Rails to Trails Final Report Submitted to the Board of Supervisors on February 4, 2003 1. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes a study by a citizen’s task force of the feasibility of converting the Newtown Rail Line to a trail. The route has been included in area-wide open space studies, being referred to as the “Newtown Greenway”. The task force was formed by direction of the Upper Southampton Board of Supervisors in June, 2002. 2. SUMMARY This rail right of way represents a significant resource for the people of Bucks County and Upper Southampton Township. It is owned by SEPTA, which maintains its restoration as a rail line on its capital plans. It was shut down after a serious grade crossing collision at Second Street Pike and has not been used as a commuter railroad for over twenty years. The task force agrees that the reinstatement of mass transit in this corridor is desirable, even a priority. Based on projected rider ship and the cost of rebuilding the line, we find no indication that any form of mass transit will be reinstated along this corridor within the foreseeable future, even though reactivation of this line is contained in SEPTA’s capital plan. This report is based on our evaluation of published data describing other trails, a visit to the Perkiomen Trail in Montgomery County, discussions with Mr. John Woods, Chief of Open Space Planning for Montgomery County, Mr. Ken Edmonds, Mr. Charles Martin, Bucks County Commissioner, and Mr. David Schultz, Chief of Police of Upper Southampton Township. We reviewed letters from Ms. Faye Moore, SEPTA General Manager, and Ms. Lyn Bush of the Bucks County Planning Commission. A representative of the Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers also spoke at one of our meetings. It is the opinion of a majority of the members of this task force that this trail would benefit the citizens of Upper Southampton. The Task Force acknowledges that the trail will have some negative effects on some residents adjacent to the trail. There has not been any evidence presented which shows that a trail will present a danger, increase crime, or cause any physical or economic harm. At the present time, SEPTA will not agree to allow conversion of this right of way to the proposed trail. Therefore, no further action is recommended. 3. OBJECTIVE 3.1 Recreation The primary objective for a trail replacing the existing railroad line in Southampton would be recreation. Anticipated recreational use includes hiking, bicycling, running, skating, cross country skiing and wheelchairs or motorized chairs. It would become a linear extension of Tamanend Park. 3.2 Transportation A secondary objective would be to aid the township citizens to travel within the community. It would also be used to travel between communities, if the adjoining townships also convert their rail corridors to a trail. 4. OWNERSHIP 4.1 Legal Relationship with SEPTA If converted to a trail, the line would be “rail banked” and leased from Septa which would retain all rights to restore the line to some future form of mass transit use. Currently, the reactivation of the rail line remains in Septa’s capital plans, despite recent usage studies indicating that the cost of this project cannot be justified. It is unlikely that SEPTA will relinquish control of the line. Ms. Faye Moore summarized this position in her letter dated October 1, 2002. This letter is attached as Appendix A. 4.2 Relationship with Bucks County At the present time, the Bucks County Commissioners do not support this plan. The county commissioners believe that County expenditures on recreation are adequate. The letter from Lyn Bush summarizes this position. This letter is attached as Appendix B. 4.3 Relationship with Adjacent Municipalities In the absence of an active plan by Bucks County, Upper Southampton would, when appropriate, negotiate mutual agreements with either Montgomery County or Upper Moreland Township and with Northampton Township. The Upper Moreland Commissioners have passed a resolution supporting creation of a trail. No other municipalities have taken a similar position. 4.4 Injury Liability Liability arising from use of the trail would be covered by the township’s insurance as it is for the use of Tamanend Park, the Township Complex, the Community Center, and the Library. 5. FUNDING 5.1 Possible Source of Funds Mr. John Woods stated that Federal and State funding is available to fully fund feasibility studies and construction of trails. 5.2 Items to be Considered in Cost of Construction 5.2.1 Clearing brush, fallen trees, and debris. 5.2.2 Removal of rails and ties. 5.2.3 Installation of fences and barriers. 5.2.4 Grading, repair of bridges and washouts. 5.2.5 Alternate 1, stone top surface. Alternate 2, bituminous top surface. 5.2.6 Modifications to street crossings. 6. ACCESS SITES 6.1 Bristol Road Location provides public access. A possible agreement with Jesus Focus Ministry could provide parking. 6.2 Tamanend Park Tamanend Park is located along Second Street Pike and is comprised of approximately 108 acres of woodlands, meadows, and recreation fields. The rail line borders the rear of the park with a small portion of park property on the east side of the tracks. The park’s trail system consists of a network of dirt or grass trails. There are several existing access points to the park that have been informally developed over the years from foot traffic entering either from the tracks or the adjacent properties. The terrain adjacent to the tracks varies considerably from the Klinger School side of the park to the Carlin Drive side. It ranges from an eight foot drop to the tracks, to being level or up hill. Access could be made at several points by the creation of sloping paths. Visitor parking and rest room facilities are available at the office and pavilion, near trails that could be used for ready access to the trail. At present time the ordinance governing the park prohibits bicycles. The access road from Second Street Pike and certain trails could be designated for bicycle and motorized wheel chair use. 6.3 Strathmann Drive Access in this area requires further study. 