (6) Coyotes have been spotted in area. (7)At the town meetings everyone asking for a trail did not live in the area, so don't have to face results of pushing trail through. You know it would have helped if you had included existing trails. Including the existing park/greenspace does not help if one is unfamiliar with the trails in those parks/greenspaces. Just a suggestion for next time... 12/16/2010 Krueger Creek Citizen Comments 5 Pathfinder-Genesis Survey Dear Neighborhood Resident or Business Owner: You are receiving this letter because you live or own a business located within a quarter-mile of an official Tigard greenway trail route, specifically, the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail (see map on other side of this page). Your assistance is needed to gather vital information about the trail and any concerns or preferences you may have about it. Please read on and respond to the enclosed survey. Tigard's official greenway trail system includes seven trails. At present, the biggest problem associated with the trail system is gaps between segments. Figuring out how to fill these gaps is the main focus of the Greenway Trail System Master Plan, now under preparation. The emphasis of the planning effort is on developing the timely, practical, and solutions-oriented information needed to coordinate the completion of the mapped system. In line with this, the master plan work scope includes a long list of trail-specific questions. Some of these questions focus on the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail. The Greenway Trail System Master Plan is intended to reflect community wishes and desires. As a neighborhood resident or business owner, the City wants to know what you think. This is why we are seeking your ideas and opinions. The primary purpose of the present survey is to help identify neighborhood priorities for improving and extending the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail. To help accomplish this,we ask that you share your thoughts about the trail with us by completing the enclosed survey and returning it in the enclosed postage paid envelope. The 11-month Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan project is just now getting underway. Many other involvement opportunities will be available during the course of the study through meetings, open houses, webpage comments, and so on. This survey is part of a broader outreach effort. The survey results and all written comments will be provided to the stakeholder advisory committee,which includes citizens who oversee the study. The results and all comments also will be posted on the project website without identifying who they came from (check City of Tigard website in July for link to forthcoming project website). If you provide your name and contact information at the end of the survey, this will not be associated with your posted comments. Thank you for taking the time to give us your input. Please call or email Duane Roberts, Project Planner, or Steve Martin, Parks and Facilities Manager, should you have any questions. Duane Roberts, 503-718-2444, duaneg igard-ongov Steve Martin, 503-718-2583, steveg igard-or.gov Sincerely, Duane Roberts Steve Martin Project Planner Parks and Facilities Manager 1 • U •� 1 1 � 1 • • 1 • 1 . ��• i►♦•.moo♦.. ►� _ ....♦.���♦�,�.♦oma.♦♦♦♦�. .������ pl .♦A. Pathfinder-Genesis Survey Results **PLEASE SEE RESULTS TABLE FOR BREAKDOWN BY PROXIMITY TO TRAIL.** 1. How close do you live to the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail route? (check one): 32 (21%) Within area identified as "A" on the enclosed map. (Directly on the route) 6341%) Within area identified as "B" on the map. 56 372Q Within area identified as "C" on the map. 2. Do you or any member of your household currently use the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail? 110 73% Yes 41 27% No 3. If yes, in the past month, how often have you used this trail? 19 17% ❑ Daily 60(56%) ❑ 0-5 times 14(13%) ❑ 6-10 times 15(14%) ❑ 11-20 times 4. Which statement most closely describes your feelings about improving (paving, repaving, widening, etc.) existing segments of the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail? (check one): 96 (64%) I think it's a good idea. 21 (14%) I think it's a bad idea. . 33 22%) I'm neutral. I don't have an opinion either way. 5. Which statement most closely describes your feelings about extending the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail to connect with Gaarde Street? 90(59%) I think it's a good idea. I support extending the trail to connect with Gaarde Street. 22 (15%) I think it's a bad idea. I do not support the trail's extension to Gaarde Street. 39(26%) I'm neutral. I don't have an opinion either way. 6. Which statement most closely describes your feelings about extending the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail to connect with the Fanno Creek Trail? 108 73% I think it's a good idea. I support extending-the trail to connect with the Fanno Creek Trail. 18 (12%) I think it's a bad idea. I do not support the trail's extension to the Fanno Creek Trail. 22 (15%) I'm neutral. I don't have an opinion either way. 7. Are you and your family likely to use the trail if it is improved or extended? 115 79% Yes 31 (21%) No 8. If you support the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail's improvement or extension,what is the highest priority project for improving/extending the trail? If recommending a site-specific trail improvement,please also mark the specific location on the enclosed map and return it,along with the survey sheets,using the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Extend to Fanno Creek Trail/Woodard Park (24 mentions) Extend to Gaarde St. (11 mentions) Extensions generally (6 mentions) Connections between existing segments (9 mentions) Paving segments (6 mentions) Widen segments (4 mentions) No widening or paving (5 mentions) Removal of blackberries/invasive species (4 mentions) Signage/wayfinding (3 mentions) Sidewalks on Fortner St. (2 mentions) Others: "Stairway at end of Fairhaven St. needs a handrail,very slippery when wet" "Widen it for bike use with center line marked for safe passage" "Keeping the surface smooth and walkable" "Just keep the trails as is, and maintain" "An occasional patrol of a bike cop (maybe at dawn and dusk?)" "That it won't cost much,raise taxes" "Need to have a safe way for families coming or going from Tiedeman to Woodard Park" "Put in cross walks at major streets connecting the trails especially on Tiedeman connecting to trail at Fowler" "Make the trail accessible from the cul-de-sac of Terrace Trails.This means putting a bridge across the creek" "Connection with the Fanno Creek trail is important because the current Walnut crossing option is dangerous" "Widen and lay pebble stone (but not pave) with `bump-out' areas for sitting" Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan Survey Results: PATHFINDER-GENESIS Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Comments Contact Yes 110 115 No 41 31 Good 96 90 108 Bad 21 22 18 Neutral 33 39 22 0-5 times 60 6-10 times 14 11-20 times 15 Daily 19 Response 59 92 52 No Response 1 44 2 1 4 6 93 60 100 TOTAL 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 Yes 73 79 %No 27 21 Good 64 59 73 Bad 14 15 12 %Neutral 22 26 15 %0-5times 56 %6-10 times 13 %11-20 times 14 Daily 17 •Response 99 71 99 99 97 96 39 60 34 •No Response 1 29 1 1 3 4 61 40 66 Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 n Comments Contact Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Comments Contact Yes 27 26 Yes 48 46 No 5 4 No 15 15 Good 24 21 22 Good 40 36 45 Bad 4 3 1 Bad 10 9 8 Neutral 4 8 8 Neutral 13 18 8 0-5times 16 0-5times 24 6-10 times 5 6-10 times 5 11-20 times 1 11-20 times 7 Daily 5 Daily 11 Response 17 23 8 Response 22 37 27 No Response 0 5 0 0 1 2 15 9 24 No Response 0 16 0 0 2 2 41 26 36 TOTAL 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 TOTAL 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 Yes 84 87 %Yes 76 75 %No 16 13 %No 24 25 Good 75 66 71 %Good 63 57 74 Bad 13 9 3 %Bad 16 14 13 %Neutral 13 25 26 %Neutral 21 29 13 %0-5times 59 %0-5times 51 %6-10 times 19 %6-10 times 11 11-20 times 4 %11-20 times 15 Daily 19 Daily 23 •Response 100 84 100 100 97 94 53 72 25 %Response 100 75 100 100 97 97 35 59 43 •No Response 0 16 0 0 3 6 47 28 75 %No Response 0 25 0 0 3 3 65 41 57 Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Comments Contact Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Comments Contact Yes 35 43 Yes 0 0 No 21 12 No 0 0 Good 32 33 41 Good 0 0 0 Bad 7 10 9 Bad 0 0 0 Neutral 16 13 6 Neutral 0 0 0 0-5times 20 0-5times 0 6-10 times 4 6-10 times 0 11-20 times 7 11-20 times 0 PDaily 3 Daily 0 Response 20 31 17 Response 0 1 0 No Response 0 22 1 0 0 1 36 25 39 No Response 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 TOTAL 56 561 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 TOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 63 78 %Yes 0 0 No 37 22 %No 0 0 %Good 58 59 73 %Good 0 0 0 Bad 13 18 16 %Bad 0 0 0 Neutral 29 23 11 %Neutral 0 0 0 %0-5times 59 %0-5times 0 %6-10 times 12 . -10 times 0 11-20 times 20 %11-20 times 0 Daily 9 Daily 0 Response 100 61 98 100 100 98 36 55 30 %Response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 No Response 0 39 2 0 0 2 64 45 70 %No Response 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Survey Results— General Citizen Comments If it costs money—I'm against it. Cut spending!! One of the reasons I live in the area of the Fanno Creek Trail is because of its usefulness and livability advantages. It's very pleasant and I value the existing access and beautification that has occurred in the recent past. Keep a good thing going with extension and improvement of the trail as it encourages exercise. I support [connection with the Fanno Creek Trail] more than extending it to Gaarde St. I would like to have all the sections of Fanno Creek Trail connected so that we can walk the full length. I really can't comment as I can no longer walk freely—arthritis. No family in area. We like the trail as-is. It is bucolic and rustic. The trails are the best part about living in Tigard. The existing trails in this area (Pathfinder-Genesis and Fanno Creek) are already highly valued by both of us, and we use them frequently. We support ongoing maintenance and improvements and truly appreciate the trail system. Having the trails so close to us encourages us to walk more, and walk to complete errands rather than drive. Areas are not clearly defined. How high a priority is it relative to other city needs? Where does the money come from? Not enough information. Maybe I would support connecting to Gaarde Street—not enough information. Impacts? Cost?This map is inadequate and misleading. Reduction of taxes is the highest priority so people can get back to work and support their families. This project is only a "nice to have" if other things are taken care of. There is already a sidewalk on 118th Ct., connecting Gaarde to the trail. Your map doesn't show where Fanno Creek or the extension would go. Your map does not label the 2 trails or the extension. Have in the past used this trail. We would use the trail more if extended to the downtown area. We walk our small puppy daily and it would be nice to visit the businesses downtown which are usually out of our way when driving. [Trail] seems fine to me—don't think it needs improving. I thought it was a part of Fanno Creek Trail. I'm concerned about some of the people the trails bring into the neighborhood—tends to make us older residents less safe. I would like a foot map available so I can find the connecting path down the street. I believe if the project can be completed before the summer ends, it'd be great so we can use it in time. Getting too old to manipulate the hills (slopes)! Although we don't use the Derry Dell Trail anymore we have used a lot in the past and appreciate its upkeep. 12/16/2010 Pathfinder-Genesis Citizen Comments 1 I live on Terrace Trails Dr. off 1151h. My backyard is on the greenway side or trail side.A friend and I walk the Genesis trail daily, but not the gravel trail between 115th and 1181"Ct. (behind my house) on Terrace Trails. I do walk this trail with my grandkids—they love it. Upkeep and maintenance is fine, but leave the natural (nature trail) part as is. Do not pave the trail along Terrace Trails. It is already near Gaarde where the trail ends. Because we live on the section of the trail that is mostly wooded and on an incline, has swampy areas, we do not want an asphalt sidewalk running through. It is very narrow and mostly wide enough for one person, or some people ride their bikes through on the trail as well. My grandkids, ages 4%-9, love to walk this part of the trail as it seems more like "the woods",they explore, and enjoy nature in a more natural setting. Keeping the blackberry vines under control is very appreciated,though. My friend and I walk daily, use the asphalt trails through the genesis development and streets, or sidewalks when available,and are happy with that. I'm impressed with the improvements in the past. The repaving provided last year was a great enhancement. The security vehicle was nice to see. The prickly bushes planted along the walkway is great for safety reasons and keeping the grass trimmed is also nice to see. I assume that is also for safety reasons as well as others. Signage to direct to next trail since they are not connected. For example: Fanno Creek Trail stops at Woodard park at Johnson, but no sign to direct to Pathfinder-Genesis route or to downtown/library path. Need to have a safe way for families coming or going from Tiedeman to Woodard Park. I watch people with bikes/trikes etc. trying to cross and it's a very unsafe thing they have to do to get across Tiedeman to continue their outing. Also the families that come for baseball/soccer practice or games are faced with the same problem of getting their children across safely. You'd be amazed at how many people do not stop or slow down for these pedestrians, most of them young children. Completion of the few blocks of 121" (widen and curbs)would serve a much greater number of people. A safer and a more serviceable project that has been somewhere in the plans since I moved here in 1967! Spend money for service rather than recreation! (Ball fields, pools, etc.) We don't use the path between 1181h and 1151"where it's only dirt—too dark—doesn't seem safe to walk alone. (We skip that and take the path—or one of mnay wonderful side paths in and around the Genesis neighborhood.)The paths are a wonderful asset to the area and should be supported. Would love to see a connection at Gaarde. We do not use the trail because I do not believe it is safe. No one can see us if we are walking on the trail. And according to one sex offender website there is a registered sex offender living in one of the houses that back up to the trail. No thank-you. I prefer to walk on the road where everyone can see me. I would prefer money was spent to put sidewalks on the roads that do not have them. I love to walk but it is too dangerous to walk with a five year old in tow on a road without sidewalks. My wife and I love this trail. We use it every day. 12/16/2010 Pathfinder-Genesis Citizen Comments 2 If you make access too easy,traffic will increase and there will be more bicycle thru traffic, all of which affect wildlife habitat.There is access to Gaarde already thru 122nd Street. There is access to Fanno Creek Trail thru Woodland Park and the back side of Fowler MS. I do think there should be an "on- demand" crosswalk on Tiedeman Ave. and Tigard St. crossings for safety. Safer option would be to hook a trail all the way through to the corner of Walnut and Tiedeman, or at least sidewalks for safety. Widening the existing trails would entail disturbing wildlife and loss of habitat space. I think they're wide enough for access. Please keep up the good work—our neighborhood enjoys all the trail.Thank-you We have lived in Tigard for 30 years and love the trails. It's great for our health and relieving stress!! Extending the trail to Gaarde... the trail comes out on street that is a dead end, no traffic and walking the short distance to Gaarde is not an issue. I love having the trail by my house and would love to see an expansion. I would mind seeing improvements to the trail that's behind the homes of Terrace Trails giving access from the top of the cul- de-sac. I don't see it necessary to widen it too much since it's nice seeing the nature areas unless you put in separate trails for bicycles only since they seem to take up most of the trails. I wouldn't mind seeing the trail extended up to Bull Mtn. Even though I marked "I'm neutral", I believe our taxpayer dollars could be better spent on other important items such as road maintenance. The present trail system is not adequately maintained. Adding more trail will mean more inadequately maintained trail. First maintain what is there to a higher standard before adding on. Define the precise benefits of adding on to this system. Thank you. Too steep and inaccessible in some areas to pave without serious environmental impact. Areas that have already been paved are washing out or lumpy because of tree root growth. I think the trail would receive much more use if it were connected, wide enough for 2 people throughout and paved or other surface that would accommodate bicycles. However, I am concerned about the environmental impact of paving and widening.The path would be less necessary if there were sidewalks on all streets including Fonner from 115th to Walnut. That is a dangerous area for pedestrians and forces them onto the paths. I actually rate sidewalks a higher priority than the trail. I realize some of the areas needing sidewalks are county property, but I don't want to wait until a child or other pedestrian is hurt to do something about it. I would like a safer way to get to the trail. Fonner Road needs sidewalks or a cut through to the trail. We use Fanno Creek Trail; I didn't know this other trail existed. I use and enjoy the trail. I marked "not a good idea"to the expansion and improvements because I would rather see my tax dollars spent on widening/sidewalks on 121St between Quail Hollow and Walnut. This project was scheduled several years ago and seems to have vanished off the City's radar. I have inquired about it many times and get no return calls or e-mails. 12/16/2010 Pathfinder-Genesis Citizen Comments 3 We had no idea that such a trail existed until we received this mailing. We have been concerned of late at the type of pruning along the trail. It has appeared that the pruning of bushes is creating a mess. Either use of a poorly sharpened tool or someone who doesn't know the first thing about trimming or cutting brush. It has left an unsightly mess and spoils the enjoyment of walking or biking on the trail. One of my greatest pleasures is to walk the trails every day. They are well maintained, and provide great exercise and tranquility. Thank you for building them. We mostly use Fanno Creek Trail. I would wholly support any improvements and would be willing to help on any committee regarding this project. I trust that decision makers will not overspend and improve wisely. To be truthful this pathway is one of the major reasons why we chose to live in this neighborhood. Thank you for interest!! We didn't know about it! My neighbor regularly walks her dog on a trail that must be this one. I think she accesses it from Fonner St. I have never gone with her so I don't know for sure. But Fonner St. is very narrow, windey, with no shoulders or sidewalks. I wouldn't be comfortable taking my dog on that street until some improvements to Fonner St. have been made. I'm pleased to know about this trail that is so close to us, as I'm looking for ways to lengthen my walk time with my dog, especially during longer daylight hours. It looks like the planners are planning on taking land from current land owners—this is wrong. Only support connecting with Fanno Creek Trail if Tigard buys and develops the land honestly. If planning this trail takes land in any way away from the current owners I think it is a bad idea. I think it would be better to have a larger piece of land to make a more natural park with trails—again not by taking land or rezoning property that is currently owned by others. We are a family of seven. I have lived here for 10 years. Our children have gone from ages 9 and 17 to 19 and 27 and we live just fine without this trail. We consider it a waste of funds. Not really necessary to do too much "improvement". Not necessary to make it a "superhighway"trail— just a useable trail. We love the trail! I have lived across the street from direct access to the trail. It was wonderful until you destroyed the blackberries,which I picked for 35+years. A true nature path doesn't require macadam or cement. I would rather look at nature and walk on it. The only non-natural item should be the wooden bridges. I use the trails but find them very unsafe to walk alone. Need to be patrolled for safety. 12/16/2010 Pathfinder-Genesis Citizen Comments 4 No one in the City of Tigard/Master Plan listened or cared what I had put forward at meetings for Woodard Park project. My quality of living has been ignored by any commissioner in Tigard. Everyone of my vehicles have been hit either in front of my house or parked in my driveway. I've had to eat $1,500 in deductible on my car insurance. My driveway and R.V. parking have been taken over by inconsiderate park users. Also unable to leave our own driveways due to illegal parked cars. Fire hydrant and mail boxes blocked. Gang problems in park and greenway trail. "Drug and alcohol" use on trail/park increased. "Poor" sign display for drivers. Perfect view of portojohn. No one on the board cared about us. Only their agenda mattered. Tigard will do anything to make sure it goes through, not what the neighborhood wants. I use it almost daily for running and dog walking. I have preteen kids who I would rather have on the trails than on streets with cars. Thank you for maintaining green spaces in our community. See above; some of the street curves (without sidewalks) are so dangerous, we avoid going over to the trail. I love the way some neighbors at Genesis have kept up their backyards so nicely that makes the trail so pleasant. What is it going to cost each property owner? Much of the traffic on the trail seems to be local neighborhood residents. My concern about the Gaarde extension is it would open a thruway to non-residents. Right now I feel relatively safe walking the path either early in the morning or at dusk.Then I would have a concern for property security for those homes that back on to the path. (Those residents should have more of a voice about any changes.) And lastly, I've been on the pathway that runs through Woodard Park—cyclists speeding along could be a concern if you are walking with young children or dogs on leashes. Accidents could occur. I've ridden the path from 115th to Walnut many times. But your map implies there is some bike path from "A" down to Woodard Park. I know of no such section. I exit the path on Pathfinder Ct.to Walnut and then take a series of neighborhood streets over to Woodard Park. I'd like to see a path from Pathfinder to the Fanno Creek Trail. I love the trail and wish it all connected—especially from Genesis to park on other side of Walnut. In my opinion these trails sound nice but it is only making it easier for criminals and bums easier ways to get around our neighborhood. I see strange people now walking through the neighborhood where we have neighborhood watch, looking around checking out our homes. I feel now I can't go out at night because who knows who is standing around the bend or in the bushes. If there is not a police patrol on these trails(or some type of patrols) it will only bring in unwanted people camping along the trails and causing problems in the neighborhood. 12/16/2010 Pathfinder-Genesis Citizen Comments 5 Summer Creek Survey Dear Neighborhood Resident or Business Owner: You are receiving this letter because you live or own a business located within a quarter-mile of an official Tigard greenway trail route, specifically, the Summer Creek Trail (see map on other side of this page). Your assistance is needed to gather vital information about the trail and any concerns or preferences you may have about it. Please read on and respond to the enclosed survey. Tigard's official greenway trail system includes seven trails. At present, the biggest problem associated with the trail system is gaps between segments. Figuring out how to fill these gaps is the main focus of the Greenway Trail System Master Plan, now under preparation. The emphasis of the planning effort is on developing the timely, practical, and solutions-oriented information needed to coordinate the completion of the mapped system. In line with this, the master plan work scope includes a long list of trail-specific questions. Some of these questions focus on the Summer Creek Trail. The Greenway Trail System Master Plan is intended to reflect community wishes and desires. As a neighborhood resident or business owner, the City wants to know what you think. This is why we are seeking your ideas and opinions. The primary purpose of the present survey is to help identify neighborhood priorities for improving and extending the Summer Creek Trail. To help accomplish this, we ask that you share your thoughts about the trail with us by completing the enclosed survey and returning it in the enclosed postage paid envelope. The 11-month Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan project is just now getting underway. Many other involvement opportunities will be available during the course of the study through open houses, meetings, webpage comments, and so on. This survey is part of a broader outreach effort. The survey results and all written comments will be provided to the stakeholder advisory committee,which includes citizens who oversee the study. The results and all comments also will be posted on the project website without identifying who they came from (check City of Tigard website in July for link to forthcoming project website). If you provide your name and contact information at the end of the survey, this will not be associated with your posted comments. Thank you for taking the time to give us your input. Please call or email Duane Roberts, Project Planner, or Steve Martin, Parks and Facilities Manager, should you have any questions. Duane Roberts, 503-718-2444, duaneg igard-ongov Steve Martin, 503-718-2583, steveg igard-or.gov Sincerely, Duane Roberts Steve Martin Project Planner Parks and Facilities Manager 1 • � U H 1 • . 1 � 1 1 • • - •, 1 1 � 1 • • 1 • . 1 1 . 0����� �►��il►e �'h �r�ili ►fig .��1 �������� Summer Creek Trail Survey Results **PLEASE SEE RESULTS TABLE FOR BREAKDOWN BY PROXIMITY TO TRAIL.** 1. How close do you live to the Summer Creek Trail route? (check one): 30 QLo) Within area identified as "A"on the enclosed map. (Directly on the route) 34(32%) Within area identified as `B" on the map. 42(39%) Within area identified as "C" on the map. 2. Do you or any member of your household currently use any segment of the existing Trail? 83 78% Yes 24(22%) No 3. If yes, in the past month, how often have you used the trail? 12(14%) ❑ Daily 38(46%) ❑ 0-5 times 18(22%) ❑ 6-10 times 15 (18%) ❑ 11-20 times 4. Which statement most closely describes your feelings about improving (paving, repaving, or widening) existing, or already built segments of the Summer Creek Trail? (check one): 62 (58%) I think it's a good idea. 12 (11%) I think it's a bad idea. 33 (31%) I'm neutral. I don't have an opinion either way. 5. Which statement most closely describes your feelings about filling gaps in the Summer Creek Trail? 73 68% I support infilling trail gaps. 12 (11%) I think it's a bad idea. I do not support infilling gaps in the trail. 22(21%) I'm neutral. I don't have an opinion either way. 6. Which statement most closely describes your feelings about extending the Summer Creek Trail to connect with the Fanno Creek Trail? 73 70% I support extending the trail to connect with the Fanno Creek Trail. 14(13%) I think it's a bad idea. I do not support the trail's extension to the Fanno Creek Trail. 18 17% I'm neutral. I don't have an opinion either way. 7. Are you and your family likely to use the trail if improved, infilled, or extended? 81 79% Yes 21(21%) No 8. If you support the Summer Creek Trail's improvement or extension,what is the highest priority project for improving/infilling/extending the trail? If recommending a site-specific trail improvement,please also mark the specific location on the enclosed map and return it,along with the survey sheets,using the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Infill or connect gaps between trail segments (13 mentions) Extend to Fanno Creek Trail (12 mentions) Extensions generally (9 mentions) Extend to 135`h Ave (3 mentions) Extend along Summer Creek toward Murray Hill greenway (1 mention) Add lighting for safety (4 mentions) Add benches along the trail (2 mentions) Make trail accessible to wheelchairs and disabled (1 mention) Other: "Provide doggie bags" "Asphalt is expensive. A trail of wood chips would be a great first step" "Need for more tennis courts and bathrooms near Edgewater Court end of Summer Lake Park" "Clearer signage at pedestrian/vehicle intersections" "Repairing any boards on the bridges" "Mowing, edging, and watering the grasses" "Wide trail—visibility" "Emergency call locations" Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan Survey Results: SUMMER CREEK Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Comments Contact Yes 83 81 No 24 21 Good 62 73 73 Bad 12 12 14 Neutral 33 22 18 0-5times 38 6-10 times 18 11-20 time 15 Daily 12 Response 36 55 40 No Response 0 24 0 0 2 5 71 52 67 TOTAL 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 Yes 78 79 %No 22 21 Good 58 68 70 Bad 11 11 13 Neutral 31 21 17 %0-5times 46 %6-10 times 22 11-20 times 18 Daily 14 •Response 100 78 100 100 98 95 34 51 37 •No Response 0 22 0 0 2 5 66 49 63 Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Comments Contact Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Comments Contact Yes 20 18 Yes 29 30 No 10 7 No 5 4 Good 11 16 15 Good 25 27 26 Bad 5 5 5 Bad 4 3 3 Neutral 14 9 8 Neutral 5 4 5 0-5times 10 0-5times 12 6-10 times 6 6-10 times 3 11-20 times 2 11-20 times 8 Daily 2 Daily 6 Response 11 19 10 Response 13 17 13 No Response 0 10 0 0 2 5 19 11 20 No Response 0 5 0 0 0 0 21 17 21 TOTAL 301 301 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 TOTAL 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Yes 67 72 %Yes 85 88 %No 33 28 %No 15 12 Good 37 53 54 %Good 73 79 76 Bad 17 17 18 %Bad 12 9 9 %Neutral 46 30 28 %Neutral 15 12 15 %0-5times 50 %0-5times 41 %6-10 times 30 %6-10 times 10 11-20 times 10 %11-20 times 28 Daily 10 Daily 21 •Response 100 67 100 100 93 83 37 63 33 %Response 100 85 100 100 100 100 38 50 38 •No Response 0 33 0 0 7 17 63 37 67 %No Response 0 15 0 0 0 0 62 50 62 Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Comments Contact Response Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Comments Contact Yes 33 32 Yes 1 1 No 9 10 No 0 0 Good 25 29 31 Good 1 1 1 Bad 3 4 6 Bad 0 0 0 Neutral 14 9 5 Neutral 0 0 0 0-5times 15 0-5times 1 6-10 times 9 6-10 times 0 11-20 times 5 11-20 times 0 Daily 4 Daily 0 Response12 19 17 Response 0 0 0 No Response 01 91 0 0 01 01 301 23 25 No Response 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 TOTAL 42 421 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 TOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 79 76 %Yes 100 100 No 21 24 %No 0 0 Good 60 69 74 %Good 100 100 100 Bad 7 10 14 %Bad 0 0 0 Neutral 33 21 12 %Neutral 0 0 0 %0-5times 45 %0-5times 100 6-10 times 27 %6-10 times 0 11-20 times 15 %11-20 times 0 Daily 13 Daily 0 Response 100 79 100 100 100 100 29 45 40 %Response 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 No Response 0 21 0 0 0 0 71 55 60 %No Response 0 01 01 0 0 0 100 100 100 Summer Creek Trail Survey Results—General Citizen Comments I would be interested in the improvements—just to know. Don't know how much and where the money is coming from—I already love the walking area. This sounds like a great idea—I'd love to have a longer trail system in my neighborhood. What you are suggesting is very nice and would sure to improve property values. But the economy is experiencing hard times, so this sort of thing should be placed on "the back burner." Schools very much need our attention! While it would be great to have gaps filled with paved trail, asphalt is expensive. A trail of wood chips would be a great first step. We prefer not to have it widened. I like to see improvements to our area of Tigard. Once the nice weather arrives we use the park and trail system daily for:walking, running, and biking. We would love to see the trail extended to Fanno Creek—it would make it that much easier for our biking and running. We do have some concerns about traffic on some of the nearby streets. Neighborhood traffic on SW 130th through the park area (over the small bridge) is concerning. There is a curve in the road cards are unable to see pedestrians and most cars speed through the section. Does the trail cross 135th,toward Murray? It looks like it on the map! Many people in our area enjoy walking. We would enjoy these trails which would enhance the quality of life as we live In Tigard. Fantastic trail—take our dogs there all the time. Need for more tennis courts and bathrooms near Edgewater Court end of Summer Lake Park. It is nice to ride bikes away from traffic on trails. Nice to have trail hook up with Cook Park. For my purposes,the Summer Creek Trail is fine as it is, and I hate to think of having to dodge cyclists if it's extended. However, for future uses—generations etc. I think it should be started. Infilling and extending will create more opportunities for use. The more users the trail system has,the more support there should be for improving (maintenance). In a physical sense, and an outreach sense, I'd put the priority on making connections. 12/16/2010 Summer Creek Citizen Comments 1 Area A [referring to area W of Summer Lake Park] is where I live. I don't believe that it would be beneficial tax dollars to extend or improve existing structures(i.e. pavement). Bang for your buck! I think your money would be better spent improving structures at a low cost. #1: Incorporating more adult and teen facilities such as Frisbee golf which utilizes existing structure (9 holes at$200 per hole). There is a lot of land space that is not being utilized. So utilize what you already have to benefit a larger population of our community. The tennis and basketball courts are used throughout the summer months, however,these facilities could be used in a more beneficial way in our community if they were lighted. Both courts are not used in the winter and spring due to lighting conditions. Again these infill structures could be improved by adding lighting for the shorter seasons. The lighting could be set on timer systems, as to not waste. As our days get shorter in the winter months here in the NW we are forced inside to exercise. It would be great if we could create an outdoor alternative with an existing plat. Extending or widening the existing trail does not bother us, however we don't see the need. Upkeep of the park grounds is our top concern. I believe extending these trails and connecting them will increase/encourage the homeless traffic in both these areas. Love running on trails. Thank you for improving/filling/and extending them. There is not much information given in your letter, so it is hard to have an opinion one way or another. It would be great if the trails were wide enough to allow children to ride bikes without running into people walking orjogging on the trails. I am against any building that negatively impacts the wildlife around Summer Creek. I do not think that any personal property should be taken to infill or continue the trail. We support maintenance only, no expansion or extensions. It is foolish to spend money on this in these times. It is my experience that trails like these are vectors for criminal activity. You will need (2) additional police officers to patrol these trails. I have several concerns about the proposed Summer Creek Trail extension: (1)The area directly behind Mary Woodward school—particularly the small lake that exists off 121St—is one of the few undisturbed wildlife areas remaining. I personally witness on a regular basis ducks, geese, cranes, eagles, and hawks. (2) 1 have a real concern about creating access for teenagers to hang out with drugs/alcohol and just create trouble in general. The greenspace behind Mary Woodward is a prime location for this type of disturbance. This concern is based on the reality that it already happens off the trail that comes off the end of Winter Lake Drive. The police have been called in the past to break up these disturbances. I've walked out into the wooded area during the daytime and found their beer cans, bottles, and other "party" related trash. (3) A good portion of the trail (again behind Mary Woodward school)will be built in a designated Flood Zone AE. This area was reclassified by FEMA in July 2003 from a Class C to a Class AE. (4)The cost to build a trail where it is in a flood zone and with limited land space, without disturbing the wildlife,seems like not the best use of our tax dollars. We don't really use the trail except to walk around Summer Lake. 12/16/2010 Summer Creek Citizen Comments 2 I believe Tigard does need better non-motorized transportation routes but firmly believe they should be in the form of bike lanes and sidewalks with proper night time lighting. This trail goes through sensitive wetlands which floor severely every year. Altering these areas to eliminate this problem will destroy habitat. Furthermore, we cannot put in proper fencing to protect our property and privacy because the flooding would take out the fencing. We have a virtual river raging through the lower% of our property every time it floods. We are more than willing to deal with that problem to protect the wildlife that lives in the space behind us. Reasons I do not support extension of trails: (1) Cost of construction and ongoing maintenance—The City has other higher priorities (police, fire, roads, schools)that need the funds. (2) Safety—The trails currently in use cause more bikers,joggers, and walkers to cross roads,for example Tigard St. and North Dakota,that are not safe for pedestrians or bikers. (3) Crime—Unfortunately, wooded parks and trails are away from public view and encourage criminal activity like drinking, drug use, assaults, and possibly muggings.Thank you for sending out this survey and allowing nearby residents to express their views. We are adamantly opposed to installing a walking trail along the Summer Creek trail greenway. There are enough trails already, especially including streets already in the area that can substitute for a trail. When we purchased our home two years ago we asked at the community meetings if a trail was planned and were told no by the engineer, no sooner than 10 years. Besides our desire for privacy, I have listed the reasons below which are the basis of our objections: (1) Money spent on trails should be used for street repairs. (2)The area can flood with little warning along Summer Creek within 1 hour of the dam breaching up to 2 feet. (3) Wildlife protection should be a priority. (4) Garbage along the trail will increase that homeowners need to pick up. (5) Parking at path entrances is not available—check along the road by Fowler Middle School. (6) Coyotes have been spotted along this area. (7) Everyone I asked at the town meetings who wanted the trail did not live along the trail so would not suffer any ramifications. 