CORKSCREW RECREATIONAL PATH FEASIBILITY STUDY

Prepared for the Bennington County Regional Commission by:

Martin Cummings
15 Polygraphic Lane North Bennington, VT 05257 (802) 442-9306 mejcummings@alum.rpi.edu

I. Introduction The Town of Bennington and members of the Bennington area bicycling community have an interest in establishing a system of multiple use recreational trails. One option that has been frequently discussed is the establishment of a pathway, along the bed of the Corkscrew Division of the Rutland Railroad, between the Bennington Museum and the Bennington Arts Center. This study examines the feasibility of this proposal.

II. Purpose and Need The Vermont Department of Transportation (VTrans) requires that all projects considered for funding include a statement describing the purpose of and need for the project. The purpose of the proposed project is to create a pathway for pedestrians and bicyclists connecting: The Bennington Museum, The Bennington Arts Center, The Monument Elementary School, and the The Fillmore Pond retirement Community. The need for the project is to: Provide a safe Route, which avoids Route 9, for school children and other bicyclists between the museum, the arts center, the school, and lower traffic volume local roads in Bennington and Old Bennington; Enhance the attractiveness of the Museum and Arts Center for tourists and local residents by providing a scenic pedestrian link between these two institutions and local roads leading to Historic Old Bennington, Provide a safe and attractive recreational pathway for residents of Fillmore Pond, and Begin the process of establishing a network of recreational pathways in the Bennington/Old Bennington/North Bennington area. The proposed pathway is compatible with section 8.3 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation) of the Bennington 2000 Town Plan, which calls for the establishment of a network of bicycle and pedestrian paths. Town Plan Map 8 (Concept Plan for Trails and Greenways) specifically includes the proposed Corkscrew Pathway as part of the overall conceptual network of bicycle and pedestrian trails.

III.

Alignment As currently proposed, the Corkscrew Path would be constructed entirely on a portion of the rail bed of the Corkscrew Division of the Rutland Rail Road (See fig. 1). The

Corkscrew Division, which had been constructed in 1869, was abandoned in 1953. Since then the right of way has reverted to adjoining property owners. The Corkscrew Path would describe a rough semicircle around the Village of Old Bennington. Beginning on the north side of Vermont Route 9 across from the Bennington museum it would proceed north along the eastern boundary of the Village of Old Bennington before swinging west, and then south, to terminate on Gypsy Lane near the Bennington Arts Center. The alignment, which has a total length of slightly less than two miles, crosses three active roads, and one abandoned road. These roadways divide the path into five segments. Segment A Bennington Museum to Bank Street (.35miles) This segment begins immediately across Route 9 from the Bennington Museum, between the Monument Elementary School and the Colonial Garden Apartments and proceeds almost due north. In this segment, the rail bed forms the eastern boundary of the Village of Old Bennington and the Old Bennington Historic District. Initially, the rail bed is mowed and regularly maintained - perhaps to allow access to the transmission line that follows the alignment for a portion of this segment. The northern half of the segment is overgrown except for a narrow footpath. Throughout the segment the rail bed appears to be in good condition. For most of this segment there is fair to good vegetative screening between the alignment and adjacent properties. Several homes that front on Catamount Lane are occasionally visible to the west (left) through the screening vegetation. The right of way passes a small cemetery on the east. About three hundred feet beyond the cemetery a group of duplex houses is visible at a distance of about one hundred and fifty feet to the east. The alignment crosses Bank Street about .35 miles from its beginning at Route 9. The Bank Street crossing is potentially significant if the Town desires to connect the Corkscrew Pathway to a proposed Walloomsac Path. It seems likely that the Walloomsac Path, if constructed, would utilize the Orchard Street pedestrian bridge at the foot of Bank Street. A two thousand foot long path or bike lane along or parallel to Bank Street could provide a direct link between the Corkscrew and Walloomsac trails.

Segment B Bank Street to Harmon Road. (.4 miles) This is the most scenic portion of the alignment. For most of this segment the rail bed runs along the southwest edge of the Mount Anthony Country Club. Occasional breaks in the screening vegetation provide spectacular views of the Green and Taconic Mountains, the Walloomsac Valley and the Northside Drive area of Bennington.

Selective clearing of vegetation would provide excellent views to the north from most of this segment of the alignment. Aside from one mowed field, there is continuous heavy wooded cover on the left (southwest) side of the alignment. This segment ends at an abandoned stagecoach road (identified as Harmon Road on some maps). At the crossing, the elevation of the road lies ten to fifteen feet below the rail bed. The trestle has been removed and would have to be replaced. The Harmon Road right-of-way runs northward from Monument Circle to the Walloomsac River. It is a potential route for a spur trail connecting the Corkscrew path with Old Bennington or the River.

