AED Feasibility Study Final

Alternatives Analysis
Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing of

the Mystic River
Somerville, Everett
Massachusetts
Prepared for
Exelon New England Holdings LLC and

Massachusetts Department of Conservation & Recreation
Prepared by
VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Watertown, Massachusetts
June 2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1

Project Background and Need ................................................................................................... 1
Project Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 1
Recommendation....................................................................................................................... 2
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 3
Project Area ............................................................................................................................... 3
Amelia Earhart Dam and Operations ......................................................................... 3
Shared Use Path Alternatives .............................................................................................. 6
Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 6
Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................... 6
Overview of Proposed Mystic River Crossing Alternatives ........................................................ 8
Alternative 1 Modify Access Roadway, Dam and Lock Gates for a Shared-Use
Path............................................................................................................................ 8
Alternative 2 Construct a New Fixed-Span Shared-Use Path Bridge on New
Location ..................................................................................................................... 8
Alternative 3 Construct a New Movable Span Shared-Use Path Bridge ................ 9
Alternative 4 Modify the Existing MBTA Bridge to Accommodate a Shared-Use
Path............................................................................................................................ 9
Crossing Alternatives Descriptions ............................................................................................ 9
Alternative 1 Modify Access Roadway, Dam and Lock Gates for a Shared-Use
Path............................................................................................................................ 9
Other Required Modifications/Impacts ..................................................................... 10
Criteria Evaluation .................................................................................................... 10
Alternative 2 Construct a New Fixed-Span Shared-Use Path Bridge on New
Location ................................................................................................................... 13
Alternative 3 Construct a New Movable Span Shared-Use Path Bridge .............. 16
Alternative 4 Modify the Existing MBTA Bridge to Accommodate a Shared-Use
Path.......................................................................................................................... 18
Construction Cost Summary ............................................................................................ 221
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 12
Criteria Summary ..................................................................................................................... 12
\\vhb\archives\Watertown\Projects\TE\09639.0
0\reports\AED Feasibility Study Final.doc
ii
Table of Contents
Attachments
Attachment A: Design Criteria
Attachment B: PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment C: Cost Estimate
List of Figures
Figure No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
iii
Description
Project Locus
Bostons Alternative Transportation Network
General Study Area
Alternative 1 Modify Access Road, Dam & Gates
Alternative 1 Proposed Cross Section A-A
Alternative 2 New Fixed-Span Bridge Structure
Alternative 3 New Movable Span Bridge
Alternative 4 Modify MTBA Bridge
Table of Contents
iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Project Background and Need

The Cities of Everett and Somerville have taken several initiatives to revitalize
sections of their communities from abandoned mills and chemical plants, to create
bustling retail, commercial and manufacturing areas, as well as vast stretches of open
spaces along the Mystic River. As such, the City of Everett completed the Everett
Waterfront Assessment Report in June 2003. This report evaluated the current land
use along the Mystic River and prepared a recommended plan for future land use.
The Case Statement for Active Transportation for the Mystic River Communities by Mystic
Valley Active and Safe Transportation Network (Mystic VAST-Net) notes that the
Mystic River watershed has several existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities as well as
numerous planned facilities. In addition the communities of Cambridge and
Somerville are the hubs of several former railroad corridors which have been
converted or are under consideration for conversion to bicycle/pedestrian shareduse trails. Part of the initiative noted above is to link the current and future green
spaces along the Mystic River in Everett to the existing green spaces in Somerville, on
the other side of the river.
Unfortunately these facilities are not well connected. A key link that is missing is the
actual connection from Everett to Somerville. Mystic VAST-Net also notes that the
Mystic River and regional roadway system serve as significant barriers to bicycle
travel in the communities along the river.
Project Purpose
The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), in cooperation with Exelon
New England Holdings, LLC are evaluating the feasibility of providing a bicycle and
pedestrian crossing over the Mystic River in the vicinity of the Amelia Earhart Dam,
located in Somerville and Everett, Massachusetts (See Figure 1). In addition, in
cooperation with the MBTA, DCR is also preparing conceptual design plans to
extend the Draw 7 Park bike path through the MBTAs Charlestown Bus
Maintenance Facility, to Route 99 in Everett, MA.
Executive Summary
Insert Figure 1 (remove page)
Executive Summary
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a continuous