12/16/2010 Summer Creek Citizen Comments 3 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Appendix B.Greenway Trail Alignment Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX B. GREENWAY TRAIL ALIGNMENT FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT PLEASE NOTE: The documents contained in this appendix reflect the initial trail alignment options and feasibility analyses conducted during development of the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan. These documents do not reflect the final alignments, analysis, recommendations, or cost estimates for greenway trail projects included in the final Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan. They are provided only as background documentation to illustrate the breadth of alignments evaluated and the evaluation process used to develop the Plan. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Specific Issues Report: Summer Creek, Krueger Creek, and Fanno Creek Trail Gaps and Opportunities Date: November 10,2010 Project#: 10622 To: Duane Roberts and Steve Martin, City of Tigard From: Hannah Kapell,Robin Wilcox, and Mike Tresidder,Alta Planning+Design cc: Beth Wemple and Erin Ferguson, Kittleson and Associates Introduction This memorandum considers specific implementation questions regarding the feasibility of closing the Summer Creek Trail, Kreuger Creek Trail, and Fanno Creek Trail gaps. Each section presents a brief overview of the proposed trail or gap, as well as opportunities and constraints associated with completing the segment. The Summer Creek Trail and Kreuger Creek Trail were divided into logical segments based on major roads or other barriers to completion, and each section is discussed independently. For the Fanno Creek Trail gaps, each option for infilling every gap is presented separately, due to the higher level of detail involved in that analysis. TYPICAL CONSTRAINTS AND ISSUES This analysis considers a multitude of constraints to developing the trails, including property impacts, Sensitive Lands Designation, wetland requirements, sensitive habitats, slopes, and other factors. Specific requirements for these factors will be discussed in the Environmental Memorandum that will accompany the Task 3 and Task 4 Specific Issue Reports. Where the designation would impact the cost estimate (e.g. wetlands require boardwalk), the costs were included in estimates. Clean Water Services (CWS) allows a pathway up to 12' in width, including any structural embankment, and requires that the corridor be upgraded or returned to "Good Condition."' CWS allows paths up to 14' if constructed using low impact development approaches (LIDA), 1 Definitions and upgrading strategies are available at: http://www.cleanwaterservices.org/PerniitCenter/DesigQAndConstruction/DandCTable.aspxx Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 2 including porous pavement.2 In addition, no native trees greater than 6" diameter should be removed,3 and the pathway should be in the outermost 40% of the Vegetated Corridor. Metro's Green Trails handbook, CWS guidelines, and the City's Sensitive Lands information all indicate that creek crossings should be kept at a minimum and should be at the point with the shortest distance when feasible. The Green Trails handbook also makes the following recommendations: • Avoid routes with habitat or wetland impact unless there is no alternative route... an alternative route would be a utility corridor or a nearby low-traffic road • Preference should be given to areas that already show signs of user-disturbance • If sensitive areas cannot be avoided,keep the trail at the habitat edge • To limit impact use an elevated trail (boardwalk) • Trails should not parallel long stretches of riparian or stream side corridor • Encourage infiltration (use permeable asphalt and concrete if possible) and minimize erosion and runoff • Avoid long sustained grades • Avoid flat ground(less than 5%slope) and very steep ground(greater than 25%) Under the Tigard Community Development Code, areas within the 100-year floodplain are designated Sensitive Lands. Trail in these areas require additional local permitting, although a 12' trail (or 14' provided LIDA standards are followed) is allowed as a conditional use. CWS "Design and Construction Standards" must be followed under these circumstances. Where a trail alignments is within the vegetated corridor, the information was noted but did not influence the cost estimate at this time. COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates and design treatments are based on Technical Memorandum #2, Greenway Trails Typical Sections. Cost estimates account for necessary design treatments, such as the need for retaining walls or stairs in areas with steep slopes. Trails in wetlands are assumed to use boardwalk, and also include an allowance for wetland mitigation and riprap4 where the trail is parallel to a stream. Trails alignments in flood plains and 'strictly limit' habitat areas were identified in the discussion and evaluation. Costs for permitting were assumed to be 8% of the total construction cost of the project, although costs vary widely. Costs also include estimates for easements or land acquisition, based on an estimate of$6 per square foot in residential areas and $16 per square foot in commercial areas. The need for private property acquisition is also included as the'right-of-way' evaluation criteria,discussed below. 2 Section 4.07 CWS Design and Construction Standards 3 If native trees over 6"in diameter must be removed for a trail alignment,additional mitigation is required per CWS standards. 4 A medium to large angular rock that helps dissipate water flow and reduces erosion. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 3 The minimum (low design) cost estimate therefore includes necessary design treatments; where possible or appropriate, the low cost assumes a soft surface trail surface, as well as no crossing elements, signing, lighting, or other amenities. In addition, the low cost estimate includes the least design appropriate for the trail type; for example, low design costs for Fanno Creek assume a paved facility. Depending on the location, a high level of treatment may consider a 12 -foot trail with 2' shoulders paved with permeable asphalt,' which would have wayfinding signage, lighting, and bicycle parking. Cost estimates are rounded to the nearest$1,000. All proposed trail alignments are based on the Base Maps and field verifications performed by the Consultant team. Due to the higher level of detail, high, medium, and low design cost estimates were developed for all alternatives of the Fanno Creek Trail alignments, whereas the alternatives for Summer Creek and Krueger Creek Trails were themselves designated as high, medium, or low design.All cost estimates are provided in Appendix A. EVALUATION CRITERIA Several of the gaps considered in this analysis have multiple alternative potential alignments. In order to prioritize between these alignment options, the criteria and factors described in Table 1 were taken into account. These criteria were developed based on issues identified by the City of Tigard, Metro and ODOT, and reflect the challenges associated with the individual alignments. The evaluations informed alignment recommendations by providing information about the potential benefits and challenges associated with each alignment. These rankings were not combined into an overall rating for each alignment, but were used to inform decision-making through a qualitative process. For the evaluation, a 10" indicates that the alignment fully meets the criteria, a "W means that the alignment somewhat fulfills the criteria, while a "O" indicates that the alignment does not meet the criteria. 5 While CWS allows a trail over 12'in width if permeable surfacing is used,some soil composition types are not compatible with permeable surfacing.Based on geotechnical engineering judgment,the high design option may not be recommended for a particular alignment,and a 10'trail with 1'shoulders would be recommended. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 4 Table 1. Evaluation Criteria Criteria Definition Measures Connectivity This criterion evaluates connectivity and Provides the most direct access to destinations such as access to residential, commercial or major employers, commercial centers employment areas as well as schools. Minimizes out of direction travel Safety and This criterion addresses the safety Surrounding area is open and visible from all angles Security concerns of trail users traveling along the Trail users have good lines of sight along the trail and trail. The better the sightlines, the higher to immediate adjacent surrounding area the score. No buildings or large structures obscure views of the trail User This criterion measures the quality of the Limits proximity of the trail major roads Experience users'experience of the trail. It considers Limits views of industrial/commercial activity potential views, environmental aesthetics, comfort and characteristics such as noise, Minimizes level of noise from surrounding land uses and air quality. such as roadways and railroads Potential and ease of providing amenities (e.g. directional signage) Topographical This criterion considers topographical Minimizes number of slopes associated with option Constraints constraints and the ease of providing for If present, slopes are minimized ADA accessibility. Higher scores if earth moving, retaining walls and long ramps Ample room to grade trail to meet ADA accessibility are not needed or minimized. Minimizes length of ramps needed Environmental This criterion evaluates whether each Minimizes impacts to floodplain, wetland, or Clean Impacts alignment minimizes environmental Water Services designated Sensitive Lands,or Goal 5 impacts. habitat Cost This criterion will score options based on Minimizes cost of easement /acquisition the cost of design, engineering, and/or Minimizes cost of design/engineering/construction construction, based on the minimum cost estimates(the low design cost option). Minimizes cost of maintenance Right-of-way This criterion addresses the number of Alignment on land that is owned by the City of Tigard, property owners that the City will need to Metro, or other public body work with in order to construct the Minimizes impacts on private property alignment. The neighborhood survey provides a basis for public support of trail segments, which will be included in the final consideration of the implementation of the alternatives. Summer Creek/Krueger Creek Trail Feasibility Few segments of the Summer Creek Trail and Krueger Creek Trail have been completed or scheduled for construction. The City owns most of the land needed for proposed segments of these trail corridors;however, there is neighborhood opposition to some links due to proximity to the wetlands. The proposed alignments would connect into the existing paved Summerlake Park trails and the soft surface Ascension Trail. This section considers feasibility of these trails, evaluating the physical and other constraints associated with each corridor. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 5 SUMMER CREEK TRAIL The Summer Creek Trail has been constructed in the vicinity of Summerlake Park as well as short segments between Barrows Road and 1351h Avenue and between 1141h and Gallo Avenues. The proposed alignments connecting the gaps from Barrows Road to the existing Fanno Creek Trail are: 1. 13511,Avenue to Summerlake Park 3. 1211;1 Avenue to 114th & Gallo 2. Summerlake Park to 1211;1 Avenue Neighborhood Trail 4. Gallo Avenue Trail to Fanno Creek Trail Evaluation Significant barriers impact the feasibility of the Summer Creek Trail, particularly environmental constraints, private properties, and high costs. However, the proposed trail would connect to several parks, schools, and existing trails, and provide recreation and transportation benefits. Table 2 shows the analysis of the alignments. The on-street alignment along North Dakota Road (Alignments 2D,3B, and 4D) would be a good short-term connection to Summerlake Park. Table 2. Summer Creek Trail Evaluation of Alignments 1. 135th Avenue to 3. 121 st Avenue to Summerlake 2. Summerlake Park 114th Et Gallo 4. Gallo Avenue Trail Park to 121st Avenue Neighborhood Trail to Fanno Creek Trail Criteria 1A 1B 2A 213 2C 2D 3A 313 4A 413 4C 41) Connectivity • (3 (3 (3 • (3 (3 (3 • • • 0 Safety and • J J J • J J J J • O Security—Trail Users User Experience • J • • J J • J J • O Topographical 0 • 0 • • • • • • • • Constraints 0 Environmental O • O O O • • • J J • Impacts 0 Cost O • O O J • O • J J • 0 Right-of-way O • O O J • O • J J J 0 Based on this analysis, it is recommended that the City continue pursuing the development of this trail, concentrating on areas that connect to the existing Summerlake Park trail system. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 7 Iwo kz TP P. f I µ �: Ay .# A k ..Y � air } - F *, ■r4'� . i ` �. - •y; � } 'i3oten;ill biC]+cle boulevard Connects to existing on law speed streets �; ., -- '� # ' ' •10 •�' - ''.' bikeway network ; w ._7 . .: tti 1 Private proerCi � '* - - - — - • M abut creek r � '__(e boulevard. ' -y 2. Surr merlake Park on low-speed 5treets 1 _ to 12 1 st Avenue •I 2DAr % 1 , 135th Avenuett] ' � � - - � - NtMrH tIMOT; IF N G urnmerlake Park r �, r SOM rneff(a ke Private pro�peftles � j i+crnnecu to existing ,�1� abut c1 ee - rd Avenoe is h p !trail system wid par .* ��Y a busy roadway `' + - t' Side path as sidewalk -along Tigard Avenue fCreek crossing - Private properties i �. , required � �.- TIGnRO -_ - _ +Conn-ects to existing � � "• cross creek �+�� _ � . 6. z -2A ` trail system artd per +�,• Potential connectiof1 3 �'• • £` rr' between properties h t r:.+; S + ' ..t- IL chary w w 1r+ERlr+F ; # Ji 6 'menta It �•111P- *' .� � "` '. .;- +• 3. X15# Avenue to 1 i nth �t 4. Gallo Avenue Trail Z� A. ., Calla Neighborhood Trail L ;IP • ,�.b .01, Fanno Creek Trait Lf .7* + # .. # '` 4a-,. ♦ w y t' �. School ' k4: LA.x.s _;%• `-•=. *. P, .# •. Existing demand #-• rz 4 ` "# # + �x+ [rails and nature trail V e - ■ # 'J ?V_Fk1 _ w . . *-c+ _ w through school properly ' Nt-• ,� r_ - y!• , r- OFF f a. T R - Summer Creek Troll Potential Alignment � Floodplain � PP Bike Canes lPark*F Opportunity � Existing Trails • • Proposed Krueger Creek Trail a Stht�ols �**+�� Miroad 1�lfetland (�' iYonstraint +1 1711 ;14. S ummer Creek Trail Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 9 Summer Creek Trail - 135th Avenue to Summerlake Park 1 Summary The two options for this segment are to follow the creek _ (Alignment 1A) or to provide an on-street connection (Alignment 1B). All of Alignment 1A is in a floodplain and a wetland. Several properties are directly adjacent to the water on both sides of the creek. The on-street Alignment 1B would make use of existing completed sidewalks and a bike lane on SW 135th Avenue. Improvements would include bicycle boulevard treatments on Hawks Beard Street and SW 130th Avenue. Both options would connect to an existing trail between SW 135th Avenue and Barrows Road, and the Summerlake Park Trails. Private properties directly abut Summer Creek through this segment. Opportunities N • Closes a gap between two existing trails(all) • Connects to an existing bicycle route(all) • Connects to Summerlake Park(all) • Low volume street potential short-term alternative as bicycle boulevard(1B) Constraints • Entire length through wetland and floodplain(1A) • Length through'strictly limit'habitat area(1A) The east end of theproposed segment would connect • Close proximity to multiple private properties(1A) across 130th Avenue to the existing Summerlake Park • Requires out-of-direction travel(1B) Trails. • Less pleasant user experience(1B) Cost Opinion High Design Option:Alignment 1A • Length: 1,315' (1,002' in wetland) • Design: 12' asphalt/boardwalk,fencing,permitting • Planning-level cost:$1,797,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment 1A • Length: 1,315'(1,002'in wetland) • Design:6'gravel/boardwalk,fencing,permitting • Planning-level cost:$1,320,000 Summerlake Park trails are asphalt and 8 to 10 feet wide. Low Design Option:Alignment 1B • Length:2,118 • Design:on-street,pavement markings and signs • Planning-level cost:$6,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 10 Summer Creek Trait -Summertake Park to 121St Avenue 2 Summary Alignment 2A travels along the south side of the creek and is in a floodplain and wetland. A north side option would be difficult #. due to private properties adjacent to the creek. Alignment 2B .F would use an existing maintenance road, then follow Alignment 2A on the south side of the creek. Either would require crossing approximately 50' of Tigard-Tualatin School District Land. The partially on-street Alignment 2C would connect to Winter Lake Drive via the Summerlake Park trails. The trail could fit between two houses at the cul-de-sac and continue along an approximately 350' easement from Mary Woodward Elementary. A maintenance mad runs parallel to private Alignment 2D involves bicycle boulevard treatments on North properties adongpart of this segment. Dakota Street,which has completed sidewalks and speed bumps. Opportunities • Connects the Summerlake Park trail system to Mary Woodward Elementary(all,especially 2C) •a. • Connects to an existing bicycle route(all) Y '' 7 4 • Connects to proposed Krueger Creek Trail(2A,2B,2C) ' 'S • Uses maintenance road to minimize impacts(2B) • Along street with existing traffic calming(2D) Constraints • Significant portions through wetland and floodplain • Close proximity to private property(all) The maintenance road continues to the waterfront • Portions in'strictly limit'habitat area(2A,2B,2C) and is overgrown at this pinch point between Safety concerns with trail through elementary(2C) Summer Creek andprivateproperty. • Need for easement between two houses(2C) Cost Opinion + High Design Option:Alignment 2A • Length: 1,588' • Design:Boardwalk,fencing,permitting • Planning-level cost:$2,733,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment 2B • Length: 1,588' • Design:Boardwalk/10' asphalt,permitting A connection between Mary Woodward • Planning-level cost:$2,643,000 Elementary and Winter Lake Drive could be Low Design Option 1:Alignment 2C opened byproviding access through this fence. • Length: 1,584' • Design:on-street,boardwalk/6'asphalt,permitting • Planning-level cost:$1,924,000 Low Design Option 2:Alignment 2D • Length: 1,223' • Design:bicycle boulevard markings&signs • Planning-level cost:$4,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 11 Summer Creek Trail - SW 121St Avenue to Neighborhood Trail 3 Summary =e �-r .4 ... . This entire segment is in a floodplain and a wetland. Multiple .;± private properties are adjacent to the creek and two fences cross the creek, blocking access. Additional field work is required to determine if these fences are on City- or privately- A owned property. Alignment 3A would potentially require a creek crossing to avoid private property or meandering segments of the creek. Alignment 3B would connect to - Alignment 2D and continue as bicycle boulevard pavement markings and signs on North Dakota Street. Several private properties have fenced across the creek and blocked access. Opportunities • Connects to an existing trail(3A) • Uses low-volume road with existing traffic calming (3B) • Connects to an existing bicycle route(both) _ t� Constraints • Entire length through wetland and floodplain(3A) • Requires creek crossing(3A) • Close proximity to private property(3A) • Majority of trail in'strictly limit'habitat area(3A) • Bicycle boulevard treatments less comfortable than trail alignment(3B) Aboard has been used to cross the creek shortly before the fences make the southem shore impassible. Cost Opinion High Design Option:Alignment 3A • Length: 1,844' • Design: 12'permeable asphalt/boardwalk,fencing,signal on SW 121St Avenue,permitting,acquisition • Planning-level cost:$2,751,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment 3A • Length: 1,844' • Design: 10' asphalt/boardwalk,crosswalk,permitting, Looking north from the existing trail at the east end acquisition of the segment. • Planning-level cost:$2,526,000 Low Design Option:Alignment 3B • Length: 1,263' • Design:pavement markings,signs, sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$542,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 12 Summer Creek Trail - Gallo Avenue Trail to Fanno Creek Trail 4 Summary This segment would provide a connection from an existing neighborhood trail on Gallo Avenue to the Fanno Creek Regional Trail. Many demand trails currently exist through the area around Fowler Middle School, and an off-street ;•. connection could connect through the school property either along the soft surface nature trail (Alignment 4A)or above the '' 'z � sports field (Alignment 4B).. A side path could provide access ' ` ` along Tigard Street (Alignment 4C), as motor vehicle speeds "'''- and volumes are too high for an on-street bicycle route (2008 estimates: 1,900 ADT between 115th and Cornell Place; 3,000 Blackberries grow densely alongtheproperty ATD between Cornell Place and Tiedeman). A continuation of adjacent to Gallo Avenue. the on-street facilities on North Dakota Street would connect to Alignment 3B(Alignment 4D). Opportunities • Connects a neighborhood trail to Fanno Creek(4A,4B,4C) • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities (all) • New off-street path(4A,4B,4C) 3 `ap.� _ Y - i Constraints f• ��" ='� '� f , ti, • All of Alignment 4A, 180'of Alignment 4B and 250'of _ #. Alignment 4C in'strictly limit'habitat Many demand trails cut through the wood around • Majority of Alignment 4A in wetland Fowler Middle School • Trail along Tigard Street(4C)less comfortable for users • Bicycle boulevard treatments less comfortable than trail alignment(4D) Cost Opinion High Design Option 1:Alignment 4A Medium Design Option:Alignment 4C • Length: 1,645' • Length: 1,501' • Design:12'permeable asphalt/boardwalk,permitting • Design: 10' asphalt,permitting • Planning-level cost:$1,965,000 • Planning-level cost:$189,000 High Design Option 2:Alignment 4B Low Design Option:Alignment 4D • Length: 1,228 • Length:3,034 • Design: 12'permeable asphalt,permitting • Design:pavement markings and signs, • Planning-level cost:$283,000 sidewalks • Planning-level cost:$835,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 13 KRUEGER CREEK TRAIL The Kreuger Creek Trail proposed alignment begins along the proposed Summer Creek Trail near Mary Woodward Elementary. The trail would be located in the narrow creek corridor between private properties, connecting to the existing trails through Jack Park. The alignment would continue south adjacent to the newly-constructed fire station. After crossing Walnut Street, the trail would be located along an access road, then cross Gaarde Street and 132nd Avenue. The trail would ascend steeply between private properties along a partially-completed trail, which includes two sets of stairs. The trail would continue on-street along Broadmoor, Whitehall, and Lauren, to connect with the existing soft surface Ascension Trail via upgrades to the current narrow and steep switchbacks. Evaluation Section 1, the northeastern end of the proposed Krueger Creek Trail near Mary Woodward Elementary, would have significant environmental and property impacts. The greenway corridor is narrow, and the right-of-way between the creek and the private properties is insufficiently large for construction of a trail. In addition, the alignment would require several street crossings at locations with poor visibility. These factors indicate that this section of trail should not be a priority for the City of Tigard. However, the section from Jack Park to the parking lot at the fire station has been previously proposed and would provide a valuable connection. The route would follow an old road alignment and cross the creek, providing access to parking for Jack Park. An on-street connection along SW 12511 Avenue, SW Ann Circuit, SW 12711 Avenue, and SW 12811 Avenue is a potential solution to connect Mary Woodward Elementary to Jack Park or as a short- term solution if other sections of the trail are completed. The section from Walnut Street to Broadmoor Place has similar private property and environmental challenges, as well as challenging crossings at Walnut and Gaarde Streets. From Gaarde Street, a multi-use trail would not be possible, given steep slopes and limited right-of- way. This section does not provide direct connections to important destinations, and is not recommended as a priority for the City. The on-street connection from Broadmoor Place to the Ascension Trail access at Lauren Lane would be relatively inexpensive, but would not be recommended unless the connection east to Gaarde Street was improved. However, the access to the Ascension trail could be improved to provide access to that facility. Due to the natural environment, steep slopes, and sensitive habitat, it is recommended that the Ascension Trail not be paved, but potential upgrades would improve drainage, reduce erosion, and protect the environmental resources through the corridor. Significant additional use is likely to adversely impact the habitat and environment of the trail, further discouraging the connection to Summer Creek Trail. Table 3 presents an evaluation of the Alignments considered for the Krueger Creek Trail. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 14 Table 3. Krueger Creek Trail Evaluation of Alignments Criteria 1. Summer Creek to 2. Walnut Street to 3. 4. Walnut Street Broadmoor Place Broadmoor Ascension Place to Trail Ascension Trai l 1A 1B 2A 2B 3 4 Connectivity • • O • Safety and Security • O O • —Trail Users O User Experience O O • Topographical • O O Constraints • O Environmental O m pacts • • Cost O • O • Right-of-way O • • • Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 15 Potential trail enda Connection to �. �"' : ;' +� � F a school it Summer �`. Kx existing trail ��[* .��''� � �'1 l � R for +� k. Creek Trail not built { } #� rough Jack Park -CE'1�t flm Y • + �`} " „. ,� �s ' # i, � a .;� s i f ry OOdW ard,•* t the 4irf a[#Jd ,��_ _ i ii • a _L. I ik $ •� R 'f •�'y - • # ` + rrC1Y�+ right-of-WAY. 12 aTFr } y tG- ire 5ilta n } i �. I r ; private properties _ i F + :4 . , abut �,ycrel•�ycnrr��•ydo+r�.ry ,i flnUt Street tQ I�' ipte st e t crasw F 4 VGi 4+V #�,.• 4 B rn r Place t c � . . ' Jar - � �r- LINPotential an'street rr - . t �h �. SfYILE1 FTrailalunaacces5 connectiof� 1 . Summer Creek to 1 B riDad. Deme brush `wfalnut Street - — - alangak - Connection to existingEll } # biike lance on alnu[ '�� 1-i F. .i x ,•# t ' k a�, aar a Streets 129TH � Oense brush, privy •fir A' n r {. .# F m �3`` pfoperties atrut tra ;did . '* * ► , - 1t,5T .L COrrlOf , f iCk�alkonglg A� �, �- r , crossings at Walnut 4r• �(('' ; + . ..�= and Gaarde StreetskrEur,r�o UNO ',°r F '* f Existing Stee rti3 ` � _ t ' 4' r •� � y + ,. r # paved trail with staifS. I .� ,,• S .. r#tair r- close To private :. s ■.11 ri ii{ �* i- ,,, �Io t�akl opportunWes ��` l}- throuO this Section •- 3. Broadmoor Place , . _r to Ascension Trail - ,,,jT _r :;� •, Ot 1I lrp. Existing narrow and steep r' switchbacks connectLauren -- �' + ?-• '` ''w _ Ln to Ascension Trate f ' - - Existing saft,surface, A trail From Fern St C4 4 � � 'i• • r "� �• y; 41 - �' , FJlistte toe It Dr �i� 4. Ascension Trail , ��� . ... w - Proposed K ueger Greek Trail Bike Lanes P Ics YYeUarrds Opportunity -: Existing Trails ► Schools "�"" Railroad Flovdpla�n Constraint Proposed Summer Creek Trail o 2-9a 5Ixl F{fUe�er Creek Trail Fee' Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 17 Krueger Creek Trail - Summer Creek to Walnut Street 1 Summary This segment would provide a connection from the proposed Summer Creek Trail to Walnut Street. Approximately 70-150 feet of exists between existing `= buildings at most locations on this corridor. After accounting for topography, meandering of the creek, CWS standards, and private property lines, little space exists on either side of the creek for a continuous trail. A greenway - trail on this segment would likely require easements, creek crossings, and boardwalks. Alignment 1A would traverse the creek corridor and connect to existing trails through Jack Park. It would continue south adjacent to the new fire station, along the proposed alignment to connect the Jack The area where Summer Creek Trail and Krueger Creek Park trails with the parking lot at the fire station. Trail would meet is dense wedands. Significant improvements have been made to the buffer near the fire station,where the trail would pass.Alignment 1B considers an on-street connection along SW 125th Avenue, SW Ann Circuit, SW 127th Avenue, and SW 128th Avenue. Opportunities • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities(all) • Provides a new off-street trail with planned connection to fire station and parking for park(1A) Constraints • Majority of trail in wetland,small segment in floodplain(1A) • The creek corridor is narrow and private properties Recent improvements have been made to the buffer near abut on both sides(1A) the new fire station on Walnut Street. • Route crosses three residential streets, including Walnut Street(1A) • On-street alternative requires out-of-direction travel, less comfortable environment(113) • Off-street options require easement from Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue. Cost Opinion High Design Option: Alignment 1A • Planning-level cost:$3,580,000 • Length:2,501 (317'built in Jack Park) Low Design Option:Alignment 1B • Design:boardwalk,signal at Walnut Street,crosswalks • Length:3,165 at SW Katherine Street/SW 124th Avenue,precast • Design: on-street,pavement markings and concrete bridge,permitting signs • Planning-level cost:$3,803,000 • Planning-level cost:$8,000 Medium Design Option: Alignment 1A • Length:2,501 (317'built in Jack Park) • Design:boardwalk,crosswalks at all streets(3),wood bridge,permitting Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 18 Krueger Creek Trail -Walnut Street to Broadmoor Place 2 Summary �. This segment is a steep route up Bull Mountain. Parts of this segment are constructed, although they require walking along driveways with public easements. From ` Walnut Street, the trail would be adjacent to Sevilla Avenue, then would turn west to connect to the neighborhood trail between Raptor Place and Beagle Circuit. Alignment 2A would cross a creek and pass between private property to cross SW Gaarde Street and SW 132nd Terrace. It would connect to existing The woods between Sevilla Avenue and Gaarde Street stairs and a narrow concrete trail that connects to are&INcult to traverse due to fences and foliage. Broadmoor Place via two driveways. Alignment 2B z,4 - would make use of existing bike lanes on SW Walnut Street and SW 13511,Avenue. Opportunities - • Provides a connection where no alternative walking route exists(2A) • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities (2A) Constraints • Steep slopes;requires stairs(2A) • Close proximity to private property(2A) The existingportion of this trail is close to private • Route crosses Gaarde Street and 132nd Avenue(2A) properties and would be dif&cult to widen. • Bike lanes on high traffic speed and volume road, steep slopes limit user types (2B) Cost Opinion High Design Option:Alignment 2A Low Design Option:Alignment 2B • Length:2,358' • Length:2,358' • Design:12'permeable asphalt,cast-in-place concrete • Design:Bike lanes and signage on SW stairs,signal at SW Gaarde Street,crosswalk at SW Walnut Street/SW 135th Ave,sidewalk on 132nd Terrace,permitting, acquisition SW 135th Ave • Planning-level cost:$1,401,000 • Planning-level cost:$189,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment 2A • Length:2,358' • Design:10' asphalt trail,cast-in-place concrete stairs,2 crosswalks,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$1,032,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 19 Krueger Creek Trail - Broadmoor Place to Ascension Trail 3 Summary Alignment 3A continues directly to Lauren Lane, traversing land owned by Tigard Water District. The on-street route (Alignment 3B) would travel on Broadmoor Place to Whitehall Lane, crossing 135th ' Avenue to travel on Lauren Lane. Sidewalks exist along this section, and minimum improvements would be required. At Lauren Lane, the trail would consist of improvements to existing bench and switchbacks that descend to the existing soft surface Ascension Trail. -Opportunities At the end ofLauren Lane,signs warn trail users of • Provides a connection to the partially completed descending to Ascension Trail. Ascension trail Constraints • Connects to segments with steep slopes;no opportunity for multi-use trail • Existing design is unstable • On-street portion less comfortable for users Cost Opinion High Design Option:Alignment 3A • Length:1,722' (971'on-street) • Design:12'permeable asphalt trail,pavement Existing benches and switchbacks are steep and dangerous for users. markings/signs,crosswalk at SW 135th Avenue,6' gravel, switchbacks,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$172,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment 3B • Length:2,082' (1,509' on-street) • Design:on-street,pavement markings/signs,6' bark mulch,switchbacks • Planning-level cost:$39,000 Low Design Option:Alignment 3B • Length:2,082' (1,509' on-street) • Design:on-street,pavement markings/signs,4' native soil,switchbacks • Planning-level cost:$22,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 20 Krueger Creek Trail - Ascension Trail Segment 4 Summary The Ascension Trail is a soft surface trail though a . �i r•. ' gullet', leading from SW Fern Street to SW Mistletoe �,# w Drive. The trail includes stairs, wood retaining walls, and a bridge over the creek. Several accessways provide connections to adjacent properties. Opportunities x • Existing soft surface trail • Trail context and presence of alternate routes makes this a scenic walking route Wayfinding signs are provided at the base of the access from Lauren Lane. Constraints • Narrow trail corridor • Significant slopes would prohibit bicycle use r • s • Majority of trail through'strictly limit'habitat area Cost Opinion -� High Design Option:Alignment • Length:3,145' — F • Design:6'gravel trail,wood bridge,cribbed stairs, - 1 - _, - retaining wall,armored trail • Planning-level cost:$491,000 - ` Medium Design Option:Alignment The trail is currently surfaced in barkmulch,and creek • Length:3,145' crossings and stairs do not meet established design • Design:6'bark mulch trail,wood bridge,cribbed standards. stairs,retaining wall,armored trail • Planning-level cost:$401,000 Low Design Option:Alignment • Length:3,145' • 4'native surface trail,wood bridge,cribbed stairs, retaining wall,armored trail • Planning-level cost:$293,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 21 Fanno Creek The Fanno Creek Trail is a regional greenway trail. The existing segment in Tigard is located south of Scholls Ferry Road to SW Fanno Creek Drive (including a gap from Woodard Park to Main). The proposed extension would complete the length of the trail in Tigard and connect to the existing Tualatin River Trail. The following sections address possibilities of improving existing sections of the trail, where sharp curves or roadway crossings detract from users' comfort and safety. They also consider alignments for filling the gaps in the trail. Five sections of the Fanno Creek Trail were analyzed and the information following addresses the following questions: 1. Library/Fanno Creek Drive — Is it possible to straighten or reduce the many sharp twists and 90-degree turns that now characterize the Library/Fanno Creek Drive segment of the Fanno Creek Trail? 2. Brown Property - How feasible is the proposed "Brown Property" segment of the Fanno Creek Trail? Are there any fatal flaws or insurmountable obstacles to its construction? What is the most feasible alignment of the segment, including the most feasible stream crossing point? 3. Bonita/Durham Road - Which alignment or combination of alignments is the most feasible? 4. Durham Road/Durham City limits - Can the Durham Road/Durham City limits segment of the Fanno Creek trail realistically be accomplished given this corridor's extreme physical constraints, i.e. elevated rail bed, sewerage plant development, meandering creek, and deep gullies? Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 23 :N EP A. BofI1Cd/DUftldFll Road - F—=— 3 , l f FEqM 2. Brown Property ` -` .t 76 /J r- 1. Ubr fFanno Creek Drive `F 4. l�rl��,rr7 Bo UJRAirl7ani fit ---„ ri Jr 4. It it. A-va w<'�'4� ✓ IL .1' r •4 i,.to .l. .y, 5. 1ic'dcm_7n Road 4 k IL C - - - Proposed Fanno Creek Trail Bike- Canes Existing Trails Tigard City BourAary " RO 1,1144 F nn4 Greek Trill pi g hlap Felt Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 25 1. LIBRARY/FANNO CREEK DRIVE The segment of the Fanno Creek Trail south of the library is characterized by many sharp twists and 90-degree turns. Limited City land ownership through this area when the trail was developed required that the trail be constructed on the west and south sides of the creek, where private properties leave little space. In addition, the trail was designed to minimize impacts on the creek corridor. Since the time the trail was originally developed, Metro has purchased the "Brown Property,"which provides additional options for trail alignments. The alternatives for this section include continuing to use the current trail alignment while straightening the curves and bringing the trail up to regional standards (Alignment 1A). The alternative using the Brown property for a longer trail connection is discussed in the next section. Evaluation Table 4 provides an evaluation of the alignment for this section. This analysis indicates that it is currently feasible to reduce the sharp curves along the existing trail. Table 4. Library/Fanno Creek Drive Evaluation of Alignments Criteria Alignment 1A Connectivity Safety and Security—Trail Users 0 User Experience 0 Topographical Constraints 0 Environmental Impacts 0 Cost 0 Right-of-way Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 27 Fanno Creek Trail - Library/Fanno Creek Drive lA Summary This Alignment considers straightening the curves along the existing trail segment.Options include: • Remove stair banister encroaching on the trail ' • Trail maintenance/landscaping to reduce blackberries ` encroaching • North of Deeann Circuit—expand bench to reduce curve • Connect north of Deeann Circuit to east of Char Court with trail,remove existing trail segment • Level,grade, and repave the connection from Char Stair banister and blackberries encroach on the trail. Court to Fanno Creek Drive • Wayfinding signage on Fanno Creek Drive Opportunities • Makes use of existing paved trail - Many connections to residential uses Constraints . 