Segment C Harmon Road to Fairview Road (.5 Miles) This segment runs through dense hardwood forests for nearly its entire length. While most of the rail bed is in good condition, there is a small area near Fairview Road that has been extensively eroded.

Segment D Fairview Road to Walloomsac Road (.25 Miles) This segment resembles the previous segment. For the most part it runs through dense woods. Near Walloomsac road a house surrounded by a large lawn is visible through light screening.

Segment E Walloomsac Road to Gypsy Lane (.4 Miles) This segment enters the woods on the south side of Walloomsac Road just east of a house. The first few hundred yards of this section of the alignment appear to have been cleared and maintained. Shortly thereafter the alignment passes through a wetland on a raised rail bed. The alignment is blocked by a locked gate about a hundred yards before the end of the segment and within sight of Gypsy Lane. At this point the raised rail bed disappears. The alignment passes through a side yard with only a wide hedgerow separating it from another yard to the south.

IV.

Potential Recreational Multiple-use Path Network A number of routes for recreational pathways have been identified in the Town of Bennington over the last several years. It might be possible to connect these potential pathways to the Corkscrew Path and create an extensive network of recreational pathways that would link many of the historic, cultural, educational and recreational sites in the Bennington area. (See Fig. 4)

Paran Pathway: A local citizens group has proposed the construction of a three and a half mile bicycle path on the segment of the Vermont Railroad rail bed between the Molly Stark School and the North Bennington depot. Corkscrew/Paran Link: The Corkscrew Path could be connected to the Hicks Avenue pedestrian bridge via a 2000-foot long path or bicycle lane running down Bank Street. Riverwalk Extension: The Riverwalk is a short downtown multiuse pathway that runs from the Bennington Elementary School to the old Bennington train station. The Town plans to extend this path to the Molly Stark Elementary School on Orchard Road. The planned route would proceed from Bennington Station north for 4,000 feet along an unused, but not abandoned, rail bed. At which point the route would follow Hunt Street and Hicks Avenue to an existing pedestrian bridge over the Walloomsac River and from there to Orchard Street and the school. The Town is currently seeking approval from the Vermont Railroad for the construction of the segment of the path that would occupy the unused rail bed. Walloomsac Pathway: The Louis Berger Consulting Group prepared a feasibility study for the Bennington County Regional Commission of a recreational pathway paralleling the Walloomsac River from the Hicks Avenue pedestrian bridge to the Henry covered bridge in North Bennington. Bennington College Pathway: The Louis Berger feasibility study also addressed a pathway that would run from the Walloomsac Pathway at the Silk Road covered bridge through Bennington College to the Village of North Bennington. Stagecoach Road: The Town of Bennington owns the right of way to a long abandoned road that ran from the Bennington Battle Monument to the Walloomsac River. It would be possible to build a linking pathway down this right of way, and a pedestrian bridge across the Walloomsac, to connect the Corkscrew and Walloomsac Pathways. Medical Center Trail: The Southwest Vermont Medical Center has plans to construct an exercise path around its campus-primarily for the use of its patients and staff. The path would, however, be open to the public. Corkscrew/Medical Center Link: The Southwest Vermont Medical Center Trail could be linked to the Corkscrew Path by bicycle lanes on Frost Drive and Elm Street and a pathway through the Chester Knolls Development.

Figure 4 Potential Recreational Path Network

10

V.

Design Standards All proposed construction that is partially funded by Federal or State grants must conform to several design standard requirements of: The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guidelines, and Appropriate Town and VTrans standards. These standards specify design elements such as the width and grade of the path, the construction of ramps at roadway and driveway crossings and the surface material of the trail. The purpose of these standards is to provide a safe and barrier free facility that is accessible to people with disabilities.

VI.

Right of Way Constraints Since the abandonment of the Corkscrew Division Rail Line in 1953, the right of way has reverted to private property owners. Assembling a continuous right of way is apt to be one of the more challenging parts of the project. In several areas parts of the old Corkscrew ROW now serve as the boundary between adjacent parcels. As a result an unusually large number of parcels are directly contiguous to the old right of way. In some cases it is unclear from the tax maps which parcels actually include a portion of the right of way. As discussed in Section IX, letters and questionnaires were sent to the owners of these properties. Figure 5 summarizes the responses of owners of property on or adjacent to the proposed Corkscrew Pathway to a question about their attitude towards the project. Figure 6 summarizes the responses of owners of property that includes part of the rail bed to a question about their willingness to grant an easement for the path. Not all respondents answered all questions.