bicycle and pedestrian shared-use path over the Mystic River in the area of the
Amelia Earhart Dam between the communities of Somerville and Everett. This
crossing would connect several existing and proposed shared-use paths including
the Path-to-the-Sea, the Somerville Community Path and existing/proposed trails
along the banks of the Mystic River (Mystic Way). In turn these connections would
link to other regional paths including the Minuteman Commuter Bikepath to the
northwest, the proposed Mass Central Rail Trail heading west, the Paul Dudley
White Path along the Charles River and the Southwest Corridor Park. See Figure 2
for general location of other trails.
The project objective of this study is to identify and evaluate alternatives for a
pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Mystic River in the area of the Amelia Earhart
Dam, and to advance the design of two of the missing links of the regional bike path
in the Lower Mystic River Basin.
Recommendation
Alternatives analyzed in this report to provide a bicycle and pedestrian crossing of
the Mystic River include:
A path over the lock gates;
A movable span bridge over the locks;
A new bridge upstream from the dam; and
Attaching a structure to the existing MBTA bridge.
The alternatives that utilize the dam or portions of the dam present significant
operational conflicts between the functions of the structure as a flood control and
navigation structure versus bicycle/pedestrian transportation. The cost of the new
structure alternative or the alternative utilizing the existing MBTA bridge is
expensive and requires construction of a new structure.
None of the alternatives analyzed in this study were found to be practical, feasible, or
within reasonable cost. We recommend that proponents work with the adjacent
communities and the Massachusetts Highway Department to modify the existing
roadway bridges and approaches (Route 99/Alford Street south of the dam, Route
28/Fellsway Bridge north of the dam) to provide the pedestrian and bicycle crossing
over the Mystic River as these structures are more readily adaptable to provide
bicycle and pedestrian transportation. It is our understanding that the Route 99
bridge is currently in design for replacement of the superstructure at its current
locations.
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Existing Conditions
Project Area
The Mystic River extends from Boston Harbor to the south and forms the southern
and southwestern boundary of Everett with the cities of Boston, Somerville and a
small portion of Medford. The river is tidal up to the Amelia Earhart Dam and nontidal thereafter. The physical character of the river varies greatly along its 12.5 mile
length. It progresses from a predominantly meandering, natural and pastoral
landscape in its northern reaches to a commercial and industrial landscape near the
project area. The degree of pedestrian and vehicular access to the water varies along
the rivers length and connections between these access points are discontinuous
within the project area.
The general study area is the Mystic River crossing bordered to the west by Draw 7
Park in Somerville and the Gateway Plaza/Mystic View Road in Everett to the east.
See Figure 3. The main element of this analysis is the Amelia Earhart Dam structure
and the adjacent waters of the Mystic River. Other existing river crossings in the
general study area include the Route 99 (Alford Street) roadway bridge to the south
(downstream)of the dam, an MBTA Orange Line bridge also south (downstream) of
the dam, an MBTA Orange Line rapid transit bridge north (upstream) of the dam
and the Route 28/Fellsway roadway bridge also located north of the dam. Another
element to crossing the Mystic River in the general project area is the implementation
of an extension of the path in Draw 7 Park south under the MBTA RR and through
an MBTA bus maintenance facility. That element is the subject of a separate
feasibility study.
Amelia Earhart Dam and Operations

The Amelia Earhart Dam spans the Mystic River from Somerville to the west and
Everett to the East. The Army Corps of Engineers and the MDC constructed the dam
in the 1960s to address upstream flooding problems and eliminate tidal influence. In
the mid 70s a pumping station was added to the dam. Several large diesel powered
pumps conveying approximately 4000 cubic feet per second are used to pump river
water against high tide.
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
Several boat launch ramps and docking facilities are located on both sides of the river
immediately upstream from the dam.
There are three locks in the dam. Two of the locks are 120 feet long by 22 feet wide
with one large lock that is 325 feet long by 45 feet wide.
According to the MDC records at the dam, a maximum of approximately 50 vessels

per month pass through the locks during the winter off-peak boating season and
approximately 3,300 vessels per month pass through the locks during the peak
boating season in the summer and fall. The time to move vessels through the locks
varies from 1 to 10 minutes depending upon the level of the water downstream of the
locks.
The dam is staffed around the clock throughout the year to operate the locks. All
three locks are used. The two smaller locks are primarily used for recreational small
boat traffic while the larger lock is primarily used for larger boats and flood control.
Combining the lock openings for boat traffic and flood control results in an estimated
number of openings of over 5,000 times a year, but primarily concentrated in the
summer months. In addition to the number of lock openings, the duration of time of
each opening is important as operators must be physically present at the controls for
short term opening/closings. During flood control, the main lock can remain open
anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours.
The dam consists of an earthen embankment extending out from the river banks to a
cement concrete structure near the dam locks and control buildings at the centerline
of the main river channel.
Existing Conditions
A 24-foot wide paved access roadway

leads to a control/maintenance
building and three lock structures.
Public access to the dam facilities is
restricted by a series of chain link
fence and gates across the access road.
Dam staff access is provided via 3-foot
wide metal grated walkways on top of
the lock gates. The walkways along
the gates meet at the center of the curved lock forming a sharp angle.
The concrete deck section of the dam in the general lock area includes openings in
the concrete deck for access to the lock gate operating machinery and pumps. These
openings are covered by open metal grates which are not ADA or bicycle compatible.
Several concrete sections of the existing dam structure are in need of repair including
the existing concrete surface around the walkways which is spalling and cracked.
The controls for opening the locks are alongside the locks outside of the personnel
building on the dam level. A control tower that sits approximately 25 feet above the
top of the dam is in a state of disrepair and is closed. The lock operators are housed
in a small building at the level of the dam. For each lock opening/closing, the
operator has to walk out and manually press the controls. Because the operators are
at dam level, they have limited visibility of the dam and the approaches.
Existing Conditions
Shared Use Path Alternatives
The proposed river crossing evaluated in this analysis consists of providing an

accessible bicycle and pedestrian shared-use path across the Mystic River in the
vicinity of the Amelia Earhart Dam. This section outlines the applicable design
criteria, an overview of proposed alternatives and brief discussion of impacts and
costs. A summary table is included at the end of this section.
Design Criteria
The shared-use path will need to accommodate a variety of users, including walkers,
bicyclists, joggers, persons with disabilities, skaters, for recreation, commuting and
local access. A paved shared-use path is the type of facility that can best meet the
expectations that users have for a non-motorized path in an urban area.
The primary references for the shared-use path design criteria include the 2006
Massachusetts Highway Department Project Development & Design Guide (MHD
Design Guide), 521 MCR The Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts
Architectural Access Board, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,
1999 edition, (AASHTO Guide), American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets (The AASHTO Green Book) and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD).
The relevant design information compiled from these references has been included in
the Attachment A, Design Criteria.
Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Criteria

