“Where did you get an estimate of
$1 million to build the trail from 4 corners to Disco Bay as quoted in the
PDN? Did you have an engineer estimate that?"
Mr. Selby has
responded to this question by stating that he was asked
what the ODT costs have been per mile, and that he was very
careful to state that the costs have varied wildly depending on many factors,
some of which he specified (former RR grade vs. new trail, cost of property,
easements, terrain, design, engineering, etc.). Mr. Selby told the PDN
that the cost of the mile between the SR20 underpass and the Cape George
Trailhead, for example, was $168K, as was reported in the PDN at the time of
its completion. He represented that other, more complex sections of trail
(e.g., Maynard) could be "over a million", without
specifying the actual cost, or any dollar amount at all.
“My estimate with engineering,
permitting, right of way, and construction is $3 to $4 million without paving
and $4 to $5 million with paving using costs from bid tabulations on recent
projects. For road bikes to use it as a viable alternative to SR-20 it
will need to be paved. The gravel base and crushed surfacing alone would
be $1 million.”
By “paved,” the
Public Works Director apparently means either a crushed surface like most of
the LSMT, or an asphalt surface like most of the ODT in Clallam County. For road bikers, either surface works
well, as shown by the daily road bike traffic on the LSMT and the ODT in
Clallam County.
“Taking a relatively straight
course (power lines) is 7 miles. Constructing it to keep grades under 5%
(ADA) or 8% for short segments, will add 20% to that so it would be about 9
miles.”
The route option
delivered to the Public Works Department on September 22, 2105, included route
sections on Discovery Road/Four Corners Road (paved); Anderson Lake Road (paved);
Grouse Lane (gravel but acceptable for many non-motorized users); and Fairmount
Road/Fairmount Hill Road (paved).
If those existing County roads were used for the trail – at least
initially -- it would leave approximately 6.3 miles that would have to be
surfaced with either crushed rock or asphalt. A planning study will reconcile this discrepancy.
“It will not be possible to use
existing logging roads since right of way acquired with public funds cannot
leave the landowner with any rights to use the roads for logging etc.”
I am not aware
of any statute or legal rule stating that “right of way acquired with public
funds cannot leave the landowner with any rights to use the roads for logging
etc.” Unless there is a statute or
legal rule to that effect, there is no apparent reason why a landowner’s
conveyance of a fee interest or easement could not reserve rights to use the
conveyed property for access to its forest lands and for transport of its
forest products. This question,
among others, would be answered in the planning project.
“(they could not run on the trail
surface without destroying it)”
It is unclear
exactly what the Public Works Director means by “run on the trail surface
without destroying it.” What
trucks or equipment might “run” on the surface, and when, and for how long, and
which would “destroy” the trail surface?
Exactly how would the “surface” be constructed? Could it be designed and constructed so as to not be
“destroyed” if it was used from time-to-time by the grantor? A planning study would answer these
questions. I know from personal observation that logging
trucks sometimes use parts of the ODT in Clallam County and have not
“destroyed” it, and I know from personal observation that light-duty JCPW trucks sometimes use the Larry
Scott Memorial Trail for inspections, maintenance and restoration, without
causing any apparent damage.
“or to close the right of way during timber activities or
during high fire danger.”
Again, these
questions need to be addressed in the planning process. The DBET could be located in part on
recently-harvested Pope Resources or DNR timberlands where no harvests are
likely for decades. Other “timber
activities” might be non-destructive to a trail and only minimally disruptive
to trail use. Planning will tell.
And as to fire closures, whether
privately owned or owned by the County, a trail ought to be closed if and when
using it creates a significant risk of a forest fire.
“The trail would have to be
constructed on all new alignment requiring clearing and grading.”
Careful and
thorough trail planning will establish whether “all new alignment requiring
clearing and grading” would be required, or whether some existing logging and
access roads could be used. It appears to us that in many cases, existing roads
could be resurfaced – as was done on parts of the ODT in Clallam County. A planning study would answer this
question.
