Trail Maintenance and Operation - Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Allegheny River Trail, Pa. (Jim Holden) ➺ ➺ ➺ ➺ ➺ ➺ third were done with paving machines, onethird with tailgate spreaders, and one-third with a variety of other means, mostly redistributing the existing surface material with a dozer or grader. There were no specific reports of trail surface materials or application methods being changed due to problems with the original material or method. About two-thirds of trails have been resurfaced and/or re-graded, at an average age of nine years. Two-thirds of trails were compacted with vibratory rollers, with the remainder being compacted by static rollers. Some trails even reported using hand tampers or letting the trail be compacted by usage. The most common roller weight reported was 10 tons. Seven trails report using binders, including calcium, Road Oyl and PennSuprezD. Two-thirds of trails develop potholes. The most common repair method, used by virtually all trails, is manual (rake, shovel, etc.). One-third of trails also use light power equipment such as a garden tractor, and one-third use heavy equipment such as a back hoe or grader. Less than 10 percent of trails do partial snow removal with a plow, while the vast majority do none. Virtually all trails remove litter and debris manually, since power equipment could adversely impact the trail surface. About 10 percent also use blowers. TO PAVE OR NOT TO PAVE This is one of the most common questions in rail-trail development. Those seeking to answer that question on the basis of maintenance and operation (M&O) costs are likely to be disappointed. As indicated in the “Administration” section, annual per-mile M&O costs are very similar for asphalt and non-asphalt trails. While this may not seem intuitively correct, there are a number of factors that tend to support this conclusion. ➺ ➺ ➺ Surface maintenance, and re-surfacing in particular, is a less-frequent maintenance item that may not appear in annual budgets. Therefore, the surface choice will have less of an impact on recurring costs than patrols, trash collection, vegetative maintenance, and various other tasks. Trail organizations and government agencies likely spend whatever they can get their hands on. Expenditures may be more reflective of fundraising and budgetary constraints than actual need. While anecdotal evidence repeatedly suggests higher maintenance (activity, if not cost) for non-asphalt trails, this effort may be largely absorbed by volunteers, and would not be reflected in hard-dollar costs. Bizz Johnson Trail, Calif. (Laura Cohen) 12 • RAIL-TRAIL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
So, how should the trail surface selection be made? The short answer is that this is not a design or construction report. However, some general guidance can be offered. While maintenance costs probably should not be a factor in the decision, construction and reconstruction costs almost certainly should be. Construction costs are beyond the scope of this study. However, nonasphalt trails require significant re-grading or resurfacing twice as often as asphalt trails (9 years vs. 17 years). A simplistic cost approach would then say, if asphalt is less than twice the cost, it is a more cost-effective, long-term choice. At least one other area of consideration should be suitability to purpose. In this regard, there are many factors that come into play: ➺ ➺ ➺ Volume of use—high volumes of use will arguably have a greater impact on non-asphalt trails, although there are numerous examples of well-constructed non-asphalt trails that hold up well under relatively high use. Types of use—different trail surfaces will be better or worse for different activities, for example in-line skating or equestrian activities. How do you expect the trail to be used? Are there any uses you specifically want to include or exclude? Setting—asphalt may be more fitting for an urban setting than a rural setting. Also consider environmental and aesthetic factors such as the need to be consistent with a natural or historic setting. Is it the End of the Trail OR JUST THE BEGINNING FOR COAL COMBUSTION BYPRODUCTS (CCB)? In 2001 the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) conducted a demonstration project to highlight the use of recycling coal combustion byproducts (CCB) by utilizing them as trail surfacing in an extension to the Youghiogheny River Trail near McKeesport, Pa. A portion of the trail, the Allegheny Land Trust’s “Dead Man’s Hollow Nature Area,” in Lincoln Borough was completed using six experimental trail surface sections each containing different CCB-based mixtures. NETL contracted with GAI Consultants, Inc., in Pittsburgh to design the trail surface, oversee the process for making the CCB mixtures containing coal waste from local utilities, and monitor and report on the durability of each mixture. Periodic inspections by GAI have shown that the trail surfaces are durable and have demonstrated minimal wear since the completion of construction in 2001. During a recent inspection of the trail surfaces by Thomas Gray, PE of GAI (see photo above), he stated that, “The trail surfaces have held up remarkably well over the past three years, and show no signs of excessive wear or cracking.” It is important to note that CCBs have also been used in other local Pennsylvania rails-to-trails projects including 1,500 feet of the Steel Valley Trail in Glassport, PA. NETL’s research into CCB surfacing materials promises to provide environmentally sound, cost-effective trailsurfacing options to more than 2,000 miles of walking trails and light-duty pavement in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Demonstrating the use of CCBs from local coal plants helps to reduce the need for landfill disposal, and provides an efficient and cost effective alternative to crushed limestone, concrete or asphalt. In fact the surface, harder, smoother and stronger than crushed limestone, is about half the cost of concrete or asphalt. The overall results of this study could lead to the start of a whole new path for rails-to-trails projects everywhere. Youghiogheny River Trail, Pa. (Thomas Gray, P.E.) RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY • 13
Page 2 and 3: Table of Contents Preface .........
Page 4 and 5: Introduction In about two decades,
Page 6 and 7: Administrative and Financial This s
Page 8 and 9: Table 5: Asphalt/Non-asphalt Trail
Page 10 and 11: Liability, Insurance and Public Saf
Page 12 and 13: Trail Surfaces The trail surface is
Page 16 and 17: Vegetation and Drainage Vegetation
Page 18 and 19: Trailheads and Amenities Top: Prair
Page 20 and 21: ACCESS CONTROL Most trails are open
Page 22 and 23: Bridges and Tunnels Table 13: Mater
Page 24 and 25: Design and Construction Tips for Ea
Page 26 and 27: 24 • RAIL-TRAIL MAINTENANCE AND O
Page 28 and 29: All: Capital Area Greenbelt, Pa. (C
Page 30 and 31: Appendix 1 - Resources for Trail Ma
Page 32 and 33: Maintenance Activity Maintenance of
Page 34 and 35: Activity July August September Tota
Page 36 and 37: The following was submitted for the
Page 38 and 39: The following budget was submitted
Page 40 and 41: Appendix 4 - Survey Participants Tr
Page 42 and 43: Survey Participants Air Line State
Page 44: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Northea

Trail Maintenance and Operation - Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?