The analysis and evaluation of the crossing alternatives were based on the following
criteria:
Criteria 1: Compatibility with Dam Operations and River Navigation: the intent
of the original dam design did not include provisions for access the dam by the
general public on an as-needed basis. Since the dam also functions as a flood
control devise, the impact of opening/closing the lock gates for

bicycle/pedestrian crossings on the flood control function of the dam will need
to be considered. Exposure to moving parts of the lock, strong and
unpredictable currents in and around the lock entrances could expose
unsuspecting pedestrians and bicyclists to situations where they may not be able
to react accordingly.
Criteria 2: Right-of-Way: Path construction on privately owned land will require
some type of right-of-way (ROW) action, including temporary easements, rightsof-entry, permanent easement, acquisition and possibly relocation.
Criteria 3: Geometrics: The available pavement width and condition (horizontal
and vertical alignments, sight distances) on the existing approaches and dam
access roadways were evaluated for compliance with design criteria.
Criteria 4: Trail Accessibility and Connections with Local Features: The trail
alignment location relative to major bicycle and pedestrian traffic generators
such as residential neighborhoods, parking lots, schools, recreational facilities
and employment centers shall figure into the evaluation scoring for this criteria.
Criteria 5: Compatibility with Local, Regional, and State Master Plans: Path
alignments that enhance and compliment the goals of various local, regional and
state master plans, park plans and are supported by local representatives shall
receive favorable scores in the evaluation process.
Criteria 6: Construction Costs: Although costs are not the sole factor in selecting
a route, the availability of funding to construct the path certainly plays a major
role in route selection and project scheduling. Costs will be calculated based on
the major known items of work required for each alternative and expressed as a
total construction cost. Costs for major structures will be listed as separate items.
The most current Mass Highway Construction Contract bid prices will be
utilized for the calculations.
Criteria 7: Grades: Long, steep profile grades on both on-road and off-road
bikeways can make bicycling difficult for some users. A profile grade of 5% will
be considered the maximum preferred grade. If this is not feasible, grades over
5% will be considered if the length of grade does not exceed 500 feet.
Criteria 8: Aesthetic and Visual Conditions: Routes that connect directly to
scenic vistas and locations of historic significance will be given a higher
evaluation score than alignments that require spur connections.
Criteria 9: Environmental/Historic Impacts: Impacts to wetlands,
floodplain/floodway or sites of historic and archaeological interest will be
considered in the project approach. Much of the Mystic River Lower basin was
polluted due to adjacent land use such as chemical plants, commercial
manufacturing and assembly plants. Today, most of these pollutants reside in

the sediment at the bottom of the river. Any proposed activities that alter or
disturb the river sediments must be planned and designed to minimize exposure
to the sediments and properly manage contaminated materials. Indeed, the
activities associated with designing this crossing must consider past activities
and define actions to meet future objectives that include swimming and other
water recreational purposes.
As a wetland resource in Massachusetts, the Mystic River is subject to a number
of state and federal environmental regulations affecting the river banks, bed of
the river, and land area adjacent to the river and any activities within or on these
areas. Any proposed work must be designed to conform to specific regulatory
standards. In particular, the project site and Mystic River include the following
coastal resource areas: Land Under the Ocean, Designated Port Area, Coastal
Banks, Banks of or Land Under Rivers that Underlie Anadromous/Catadromous
Fish Runs and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. Inland wetland resource
areas at the project site include: Bank, Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways,
Land Subject to Flooding, and Riverfront Area. Each of these coastal and inland
wetland resource areas is protected for the various functional values it provides.
The intent of the regulations is to allow development to proceed without loss of
these important environmental, social and economic values.
Overview of Proposed Mystic River Crossing

Alternatives
Alternative 1 Modify Access Roadway, Dam and Lock

Gates for a Shared-Use Path
Alternate 1 utilizes the existing dam structure to provide access across the Mystic
River by modifying the existing access road, and delineating a bicycle and pedestrian
path across the building and lock area. Improvements included bicycle/pedestrian
railings and structural modifications to the lock gates for a public walkway.
Alternative 2 Construct a New Fixed-Span Shared-Use

Path Bridge on New Location
Alternative 2 includes an independent bicycle and pedestrian bridge spanning
approximately 840 feet across the Mystic River. The superstructure will consist of a
14 foot shared-use path with a maximum longitudinal gradient of 5%. The structure
will maintain a minimum vertical clearance of 35 feet in the vicinity of the large lock.
The clearance will require an additional three hundred feet of structure to maintain
the 5% grade down to the existing ground grade on the west side of the river.
Alternative 3 Construct a New Movable Span SharedUse Path Bridge