4 • Maintenance issues include blackberry encroachment, trail surface, and obstacles in the trail • Trail through a wetland and flood plain • Entirely in'strictly limit'habitat area An existing retaining wall at a tight corner;this could be expanded to reduce the turning radius of the trail. Cost Opinion Length: • North of Arthur Ct: 57'trail • North of Deann Ct:45'retaining wall,trail • East of Char Ct: 395'boardwalk • North of Fanno Creek Dr: 390' x High Design Option: • Design: 12'boardwalk,precast concrete bridge, fence • Planning-level cost:$733,000 Medium Design Option: • Design: 12'boardwalk,wood bridgeMP • Planning-level cost:$686,000 Rerouting the trail across the sharp turns would reduce Low Design Option: the quantity ofpaving within the creek corridor. • Design:6'boardwalk,wood bridge • Planning-level cost:$485,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 28 2. "BROWN PROPERTY" SEGMENT Since the time the Fanno Creek Trail segment south of the library was developed, Metro has purchased a parcel that opens key options to modifying the trail. Called the 'Brown property," this segment would allow a trail segment east and north of the creek, which would connect to Milton and bypass portions of the winding trail section discussed in the previous section. The most feasible alignment of this portion of the segment follows the upland demand trail on the property. As noted, potential creek crossing locations and trail connections in the vicinity of the creek are not yet defined. Alignment options are evaluated in terms of the Brown property only.. Alignment2B breaks from the existing trail at the first corner and remains in City and Metro land, running along the north side of the Brown property. Alignment 2C would connect at the south end of the existing trail segment and travel due east, on the south side of Fanno Creek. Alignment 2D considers bicycle boulevard treatments along Fanno Creek Drive, from the end of the existing trail to Bonita Avenue. Evaluation The Brown property alignments are evaluated in Table 4. From this analysis, the recommended alignment and creek crossing location are shown in Alignment 2B. Table 5. Brown Property Evaluation of Alignments Criteria Alignment 2B Alignment 2C Alignment 2D Connectivity • Safety and Security—Trail Users • User Experience • (3 O Topographical Constraints (3 O • Environmental Impacts (10 O • Cost (10 O • Right-of-way O • Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 29 Fanno Creek Trail - "Brown Property"Segment 2B Summary This portion of the trail would travel along the northI�.' side of the Brown property. SL� Opportunities • Improves trail use and user comfort - ry .• ; • Potential to bring trail to regional standards • Would provide an alternative route than existing library section of trail v • Utilizes existing demand trail alignment # S Constraints The Brown Pwpertyprovides agood trail environment with • Reduces neighborhood connections an existing demand trail • Requires one creek crossing • Trail through a floodplain Cost Opinion • High,medium, and low design options will be developed after final alignment otions are defined. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 30 Fanno Creek Trail - "Brown Property"Segment - Alignment C 2C Summary This Brown property alignment would traverse the southern side of the Brown property. The majority of r' this alignment is located in wetland areas, the :. floodplain, and 'strictly limit' habitat areas. It is also k "R' likely to have greater private property impacts, due to } limited right-of-way on the south side of Fanno Creek. Opportunities • Improves trail use and user comfort ? • Potential to bring trail to regional standards ti Much of the south side of the Broom propertyis overgrown Constraints with blackberries. • Requires one creek crossing " F1, + f • Trail through a wetland and floodplain r • Would not provide an alternative route than f existing library section of trail , + IL- I ;J Cost Opinion i • High,medium, and low design options will be developed after final alignment options are defined. This alignment option is located within wetland,floodplain, and`strictlylimit'habitatareas. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 31 Fanno Creek Trail - "Brown Property"Segment - Alignment D 2D Summary Alignment 2D would consist of bicycle boulevard markings on the low-speed, low-volume Fanno Creek rr Drive. ^f: Opportunities • Connects trail to Bonita Road • Inexpensive alignment { Constraints • On-street alignment is not to regional trail standards Cost Opinion This alignment would continue on-street with bicycle boulevard markings and signs alongFanno Creek Drive. Length: 1,536' High Design Option: • Design:pavement markings every 50',2 directional signs • Planning-level cost:$4,600 Medium Design Option: • Design:pavement markings every 50', 1 directional sign • Planning-level cost:$4,000 Low Design Option: • Design:pavement markings every 50' • Planning-level cost:$3,600 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 32 3. BONITA/DURHAM ROAD SEGMENT This segment of the Fanno Creek Trail through an industrial district includes multiple owners and development located within 25-feet and closer to the top of the stream bank. Additionally, cooperative efforts with Metro over a four-year period to acquire right-of-way for a continuous streamside trail have achieved limited success. While a combination of streamside alternatives exist, four alignments and three options were considered through this section. The alignments included: • Alignment 3A: On-street on 741h Avenue-bike lanes or shared lane markings o Option 3Ai: Trail segment from 741h Avenue to west end of Metro parcel. o Option 3Aii:Trail loop within parcels in floodplain/wetland. • Alignment 3B: On-street bike lanes on 741h Avenue, connect to stream-side from 741h Avenue via Metro-owned parcel o Option 3Bi: Trail loop from Metro parcel to parcel in floodplain/wetland. • Alignment 3C: East side of creek from Bonita Road, crosses to west side of creek, adjacent to private properties • Alignment 3D: On-street on 791h Avenue-bicycle boulevard treatments An alignment that was identified in the Metro-sponsored Fanno Creek Action Plan (2003) which was not considered in this Plan is the rail-with-trail option alongside the railroad. Since 2003, Westside Express Service (WES) Commuter Rail trackage was laid along 741h Avenue, resulting in little available right-of-way for the trail alongside the railroad. In addition, the minimum setback (the distance between the paved edge of the rail-with-trail and the centerline of the closest active railroad) is between 10' to 50', depending on frequency and speed of the trains, fencing, and other considerations.'Given these constraints,the rail-with-trail alignment was not considered feasible. All of the alignments have to cross Bonita Road. The Fanno Creek Action Plan recommended an unprotected mid-block crossing with overhead warning beacons. Evaluation The alignments are evaluated in Table 4. Due to significant environmental and topographical constraints for the streamside alignments, it is recommended to pursue an on-street alternative on SW 741h Street in the short term. The City and Metro should continue working with landowners on both sides of the creek to determine which side is more feasible as a long-term solution. Given preliminary cost-estimates, Alignment B is the least-cost option, as it minimizes environmental impacts. r U.S.Department of Transportation.(2002).Bails-with-Trails:Lessons Learned.http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/rwt/ Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 33 Table 6. Bonita/Durham Road Evaluation of Alignments Criteria Q Q a m m u o w 41 4a M M M M M M M M 4a C C C C C C C C C -12P 4T 12P 12P 12P a a a a a a a a Connectivity • • • • • • O • Safety and Security—Trail Users • • • • User Experience O • • • Topographical Constraints • • • • Environmental Impacts • O O O • • Cost • O O O • Right-of-way • O O O • Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 34 - t ti .'., LoN'.41umv rtrror, --- .. +• ~ iJ IllCal?t.r#u�k+J.yt ~ — 1 ~ lull ;I,'.—:V Il�ll�I P plilal COI1mK4m thl'W pkiu+l 3AI-vkti++ln� Optrnn Mil.kwp and la5rtro isarcei I Netro�sr ned a el plallnmr w Mroi aµal tr YmwMR plarfarh f 41 111, dp CrQII Owl r va, - f E lPiDD ie:side Pam elum"Ur I nt+ • 7�¢ +cs[41dr-a!7�kh + 4* • s I r ■ r RIP • �` �• ;�• *;3 4 ;Y red • . �i a :. No NWC of os.k.r ..*��i. { 1' I ' I r14Y V111LIIT1 i r�l r — �• — �� l+p J I { J .•.t.. . i I " LIC r It Pm 41 TJ Ic PmM!M Farma UraA Troll ExistrngTralls Me1loParcels Parlls �05 Rloodplain OP"ftmlty Bike Lanes tyard par[e1a -- Ral lrimd Vl!! bllanC� CanstraY�# I•:. � I wlno trerk Tratl .—A 8c 11.a Raa11 In O.rhjr Rwd Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 35 Fanno Creek Trail - Bonita/Durham Road Segment 3A Summary - SW 74f Avenue is a low-volume roadway, which could accommodate bicycles via bicycle improvements. Bike lanes would be preferred on this street due to relatively high truck volumes. This alternative would not be appropriate for some bicyclists who are less comfortable riding in traffic. Trucks are frequently parked along the roadway.An option for this alignment includes a potential trail segment within } the Metro parcel, which could include a viewing platform (Option 3Ai). An additional option would be to provide a loop trail within parcels where development is limited due to wetland and floodplain status(Option 3Aii). SW 74t',Avenue looking north. Opportunities • Provides a connection extending Fanno Creek Trail south. • On-street treatments are relatively inexpensive # Constraints • Significant truck traffic would deter inexperienced or cautious bicyclists • Requires crossing at Durham Road Trucks parked along SW 746 Avenue. Cost Opinion Length:4,923' Option 3Ai additional cost: High Design Option: • High(12'boardwalk):$513,000 • Design:bike lanes,signs,signal and pedestrian refuge • Medium(12'boardwalk):$512,000 • Planning-level cost:$185,000 • Low(6'boardwalk):$380,000 Medium Design Option: • Design:bike lanes,signs,crosswalk and pedestrian Option 3Aii additional cost: refuge • High(12'boardwalk):$1,351,000 • Planning-level cost:$103,000 • Medium(12'boardwalk):$1,243,000 Low Design Option: • Low(6'boardwalk):$835,000 • Design:Shared lane markings, signs,crosswalk • Planning-level cost:$18,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 36 Fanno Creek Trail - Bonita/Durham Road Segment 3B Summary This alignment is located on the east, or industrial side of Fanno Creek. Metro and the City of Tigard have sought to i , F acquire land for this alignment and have been unsuccessful over the last four years. Parking lots abut the trail along this corridor. One alternative would be for the trail to use F ;... SW 74th Avenue to the Metro-owned parcel, and use that to access the stream. ,kr- Opportunities • Provides a trail connection extending Fanno Creek Trail south View ofthe Metro property from SW 74th Avenue. • More scenic and comfortable for users than on-street alignment options Constraints • Challenging alignment;would require boardwalk, retaining walls,wetland mitigation, and other treatments • All of trail in floodplain, wetland, and'strictly limit' habitat area Parking lots directly abut the creek in several areas along this alignment option. Cost Opinion - Alignment 3B Cost Opinion - Option 3Bi Length: Length: • 640' on SW 741h Avenue • 2,130' on SW 741h Avenue • 4,706' adjacent to creek • 2,204' adjacent to creek High Design Option: High Design Option: • Design: 12' permeable asphalt/boardwalk,signal and • Design: 12'permeable asphalt/boardwalk, refuge island signal and refuge island • Planning-level cost:$7,191,000 0 Planning-level cost: $3,184,000 Medium Design Option: Medium Design Option: • Design: 10' asphalt/boardwalk,crosswalk and refuge • Design: 10' asphalt/boardwalk, crosswalk island and refuge island • Planning-level cost:$6,536,000 0 Planning-level cost:$2,863,000 Low Design Option: Low Design Option: • Design:6'gravel/boardwalk,crosswalk • Design: 6' gravel/boardwalk, crosswalk • Planning-level cost:$4,604,000 0 Planning-level cost:$2,239,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 37 Fanno Creek Trail - Bonita/Durham Road Segment 3C Summary This alignment is located on the west, or single family , ]both sides consist of mainly privately-owned parcels) side of Fanno Creek. It would begin on the east side at Bonita Road, due to space limitations on the west side, then cross the creek. This alignment travels through a significant amount of private property. Opportunities • Provides a trail connection extending Fanno Creek Trail south. • More scenic and comfortable for users than on-street Looking south from Bonita Road,there is no space between the fence line and a steep drop,which has been alignment options overgrown by blackberries. Constraints • Would require significant easements or private property acquisition • All of trail in floodplain,wetland, and'strictly limit' habitat area _ r Cost Opinion Length: i • 5,073' • Includes crossing treatments on Bonita and Durham Roads Cooling east from 79�Avenue;the creek would require an easement through this private property. • Includes two creek crossings High Design Option: • Design: 12'permeable asphalt/boardwalk,signal and refuge island,precast concrete bridge • Planning-level cost:$9,400,000 Medium Design Option: • Design: 10' asphalt/boardwalk,crosswalk and refuge island,wood bridge • Planning-level cost:$8,913,000 Low Design Option: • Design:6'gravel/boardwalk,crosswalk,wood bridge • Planning-level cost:$6,457,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 38 Fanno Creek Trail - Bonita/Durham Road Segment 3D Summary SW 791h Avenue is a low-volume roadway, which could accommodate bicycles via bicycle boulevard improvements such as shared lane markings and wayfinding signage. While a more comfortable environment than SW 74th Avenue, this alignment requires significantly more out-of- direction travel. Opportunities • Provides a connection extending Fanno Creek Trail south. • On-street treatments are relatively inexpensive SW 7911=Avenue is wider and has lower ttaffc speeds and volumes than SW 74t1i Avenue. Constraints • Significant out-of-direction travel required x • Difficult connection on Bonita if Brown property segment is built 4 Difficult section on Durham Road Cost Opinion Length: • 3,948' • Includes crossing treatments on Bonita and Durham Roads High Design Option: Fog lines on SW 78u,Avenue act as bicycle lanes. • Design:bike lanes,signs,signal and refuge island, sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$1,293,000 Medium Design Option: • Design:bike lanes,signs,crosswalk and refuge island, sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$1,210,000 Low Design Option: • Design:Shared lane markings,signs,crosswalk, sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$1,167,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 39 Fanno Creek Trail - Bonita/Durham Road Segment 3E Summary An alternative to Alignment 3A, Alignment 3E would be alongside SW 741h Avenue,but would be a side path along ' the west side of the street. This alignment would provide additional protection from traffic, but would not require costly wetland mitigation or bridges. It would, however, require easements from the commercial operations along the road. - + Opportunities • Provides a connection extending Fanno Creek Trail 4 ' south. The west side ofSW 7411,Avenue at the Metro property. • Relatively inexpensive compared to options along the creek Constraints - I • Environment less appealing than a streamside alignment • More expensive than on-street alternative Cost Opinion Length: • 4,923' • Includes crossing treatments on Bonita and Durham Trucks parked along SW 74th Avenue. Roads High Design Option: • Design: 12'permeable asphalt, signal/refuge island • Planning-level cost:$2,255,000 Medium Design Option: • Design: 10' asphalt,crosswalk and refuge island • Planning-level cost:$1,623,000 Low Design Option: • Design: 10' asphalt,crosswalk • Planning-level cost:$1,140,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 40 4. DURHAM ROAD/DURHAM CITY LIMITS SEGMENT Connecting the Fanno Creek Trail to Durham City limits would provide connections to the existing Tualatin River Trail. However, substantial constraints include the elevated rail bed, close proximity to the Clean Waster Services (CWS) sewerage plant, and the meandering creek. Much of the property through this alignment is owned by CWS and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Rail Division. ODOT also regulates the railroad, and F&W Rail operates along the railroad. It was determined that discussions with CWS should take place above the staff level to ascertain the likelihood of acquiring permission to develop a trail on the edge of their property. A map was developed for those conversations, which shows a detailed view of the proposed facility and addresses initial concerns with the alignment. The alignment options considered include: • Alignment 4A: Between the railroad tracks and CWS property, crosses the creek on an independent structure adjacent to the railroad trestle. o Option 4Ai: Same as 4A,includes a detour adjacent to the creek prior to crossing. • Alignment 4B: North side of creek, crosses under railroad, connects to Durham Park Trails, would require three creek crossings. • Alignment 40 On-street along existing bike lanes on Durham Road and 851' Street. All of these alignments require crossing Durham Road from wherever the trail is developed through Section 3. The Metro-sponsored Fanno Creek Greenway Action Plan identified Durham Road as having high traffic volume (16,000 average daily traffic) and a posted speed of 35 mph. The ODOT Rail Crossing Division has jurisdiction over parallel pedestrian crossings within a safe stopping distance of at-grade rail crossings,which is 250 feet of the crossing along Durham Road.7 Alignment 4A is the only alternative that would cross Durham Road within that distance of the railroad, and the crossing would require a safety evaluation, as well as a bicycle/pedestrian signal with crossing gates and lights. If this is cost prohibitive, the crossing for Alternative 4A could be moved to outside of the 250' under ODOT Rail supervision. The Action Plan recommended a signal on Durham Road at 741hAvenue. Finally, alignments 4A, 4Ai, and 4C connect to the Cook Park access trail, which is officially identified as an emergency access road, rather than to the Tualatin River Trail, which runs along the river. CWS restoration of the area south of the plant as an oak savanna is underway and a trail is unlikely to be allowed to extend across their property to the Tualatin River Trail. 7 htto://www.oreg'on.g'oy/ODOT/RAIL/docs/Crossing Safety/Tables 2009.bdf Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 41 Evaluation Constructing a trail from Durham Road to the Tualatin River Trail would provide good pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, improving routes to school and access to the Durham trail system. However, the lack of right-of-way between Clean Water Services' sewage plant and the railroad result in potential fatal flaws for Alignment 4A and 4Ai. The City should work with Clean Water Services to determine whether a trail could be constructed within the existing fence line, with another fence placed to deter trespassing. If CWS is unwilling to allow a trail, Alignment 4B would be a good alternative, although the requirement of four bridges makes this alignment expensive and have more environmental impacts. Table 7 shows the analysis of these alignment alternatives. Table 7. Durham Road/Durham City Limits Evaluation of Alignments Criteria Alignment 4A Alignment 4Ai Alignment 4B Alignment 4C Connectivity • • • C) Safety and Security—Trail Users C) C) • C) User Experience C) • • O Topographical Constraints C) C) C) • Environmental Impacts • C) C) • Cost C1 C) C) • Right-of-way O O C) • Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 42 R i 13 T- .. �T .II I'.�. ir IRF. I + -!�• � � k' + # • SMN�[II ' f r H T4wd Ourl IF LYaitawa{Trl�trnF+Ie Pleur F �y S �I .7 Gppr7ftunity tUil4ri[feek + ,%%IkJnme+lk�I_p4LetFtlad dr ddlll4Etl .1** e al5gtanrn[till nemsklr � � Y1i lag i ppp 4 J cod J1 +' a Tuwklr, P.' RFrer Yr#12 - � *■ Proposed I CFmk Trol =- ExiFti Traft Flo -MWOPifhUL Opportum1ty 14etlanda €Isnstraint * Sthoub 7tp�rd Patrr� �� �.�� ,.�� Far,.n.2.*.►T.r.1 �F rrl O�rfiam RaaG io�.Hwm tarty Llm�a� Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 43 41 r 4 i RA+Uord trdge hF an Vportvrrlty TB :,—rrerk � CF W-0SL!"+'At'4r Tr*alm.era� # �� i * f* Mltt k� rte � *I was'_ewntr.�ater F1Lala n1 eF1,',p,,}a road■1!� -- 'l �+ Eaia { ianceler,e Crn a bulEtllnp badP Fa 6 OR. Gstetl 43ctes3 7 ,padkPrtRAgo&7ird4 is�1,uUtm � Iaw,� IIivH TrkA_ ' { Fe LuhlxrtCRarl W TdOACIlk I—_ - MIY#r Trrlu U4x 1a qtl► I . �} I — Proposed Fenno Crash Trail Opparlunitre® Qalrsmnts .--tet EXE p E FraAe NeaAhal �"�"F'Propaaad Fence Frer Finns r, Yrr1 6lran W MFalw Sarrlom Rruwmy toall Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 44 Fanno Creek Trail - Durham Road/Durham City Limits Segment 4A Summary From Durham Road, the trail would follow a maintenance road adjacent to the railroad. The trail would cross Fanno Creek near the railroad trestle within the ODOT right-of- way to minimize environmental impact. Along Clean Water Services' property, the trail would require moving the fence and installing an additional fence to prevent trail users crossing the railroad. The Option 4Ai would veer away from the railroad and follow the curve of the creek along existing demand trails.Option 4Ai would meet up with Alignment A and cross Fanno Creek at the railroad trestle, continuing along Clean Water Services'property. The trail would cross Fanno Creek at the existing railroad trestle. Opportunities • Connects to the Cook Park Access Trail • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities Constraints - • Requires coordination with the railroad and Clean Water Services • Trail partially in floodplain,50' in wetland (at creek crossing) • 206'of trail in'strictly limit'habitat area The trail would require moving Clean Water Services fence andinstalhng an additional fence. Cost Opinion Length:3,503' Option 4Ai additional cost: High Design Option: • High(12'boardwalk):$951,000 • Design:12'permeable asphalt,precast concrete bridge, • Medium(12'boardwalk): $861,000 signal,lighting,fencing,permitting,acquisition • Low(6'boardwalk):$598,000 • Planning-level cost:$2,153,000 Medium Design Option: • Design:10' asphalt,crosswalk and refuge island,wood bridge,fencing,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$1,543,000 Low Design Option: • Design:6'gravel,wood bridge,crosswalk,fencing, permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$887,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 45 Fanno Creek Trail - Durham Road/Durham City Limits Segment 4B Summary Alignment B is the recommended option from the Metro- - sponsored Fanno Creek Action Plan. The alignment would be below the parking lot north of the creek. The Tigard- Tualatin School District owns the parcels just east of . Durham Elementary, where steep slopes and existing fences ' would require the trail to cross Fanno Creek.The trail would cross the creek again and cross the railroad via an undercrossing of the existing railroad trestle. Opportunities • Connects to the Cook Park Access Trail • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities There is suMdeat space for a trail to the north side of Road • Buffers users from the railroad the creek just south ofDurham Constraints • Requires coordination with the railroad • Trail partially in floodplain,450'in wetland • Most of trail in'strictly limit'or'moderately limit' habitat area Cost Opinion .a Length:2,212' !` High Design Option: - • Design: 12'permeable asphalt/boardwalk, signal,4 precast concrete bridges,lighting,fencing,permitting, acquisition South ofDurham Elementary,steep slopes and private aC q property would require the trail to cross Fanno Creek. • Planning-level cost:$3,249,000 Medium Design Option: • Design: 10' asphalt/boardwalk,4 wood bridges, crosswalk and refuge island,fencing,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$3,255,000 Low Design Option: • Design:6'gravel/boardwalk,4 wood bridges,crosswalk, fencing,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$2,674,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 46 Fanno Creek Trail - Durham Road/Durham City Limits Segment 4C Summary The on-street alignment would make use of existing bike lanes on Durham Road and includes bicycle boulevard treatments on SW 85th Avenue. The existing signal at 85 i Avenue would assist cyclists in making the left turn from Durham Road. The high design cost estimate includes striping a left-turn for bicyclists, which would require additional engineering review. - - Opportunities • Connects to the Cook Park Access Trail • Low-cost The entrance to the Clean Water Services facility is located offofSW 85th Avenue. Constraints • Substandard regional trail design,uncomfortable high- speed,high-volume roadway Cost Opinion Length: High Design Option: • Design:bike striping for left turn,pavement markings, 5 directional signs,sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$106,000 Medium Design Option: • Design:pavement markings,4 directional signs, sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$105,000 Low Design Option: • Design:pavement markings,1 directional sign, sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$105,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 47 5. TIEDMAN AVENUE INTERSECTION The existing Fanno Creek Trail crosses Tiedeman Avenue near Fowler Middle School. A popular trail segment, the crossing requires trail users to walk on sidewalks or ride in bike lanes for approximately 200-feet across the bridge over Fanno Creek. No crossing treatments are provided across Tiedeman Avenue, which is a busy street with poor sightlines at the curve. On both sides, the access to the Fanno Creek Trail lacks curb ramps, significantly impairing use by cyclists and pedestrians using mobility devices. While Tiedeman Avenue has bike lanes on most of its length, they drop at the bridge. In addition, the difficulty of navigating the sharp turns and merging onto Tiedeman Avenue is not conducive to the types of uses expected on a regional trail. A recent property acquisition by Metro has opened the possibility of reevaluating this crossing. However, Metro has a life estate on the property, and any alignments that pass through the parcel will be long-term solutions. The alternatives are: • Alignment 5A -The trail would continue through the parcel and cross further away from the road,on the far side of Woodland City Park. • Alignment 5B - The trail would turn east directly after crossing Tiedeman Avenue and cross Fanno Creek to meet up with the existing trail section. • Alignment 5C-Improvements to existing crossing. o Option 5D i-Widen the sidewalk on one side of the road to accommodate trail users. Evaluation Table 8 provides an analysis of the alignment alternatives for this section. Because a new creek crossing would be expensive, it is recommended that the City pursue short-term improvements to the crossing, as described in Alignment 5C. As a mid-term solution, widening the sidewalk in advance of the bridge would make the crossing more comfortable for trail users. For the long- term solution, either Alignment 5A or 5B is feasible, although the costs and environmental impacts would be more for Alignment B. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 48 Table 8. Tiedeman Intersection Evaluation of Alignments Criteria Alignment A Alignment B Alignment C Option Ci Connectivity • • • • Safety and Security—Trail Users • • • User Experience • • Topographical Constraints • • • • Environmental Impacts • • Cost • Right-of-way • • Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 49 Fanno Creek Trail - Tiedeman Avenue 5A Summary This Alignment would continue straight after crossing Tiedeman Avenue, crossing Fanno Creek at the far side of Woodland City Park. The Alignment would provide an enhanced user experience through separation from the roadway. Opportunities • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities • Improves safety and user comfort on a popular segment of a regional trail • Separates users through a busy park,minimizing The majority,of the recently-acquired parcel is outside of the conflicts floodplain and wetlands,improving feasibility. Constraints • Majority of trail in flood plain • Crossing improvements on Tiedemann Avenue • Requires bridge over Fanno Creek 105'in'strictly limit'habitat area Cost Opinion Length: 932' High Design Option: • Design:12'permeable asphalt,precast concrete The recommended crossing ofFanno Creek would be bridge,signal at Tiedeman Road, fencing, separated from the road permitting • Planning-level cost:$523,000 Medium Design Option: • Design:10' asphalt,wood bridge,crosswalk and refuge island at Tiedeman Road,permitting • Planning-level cost:$266,000 Low Design Option:Length: • Design:6'gravel,wood bridge,crosswalk at Tiedeman Road,permitting • Planning-level cost:$179,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 50 Fanno Creek Trail - Tiedeman Avenue 5B Summary This Alignment would turn sharply after crossing Tiedeman Avenue and cross Fanno Creek via a bridge qr near the existing road bridge. The trail would connect to the Fanno Creek Trail in Woodard City Park. LAN Opportunities • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities • Improves safety and user comfort on a popular ' segment of a regional trail Constraints The existing bridge crossing on Tiedeman Avenue has • Majority of trail in flood plain sidewalks,but no curb ramps or bike lanes. • Crossing improvements on Tiedemann Avenue - • Requires bridge over Fanno Creek • 105'in'strictly limit'habitat area Cost Opinion 5 Length: 4 • 450' + s High Design Option:Alignment • Design: 12'permeable asphalt,precast concrete bridge,signal at Tiedeman Road,fencing • Planning-level cost:$383,000 Fanno Creek just east ofTiedemam Avenue. Medium Design Option:Alignment • Design: 10' asphalt,wood bridge,crosswalk and refuge island at Tiedeman Road • Planning-level cost:$205,000 Low Design Option:Length:Alignment • Design:6'gravel,wood bridge,crosswalk at Tiedeman Road • Planning-level cost:$160,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 51 Fanno Creek Trail - Tiedeman Avenue 5C Summary The short-term solution would be to provide signage, curb ramps, and a crossing treatments at the east side of the crossing with Tiedemann Avenue. Opportunities • Enhances safe routes to schools opportunities • Improves safety and user comfort on a popular segment of a regional trail • No environmental impacts Looking west at the Fanno Creek Trail as it continues past • Inexpensive option Woodard City Park Constraints • Less comfortable for users than straight crossing would be Cost Opinion Length: Option 50 additional cost:$239,000 (406'sidewalk) • 44' High Design Option:Alignment • Design:signal,bollards,curb ramps, directional signs • Planning-level cost:$102,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment • Design:crosswalk and refuge island,bollards,curb ramps,directional signs • Planning-level cost:$31,000 Low Design Option:Length:Alignment • Design:crosswalk,bollards,curb ramps,directional signs • Planning-level cost:$21,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 April 1, 2011 Page 52 Appendix A. Cost Estimates Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Summer Creek Trail Updated November 2010 1, 135th Avenue to Summerlake Park 2.Summerlake Park to 121st Avenue 3. 121st Avenue to Neighborhood Trail 4.Gallo Avenue Trail to Fanno Creek Trail Hign medium LOW Hign medium LOW I LOW H1gn e tum ow 1 1 e tum ow 1A 1A 113 LA L13 LL LU SA SA 313 Alt.A Alt.13 Alt.L Alt. U Cost Unit 1,319 1,319 2,118 1,687 1,687 1,597 1,223 1,841 1,841 1,263 1,645 1,288 1,501 3,034 Surfacing Options 12'Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF 317 $33,285 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 398 $41,790 $0 $0 195 1,288 $135,240 $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 393 $23,580 393 $0 398 $23,880 $0 $0 $0 1,501 $90,060 $ 6'Gravel Trail $18.00 LF $0 317 $5,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Boardwalk(12') $384.00 LF 1,002 $384,768 $0 $0 1,687 $647,808 1,687 $647,808 755 $289,920 755 1,443 $554,112 1,443 $554,112 $0 1,450 $556,800 $0 $0 $ - Boardwalk(6) $192.00 LF 1,002 $192,384 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Additional Elements Riprap(parallel to stream) $99.90 LF 1,319 $131,768 1,319 $131,768 $0 1,687 $168,531 1,687 $168,531 1,597 $159,540 1,223 1,841 $183,916 1,841 $183,916 $0 $0 $0 $0 $Wetland mitigation �Z6Z.5U LF 1,002 5263,025 1,002 5263,025 50 1,687 5442,838 1,687 5442,838 1,687 5442,838 1,687 1,443 5378,788 1,443 5378,788 50 1,450 5380,625 50 50 5 Bridge(precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 40 $49,000 40 $49,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Bridge(wood) $980.00 LF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Intersection Improvements Curb ramp $1,000.00 EA 2 $2,000 2 $2,000 $0 1 $1,000 1 $1,000 1 $1,000 1 1 $1,000 1 $1,000 $o $o $o $o $ Bollard $550.00 EA 2 $1,100 2 $1,100 $0 1 $550 1 $550 2 $1,100 2 1 $550 1 $550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ High-visibility crosswalk $7,465.00 EA 1 $7,465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $7,465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Signal $49,000.00 EA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $49,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ Amenities Fencing $25.00 LF 1,319 $32,975 1,319 $32,975 $0 1,687 $42,175 $0 $0 $0 1,841 $46,025 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ - Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 $500 2 $500 4 $1,000 2 $500 $0 $0 2 $500 2 $500 $0 1 $250 $0 $0 1 $250 2 $ 500 Informational kiosk $500.00 EA 1 $500 $0 $0 1 $500 $0 $o $0 1 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ - Pavement marking $60.00 EA $0 $0 35 $2,090 $0 24 $1,468 $0 25 $0 $0 $0 2 $ 120 Bike lane striping $2.26 LF $o $0 $0 $0 2,014 $ 4,552 Sidewalk(6) $92.78 LF 2,785 $258,393 41561 $ 423,171 Direct Construction Costs $857,386 $629,458 $3,090 $1,303,902 $1,260,727 $917,978 $1,968 $1,305,180 $1,198,710 $258,643 $937,425 $135,240 $90,310 $428,343 Multipliers Engineering/Construc tion 20% $171,477 $125,892 $618 $260,780 $252,145 $183,596 $394 $261,036 $239,742 $51,729 $187,485 $27,048 $18,062 $85,669 Mobilization 15% $128,608 $94,419 $464 $195,585 $189,109 $137,697 $295 $195,777 $179,807 $38,796 $140,614 $20,286 $13,547 $64,251 A ft E Fees 20% $171,477 $125,892 $618 $260,780 $252,145 $183,596 $394 $261,036 $239,742 $51,729 $187,485 $27,048 $18,062 $85,669 Contingency 40% $342,954 $251,783 $1,236 $521,561 $504,291 $367,191 $787 $522,072 $479,484 $103,457 $374,970 $54,096 $36,124 $171,337 Cost Opinion for Construction $ 1,671,904 $ 1,227,444 $ 6,027 $ 2,542,609 1$ 2,458,418 Is 1,790,058 1$ 3,838 11$ 2,545,103 1$ 2,337,486 1$ 504,355 $ 1,827,980 $ 263,719 $ 176,105 $ 835,269 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $125,393 $92,058 $190,696 $184,381 $134,254 $190,883 $175,311 $37,827 $137,098 $19,779 $13,208 Right-of-way acquisition Residential $6.00 SF 156 $14,976 156 $13,104 Commercial $16.00 5F Cost Opinion Krueger Creek Trail Updated November 2010 1.Summer Creek to Walnut Street 2.Walnut Street to Broadmoor Place 3.Broadmoor Place to Ascension Trail 4. Ascension Trail High Medium Low Hign Medium Low Hign Mechum Low Hign Medium Low 1A 1A 113 ZA ZA ZI3 3A 313 313 Cost Unit 2,501 2,501 ft 3,165 ft 2,358 2,358 ft 3,722 ft 1,722 2,028 ft 2,028 ft 3,145 3,145 ft 3,145 ft Surfacing Options 12'Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF $ $ $ 1,978 $ 207,690 $ $ 358 $ 37,590 $ $ $ $ $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ S $ $ - 1,978 $ 118,680 $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 6'Gravel Trail $18.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ - $ 573 $ 10,314 $ $ 3,145 $ 56,610 $ $ Bark mulch/chip $15.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 573 $ 8,595 $ $ - 3,145 $ 47,175 $ Native soil $5.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 573 $ 2,865 $ - $ - 3,145 $ 15,725 Boardwalk(12') $384.00 LF 2,184 $ 838,656 2,184 $ 838,656 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ Boardwalk(6) $192.00 LF $ - S $ $ - S - $ S S S $ S S Additional Elements Riprap(parallel to stream) $99.90 LF 2,184 $ 218,182 2,184 $ 218,182 $ 1,491 $ 148,951 1,491 $ 148,951 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wetland mitigation $262.50 LF 2,184 $ 573,300 2,184 $ 573,300 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bridge(precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF 40 $ 49,000 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bridge(wood) $980.00 LF $ - 40 $ 39,200 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6 $ 5,880 6 $ 5,880 6 $ 5,880 Retaining wall $235.00 LF $ S - $ S S S S S S S S S Cast-in-place concrete stairs $282.00 LF $ - $ - $ - 380 $ 107,160 380 $ 107,160 - Cribbed stairs $ 26.67 SF $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 600 $ 16,000 400 $ 10,667 400 $ 10,667 Switchback $2,700.00 EA 3 $ 8,100 3 $ 8,100 3 $ 8,100 Retaining wall(soft surface) $ 80.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 786 $ 62,900 393 $ 31,450 100 $ 8,000 Armored trail $ 11.67 SF $ - $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,435 $ 110,075 9,435 $ 110,075 9,435 $ 110,075 Intersection Improvements Curb ramp $1,000.00 EA 5 $ 5,000 5 $ 5,000 $ 5 $ 5,000 5 $ 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - Bollard $550.00 EA 5 $ 2,750 5 $ 2,750 $ - 5 $ 2,750 5 $ 2,750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - High-visibility crosswalk $7,465.00 EA 2 $ 14,930 3 $ 22,395 $ - 1 $ 7,465 2 $ 14,930 $ - 1 $ 7,465 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Signal $49,000.00 EA 1 $ 49,000 $ - $ 1 $ 49,000 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Amenities Fencing $25.00 LF 2,501 $ 62,525 $ - $ - 2,358 $ 58,950 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 4 $ 1,000 5 $ 1,250 5 $ 1,250 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 $ Informational kiosk $500.00 EA 1 $ 500 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $ Pavement marking $60.00 EA S - $ - 63 $ 3,798 $ $ $ - 16 $ 949 30 $ 1,811 $ $ $ - $ - Sidewalk $92.78 LF S $ 1,033 $ 95,842 Direct Construction Costs r$--11,14,343 $ 1,699,983 $ 4,298 $ 587,466 $ 397,971 $ 96,842 $ 65,668 $ 19,756 $ 11,465 $ 251,965 $ 205,747 $ 150,347 Multipliers Engineering/ Construction 20% $ 362,869 $ 339,997 $ 860 $ 117,493 $ 79,594 $ 19,368 $ 13,134 $ 3,951 $ 2,293 $ 50,393 $ 41,149 $ 30,069 Mobilization 15% $ 272,151 $ 254,997 $ 645 $ 88,120 $ 59,696 $ 14,526 $ 9,850 $ 2,963 $ 1,720 $ 37,795 $ 30,862 $ 22,552 A ft E Fees 20% $ 362,869 $ 339,997 $ 860 $ 117,493 $ 79,594 $ 19,368 $ 13,134 $ 3,951 $ 2,293 $ 50,393 $ 41,149 $ 30,069 Contingency 40% 5 725,737 S 679,993 $ 1,719 S 234,986 5 159,188 $ 38,737 5 26,267 $ 7,902 $ 4,586 $ 100,786 $ 82,299 $ 60,139 Cost Opinion for Construction 3,537,969 3,314,967 8,382 1,145,559 776,044 188,843 128,054 38,525 22,358 491,333 401,2071$ 293,177 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $265,348 $265,348 $85,917 $85,917 $9,604 $0 $0 $0 Right-of-way acquisition Residential $6.00 SF 2,358 $169,776 2,358 $169,776 358 $34,368 Mixed Use $10.00 SF Commercial $16.00 SF Cost Opinion 3,803,317 3,580,315 8,382 1,401,252 1,031,737 188,843 172,026 38,525 22,358 491,333 401,207 293,177 Library Et Brown Property Fanno Creek Trail Gaps Updated November 2010 Library/Fanno Creek Drive-Alternative 1 A Library/Fanno Creek Drive-Alternative 1 B Brown Property-Alternative 2A I Brown Property-Alignment 2B Brown Property-Alternative 2C Brown Property-Alternative 2D High Medium Low F High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Cost Unit 497 ft 497 ft 497 ft 896 ft 896 ft 896 ft 2,853 ft 2,853 ft 2,853 ft 2,276 ft 2,276 ft 2,276 ft 1,391 ft 1,391 ft 1,391 ft 1,536 ft 1,536 ft 1,536 ft Surfacing Options 12'Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,834 $ 192,570 $ - $ - 1,578 $ 165,690 $ - $ - 182 $ 19,110 - 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF S S S S S S S 1,834 $ 110,040 $ - $ - #### $ 94,680 $ - $ - 182 $ 10,920 $ $ $ $ 6'Gravel Trail $18.