Town of Carlisle
Footpath Plan

Prepared by the Pedestrian and Bike Safety Advisory Committee
Submitted to the Board of Selectmen, January 15, 2003
(Page 15 Table revised per January 28, 2003 Board of Selectmen Meeting)

 

Table of Contents

1. Carlisle Footpath Plan Summary
2. Whom We Are Serving
3. Implementation Approach
4. Major Issues Considered
   • Safety
   • Access
   • Connections
   • Cost
   • Abutters
   • Easements
   • Legal Liability
   • Design
   • Planning Board
   • Conservation Issues
   • Historic Preservation
   • Relationship to Trails System
5. Footpath Routes
6. Criteria for Prioritizing Footpaths
7. Funding Options
8. Implementation Plan Design and Construction Specifics
9. Maintenance Plan
10. Committees and Organizations Consulted

Appendix A: Footpath Plan Map
Appendix B: Questionnaire Summary
Appendix C: Police Recommendation
Appendix D: DPW Maintenance Plan
Appendix E: Safety Report

1. Carlisle Footpath Plan Summary

The Pedestrian and Bike Safety Advisory Committee was formed by the Board of Selectmen in 1997 to research issues related to road safety. In August 2000, the Committee became a formal advisory committee to the Selectmen. The Committee’s areas of concern are pedestrian safety, bicyclist safety, and linkage to state and neighboring town pathways. This report is the culmination of the Committee’s five-year study of pedestrian safety.

It is the recommendation of this plan to construct a limited network of footpaths which provide safe pedestrian linkages among and between our town services, neighborhoods and trails. The recommended Footpath Plan represents a small network of pathways installed within approximately a one-mile radius from town center, each located roughly adjacent to the road surface. The Committee envisions a 5-15 year period to complete this minimal network. The implementation timeline is determined by the rate which funding and other resources become available. The Committee is seeking an annual fixed level of funding which would include maintenance costs.

Based on community input, the preferred design of the paths would be rural, remaining in the town’s right of way, and meandering around aged trees, stonewall, and other natural features. The predominant surface would be crushed stone unless the existing terrain requires an alternate surface. Pathways would be designed for daytime use and seasonal maintenance would be performed by the Town’s DPW or subcontracted similar to other public works.

The process of this plan and its content is modeled after comparable plans submitted and adopted at town meetings in Lincoln, Westford, Acton, and Sudbury. This process has four consistent elements: public meetings, a written plan that outlines significant issues and makes specific recommendations, a community questionnaire, and appropriate feasibility studies.

As public information and support are important ingredients to the successful implementation of the Footpath plans of neighboring towns studied by the Committee, this Committee has conducted numerous public meetings, received frequent coverage in the Mosquito, and made reports to the Board of Selectmen’ public meetings, to Town Meeting, and in the town’s Annual Reports. It is our aim to keep active and open communication available to all interested parties.

The first draft of this plan was distributed to town boards, commissions, committees and other groups so that the final product included as broad a spectrum of input as provided. The Committee has appreciated the volunteer help of those who provided guidance on an advisory basis and helped in draft this Plan: Vivian Chaput, Board of Selectmen liaison; Police Chief David Galvin; Gary Davis, Superintendent DPW; Phyllis Zinicola, Planning Board liaison; Art Milliken, Carlisle Conservation Foundation board member and Committee member; John Bakewell, credentialed arborist and Committee member.

The Committee members are appointed for one-year terms. The 2002-03 membership includes John Bakewell, Deb Belanger, Tim Eliassen, Heather Hedden, Gwyn Jones, Art Milliken, Darragh Murphy, and Nancy West.