Alternative 3 utilizes several hundred feet of the existing easterly dam embankment
before the path departs from the dam to a new independent bridge bypassing the
lock system. The bridge structure will utilize two movable spans to accommodate
boat traffic.
Alternative 4 Modify the Existing MBTA Bridge to

Accommodate a Shared-Use Path
Alternative 4 modifies the existing MBTA commuter rail bridge substructure to
accommodate a bicycle and pedestrian section separated by a barrier from the tracks.
Crossing Alternatives Descriptions
Alternative 1 Modify Access Roadway, Dam and Lock

Gates for a Shared-Use Path
Alternate 1 utilizes the existing dam structure to provide access across the Mystic
River by modifying the existing access roadway, dam and lock gates and delineating
a bicycle and pedestrian path across the operations and lock area. Refer to Figure 4.
The Alternative 1 crossing begins at the existing Draw 7 Park path and continues
along the dam access road. A separate 14 foot shared-use path will be constructed
adjacent to the existing access roadway separated by a 42 inch railing and 6 foot
fence. A portion of the existing stone revetment will be removed and a reinforced
concrete retaining wall will be constructed to support the path. Refer to Figure 5. The
pathway will continue onto the existing dam structure where it will transition from a
14-foot wide shared-use path to a 7-foot wide shared-use path. Bicyclists would be
required to dismount and walk their bicycles along the 7-foot wide path. The path on
the dam will be defined by 42 inch high railings on both sides. Gates will be provided
at both sides of each lock and open and close concurrently with the lock gates at the
walkway entrance; the users path is restricted even further by the railing placement.
These deficiencies coupled with the interface details between the walkway and dam,
grating spacing and railing details do not meet current access requirements for public
use and would not accommodate bike passage.
The recommendation for the lock crossing is to

completely remove the existing walkway
superstructure and replace it with a walkway design
similar to that used at the Charles River Dam. This
design includes a checkered plate walkway and a
galvanized steel railing system supported by steel box
beams and steel box columns connected to the top of
the sector gates. The walkway would have a clear
width of 4-6 and smoother geometry. The walkway
system and interface details with the dam structure
would be designed to meet current ADA
requirements.
The fenced walkway will continue along the dam structure to the north side of the
pumping station. The pathway will follow a layout that minimizes impacts to dam
operations and limits crossing of the steel grating and equipment tracks. The path
will transition from a 7 foot wide path to a 14 foot wide path just east of the access
ramp; the access road will be widened similar to the westerly access road to
accommodate a 14 foot shared use path. Once the path leaves the dam structure it
will continue along a circuitous route and meet up with the existing path located at
Mystic View Road.
Other Required Modifications/Impacts

As noted earlier, there are metal-grated openings in the concrete deck section of the
dam near the locks to provide access to the gate opening machinery and pumps.
Some of these openings are located in the proposed pedestrian/bicycle path. The
metal grates are not pedestrian or bicycle compatible. Some sections of the concrete
deck are in need of repair to correct surface conditions which could be hazardous to
pedestrians and bicyclists. A thorough concrete inspection/repair program to
address these hazardous surface conditions is required as part of this alternative.
Criteria Evaluation
Criteria 1: Compatibility with Dam Operations and River

Navigation
The river currents in and around the lock are swift, powerful and unpredictable
given the variables of tidal flow, river levels and lock operations. A person falling
into the river in this area could very easily and quickly become trapped by the swift
moving currents. These conditions would most likely prevent rescues and endanger
the lives of emergency responders.
10
The proposed path will be adjacent to the existing control panels. The control panels
will need to be secured from public access or removed to a more suitable location.
Because the operators are at dam level, they do not have full visibility of the area.
The location of the path and railing system will cause the operators visibility to be
limited even further. For the stated reasons it is recommended that the control panels
be relocated into a secure cabinet in a more desirable location providing easy access
and improved visibility.
The addition of a wider and more user friendly walkway system over the lock gates
will require modifications to the existing gate structure. The additional walkway area
will more than double the existing dead load on the gates, the existing gate structural
members will require the addition of steel plates to accommodate the additional
loading, and the extra steel will in itself add significant weight to the existing gate
system. It is anticipated that the mechanical and movable components of the gate
system will need to be further studied and most likely require upgrading.
During periods of heavy rain, or when heavy rain is forecast and typically during
periods of ebb tide the lock gates are left open in lieu of using the pumps to manage
river flow. Closing the gates to allow pedestrian or bicycle crossings during these
periods will significantly increase the number of lock open/close cycles. Conversely,
waiting times for vessels to traverse the dam may increase if they have to wait for an
opening/closing cycle of the lock to allow for bicylce and/or pedestrian crossings.
The openings for boat traffic increase in the summer months. The summer months
will also be the time when the proposed path will see its highest usage. It is not
advisable to allow public access across closed lock gates when the lock is being filled
or drained for boat passage due to the potential that a pedestrian or bicyclists could
fall into the lock and be pinned or caught in the river current. It is highly likely that
pedestrians and bicyclists wishing to cross the river will incur significant delays
while the locks are opened and closed for boat passage.
Initial discussions with the Coast Guard indicate that although the Amelia Earhart
Dam is not a designated waterfront facility, the dam falls under the Maritime
Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) and CFR Title 33 Part 107.9 and is therefore under the
Coast Guards jurisdiction for the security of the dams operations and safety.
Meeting the security requirements for the Coast Guard will simultaneously meet the
security requirements for the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard
has indicated that the dam is not a critical homeland security asset and does not
require any extraordinary security measures. The Coast Guard will require measures
be put in place to restrict public access to the functioning areas of the dam such as the
lock mechanism and the control panels. Also, measures should be used to inhibit the
publics ability to interfere with watercraft navigating the river from any
walkways/paths that cross the water.
11
Criteria 2: Right-of-Way Impacts