“The Larry Scott Trail, which is
7.5 miles long and used existing railroad grades and roads for over 50% of its
length, cost $3.5 million uninflated to current dollars (including engineering,
permitting, right of way, and construction admin). It costs $35,000/yr
($5,000/mile) to maintain (danger tree removal, brush cutting, mowing, sign
replacement, trash removal, grading and patching, storm debris cleanup).
The 3,900 feet of trail at Disco Bay will cost $1.5 million. We are
currently building 3,500 feet of single lane gravel road on the West End at a
cost of nearly $500,000 + r/w and engineering.”
A trail planning
project would provide the County with current cost estimates for this proposed
trail, so the County would not have to base its decision on older projects with
“uninflated” dollars, the extraordinary costs of the riparian project at “Disco
Bay,” etc.
“From the 2010 County
Non-Motorized Plan regarding this section of Trail:
“The Trail would be a back country route that uses existing utility
easements, logging roads, and constructed trails. Trail advocates have taken
the lead in planning this segment of the route. From the west side of Discovery
Bay to Clallam County, the Trail could be on or adjacent to County Roads and Highway 101.”
This is a recreational back
country trail segment (i.e. the “Adventure Trail” in Clallam Co.) which should
be developed and maintained by trail groups similar to models used all over the
country (see Methow Valley Trails Association for a successful local example
with over 200 miles of trail). The Trails Coalition could get landowner
agreements with Pope and others and start building trail immediately.
Landowner agreements are free and the landowner can retain rights so using existing
roads is viable in this model. See model of trails with Pope over at Port
Gamble (the Stottlemeyer Trails).”
It seems that by quoting just three sentences from the Update,
and specifically emphasizing the words “back country,” the Director is
suggesting that Jefferson County decided in 2010 that the bypass trail would
not be a multi-user recreational trail like the ODT and the LSMT, but rather
single-track mountain bike trail like the “Adventure Trail” in Clallam County and
the “Stottlemeyer Trails” in Kitsap County. (The Clallam County Adventure Route is “built for active mountain bikers and equestrians. It has 25 miles of double and single track riding over hilly, forested terrain. It is a very well-constructed, well-drained, well-maintained, 3 ft wide packed earth trail.” http://www.olympicdiscoverytrail.com/side_trips/adventure_route.html The Stottlemeyer Trail is “a fun trail system with good single track and fun obstacles. Uphill and light downhill with lots of single track linked with small logging roads.” https://www.evergreenmtb.org/trails/port-gamble-stottlemeyer-trails.)
In fact, as examination of the 2010 Plan Update shows, the
County did not decide in 2010 to link the LSMT and ODT with a
single-track mountain bike “adventure” type trail. To the contrary, the Plan as updated in 2010 contemplated a
multipurpose recreational trail exactly like the LSMT.
First, the Updated Plan defined
“multipurpose trails” under the heading 8.1 Multipurpose trails:
Multipurpose
trails may be developed to link major environmental assets, park and
recreational facilities, community centers, and historical features throughout
Jefferson County and with adjacent jurisdictions. Generally, multipurpose
trails may be developed to provide for one or more modes of recreational and
commuter travel including hiking, biking, equestrian, and other non-motorized
trail uses where appropriate.
To the
extent possible, multipurpose trails may be developed within corridors separate
from vehicular or other motorized forms of transportation. For example,
multipurpose trails may be located on former railroad alignments, utility
easements or in separate property alignments. In some instances, the trail may
be developed as an improvement within the right-of-way of established vehicular
or other transportation corridors.
Typically,
multipurpose trails may be developed in accordance with Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and American Association of State Highway
& Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. Multipurpose trails may
provide 2-way travel on asphalt, very fine crushed rock, compact dirt, or other
base of varying widths. The trails may be usable by all age and skill groups,
and handicap accessible.
Next, the 2010 Plan Update described potential feasibility studies of multipurpose trails under
the subheading “proposed trails”:
Proposed trails
The
following trail systems may be developed to provide combined hike, bike, horse,
and other appropriate non-motorized trail use opportunities within the area subject to feasibility studies with
appropriate public and private participants. The trails generally follow railroad, public road, and utility
right-of-way corridors, but may be located on public and/or private property
where owners approve. [Italics
in original; underlining added]
The
Updated Plan then specifically identified four possible routes for a multipurpose
trail from Four Corners Road to Discovery Bay: two versions of the ODT Utility Route, and two versions of
the ODT Forest and Lakes Route.