2. Whom We Are Serving

Today, there is no footpath system that provides safe circulation to all our residents. The Committee has studied pedestrian safety by meeting with informal groups in town, committees, boards, and individual residents who together provided a rich base of anecdotal information regarding the need and desire for paths. Most folks would like to walk around town but do not feel this can be done safely. While many decades ago there were paths throughout town center, only a few sections remain. Nearly 30 years ago, traffic conditions prevented many from walking and a study commissioned by the League of Women Voters was completed with the recommendation for limited town pathways. With the significant increase in traffic volume and speed, the need has become only more critical. The Committee proposes a limited Footpath system that would serve the following populations:

1. Pedestrians, particular school children
2. Children, family cyclists, and stroller joggers
3. Joggers and long-distance walkers
4. Senior citizens
5. Residents who use walkers and wheelchairs

Examples of Footpath use include:

• Carlisle families who would walk to church, the library, post office, Daisy’s market, or Kimball’s ice cream stand,
• Families who would like to combine activities by walking between each, such as getting an ice cream and walking to the library, stopping at Daisy’s and walking on to Extended Day,
• Families at home during the day who need to use strollers but have no safe place to walk for exercise, fresh air, and the freedom of just being outside,
• Children, with or without accompanying parents, who could walk safely to a friend’s house,
• Children meeting parents at after school programs or walking home together afterward,
• Our town’s elderly who have limited safe walking options in town center, and
• Children on tricycles, training wheels, or new to two-wheelers.

By design, the Footpath system is not aimed at serving long-distance, adult cyclists. The experience gained from Lincoln, Concord, and other towns indicate that accomplished cyclists typically choose the road over most roadside paths. These cyclists find it impractical and unsafe to compete for space with pedestrians. Instead, the Committee is working with Carlisle’s Department of Public Works (DPW) to improve and regularly maintain our road shoulders. As our road shoulders are not bike lane, cyclists and motorists must share the road. A good road shoulder is one that provides an emergency “bail-out” area for cyclists.

3. Implementation Approach

The proposed Footpath system is aimed at providing safe circulation for pedestrian-type traffic along our major roads for a limited distance from the rotary. The footpaths would be designed to reflect the rural character of our town and be constructed over a period of time to manage the financial impact on our citizens. The Committee has been following this approach, with some of these activities occurring simultaneously or overlapping:

1. Prepare a comprehensive Plan.
2. Conduct open forums wherever possible to gain maximum abutter and community input.
3. Construct various test sections of the School Loop section of the Footpath plan, as current funds permit. Then update cost estimates based on these test sections.
4. Present the complete Footpath plan to a special public forum or to a Town Meeting for a vote of adoption.
5. In parallel with 4., explore alternative sources of funding other than Town taxpayer funds.
6. Work with our community to determine an acceptable annual funding level comprised of long term capital funds and maintenance funds. The aggregate amount will determine the implementation timetable and shape the priorities of particular path segments.
7. Present a warrant article at a Town Meeting for a multi-year funding plan that considers the usage of DPW resources, acquisition of materials, and third party contractors.

4. Major Issues Considered

Safety

Safety is the most important reason for a roadside Footpath system, followed by health, community, and recreation. The Pedestrian and Bike Safety Advisory Committee reviewed police departments reports pertaining to traffic and learned that:

• Overall, traffic volume has increased dramatically. For example, average daily traffic on Bedford Rd. increased by 2.4 times from 2,883 in 1972 to 6,877 in 1990. {Updated figures to be appended 3/03}. Increased volume and speed have rendered certain road sections particularly hazardous to motorists and high risk to pedestrians.
• Where sight distances are poor, average speeds on main arterials are approximately 10 miles over speed limit.
• Where sight distances are good, average speeds are 15 to 20 miles over speed limit.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that our roads are not safe for pedestrian traffic.

Access

Many individuals and committees have stressed the importance of providing a system of footpaths along major roads to provide access to town facilities, services, churches, fields, and trails. Residents have indicated a desire to walk to and around town center to cut down on their use of cars, to get some exercise, and to create a family outing for all members. Some of these residents currently use Carlisle’s trails and others are not able to, because the trails often do not reach desired destinations, may not accessible year round, or cannot be traversed with wheelchairs, strollers, tricycles, training wheels, etc.

As our trail system is currently the only system available for safe foot traffic, it is imperative that both Footpaths and trails are maintained and expanded wherever appropriate. The roadside Footpath system proposed here does not replace our trails. Instead, it is intended to complement this system by providing walking and biking access to destinations not served by the trails, as well as providing access to the trails themselves. The Footpath system also serves additional segments of our residents. The surface design and widths of the paths are expected to be ADA compliant, making it possible for any of our residents who would like to get out to be able to do so safely and enjoyably.