It is anticipated that the improvements can be completed within existing publicly
owned property.
Criteria 3: Geometrics
The reduced path width for bicycles is a concern. Bicyclists tend to avoid stopping
unless absolutely necessary. Directions to Dismount and Walk Your Bicycle would
most likely be disregarded. It is not practical or advisable to direct bicyclists into an
area where dam/lock operators and staff may be moving unexpectedly back and
forth across the path. Likewise, it is not advisable to expect operators to focus on the
operation of the locks while at same time be on the lookout for approaching
pedestrians or bicyclists.
Criteria 4: Trail Accessibility and Connections

The trail across the dam would meet the goal of connecting the various regional trails
and provide a continuous circuit for access to the river. This alternative provides the
shortest route for crossing of the river.
Criteria 5: Compatibility with Local, Regional and State

Master Plans
The trail across the dam would also comply with the various master plans that call
for a bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the river.
Criteria 6: Construction Cost

Cost for the improvements is $5,423,000 for the modification of the roadway for the
trail approaches, installation of automatic bicycle and pedestrian gates, relocation of
the lock gate control panels and upgrade of the lock gates. The cost does not include
upgrade of the control tower building.
Criteria 7: Grades/ADA Compliance

The proposed trail grade would comply with the 5% maximum profile grade criteria
however the path surfaces would need to comply with ADA for a firm, stable and slip
resistant surface. Additional features must address the needs of sight and hearing
impaired users. It is doubtful that these needs can be incorporated into the
operational elements of the dam and locks.
12
Criteria 8: Aesthetic and Visual Conditions

The trail across the dam would provide access to scenic vistas and overlooks of the
river and surrounding natural areas.
Criteria 9: Environmental/Historic Impacts

Modifications to the approach roadways will require some filling and construction
activities in the river; however this work is expected to be minimal. Extraordinary
permitting requirements are not expected.
Alternative 2 Construct a New Fixed-Span Shared-Use

Path Bridge on New Location
Alternative 2 provides an independent structure spanning approximately 840 feet
across the Mystic River. The superstructure will consist of a 14 foot shared path with
a maximum longitudinal gradient of 5%. The structure will maintain a minimum
vertical clearance of 35 feet in the vicinity of the large lock. Refer to Figure 6.
The new bridge would be located approximately 400 feet north of the center of the
Amelia Earhart Dam. Beginning at the west side of the Mystic River the new crossing
will be approximately 22 feet above grade and can be accessed via a stairway from
the Draw 7 Park path or from a 300 foot long ADA compliant ramp that runs parallel
to the river and ends just north of the dam access road. The maximum vertical
clearance will be approximately 35 and will occur at a point between the large lock
and the most easterly of the small locks. To maintain ADA accessibility the crossing
will have a maximum gradient of 5 percent. At the east abutment the structure will
be within a couple of feet from existing grade. The existing path will be re-aligned
and regraded to connect to the bridge abutment; the 14 foot path will be terminated
at the edge of Mystic View Road. The bridge substructure will consist of concrete
piers supported on piles. The superstructure will be described by the two alternatives
listed below.
This alternative would have no impact to the dam.
Alternative 2a Concrete slab on girder

Alternative 2a consists of 8 spans with lengths from west to east of 85, 100, 100, 85,
105, 130, 130, and 105. The superstructure will consist of a reinforced concrete deck
slab with a clear width of 14 feet, supported on three 42 deep steel girders. The
substructure will consist of concrete piers supported on piles.
.
13
10
Alternative 2b Prefabricated steel girder

Alternative 2b consists of prefabricated steel trusses. The bridge will consist of 7
spans with lengths from west to east of 140, 140, 80, 120, 120, 120, and 120. The
substructure will consist of concrete piers supported on piles.
Criteria Evaluation

Navigation
The proposed bridge will introduce some restriction on manuveurability on the
upstream entrance to the large lock. No other impacts to the operation of the dam
are expected.
The construction of this facility across a navigable watercourse must be designed
with careful consideration of impact on navigation. Navigation access must be
maintained including existing height and width clearances. In this circumstance, the
downstream fixed railroad bridge that replaced Drawbridge No. 7 creates the current
minimum height clearance of approximately 35 feet. The 45-foot width of the larger
of the locks establishes the minimum width clearance. Several required permits for
this crossing include navigation as part of their review process. These include the
Section 10 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard Permit,
Coastal Zone Management Consistency, and the Chapter 91 Waterways License.

owned property.
In general, the geometrics of the proposed bridge crossing alternative would exceed
the minimum criteria with the exception that a relatively tighter radius is needed at
the bottom of the proposed ramp at Draw 7 Park to meet with the existing path.
14

The trail on the new bridge would meet the goal of connecting the various regional
trails and provide a continuous circuit for access to the river.