11

12

13

Segment A Twelve parcels overlap or are adjacent to the ROW. Four owners of property in segment A responded to the BCRC questionnaire. All were generally supportive of the project and at least willing to discuss granting easements. Segment B Seven parcels overlap or are adjacent to the ROW. Three owners of property in this segment responded to the questionnaire. One property owner was generally supportive. One was generally opposed, but willing to consider granting an easement if his concerns could be satisfied. The last respondent sent a letter, with a copy to his attorney, saying he was unalterably opposed to the project and would not grant an easement under any circumstances. Segment C One parcel overlaps the ROW and three parcels are adjacent. Two property owners in segment C responded. One had specific concerns about erosion on the rail bed and was undecided about granting an easement. The other was not opposed, but wanted to link granting an easement to subdivision approval. Segment D - Two parcels overlap the ROW. One landowner in segment D responded. She stated she would not consider granting an easement. Segment E - Two parcels overlap the ROW and nine parcels are adjacent. Six owners of property in segment E responded to the questionnaire. All were opposed to the project and five said they would not grant easements under any circumstances. It appears from the questionnaire responses that there is no possibility of getting necessary easements in segments B, D or E. It may be possible to secure easements in segments A and C.

VII. Cultural Resources Archeological Concerns The files of the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation do not contain records of any archeological sites on or near the section of the Corkscrew Rail Bed under consideration for development as a bicycle path. In addition, it seems very likely that any archeological sites that may once have existed along the right of way would have been destroyed or buried by the 1869 construction of the rail line. Therefore, the primary archeological concern associated with this project is the potential for encountering artifacts related to the Corkscrew Division rail line. However, a review of historic maps and several books about the Rutland Rail Road shows no evidence that there were ever any sidings or industrial buildings located on the stretch of the Corkscrew line between the Route 9 crossing and Gypsy Lane. In addition, it is known that the Rutland Rail Road removed the rails and everything else with salvage

14

value when the line was abandoned in 1953. It is likely that railroad related artifacts, if they exist at all, would be few and scattered. Historical Concerns The entire Village of Old Bennington lies within a Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The first segment of the Corkscrew path alignment (Route 9 to Bank Street, runs along the eastern boundary of this district and forms the rear lot line for several properties (the Moorings Stable, the Moorings/Van Der Linde House, the Burek House and the Malmud House) listed on the National Register. These are large lots, however, and the distance from the alignment to the principal structures on these properties varies from about 170 to about 400 feet. Given the existing vegetative screening and the relatively unobtrusive nature of a recreational path, no significant impacts on these properties are anticipated.

VIII. Natural resources/Environmental Impacts

Wetlands About 1000 feet of Segment E of the Corkscrew Right of Way either passes through or borders a large wetland that begins just south of Walloomsac Road and stretches most of the way to Gypsy Lane (see fig. 3). Since the raised Corkscrew Line rail bed has existed in this location since 1869, construction of a path should not further alter the existing drainage pattern. If care is taken to avoid spills of contaminants during construction, the impacts of building the path should be limited to clearing vegetation along a narrow corridor. Compared to a roadway, the recreational path will be used at a relatively low intensity by vehicles traveling relatively slowly. Significant impacts on fauna are unlikely. A second wetland lays a minimum of 650 feet north and 150 feet down slope from the northern most point of the path in segment C. This wetland does contain endangered species and significant natural habitats. Given the distance and difference in elevation, adverse impacts on this wetland and associated flora and fauna are unlikely. Flood Hazards The ROW lies well above the nearest area subject to flood hazards. Hazardous Wastes The ROW lies more than a thousand feet from the nearest identified hazardous waste site.

15

16

IX. Permitting Issues If, as currently proposed, the proposed path can be confined to the existing rail bed, it appears that permitting issues will be minimal. An Act 250 permit will not be required. According to Rick Oberkirch, the regional Agency for Natural Resources permitting specialist, if the path is paved it will probably exceed the minimum 1 acre criteria that triggers the storm water discharge permitting process. However, the path does not fit the intent of the storm water discharge regulations and a waiver may be possible.