Connections

The Footpath system would provide the following connections:

• linkage between all public destinations, such as the school, library, town hall, post office, police station, fire station, and Extended Day
• linkage between our neighborhoods and town center
• linkage to our existing and proposed trails
• longer term – possibility of linking to our neighboring towns’ pedestrian and bike paths

Cost

In estimating the cost of a particular path, key determinants include existing conditions, site preparation, and the path’s specifications including width, depth and type of surface. Neighboring towns use a benchmark of approximately $100,000 to $150,000 per mile, assuming all elements are provided by third parties and an asphalt surface. Using crushed stone surfaces is cut this cost range in half. Costs may be further reduced by using DPW resources in combination with third parties. For example, the DPW constructed a 900-foot path for a total cash outlay of $1,600. By contrast, a simple 100-foot path segment was constructed by a third party at a cost of $1,450.

A high cost scenario, one in which no reimbursement from state or federal monies is available and about 8 miles of paths are installed in a relatively short time period, 5 years, the average annual cost for installation would be about $50 per household for five years, or about $4.00 per month. This rough estimate includes maintenance costs but excludes financing costs. The cost of the five year plan could be reduced by nearly half to $28 per household if a $15,000 annual commitment of Chapter 90 funds was applied and the DPW constructed 3,000 feet each year of the program. The DPW constructed approximately 1,000 feet in four days. Increasing the time frame from 5 years to 7 years and 9 years reduces the annual household cost to $14 and $6, respectively.

Abutters

The acceptance by abutting residents is a critical factor in the successful completion of a roadside path. Active and open communication will be the key to building consensus and ultimately serving the community’s interest. Input from abutters will

continue to be sought throughout the various stages of choosing a path to build, siting it, and determining design features. From an initial inspection of town maps and past experiences, it appears that the width of the right of way of the five main roads is generally sufficient to accommodate a roadside path. However, in many cases new surveys are needed to determine exactly where the road lies within its right of way. Additionally, the siting of the path may be more desirable to both the abutter and the town citizenry if it is placed on private property, such as behind an aged tree, stone wall, or rock outcropping.

Other towns that have successfully completed pathway systems note that it is unusual to gain unanimous support from all of the abutters. For parts of the paths where this is an issue, the Town will make every effort to work with the abutter. In some cases, locating the Footpath within the right of way of the road may be the best solution, even if the ultimate siting is not optimal

Easements

If the town and an abutter agree that the siting of a Footpath would be better placed on the abutter’s private property, then a formal granting of an easement will be prepared for acceptance by the Board of Selectmen. As there is some 20 plus years’ experience on this particular issue in our neighboring towns, we will seek our town’s counsel review of existing easement language in use by these towns. As we have not identified any town that pays or provides in-kind consideration for the granting of an easement, it is not expected that the Town of Carlisle will provide this incentive.

Legal Liability

Again modeling after the experience of our neighboring towns, it is proposed that the Easement agreement includes language that indemnifies the private property owner from any liability arising from the use or lack of use of a Footpath. The town’s existing insurance policy includes coverage for any such claims.

Design

The term “Footpaths” is used to help differentiate these paths from sidewalks and trails. The most important distinctions among these three types of paths are their design and location. Sidewalks are placed immediately adjacent to the roadway, are bordered with granite curbing and are constructed with either a smooth asphalt or cement surface. Our trails are a cleared, natural terrain surface and are located in our fields and woods. Footpaths differ significantly from both. The Footpaths recommended here are not granite curbed sidewalks but rather country paths located away from the road in a meandering design. While the paths have other important value, they are also an important means of safe transportation in and around town center.

Surfaces: There is a preference among residents and our Historical Commission for surfaces other than blacktop asphalt. The Committee recommends Star Pak wherever possible based on cost, durability, and rural look.