The 2010 Plan included a graphic of a “multipurpose” trails:
It also included a map of the four possible multipurpose bypass trails:
Thus, it is simply
not a fact that in 2010 Jefferson County decided to link the LSMT and the ODT
with a back county “adventure”type trail. To the contrary, the County’s 2010
updated Plan shows that the planned a multipurpose LSMT-like recreational trail
as the link between the LSMT and the ODT.
Of course, the “trail advocates [who] have taken the lead in planning this segment of the route” – primarily the Peninsula Trails Coalition – never advocated for or planned a single track trail, but always promoted a multipurpose trail that would get all non motorized users, including road bikers, walkers, strollers and the disabled off SR 20. Building a good single-track mountain bike trail with fun obstacles will not solve the problems or bring the desired benefits to the County.
“This recreational trail is
ineligible for County road fund dollars which are inadequate for current
transportation facilities anyway. The County’s non-motorized
transportation spending will be focused on our communities like Hadlock and
Quilcene where we have current and planned projects that connect people to
community facilities. Parks and Recreation cannot fund its existing
facilities (gym needs a roof, volunteers had to raise money to repave Quilcene
tennis courts, volunteers running Leland campground, etc.) let alone a new
trail system (existing trails at Gibbs Lake and Indian Island in the Parks
system are volunteer built and maintained). Tax payers shot down the
concept of a Metropolitan Parks District (MPD) to provide dedicated park/rec
funding. Same story in Sequim with the MPD.”
I believe the
Director is rightly concerned about funding. A planning project will determine how much money will be
needed for the trail and what grant funds are available to build it. But without a planning project on the
TIP, no grant funding can be obtained – even for the planning project itself.
“No one is forced to ride a bike
on SR-20 over Eaglemount. I’m a bike rider and I wouldn’t do it.
This is a purely recreational choice (and a bad one) when very good viable
alternatives exist. The 17.7 mile route down Center Rd, SR-104, US 101
has 8-foot shoulders (or more) and under 5% grades.”
The Director
clearly agrees with everyone else that SR 20 is a “bad” choice for bicyclers He “wouldn’t do it.” Yet hundreds of walkers and riders a
year – if not thousands
– make this choice when they reach the end of the LSMT (on the north) or the
end of the ODT (on the south), because the “alternative” is not a good choice at
all. Using the Director’s figures,
the detour adds more than 10 miles to the route. Worse, it takes pedestrian and riders from the LSMT
southeast onto the very busy and sometimes very narrow SR 19, south on Center
Road, northwest onto SR 104 (which carries almost all of the Peninsula traffic
from the Hood Canal Bridge to points west), and then north onto SR 101 where
traffic counts are between 5000 and 10,000 vehicles a day. Few cyclists and walkers make that bad
choice.
“The county and DOT have already
invested heavily into these facilities and continue to do so (for example
recently completed and planned asphalt overlays on Center Rd.) Many
people come to our county already to ride these routes which provide
exceptional scenery not to mention they actually go by County businesses that
can benefit from tourism visitation and spending (Spring Rain Farm, Finn River
Cidery, Chimacum Corner Farmstand, Farms Reach Café, to name a few). By
contrast, the route over Eaglemount completely avoids all county
businesses. Otherwise, trail tourism is likely to be concentrated in Port
Townsend (whose residents do not pay the County road tax) and Clallam County
(again, not contributing to Jefferson County
road tax).”