Master Plans
The trail on the new bridge would also comply with the various master plans that
call for a bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the river.

Cost for the new bridge Alternative 2A is $7,700,000 for the new bridge and
approaches. For Alternative 2B the cost is $6,100,000 for the new bridge and
approaches.

and for a surface that is firm, stable and slope resistant.

The trail on the new bridge would provide access to scenic vistas and overlooks of
the river and surrounding natural areas.

Construction of new approaches to the bridge and construction of piers in the river
will require filling and construction activities in the river. The following is a list of
the regulatory permits that will likely be needed to complete this project:
Section 10/404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
MA Coastal Zone Management Consistency Statement
Coast Guard Bridge permit
Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from the MADEP
Chapter 91 Waterways License from the MADEP
Order of Conditions from Somerville and Everett Conservation Commission
In addition, the easterly abutment resides on a 21E site (Monsanto site) would most
likely require off-site disposal of contaminated soil and additional mitigation
measures yet to be determined.
15
14
Alternative 3 Construct a New Movable Span SharedUse Path Bridge

Alternative 3 uses the existing eastern dam roadway approach then diverts to a new
independent bridge over the locks and fixed spans to the west bank. See Figure 6.
The bridges over the locks would consist of two movable spans, the first being 50 feet
long and located in front of the two small locks. The second movable span is 55 feet
long and located in front of the large lock. The movable spans connect with the
existing access road to the east of the dam via three new fixed spans and to the west
bank via two new fixed spans. The total number of new spans is eight with lengths
from west to east of 155, 50, 65, 55, 143, 161, 143, & 31.The movable spans will be
the vertical lift type with a minimum vertical clearance of 35 to match the existing
vertical clearance of the existing downstream RR bridge. Refer to Figure 7.
Criteria Evaluation

Navigation
The proposed bridge will introduce some additional restriction on manuveurability
on the upstream lock entrances at the small locks due to the construction of
additional fenders to protect the new bridge piers. Other impacts to the operation of
the dam include the need for coordinating the operation of the movable bridge spans
with the lock operations to provide vertical clearance when needed. It is anticipated
that this will require at least one additional operator for the bridge.
Additionally, it is anticipated that a bridge this close to the lock should contain
provisions that decrease the likelihood of objects being dropped or thrown from the
sructures into the locks.
As with Alternative 2, the construction of this facility across a navigable watercourse
must maintain existing height and width clearances. In this circumstance, the
downstream fixed railroad bridge that replaced Drawbridge No. 7 creates the current
minimum height clearance of approximately 35 feet. The 45-foot width of the larger
of the locks establishes the minimum width clearance. Several required permits for
this crossing include navigation as part of their review process. These include the
Section 10 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard Permit,
Coastal Zone Management Consistency, and the Chapter 91 Waterways License.
16

owned property.

The trail on the new bridge would meet the goal of connecting the various regional

Master Plans

Cost for the improvements is $6,250,000 for the new bridge and approaches.

The proposed trail grade would comply with the 5%
maximum profile grade criteria and for a surface that is
firm, stable and slip resistant. Joints on movable span
bridges must have more play then joints on fixed span
thus movable bridge joints are not often compatible with
bicycle and pedestrian traffic. See attached photograph
of a finger joint on a movable span.
Criteria 8: Aesthetic and Visual

Conditions
The trail on the new bridge would provide access to scenic vistas and overlooks of the
17
16

Construction of new approaches to the bridge and construction of piers in the river
will require filling and construction activities in the river. The following is a list of
the regulatory permits that will likely be needed to complete this project:
Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from the MaDEP
Chapter 91 Waterways License from the MaDEP
Order of Conditions from Somerville and Everett Conservation Commission
Alternative 4 Modify the Existing MBTA Bridge to

Accommodate a Shared-Use Path
Alternative 4 includes construction of a new shared-use path bridge from the access
road to the MBTA tracks and a shared-use path cantilevered off the side of the
existing MBTA bridge to the south of the dam. The bridge from the access road will
consist of a concrete deck slab on steel girders or a prefabricated steel truss. The
substructure will consist of concrete piers supported on piles. For the path on the
MTBA bridge a primary concern is the separation distance of the proposed path to
the active RR tracks. Experience on other rail-with-trail shared structures has shown
a minimum of 16 feet of clearance from the centerline of the tracks to the edge of the
path. Even with an AASHTO minimum path width of 8 feet, the cantilevered
structure width would be a minimum of 24 feet. This would require the MBTA
bridge undergo such major modifications that a new structure would probably be
more practical and less expensive. A major retrofit for this cantilevered structure
would require modifications for seismic loadings. Refer to Figure 8.
Criteria Evaluation
Criteria 1: Compatibility with Dam Operations and

Navigation
It is not anticipated that the proposed Alternative 4 crossing bridge will introduce
additional restriction on manuveurability on the lock entrances as the RR bridge is
located approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the dam.
18
As with Alternatives 2 and 3, the construction of this facility across a navigable

watercourse must maintain existing height and width clearances. In this
circumstance, the downstream fixed railroad bridge that replaced Drawbridge No. 7
creates the current minimum height clearance of approximately 35 feet. The 45-foot
width of the larger of the locks establishes the minimum width clearance. Several
required permits for this crossing include navigation as part of their review process.
These include the Section 10 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Coast Guard Permit, Coastal Zone Management Consistency, and the Chapter 91
Waterways License.