• Crushed stone mixed with stone dust, or Star Pack
  This is considered the least cost approach to a Footpath surface. It presents a rural look and is functional for pedestrian and light wheeled traffic. A smooth, firm surface is achieved with small stone sizes and a high mixture of stone dust. This surface can also serve as a sub base to either of the options below, should additional funding become available for more expensive surfacing.
• Crushed stone with an organic stabilizer
  This surface is on display alongside Diment Park near Spalding field. The stabilizer sets the stone particles into a durable, firm surface requiring less maintenance and repair than asphalt. It is used in historic districts in Concord and other neighboring towns and has an unmistakable rural look. The surface has year round function. The repair cost of organic stabilizer is generally understood to be substantially less than asphalt.
• Asphalt with a course of crushed stone rolled into it
  The result of this last step is to create a surface less austere and more rural looking than blacktop. The surface has year round function.

Siting: The proposed Footpaths would be located next to our major roads, separated by a natural strip of plantings or grass. The naturalizing strip would be at least two feet from the road, wherever possible. For some lengths, the paths may be sited well away from the road to best blend into the existing terrain and natural features.

Width: Generally, the Footpaths would be four to five feet wide. The rationale for this width is (a) it is the minimum width to comply with ADA requirements; (b) it is the minimum width to qualify for possible federal and state funding; (c) it is an efficient width for construction and maintenance; and (d) it will result in an established path of at least four feet, after taking erosion into consideration along its edges.

Planning Board

The Planning Board reviewed the first draft of this Plan and provided input. The Committee expects to work closely with the Planning Board when constructing sections requiring Site Plan Review. Additionally, the Committee will seek guidance from the Planning Board on an informal, conceptual basis for sections not otherwise under the Board’s jurisdiction.

Conservation Issues

The Committee will work with the Conservation Commission to comply with requirements of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, the Carlisle Town Wetlands Protection By-law and other laws that may apply. As required, the Committee will consult with the Conservation Commission in establishing wetland delineation and buffer zone areas. The Conservation Commission has reviewed the School Loop section of pathway, excluding the section neighboring Kimball’s Ice Cream Stand, and provided a negative determination of applicability which translates into an approval to proceed.

Historic Preservation

The Committee has received guidance from the Historical Commission as it relates to the siting, surfacing, and durability of pathways. Specific sections of footpath will be presented to the Historical Commission for review and approval. The Committee expects to work closely with the Commission to preserve the character of Carlisle’s historic district.

Relationship to Trails System

The proposed system of roadside footpaths is aimed at providing safety to pedestrians among and between our town services and other points of interest, including trailheads. The footpaths are not intended to replace, but rather complement the extensive trail system that Carlislians enjoy today. Carlisle has a wonderful network of trails, which often are accessible only by car. In the Committee’s informal questionnaire, we learned that most people who use our trails must drive to these locations. Wherever possible, the roadside footpaths will aim to provide pedestrian access to the trail system and vice versa. In some cases circuit walks would also be possible with the addition of a pathway along a roadside.

5. Footpath Routes

The Carlisle Footpath Plan as proposed is a system of limited roadside, meandering paths located along the five main roads emanating for our rotary. Generally, the paths would extend a distance of 1 to 1 ½ miles from the rotary, ending at a major intersecting road or to a point where a significant number of collector roads could be linked. Resident support may lead to a second phase which would increase the distance of the existing the above paths or provide paths within remote neighborhoods. The proposed Footpath system comprises

• School Loop: along Bedford Road to Kimball’s, along Church Street to the cemetery, and along School Street to the first driveway of the Spalding Building.
• Along East Street to Rutland Street
• Along Westford Road to Cross Street
• Along Concord Street to Russell Street or South Street
• Along Lowell Street to Sunset Road/Hickory Lane
• Extensions of Bedford Road and School Street

The Footpath plan is shown on the attached map.