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 1,834 $ 33,012 $ $ - #### $ 28,404 $ $ - 182 $ 3,276 $ $ $ Boardwalk(12') $384.00 LF 497 $ 190,848 497 $ 190,848 $ 896 $ 344,064 896 $ 344,064 $ 1,019 $ 391,296 1,019 $ 391,296 $ - 732 $ 281,088 732 $ 281,088 $ - 1,209 $ 464,256 1,209 $ 464,256 $ - $ $ $ Boardwalk(6) $192.00 LF $ 497 $ 95,424 $ 896 $ 172,032 1,019 $ 195,648 732 $ 140,544 $ $ - 1,209 $ 232,128 $ $ $ Additional Elements Riprap(parallel to stream) $99.90 LF 497 $ 49,650 497 $ 49,650 497 $ 49,650 896 $ 89,510 896 $ 89,510 896 $ 89,510 1,019 $ 101,798 1,019 $ 101,798 1,019 $ 101,798 732 $ 73,127 732 $ 73,127 732 $ 73,127 1,209 $ 120,779 1,209 $ 120,779 1,209 $ 120,779 - Wetland mitigation 5Z6Z.5U LF 180 5 47,250 180 $ 47,250 180 $ 47,250 579 $ 151,988 579 5 151,988 579 $ 151,988 1,019 $ 267,488 1,019 5 267,488 1,019 $ 267,488 732 $ 192,150 732 5 192,150 732 $ 192,150 1,209 $ 317,363 1,209 $ 317,363 1,209 $ 317,363 $ $ $ Bridge(precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF 40 $ 49,000 $ - $ - 80 $ 98,000 $ - $ - 40 $ 49,000 $ - $ - 40 $ 49,000 $ - $ - 40 $ 49,000 - Bridge(wood) $980.00 LF $ - 40 $ 39,200 40 $ 39,200 $ - 80 $ 78,400 80 $ 78,400 $ 40 $ 39,200 40 $ 39,200 $ - 40 $ 39,200 40 $ 39,200 $ - 40 $ 39,200 40 $ 39,200 $ $ $ Retaining wall $235.00 LF $ - $ - $ - 45 $ 10,575 45 $ 10,575 45 $ 10,575 Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA $ $ $ $ $ $ 6 $ 19,971 $ $ 5 $ 15,932 $ $ 3 $ 9,737 $ $ $ $ $ Fencing $25.00 LF 497 $ 12,425 $ - $ - 896 $ 22,400 $ - $ - 2,853 $ 71,325 $ - $ - 2,276 $ 56,900 $ - $ - 1,391 $ 34,775 $ - $ Mileage marker $250.00 EA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ - 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ - 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 $ 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 $ 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 $ 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 $ 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 $ 2 $ 500 1 $ 250 $ Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ - 1 $ 250 $ - $ - 1 $ 250 $ - $ Informational kiosk $500.00 EA $ S S S S S 1 $ 500 $ $ 1 $ 500 $ $ 1 $ 500 $ $ S S S Pavement marking $60.00 EA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 31 $ 1,843 31 $ 1,843 31 $ 1,843 Trail centerline $1.56 LF $ $ $ 896 $ 1,398 $ $ 2,853 $ 4,451 $ $ 2,276 $ 3,551 $ $ 1,391 $ 2,170 $ $ $ $ $ Direct Construction Costs $ 349,673 $ 327,448 $ 231,524 $ 718,435 $ 675,037 $ 502,505 $ 1,099,398 $ 910,822 $ 637,146 $ 838,937 $ 680,995 $ 473,425 $ 1,018,690 $ 953,268 $ 712,746 $ 2,343 $ 2,093 $ 1,843 Multipliers Engineering/ Construction 20% $ 69,935 $ 65,490 $ 46,305 $ 143,687 $ 135,007 $ 100,501 $ 219,880 $ 182,164 $ 127,429 $ 167,787 $ 136,199 $ 94,685 $ 203,738 $ 190,654 $ 142,549 $ 469 $ 419 $ 369 Mobilization 15% $ 52,451 $ 49,117 $ 34,729 $ 107,765 $ 101,256 $ 75,376 $ 164,910 $ 136,623 $ 95,572 $ 125,841 $ 102,149 $ 71,014 $ 152,803 $ 142,990 $ 106,912 $ 351 $ 314 $ 276 A ft E Fees 20% $ 69,935 $ 65,490 $ 46,305 $ 143,687 $ 135,007 $ 100,501 $ 219,880 $ 182,164 $ 127,429 $ 167,787 $ 136,199 $ 94,685 $ 203,738 $ 190,654 $ 142,549 $ 469 $ 419 $ 369 Contingency 40% $ 139,869 $ 130,979 $ 92,610 $ 287,374 $ 270,015 $ 201,002 $ 439,759 $ 364,329 $ 254,858 $ 335,575 $ 272,398 $ 189,370 $ 407,476 $ 381,307 $ 285,098 $ 937 $ 837 $ 737 Cost Opinion for Construction 681,864 638,525 451,473 1,400,949 1,316,323 979,886 2,143,828 1,776,103 1,242,435 1,635,929 1,327,941 923,179 1,986,446 1,858,873 1,389,855 4,570 4,083 3,595 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $51,140 $47,889 $33,861 $105,071 $98,724 $73,491 $160,787 $133,208 $93,183 $122,695 $99,596 $69,238 $148,983 $139,415 $104,239 $0 $0 $0 Right-of-way acquisition Residential $6.00 SF 560 $53,760 560 $47,040 560 $26,880 665 $63,840 665 $55,860 665 $31,920 Mixed Use $10.00 SF Commercial $16.00 SF Cost Opinion I I I733,004 686,415 485,334 S 1,506,020 1 S 1,415,047 1 S 1,053,377 2,358,375 1,956,351 1,362,497 71,758,623is1,427,536 992,418 2,199,269 2,054,148 1,526,014 4,570 4,083 3,595 Bonita/Durham Roads Fanno Creek Trail Gaps Updated November 2010 Bonita/Durham Road-Alternative 3A I Bonita/Durham Road-Alternative 3Ai Bonita/Durham Road-Alternative 3Aii Bonita/Durham Road-Alternative 3B Bonita/Durham Road-Alternative 313i High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Cost Unit 4,923 ft 4,923 ft 4,923 ft 325 ft 325 ft 325 ft 5,808 ft 5,808 ft 5,808 ft 5,346 ft 5,346 ft 5,346 ft 4,334 ft 4,334 ft 4,334 ft Surfacing Options 12'Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF $ $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,800 $ 189,000 $ $ 1,723 $ 180,915 $ $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 1,800 $ 108,000 $ $ 1,723 $ 103,380 $ 6'Gravel Trail $18.00 LF $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - 1,800 $ 32,400 $ - $ - 1,723 $ 31,014 Boardwalk(12') $384.00 LF $ $ $ 325 $ 124,800 325 $ 124,800 $ 629 $ 241,536 629 $ 241,536 $ 3,546 $1,361,664 3,546 $1,361,664 $ - 481 $ 184,704 481 $ 184,704 $ - Boardwalk(6') $192.00 LF $ $ $ $ - $ - 325 $ 62,400 $ - $ - 629 $ 120,768 $ - $ - 3,546 $ 680,832 $ - $ - 481 $ 92,352 Additional Elements Riprap(parallel to stream) $99.90 LF $ $ $ 325 $ 32,468 325 $ 32,468 325 $ 32,468 629 $ 62,837 629 $ 62,837 629 $ 62,837 3,546 $ 354,245 3,546 $ 354,245 3,546 $ 354,245 2,204 $ 220,180 2,204 $ 220,180 2,204 $ 220,180 wetland mitigation yLU.5U LF $ - $ - $ - 325 $ 85,313 325 $ 85,313 325 $ 85,313 629 $ 165,113 629 $ 165,113 629 $ 165,113 3,546 $ 930,825 3,546 $ 930,825 3,546 $ 930,825 2,204 $ 578,550 2,204 $ 578,550 2,204 $ 578,550 Bridge(precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF $ $ $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bridge(wood) $980.00 LF $ S S S S S $ $ S S S S S S S Retaining wall $235.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Intersection Improvements Curb ramp $1,000.00 EA $ - $ - $ - 1 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 $ - $ - $ 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 Bollard $550.00 EA $ - $ - $ - 1 $ 550 1 $ 550 $ - 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 $ - $ - $ - $ 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 High-visibility crosswalk $7,465.00 EA $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ - $ - $ $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 Signal $49,000.00 EA 1 $ 49,000 $ - $ - $ $ $ 1 $ 49,000 $ $ - 1 $ 49,000 $ $ - 1 $ 49,000 $ $ - Refuge island $21,797.00 EA 1 $ 21,797 1 $ 21,797 $ - $ - $ - $ 1 $ 21,797 1 $ 21,797 $ - 1 $ 21,797 1 $ 21,797 $ - 1 $ 21,797 1 $ 21,797 $ - Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA $ $ - $ S $ $ S S S S S S S S S Fencing $25.00 LF $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,346 $ 133,650 $ $ $ $ $ Mileage marker $250.00 EA 4 $ 932 4 $ 932 $ $ $ $ 4 $ 932 4 $ 932 $ 4 $ 1,013 4 $ 1,013 $ - 3 $ 821 3 $ 821 $ Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 $ - $ - $ 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA $ $ - $ - S S $ S - $ $ - 1 $ 250 $ $ $ $ - $ - Informational kiosk $500.00 EA 1 $ 500 $ - $ - 1 S 500 S $ 1 $ 500 $ $ - 1 $ 500 S S 1 $ 500 S $ - Pavement marking $60.00 EA $ - $ - 20 $ 1,182 $ - $ - $ $ - $ 20 $ 1,182 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - 9 $ 511 Bike lane striping $2.26 LF 9,846 $ 22,252 9,846 $ 22,252 $ - $ $ $ #### $ 22,252 9,846 $ 22,252 $ - $ $ $ 4,260 $ 9,628 4,260 $ 9,628 $ - Trail centerline $1.56 LF $ - $ - $ S S $ S S S 5,346 $ 8,340 $ $ $ $ $ Sidewalk(6') $92.78 LF Direct Construction Costs $ 94,981 $ 52,946 $ 9,147 $ 244,630 $ 244,130 $ 181,180 $ 567,567 $ 525,532 $ 359,864 $ 3,050,784 $ 2,785,509 $ 2,006,267 $ 1,249,694 $ 1,130,124 $ 933,672 Multipliers Engineering/Construction Management 20% $ 18,996 $ 10,589 $ 1,829 $ 48,926 $ 48,826 $ 36,236 $ 113,513 $ 105,106 $ 71,973 $ 610,157 $ 557,102 $ 401,253 $ 249,939 $ 226,025 $ 186,734 Mobilization 15% $ 14,247 $ 7,942 $ 1,372 $ 36,695 $ 36,620 $ 27,177 $ 85,135 $ 78,830 $ 53,980 $ 457,618 $ 417,826 $ 300,940 $ 187,454 $ 169,519 $ 140,051 A Et E Fees 20% $ 18,996 $ 10,589 $ 1,829 $ 48,926 $ 48,826 $ 36,236 $ 113,513 $ 105,106 $ 71,973 $ 610,157 $ 557,102 $ 401,253 $ 249,939 $ 226,025 $ 186,734 Contingency 40% $ 37,993 $ 21,179 $ 3,659 $ 97,852 $ 97,652 $ 72,472 $ 227,027 $ 210,213 $ 143,946 $1,220,313 $1,114,204 $ 802,507 $ 499,878 $ 452,050 $ 373,469 Cost Opinion for Construction $ 185,215 $ 103,246 $ 17,837 $ 477,029 $ 476,054 $ 353,302 $ 1,106,756 $ 1,024,788 $ 701,736 $ 5,949,029 $ 5,431,743 $ 3,912,222 $ 2,436,904 $ 2,203,743 1$ 1,820,661 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $35,777 $35,704 $26,498 $83,007 $76,859 $52,630 $446,177 $407,381 $293,417 $182,768 $165,281 $136,550 Right-of-way acquisition Residential $6.00 SF Mixed Use $10.00 SF Commercial $16.00 SF 629 $161,024 629 $140,896 629 $80,512 3,110 $796,160 3,110 $696,640 3,110 $398,080 2,204 $564,224 2,204 $493,696 2,204 $282,112 Cost Opinion 185,215 103,246 17,837 512,807 511,759 379,800 1,350,787 1,242,543 834,878 7,191,366 6,535,764 4,6 ,719 3,183,896 2,862,720 2,239,3231 Bonita/Durham Roads Fanno Cr Updated November 2010 Bonita/Durham Road-Alternative 3C I Bonita/Durham Road-Alternative 3D Bonita/Durham Road-Alternative 3E High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Cost Unit 5,073 ft 5,073 ft 5,073 ft 3,948 ft 3,948 ft 3,948 ft 4,923 ft 4,923 ft 4,923 ft Surfacing Options 12'Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,589 $ 481,845 $ $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 4,589 $ 275,340 4,589 $ 275,340 6'Gravel Trail $18.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ - Boardwalk(12') $384.00 LF 5,073 $ 1,948,032 5,073 $ 1,948,032 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Boardwalk(6) $192.00 LF $ - $ - 5,073 $ 974,016 $ $ $ $ $ $ Additional Elements Riprap(parallel to stream) $99.90 LF 5,073 $ 506,793 5,073 $ 506,793 5,073 $ 506,793 $ $ $ $ $ $ wetland mitigation yZU.5U LF 5,073 $ 1,331,663 5,073 $ 1,331,663 5,073 $1,331,663 $ $ $ $ $ $ Bridge(precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF 40 $ 49,000 40 $ 49,000 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ Bridge(wood) $980.00 LF $ - $ - 40 $ 39,200 $ $ $ $ $ $ Retaining wall $235.00 LF $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ Intersection Improvements Curb ramp $1,000.00 EA $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bollard $550.00 EA $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ High-visibility crosswalk $7,465.00 EA $ 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 Signal $49,000.00 EA 1 $ 49,000 $ $ - 1 $ 49,000 $ - $ - 1 $ 49,000 $ - $ - Refuge island $21,797.00 EA 1 $ 21,797 1 $ 21,797 $ - 1 $ 21,797 1 $ 21,797 $ - 1 $ 21,797 1 $ 21,797 $ - Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA S S S $ - $ - $ S $ - $ Fencing $25.00 LF 5,073 $ 126,825 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Mileage marker $250.00 EA 4 $ 961 4 $ 961 $ 3 $ 748 $ $ 4 $ 932 $ $ Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 S 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA 1 $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Informational kiosk $500.00 EA 1 $ 500 $ $ 1 $ 500 $ - $ - $ $ $ Pavement marking $60.00 EA $ - $ $ 8 $ 474 8 $ 474 8 $ 474 $ $ $ Bike lane striping $2.26 LF $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ Trail centerline $1.56 LF 5,073 $ 7,914 $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ Sidewalk(6) $92.78 LF 6,362 $ 590,268 6,362 $ 590,268 6,362 $ 590,268 $ $ $ Direct Construction Costs $ 4,043,234 $ 3,866,210 $ 2,859,636 $ 663,287 $ 620,504 $ 598,707 $ 554,074 $ 305,102 $ 283,305 Multipliers Engineering/Construction Management 20% $ 808,647 $ 773,242 $ 571,927 $ 132,657 $ 124,101 $ 119,741 $ 110,815 $ 61,020 $ 56,661 Mobilization 15% $ 606,485 $ 579,931 $ 428,945 $ 99,493 $ 93,076 $ 89,806 $ 83,111 $ 45,765 $ 42,496 A 8 E Fees 20% $ 808,647 $ 773,242 $ 571,927 $ 132,657 $ 124,101 $ 119,741 $ 110,815 $ 61,020 $ 56,661 Contingency 40% $ 1,617,294 $ 1,546,484 $1,143,854 $ 265,315 $ 248,202 $ 239,483 $ 221,630 $ 122,041 $ 113,322 Cost Opinion for Construction $ 7,884,307 $ 7,539,110 $ 51576,292 $ 1,293,410 $ 1,209,984 $ 1,167,480 $ 1,080,446 $ 594,950 $ 552,446 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $591,323 $565,433 $418,222 Right-of-way acquisition Residential $6.00 SF Mixed Use $10.00 SF Commercial $16.00 SF 3,610 $924,160 3,610 $808,640 3,610 $462,080 4,589 $1,174,784 4,589 $1,027,936 4,589 587,392 Cost Opinion8,913,1841,209,984 1,167,480 55, 1,622,886 1,139,838 Durham Road/Durham City Limits Fanno Creek Trail Gaps Updated November 2010 Durham Road/Durham City Limits-Alternative 4A IF Durham Road/Durham City Limits-Alternative 4Ai Durham Road/Durham City Limits-Alternative 4B 1FDurham Road/Durham City Limits-Alternative 4C Hign Medium LOW High medium LOW High mediurn LOW Rign medium LOW Cost Unit 3,503 ft 3,503 ft 3,503 ft 450 ft 450 ft 450 ft 2,212 ft 2,212 ft 2,212 ft 4,535 ft 4,535 ft 4,535 ft Surfacing Options Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF 3,503 $ 367,815 $ - $ 450 $ 47,250 $ - $ 0 $ $ - $ $ $ $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ - 3,503 $ 210,180 $ $ - 450 $ 27,000 $ $ 2,212 $ 132,720 $ $ $ $ 6'Gravel Trail $18.00 LF $ $ - 3,503 $ 63,054 $ - $ - 450 $ 8,100 $ $ - 2,212 $ 39,816 $ $ $ Boardwalk(12') $384.00 LF $ $ $ - 450 $ 172,800 450 $ 172,800 $ - 405 $ 155,520 405 $ 155,520 $ $ $ $ Boardwalk(6') $192.00 LF $ $ $ $ - $ - 450 $ 86,400 $ - $ - 405 $ 77,760 $ $ $ Additional Elements Riprap (parallel to stream) $99.90 LF $ $ $ 450 $ 44,955 450 $ 44,955 450 $ 44,955 2,212 $ 220,979 2,212 $ 220,979 2,212 $ 220,979 $ $ $ Wetland mitigation $ZbZ.50 LF $ $ $ 450 $ 118,125 450 $ 118,125 450 $ 118,125 2,212 $ 580,650 2,212 $ 580,650 2,212 $ 580,650 $ $ $ Bridge(precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF 50 $ 61,250 $ - $ $ - $ - $ - 160 $ 196,000 $ - $ - $ $ $ Bridge(wood) $980.00 LF $ 50 $ 49,000 50 $ 49,000 $ $ $ $ - 160 $ 156,800 160 $ 156,800 $ $ $ Retaining wall $235.00 LF $ $ - $ - $ $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ $ Intersection Improvements Curb ramp 1,000.00 EA 1 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ - 1 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 1 $ - BoUard $550.00 EA 1 $ 550 1 $ 550 1 $ 550 $ $ $ 1 $ 550 1 $ 550 1 $ 550 $ $ $ High-visibility crosswalk $7,465.00 EA $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ $ $ $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ $ $ Refuge island $5,000.00 EA $ - 1 $ 5,000 $ - $ $ $ $ - 1 $ 5,000 $ $ $ $ Signal $49,000.00 EA 1 $ 49,000 $ - $ $ $ $ 1 $ 49,000 $ - $ $ $ $ Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA 7 $ 24,521 $ - $ 1 $ 3,150 $ $ 4 $ 15,484 $ - $ $ $ $ Fencing $25.00 LF 3,503 $ 87,575 3,503 $ 87,575 3,503 $ 87,575 450 $ 11,250 $ $ 2,212 $ 55,300 2,212 $ 55,300 2,212 $ 55,300 $ $ $ Mileage marker $250.00 EA 3 $ 663 3 $ 663 $ - $ - $ $ 2 $ 419 $ - $ $ - $ $ Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 $ $ $ 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 1 $ 250 4 $ 1,000 2 $ 500 1 $ 250 Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA 1 $ 250 $ - $ - $ $ $ 1 $ 250 $ - $ $ - $ - $ - Informational kiosk $500.00 EA 1 $ 500 $ $ 1 $ 500 $ $ 1 $ 500 $ $ $ - $ $ - Pavement marking $60.00 EA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 38 $ 2,279 38 $ 2,279 38 $ 2,279 Bike lane striping $2.26 LF $ - $ $ $ - $ $ $ - $ $ 16 $ 36 $ - $ - Trail centerline $1.56 LF 3,503 $ 5,465 $ $ 450 $ 702 $ $ 2,212 $ 3,451 $ $ $ $ - $ - Sidewalk(6') $92.78 LF 552 $ 51,215 552 $ 51,215 552 $ 51,215 Direct Construction Costs $ 599,089 $ 361,933 $ 209,144 $ 398,732 $ 362,880 $ 257,580 $ 1,279,602 $ 1,316,484 $ 1,140,570 $ 54,530 $ 53,994 $ 53,744 Multipliers Engineering/Constru ction Management 20% $ 119,818 $ 72,387 $ 41,829 $ 79,746 $ 72,576 $ 51,516 $ 255,920 $ 263,297 $ 228,114 $ 10,906 $ 10,799 $ 10,749 Mobilization 15% $ 89,863 $ 54,290 $ 31,372 $ 59,810 $ 54,432 $ 38,637 $ 191,940 $ 197,473 $ 171,085 $ 8,179 $ 8,099 $ 8,062 A Et E Fees 20% $ 119,818 $ 72,387 $ 41,829 $ 79,746 $ 72,576 $ 51,516 $ 255,920 $ 263,297 $ 228,114 $ 10,906 $ 10,799 $ 10,749 Contingency 40% $ 239,636 $ 144,773 $ 83,658 $ 159,493 $ 145,152 $ 103,032 $ 511,841 $ 526,594 $ 456,228 $ 21,812 $ 21,597 $ 21,497 Cost Opinion for Construction 1,168,225 705,771 407,832 777,528 7u/,61 5 502,282 2,495,ZZ6 2,567,144 2,224,112 106,334 105,288 104,F77 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $87,617 $52,933 $30,587 $58,315 $53,071 $37,671 $187,142 $192,536 $166,808 Right-of-way acquisition Commercial $16.00 SF 3,503 $896,768 3,503 $784,672 3,503 $448,384 450 $115,200 450 $100,800 450 $57,600 2,212 $566,272 2,212 $495,488 2,212 $283,136 $0 $0 $0 Cost Opinion 2,152,610 1,54 76 886,803 1 S 951,043 861,488 597,553 3,248,640 3,255,168 2,674,056 106,334 105,288 104,801 Tiedeman Road Fanno Creek Trail Gaps Updated November 2010 Tiedman-Alternative 5A Tiedman-Alternative 5B Tiedman-Alternative 5C Tiedman-Alternative 5Ci Hign mealum LOW Hign mealum LOW Hign mealum ow Cost Unit 932 ft 932 ft 932 ft 450 ft 450 ft 450 ft 44 ft 44 ft 44 ft 406 ft Surfacing Options 1TPermeabLe Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF 872 $ 91,560 $ $ 390 $ 40,950 $ $ $ $ $ $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ 872 $ 52,320 $ $ 390 $ 23,400 $ - $ $ $ $ 6'Gravel Trail $18.00 LF $ $ 872 $ 15,696 $ $ 390 $ 7,020 $ $ 0 $ $ Boardwalk(12') $384.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ Boardwalk(6) $192.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Additional Elements Riprap (parallel to stream) $99.90 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ wetland mitigation �ZU.5U LF 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Bridge(precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF 60 $ 73,500 $ $ 60 $ 73,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ Bridge(wood) $980.00 LF $ - 60 $ 58,800 60 $ 58,800 $ - 60 $ 58,800 60 $ 58,800 $ $ $ $ Retaining wall $235.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Intersection Improvements Curb ramp $1,000.00 EA 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 S Bollard $550.00 EA 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 $ High-visibility crosswalk $77465.00 EA $ 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ - 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ Refuge island $5,000.00 EA $ - 1 $ 5,000 $ - $ - 1 $ 5,000 $ - $ - 1 $ 5,000 $ - $ Signal $497000.00 EA 1 $ 49,000 $ $ 1 $ 49,000 $ $ 1 $ 49,000 $ $ 1 $ 49,000 Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA 2 $ 6,524 $ $ 1 $ 3,150 $ $ $ - $ $ $ - Fencing $25.00 LF 932 $ 23,300 $ $ 450 $ 11,250 $ $ $ $ $ $ Mileage marker $250.00 EA 1 $ 177 1 $ 177 $ $ 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ Directional sign $250.00 EA 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 1 $ 250 $ Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA 1 $ 250 $ $ - 1 $ 250 $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ Informational kiosk $500.00 EA 1 $ 500 $ $ 1 $ 500 $ $ $ $ $ $ - Sidewalk $181.00 LF 406 $ 73,486 Trail centerline $1.56 LF 932 $ 1,454 $ $ 450 $ 702 $ $ $ $ $ $ Direct Construction Costs $ 249,614 $ 127,112 $ 85,311 $ 182,652 $ 98,015 $ 76,635 $ 52,600 $ 16,065 $ 10,815 $ 122,486 Multipliers Engineering/Constru ction Management 20% $ 49,923 $ 25,422 $ 17,062 $ 36,530 $ 19,603 $ 15,327 $ 10,520 $ 3,213 $ 2,163 $ 24,497 Mobilization 15% $ 37,442 $ 19,067 $ 12,797 $ 27,398 $ 14,702 $ 11,495 $ 7,890 $ 2,410 $ 1,622 $ 18,373 A Ft E Fees 20% $ 49,923 $ 25,422 $ 17,062 $ 36,530 $ 19,603 $ 15,327 $ 10,520 $ 3,213 $ 2,163 $ 24,497 Contingency 40% $ 99,846 $ 50,845 $ 34,124 $ 73,061 $ 39,206 $ 30,654 $ 21,040 $ 6,426 $ 4,326 $ 48,994 Cost Opinion for Construction Q$b,MY 747,t$bt$ ,j!) 356,172 $ 191,130 14Y,43Y , ,jas 71,09U 238,849 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $367506 $187590 $12,477 $267713 $147335 $11,208 Right-of-way acquisition Residential $6.00 SF Commercial $16.00 SF Cost Opinion 205,465 160,647 102,571 31,328 21,090 238,849 Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Task 4 Specific Issues Report: Tualatin River, Pathfinder-Genesis, Washington Square Loop, and Tigard Street Trail Gaps and Opportunities Date: December 20,2010 Project#: 10622 To: Duane Roberts and Steve Martin, City of Tigard From: Jamie Parks, Erin Ferguson, and Jessica Horning, Kittelson and Associates, Inc. cc: Hannah Kapell, Robin Wilcox, and Mike Tresidder, Alta Planning+Design Introduction This memorandum addresses specific implementation questions and issues regarding construction feasibility of the Tigard Street and Washington Square Loop Trails and extensions to the Tualatin River and Pathfinder-Genesis Trails. Each section presents a brief overview of the proposed trail or extension, as well as opportunities and constraints associated with completing the segment. Each trail is divided into logical segments based on major roads or other barriers to completion, and each segment is discussed independently. TYPICAL CONSTRAINTS AND ISSUES Similar to the Task 3 Specific Issues Report addressing the Summer Creek, Kreuger Creek, and Fanno Creek Trails, this memorandum assesses a multitude of potential constraints to developing the trails, including: property impacts, Sensitive Areas Designation, wetland requirements, sensitive habitats, slopes, and other factors. Recommendations for addressing environmental constraints from the Metro Green Trails Handbook, Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards, and City of Tigard's Sensitive Areas Requirements are also considered. For example, all three of these sources indicate that creek crossings should be kept at a minimum and should be at the point with the shortest distance between the stream banks when feasible. Under the Tigard Community Development Code, areas within the 100-year floodplain are designated Sensitive Areas. Whenever development is allowed within and/or adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the City requires consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway, including portions at a suitable elevation for construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. In Sensitive Areas, a 12-foot trail is allowed as a conditional use (or 14-foot trail where low impact development Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 2 approach standards are followed),but additional permitting may be required.' Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the floodplain must include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals. CWS Design and Construction Standards must also be certified as having been met prior to the City application for local land use approval. Clean Water Services enforces rules to protect water resources from the impacts of development by requiring Vegetated Corridors, enhancement, and mitigation for impacts.Vegetated Corridors, also known as buffers, must be preserved and maintained adjacent to Sensitive Areas to protect their water quality functions. CWS Design and Construction Standards allow pathways within Vegetated Corridors up to 12 feet in width, including any structural embankment, and require that any development activities enhance the Vegetated Corridor or make the corridor exceed "Good Condition." Where trails encroach into the CWS Vegetated Corridor, the area of impact must be mitigated by the on-site expansion of the Vegetated Corridor or the off-site enhancement of a degraded area? In addition, no native trees greater than 6" diameter should be removed and the pathway should be in the outermost 40% of a Vegetated Corridor.3 CWS allows paths up to 14 feet if constructed using low impact development approaches, including porous pavement.4 Where proposed trail alignments are within the CWS Vegetated Corridor, the information is noted but did not influence the cost estimate at this time. Metro's Green Trails Handbook makes the following additional recommendations: • Avoid routes with habitat or wetland impact unless there is no alternative route... an alternative route would be a utility corridor or a nearby low-traffic road • Give preference to areas that already show signs of user-disturbance • If Sensitive Areas cannot be avoided, keep the trail at the habitat edge • To limit impact, use an elevated trail(i.e.,boardwalk) • Trails should not parallel long stretches of riparian or stream side corridor • Encourage infiltration (use permeable asphalt and concrete if possible) and minimize erosion and runoff • Avoid long sustained grades • Avoid flat ground (less than 5% slope) and steep ground(greater than 25% slope) Specific requirements for these factors will be discussed in the Environmental Memorandum that will accompany the Task 3 and Task 4 Specific Issue Reports. 1 An applicant,who wishes to develop within a sensitive area,as defined in Chapter 18.775,must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area,either a Type II or Type III permit is required,as delineated in Sections 18.775.020.F and 18.775.020.G. 2 Definitions and upgrading strategies are available at: hM2://www.cleanwaterservices.org/PermitCenter/DesignAndConstruction/DandCTable.aslx 3 If native trees over 6"in diameter must be removed for a trail alignment,additional mitigation is required per CWS standards. 4 Section 4.07 CWS Design and Construction Standards Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 3 COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates and design treatments are based on Technical Memorandum #2, Greenway Trails Typical Sections. Cost estimates account for necessary design treatments, such as the need for boardwalks in wetlands or retaining walls in areas with steep slopes. Trails in wetlands are assumed to use boardwalk and also include an allowance for wetland mitigation and riprap5 where the trail is parallel to a stream. Trail alignments in flood plains and 'strictly limited' habitat areas were identified in the discussion and evaluation. Costs for permitting were assumed to be 8% of the total construction cost of the project, although costs vary widely. Costs also include estimates for easements or land acquisition, based on an estimate of $6 per square foot in residential areas and $10 per square foot in commercial areas (2010 dollars). The need for private property acquisition is also included in the'right-of-way' evaluation criteria, discussed below. The minimum (low) design cost estimates include only necessary design treatments. Where possible or appropriate, the low cost assumes a soft surface trail with no crossing elements, signing, lighting, or other amenities. The low cost estimate includes the least design appropriate for the trail type; for example, low design costs for Fanno Creek assume a paved facility because Fanno Creek is designated as a regional trail. Medium and high design cost estimates include additional design treatments beyond the minimum necessary. Depending on the location, a high level of treatment may consider a 12-foot trail paved with permeable asphalt, wayfinding signage, lighting, and bicycle parking. All proposed trail alignments are based on the Base Maps and field verifications performed by the Consultant team. High, medium, and low design cost estimates were developed for all segments of each of the trails. All cost estimates are provided in Appendix A. Cost estimates are rounded to the nearest$1,000. 5 A medium to large angular rock that helps dissipate water flow and reduces erosion. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 4 EVALUATION CRITERIA Several of the gaps considered in this analysis have multiple alternative potential alignments. Table 1 shows the primary criteria and factors taken into account to prioritize these alignment options. For the evaluation, a AV indicates that the alignment fully meets the criteria, a "0" means that the alignment somewhat fulfills the criteria, while a "0" indicates that the alignment does not meet the criteria. Table 1. Evaluation Criteria Criteria Definition Measures Connectivity Evaluates connectivity and access to Provides the most direct access to destinations, such as residential, commercial or employment major employers and commercial centers. areas as well as schools. Minimizes out of direction travel Safety and Addresses the safety concerns of trail Surrounding area is open and visible from all angles Security users traveling along the trail. The better Trail users have good lines of sight along the trail and to the sightlines,the higher the score. immediate adjacent surrounding area No buildings or large structures obscure views of the trail User Measures the quality of the users' Limits proximity of the trail major roads Experience experience of the trail. Considers potential Limits views of industrial/commercial activity views, environmental aesthetics, comfort and characteristics such as noise, and air Minimizes level of noise from surrounding land uses quality. such as roadways and railroads Potential and ease of providing amenities(e.g. directional signage) Topographical Considers topographical constraints and Minimizes number of slopes associated with option Constraints the ease of providing for ADA If present, slopes are minimized accessibility. Higher scores if earth moving, retaining walls and long ramps Ample room to grade trail to meet ADA accessibility are not needed or minimized. Minimizes length of ramps needed Environmental Evaluates whether each alignment Minimizes impacts to floodplain,wetland,or Clean Impacts minimizes environmental impacts. Water Services designated Sensitive Areas,or Goal 5 habitat Cost Scores options based on the cost of Minimizes cost of easement/acquisition design, engineering, and/or construction, Minimizes cost of design/engineering/construction based on the minimum cost estimates(the low design cost option). Minimizes cost of maintenance Right-of-Way Addresses the number of property owners Alignment on land that is owned by the City of Tigard, that the City will need to work with in order Metro,or other public body to construct the alignment. Minimizes impacts on private property The neighborhood survey provides a basis for public support of trail segments; input from this survey will be included in the final consideration of alternatives and recommendations for implementation. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 5 Tualatin River Trail Extension and Improvements Feasibility The Tualatin River Trail is a regional greenway trail consisting of a mixture of land and waterway trails. The existing land trail segments are primarily paved, with a few short unpaved segments. The segment of the Tualatin River Trail in Tigard follows the Tualatin River from 85th Avenue, through Cook Park, to 1081h Avenue. The proposed extension described in the Park System Master Plan would extend the trail along the Tualatin River west of 108th Avenue, past City limits to Highway 99W and a future Westside Trail extension south of Tigard. A second potential extension would create a connection between the Tualatin River Trail in the City of Durham and the 851h Avenue Trail in Tigard. The following subsections consider the feasibility of these extensions and address possibilities for improving existing segments of the trail where inconsistent trail widths and poor pavement quality detract from users' comfort and safety. Three segments of the Tualatin River Trail were analyzed to address the following questions: 1. Durham City Limits to 851h Avenue - Is it possible to connect the existing segments of the Tualatin River Trail in the City of Durham, the 851h Avenue Trail, and segments of the Tualatin River Trail in the City of Tigard to create a loop trail? 2. 851h Avenue to 1081h Avenue—What upgrades are appropriate for the existing trail segment? 3. 1081h Avenue to Highway 99W— What is the feasibility and approximate cost of extending the Tualatin River Trail to Highway 99W, as called for in the Park System Master Plan? Evaluation The existing portion of the Tualatin River Trail is well-used and connects multiple Tigard neighborhoods to Cook Park, nature opportunities near the Tualatin River, and other recreation opportunities. Extending the trail would provide additional connections to regional trails and bicycle facilities and increase the trail's value as a transportation and recreation resource. However, significant barriers impact the feasibility of the proposed Tualatin River Trail extensions, particularly private properties, environmental constraints, and high costs. Figure 1 shows the trail segments that were analyzed and potential alignments for proposed Tualatin Trail extensions. Table 2 shows the analysis of the alignments. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 6 Table 2. Tualatin River Trail Evaluation of Alignments Durham City 108th Avenue to Highway Limits to 85th 85th Avenue to 99W Criteria Avenue 108th Avenue A B Connectivity C1 0 Safety and Security—Trail Users C1 User Experience Topographical Constraints 7 O Environmental Impacts O Cost O (3 O O Right of Way O 0 O O Based on this analysis, the project team recommends that the City continue pursuing the development of the Tualatin River Trail, concentrating on improvements that enhance user experience and safety on existing portions of the trail. These improvements include: adding wayfinding and mileage signs, upgrading the southern existing soft surface trail through Cook Park to an asphalt surface trail to improve bicycle and ADA accessibility, repairing damaged asphalt trail surfaces, and reducing the grade and curve at the 108th Avenue trail entrance. Constructing a western trail extension to Highway 99W would enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity considerably; however, the lack of right-of-way on this corridor limits its feasibility. Although alignment 3A would utilize a City-owned parcel in part, both alignment 3A and 3B would have significant private property impacts. Both alignments would also require a creek crossing in an area with steep slopes, a trail underpass under the Highway 99W bridge, and improved connections to the bicycle lanes and sidepaths along Highway 99W. These factors combined with the fact that this trail segment is located outside of Tigard city limits indicates that this segment of trail should not be a priority for the City at this time. The City should consider contacting private property owners along the potential alignments to determine levels of support for the extension and reexamine this opportunity after the Westside Trail extension is constructed. The eastern connection from Durham City Limits to 85th Avenue has similar private property issues and environmental challenges. The two Fanno Creek Trail extensions to Durham City discussed in Technical Memo #2 would both provide a direct Fanno Creek - Tualatin River Trail connection and Safe Routes to School benefits for students attending Durham Elementary. However, both links would also require extensive coordination with Clean Water Services and the Railroad to construct a trail link within the narrow corridor easement between Durham Road and 85th Avenue with adequate separation from the railroad tracks . The potential Tualatin River Trail extension from Durham City limits examined in this memo would provide a direct route from segments of the Tualatin River Trail within the City of Durham to an existing trail railroad undercrossing and the 85th Avenue Trail. However, this alignment would not provide a direct Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 7 Fanno Creek - Tualatin River Trail connection and would travel through a Clean Water Services oak savannah restoration area. In Task 5, the project team will coordinate with Clean Water Services and the City to begin to determine the level of support for these trail alignments and plan next steps accordingly. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 8 Figure 1 Tualatin River Trail Analysis Segments ' i�7ti r i • ,. 1 r` Ld * �`' •' 1 . 85th Avenue to Durham Drive 46 DURNAN bk S , 5 ' 2 ! w�. .- W i- •- ._ . -a - UUR1il4#UR -' .�.' fTY' f # 1 .1 F-4 e s 4 iw "#W,' IP 1f '� I }• r4 i� ,- �' * + �` 1 R Yi �-�r� � ��11!! r � f,i+'�. �``i r -J to* ter' *i . �4a�1 r ;*r .' - Il;7T: - -�1. c* i �* f - 2. 85th to 148th Avenue # ! , , -# ,� *r►+ ` t V f. Ilk 3, 108th Avenue to Highway 99 ,� � � , * ---- 7 7'g.oil ter ,r . } r', 1 * do J Ll tn in 14 am IP 00 or F 1QeJ fr Ohl � • � .s � jam. � l TMJ ,.• - • -,. ■ 510011 Potential Tualatin River TrfiiE ARigr«ment Existing Trails Schools Tigard City Boundary , ■ ■■SINE■ Potential Fanrro Creek TmilAiignnient Bike Lanes "" IRailroad r L 904 Tualatin River Tram Feet Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 9 Tualatin River Trail - Durham City Limits to 85th Avenue 1 Summary Aw Mon Technical Memorandum #2 documented the feasibilityT ,� of two potential trail alignments that would connect a proposed extension of the Fanno Creek Trail to Durham , City limits and the 85th Avenue Trail. Both alignments (4A and 4B)would run along a narrow corridor betweeny. the creek, railroad tracks, and Clean Water Services property. Another potential connection from Durham City limits (1C) would use an existing trail railroad undercrossing and follow the western side of the x ;rt railroad tracks north to connect to the 85th Avenue Trail. Figure 2 shows the potential alignments for connections from Durham City limits to the Fanno Creek Trail, 85th Entrance to Tualatin River Trail from 85th Avenue Trail. Avenue Trail,and Tualatin River Trail. Opportunities • Connects to Durham City trails and bicycle routes • Utilizes an existing demand trail and railroad crossing • Provides a direct connection from the 85th Avenue Trail and Tualatin River Trail to Durham City = w= Constraints _ • Requires coordination with the railroad and Exis�ng maintenance road demand trail heading south from property owner(alignment passes through two 85th Avenue Trail and the Tualatin River Trail. parcels owned by CWS) • Trail is entirely in wetlands and CWS oak a }} savannah restoration area View ofDurham City segment of Tualatin River Trail opposite Clean Water services property. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 10 Cost Option Length: 1,473' (1,473'in wetlands) High Design Option: • Design: 12'boardwalk,lighting,fencing, permitting,acquisition • Planning-level cost:$2,095,000 Medium Design Option: • Design: 12'boardwalk,fencing,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$1,997,000 Low Design Option: • Design:6'gravel,boardwalk,fencing,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$1,403,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 11 Figure 2 Tualatin River Trail - 85th Avenue to Durham City Limits 40 sx 4A .y" �. 4 ki ' - Z..- ' a O _ ■ Via. "'�` z - -- SO Neighborhood ■.� Durham moi'& – — Trails to Durham . Elementary rf*� Streets LEI fir, #e- {� Pinch point J r between fence Existing trail r!- f r d railroad railroad crossingwn, f OTff �� � - �� ■�i�Y� ��-Fl�I I' Tigard I ■ 'C = High —I _ School Existing Demand Wetlands I Trail servation _ I H _ - I 010 Proposed Tualatin Ri—Trail Bike Lanes W.t—ds �_ Tgard City 6aundary OPPortwity - 9-;. :0101 Pm sed Fanno Greek Tral i-Fi-Fi-F+ R,ailruad Floodplain Metro Parve]s �Constraint D =20 330 Tualatin River Trail- FxistingTraiks Schools Parks T9ard Parcels ExiStklg FeaWre 0 Fee[ Durhaal Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 12 Tualatin River Trail -85th Avenue to 108th Avenue 2 Summary pR This existing segment of the Tualatin River Trail consists of a 12-foot asphalt trail from 85th Avenue to Cook Park, soft surface nature trails within Cook Park, and a 4-8 foot asphalt trail from Cook Park to 108th Avenue. In , several areas the asphalt trail surface is degraded and there are abrupt changes in trail surface, width, direction, and slope. This segment currently ends at a 90 degree turn and steep slope (approximately 20 percent grade)at 108th Avenue. Recommendations for this segment include: • Make a continuous asphalt trail link through Abrupt change from asphalt to soft surface trail in Cook Park. Cook Park to improve access for cyclists and Mileage posts indicate distance from the tradbead. ADA accessibility • Bring current alignment up to regional standards by repairing asphalt and adopting a uniform 10-12 foot section where possible. • Add a stairway and/or obtain an easement to straighten the curve and lessen the grade of the 108th Avenue trail entrance. • Extend mileage signs from Cook Park to the remainder of the trail. Figure 3 shows opportunities and constraints for this segment of the Tualatin River Trail. Opportunities • Improve user experience and safety on an existing In several areas the Tualatin River Trail makes sharp turns high use trail and has abrupt changes in trail width. • Enhance accessibility and connections to residential and recreational uses. • Create separated bicycle and pedestrian trail routes through Cook Park. Constraints • Potential high cost and property issues related to improving 108th Avenue entrance(approximately 50 feet of proposed alignment is within a non- City-owned residential parcel) • Trail widening/straightening may require removal of several large trees. The 1081h Avenue entrance has a steep grade with a 90 degree turn at its base. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 13 Cost Option Length • Spot improvements • 250'for 108th entrance redesign • 220'for Cook Park link High Design Option: • Design:signage,lighting,grading, 12'permeable asphalt,acquisition,permitting • Planning-level cost:$126,000 Medium Design Option: • Design:signage, 10' asphalt,acquisition, permitting • Planning-level cost:$65,000 Low Design Option: • Design:signage,8' asphalt patching • Planning-level cost:$12,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 14 Figure 3 Tualatin River Trail - 851h Avenue to 1081h Avenue Potential to = Potenti at to straighten trail and upgrade to consistent -- - lessen steep;rade Q trail width – -` at 108th div a Y Off-teash f dog park I -- _ Cook F Sharp turns and Park ! degraded pavement - around large trees Potential to develop a paved link through j Cook Park � , Jurgens 1� —• Park I �. Tualatin - }1 Abrupt change from y1 1 Country Malt to soft surface of 1 r 1 Club .� HAIELBR rl 1 J� LLT [ j l� fMileage =� -STARR 1 Markers Fri u s ■ ■ Pmposed Tualatin W—Tmil wetlands L l Ti,-d City e—dary Q Opportunity Existing Trails Floodplain Metro Parcels CO tralnt 0 2�o 900 7ualatinRiverTrail- Bike Lanes Paries Tigard Parcels Existing Feature 0 Fee[ Cook Park to 108th Aver-e Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 15 Tualatin River Trail - 108th Avenue to Highway 99W 3 Summary This segment would pass outside of Tigard city limits and intersect with Oregon 99W and the future Westside Trail extension. The two options for this segment are to follow the river along existing demand trails at the base of the 108th Avenue trail entrance (Alignment B) or to continue the trail from 108th Avenue through a wooded City-owned parcel (Alignment A). Multiple private properties abut the river and both potential alignments. Both alignments require a stream crossing in a steeply sloped area and are located primarily within the floodplain. An on-street alternative to this trail is not available south of Durham Road,which is over 0.5 miles Demand trail extending from the 1081h Avenue end of the north of the Tualatin River at Oregon 99W. Figure 4 Tualatin River Trail towards Highway 99. shows the potential alignments for the Tualatin River Trail extension. Opportunities • Connects two regional trails(Tualatin and proposed Westside)(all) A • Provides a bicycle/pedestrian route where no on- street alternative is available(all) • Connects to bike lanes on Oregon 99W(all) o- • Extends one of the City's most popular recreation trails and increases its transportation function by g is A connecting to neighborhoods west of Oregon 99W(all) Multiple private properties abut the river in this segment. Constraints Y • Close proximity to multiple private properties (2,960 feet of Alignment A passes through 11 non- City-owned residential parcels;3,136 feet of j - Alignment B passes through 13 non-City-owned residential parcels)(all) • Portion of trail in floodplain. • Steep slopes require grading,bridging,and drainage(all) • Outside of city limits(all) • Requires stream crossing and Highway 99W underpass(all) • Requires out of direction travel(A) Trail would connect to existing bike lanes on Highway 99W and pass under the bridge to connect to the future Westside Trail. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 16 Cost Option Length • 3,607'Alignment A • 3,314'Alignment B High Design Option: • Design:Alignment B, 12'permeable asphalt, precast concrete bridge,undercrossing, permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$2,354,000 Medium Design Option: • Design:Alignment B, 10' asphalt,wood bridge, undercrossing,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$1,746,000 Low Design Option: • Design:Alignment A,8' asphalt,wood bridge, undercrossing,permitting, acquisition • Planning-level cost:$1,477,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 17 Figure 4 Tualatin River Trail - 108th Avenue to Highway 99W I l�I ' KENT _ — '�' Potential trail access via city- ` Jowned lot riOveR-'a 3A i Creek crossing „ f needed at ravine Existing ❑errand Trai L + ; -_.-. ►_ _ �� r - Trail bisects + private properties — _P Connection to + 99W hike lanes - Tualatin River v�RsarLr r s Regional Water Trail J J �/� Underpass needed to extend frail — westward r• � _ -- _—-- HAZELBRO_�x �. 2 173- 0000 Pm posed T—la[in River Trail Wel.nk i Tgard City Boundary Opportunity - - • Existing Trails Fmodplaln Metro Parcels CO traint a `W Tualatin River Trail- Bike Lanes Parks Tigard Parcels Exrstmg Feature 0 Feet i.Bd.Rren ue to lfwy 99W Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 18 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Extension and Improvements Feasibility The Pathfinder-Genesis Trail is an existing community greenway trail that extends southwest from Walnut Street to 118th Street near Gaarde Street. Another fork of this "Y"-shaped trail extends south along Fairhaven Street. The existing trail consists of both paved and unpaved segments; the segment from Walnut Street to 1151h Avenue is an 8-foot asphalt trail suitable for bicycles and pedestrians, whereas the segment from 115th Avenue to 118th Court is a 2-3 foot gravel nature trail that is not ADA accessible. The proposed extension of the trail would extend north of Walnut Street via the creek corridor or an on-street route and connect to the Fanno Creek Trail near Woodard City Park. A second proposed extension would make the short connection between the current trail end at 1181h Street and Gaarde Street to the south. The following subsections consider the feasibility of these extensions and address possibilities for improving existing segments of the trail to increase accessibility while preserving the corridor's high natural resource value. Three segments of the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail were analyzed: 1. Fanno Creek to 1071h Court 2. 1071h Court to 1151h Avenue (&Fairhaven Street) 3. 1151h Avenue to Gaarde Street Evaluation Figure 5 shows the trail segments that were analyzed and potential alignments for proposed Pathfinder-Genesis Trail extensions. Table 3 shows the analysis of the alignments. Table 3. Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Evaluation of Alignments Fanno Creek to 107th 107th Court to 115th Avenue to Court 115th Avenue Gaarde Street Criteria A B C A B A B Connectivity 0 ( 0 (10 0 Safety and Security-Trail Users (3 O rJ User Experience (3 O 0 (1 0 Topographical Constraints (3 40 (1 (1 O Environmental Impacts O O • (J • O • Cost O 1 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way O O • • • O Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 19 Figure 5 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Analysis Segments FXt-pF ,2 1 . Fanno Creek to Pathfinder ���� ` � W.0 IL All 4P Iva his U Aid 416 I -dl I., J q OIALNUT 5P All Tp Ab 4. I PL •w ..4 1ST- •{ �..e I •�' � � �� *# +� �;7� ` ;_ }! F46, .49 + J # It % . Z� t _ F T• Op -1L "' 25t3. 115th Arrenue to Gaarde Street r •� l ' •_s . . � y.; ► r � #� ' � �,- r. ;",� '"•�� moi.. t All, + 4-4 .,fJA #' 11116 41 lip. ZVI; ell ` fNo or #� la: • -, PotentialPathfil7der-GenesisTraiI Existing Trails i' - d Greenway + Pro used Farm Creek Trail Bike Lanes +++++++�++++ 350 -UC' Pathfinder-Genesis Train PRailroad Feet Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan December 20, 2010 A connection between the Fanno Creek Trail, Woodard Park, and the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail was supported by many residents that participated in a recent Tigard neighborhood trail survey. This area currently has few sidewalks and many residents expressed safety concerns when traveling between these popular destinations. These factors indicate that this segment of trail should be a priority for the City. However, a northern expansion of the Pathfinder-Genesis trail along the creek corridor (1A and 1B) could have significant property and/or environmental impacts. The greenway corridor between Walnut Street and Pathfinder Way is narrow and the right-of- way between the creek and the private properties may be insufficient for a trail. In addition, an at-grade street crossing would be required at Walnut Street. An on-street bikeway and sidewalks along SW Brookside Avenue (1C) may be the preferred solution for the short-term, providing a connection between the two trails and addressing residents' requests for additional sidewalks in the area. This alignment would require users to travel along an existing sidewalk on Walnut Street for several hundred feet and would require crossing treatments and signage to encourage crossing at a single point. The existing sidewalk on Walnut Street may need to be widened to accommodate increased pedestrian traffic. The on-street alignment would also add shared use bicycle markings (i.e., sharrows), bicycle wayfinding, and a sidewalk to Brookside Avenue, a broad low-traffic street. In several areas on the Pathfinder Way to 115th Avenue segment of the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail, the asphalt trail surface is degraded or being pushed up by tree roots, causing hazards for bicyclists and pedestrians. This segment is well-used and incorporated into surrounding private properties through landscaping, signage, and other features. Based on these existing conditions and responses to the neighborhood trails survey, the City should prioritize maintaining and improving this portion of the trail. The gravel surface segment of the Pathfinder-Genesis trail between 115th Avenue and 118th Court is generally narrow and in poor condition. Steep slopes and wetlands in the narrow stream corridor, multiple areas with boardwalks and/or bridges, and community support for maintaining this segment of the trail as an unpaved nature trail suggest that the City should prioritize upgrades to this segment to reduce erosion, improve safety and accessibility, and protect the environmental resources in this corridor. Paving this segment of the trail is not recommended at this time,but should be reconsidered in the future if traffic on the trail increases. The project team recommends improvements to the on-street link connecting the 118th Court trail entrance to Gaarde Street (313) over continuing the trail along the narrow stream corridor (3A). Existing pedestrian access from the trail entrance to Gaarde Street is convenient using existing sidewalks on 118th Court, although crossing treatments on Gaarde should be considered to increase safety and accessibility. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 21 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail - Fanno Creek to 107th Court 1 Summary The three options for this segment are to follow the creek north of Walnut Street to Fanno Creek Trail (Alignment A), to provide an on-street connection (Alignment C), or to provide a mixed streamside and on-street connection (Alignment B). All of Alignment A and the majority of Alignment B are located in wetlands. Several private properties also abut these alignments on both sides of the creek. All three alignments would require crossing improvements on Walnut Street. Alignment C would direct users to existing sidewalks on Walnut Street for several hundred feet and then onto Brookside Avenue, where there are currently no sidewalks. Improvements would include widening Brookside is a broad,low-traffic street connecting two trails that currently has no bicycle/pedestrian treatments. existing sidewalks on Walnut, wayfinding, bicycle boulevard treatments (e.g., bicycle wayfinding, shared lane pavement markings, etc.), and sidewalks on Brookside Avenue and Johnson Street. Figure 6 shows the potential alignments for this segment of the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail. Opportunities • Closes a gap between two existing trails (all) • Connects to Woodard Park(all) • Low volume street potential short-term alternative as bicycle boulevard (B and C) • Increase sidewalk availability(B and C) Private properties and wetlands abut the trail alignment nor of Walnut Street,a high tral6c crossing. Constraints • Portions of(A)and(B)trail alignments are through wetlands • Close proximity to multiple private properties (1,075 feet of Alignment A and 535 feet of Alignment B travel through one privately-owned residential parcel) (A and B) • Requires out-of-direction travel(C) • Less pleasant user experience(C) • Sidewalks require narrowing street or coordination with property owners(B and C) Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 22 Cost Option Length: • Alignment A: 1,783' (420' in wetland) • Alignment B: 1,609'(320'in wetland) • Alignment C: 1,464' High Design Option:Alignment A • Design: 12'permeable asphalt,crosswalk and signage,lighting,signage,acquisition,permitting • Planning-level cost:$1,199,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment B • Design: 10'asphalt,crosswalk and signage, acquisition,permitting • Planning-level cost:$731,000 Low Design Option:Alignment C • Design: crosswalk and signage,pavement markings • Planning-level cost:$16,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 23 Figure 6 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail - Fanno Creek to 1071" Court _r. ��^ oorr+ S �1AConnection to I Fanno Creek and f — •R 1,51* Woodard Park WayfindiIt r� ► car f signage �����• ►►r� ■,r+ f _ z . �. r, WALNUTJoFrhsnri 1 B 1 C ----- w f Narrow corridor I+ H abuts private Broad, low traffic _ I properties \ _ street is potential an-street route / Crossing t-ea ". o�— v needed on 1"lain _f Wayfinding — P signage �. Paved off-road — A section of trail begins Proposed Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Bi k.Lanes ;wetlands Metm Parcels Opportunity • Proposed FaCreek Trail ,.... . Railroad Floodplain T-,ard Parcels Constraint Im EAi Eng Trai Ls hf Schools Parks a Existing Feature o0 Feet Fanrno C eek en, Court Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 24 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail - 107th Court to 115th Avenue 2 Summary This existing segment is an 8-foot paved asphalt trail d" suitable for pedestrian, cyclists, and individuals with disabilities. In several areas the asphalt is degraded and in need of repair to improve safety and accessibility. Other improvements include wayfinding, mileage markers, and safety improvements. An additional trail entrance and direct link to the southern "Y" of the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail could be constructed through a wooded City-owned parcel (2A) or on-street improvements could be implemented between existing access points (2B). Figure 7 shows the potential alignments for this segment of the Pathfinder-Genesis Bollard marking the entrance to the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Trail. Fellowpaintindicates asphalt in need ofrepair. Opportunities • Improve user experience and safety on an existing community trail(all) • Enhance accessibility and connections to neighborhood trails and residential and recreational uses(all) Constraints • Close proximity to two private properties(A) • Requires new stream crossing(A) Pathfinder-Genesis is an 8-foot asphalt trail through this segment. «1" Crosswalk treatment connecting the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail across 1151h Avenue. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 25 Cost Option Length • Spot treatments • Spot treatments • Alignment 2A—205 feet • Alignment 2B—205 feet High Design Option:Alignment 2A • Design:8' asphalt patching,widen to 12',signage, lighting • Planning-level cost:$24,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment 2A • Design:8' asphalt patching,widen to 10',signage • Planning-level cost:$12,000 Low Design Option:Alignment 2B • Design:pavement markings,signage • Planning-level cost:$1,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 26 Figure 7 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail - 107th Court to Gaarde Street BERRY DELL -- JAMES 1_ Crosswalk and - r('��26 �_ 1 �. way finding at end of paved segment �. 2A Retaining wall Existing sidewalks i_ �._� leaves little space , r MARION connect two trail — - for trail, no f - I sidewalk ramp on segments i j'�' � ;� _ I 115th I \_{ R . 5y - -a L -� Potential to widen �,� + r 1r z +r £ i and even soft surface I Multiple stream 1 crosslllgs F•Alk}fA "f -- _ IRAA N -- — Existing boardwalk 1 �j through marsh area .WHISTLERS L - FAIRHAVE}J gar-row corridor between properties r_ has little space for - ��`V EW UNT' a trail — Potential to improve - �- steep trail entrance - l �$ GAA RDE Potential crossinglyl OTHT' CHWSTIA . t improvements J. 1 SNOOL - ! ■ Proposed P.thftde-Genesis Trad parks weaands wnetrn Parcek Opportunity - - x • Existing T R, o,_,s Floodplain Tgard Parcels Comtraint - a ti0 ]VG pathfnder-Genesis Trail- gike Lanes E%ist[11g Feature 0 Feet kp71h Cour[to Gaarde Street Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 27 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail - 115th Avenue to Gaarde Street 3 Summary ] This segment is an existing 2-4 foot gravel nature trail within a reenwa corridor. The trail is backed b g Y Y private residences and most entrances are located in narrow gaps between buildings. The existing trail 4 ` crosses the stream four times and several areas require boardwalks. In some areas erosion, steep slopes, and retaining walls cut into the trail, limiting accessibility and causing safety concerns. The 118th Court trail entrance has a 7 percent grade and could benefit from installation of several shallow steps or terraces. Two alignment options to connect the 118th Court trail entrance to Gaarde Street are to follow the creek south pathfinder-Genesis is a gravel,2-4 foot nature trail west of (3A) or provide an on-street connection (3B). Figure 7 1151h Avenue. shows the potential alignments for this segment of the Pathfinder-Genesis Trail. Opportunities • Improve user experience and safety on an existing community trail(all) • Improve trail accessibility for cyclists and ADA (B) • Link to bike lanes on Gaarde(all) `— Constraints • Close proximity to multiple private properties Multiple bridges and boardwalks are necessary to cross the (400 feet of Alignment A travels through four stream and wetlands. privately-owned residential parcels)(A) • Neighborhood desire to keep trail unpaved • Design required to address steep slopes,bridges, . ". and boardwalk areas(A) Trail entrances are located in narrowgaps between private residences. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 28 Cost Option Length • 1,982'(existing 115th to 118th) • 505' (Alignment A) • 327' (Alignment B) High Design Option:Alignment 3A • Design:8'permeable asphalt,lighting, acquisition,permitting • Planning-level cost:$226,00 Medium Design Option:Alignment 3A • Design:8' gravel, acquisition,permitting • Planning-level cost:$165,000 Low Design Option:Alignment 3B • Design:pavement markings,signage • Planning-level cost:$1,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 29 Washington Square Loop Trail Feasibility The Washington Square Loop Trail is a proposed regional trail that will connect the Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard to planned trails in Portland and Beaverton. The trail will connect to the Fanno Creek Trail near North Dakota Street and extend northeast along Ash Creek, providing a bicycle/pedestrian link over Highway 217 and linking Washington Square, Metzger Park, and Tigard city limits. The trail is currently in the planning stage. The following subsections consider the feasibility of this trail and potential short-term on-street options. Three segments of the proposed Washington Square Loop Trail were analyzed: 1. Fanno Creek to Highway 217 2. Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard 3. Hall Boulevard to 61s'Avenue Evaluation Significant barriers impact the feasibility of the Washington Square Loop Trail, particularly environmental constraints, private properties, and high costs related to developing a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 217. However, the proposed trail would provide a needed east/west connection in Tigard; connect several parks, neighborhoods, and trails; and provide recreation and transportation benefits. Washington Square Loop is also a regionally significant connection included in Metro's Greenway Trails Plan. Figure 8 shows the trail segments that were analyzed and potential alignments for the proposed Washington Square Loop Trail. Table 4 shows the analysis of the alignments. Table 4. Washington Square Loop Trail Evaluation of Alignments Fanno Creek to Highway 217 to Hall Hall Boulevard to Highway 217 Boulevard 61St Avenue Criteria A B A B A B Connectivity (10 (10 0 (10 1 Safety and Security-Trail Users 0 O 0 1 0 1 User Experience 0 0 O • O Topographical Constraints 0 0 0 1 0 is Environmental Impacts O O is O • Cost O O 1 O 1 Right-of-Way O CO (J 0 O 0 Based on this analysis, the project team recommends that the City continue exploring the development of this trail, including on-street connections that could improve bicycle and pedestrian access and transportation options in this area over the short-term. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#:10622 December 20, 2010 Page 30 Figure 8 Washington Square Loop Trail J6 Ir' IL ,. I Xeigi�barhood streaini a 'ref restoration in�rograss ' �` -- ,_' _�� � � R���,a��ara�iwa�hsll - I .�'' � '-{ � "+:. .il�•" A. �" -- ---- Connects to ListLe space +► trail in by @tzger Park ? _' Potential to i -# b stwow creek t i •,.. 4 improve bineprivate property i `* M } larties crossing Hwy Z 17 -, `'�a�. �, '� r � _ _p '; 'h+l��t;,_"R .''�• �_, r I � �i � r. Love traffic roads ` 1 � - sok .��__ • L; .-- ; *: ,i} i provide potential L Odi-Strut options .,f t i S needed& irA2Flu 4 + f"'' F e I r ;-■ - - s '- ' I ! � * �*��asf�a���aaaa�■ fR d Connection to # Z. t" `.. all v #se anes Corridor B k �� ,� .' iR�yuirt3s 1 r H 6ri .'k d bil '�� µ�' Y *4 ��. I � I -- --- — ---�— • �'—'--- r+l • -• Ovor 17 _ I _ _ Crock x�I�IA �} _-. € �' � UJ. r Crook corridor Crossing undQr widens 1 + a �; A I€ railroad bridge € _ + IIr T- 1mv iLt7nftEsCt10f5 t� 3 1, * .* Ir f ?� �! trrr. }' ? ,r1M t tr 1' itL I *' Fanno Creek trail r' n r ,# rF:�. _ aa.,k. 7.1 db Iry + 's . # ..f 7'+- ,1 L-. S 4 + y I • r k• �1—' f .' At �J•/M"•'�+wt 1110101 Potent€al Ala s-ti ngton Loop AligrrmentRailroad wet€ands Metro Parcels Opportuntty � r • * g Exiskin Trails Schools Floodplain Tigard Parcels Constraint f Bike Lanes Parks C Tigard City Boundary Existing Feature U 47052C- SquareWashington Square Loop Trail Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 31 Washington Square Loop Trail - Fanno Creek to Highway 217 1 Summary The two options for this segment are to follow the creek AL along the entire corridor(Alignment 1A)or to follow the creek to Greenburg Street and provide an on-street connection to Highway 217 (Alignment 1B). The majority of Alignment A is in a wetland. Several commercial properties are also directly adjacent to the creek along this alignment. The on-street Alignment B would make use of existing sidewalks and bike lanes on Greenburg. Improvements would include additional signage, pavement markings, and safety improvements. Both alignments would cross the creek multiple times, There is clearance for a trail togo under the existing railroad require boardwalks in some areas, and require crossing bridge. improvements at Greenburg Street. Figure 8 shows the potential alignments for this segment of the trail. .'. Opportunities • Connects an existing trail to an existing bicycle route(B) • Completes a link in a planned regional trail(all) Constraints • Majority of trail length travels through wetlands (A) • Close proximity to multiple private commercial Greenburg is high traffic and would need crossing properties(A and B) improvements • Less pleasant user experience(B) Wetlands north of Greenburg. would require boardwalk and blackberry clearance. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 32 Cost Option Length: • Alignment A:2,810' (1,780'in wetlands,2,087'in six privately-owned parcels) • Alignment B:2,740' (1,735' on-street;405'in wetlands, 1,005'in four privately-owned parcels) High Design Option:Alignment A • Design: 12'permeable asphalt/boardwalk,2 precast concrete bridges,undercrossing, crosswalk and signage,acquisition,permitting • Planning-level cost:$3,856,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment A • Design:8' asphaltiboardwalk,2 wooden bridges, undercrossing, crosswalk and signage, acquisition,permitting • Planning-level cost:$1,960,000 Low Design Option:Alignment B • Design:8' asphalt/boardwalk,2 wooden bridges, undercrossing,bike lanes, signs • Planning-level cost:$772,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 33 Washington Square Loop Trail - Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard 2 A Summary The two options for this segment are to develop a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 217 and continue to follow the creek (Alignment 2A) or to continue the on-street connection on Greenburg and Oak Street(Alignment 2B). Similar to Alignment 1A, the majority of Alignment 2A is in a wetland. Figure 8 shows potential alignments for this segment of the trail. Opportunities • Provides a direct connection to Washington Creek bed widens and clears near Highway 217 Square(B) • Connects to an existing bicycle route(all) • Low volume street potential short-term alternative as bicycle boulevard(B) • Completes a link in a planned regional trail(all) Constraints • Majority of length through wetland(A) • Less pleasant user experience(B) • High cost of bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 217(A) • Passes through eight privately-owned residential and undeveloped parcels(A) Crossing 217near the stream would require a pedestrian bridge. Existing bike lanes on Greenburg over Highway 217. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 34 Cost Option Length • Alignment A:2,254 (1,725'in wetlands;2100'in private residential land) • Alignment B:2,946' (1,520'of sidewalk missing on the north side of Oak and 2,150'between 95th and Hall on the south side of Oak). High Design Option:Alignment A • Design:bicycle/pedestrian bridge, 12'permeable asphalt/boardwalk, acquisition,permitting • Planning-level cost:$5,249,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment A • Design:bicycle/pedestrian bridge(approximately 250'),8' asphalt/boardwalk,acquisition, permitting • Planning-level cost:$4,195,000 Low Design Option:Alignment B • Design: shared lane markings, signs, sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$666,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 35 Washington Square Loop Trail - Hall Boulevard to 61St Avenue 3 Summary The two options for this segment are to follow the creek to the eastern Tigard city boundary (Alignment A) or to provide an on-street connection to Metzger Park (Alignment B). Alignment A passes through several wetlands north and east of Metzger Park. Multiple properties are also directly adjacent to the water on both sides of the creek. The on-street Alignment B would make use of low traffic residential streets where there are currently inconsistent sidewalks. Improvements would include wayfinding, bicycle boulevard treatments (e.g., bicycle wayfinding, shared lane pavement markings, etc.), and sidewalks. Figure 8 shows the potential alignments for this segment of the Bollards at the entrance to Metzger Park trail. trail. Opportunities • Connects to an existing bicycle route(all) • Low volume street potential short-term — alternative as bicycle boulevard (B) • Completes a link in a planned regional trail(all) - . Constraints • Majority of length through wetland and floodplain(A) M Close proximity to multiple private properties ultipleriate er pvpropties directly abut the creek in this • segment. (6,733 feet of Alignment A travel through 49 non- City owned residential properties)(A) • Outside of city limits (A) • Less pleasant user experience(B) • Conflicts with local creek restoration efforts (A) �. • No existing sidewalks for most of length(B) ,i Low traffic streets can offer a short-term on-street option. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 36 Cost Option Length • Alignment A:8,838' (1,630'in wetlands) • Alignment B:3,398' High Design Option:Alignment A • Design: 12'permeable asphalt/boardwalk, acquisition,permitting • Planning-level cost:$6,901,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment A • Design:8' asphaltiboardwalk, acquisition, permitting • Planning-level cost:$4,881,000 Low Design Option:Alignment B • Design: shared lane markings, signs, sidewalk • Planning-level cost:$1,325,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 37 Tigard Street Trail Feasibility The proposed Tigard Street Trail would follow an inactive railroad corridor extending from Tiedeman Avenue to Main Street. This former loop rail has been inactive for more than three years. Portland & Western Railroad (P&W) holds an exclusive freight easement over the corridor and the underlying land is owned by ODOT. City of Tigard staff has been actively working with ODOT Rail to obtain approval to improve this right-of-way as a trail for the past three years and progress is currently being made towards obtaining control of the corridor. In August 2010, a project event was held under the Pacific Highway viaduct that "brought together a wide variety of movers and shakers to demonstrate support for the project." At this event, the P&W President and General Manager and the ODOT Rail Administer, each agreed to help facilitate trail use within the former rail corridor. In October 2010, P&W filed an application with the federal Surface Transportation Board to formally abandon service within the loop segment. This request is expected to be granted by December 2010. Concurrent with the abandonment process, TriMet, at its own expense, removed the remaining railroad ties in the corridor and smoothed out any holes created by the removal. When the federal abandonment process is complete, ODOT will start the process to surplus the property; a process which ODOT expects will take no longer than 2 months. The City must have the property appraised by an approved appraiser before it can buy the property; there is no option to lease or obtain an easement. The method used to appraise rail right-of-way is called "across the fence", and is based on the contribution of the corridor to abutting properties. Although parks bond measure priorities have not yet been finalized, bond proceeds potentially could be used to finance the cost of acquiring the 4.2 acre corridor. No estimate is currently available for the cost of the property. The cost of a ten-foot wide concrete trail poured directly onto the existing ballast is estimated at $200,000. The cost of landscaping and other amenities is variable and depends on the design concept chosen. A land use permit is not required for the trail construction or related work. The following subsections consider the feasibility of this trail and future rail-with-trail opportunities. Three segments of the Tigard Street Trail corridor were analyzed to address the following questions: 1. Fanno Creek to Tiedeman Avenue- Can the rail trail provide more convenient and direct bike/ped access to Fanno Creek Trail and other destinations? 2. Tiedeman Avenue to Tigard Transit Center - Are there any fatal flaws affecting the feasibility of this trail segment? Evaluation The Tigard Street Trail is a prime opportunity for the City of Tigard to increase trail connectivity and accessibility to key downtown destinations. If constructed, the Tigard Street Trail would provide connections to the Fanno Creek Trail, neighborhoods, downtown businesses, and the Tigard Transit Center. The proposed Tigard Street Trail would also extend the existing shared use Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 38 path between Tigard Transit Center and Hall Boulevard. Overall, the project's readiness and uniqueness as a gateway to the downtown and the WES station will make it a very competitive project in terms of grant funding Major challenges related to developing the trail are establishing the appropriate connection to Fanno Creek Trail and crossing treatments on Main Street near the Tigard Transit Center. ODOT Rail will not allow a pedestrian crossing any closer to the WES tracks than the existing crossing on Tigard Street due to concerns that a crossing closer to the tracks may result in vehicles stopping on the tracks while waiting for bicyclists or pedestrians to cross. To address this concern ODOT has requested that a fence, or some other form of effective barrier, be placed along Main Street to prevent crossing any closer than the present crosswalk. ODOT has had no objection to improving the area next to the Chamber of Commerce as part of the trail development, as long as pedestrians and bicyclists are physically redirected to the existing Tigard Street crosswalk. Figure 9 shows the trail segments that were analyzed and potential alignments for the proposed Tigard Street Trail. Table 5 shows the analysis of the alignments. Based on this analysis, the project team recommends that the City continue pursuing the development of this trail. Table 5. Tigard Street Trail Evaluation of Alignments Fanno Creek to Tiedeman Avenue Tiedeman Avenue to Tigard TC Criteria A B Connectivity (3 Safety and Security—Trail Users (3 1 User Experience O 1 Topographical Constraints 4 Environmental Impacts Cost Right-of-Way O Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 39 Figure 9 Tigard Street Trail 1• i Narrow bridge does - ��- �.. vw not accomodate y� dikes I pedestrians ] I"1 Y �.Y f i T, -'` Connection to z _ �?�@!. �� '�{ . sY{ i�` j. Fanno Creek Trail y Narrow railroad corridor' `' � 'I .' y y, g h Crossing treatments need +e Corridor used for informal parking '•Y.�'. - eel+ Existing pedestrian Potential for 12-16' bridge shared use trail Connection to Summer I Creek Trail extension Fence at 991'J bridge ' �11 Existing crosswalk and pedestrian J Woodard t � Park signage �+ 14 T a Existing crosswalks F 4 4 J�N + connect to r Existing use / .;a►e . transit near rail lea ` 1 �• * `�. station little roam f i w��� •t�- 1 � 7�;� � : ,� �\'��..� tidy i' - ;_> f .� •� t'l, `*, ,Y Connection to �'+ i r .� �r "ti*'• Hall bike lanes F R �!` r.. .!r• �. 101 Proposed Tigard Sheet Trail meting nailsortun3 - _ r Tigard T.