6.4 Foot of Orchard Road Possible access, but difficult due to difference in elevation. Parking must be prohibited. 6.5 Cul-de-sacs and Residential Areas off New Road This is private property and no public access would be allowed. 6.6 Second Street Pike and Shopping Center Area Location provides public access. There is some limited parking at the old train station. Unwanted parking in the shopping center could pose a problem. The undeveloped area between the microwave tower and James Way would also provide access. 6.7 County Line Road Location provides public access. Unwanted parking in the business and store lots could pose a problem. 7. CONSTRUCTION 7.1 Tracks and Ties Removal is preferred. There are companies that will remove the tracks and ties for free. (New Hope Ivyland, Recycle Scrap Yards). Covering the tracks with stone would be costly and would create additional risk for bodily injury. 7.2 Type of Surface A crushed stone base would be needed to fill in the void created after the ties are removed and to fill in the washed out areas. A good base of stones already exists from the railroad bed’s ballast. The addition of a top layer of screening would provide a usable trail surface. Depending on use by the public, as well as the availability of funds from grants, an asphalt surface would be desirable. This surface is lower in maintenance and better suited to wheeled vehicles. Other surfaces, such as wood chips or shredded tires would be studied. 7.3 Width It is recommended that the trail be 12 feet wide. This width would allow access by emergency vehicles. An adjacent soft surface for running would be desirable. 7.4 Road crossings Bollards would be placed at all locations where the trail is accessible to motor vehicles. Certain bollards would be removable to allow emergency vehicles to pass through when required. 8. USAGE 8.1 Allowable Uses Hiking / Walking Running / Jogging Bicycling In-Line Skating Wheelchair and motorized (battery powered) chairs Cross Country Skiing 8.2 Uses Requiring Further Study Horseback Riding 8.3 Prohibited Uses Motor Vehicles ATV’s, Go Carts Motor Cycles, Mopeds, Motorized Dirt Bikes Scooters, Motorized Skate Boards Snow Mobiles 8.4 Example of Rules and Regulations Appendix C contains an example of the rules and regulations which would have to be developed. 9. MAINTENANCE 9.1 Trash Collection Trash containers would placed along the trail. The Southampton Public Works Department would empty them as required by usage. 9.2 Other Maintenance A paved trail would require almost no maintenance, other than a sweeping in the Spring, for at least fifteen years. Packed crushed stone would have to be leveled and rolled each spring. In season, grass and brush along the edges require mowing. Initially, until they mature, trees will require trimming. Fallen trees and branches will require removal, probably once in the spring, and again after storms. The Southampton Public Works Department assisted by some volunteer help, could handle these tasks. It is noted that maintenance and patrol of the Perkiomen Trail is performed by County Park Rangers. 9.3 Winter Snow Action No action at all. If used for cross country skiing, the users would “pack out” the snow themselves. Snow Mobiles, because of noise and safety, would not be allowed. 10. SAFETY AND SECURITY 10.1 Lighting The Task Force recommends that the trail not be lighted. In some locations, it will be considered to provide the police with visibility. Use of the trail at night would be prohibited as is Tamanend Park. 10.2 Crime Control This subject was discussed in depth with Upper Southampton Police Chief David Schultz. He pointed out that no area could be assured to be 100% free of criminal activity. He believed that an area such as a trail is not attractive to criminal activity because crime, as we know it relies on ready access to a motor vehicle. The Upper Southampton Police already use a vehicle to patrol Tamanend Park. The trail would be an extension of the park. Chief Schultz stated that his department was fully capable of patrolling the proposed trail without incurring any extra expense to the department. 10.3 Video Surveillance This tool is beginning to see use in areas such as traffic monitoring, convenience stores, gas stations, and mall parking lots. The technology to provide video monitors in patrol cars does exist, and will probably become cost effective if necessary. 10.4 Street Crossings 10.4.1 General. The American Assoc. of Highway and Transportation Officials state that trail users, especially bicyclists, have a low tolerance for delay. Bicyclists have a strong desire to maintain momentum. Younger trail users may not be experienced in dealing with traffic. Street crossings will require signs, barriers, and upgrades to existing traffic control signals. 10.4.2 Bristol Road. This would only become a concern if the trail were to proceed into Northampton Township. A traffic light was installed at the railroad when the Bristol and Churchville intersection was signalized, but was never activated. PADOT would have to review the sequencing, timing, and control. 