X. Neighborhood Impacts
Community residents raised several questions repeatedly during the discussion of the project: Would the pathway encourage crime in the immediate neighborhood? Would it affect property values? Would homeowners be liable if someone was injured on a portion of the trail that crossed their property? Would the trail benefit local businesses? The City of Burlington and the Town of Stowe have had extensive bicycle/pedestrian trials for a number of years. An informal telephone survey of key people in the Burlington and Stowe area was conducted to determine how the pathways had affected those communities. Chief Trombley of the Burlington Police Department said that there had been concerns about crime when the pathway was proposed, but that their had been no significant problems since it opened. During the summer paid interns patrol the Burlington path from the criminal justice department of Champlain College. The Burlington Path was built on an abandoned railroad right of way, which, Trombley said, was occasionally used for criminal activity prior to the construction of the bike path., but that the patrols and increased bike and pedestrian traffic on the trail had actually discouraged crime. The Chief also stated that the pathway provides a safe place, off busy downtown roads, for children to ride bikes. He concluded by saying that the trail is a great asset for our community that benefits businesses in the area. Bob Whalen, the superintendent of the Burlington Department of Parks and Recreation agreed with Chief Trombley that the bike path had not been a magnet for crime. He stated that the City of Burlington had included hold harmless clauses in all of the easements that it negotiated with property owners. These clauses transferred any liability for injuries on the path to the City. Property owners could not be held liable. Dave Newell of the Wills Insurance Agency in Bennington confirmed that hold harmless clauses are a common and effective way to relieve property owners of any liability connected with a government easement on their property. 17

Valeria Raschon, the head of the Stowe Area Association stated that the were seventeen lodging places on or very near the Stowe path and that the owners felt that the path was a major, major attraction that had a very positive effect on their business. Several real estate agents in the Burlington and Stowe area were also interviewed. They consistently said the bike paths were major community assets and good for property values. If a property is near a recreational path, that fact will usually be mentioned in newspaper advertisements. Such properties tend to sell faster and for a higher price than properties that are not near the bike path. Summaries of economic impact studies of several multiple use trails in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Washington were reviewed. The results of these studies were consistent with the opinions of the people interviewed in Burlington and Stowe. In general, recreational pathways are safe and have a positive impact on property values. All the studies found evidence that the trails made a significant contribution to local economies although the extent of the economic impact varied widely from trail to trail. Based on the foregoing, it is unlikely that the proposed Corkscrew Pathway would increase crime, lower property values or expose property owners to liability lawsuits. It is probable that the pathway would result in a modest increase in property values near the path and benefit some local businesses.

XI. Community Input A variety of methods were used to provide information to the Bennington Community and to solicit community input. A number of important community institutions including: Southern Vermont College, The Southwestern Vermont Medical Center, The Bennington Museum, The Village at Fillmore Pond assisted living facility, and The Bennington Center for the Arts are located on or near the proposed Corkscrew Pathway. As a first step in community outreach, the leaders or key staff members of these institutions were contacted. All were supportive of the Corkscrew proposal and felt that the recreational pathway was compatible with their mission. As a second step, presentations were made to: The Bennington Chamber of Commerce The Bennington Rotary Club, and The Bennington Bicycling Club The proposed pathway was generally supported by the membership of these groups.

18

A public information meeting was scheduled for March 30, 2004. Prior to the meeting interviews were given to reporters from the Bennington Banner and the Rutland Herald. A public notice was published in the Banner and letters announcing the meeting were sent to all owners of property on or adjacent to the proposed pathway. Arrangements were made to have the meeting videotaped and played on the local access cable channel. Approximately thirty people attended the public meeting. Those present included representatives of the Medical Center, the Bennington Museum, the Green Mountain Club and the Audubon Society, but only two property owners. After an initial presentation1 on the project the meeting was thrown open for comments and questions. The majority of the attendees asked questions or made comments. Most of those who made comments were supportive of the path. Two who had experience living in or visiting communities with bike paths described the positive impacts of the paths on those communities. The Director of the Bennington Museum suggested placing historical markers at appropriate places on the path. A representative from the medical center discussed the health benefits of exercise paths. One person recommended beginning the pathway downtown, at the old Bennington train station rather than at the Bennington Museum. Another recommended extending the pathway further west down the rail bed past the Village at Fillmore Pond. A third suggested that the Commission investigate a proposal by the Hoosick River Watershed Association to build a pathway from Williamstown Massachusetts to Pownal in the southern part of Bennington County to determine if it was feasible to extend this pathway to Bennington. The two property owners who spoke were more negative. One said that a pathway at the edge of her property would result in looking at people from wherever that you really dont want to look atand expressed concern about the effects of the path on property values. The second landowner reported problems in the past with motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles crossing her property. Another meeting participant suggested that closely spaced bollards at the trail entrances could prevent motorized vehicles from using the path. Because so few property owners attended the public meeting a follow up letter and questionnaire2 was sent to the owners of the thirty-six parcels that included or adjoined a portion of the proposed pathway. Sixteen property owners responded. Six property owners were supportive of the project, one was neutral and nine were opposed. The results of the survey are reported by pathway segment in section V of this study.