-RC—W 77 SPP tY Proposed Pa7rTinder�enesisF i Bike Lanes Constraint 11101 Proposed Fanno Creek Trac d-i-i-i-F+ Railroad Sc;hwls a 34Q 6ac' CD Existing Feature 0 Feet Tigard street Trail Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 40 Tigard Street Trail - Fanno Creek to Tiedeman Avenue 1 Summary The two options for this segment are to follow the rail corridor to North Dakota Street and provide an on-street connection to the North Dakota Fanno Creek Trail entrance (Alignment A) or to diverge from the rail corridor south of Tiedeman Avenue and provide a sidepath connection to the Tigard Street Fanno Creek entrance (Alignment B). Alignment A would make use of the full length of the inactive rail corridor,but would require coordination with the railroad to obtain additional easements, coordination with local businesses that currently use the northern segment of AhgnmentA would require crossing treatment and additional railroad easements from Tiedeman to North Dakota. the corridor for parking, and crossing and pedestrian improvements on Tiedeman Avenue and North Dakota Street. The North Dakota Street bridge currently has no ` shoulder or accommodations for cyclists or pedestrians. High vehicle volumes (approximately 4,300 per day) and low visibility over hills on North Dakota Street near the Fanno Creek Trail entrance create additional safety concerns. Alignment B would make use of existing sidewalks and a bicycle/pedestrian bridge on Tigard Street to connect to the Fanno Creek Trail and a proposed extension of the Summer Creek Trail. Improvements would include a sidepath on Tigard Street. Figure 9 shows the potential alignments for this Alignment B would utilize an existing bicycle/pedestrian segment of the Tigard Street Trail. bridge on Tigard Street. Opportunities • Connects to Fanno Creek Park(all) • Connects to proposed Summer Creek Park expansion(B) • Connects to an existing bike/pedestrian bridge(B) • Utilize full length of inactive rail corridor(A) Constraints • Proximity to multiple businesses, some using corridor for informal parking(A) The North Dakota Fanno Creek crossing is narrow,with no • Requires additional rail corridor easements(A) existing bicycle/pedestrian features. • Requires travel on high-traffic streets without adequate existing bicycle pedestrian facilities(A) Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 41 Cost Option Length • Alignment A: 1,665' (480' on-street) • Alignment B:933'(850'on-street;686'new sidewalk) High Design Option:Alignment A • Design: 10'asphalt/bike lanes,precast concrete bridge,crosswalk and signage,fencing • Planning-level cost:$278,000 Medium Design Option:Alignment B • Design: 10' asphalt side path, sidewalk, crosswalk and signage,lane markings • Planning-level cost:$255,000 Low Design Option:Alignment B • Design:8' asphalt side path, sidewalk, crosswalk and signage • Planning-level cost:$230,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 42 Tigard Street Trail - Tiedeman Avenue to Tigard Transit Center 2 Summary This segment follows the inactive rail corridor along Tigard Street from Tiedeman Avenue to Main Street. These streets currently have no sidewalks or pedestrian amenities. The corridor is currently a 16-foot gravel path that could be developed to accommodate a variety of mixed use trail sections, depending on projected usage. The corridor may extend under the Highway 99W bridge to provide an entryway plaza treatment along Main,however, due to safety concerns trail users will be diverted to an existing crossing of Main Street at Tigard 16-footgravel inactive rail corridor between Tiedeman Avenue Street to access the Tigard Transit Center. Figure 9 and Main Street shows the potential alignments for this segment of the Tigard Street Trail. Opportunities • Connects to a regional transit center • Provides pedestrian amenities in a corridor with no sidewalks • Wide right-of-way can accommodate multiple users and regional trail guidelines Constraints • Minor out of direction travel required to cross The existinggravel corridor ends at a fence below 99W Users Main Street will be diverted to Tigard Street to cross Main Street. • ODOT approval required to use corridor as a trail ` Existing Main Street crossing to the Tigard Transit Center. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 43 Cost Option Length:2,363' High Design Option: • Design: 16'permeable asphalt with separated bicycle/pedestrian lanes,crosswalk and signage • Planning-level cost:$689,000 Medium Design Option: • Design: 12'asphalt with pavement markings, crosswalk and signage • Planning-level cost:$515,000 Low Design Option: • Design:8'asphalt with 4'bark chip running path, signage • Planning-level cost:$268,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 44 Opportunities for Trail-With-Rail Projects This section considers specific implementation questions regarding opportunities for integrated trail-with-rail projects in Tigard. Each subsection presents a brief overview of the proposed trail or gap, as well as opportunities and constraints associated with completing the segment. The City of Tigard is aware of potential trail-with-rail opportunities between SW North Dakota Street and SW Tiedeman Avenue, SW Hall Boulevard and SW Bonita Road, and between SW Bonita Road and SW Durham Road. Additional trail-with-rail opportunities occur between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street and from SW Durham Road to the Tigard city limits. SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Tiedeman will be evaluated as a potential extension to the planned Tigard Street Trail. This section discusses trail-with-rail options that have not previously been discussed. Those options are: • SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Tiedeman Avenue • SW Hall Boulevard to SW Bonita Road Evaluation Criteria This analysis considers constraints unique to trail-with-rail projects, including the presence of an active rail line and available right-of-way to locate a greenway trail. The analysis then considers constraints common to other greenways, connectivity, safety and security, and user experience. Please refer to the Task 3 Special Issues memo for a more complete description of each of these constraints. None of the alignments considered in this analysis meet minimum setback requirements within the available right-of-way. The minimum setback (the distance between the paved edge of the rail-with-trail and the centerline of the closest active railroad) is between 10' to 50', depending on frequency and speed of the trains, fencing, and other considerations.6 The proposed trail-with-rail alignment from SW Bonita Road to SW Durham Road is not considered a viable option because of lack of right-of-way following the installation of track for the Westside Express Service (WES). Alternatives to a trail-with-rail project between SW Bonita Road and SW Durham Road were evaluated and addressed in the Task 3 Special Issues memo. The connection from SW Durham Road to the Tigard city limit at the southern terminus of SW 851"Avenue was also evaluated and addressed in the Task 3 Special Issues memo The proposed trail-with-rail alignment from SW North Dakota Street to Scholls Ferry Road is also not considered viable because of lack of right-of-way and lack of a northern connection to the Fanno Creek Trail. An alternative connection between the planned Tigard Street Trail and the Fanno Creek Trail is evaluated as alignment 1B in the Tigard Street Trail section of this report. G U.S.Department of Transportation.(2002).bails-with-Trails:Lessons Learned.htM://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/rwt/ Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 45 Figure 10 shows the trail segments that were analyzed and potential alignments for trail-with-rail opportunities. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 46 Figure 10 Trail-with-Rail Opportunities CA Hall to Bonita yl WI • id _ F �'. ( All 'x .� �Y —J �—r .. 4 • - .'�"_4ri L` mss: , '�tiTM "� ` r i I (+ r I Scholls Ferry to Tedemarr '• ■r�., — ' f • � ". iR` T -� I �M1t� I +�- `{.�. ` •��1,�•� R_'�� i'�• { �1/}' I f R TSH-+–FN—" \ Q -'T—lllll t.�c .izll 1. 1llls irI t I �I # + i F --'J Potential Trail-With-Rail Alignment Tand City Boundary Existing Trails••••••• Potential Rail-to-Trail � ) Opportunity Tigard Greenway Trails Plan - •- Proposed Fanno Creek Greenway Railroad Bike Lanes Constraint o Sm 1,600 Potentia€Trail-with-Rai€ 0 Feet Alternatives Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#. 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 47 Scholls Ferry Road to Tiedeman Avenue Summary This alignment is located west of an active rail line between Scholls Ferry Road and Tiedeman Avenue. South of Tiedeman Avenue an abandoned rail corridor connects to a Westside Express Service (WES) commuter park and ride. Bus service is available on Scholls Ferry Road and Tiedeman Avenue. Scholls Ferry Road and Tiedman Avenue are bike routes. The Fanno Creek Trail is less than 2,000 feet west of this alignment, providing a high-quality alternative route. Surrounding land uses are mostly commercial and business.Figure 10 shows the potential alignment for this trail. Opportunities • Abandoned rail track east of Tigard Street is being evaluated as a potential rail-to-trail project. o Direct connection between WES park and ride and Scholls Ferry Road Constraints • No existing trail-with-rail connection north of Scholls Ferry Road • Insufficient setback distance between tracks and existing buildings between North Dakota Street and Tiedeman Avenue • Improved crossings needed at SW North Dakota Street and Tiedeman Avenue • Trail in floodplain;1,000'north of SW North Dakota Street Cost Opinion Length:4,200' High Design Option: • Design: 12'permeable asphalt trail,lighting,signage,centerline,permitting • Planning-Level Cost:$1,176,000 Medium Design Option: • Design: 10'asphalt trail,signage,permitting • Planning-Level Cost:$529,000 Low Design Option: • Design:8'asphalt trail,signage,permitting • Planning-Level Cost: $423,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 48 Ha// Boulevard to Bonita Road 1 Summary This alignment is located west of an active rail line - between Hall Boulevard and Bonita Road. North of Hall Boulevard a multi-use pathway along the rail corridor connects to a Westside Express Service(WES) commuter park and ride.Bus service is available on Hall Boulevard and east along Bonita Road on SW 72nd Street. Hall Boulevard and Bonita Road have striped bike lanes, although they have relatively high motor vehicle speeds and volumes that are uncomfortable for some cyclists. The properties just south of Hall Boulevard have an access road adjacent to the railroad corridor, in a similar Narrow corridor between railroad and businesses south of location to where the trail was provided accessing the Hall Boulevard. WES station. An easement along the road would provide trail access. Along the Fields Property, the railroad corridor includes many tracks, and space is not available within the corridor for a trail. A potential easement could continue the trail within the private property. East of Milton Court, existing buildings are a fatal flaw to trail construction. However, the trail could connect to a potential extension of the Fanno Creek Trail in the Metro-owned Brown Property. Figure 10 shows the potential alignment for this trail. -- Opportunities Existing rail-with-trail path and signage between Main Street • Direct connection between WES park and ride and Hall Boulevard. and Hall Boulevard • Potential connection to Fanno Creek Trail and bike lanes on Hall Boulevard and Bonita Road Constraints • Trail-with-rail opportunity eliminated south of Bonita Road with construction of WES • Insufficient setback distance between tracks and \. existing buildings east of Milton Court • Improved crossing needed at Bonita Road and Hall Boulevard • Easement required along length of segment Bollards at entrance to rail-with-trail from Transit Center parking lot to Hall Boulevard. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 49 Cost Opinion Length:5,600' High Design Option: • Design: 12'permeable asphalt trail,lighting, signage, centerline, crosswalk,permitting, acquisition • Planning-Level Cost:$1,347,000 Medium Design Option: • Design: 10' asphalt trail,signage, crosswalk, permitting, acquisition • Planning-Level Cost:$785,000 Low Design Option: • Design:8' asphalt trail,signage, crosswalk, permitting,acquisition • Planning-Level Cost:$218,000 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 December 20, 2010 Page 50 Appendix A. Cost Estimates Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tualatin River Trail Feasibility Updated December 2010 1: Durham City Limits to 85th Avenue 2. 85th Avenue to 108th Avenue 3. 108th Avenue to Highway 99W High Medium Low High Medium Low High; 3B Medium, 3B Low, 3A Cost Unit 1,473 ft 1,473 ft 1,473 ft 470 ft 470 ft 470 ft 3,607 ft 3,607 ft 3,314 ft Surfacing Options 12' Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF $ $ $ 470 $ 49,350 $ - $ 3,607 $ 378,735 $ - $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ $ $ $ - 470 $ 28,200 $ $ - 3,607 $ 216,420 $ 8'Asphalt Trail $48.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ - 3,314 $ 159,072 8'Asphalt Patching $12.00 LF $ - $ - $ $ $ 470 $ 5,640 $ $ $ - Boardwalk (12') $384.00 LF 1,473 $ 565,632 1,473 $ 565,632 $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ Boardwalk (6) $192.00 LF $ - $ - 1,473 $ 282,816 $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - Additional Elements Riprap (parallel to stream) $99.90 LF $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ 3,607 $ 360,339 3,607 $ 360,339 3,314 $ 331,069 Wetland mitigation �ZU.50 LF 1,473 $ 386,663 1,473 $ 386,663 1,473 $ 386,663 $ $ $ $ $ $ Bridge (precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ 40 $ 49,000 $ - $ - Bridge (wood) $980.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 40 $ 39,200 40 $ 39,200 Underpass $90,000.00 LF $ - $ $ $ - $ $ 1 $ 90,000 1 $ 90,000 1 $ 90,000 Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA 2 $ 7,000 $ $ 2 $ 7,000 $ $ 1 $ 3,500 $ - $ - Fencing $25.00 LF 1,473 $ 36,825 $ $ $ - $ - $ 3,607 $ 90,175 $ - $ Mileage marker $250.00 EA 1 $ 279 $ - $ 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ 3 $ 683 3 $ 683 $ - Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 $ 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA 1 $ 250 $ - $ 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ - 1 $ 250 $ - $ - Informational kiosk $500.00 EA $ - $ $ 1 $ 500 $ - $ 1 $ 500 $ $ Trail centerline $1.56 LF 1,473 $ 2,298 $ $ $ - $ $ 3,607 $ 5,627 $ $ Direct Construction Costs $ 999,446 $ 952,795 $ 669,479 $ 57,850 $ 29,200 $ 6,140 $ 979,309 $ 707,142 $ 619,841 Multipliers Engineering/ Construction 20% $ 199,889 $ 190,559 $ 133,896 $ 11,570 $ 5,840 $ 1,228 $ 195,862 $ 141,428 $ 123,968 Mobilization 15% $ 149,917 $ 142,919 $ 100,422 $ 8,678 $ 4,380 $ 921 $ 146,896 $ 106,071 $ 92,976 A Et E Fees 20% $ 199,889 $ 190,559 $ 133,896 $ 11,570 $ 5,840 $ 1,228 $ 195,862 $ 141,428 $ 123,968 Contingency 40% $ 399,779 $ 381,118 $ 267,791 $ 23,140 $ 11,680 $ 2,456 $ 391,724 $ 282,857 $ 247,936 Cost Opinion for Construction 1,948,921 1,857,950 1,305,484 112,808 56,941 11,974 1,909,654 1,378,929 1,208,690 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $146,169 $139,346 $97,911 $8,461 $4,271 $143,224 $103,420 $90,652 Right-of-way acquisition Residential $6.00 SF $0 $0 $01 1 800 $4,800 700 $4,200 $0 50,176 $301,056 43,904 $263,424 29,600 $177,600 Cost Opinion 2,095,090 1,997,296 1,403,395 126,069 65,412 11,974 2,353,934 1,745,772 1,476,942 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Feasibility Updated December 2010 F 1.Fanno Creek to 107th Court 2.107th Court to Gaarde Street 3.115th Avenue to Gaarde Street High, 1A Medium, I Low, 1C High,2A Medium,2A Low,2B High,3A Medium,3A Low,3B Cost Unit 1,783 ft 1,609 ft 1,464 ft 205 ft 205 ft 205 ft 505 ft 505 ft 327 ft Surfacing Options 12'Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF 1,363 $ 143,115 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ - 1,289 $ 77,340 $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 8'Permeable Asphalt Trail $70.00 LF $ $ - $ $ $ $ 505 $ 35,350 $ $ 8'Asphalt Patching $17.50 LF 205 $ 3,588 205 $ 3,588 $ Asphalt widening $6.00 SF 820 $ 4,920 410 $ 2,460 $ 8'Gravel Trail $24.00 LF $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - 505 $ 12,120 $ Boardwalk(12') $384.00 LF 420 $ 161,280 320 $ 122,880 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ Pavement marking $60.00 EA $ - $ - 6 $ 351 $ $ 2 $ 123 $ $ - 2 $ 120 Additional Elements Riprap(parallel to stream) $99.90 LF 420 $ 41,958 320 $ 31,968 $ - $ $ $ 505 $ 50,450 505 $ 50,450 $ - Wetland mitigation }262.50 U 420 $ 110,250 320 $ 84,000 Intersection Improvements Curb ramp $1,000.00 EA 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bollard $550.00 EA 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ High-visibility crosswalk $7,465.00 EA 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ $ $ $ $ $ Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA 2 $ 7,000 $ - $ - 1 $ 3,500 $ $ 1 $ 3,500 $ $ Fencing $25.00 LF 1,783 $ 44,575 $ $ $ - $ $ $ - $ $ Mileage marker $250.00 EA 1 $ 338 $ $ $ - $ $ $ - $ $ Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA 1 $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - Trail centerline $1.56 LF 1,783 $ 2,781 $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ Direct Construction Costs $ 522,612 $ 327,253 $ 8,316 $ 12,258 $ 6,298 $ 373 $ 89,550 $ 62,820 S 370 Multipliers Engineering/ Construction 20% $ 104,522 $ 65,451 $ 1,663 $ 2,452 $ 1,260 $ 75 $ 17,910 $ 12,564 $ 74 Mobilization 15% $ 78,392 $ 49,088 $ 1,247 $ 1,839 $ 945 $ 56 $ 13,432 $ 9,423 $ 56 A 8 E Fees 20% $ 104,522 $ 65,451 $ 1,663 $ 2,452 $ 1,260 $ 75 $ 17,910 $ 12,564 $ 74 Contingency 40% $ 209,045 $ 130,901 1 $ 3,327 $ 4,903 $ 2,519 $ 149 $ 35,820 $ 25,128 $ 148 Cost Opinion for Construction 019,095 23,903 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $76,432 $47,861 $0 $0 $13,097 $9,187 $54 Right-of-way acquisition Residential $6.00 SF 17,200 $103,200 7,490 $44,940 $0 $0 $0 $0 6,400 $38,400 5,600 $33,600 $0 Cost Opinion111111111111F- 1,198,727 730,945 17 16,218 23,903 12,281 728 165,286 '77 Washington Square Loop Trail Feasibility Updated December 2010 1:Fanno Creek to Highway 217 2.Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard 3.Hall Boulevard to 61st Avenue High,1A Medium, 1A Low, 1B High,2A Medium,2A Low,2B High;3A Medium,3A Low,3B Cost Unit 2,810 ft 2,810 ft 2,740 ft 2,254 ft 2,254 ft 2,946 ft 8,838 ft 8,838 ft 3,398 ft Surfacing Options 12'Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF 1,030 $ 108,150 5 $ 529 5 55,545 $ $ 7,208 S 756,840 $ - $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ 5 $ 5 529 $ 31,740 $ $ 7,208 $ 432,480 $ 8'Asphalt Trail $48.00 LF $ 1,030 5 49,440 600 S 28,800 5 $ - S S S 5 Boardwalk(12') $384.00 LF 1,780 5 683,520 5 - $ - 1,725 5 662,400 $ - $ - 1,630 $ 625,920 Boardwalk(6') $192.00 LF $ 1,780 5 341,760 405 $ 77,760 5 - 1,725 $ 331,200 $ - $ - 1,630 $ 312,960 5 Pavement marking $60.00 EA $ 5 S 5 S 12 S 707 $ $ - 14 5 816 Bike Lane $2.26 LF $ 5 1,735 S 3,921 5 S S Sidewalk $92.78 LF $ 5 S S S 3,670 S 340,504 S S 6,796 $ 630,535 Additional Elements Riprap(parallel to stream) $99.96 LF 2,810 $ 280,719 2,810 $ 280,719 $ - 2,254 $ 225,175 2,254 $ 225,175 $ 8,838 $ 882,916 8,838 $ 882,916 $ Wetiand mitigation y262.5U LF 1,780 $ 467,250 0 - 405 $ 106,313 1,725 $ 452,813 1,725 $ 452,813 $ 1,630 $ 427,875 1,630 $ 427,875 $ Bridge over Highway 217 $250.00 SF 4,000 $ 1,000,000 3,500 $ 875,000 Bridge(precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF so $ 98,000 $ - $ - 5 S 40 $ 49,000 S Bridge(wood) $980.00 LF S 80 $ 78,400 $ - 5 S $ - S Underpass $90,000.00 EA 1 $ 90,000 1 $ 90,000 1 $ 90,000 5 S $ S S Intersection Improvements Curb ramp 1,000.00 EA z $ 2,000 z S 2,000 1 $ 1,000 S $ $ S S Bollard $550.00 EA 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 1 $ 550 $ S $ S S $ High-visibility crosswalk $7,465.00 EA 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 S S 5 S S 5 Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA 5 5 - 5 - 2 5 7,000 S 5 - 1 S 3,500 $ 5 Fencing $25.00 LF 5 5 - 5 5 - S - 5 - 8,838 S 220,950 $ 5 Mileage marker $250.00 EA 2 5 532 5 5 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 5 7 $ 1,674 7 5 1,674 5 Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 5 500 2 5 500 5 2 5 500 2 $ 500 2 5 500 2 $ 500 2 5 500 2 5 500 Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA 1 $ 250 5 5 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 5 1 S 250 $ 5 Informational kiosk $500.00 EA $ 5 5 1 $ 500 S 5 1 S 500 $ 5 Trail centerline $1.56 LF 2,810 $ 4,384 5 $ 2,254 $ 3,516 $ - $ - 8,838 $ 13,787 $ - $ - Direct Construction Costs $ 1,743,870 $ 851,384 $ 315,809 $ 2,407,948 $ 1,916,927 $ 341,711 $ 2,983,712 $ 2,058,405 $ 631,850 Multipliers nineenng/Construction , Mobilization 15% $ 261,580 $ 127,708 $ 47,371 $ 361,192 $ 287,539 $ 51,257 $ 447,557 $ 308,761 $ 94,778 A it E Fees 20% $ 348,774 $ 170,277 5 63,162 $ 481,590 $ 383,385 $ 68,342 $ 596,742 $ 411,681 5 126,370 Contingency 40% $ 697,548 S 340,554 $ 126,323 $ 963,179 $ 766,771 $ 136,684 $ 1,193,485 $ 823,362 $ 252,740 Cost Opinion for Construction $ 3,400,547 $ 1,660,200 1$ 615,828 $ 4,695,500 1$ 3,738,009 $ 666,337 $ 5,818,240 1$ 4,013,891 $ 1,232,109 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $255,041 $124,515 $46,187 $352,163 $280,351 $436,368 $301,042 $92,408 Right-of-way acquisition Residential $6.00 SF 33,392 $200,352 29,218 $175,308 10,050 $60,300 33,600 $201,600 z9,400 $176,400 $0 107,728 $646,368 94,262 $565,572 $0 Cost Opinion 3,855,940 1,960,023 722,315 5,249,263 4,194,759 666,337 6,900,976 4,880,505 1,324,518 Tigard Street Trail Feasibility Updated December 2010 1.Fanno Creek to Tiedeman Avenue F 2. Tiedeman Avenue to Tigard Transit Center High Medium Low High Medium Low Cost Unit 1,665 ft 933 ft 933 ft 2,363 ft 2,363 ft 2,363 ft Surfacing Options 16' Permeable Asphalt Trail $140.00 LF $ $ $ 2,363 $ 330,820 $ $ 12' Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF $ $ $ $ - 2,363 $ 248,115 $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ 933 $ 55,980 $ $ $ $ 8'Asphalt Trail $48.00 LF $ $ 933 $ 44,784 $ $ 2,363 $ 113,424 8'Concrete 11gard Street I rail (ZUU') $ZUU,000.UU EA 1 5 200,000 5 5 4' Bark Chip $10.00 LF $ $ $ $ $ 2,363 $ 23,630 Sidewalk $93.00 LF $ 686 $ 63,798 686 $ 63,798 $ $ $ Bike Lane Markings $2.26 LF $ $ $ - Additional Elements Bridge (precast concrete) $1,225.00 LF $ $ - $ - $ $ $ Intersection Improvements Curb ramp $1,000.00 EA $ 2 $ 2,000 1 $ 1,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 $ Bollard $550.00 EA $ 2 $ 1,100 1 $ 550 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 $ High-visibility crosswalk $7,465.00 EA $ 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 $ Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA $ $ $ 2 $ 7,000 $ - $ Mileage marker $250.00 EA $ $ $ 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ Directional sign $250.00 EA $ 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA $ $ $ 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ Informational kiosk $500.00 EA $ $ $ 1 $ 500 $ $ Trail centerline $1.56 LF $ $ $ 2,363 $ 3,686 2,363 $ 3,686 $ Direct Construction Costs $ 200,000 $ 130,843 $ 118,097 $ 353,571 $ 263,366 $ 137,554 Multipliers ngineering ons ruc ion o 40,000 26,169 23,619 70,714 52,673 27,511 Mobilization 15% $ 30,000 $ 19,626 $ 17,715 $ 53,036 $ 39,505 $ 20,633 A 8 E Fees 20% $ 40,000 $ 26,169 $ 23,619 $ 70,714 $ 52,673 $ 27,511 Contingency 40% $ 80,000 $ 52,337 $ 47,239 $ 141,429 $ 105,347 $ 55,022 Cost Opinion for Construction 390,001 255,145 1 230,290 689,465 1 513,565 1 268,231 Opportunities for Trail-with-Rail Projects Updated December 2010 Scholls Ferry Road to Tiedeman Avenue Hall Boulevard to Bonita Road High Medium Low High Medium Low Cost Unit 4,200 ft 4,200 ft 4,200 ft 5,600 ft 5,600 ft 5,600 ft Surfacing Options 12'Permeable Asphalt Trail $105.00 LF 4,200 $ 441,000 $ - $ 5,600 $ 588,000 $ - $ 10'Asphalt Trail $60.00 LF $ - 4,200 $ 252,000 $ $ - 5,600 $ 336,000 $ 8'Asphalt Trail $48.00 LF $ $ - 4,200 $ 201,600 $ $ - $ 8'Asphalt Patching $12.00 LF $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5,600 $ 67,200 Intersection Improvements Curb ramp $1,000.00 EA 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 $ 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 Bollard $550.00 EA 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 $ - 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 $ - High-visibility crosswalk $7,465.00 EA 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 1 $ 7,465 Amenities Lighting $3,500.00 EA 2 $ 7,000 $ - $ - 2 $ 7,000 $ - $ - Fencing $25.00 LF 4,200 $ 105,000 $ $ $ - $ - $ Mileage marker $250.00 EA 3 $ 795 $ $ - 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ Directional sign $250.00 EA 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 2 $ 500 Trail etiquette sign $250.00 EA 1 $ 250 $ - $ - 1 $ 250 1 $ 250 $ - Informational kiosk $500.00 EA $ - $ $ 1 $ 500 $ - $ Trail centerline $1.56 LF 4,200 $ 6,552 $ $ 5,600 $ 8,736 $ - $ Direct Construction Costs $ 571,662 $ 263,065 $ 209,565 $ 615,801 $ 347,565 $ 77,165 Multipliers Engineering/ Construction 20% $ 114,332 $ 52,613 $ 41,913 $ 123,160 $ 69,513 $ 15,433 Mobilization 15% $ 85,749 $ 39,460 $ 31,435 $ 92,370 $ 52,135 $ 11,575 A Et E Fees 20% $ 114,332 $ 52,613 $ 41,913 $ 123,160 $ 69,513 $ 15,433 Contingency 40% $ 228,665 $ 105,226 $ 83,826 $ 246,320 $ 139,026 $ 30,866 Cost Opinion for Construction 1,114,743 512,978 408,653 112007813 677,753 150,473 Permitting and ROW Permitting estimate 8% $83,606 $38,473 $30,649 $90,061 $50,831 $11,285 Right-of-way acquisition Commercial $10.00 SF $0 $0 $0 5,600 $56,000 5,600 $56,000 5,600 $56,000 Cost Opinion 1,198,348 5517451 439,302 1,346,874 784,584 217,758 Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Appendix C.Environmental Assessment APPENDIX C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLEASE NOTE: The documents contained in this appendix reflect the environmental assessment of initial trail alignments evaluated during development of the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan. These documents do not reflect the final alignments, analysis, recommendations, or cost estimates for greenway trail projects included in the final Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan. They are provided only as background documentation. Additional environmental assessment will be required as part of the planning, design, and construction process of any greenway trail. Environmental Report for the City of Tigard, Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Washington County, Oregon Prepared for: Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 610 SW Alder Street,Suite 700 Portland,Oregon 97205 and The City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 Prepared by: Mason,Bruce&Girard,Inc. 707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300 Portland,Oregon 97205 (503)224-3445 January 21,2011 MB&G Project No.010594 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................ 1 2.1 Tualatin River Trail.......................................................................................................1 2.2 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail...............................................................................................3 2.3 Fanno Creek Trail..........................................................................................................3 2.4 Tigard Street Trail.........................................................................................................5 2.5 Rail-with-Trail................................................................................................................5 2.6 Washington Square Loop Trail....................................................................................5 2.7 Summer Creek Trail......................................................................................................6 2.8 Krueger Creek Trail......................................................................................................7 3.0 METHODS............................................................................................................................ 7 4.0 RESULTS.............................................................................................................................. 9 5.0 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS...................................................................................... 12 6.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 14 7.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 16 TABLES Table 1. Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur within the Proposed Project......................9 Table 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the City of Tigard, Tigard Greenway Trail SystemMaster Plan.........................................................................................................10 FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location and Vicinity Map...........................................................................................2 APPENDICES Appendix A Detailed Segment and Alignment Discussion Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Tigard Greenway Trail System Plan for the City of Tigard is to coordinate the completion and upgrading of the mapped City of Tigard's (City) greenway trail system. This Plan is funded through the Oregon Department of Transportation's Transportation Growth Management (TGM) program. The Tigard greenway trail system includes portions of four regional trails and four City-identified trails. The Project's goal is to increase the number of people walking and biking in the City by providing pleasant, safe and uninterrupted trails for non-motorized modes of transportation. In order to construct and operate the proposed updated trail system, impacts to sensitive species, their habitat, and sensitive water resources are possible. The purpose of this report is to identify potential environmental impacts at an early planning stage to assist in the alignment analysis and selection process.No "fatal flaws"were uncovered during the analysis process for issues covered under this report. 2.0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION There are eight trails located throughout the City that are being evaluated through the TGM planning process including the following trails: Tualatin River Trail, Pathfinder-Genesis Trail, Fanno Creek Trail, Tigard Street Trail, Trail-with-Rail, Washington Square Loop Trail, Summer Creek Trail and Krueger Trail (Figure 1). Each of these trails has been divided into segments for ease of discussion and many of the segments have multiple alignment alternatives, hereafter referred to as alignments. The following paragraphs describe each trail, segment and potential alignments. A complete discussion of each trail along with detailed maps depicting segments and alignments is available in the Specific Issues Report: Summer Creek, Krueger Creek, and Fanno Creek Trail Gaps and Opportunities (Kittelson 2010a) and Specific Issues Report: Tualatin River, Pathfinder-Genesis, Washington Square Loop, and Tigard Street Trail Gaps and Opportunities (Kittelson 2010b). 2.1 Tualatin River Trail The Tualatin River Trail is an existing regional greenway trail consisting of a mixture of land and waterway trails. Extending the trail would provide additional connections to other regional trails and increase the trail's value as a transportation and recreational amenity through the City. There are three proposed segments to this trail that are described in detail below. Segment 1 (SW 85th Avenue to the Durham City Limits) would create a loop trail by connecting the existing SW 85th Avenue, Tualatin River and City of Durham Trails. Segment 1 has three total alignments, with two alignments (Alignments IA and 113) being the same as the proposed Alignments 4A and 4B in the Fanno Creek Trail system (Segment 4), as described in the Fanno Creek Trail section below. Alignment 1 C would create a new trail along the railroad and would utilize an existing trail railroad crossing. 1 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan ` SOPO '=____GL-JMBIA .. .t. . .++ AMOOK WASHINGTOI ' Portland WASHINGTON / y + WASHINGTON -, ULTN OMAH S _ -�-' ": •�. 141 YAMHI LL -- i•r" Y:• Ln'. _ . I' . - t ••CLACKAMAS 210 -• _i� .. MARION • Salem �a• 217 vJ se r"_ .% 99 S dL •-:. 1, *_Ni Highways City Limits y�ea Proposed Trails Fanno Creek r rSy:=,': -,• Krueger Trail ;jj _' "3••�'a'f w L'ake'Oswego Pathfinder-Genesis Trail C, Trail-with-Rail Durham Summer Creek Trail 141 } Tigard Street Trail � � Tualatin River Trail Washington Square Loop Trail Rivergrove • Proposed Trails Visited Source Aerial from NAIP,2009.Highways and City N Man do srom II,,. Proposed Trail,from—rib... dia Figure 1. �� Hil6hade from E9RI.Counties from ODOT.Wa[erbodies from US Census TIGER data base. Project Location and Vicinity Map This product is for information purposes and may not be Meters City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan suitable for legal, 0 400 800 1,600 gi engineering ii p ovided with purposes. This information or data is provided with the under- Miles Washington County,Oregon standing that conclusions drawn from such infor- 0 0.25 0.5 1 motion a re the responsibility of the user. Segment 2 (Tualatin River Trail —85th Avenue to 108th Avenue) would create improvements and upgrades to an existing trail from SW 85th Avenue to SW 108th Avenue. Segment 3 (Tualatin River Trail — 108th Avenue to Pacific Highway) would extend the existing trail from SW 108th Avenue to Pacific Highway. Segment three has two alignments: Alignment 3A would follow the Tualatin River, making improvements to an unofficial, unimproved existing trail (demand trail); Alignment 3B would continue a new trail from SW 108th Avenue through a City-owned parcel. 2.2 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Pathfinder-Genesis Trail is an existing community greenway trail that extends south from Walnut Street to SW 118th Avenue near SW Gaarde Street. Proposed segments of Pathfinder- Genesis would extend this trail north of Walnut Street via a creek corridor or an on-street route and connect to Fanno Creek Trail near Woodard City Park. A second proposed extension would make a short connection between the existing trail at SW 118th Street and Gaarde Street to the south. There are three segments to Pathfinder-Genesis Trail which are described in detail below. Segment 1 (Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Way) would travel from Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Way. There are three proposed alignments to this segment: Alignment IA would provide a new trail to follow Fanno Creek north of Walnut Street to Fanno Creek Trail; Alignment 1B would provide a mix of on-street and new streamside trail connections from Walnut Street to the Fanno Creek Trail; Alignment 1C would improve on-street access for pedestrians and bicyclists by creating bicycle boulevards and side paths on Brookside Avenue and Johnson Street. Segment 2 (Pathfinder Way to 115th Avenue (and Fairhaven Street) would improve the existing segment from SW 107th Court to SW 115th Avenue in addition to creating a new trail entrance to the southern portion of the trail. This portion of Segment 2 has two proposed alignments that address the new trail entrance: Alignment 2A would include a new trail constructed through a City-owned parcel; Alignment 2B would include improvements to the current on-street access points. Segment 3 (115th Avenue to Gaarde Street) would also improve an existing trail segment from SW 115th Avenue to Gaarde Street with a new trail extension to connect the SW 118th Court trail entrance to Gaarde Street. This portion of Segment 3 has two proposed alignments that address the new trail entrance: Alignment 3A would provide a new trail following the creek south; Alignment 3B would provide an on-street connection. 2.3 Fanno Creek Trail Fanno Creek Trail is an existing regional greenway trail. The proposed extension to this trail would complete the length of the trail in Tigard and connect it to the existing Tualatin River Trail. There are 5 segments to this trail which are described in detail below. 3 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Segment I (Library/Fanno Creek Drive) has two proposed alignments: Alignment IA would make improvements to a current trail alignment; Alignment IB would provide an alternative to the current alignment by creating a new connection on the east side of Fanno Creek. Segment 2 (Brown Property) has four proposed alignments: Alignment 2A is the longest new trail alignment within this segment, crossing Fanno Creek near the library and traveling along the east side of the creek and the north side of the Brown property; Alignment 2B would consist of a new trail that would run along the north side of the Brown property on City and Metro land after breaking off from the existing trail; Alignment 2C would consist of a new trail that would connect at the south end of the existing trail segment along the south side of Fanno Creek; Alignment 2D would travel along Fanno Creek Drive as a bicycle boulevard from the end of the existing trail to Bonita Road. Segment 3 (Bonita/Durham Road) travels through an industrial district. This segment has five proposed alignments, with Alignments 3A and 3B having additional options. Alignment 3A is an on-street alignment along SW 74th Avenue; Option 3Ai includes a potential new trail segment within a Metro parcel which could include a viewing platform; Option 3Aii would be a new trail to provide a loop trail within parcels where development is limited due to wetlands and floodplains. Alignment 3B would consist of a new trail located on the east side of Fanno Creek along SW 74th Avenue which would connect to a streamside trail from SW 74th Avenue via a Metro-owned parcel; Option 313i would be a new trail loop from the Metro parcel to a parcel located in a floodplain/wetland area. Alignment 3C would consist of a new trail and would travel from the east side of Bonita Road, cross Fanno Creek, and continue along the west side of Fanno Creek. Alignment 3D would be a bicycle boulevard located along SW 79th Avenue. Alignment 3E is an alternative to Alignment 3A and would travel along SW 74th Avenue as a side path on the west side of the street. Segment 4 (Durham Road/Durham City limits) would provide connections to the existing Tualatin River Trail. This segment has three proposed alignments, with Alignment 4A having one additional option: Alignment 4A would consist of a new trail that would travel between railroad tracks and Clean Water Services' (CWS) property; Option 4Ai would be the same route as Alignment 4A but it includes a new detour adjacent to the creek prior to its crossing. Alignment 4B would consist of a new trail that would travel along the north side of the creek and cross the creek three times; Alignment 4C would consist of improvements to the existing bicycle lanes on Durham Road and 85th Street. Alignments 4A and 4B are identical to Alignments IA and I B in the Tualatin River Trail system. Segment 5 (Tiedeman Avenue Intersection) addresses concerns about the Fanno Creek Trail crossing Tiedeman Avenue. This segment has three alignments, with Alignment 5C having an additional option: Alignment 5A would cross Tiedeman Avenue and continue straight with a new trail, crossing Fanno Creek on the east side of Woodard City Park; Alignment 5B would cross Tiedeman Avenue and turn northeast along a new trail, connecting to the existing trail in 4 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Woodard City Park after crossing Fanno Creek closer to Tiedeman Avenue than Alignment 5A; Alignment 5C would utilize the existing Tiedeman Avenue Bridge by making bicycle and pedestrian improvements to the bridge, with Alignment 5Ci widening the sidewalk on one side of the road to accommodate trail users. 