It is anticipated that the path approaches to the RR bridge will require right-of-way
actions on MBTA property. It is anticipated that the path will need to include
construction of features to prohibit public access onto the tracks.

The trail on the new bridges would meet the goal of connecting the various regional

Master Plans

Cost for the Alternative 4 is $ $6,300,000 for the new bridge and approaches.

and for a surface that is firm, stable and slip resistant.
19

The trail on the new bridge would provide access to scenic vistas and overlooks of the

Construction of new approaches to the bridge may require filling and construction
activities in the river. The following is a list of the regulatory permits that will likely
be needed to complete this project:
Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from the MADEP
Chapter 91 Waterways License from the MADEP
Order of Conditions from Somerville and Everett Conservation Commission.
Table 1: Alternative Evaluation Criteria Summary
Criteria 1: Dam Op &

Navigation
Alternative 1
Modify Access
Road & Dam
Significant increase in
lock open/closures.
Criteria 2: ROW
None.
None.
Some restriction on
maneuverability at lock
entrance. Require
additional staffing to
operate bridge.
None.
Does not meet criteria.
Criteria 4: Accessibility
Connections
Criteria 5: Local/Regional
State Plans
Criteria 6: Cost
Provides direct
connection.
Compatible with local
and state plans.
$5.4 Mil
Tight radius at Draw 7

Park.
Provides connections.

Park.
ROW acquisition and/or

easements from MBTA.
Park.

and state plans.
$6.2 Mil

and state plans.
$6.3 Mil
Criteria 7: Grades
Meets regulations for

grade. Potential problem
for sight impaired path
over locks.
Provides overlooks.

and state plans.
$7.7 Mil 2A
$6.1 Mil 2B
grades.

grades. Potential
problem with movable
span bridge joints.
Provides overlooks,
visual impact of new
structures.
Some fill and new
substructures in river.

grade.
Criteria 8: Aesthetic and

Visual
Criteria 9:
Environmental/Historic
Some filling in river.
20
Alternative 2
New Bridge
Some restriction on
maneuverability at lock
entrance.
Provides overlooks,
structures.
Some fill and new
substructures in river.
Alternative 3
Movable Span
Alternative 4
Modify RR Bridge
No Impact.
Provides overlooks,
structures.
Some fill and new
structures in river.
Construction Cost Summary
The approximate construction costs for each Alternative are as follows.

Alternative 1 is approximately $5,423,000
Alternative 2a is approximately $7,700,000
Alternative 2b is approximately $6,100,000
Refer to Attachment C for a detailed cost breakdown.
21
Construction Cost
Conclusion
Criteria Summary
Although all the alternatives evaluated provide connections to planned local and
regional facilities, none of the alternatives provides a practical, feasible and cost
effective solution to provide a bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Mystic River.
Alternative 1 would locate the path on the existing dam access road and on the top
of the locks. This alternative would significantly increase the number of lock
open/close cycles especially during the peak seasonal use of the river by boats and
potential use of crossing by bicyclists and pedestrians. The geometry and path
surfaces on the dam would not meet several minimum shared-use trail design
criteria. The path alignment would also bring the public in close proximity to lock
operating machinery and dangerous river currents.
Alternative 2 is a new structure across the river independent of the dam. The design
adds an additional constraint and obstacle to river navigation. Placement of new
substructures in the river would also require substantial permitting efforts.
Alternative 3 locates the path along the existing dam access road then on a new
movable span structure independent of the locks. This alternative avoids bringing
the public close to the locks and requires less amount of substructure in the river
than Alternative 2. This alternative requires additional staff to operate and maintain
the movable span.
Alternative 4 locates the path on the existing MBTA rail bridge. This would require
extensive and expensive modifications to the existing MBTA bridge and construction
of an additional new bridge.
Given the close proximity of the other existing vehicle and pedestrian bridges in the
project area, we recommend the regional trail proponents work with communities
and appropriate state agencies to include improved bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations in any future rehabilitation or reconstruction of those structures.
Similar projects recently completed for bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on
existing bridges cost approximately $2,100 per linear foot of path on structure.
22
Conclusion
Attachment A:
Design Criteria
Shared-Use Path Design Criteria

This following criteria has been developed based on standard engineering practice
and the successful application of regulatory standards and guidelines included in the
2006 Massachusetts Highway Department Project Development & Design Guide
(2006 MHD Design Guide), American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Design
Guidelines, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999 edition, (1999
AASHTO Bicycle Guidelines), American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets (The AASHTO Green Book), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Trail Intersection Design Handbook (FDOT Trail Intersection Handbook) and the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were the primary references
for the following design criteria.
DESIGN ELEMENT
Design Speed
Paved
Unpaved
CRITERIA
REFERENCE
20mph
15 mph
AASHTO 1999 Bicycle Guidelines