10.4.3 Street Road. An underpass already exists. 10.4.4 Second Street Pike, Knowles Av. This is a major intersection and would present a substantial safety challenge. It, most certainly presents a clear danger to bicyclists and pedestrians. Traffic control signals are already in place at the RR crossing. Turn lanes are a problem. As with Bristol road, PADOT would have to review the sequencing, timing, and control. 10.4.5 County Line Road. This would only become a concern if the trail were to proceed into Montgomery County. The proximity of the trail to the Jaymore Road intersection makes a “dog leg” requiring the trail to cross at the intersection practical. 11. PRIVACY of ADJACENT PROPERTIES 11.1 During Construction, Before Opening John Wood told the RTT task force during the tour of the Perkiomen Trail that premature use of and access to the trail was a significant problem. Buffer plantings and fencing was left to be done after completion of the trail. This aspect of trail construction should be addressed during the early stages of construction. Careful planning is required to discourage trespassing on private property. 11.2 After Trail is Opened 11.2.1 Fencing. Various types of fencing such as split rail, stockade, and chain link fencing is used along the Perkiomen Trail to define the trail limits, separate the trail from private property, and to protect trail users from hazards such as steep drop-offs.. John Wood stated that the wishes of the adjacent property owner are accommodated whenever possible. Sometimes, at the request of the property owner, gates are provided in the fence. 11.2.2 Signs and Markers. The Perkiomen Trail section which the RTT task force toured appeared to be well marked. "Please stay on the Trail" signs are used to discourage trespassing. "No Motorized Vehicles” signs and trail entrance signs are also used. 11.2.3 Buffer Plantings. Vegetative buffers such as Arborvitae and Forsythia are also used along the Perkiomen Trail. These are primarily only a visual barrier. For Southampton, some buffers will be necessary for privacy. 11.2.4 Disturbance of Residents Along Trail. Data from studies of trail use is shown in Appendix D. It shows that disturbance of adjacent property owners have either decreased or not changed as a result of the trail. 12. IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES 12.1 Immediately Adjacent Landowners along three existing rail-trails studied by the US Department of the Interior reported that their proximity to the trails had not adversely affected the desirability or values of their properties. See Appendix E for details. “Of those who purchased property along the trails after the trails had been constructed, the majority reported that the trails either had no effect on the property’s appeal or added to its appeal.” “The vast majority of real estate professionals interviewed felt the trails had no negative effect on property sales and no effect on property values adjacent to or near the trails. 12.2 Nearby, but not Adjacent It was reported that property near but not immediately adjacent to a trail is significantly easier to sell and, according to real estate agents, sells for an average of six percent more as a result of its proximity to the trail. Use of the trails generated significant levels of economic activity. See Appendix E for details. 12.3 Rest of Community Studies have shown that almost two-thirds of the residents felt that the trail increased the quality of life in the neighborhood. The use of a trail generates economic activity. See Appendix E for details. 13. IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT 13.1 Storm Water Runoff and Stream Pollution A paved trail will generate some storm water runoff. This must be addressed in a feasibility study. 13.2 Air Pollution The impact of a trail on air pollution is minimal. 13.3 Impact on Wildlife Most wildlife is nocturnal, and a trail would have minimal impact. APPENDIX C RULES and REGULATIONS The development of a brochure describing the trail along with rules and regulations will be required. These brochures would be available at designated access areas as well as the library. The rules and regulations are as follows: All trail users must abide by rules and regulations established by the entity responsible for the trail. No Littering. No motor vehicles are permitted. Allowance of ATVs (All Terrain Vehicles), motorized dirt bikes and snowmobiles on the trail would be prohibited resulting fines with violators being prosecuted. The trail will only be open to the community from dawn to dusk. Persons using the trail after dark are subject to legal consequences. The entity responsible for the conversion of the trail would be responsible for upkeep of the trail and emptying of trashcans, etc. To do so, authorized vehicles only would be permitted on the trail. Signs will be posted prohibiting trespassing onto homeowners/properties adjacent to the trail. Violators will be prosecuted. Animals such as dogs and horses, while permitted on the trail with its owner, need to be attended to with the owner being solely responsible for waste disposal. Dogs must be kept on a leash at all times. Maximum length of leash shall be X. APPENDIX D DISTURBANCE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS Most commonly reported problems of landowners: Unleashed pets (43%) Noise from trail (27%) Litter (27%) Problems that have decreased or not changed since before the trail opened (percentage of adjacent property owners reporting improvement or no change): Animals harassed (96) Burglary (96) Users ask to use phone, bathroom, etc. (95) Trespassing (95) Illegal motor vehicle use (95) Problems most likely to have increased since before the trail opened (percentage of adjacent property owners reporting more of a problem now): Noise from trail (36) Loitering on/near property (30) Loss of privacy (25) Cars parked on/near property (17) APPENDIX E IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES From a study of three existing rail-trails conducted by the US Department of the Interior, completed in 19921: “Landowners along all three trails reported that their proximity to the trails had not adversely affected the desirability or values of their properties, and along the suburban Lafayette/Moraga Trail, the majority of owners felt the presence of the trail would make their properties sell more easily and at increased values.” “Of those who purchased property along the trails after the trails had been constructed, the majority reported that the trails either had no effect on the property’s appeal or added to its appeal.” “The vast majority of real estate professionals interviewed felt the trails had no negative effect on property sales and no effect on property values adjacent to or near the trails. However, those who felt the trails increased property values outnumbered those reporting decreased values. This effect was most pronounced on the Lafayette/Moraga Trail and for nearby, as opposed to adjacent, property.” Adjacent owners' opinion about effect of trail on resale value (data from Lafayette/Moraga trail which is an area most like Upper Southampton): No effect 44% Increased Value 53% Realtors’ and Appraisers’ conclusion about effect of the trail on adjacent residential property: No effect 52% Increased Value 24% From a Study of the Burke-Gilman Trail’s effect on Property Values and Crime, completed by the Seattle Engineering Department, Office for Planning, May 19872: “Property immediately adjacent to the trail...is only slightly easier to sell, and sells for zero to ½ of one percent more.” From a master’s thesis by Leonard P. Mazour with the Kansas State University, 1988 Titled “Converted Railroad Trails: The Impact on Adjacent Property”3: “A vast majority of owners (87%) believe the trails contribute to an increase or have no affect on the value of their property. (61%) of the suburban residential owners state an increase as a result of the trails. New owners feel the trails have a more positive affect on adjacent property values than do continuing owners.” A 1998 study of property values along the Mountain Bay Trail in Brown County, Wisconsin shows that lots adjacent to the trail sold faster and for an average of nine percent more than similar property not located next to the trail.4 According to a 1995 study, 73 percent of the real estate agents surveyed in Denver, Colorado believed that homes adjacent to trails would be easier to sell.5 From the Burke-Gilman Trail Report: “Property near but not immediately adjacent to the Burke-Gilman Trail is significantly easier to sell and, according to real estate agents, sells for an average of six percent more as a result of its proximity to the trail.” “Homes and condominiums near and adjacent to the Burke-Gilman Trail are easier to sell because of their proximity to the trail.” From USA Today, 8/7/2002, “Recreation, nature lead landowners to water”6: In a survey by the National Association of Home Builders of 1500 households completed last year, homeowners ranked walking and jogging trails as the second amenity they were most willing to pay more money for. Park area was number one. Lakefront was fourth. From the Department of Interior Study, 1992: “Use of the trails generated significant levels of economic activity.” “Users spent an average of $3.97 per person per day on the Lafayette/Moraga trail, resulting in a total annual economic impact of $1.2 million (in 1992 dollars).” From the Burke-Gillman Trail Report: “Almost two-thirds of the residents felt that the trail increased the quality of life in the neighborhood.” A University of Pittsburgh study found that total spending estimates for six trailheads along the Allegheny Trail ranged from $5.4 million to $14.1 million in 1998.7 From a 1987 report on the economic impact of the proposed Missouri River Trail, estimates of tax returns to Missouri governmental units totaled $961,000 annually, with $520,800 going to local governments along the 400-mile trail.8 Endnotes: The Impacts of Rail-Trails, A Study of Users and Nearby Property Owners from Three Trails, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, In cooperation with: The Pennsylvania State University, Roger L. Moore, Alan R. Graefe, Richard J. Gitelson, Elizabeth Porter, 1992. Evaluation of the Burke-Gilman Trail’s Effect on Property Values and Crime, Seattle Engineering Department Office for Planning, May 1987. Converted Railroad Trails: The Impact on Adjacent Property, by Leonard P. Mazour, Kansas State University Master Thesis, 1988. Recreation Trails, Crime, and Property Values: Brown County’s Mountain-Bay Trail and the Proposed Fox River Trail, Brown County Planning Commission, Green Bay, July 6, 1998. The Effects of Greenways on Property Values and Public Safety, The Conservation Fund and Colorado State Parks, State Trails Program, Marcy 1995. Recreation, Nature Lead Homeowners to Water, by Larry Copeland, USA Today, August 8, 2002. An Economic Impact study for the Allegheny Trail Alliance, University of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania Economy League, Inc., Stephen Farber, January 1999. The Economic Impact of the Proposed Missouri River Trail, Uel Blank, February 1987. Site design by DiAnn Ohama.