XII. Construction Cost Estimate

1 2

A copy of the PowerPoint slides from this presentation is attached as appendix A to this study. A copy of the questionnaire is attached as appendix B.

19

The Vermont Department of Transportation (VTrans) provides recreational path planners with information on typical construction costs for shared use paths. Basic construction costs range from $105 a linear foot for an eight-foot wide gravel path to $133 a foot for a twelve foot paved asphalt path. These costs include rail bed preparation. Because the proposed Corkscrew path would be constructed on an existing rail bed these costs should be reduced by about 33%. At one point in segment B, a short bridge would have to be constructed on existing piers, where the rail line passed over an old stagecoach road. VTrans estimates that a twelve foot wide bridge can be constructed for about $1200 a linear foot. These costs do not include engineering, management or inspection costs. Based on VTrans figures these costs should add about 50% to total project costs. Table 1 shows the approximate total costs of constructing the 10,000-foot long proposed Corkscrew Pathway with a 25-foot pedestrian bridge. Table 1. Projected Construction Costs 8 foot gravel path Construction cost Bridge Engineering, management and inspection Total $693,000 30,000 361,500 $1,084,500 12 foot asphalt path $877,800 30,000 453,900 $1,361,700

XIII. Conclusions The Corkscrew Pathway would meet an important need for multiple use paths in the Bennington area. It could, in the future, be linked to other potential pathways to form a network of recreational pathways. There appear to be no environmental, cultural or permitting barriers to constructing the path. Nor would the cost of the project be unreasonable. However, the project as proposed does not appear to be feasible. The Corkscrew Rail Line right of way has reverted to private ownership. Based on responses to BCRC questionnaires, it appears that it would be impossible to secure the necessary easements to build segments B, D and E. It may be possible to obtain the easements to construct segments A (Rt.9 to Bank Street) and C (abandoned Harmon Road to Fairview Road) of the proposed trail. But, these two short and disconnected trail segments would not comprise a useful pathway. It is possible, however, that segment A of the proposed Corkscrew Pathway could be usefully incorporated in a future project. If both the Riverwalk Extension and the 20

proposed Southwestern Medical Center Trails go forward, it would be worth investigating the feasibility of a linking pathway between them. A likely Route for such a link would incorporate segment A of the Corkscrew Pathway proposal.

21

Appendix A Property Owner Questionnaire

22

Name: ____________________________________________ Mailing Address: ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ __________________________________________ Address of Property on or Adjacent to Proposed Path _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________ A. Location of property relative to the Corkscrew rail bed:) 1. My property includes part of the Corkscrew rail bed 2. I do not own a portion of the rail bed, however the rail bed borders my property 3. My property is near, but not immediately adjacent to the rail bed 4. I do not own property near the rail bed 5. I dont know if my property is near the rail bed

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

B. Willingness to grant easement for recreational pathway: (Please answer this question if your property includes part of the rail bed- response 1 to question A) 1. I would be willing to grant an easement for a recreational pathway on the Corkscrew rail bed3 ( ) 2. I am open to the idea of granting an easement but I need more information before making a final decision ( ) 3. I am generally opposed to the idea of granting an easement, but might reconsider if my concerns were addressed ( ) 4. I would not consider granting an easement under any circumstances ( ) 5. Undecided ( )

This questionnaire will be used for informational purposes only. Your responses to the questionnaire do not commit you to anything.

23

C. Attitude towards having a recreational pathway near or adjacent to property. (Please answer this question if you gave response 2 or 3 to question A) 1. I support the construction of the proposed pathway ( ) 2. I am generally supportive of the idea of the pathway, but I need more information to form a firm opinion ( ) 3. I am generally opposed to the pathway, but might change my opinion if my concerns were addressed. ( ) 4. I am firmly opposed to the pathway ( ) 5. Undecided ( ) Please share your comments and questions with us: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _______________________________ I would like a member of the BCRC staff to contact me to discuss the proposed pathway: Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes: Please call me at the following number ( )

Please E-mail me at the following address ( )

24

Appendix B. Power Point Presentation for Community Meeting

25