2.4 Tigard Street Trail Tigard Street Trail plans to follow an abandoned railroad corridor extending from Tiedeman Avenue to Main Street. The right-of-way on which this trail would be constructed likely will be City-owned property. If constructed, Tigard Street Trail would connect Fanno Creek Trail, neighborhoods, downtown businesses and the Tigard Transit Center. There are two proposed segments for Tigard Street Trail which are described in detail below. Segment 1 (Fanno Creek to Tiedeman Avenue) aims to create a more convenient and direct bicycle and pedestrian path to Fanno Creek Trail. Segment 1 has two proposed alignments: Alignment IA would follow the existing rail corridor to North Dakota Street and provide an on- street connection to Fanno Creek Trail entrance; Alignment 1B would diverge from the rail corridor south of Tiedeman Avenue and provide an on-street connection to Fanno Creek Trail at the Tigard Street entrance, utilize an existing pedestrianibicycle bridge that crosses Fanno Creek, and connect to the proposed Summer Creek Trail. Segment 2 (Tiedeman Avenue to Tigard Transit Center) would follow an abandoned rail corridor along Tigard Street to Main Street. 2.5 Trail-with-Rail Two potential trail segments would create a trail along existing active rail lines. Segment 1 (SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Tiedeman Avenue) would be located west of the rail line between Scholls Ferry Road and Tiedeman Avenue. Segment 2 (SW Hall Boulevard to SW Bonita Road) would travel along the railroad corridor south of Hall Boulevard, connecting the existing Tigard Transit Center Trail to proposed expansions of Fanno Creek Trail. 2.6 Washington Square Loop Trail The Washington Square Loop Trail is a proposed trail that would connect the Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard to planned trails in Beaverton and Portland. The Washington Square Loop Trail would provide a pedestrian and bicycle link over Highway 217 and link Washington Square, Metzger Park and Tigard City limits. It would also connect several parks, neighborhoods and trails, creating a high-demand east/west connection in Tigard. There are three proposed segments for the Washington Square Loop Trail which are described in detail below. Segment 1 (Fanno Creek to Highway 217) would travel from the Fanno Creek Trail to Highway 217. This segment has two proposed alignments: Alignment IA would create a new trail following Fanno Creek along the entire corridor; Alignment 1B would also create a new trail that 5 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan would follow Fanno Creek south to north until Greenburg Street and would then provide an on- street connection to Highway 217 using existing sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Segment 2 (Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard) would cross Highway 217 and travel to Hall Boulevard. This segment has two proposed alignments: Alignment 2A would provide a new bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Highway 217 and continue to follow Fanno Creek along a new alignment; Alignment 2B would continue the Alignment 1B on-street connection from Greenburg Road. Segment 3 (Hall Boulevard to 61st Avenue) would travel from Hall Boulevard to SW 61St Avenue connecting to an existing trail between SW 135th Avenue and Barrows Road as well as Summerlake Park Trails. This segment has two proposed alignments: Alignment 3A would follow Fanno Creek along a new alignment to the City's eastern limits; Alignment 3B would provide an on-street connection to Metzger Park, making use of existing sidewalks and bicycle lanes. 2.7 Summer Creek Trail The Summer Creek Trail has been constructed in the vicinity of Summerlake Park, as well as short connections between Barrow Road and 135th Avenue and between Gallo Road to 114th Avenue. The proposed additions to this trail would connect parks, schools and other existing trails, providing recreation and transportation benefit. There are four proposed segments for this trail which are described in detail below. Segment 1 (135th Avenue to Summerlake Park) would be a new trail that would link 135th Avenue to Summerlake Park. This segment has two proposed alignments: Alignment IA would provide a new trail along Summer Creek and Alignment 113 would provide an on-street connection. Segment 2 (Summerlake Park to 121St Avenue) links Summerlake Park to 121St Avenue. This segment has four proposed alignments: Alignment 2A would provide a new trail along the south side of Summer Creek; Alignment 2B would utilize an existing maintenance road and join up with Alignment 2A; Alignment 2C would create a new trail to connect to Winter Lake Drive via an easement from Mary Woodward Elementary School; Alignment 2D would utilize improvements along North Dakota Street. Segment 3 (121St Avenue to 114th & Gallo Neighborhood Trail) links 121St Avenue to 135th and the Gallo Neighborhood Trail. This segment has two proposed alignments: Alignment 3A would be a new off-street trail that would connect to the existing Gallo Trail; Alignment 3B would be a continuation of Alignment 2D along North Dakota Street. Segment 4 (Gallo Avenue Trail to Fanno Creek Trail) has four proposed alignments: Alignment 4A would be located on an existing soft surface nature trail; Alignment 4B would be a new trail through Fowler Middle School property north of the sports field; Alignment 4C would provide a 6 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan new side path along Tigard Street; Alignment 4D would be a continuation of Alignment 313 along North Dakota Street. 2.8 Krueger Creek Trail Krueger Creek Trail would connect Summer Creek Trail to existing trails through Jack Park and to the existing Ascension Trail. There are four proposed segments to this trail which are described in detail below. Segment 1 (Summer Creek to Walnut Street) has two proposed alignments: Alignment IA would create a new trail adjacent to a creek corridor and connect to existing trails in Jack Park; Alignment 1B would be an on-street connection along SW 125th Avenue, SW Ann Circuit, SW 127th Avenue and SW 128th Avenue. Segment 2 (Walnut Street to Broadmoor Place) is a steep route up Bull Mountain. This segment has two proposed alignments: Alignment 2A would create a new trail to cross a creek and pass between private properties. This new trail would then cross SW Gaarde Street and SW 132nd Terrace before connecting to existing stairs and a concrete trail that connects to Broadmoor Place. Alignment 2B would use existing bicycle lanes on SW Walnut Street and SW 135th Avenue. Segment 3 is (Broadmoor Place to Ascension Trail) has two proposed alignments: Alignment 3A is a new off-road new connection trail through Tigard Water District property; Alignment 3B is an on-street connection that would travel along Broadmoor Place to Whitehall Lane, crossing 135th Avenue to Lauren Lane. Both alignments would then descend via existing switchbacks to the existing Ascension Trail. Segment 4 (Ascension Trail Segment) has no proposed alignment alternatives and would consist of improving trail conditions to meet established design standards. 3.0 METHODS The following sections of this report summarize the primary natural resources and potential impacts identified during an office-based review of available information. In addition, biologists from Mason, Bruce, and Girard, Inc. (MB&G) conducted a site visit to select locations on November 24, 2010. The best available published resources were utilized to determine the presence of threatened, endangered, or candidate fish, wildlife and plant species within the project area including the following: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of federally listed, proposed, candidate species and species of concern which may occur in Washington County (USFWS 2010); • A project-specific Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) database search (ORBIC 2010); Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan • A StreamNet database search(StreamNet 2010); • The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) (Currin, pers. comm. 2010) list of state- listed threatened or endangered plant species which may occur in Washington County; • City of Tigard"Significant Habitat Areas Map" (City of Tigard 2010). Species presence/absence surveys or potential habitat surveys are beyond the scope of this report and are not discussed further in the sections below, although general habitat quality was observed in areas where site visits were conducted. Presence/absence surveys should be conducted and local experts should be consulted during the next phase of project planning to avoid or reduce impacts to sensitive species. Potential jurisdictional wetlands and waters and number of creek crossings were reviewed using City of Tigard local wetland inventory(LWI) mapping (City of Tigard 2010). LWI and significant habitat data was overlaid on the proposed locations of trails, segments, and alignments provided by Kittelson and Associates (Horning 2010) using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. The proposed trail was overlaid with the mapped LWI wetlands, significant habitat and creek crossings. This analysis was utilized to determine potential impacts for the proposed trail. In most cases, the environmentally-preferred alignment could be easily differentiated. However, there were five instances where impacts were very similar based on the office-based review. MB&G biologists conducted a site visit on November 24, 2010 in order to review wetland and habitat quality and document noxious weed presence to further inform the alignment selection process for these five instances. The areas visited are listed below and are also shown on Figure 1 and discussed further in Section 4.0. • Tigard Street Trail Segment 1, Alignments IA and 113. • Fanno Creek Trail Segment 2, Alignments 2A, 213, 2C. • Fanno Creek Trail Segment 5, Alignments 5A, 513, and 5C. • Summer Creek Trail Segment 2, Alignment 2A, 213, and 2C. • Tualatin River Trail Segment 3, Alignments 3A and 3B. All alignments were reviewed for their ability to comply with state, federal, and local permitting processes as part of a "fatal flaw" analysis. A "fatal flaw" is defined for the purposes of this report as any action that would not likely be permitted by the state, federal, and local agencies or departments, based on MB&G biologist's experience. 4.0 RESULTS A list of threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife, fisheries, and plant species with the potential to occur within the proposed project was compiled from the USFWS list of federally listed, proposed, candidate species and species of concern which may occur in Washington 8 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan County, the project-specific ORBIC database search (ORBIC 2010), the StreamNet database search (StreamNet 2010), and the ODA (Currin pers. comm. 2009) list of state-listed threatened or endangered plant species which may occur in Washington County. This list is included in Table 1 below. Table 1. Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur within the Proposed Project Common Name Scientific Name Federal Listing State Listing Source Status Status Fisheries Coho salmon(Lower Oncorhynchus kisutch T E StreamNet,ORBIC Columbia River ESU) Steelhead(Upper Oncorhynchus mykiss T SC StreamNet,ORBIC Willamette River DPS, winter run) Wildlife Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus N/A T ORBIC Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus T T USFWS Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina T T USFWS Plants Kincaid's lupine Lupinus kincaidii T T USFWS,ODA Nelson's checkermallow Sidalcea nelsoniana T T USFWS,ODA White rock larkspur Delphinium leucophaeum SOC E ODA,ORBIC Willamette daisy Erigeron decumbens var. E E ODA decumbens E=Listed Endangered;T=Listed Threatened C=Candidate; SOC=Species of Concern; SC=Sensitive Critical;ESU= Evolutionary Significant Unit;DPS=Distinct Population Segment. From a regulatory standpoint, project impacts on species listed as threatened or endangered must be analyzed and minimized to the extent possible and these species are therefore the focus of this report. However, additional species not listed as threatened or endangered, including western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) and red-legged frog (Rana aurora), have the potential to occur within the proposed project. According to the ORBIC database search for the Project, there are two documented occurrences for the western pond turtle within the City of Tigard; however, neither of these occurrences is located within the proposed project. There are no documented ORBIC occurrences for the red-legged frog within the City of Tigard. However, there is anecdotal evidence that western pond turtles and red-legged frogs are present within the vicinity of the proposed project. Metro staff suspects that bark-dust-covered beds behind industrial buildings are likely important for turtles in the area(Elaine Stewart, pers. comm., Metro, January 12, 2011). Refer to Appendix A for location details. Results from the GIS analysis for all trails, segments, and alignments for mapped wetland, creek, and significant habitat impacts are included in Table 2 below. Bold, blue highlighted text in Table 2 indicates the environmentally-preferred alignments based on the results of this analysis. 9 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan In addition, a thorough overview of the potential impacts and observations from the site visit for each segment and alignment are included in Appendix A. Table 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the City of Tigard, Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Mapped Mapped Creek Significant Wetland Crossings(# Habitat (linear feet) of crossings) (linear feet) Rank' Tualatin River Trail Segment 1 (85th Ave to Durham City Limits) 0 0 0 Ali nment I 80 1 1,7781 IL 1 Alignment IB 492 1 2,141 2 Alignment 1C 891 1 1,473 3 Segment 2(SW 85th Ave to SW 108th Ave) 0 0 Segment 3 (SW 108th Ave to Pacific Highway) 924 1 2,235 Ali nment 3A 0 0 Alignment 3B 0 0 770 2 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Segment 1 (Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Way) 211 2 973 Alignment IA 103 1 729 3 Alignment 113 0 0 177 2 Ali nment 1C 0 0 Segment 2 107th Court to 115th Avenue 0 0 0 Alignment 2A 0 1 204 2 Alignment 213 0 Se ment 3 115th Avenue to Gaarde Street 0 0 0 Alignment 3A 0 0 505 2 Alignment 3B 1Em Fanno Creek Trail Se ment 1 (Library/Fanno Creek Drive 0 0 0 Alignment I 0 332 Alignment 1B 868 1 868 2 Segment 2 Brown Property) 0 0 0 Alignment 2A 1,008 1 2,797 4 Alignment 2B 732 1 2,246 2 Alignment 2C 1,037 1 1,435 3 Alignment 2D 1 1 Segment 3 Bonita Road to Durham Road 0 0 0 Alignment 3A 0 1 478 3 Alignment 3Ai 0 0 0 Alignment 3Aii 327 0 383 10 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Mapped Mapped Creek Significant Wetland Crossings(# Habitat (linear feet) of crossings) (linear feet) Rank' Alignment 313 2,909 3 5,699 4 Alignment 313i 8 0 247 Alignment 3C 3,193 0 5,028 5 Alignment 3D 0 0 173 2 Alignment 3E 0 0 1 Segment 4(Durham Road to Durham City) 0 0 0 Alignment 4A 80 1 1,778 2 Alignment 4Ai 99 0 425 Alignment 413 492 0 2,141 3 Alignment 4C 0 0 1 Segment 5 (Tiedeman Road Crossing) 0 0 0 Alignment 5A 0 1 961 3 Alignment 513 0 1 651 2 Alignment 5C 0 1 343 1 Alignment 5Ci 0 0 0 Tigard Street Trail Segment 1 (Fanno Creek Trail to Tiedeman Street) 0 0 0 Alignment IA 0 1 334 2 Alignment 1B 109 1 321 1 Segment 2(Tiedeman Avenue to Tigard Transit Center) 1 0 2 0 Trail-with-Rail Segment 1 (SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Tiedeman Road) 0 1 2,003 Segment 2(SW Hall Boulevard to SW Bonita Road) 0 1 627 Washington S uare Loop Trail Segment 1 (Fanno Creek to Highway 217) 209 1 1,118 Alignment IA 1,305 1 1,401 2 Alignment 1B 0 0 148 Segment 2(Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard) 0 0 0 Alignment 2A 1,701 1 2,476 2 Ali nment 2B 0 1 547 Segment 3 (Hall Boulevard to 61st Avenue) 0 0 0 Alignment 3A 1,559 2 8,280 2 Alignment 3B 0 0 1,062 Summer Creek Trail Segment 1 (135th Ave to Summerlake Park) 0 0 0 Alignment IA 1,322 0 1,334 2 11 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Mapped Mapped Creek Significant Wetland Crossings(# Habitat (linear feet) of crossings) (linear feet) Rank' Alignment 1B WA 0 0 117 1 Segment 2(Summerlake Park to 121st Avenue) 0 0 0 Alignment 2A 815 1 1,487 4 Alignment 2B 0 0 247 2 Alignment 2C 776 1 1,106 3 Alillninent 21) ow— Im- 0 0 0 1 Segment 3 (121st Avenue to 114th&Gallo Neighborhood Trail) 0 0 0 Ali ment 3A 1,507 1 1,915 2 qr Alignment 3B 0 0 0 1 Segment 4(Gallo Avenue Trail to Fanno Creek Trail) 0 0 0 Alignment 4A 0 0 997 2 Alignment 4B 149 0 254 3 Alignment 4C 1,294 0 1,597 4 Alignment 4D 0 1 Krueger Creek Trail Segment 1 Summer Creek to Walnut Street 495 1 502 Alignment IA 1,252 1 1,402 2 Alignment 1B 1 Segment 2(Walnut Street to Broadmoor Place 0 0 0 Alignment 2A 80 2 1,713 2 Ali nment 2B 0 1 1 Segment 3 (Broadmoor Place to Ascension Trail) 0 1 711 Alignment 3A 0 0 12 2 Alignment 3B 0 0 9 1 Segment 4(Ascension Trail) 0 1 3,081 ' Only alignments were ranked. Segments and sub-alignments(e.g.,Ai,Aii)do not have options and were therefore not included in the rankings. 5.0 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Impacts to state or federally-listed wildlife, fisheries, and/or plant species are possible for the proposed project. If impacts to listed species will occur, a Biological Assessment for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department jurisdictional species or Standard Local Operating Procedure for Endangered Species (SLOPES IV) Compliance Report for National Marine Fisheries Service- jurisdictional species should be prepared to provide Endangered Species Act (ESA) clearance. In order to utilize a SLOPES IV Compliance Report to document impacts to listed species, a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is also required. 12 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan It is possible that native migratory fish currently or historically utilized creeks within the project. As such, coordination with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for all new or improved stream crossings would need to occur. If ODFW requires fish passage, then all creek crossings would need to be designed to provide fish passage in accordance with the Oregon Fish Passage Law and a Fish Passage Plan would be required. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 prohibits the "take" of native, migratory birds, their eggs, feathers, or nests. "Take" includes any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, killing, possessing or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof. Trail construction activities will likely require clearing of trees and shrubs within the project footprint. To remain in compliance with the MBTA, vegetation clearing should be conducting during the non-nesting season in the Portland area for native, migratory birds between September 1 and March 1. If the proposed Project includes activities within creeks, these activities should be scheduled during ODFW-approved In-Water Work Window for the Tualatin River and its tributaries (July 15 through September 30) (ODFW 2008). 40 CFR Part 230.10, which provides guidance on implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, states that dredge or fill material within a Waters of the U.S. will be permitted only if a practicable alternative does not exist that would have a lesser impact on the aquatic ecosystem. This regulation should be utilized in the next planning phase of the Project to guide the alternative selection process as impacts to wetlands and waters are likely. In addition to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, administered by the ACOE, the Removal Fill Law, administered by the Department of State Lands (DSL) and Water Quality Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors, administered by Clean Water Services (CWS), will apply to the project. If proposed wetland/waters impacts are less than 0.10 acre and do not involve impacts to wetlands, the ACOE will not require pre-construction notification (i.e., Joint Permit Application). Similarly, if proposed wetland/waters impacts are less than 50 cubic yards, the DSL will not require a permit for the proposed action. If proposed wetland/waters impacts are less than 0.5 acre, then the Project may qualify for the ACOE Nationwide Permit (NWT) #14, Linear Transportation Projects and the DSL General Permit (GP) for Certain Transportation- Related Structures. If the project requires greater than 0.5 acre of impacts, an individual permit (IP) will be required from the ACOE and DSL. A wetland/waters delineation and report will be required for the proposed project to determine accurate wetland/waters locations and dimensions. Trails that utilize boardwalks and allow natural hydrology movement within wetland areas will likely be looked upon more favorably by the DSL and ACOE than trails that use fill material (e.g. asphalt, concrete, gravel). Impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. and State will require compensatory mitigation for both the ACOE and DSL. The Project is located within the Five Mile Lane In-lieu-fee Mitigation Bank service area; however, there is currently a waiting list for credits at this bank. The project is 13 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan also located within the Tualatin Valley Environmental Mitigation Bank. Currently, this does not have credits available for purchase. However, credits are expected to become available at this bank in 2011. If bank credits are unavailable during the permitting process, alternative forms of mitigation will need to be considered, including payment-in-lieu (for DSL jurisdictional impacts only) or on- or off-site wetland creation, enhancement, or restoration. If on- or off-site mitigation is proposed, the DSL and ACOE will require a compensatory wetland mitigation plan. CWS jurisdiction extends into the proposed project and follows the City of Tualatin boundary. All creeks and wetlands within the project would be considered water quality sensitive features (WQSA) under CWS's jurisdiction. Impacts within vegetated corridors surrounding these WQSAs would require a vegetated corridor assessment and report and a Service Provider Letter from CWS. Impacts to parcels that contain vegetated corridors will require vegetated corridor enhancement by CWS. CWS enhancement consists of removing noxious weeds and planting native trees and shrubs within the vegetated corridor. Enhancement and/or mitigation plans will be required if impacts to jurisdictional features are proposed for the project. In addition, impacts to vegetated corridors will require mitigation. According to the City of Tigard's Sensitive Lands Code (18.775), significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard "Significant Habitat Areas Map" are considered Sensitive Lands (City of Tigard 2009). Development within a significant habitat requires a Type II or III permit. Metro's Green Trails Handbook includes guidelines to create an interconnected system of trails and greenways for fish, wildlife and people while maintaining biodiversity and protecting water quality. Chapters 4 and 5 of the handbook specifically address methods to preserve sensitive natural resources which include avoiding stream crossings, wetlands and floodplains, using existing disturbed corridors, keeping trails out of core habitat areas, and maintaining habitat connectivity (Metro, 2004). This guidance should be considered during the preferred alignment selection process. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS MB&G Biologists evaluated 60 alignments within 26 segments for the eight trails analyzed in the City of Tigard, Tigard Greenway Trail System Management Plan project. Biologists utilized GIS technology and a site visit on November 24, 2010 to target areas to determine the potential environmental impacts for the project. Nearly all of the alignment options have a clear, preferred environmental option based on the fewest linear feet of wetland and significant habitat impact and fewest number of creek crossings. No "fatal flaws" were uncovered during the analysis process. However, construction of many of the non-preferred alignments would require significant mitigation for wetland, waters, vegetated corridor, and significant habitat impacts and should be considered during the selection process. 14 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan 7.0 REFERENCES City of Tigard 2009. Sensitive Lands Code 18.775. Updated October 2009. City of Tigard 2010. Local Wetland Inventory and Significant Habitat data. Provided November 18, 2010. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 230.10 Restrictions on Discharge. CFR 40 Part 230 Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. Subpart BCompliance with the Guidelines. http://www.usace.anny.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/materials/40cfr230.pdf Accessed: January 18, 2011. Currin, Rebecca. March 9, 2010. Personal communication in an email to Kristen Currens, MB&G. Botanist, Oregon Department of Agriculture. Horning, Jessica 2010. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan trail shapefile data. Provided November 19, 2010. Kittelson and Associates, Inc. (KAI) 2010a. Specific Issues Report: Summer Creek, Krueger Creek, and Fanno Creek Trail Gaps and Opportunities. November 10, 2010. Kittelson and Associates, Inc. (KAI) 2010b. Specific Issues Report: Tualatin River, Pathfinder- Genesis, Washington Square Loop, and Tigard Street Trail Gaps and Opportunities (Kittelson 2010b). November 4, 2010. Metro. 2004. Green Trails Handbook. Portland, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008. Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources. June, 2008. Salem, Oregon. Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2010. Query of ORHNIC database within the City of Tigard. Stewart, Elaine. 2011. Personal communication with Mason, Bruce & Girard. January 12, 2011. Natural Resource Scientist, Metro. Portland, Oregon. StreamNet. 2010. Fish Data for the Northwest. Available at URL: http://www.streamnet.org . Accessed December 9, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Federally listed, proposed, candidate species and species of concern under the jurisdiction of the fish and wildlife service which may occur within Washington County, Oregon. Portland, Oregon. 15 Environmental Report City of Tigard,Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Appendix A Detailed Segment and Alignment Discussion City of Tigard, Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Washington County, Oregon Name of Trail: Tualatin River Trail Name of Segment: Segment 1 (85th Ave to Durham City Limits) Summary Three potential new trail alignments would connect Tualatin River Trail to a proposed extension of Fanno Creek Trail at Durham Road. Metro staff believes that western painted turtles (Chrysemys picta bellii) are present within this stretch of Fanno Creek between Durham Road and the Tualatin River (Elaine Stewart, pers. comm., Metro, January 12, 2011). Alignments I and 1B would run along a narrow corridor between Fanno Creek, railroad tracks and CWS property. Alignment I C would connect Durham City Trail system at an existing railroad crossing and follow the railroad tracks north to SW 85th Avenue. Alignments IA and IB are the same as Fanno Creek Trail Segment 4 Alignments 4A and 4B. Wetlands • Alignment IA: Travels through 80 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 113: Travels through 492 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossings. • Alignment 1C: Travels through 891 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment IA: Travels through 1,778 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 1B: Travels through 2,141 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 1C: Travels through 1,473 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment IA is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment. Although Alignment IA travels through more significant habitat than Alignment IC, it travels through the least amount of mapped wetland. In addition, Alignment IA crosses Fanno Creek only one time thus creating a smaller overall environmental footprint. Name of Trail: Tualatin River Trail Name of Segment: Segment 2 (SW 85t`Ave to SW 108t`Ave) Summary Segment 2 is an existing portion of Tualatin River Trail that is in need of improvements and upgrades. No new alignments are proposed. Wetlands • No new impacts to mapped wetlands are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Segment 2: Travels through 250 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Segment 2 should have minor environmental impacts, since this portion consists of improvements to the existing trail. Name of Trail: Tualatin River Trail Name of Segment: Segment 3 (SW lWh Ave to Highway 99W) Summary Two potential alignments would pass outside Tigard city limits and intersect with Highway 99W and the future Westside Trail extension. Alignment 3A would upgrade and improve an unofficial, unimproved existing trail (demand trail) along the river connecting at the base of the SW 108th Avenue trail entrance. Alignment 3B would create a new trail from SW 108th Avenue through a city-owned parcel. The remainder of Segment 3 outside of the alignments would require a mapped creek crossing and is located in Tualatin River's floodplain. The remainder of Segment 3 would also require 924 feet of construction within a mapped wetland. Wetlands • Segment 3: Travels through 924 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 3A: Travels through no mapped mapped wetlands; no mapped creek crossings; runs parallel to a mapped creek. • Alignment 313: Travels through no mapped mapped wetlands; no mapped creek crossings; runs parallel to the Tualatin River. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Segment 3: Travels through 2,235 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 3A: Travels through 530 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 313: Travels through 770 feet of significant habitat Other—Vegetation Community and Noxious Weeds • Alignment 3A: Tree cover is 50-60% and composed of Douglas-fir (Pseduotsuga menziesii), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and red alder (Alnus rubra). Dense understory composed of English ivy (Hedera helix), English holly (Ilex aquilinum) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Alignment appears to pass though some maintained areas used as yards. • Alignment 313: Tree cover is 40% and composed of Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), red alder, and Western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Understory is composed entirely of Himalayan blackberry. Analysis Alignment 3A is the environmentally-preferred option since it travels through fewer feet of significant habitat and mapped wetland. In addition, Alignment 3A currently has an existing demand trail. However, both alignments travel through degraded habitat, would require CWS mitigation and/or enhancement, and either area could be improved by removing noxious weeds during the trail construction. Portions of Alignments 3A and 3B were visited by MB&G Biologists during the field visit. Photos: Alignment 3A(left) and Alignment 3B (right) ,y _U14 kz- Name of Trail: Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Name of Segment: Segment 1 (Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Way) Summary Three proposed alignments would connect this existing community greenway trail to Fanno Creek Trail near Woodard City Park. After Alignments IA and 1B converge, Segment 1 passes through mapped wetland and significant habitat. Alignment IC is an on-street alternative to Segment 1 and Alignments I and 1B. Wetlands • Segment 1: Travels through 211 feet of mapped wetland; two mapped creek crossings. • Alignment IA: Travels through 103 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 1B: No impacts to mapped wetlands. • Alignment 1C:No impacts to mapped wetlands. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Segment 1: Travels through 973 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment IA: Travels through 729 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 1B: Travels through 177 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 1C: No impacts to significant habitat are anticipated. Analysis Alignment 1C is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it is not expected to impact any mapped wetland or significant habitat since it would be entirely on existing roadways. Name of Trail: Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Name of Segment: Segment 2 (107th Court to 115th Avenue) Summary Segment 2 is an existing trail in need of maintenance and upgrades. In several areas the asphalt is degraded and requires repair to improve safety and accessibility. An additional trail entrance could be constructed through a City owned parcel (Alignment 2A) or by improving on-street existing access points (Alignment 213). Wetlands • Alignment 2A: No mapped wetland impacts are anticipated; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 213: No mapped wetland impacts are anticipated; one mapped creek crossing. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 2A: Travels through 204 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 213: Travels through 81 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 2B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it travels through fewer feet of significant habitat than Alignment 2A. Name of Trail: Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Name of Segment: Segment 3 (115th Avenue to Gaarde Street) Summary Two proposed alignment options would connect the 118th Court trail entrance to Gaarde Street. Alignment 3A would follow a mapped creek from Gaarde Street to the existing trail. Alignment 3B would provide an on-street connection. Wetlands • Alignment 3A: No mapped wetland impacts; proposed alignment runs parallel to a mapped creek. • Alignment 313: No mapped wetland impacts; one mapped creek crossing. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 3A: Travels through 505 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 313: Travels through 53 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 3B is the environmentally-preferred habitat because it is an on-street connection and would likely require less CWS mitigation and enhancement than 3A. Name of Trail: Fanno Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 1 (Library/Fanno Creek Drive) Summary The two proposed alignments would either improve the existing trail (Alignment IA) or provide an alternative to the current alignment by creating a new connection on the east side of Fanno Creek(Alignment 1B). Both alignments travel through mapped wetlands and floodplain. Wetlands • Alignment IA: Travels through 332 feet of mapped wetland. • Alignment 1B: Travels through 868 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment IA: Travels through 332 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 1B: Travels through 868 of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment IA is the environmentally-preferred alignment because it makes use of an existing trail, travels through less mapped wetland and significant habitat, and does not require a new creek crossing. Name of Trail: Fanno Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 2 (Brown Property) Summary Segment 2 has four proposed alignments. Alignment 2A is the longest new trail segment, crossing Fanno Creek near the library and traveling along the east side of the mapped creek and the north side of the Brown property. Alignment 2B runs along the north side of the Brown property remaining in City and Metro land after breaking off from the existing trail. Metro staff have observed northwestern pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in the area of Alignments 2A and 2B (Elaine Stewart, pers. comm., Metro, January 12, 2011). Alignment 2C would connect at the south end of the existing trail segment, along the south side of Fanno Creek. Alignment 2D would travel along Fanno Creek Drive as a bicycle boulevard from the end of the existing trail to Bonita Road. Wetlands • Alignment 2A: Travels through 1,008 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing (existing culvert). • Alignment 213: Travels through 732 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing (existing culvert). • Alignment 2C: Travels through 1,037 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing (existing culvert). • Alignment 21): No mapped wetland impacts are anticipated; one mapped creek crossing on existing roadway. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 2A: Travels through 2,797 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 213: Travels through 2,246 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 2C: Travels through 1,435 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 21): Travels through 105 feet of significant habitat. Other—Noxious Weeds • Alignments 2A, 213 and 2C: Low amounts of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, English holly, English hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), and old man's beard (Clematis vitalba) were observed in the vicinity of Alignments 2A, 213, and 2C. Analysis Alignment 2D is the environmentally-preferred alignment because it is not anticipated to have any impacts to mapped wetlands, travels through the least amount of significant habitat, and utilizes an existing road, furthering reducing the environmental impact. If Alignment 2D becomes unfeasible, Alignment 2B is the second most viable option since it travels through the least amount of mapped wetland and significant habitat. Portions of Alignments 2A, 213, and 2C were visited by MB&G Biologists during the field visit. Photos: Alignment 2A and 2B upland vegetation1 Fanno Creek with Alignments 2A and 2B. Name of Trail: Fanno Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 3 (Bonita Road to Durham Road) Summary Segment 3 has five proposed alignments, with Alignments 3A and 3B having additional options. Alignment 3A is an on-street option along SW 74' Avenue; Option 3Ai includes a potential trail segment within a Metro parcel, which could include a viewing platform; Option 3Aii would provide a loop trail within parcels where development is limited due to wetlands and floodplains. Alignment 3B is located on the east side of Fanno Creek along SW 74th Avenue connecting to a stream-side trail from SW 74th Avenue via a Metro-owned parcel; Option 313i would create a trail loop from the Metro parcel to a parcel located in a floodplain/wetland area. Alignment 3C would travel from the east side of Bonita Road, crossing Fanno Creek and continuing along the west side of Fanno Creek. Trail Alignments 3133C all follow the creek where Metro staff has observed western painted turtles (Chrysemys picta bellii) (Elaine Stewart, pens. comm., Metro, January 12, 2011). Alignment 3D would be a bicycle boulevard located along SW 79th Avenue. Alignment 3E is a second on-street option and would travel along SW 74th Avenue as a side path on the west side of the street, without crossing mapped creeks or mapped wetlands. Wetlands • Alignment 3A: No impacts to mapped wetlands; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 3Ai: No impacts to mapped wetlands or mapped creeks. • Alignment 3Aii: Travels through 327 feet of mapped wetland, no mapped creek crossings. • Alignment 313: Travels through 2,909 feet of mapped wetland; three mapped creek crossings. • Alignment 313i: Travels through 8 feet of mapped wetland. • Alignment 3C: Travels through 3,193 feet of mapped wetland. • Alignment 31): No impacts to mapped wetlands or mapped creeks. • Alignment 3E:No impacts to mapped wetlands or mapped creeks. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 3A: Travels through 478 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 3Ai: No impacts to significant habitat. • Alignment 3Aii: Travels through 383 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 313: Travels through 5,699 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 313i: Travels through 247 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 3C: Travels through 5,028 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 31): Travels through 173 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 3E: No impacts to significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 3E is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it utilizes an existing roadway, minimizing environmental impacts. It does not travel through mapped wetlands and it is not anticipated to impact any significant habitat. If Alignment 3E becomes unfeasible, Alignment 3A is the second-most environmentally viable option. Although it crosses Fanno Creek twice, it is not located in mapped wetland areas and utilizes an existing roadway. Name of Trail: Fanno Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 4 (Durham Road to Durham City) Summary Segment 4 connects Fanno Creek Trail to Durham City limits and provides connections to the existing Tualatin River Trail. This segment has 3 proposed alignments, with Alignment 4A having one additional option: Alignment 4A travels between railroad tracks and CWS property; Option 4Ai would be the same route as Alignment 4A but it includes a detour adjacent to the mapped creek prior to its crossing. Alignment 4B would travel along the north side of the mapped creek, crossing it 3 times and crossing under the railroad. Alignments 4A and 4B are the same as Alignments IA and 1B in the Tualatin River Trail system. Alignment 4C would be improvements to the existing bicycle lanes on Durham Road and 85th Street. Wetlands • Alignment 4A: Travels through 80 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 4Ai: Travels through 99 feet of mapped wetland. • Alignment 4B: Travels through 492 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 4C: No mapped wetland impacts are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 4A: Travels through 1,778 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 4Ai: Travels through 425 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 4B: Travels through 2,141 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 4C: No impacts to significant habitat are anticipated. Analysis Alignment 4C is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because no new impacts to the environment are anticipated. This alignment would make improvements to an existing roadway. Name of Trail: Fanno Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 5 (Tiedeman Road Crossing) Summary—existing conditions Segment 5 addresses concerns about Fanno Creek Trail crossing Tiedeman Avenue. This segment has 3 alignments, with Alignment 5C having an additional option: Alignment 5A would cross Tiedeman Avenue and continue straight, crossing Fanno Creek on the east side of Woodard City Park; Alignment 5B would cross Tiedeman Avenue and turn northeast, connecting to the existing trail in Woodard City Park after crossing Fanno Creek closer to Tiedeman Avenue than Alignment 5A; Alignment 5C would utilize the existing Tiedeman Avenue Bridge by making bicycle and pedestrian improvements to the bridge, with Alignment 5Ci widening the sidewalk on one side of the road to accommodate trail users. Wetlands • Alignment 5A: Travels near existing mapped wetland mitigation area; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 5B: Travels near existing mapped wetland mitigation area; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 5C: No new mapped wetland impacts are anticipated; one mapped creek crossing is on an existing roadway. • Alignment 5Ci: No new mapped wetland impacts are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 5A: Travels through 961 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 5B: Travels through 651 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 5C: Travels through 343 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 5Ci: No impacts to significant habitat are anticipated. Other—Noxious Weeds • Alignments 5A and 5B: Presence of reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry and teasel (Dipsacus sp.). Analysis Alignment 5C is the most environmentally-preferred trail alignment because no new impacts to mapped wetlands are anticipated and it will utilize the existing roadway. The other two proposed alignments (5A and 5B) would require building a new trail near a current wetland mitigation site and a new mapped creek crossing. Portions of Alignments 5A, 5B, and 5C were visited by MB&G Biologists during the field visit. Photos: Intersection of Alignment 5B and the existing Fanno Creek Trail (left) and the approximate location of Alignment 5A (right) f ~mss. { Name of Trail: Tigard Street Trail Name of Segment: Segment 1 (Fanno Creek Trail to Tiedeman Street) Summary—existing conditions The two proposed alignments of Segment 1 would create a more convenient and direct bicycle and pedestrian path to Fanno Creek Trail by following an unused railroad corridor. Alignment IA would follow the rail corridor to North Dakota Street and provide an upgraded on-street connection to Fanno Creek Trail entrance. Alignment 113 would diverge from the rail corridor south of Tiedeman Avenue and provide an on-street connection to Fanno Creek Trail at the Tigard Street entrance, utilizing an existing pedestrian/bicycle bridge that crosses Fanno Creek. Wetlands • Alignment IA: Travels near an existing mapped wetland improvement project; one mapped creek crossing over an existing roadway without sidewalks. • Alignment 113: Travels through 109 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing utilizing an existing pedestrian/bicycle bridge. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment IA: Travels through 334 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 113: Travels through 321 feet of significant habitat. Other—Noxious Weeds • Alignment IA: Presence of reed canarygrass and teasel (Dipsacus sp.) • Alignment 113: Presence of reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Analysis Alignment 1B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it utilizes a current pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Fanno Creek and travels through the fewest feet of significant habitat. The current creek crossing at Alignment lA may require additional construction of a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge or widening North Dakota Street, since the existing road bridge appears to be too narrow to safely support sidewalks and bicycle boulevards. This would have a larger impact on the surrounding riparian area and floodplain than the impact on upgrading Alignment 1B. Portions of Alignments IA and 1B were visited by MB&G Biologists during the field visit. Photos: Alignment IA (left) and 113 (right) Name of Trail: Tigard Street Trail Name of Segment: Segment 2 (Tiedeman Avenue to Tigard Transit Center) Summary Segment 2 follows an inactive rail corridor along Tigard Street from Tiedeman Avenue to Main Street. A 16-foot wide gravel path would be developed to accommodate a variety of mixed use trail sections, depending on projected usage. The corridor connects to Main Street to access the Tigard Transit Center. Wetlands • No new impacts to mapped wetlands are anticipated; two creek crossings. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • No new impacts to wildlife/significant habitat are anticipated. Analysis Segment 2 should have no new environmental impacts, since this segment consists of improvements to an existing corridor. Name of Trail: Trail-with-Rail Name of Segment: Segment 1 (SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Tiedeman Road) Summary Segment 1 would be located west of an active rail line between Scholls Ferry Road and Tiedeman Avenue. An abandoned rail corridor south of Tiedeman Avenue would have a new trail that would connect to a Westside Express Service(WES)commuter park and ride. Wetlands • Travels near floodplain north of North Dakota Street; one mapped creek crossing. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Travels through 2,003 feet of significant habitat. Analysis No alternative alignments are proposed for this segment at this time. The current proposed alignment would travel through significant habitat and floodplain. Mitigation may be required. Name of Trail: Trail-with-Rail Name of Segment: Segment 2 (SW Hall Boulevard to SW Bonita Road) Summary Segment 2 would travel along an active railroad corridor south of Hall Boulevard and connect to the existing Tigard Transit Center Trail and proposed expansions of Fanno Creek Trail. North of Hall Boulevard a newly-constructed multi-use pathway along the rail corridor would connect to a Westside Express Service WES commuter park and ride. Wetlands • No impacts to mapped wetlands are anticipated; one mapped creek crossing. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Travels through 627 feet of significant habitat. Analysis No alternative alignments are proposed for this segment at this time. The current proposed alignment would travel through significant habitat. Mitigation may be required. Name of Trail: Washington Square Loop Trail Name of Segment: Segment 1 (Fanno Creek to Highway 217) Summary Two proposed alignments for Segment 1 would be to either follow the mapped creek along the entire corridor (Alignment IA) or to follow the mapped creek to Greenburg Street and provide an on-street connection to Highway 217 (Alignment 1B). All of Alignment A is in a floodplain and a mapped wetland. The on-street Alignment B would make use of existing sidewalks and bike lanes on Greenburg Street. Both alignments would cross Fanno Creek, require boardwalks in some areas, and require crossing improvements at Greenburg Street. Wetlands • Segment 1: Travels through 209 feet of mapped wetland; 1 mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 1A: Travels through 1,305 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 1B: No impacts to mapped wetlands or creeks are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Segment 1: Travels through 1,118 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment IA: Travels through 1,401 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 113: Travels through 148 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 1B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it travels through fewer feet of mapped wetland and significant habitat, and avoids mapped creek crossings. Name of Trail: Washington Square Loop Trail Name of Segment: Segment 2 (Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard) Summary The two proposed alignments for Segment 2 would provide access across Highway 217. Alignment 2A would construct a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 217 and continue to follow Fanno Creek from Alignment IA. Alignment 2B would continue the on-street connection on Greenburg and Oak Street. Similar to Alignment IA, all of Alignment 2A is in a floodplain and a mapped wetland. Wetlands • Alignment 2A: Travels through 1,701 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 213: No impacts to mapped wetlands are anticipated; one mapped creek crossing. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 2A: Travels through 2,476 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 2B: Travels through 547 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 2B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it is not anticipated to have any impacts to mapped wetlands and travels through fewer feet of significant habitat than Alignment 2A. Name of Trail: Washington Square Loop Trail Name of Segment: Segment 3 (Hall Boulevard to 61St Avenue) Summary Two proposed alignments of Segment 3 would either follow Fanno Creek to the eastern Tigard city boundary(Alignment 3A) or to provide an on-street connection to Metzger Park(Alignment 3B). All of Alignment 3A is in a floodplain and a mapped wetland. The on-street Alignment 3B would make use of existing completed sidewalks and a bike lane on SW 135th Avenue. Wetlands • Alignment 3A: Travels through 1,559 feet of mapped wetland; two mapped creek crossings. • Alignment 313: No impacts to mapped wetlands or mapped creek crossings are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 3A: Travels through 8,280 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 3B: Travels through 1,062 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 3B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because no impacts to mapped wetlands are anticipated and it travels through fewer feet of significant habitat than Alignment 3A. Name of Trail: Summer Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 1 (135th Ave to Summerlake Park) Summary The two proposed alignments of Segment 1 would create a new trail that would link 135th Avenue to Summerlake Park. Alignment IA would provide a new trail within the floodplain along Summer Creek. Alignment 1B would provide an on-street connection using existing completed sidewalks and a bicycle lane. Wetlands • Alignment IA: Travels through 1,322 feet of mapped wetland; no mapped creek crossings are anticipated. • Alignment 1B: No impacts to mapped wetlands or mapped creeks are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment IA: Travels through 1,344 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 1B: Travels through 117 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 1B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because no impacts to mapped wetlands are anticipated and it travels through fewer feet of significant habitat than Alignment IA. Although Alignment 1B travels through mapped significant habitat, it is not anticipated to impact this habitat because it will be an on-street connection. Name of Trail: Summer Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 2 (Summerlake Park to 121St Avenue) Summary Three proposed alignments for Segment 2 would connect Summerlake Park to 120 Avenue and one proposed alignment would provide an on-street connection on North Dakota Street. Alignment 2A would create a new trail along the south side of Summer Creek within a forested upland area and a current restoration area. Alignment 213 would utilize an existing maintenance road and connect with Alignment 2A along the shore of Summer Lake. Alignment 2C would create a new trail that would connect to Winter Lake Drive via an easement from Mary Woodward Elementary School. Alignment 2D would be an on-street alignment, with improvements being made along North Dakota Street. Wetlands • Alignment 2A: Travels through 815 feet of mapped wetlands; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 213: No impacts to mapped wetlands or creeks are anticipated. • Alignment 2C: Travels through 776 of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 21): No new impacts to mapped wetlands or creeks are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 2A: Travels through 1,487 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 213: Travels through 247 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 2C: Travels through 1,106 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 21): No impacts to significant habitat are anticipated. Analysis Alignment 2D is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it utilizes an on-street connection. Alignment 2D is not anticipated to impact any mapped wetlands or significant habitat. If Alignment 2D becomes unfeasible, Alignment 2B is the second most preferred alignment. Alignment 2B is not anticipated to impact any mapped wetlands and travels through the fewest feet of significant habitat. Portions of Alignments 2A, 213, and 2C were visited by MB&G Biologists during the field visit. Photo: Alignment 2A along the south side of Summer Creek ... - F �" Name of Trail: Summer Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 3 (121St Avenue to 114 I & Gallo Neighborhood Trail) Summary Segment 3 has two proposed alignments: Alignment 3A would be a new off-street trail that would connect to the existing Gallo Trail, crossing a mapped creek and traveling through a mapped wetland. Alignment 3B would be an on-street connection continuing Alignment 2D along North Dakota Street. Wetlands • Alignment 3A: Travels through 1,507 feet of mapped wetland; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 3B: No impacts to mapped wetlands or creeks are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 3A: Travels through 1,915 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 3B: No impacts to significant habitat are anticipated. Analysis Alignment 3B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it utilizes an existing roadway and is not anticipated to impact any mapped wetlands or significant habitat. Name of Trail: Summer Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 4 (Gallo Avenue Trail to Fanno Creek Trail) Summary The four proposed alignments of Segment 4 would connect Summer Creek Trail to other greenway trails. Alignment 4A would utilize an existing soft surface nature trail. Alignment 4B would be a new trail through Fowler Middle School property north of the sports field. Alignment 4C would provide a new side path along Tigard Street. Alignment 4D would be a continuation of Alignment 3B along North Dakota Street. Wetlands • Alignment 4A: No impacts to mapped wetlands or creeks are anticipated. • Alignment 413: Travels through 149 feet of mapped wetland; no creek crossings are anticipated. • Alignment 4C: Travels through 1,294 feet of mapped wetland; no creek crossings are anticipated. • Alignment 41): No impacts to mapped wetlands or creeks are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 4A: Travels through 997 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 413: Travels through 254 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 4C: Travels through 1,597 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 41): No impacts to significant habitat are anticipated. Analysis Alignment 4D is the most environmentally-preferred trail alignment because no impacts to mapped wetlands or significant habitat are anticipated. If Alignment 4D becomes unfeasible, Alignment 4A is the second most-preferred alignment because it is not anticipated to impact any mapped wetlands. Name of Trail.• Krueger Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 1 (Summer Creek to Walnut Street) Summary Segment 1 would connect to existing trails in Jack Park or provide an on-street connection along SW 125th Avenue. Segment 1 travels through a mapped wetland before diverging into two alignments. AlignmentlA would create a new trail adjacent to a mapped creek corridor, connecting to existing trails in Jack Park. Alignment 1B would provide an on-street connection, improving existing roadways to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Wetlands • Segment 1: Travels through 495 feet of mapped wetlands; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 1A: Travels through 1,252 feet of mapped wetlands; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 1B: No impacts to mapped wetlands or creeks are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Segment 1: Travels through 502 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment IA: Travels through 1,402 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 1B: Travels through 93 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 1B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it is not anticipated to impact any mapped wetlands and travels through fewer feet of significant habitat. Mitigation may be required for Segment 1 before the two alignments diverge because it travels through both mapped wetland and significant habitat. Name of Trail.• Krueger Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 2 (Walnut Street to Broadmoor Place) Summary The two alignments of Segment 2 would create a steep route up Bull Mountain. Alignment 2A would create a new trail that passes between private property and crosses a mapped creek. This new trail would then cross SW Gaarde Street and SW 132nd Terrace before connecting to existing stairs and a concrete trail that connects to Broadmoor Place. Alignment 2B would use existing bicycle lanes on SW Walnut Street and SW 135th Avenue. Wetlands • Alignment 2A: Travels through 80 feet of mapped wetlands; two mapped creek crossings. • Alignment 2B: No mapped wetland impacts are anticipated; one mapped creek crossing. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Alignment 2A: Travels through 1,713 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 2B: Travels through 86 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 2B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment because it is not anticipated to impact any mapped wetland areas and travels through fewer feet of significant habitat than Alignment 2A. Name of Trail: Krueger Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 3 (Broadmoor Place to Ascension Trail) Summary The two alignments of Segment 3 would provide a connection to the existing Ascension Trail. Alignment 3A is an off-road, new connection trail through Tigard Water District property. Alignment 3B is an on-street connection that would travel along Broadmoor Place to Whitehall Lane, crossing 135th Avenue to Lauren Lane. Both alignments would then converge and descend via existing switchbacks to the existing Ascension Trail. Wetlands • Segment 3: No impacts to mapped wetlands are anticipated; one mapped creek crossing. • Alignment 3A: No impacts to mapped wetlands or creeks are anticipated. • Alignment 313: No impacts to mapped wetlands or creeks are anticipated. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Segment 3: Travels through 711 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 3A: Travels through 12 feet of significant habitat. • Alignment 313: Travels through 9 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Alignment 3B is the environmentally-preferred trail alignment due to the slightly lower significant habitat impacts that would be required. Both alignments 3A and 3B are not anticipated to impact any mapped wetland areas and only impact a small amount of significant habitat. Segment 3, after the two alignments diverge, may require mitigation due to impacts to significant habitat and a creek crossing. Name of Trail: Krueger Creek Trail Name of Segment: Segment 4 (Ascension Trail) Summary Segment 4 is an existing trail that is in need of maintenance and upgrades. No new alignments are proposed. Wetlands • No new impacts to mapped wetlands are anticipated; one mapped creek crossing with an existing bridge. Wildlife and Significant Habitat • Travels through 3,081 feet of significant habitat. Analysis Improvements made to Segment 4 could impact the surrounding significant habitat. Upgrades to the mapped creek crossing may require mitigation. Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan April 28,2011 Appendix D.Evaluation Matrix APPENDIX D. EVALUATION MATRIX PLEASE NOTE: The documents contained in this appendix reflect the initial trail alignment options and evaluations conducted during development of the Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan. These documents do not reflect the final alignments, analysis, recommendations, or cost estimates for greenway trail projects included in the final Tigard Greenway Trails System Master Plan. They are provided only as background documentation to illustrate the breadth of alignments evaluated and the evaluation process used to develop the Plan. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 9, 2011 Page 40 Summer Creek Trail -_.-e _ Potential bicycle boulevard Connects to xisting on low-speed streets bikeway network - — 1B r - - a ` V _ (Potential bicycle boulevard on low-speed streets f:7rfTZD �- t _ �n.o Ion, -- --- --- rPrivatepropertias - -36i C t. 1 . Connects to existing $u rlalSy• I_" -. ] _ If,� `trail system and part Eu�L^ - ----,�y, `-� _ .• Maintenance• n s Potential side path i road_ 1i its or sidewa€k along Tigard AvenueKE L. I . 3C- (71 ` - ` •1. 213: 2A Y j -4 ne _ l Concts to existing' - l 7 1 trail system and r�2_' - iC - - - - - — •� �, 3A ---- ., }' 413 �'. Fowler 7Aidd[e , Sc 00 _ Existing demand + r traits and nature trait -_through school property r tL1 mat= ez F, Summer Creek Trait Potential Alignment i Bike Lanes Parks �/� Floodplain Opportunity Existing Trails a Proposed Krueger Creek Trait Schools RailroadWetland Constraint o 250 5QX0 Summer Creek Trail 309�Feet The above map shows the potential trail alignments evaluated. In the table below, a "•" indicates that the alignment fully satisfies the criteria, a "0" means that the alignment somewhat satisfies the criteria, while a "O" indicates that the alignment does not satisfy the criteria. (See Table 1 for a detailed description of each criterion.) An asterisk (*) in the Environmental column indicates that the alignment was identified as the "environmentally preferred" option in the Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Environmental Report. Evaluation Criteria Prioritization U -a fa a a sao ami 3 U oZS a tz M v+ a 2 2 V E al aT+ L LU qA aL+ 0 U I U r-I N M E �F U 0 4J0 Cl C •� a 1A t L L L tw U CA 0 U v to to D v w v R li Z oC 135th Ave to Summerlake Park Alignment 1A • • • • O O 4 O X Alignment 113 4 4 (J • •* • • • X Summerlake Park to 121st Avenue Alignment 2A 4 4 • • O O 4 O X Alignment 213 4 • • O O 4 O X Alignment 2C • (3 • O (J (J O X Alignment 2D 4 4 (3 • •* • • • X Alignment 2E 4 • •* • • • X 121st Avenue to 114th &Gallo Neighborhood Trail Alignment 3A 4 i • • O O O O X Alignment 313 4 4 4 • •* • • • X Alignment 3C 4 4 4 • •* 1 • 1 • • X Gallo Avenue Trail to Fanno Creek Trail Alignment 4A • 4 4 • O 4 4 O X Alignment 413 • 4 • • 4 4 4 O X Alignment 4C • O (J • • • (J (J X Alignment 4D 4 • •* • • • X Kittelson &Associates, Inc. w 'fes�Y Na �` 4r. �' - fro p4•:m �, •ffW- _'w rami• J �'+9 .��1� �ia UrbI 1. 1�4�V ;�_ ,r, ,•, � 'lFi, ���Ir�: �Iol ,7 Ri��l 'tj; ���� '��5 .Y�.•" ..A. t .w r .. � �.. PIP .�Si.�IR n •�•' r7'a��J :aL r r•� `� �' °ares ' • �� 3 , TTT r R� .,.'� ,� .��,� �� �� _ III :�; �+�� f� •�+ � �:. S� rr�� IfA����� �e aF'��t������� ��' �� �!!IlflllF!llllilr !�I .•rein+�+�q��$ Sr• ` ���"'' Pt► �wra� 1 ■ Mum [�4 �+ ���:e Il_r! 'A'�7f ' -./� � �: I� -•^G�^i.M �' � -'�',IS9 i:7. �� �`��r` :a �'� �ilr �� liar.•�� �,* ��. � t��l�l?3�+t�i �,�y�"-�+� , � FOR 1111 AI °R w C �de rriir, 8iI1V �' f ����Ems �� �'k qtr�+��� � � ,. '�, � ' x)r ►a �� �� a�� 11 pinM a'st IH4.A }'kyr,s'� �': 'w'sr 6�I.i1• .`#", r�sl �� �. a�. �I *• -f a �•� . .. .� I,�1 i5'" .N -. IRN191i11 �� ;tiv''�� ;i !f offlf CIS �• - ■1� yvt .K•y � u� f!�n �lN� ����i�i�i..yv�=j �� . . w � �w���•". -� �aarlfr��p gj s. . ,�.' _== � �1r �•' ! Illi kRf�� �- .,�� lur• •qr - riI `A rir iAill r u �z.s 9f r..•.z EU 7i 7 yi MI6 _ _iilfiA.111 fiRl•#lifl► � � re ,� it ++ �:.. , r liflf' k�r'slAi� a�r 1 1101"#I9i;f - - "'+Aifliwii11i1 `4IIlflls�l ,i � �� Fill F ■��� . ,,� _ wilt n. r �. Tigard GreenwayTra119 Ma sler Plan TIGAR[e Evaluation Criteria Prioritization CL w Summer Creek to Walnut Street Oil M - 111-111 : eeeemeee©■■■ . .. . .. ■ - : - ■see■■■e■■■© M - 111111-111 : eeeemeee■■e■ ■ : - ose■e■ee■■■© ■ : - : eee■mese■■e■ M : - - eeeemeee■■e■ Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 9, 2011 Page 42 Tualatin River Trail hvtic'3..41..' �.- .-- w•�: ;.- �. ~: -- + t .r .Y,--�s _., -� Ilk • -. - �� 1`�t;�S'.�±a��`„.a^�al.4T•`�Lv-nsal.� (' .v'Y T � —{� "',r��� ,'� j ..S'" ]yj,, .�._ •9• _ _ err - _ �+� ' ` dA 'yT. •. lefA dr:' ., :•�, - :� - a •T'.o 1 •'8':' 0;� .1'�titi ` _:...I. is= A7 X •. rte. _ �� ��,���TL.'i iii�� '' ��f�.�{� � ���L MR��+ �'��,. •,~ �`1 Vary steep slope ' �'� ���• � ! � � sea 9��, �.. • at trail entrap x, r _ Bs�' �} •'� GEN NWER SERYICES • Trail crosses multi Connection to "• � Hwy 99VI bike lanes ;' _ :2 q .}� '•- � . Y�� �� 'It•'� "�,_J:it '=�r - �1''ii-` r���'n' -� �y'� '!•.-ix. ! 1- ` '{1•-kms *D7Ts 'S .I Connection to - _ +. a+- .� •t - future Viestside Trail r•. - IrIN '411 � ,.: ^► OLW wi r • .. a "Minn' Mi■■' Potential Tualatin River Trail Alignment Existing Trails . Schools Tigard City Boundary 101010 Potential Fanno Creek Trail Alignment Bike Lanes Railroad ° -060 42° rualaFin Ricer rrai€ 1115=�Feet The above map shows the potential trail alignments evaluated. In the table below, a "•" indicates that the alignment fully satisfies the criteria, a "0" means that the alignment somewhat satisfies the criteria, while a "O" indicates that the alignment does not satisfy the criteria. (See Table 1 for a detailed description of each criterion.) An asterisk (*) in the Environmental column indicates that the alignment was identified as the "environmentally preferred" option in the Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Environmental Report. Evaluation Criteria Prioritization U fa A al U (a ++ a a sao amiCL 3 W qA .L+ 0 U ++ U ri N M E �F U is C •� a U1 s L L L tw U 1A 0 U v to to D v w v R li Z oC SW 85th Ave to SW 108th Ave 108th Entrance & Existing Trail Improvements • • �* • • X SW 108th Ave to Pacific Highway Alignment 3A (P 4 4 O (J* O O 4 X Alignment 313 • L • 4 4 O O X Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 9, 2011 Page 43 Pathfinder-Genesis Trail Fanno Creek to Pathfinder .. ;,_ •,,' _• :' Connection to Fanna Creek Trail R + . "• :. .rte.., .. -- .. _ t Trail crosses r Y: Potential on-street �^ :_;�,rt � connection . .- 115th and soft surfacek CL, wort of 115th 2Et3. 115th Avenue to Gaarde Street -' +- r •�� a y14 A f :L. - � .�- ,'^ - P'' •{. .'�y' 4.� I. iY�. ,rte ��j�r. ConnocLiorr Te�. -�..Y .r''�'• � �� .� l' T'lye. Gaarde bike lanes ��II F -- 7 q 11001110 Potential Pathtintler-GenesisTrail Existing Trails Schools 11001110 Proposed Fenno Creek Trail Bike Lanes "" 350 70D PalhSnder- enesis Trail Railroad 0 Feet The above map shows the potential trail alignments evaluated. In the table below, a "•" indicates that the alignment fully satisfies the criteria, a "0" means that the alignment somewhat satisfies the criteria, while a "O" indicates that the alignment does not satisfy the criteria. (See Table 1 for a detailed description of each criterion.) An asterisk (*) in the Environmental column indicates that the alignment was identified as the "environmentally preferred" option in the Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Environmental Report. Evaluation Criteria Prioritization U fa A al U fa ++ a a st�o ami 3 U 03 a tz M v+ a 2 2 .JC. E al aT+ L LU qA aL+ 0 U ++ U E r-I N M sF v al CL C CL rn S i i i +, C CAbA v v v o a1 v 1n 1n D v w v R li Z IY Segment 1(Fanno Creek to Pathfinder Way) Alignment 1A • • • (P O O O X Alignment 113 (3 (3 (P O (3 O (P X Alignment 1C (3 O O • •* • • (P X Segment 2(107th Court to 115th Avenue) Alignment 2A • • (3 • • O X Alignment 213 •* • • O X Segment 3(115th Avenue to Gaarde Street) Alignment 3A • • O O • O O X Alignment 313 •* • • X Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 February 9, 2011 Page 44 Washington Square Loop Trail '•""`-- ''�` :� �- _ ' ._. . - tie Neighborhood stream restoration in progress ' J, g --�_ �:� .. � '•tea-' - - r l t conn S - , Little sB ��■ trait in Metzger Park Potential to i t improve bike and rty I lanes crossing Hwy 277 - �- :3B � J r Low traffic roadsi provide potential �4�a■ti4F ��Y-ei a#�i on-stmot options oax Crossing treatme 41 •'• needed at Gr _ y v d Connection to Hall Blvd bike lanes 1 =-•��.esal�.f-ti �.�..... 1.k i,��.. ��' :"Yf Ts� 'L -'•,y. �i� '�§� - ■!: i � Crossing tndar � � '� � �'-�`- •m. - 'I�� - �rh railroad bridge 4I Connection to Fanrso Creek trail 141 1011011 Potential Washington Loop Rligrnent "^^'^T^ Railroad Wetlands Metro Parcels Opportunity r. ■ �. eet Existing Traits Schools ?///O Floodplain Tigard Parce]s ®Constraint -- - Bike Lanes par �� Tigard City Boundary ��Existing Feature 4�F Washington Square Loop Trail The above map shows the potential trail alignments evaluated. In the table below, a AV indicates that the alignment fully satisfies the criteria, a "I" means that the alignment somewhat satisfies the criteria, while a "o" indicates that the alignment does not satisfy the criteria. (See Table 1 for a detailed description of each criterion.) An asterisk (*) in the Environmental column indicates that the alignment was identified as the "environmentally preferred" option in the Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Environmental Report. Evaluation Criteria Prioritization U M c M +� a 42 Ea sao ami 0 d W U +L., O t�7 , v a I N M E N0 0 c E 0dA d d 0 CJ N N D H (.1 LU V d H H H Z OC Segment 1(Fanno Creek to Highway 217) Alignment 1A C) • • • O O O X Alignment 113 C) O (J • V (3 4 X Segment 2 (Highway 217 to Hall Boulevard) Alignment 2A 4 • • • O O 4 X Alignment 213 • (11 O (l •* rl • X Segment 3(Hall Boulevard to 61st Avenue) Alignment 3A 4 • • • O O O X Alignment 3B O • •* • X Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#; 10622 February 9, 2011 Page 45 Tigard Street Trail Narrow bridge does V :. _N ; _ � 04.1 , 7 not accomodate A._ bikes ! pedestrians : ; x •� � �, -� �: may.- i- Connection to _., . 4 - Fanny Creek Trails (-A), � Narrow railroad corridor, Potential for 12-16' AwAt-, Existing pedestrian i .` .-�, *111 shared use trailr = rbrnidge i:i1•r �� " 'r. v**�"'-.On: hG �,t, Existing crosswalk and � ; ,. �. , #.- s pedestrian 1 Woodard ` Park signage r ' y. S rr _ vt °'� ;'.� Existing ix crosswalks N;rb; " .> �c� connect to 4 Existing uses ! transit near rail leave , Vo. ',rffNk. +w' ' - '� station little room for trail Connection to Hall bike lanes 1 .• •�'. r4` �. J 1 Proposed Tigard street Trail Existing Trails T seCD Opportunity � L7 Tigard Trantit Center Propod PatM,nder-Geneses hail Bike Lanes O Constraint 1 Proposed Fano Creek Trail 1-Fi-Fi-F+ Railmad Schools p 340 68D CD Existing FGatura 0 Feet Tigard Street Trail The above map shows the potential trail alignments evaluated. In the table below, a AV indicates that the alignment fully satisfies the criteria, a "(3" means that the alignment somewhat satisfies the criteria, while a "a' indicates that the alignment does not satisfy the criteria. (See Table 1 for a detailed description of each criterion.) An asterisk (*) in the Environmental column indicates that the alignment was identified as the "environmentally preferred" option in the Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Environmental Report. Evaluation Criteria Prioritization U M W U f6 d L LU dA +Lr 0 U U a I N M 4- U N Q C 9 a s s_ s_ +' U dA d d d 0 U N N C V w U a H H H Z Segment 1(Fanno Creek Trail to Tiedeman Street) Alignment 1A 4 4 O • 4 (3 O X Alignment 1B 4 (3 o • V (3 (3 X Segment 2(Tiedeman Avenue to Tigard Transit Center) • • Clio • •* Clio Clio X Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 9, 2011 Page 46 Fanno Creek Trail ..•.__�._ - ...._..72ND Bonita/Durham Road r y --------'-- s 7179 Existing unpaved trail outside of wetland and - - !•. FA '! `strictly limit'habitat area € $p � A' . Potential on-street bicycle f"t�' V �r boulevard connection ''+ "•`r"h :~- .- - •• -; l CLEA44 WATER �I.•� ER;ERVeC65 .• •fir ,.-�i� �,. _ A TREAT.NEkr PLAryi •� �� I a� � HALL ��.:��l.� ✓k ':i. �."1=�`�:..>.f �-. _":•' ._ �..• _ J • �- t7urham Road to Durham Ci•ty Library,Brown Property Y..lLsrer• 7. 4T. F. �x. 'Tiedeman Road 14 i' 3p _7 Recently acquired Metro ." �� .i�gym' j�'. ..�.tir - _�,•,:ti_ - ParcelProvidesadditional "'r`•. ''",-' �-.r•.- �� �� -i} �•.y - _ - �*-G' - ! �F•7� >r .7- alr&3 A- { --_. fj lh'-�ti : � ;4,•,.„- t:.. kti crossing optionsAN ..1�.: ,i-• ■-�. 't y+pi's�' ��_ - .�,. ,�.' .' r, ... _- •i - l .+nti��.•'.. --- Proposed Fanno Creek Trail Bike Lanes Existing Trails L�Tigard City Boundary c soo L,000 011�Feet Fanno Creek Trail Area MaP The above map shows the potential trail alignments evaluated. In the table below, a "•" indicates that the alignment fully satisfies the criteria, a "0" means that the alignment somewhat satisfies the criteria, while a "O" indicates that the alignment does not satisfy the criteria. (See Table 1 for a detailed description of each criterion.) An asterisk (*) in the Environmental column indicates that the alignment was identified as the "environmentally preferred" option in the Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Environmental Report. Evaluation Criteria Prioritization U fa A al U fa ++ a a sao ami 3 U oZS a tz M v+ a 2 2 V E al aT+ L W qA aL+ 0 U ++ U E ri N M �F U Cl C •� a 0 s � L L L ++ U OA v v v o a) v to to v w v oC a� Z oC Segment 1(Library/Fanno Creek Drive) Alignment 1A • • V • • X Alignment 113 • • • O O (P O X Segment 2(Brown Property) Alignment 2A • 4 • O O O O O X Alignment 213 • 4 • (3 4 (3 (3 4 X Alignment 2C (3 O O O O X Alignment 2D (P O • •* • • (3 X Segment 3(Bonita Road to Durham Road) Alignment 3A • C) O • • • • 4 X Alignment 3Ai • 4 4 • 4 4 4 • X Alignment 3Aii • C) C) C) C) C) C X Alignment 313 • • • 4 O O O 4 X Alignment 313i • • • 4 O O O 4 X Alignment 3C • • • O O O O X Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 9, 2011 Page 47 Fanno Creek Trail (continued) Evaluation Criteria Prioritization U fa T al U fa ++ a a sao ami 3 U oZS a a M v+ a 2 2 V al aT+ L W qA aL+ 0 U ++ U F U LZ C '� CL U1 S L L L U tw U �n ii CA 0 v w E v V) i2 a� Z oc Alignment 3D O (p (p • • • • (p X Alignment 3E • • • •* • X Segment 4(Durham Road to Durham City) Alignment 4A • (p 4 • C) O X Alignment 4Ai • • C) C) O O X Alignment 4B • • C) C) 4 O C) X Alignment 4C • (p O • •* • • C) X Alignment 4D • C) O (p (p X Alignment 4Di O O • • O O X Segment 5(Tiedeman Road Crossing) Alignment 5A • 4 • • 4 4 4 4 X Alignment 5B • • 4 • 4 4 4 4 X Alignment 5C • • • •* • • • X Alignment 5Ci • • • • • • • X Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan Project#: 10622 February 9, 2011 Page 48 Trail-with-Rail Opportunities Hall to Bonita .I -T __.... �, f '�� r�i-k�.H•1 +- I 1-ri-1--FFFI-t-.. - 4 - r_ •ti Scl lolls Ferry io nedeman i a ' !`� .. or _.r Potential Trail-With-Rail Alignment Tigard City Boundary Existing Trails ». L� Opportunity ••••• Potential Rail-to-Trail ^ " Proposed Fann❑Creek Greenway Railroad Bike Lanes �} Constraint o Boo '• Potential Trail-with-Rail 0 deet AlfematiVes The above map shows the potential trail alignments evaluated. In the table below, a All" indicates that the alignment fully satisfies the criteria, a "0" means that the alignment somewhat satisfies the criteria, while a "O" indicates that the alignment does not satisfy the criteria. (See Table 1 for a detailed description of each criterion.) An asterisk (*) in the Environmental column indicates that the alignment was identified as the "environmentally preferred" option in the Tigard Greenway Trail System Master Plan Environmental Report. Evaluation Criteria Prioritization U fti a c Ea. ami 0 v 41 aT+ L W qA aL+ O v 4. U r-I N M a v 41 CL C �5 CL fA S i i i a... O tw 41 41 N O U v to to CA 0 D v w v R aL Z W Segment 1(SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Tiedeman Road) Alignment 1 (J (J (P (J (J O O (J X Segment 2(SW Hall Boulevard to SW Bonita Road) Alignment 2 co co co (1 O O (1 X Kittelson &Associates, Inc.