6. Criteria for Prioritizing Footpaths

The six primary criteria for prioritizing the construction of the Footpath plan include:

• Population served
• Traffic volume and speed
• Road contours and visible sight lines
• Feasibility
• Community support
• Cost

An initial prioritizing the proposed Footpath system is shown below:

1. School Loop
2. East Street
3. Westford Road
4. Concord Road
5. Lowell Street
6. Extensions of Bedford Road and School Street

It is not expected that construction of the Footpath Plan along one main road will be complete before construction of another road’s Footpath begins. In fact, to be most equitable to citizens of different parts of the Town, it is likely that, footpaths will be constructed only one-quarter mile or so out along most or all the five main roads, before continuing the path to its planned end. As such, a more detailed prioritization of construction will likely be based on small segments.

To date, the Committee has focused on the School Loop. Working with resident volunteers, the DPW, Chief David Galvin, and Selectman Vivian Chaput, the full initial siting has been completed. The siting is based on optimal site lines, environmental impact, rights of way and cost. Relevant survey work was undertaken to identify the town’s right of way along Bedford Road. Completed sections include along the school’s castle playground and in front of Gleason Library.

7. Funding Options

Funding options include

• State Chapter 90 funds
• Other State and Federal programs
• Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds
• Developer contributions
• Private funding through contribution drives
• Town funds

Chapter 90 funds are readily available for path construction with little input or specification requirements from the State. Historically, Carlisle has used these funds for regular road maintenance, equipment purchases, and more recently for costs associated with underground tank removal and related environmental clean up. Carlisle’s annual DPW budget is funded approximately 35% by town funds and 65% by Chapter 90. The spring 2000 Town Meeting voted to use $30,000 in Chapter 90 funds to study the School Loop Footpath. The Board of Selectmen has overseen the deployment of these funds to develop the School Loop and, as of November, 2002, two test sections have been successfully completed. This has involved spending $8,050 of the $30,000. The committee anticipates that the $21,950 remaining in the existing Chapter 90 fund will be sufficient to complete key sections of the School Loop. Future allocations of Chapter 90 may be sought to continue implementation of the Footpath Plan. Footpaths constructed with Chapter 90 funds are required to meet only a limited number of state standards.

While other Federal and other State highway programs exist, the stricter design requirements for this kind of funding make these programs an undesirable option for Carlisle. The Committee has been pursuing Transportation Enhancement Program funds disbursed through the Mass Highway Depart. This program, however, requires that construction be completed in adherence with Mass Highway Department standards, including greater pathway widths, asphalt/cement surfaces, and handicap access cuts at regular intervals. The enhancement program under which application would be made is a reimbursement program through the design phase, but requires actual construction to be undertaken by the Mass Highway Department. The committee determined that such restrictions would produce a pathway inconsistent with the goals of the Committee and the desires of the town.

It has recently come under discussion to use a portion of the Community Preservation Act funds for Footpaths. CPA funds have prescribed approved uses that include recreation. Therefore, it is possible that a portion of the School Loop may be determined recreational such as a place of training for the Middle School track team.

Developer contributions have recently become a reality. After researching the policies of neighboring towns, the Committee worked with the Planning Board in coming up with similarly strict language in our Rules and Regulations which unequivocally states that pathways are required. This language establishes the expectation of cost on the developer’s part. If the pathway requirement is waived by the Planning Board, at the Planning Board’s discretion, the developer can be offered the opportunity to either construct a Footpath of equal cost elsewhere (i.e., a portion of the town’s Footpath plan) or contribute to a Footpath fund that is used for the purposes of completing the Footpath plan. A Pathway account has therefore been established and at December 31, 2002 there was a balance of approximately $9,000.

Private funding such as through contribution drives is a possibility. The Committee is seeking a town volunteer experienced in fundraising to assist is this area.

For Town funds, the Committee will recommend to the Board of Selectmen an annual funding amount and possible warrant article. The amount of annual funding will determine the number of years and sections that can be completed. The table below is an example of four levels of funding with related construction time frames. The Committee will recommend a timeframe and dollar amount that will allow the Town to see reasonable progress, the DPW to prepare and plan its portion of the work, and the project to have developed important experience in working with a third party to complete each section. If the Board of Selectmen approves a funding amount for submission to the Town, the Committee expects to host a public forum and present a warrant article for Town Meeting approval.