Many County
businesses would disagree with, and possibly resent, the Director’s assertion
that “the route over Eaglemount completely avoids all county businesses” and
that “trail tourism is likely to be concentrated” in Port Townsend Clallam
County. Specifically, on the
north, nearby inns (like Chevy Chase), stores (like the Four Corners Store) and
restaurants (like the Discovery Bay Golf Course restaurant and the Chimacum
Café) will benefit from increased non-motorized recreational traffic on the
ODT. In the middle, Eaglemount
Rockery Cottages/Motel and the Eaglemount Winery will both benefit. And on the south at Discovery Bay,
motels (like the Valley View Motel), resorts (like the WorldMark Discovery Bay
resort), restaurants (like Fat Smitty’s and Snug Harbor), stores (like the
Discovery Bay Store), and shops (like Lucky Deer Trading) will all
benefit. Generally, the Director
was correct in 2009 when he called the LSMT – which itself goes directly by no
County businesses -- “such a
great investment for the community." http://www.ptleader.com/news/last-section-of-larry-scott-memorial-trail-is-funded/article_1c0e0d8c-5743-5f5e-85ab-c41f295a9436.html. The DBET will be the same.
“Development of an Adventure
style route over Eaglemount by the Trail coalition will serve many trail user
groups including hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians (these groups are
already using portions of this area). True road bikers will not use a
gravel surfaced trail and are unlikely to use a paved one either, preferring to
stick to the road shoulder since it is inappropriate and unsafe to ride at road
bike speeds on a shared use trail. That leaves the recreational bike
touring group which has good viable on-road alternatives.”
The bald
statement that “true road bikers
will not use a gravel surfaced trail” is contradicted every day by road bikers
using the Larry Scott Trail, and the assertion that road bikers are “unlikely
to use a paved one either” is contradicted every day by road bikers on the
paved ODT in Clallam County. Saying “That
leaves the recreational bike tour groups …” entirely excludes important
user groups often seen on the LSMT or the ODT, including:
·
Mobility impaired persons, sometimes using
walkers, wheelchairs or paracycles
·
Moms or dads with strollers
·
Fitness walking groups
·
Small-wheel users such as rollerbladers,
skateboarders and rollerskiers
·
Slow and unsteady cyclists, and novice and youth
bikers
· Families
with little “weavers, wobblers and training wheelers”
“My recommendation is that the
Trails coalition get busy developing a recreational trail by working with Pope
similar to the Stottlemeyer example in Port Gamble."
It seems odd that the Public Works Director, while expressing his view that the County should do nothing for the proposed DBET project – not even a planning study -- would tell the PTC to “get busy” and build a limited-purpose alternative to the multipurpose trails described in the County’s own plans. The all-volunteer PTC has tirelessly supported Clallam and Jefferson Counties in designing and building over 70 miles of multipurpose trails last 25 years, and has actively assisted the Counties on an ongoing basis in maintaining those trails. It has been “busy,” and will continue to be, but it cannot take over the government’s role in doing transportation improvement planning and development.
“You don’t need a sophisticated
routing study to do this.”
A sophisticated
planning study is necessary, however, as the first step in developing a
multipurpose trail that can serve all of the user groups, meeting AASHTO, ADA
and WSDOT standards. To move ahead there has to be a plan. All of the stakeholders need to know
exactly what needs to be done; who can and should do it (considering their
resources); how much it will cost; and the timing for expenditure of funds (if
a “phased” approach is used). A complete and thorough study by a professional
and experienced planner should provide the answers everyone needs.
The County is at the
center of this and is the key to getting it done. By putting the planning project on its TIP, and funding the
planning study, the County will not only develop the information needed for its
own decision-making; it will also give the trail proponents and facilitators
the information they need to move ahead with the stakeholders and funding
sources. Putting the planning
project on the TIP and funding it is not the same as funding the trail
itself. But the planning project
will set the next steps in motion.
“That [a Stottlemeyer-type trail]
will be a great project and I look forward to using it. I am a regular
user of the Adventure Trail in Clallam County and the Stottlemeyer trails in
Port Gamble. All volunteer built. All volunteer maintained.”
An adventure trail
for mountain bikers, hikers and equestrians will not solve the SR 20 safety
problems; will not link the two multipurpose trail stubs that Jefferson County
has constructed so far; will not best serve the County’s businesses and
citizens; and will not lawfully complete the County trail plans that have so
carefully been drawn by the County over the decades. Instead it will leave in place a gaping hole in the ODT and non motorized users on the dangerous highway -- all to the detriment of the
County economy.