10 12 ft
2 ft
3 ft
5 ft (side slope >3:1)

2006 MHD Design Guide
Separation from Parallel Road
5 ft
Radius Horizontal Curve
100 ft with e=2%
Superelevation
2% maximum
Stopping Sight Distance

(SSD) for Bicycles
140 ft (grade=5%)
130 ft (grade=2%)
Various Exhibit 3-8
Intersection Sight Distance

(ISD) for bicyclists and
pedestrians crossing
roadways
See Tables 8 & 9
FDOT Trail Intersection Handbook
Decision Sight Distance for

motorists approaching trail
crossings
Exhibit 3-9 Stop on Rural Road
Typical Section
Pavement Width
Shoulder Width
Clear Zone
Stopping Sight Distance

(SSD) for motor vehicles
DESIGN ELEMENT
Profile Grade
Paved
Unpaved
CRITERIA
0.5% minimum
5% maximum (ADA compliant)
3% maximum
REFERENCE
Length Vertical Curve
Based on SSD
Vertical Grades
5% max.
ADA
Vertical Clearance
8 ft minimum
Railing
Min. 42 height
Required for side slopes > 2:1
within 5 ft of path on a fill slope
> 10 ft high

Bridge Railing
Min. 54 height
Bridge Design Load
H-15 truck plus live load
ON-ROAD BIKE ROUTE

(S>45 MPH AND/OR V>2000 AADT)
DESIGN ELEMENT
Curb Lane Width*
*
CRITERIA
16 ft. desirable
15 ft. minimum
REFERENCE
Curb Lane Width = Outside Travel Lane plus Paved Usable Shoulder
(S<45 MPH AND/OR V<2000 AADT)

DESIGN ELEMENT
Curb Lane Width*
*
CRITERIA
14 ft. minimum
Curb Lane Width = Outside Travel Lane plus Paved Usable Shoulder
REFERENCE
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment B:
PowerPoint Presentation
Details and costs in PowerPoint may differ from the report as these details were
updated based on public input and comment.
Project Background
This project was undertaken as part of
the settlement of a federal enforcement
action taken by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for alleged violations
of the Clean Air Act.
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study is to identify
feasible options for a pedestrian and
bicycle friendly crossing of the Mystic
River at the Amelia Earhart Dam, and to
review the feasibility of extending the
Draw 7 Park bike path through the
MBTAs Charlestown Bus Maintenance
Facility to Route 99.
Study Limits
Current Dam Operations

2 small locks, and 1 large lock
Approx. 50 vessels/month pass through locks
off season, and 3,300 vessels per month pass
through locks during peak season
Larger lock used for flood control, and fish
passage
Lock controls at dam level, limiting visibility
3 diesel powered pumps are used for flood
control during major events during high tides.
Current Dam Condition

Observation tower not in service due to
poor condition
Walkways over locks are not ADA
compliant
Concrete walkways are in poor shape
Current Causeway Cross section
Current Causeway Cross section
4 Crossing Options
Option 1 - Existing Dam Crossing
Option 2 - Bridge Structure
Option 3 - Lift Span over Locks
Option 4 - MBTA Bridge
Option 1 Existing Dam Crossing
Proposed causeway cross section
Option 1
Advantages
Disadvantages
Utilizes existing structure to

cross river
Initial cost to construct
Crossing on level surface
Less than desirable path width

Bikes will need to be walked across portion of dam structure
Congestion during peak user times
Restricted usage
30-40% down time due to lock operations
Dawn to dusk restrictions
Safety and Operational concerns

Maintaining separation between the dam operations and the
public
Visibility for dam operators
Loitering
Pedestrian access limitations through lock operations
Potential of vessels vandalism during lock passage
Physical Impacts
major repairs to upgrade the existing dam structure for public
use.
Upgrade lock mechanical systems to accommodate wider
walkway
Relocate control systems to a secure location
Continuous maintenance and operations
Challenges meeting ADA requirements
Option 1- Construction Costs

Repair existing dam
deficiencies and
upgrade public use:
$1,500,000
Upgrade Mechanical
Systems:
$2,000,000
Retrofit dam for

crossing:
$1,500,000
Total Cost
$ 5,000,000.00
Option 2 Bridge Structure
Option 2
Advantages
Disadvantages
Independent from the Dam

structure
Usable through flood control

Continuous 14 foot wide
shared use path
Unrestricted use of the
structure
Minimal long term
maintenance requirements
and costs
5% grades over bridge
Option 2 - Construction Costs

Prefabricated steel truss: $ 6,100,000
Option 3 Bridge w/Lift Span over Locks
Option 3
Advantages
Disadvantages
Physically separated from

the Dam lock operations
Usable during flood control
operations
Continuous 14 foot wide
shared use path
Maintains safe separation
between public and Dam
operations
Dam crossing on relatively
flat surface

Long term maintenance
requirements and costs
Long term operation costs
Restricted usage
Down time during vessel
passage
Dawn to dusk restrictions

Prefabricated truss and three lift spans:
$6,500,000
Option 4 MBTA Bridge
Option 4
Advantages
Disadvantages
Independent from the

Dam lock operations
Minimal long term

maintenance
requirements and costs
User safety concerns due

to proximity to MBTA
commuter Rail
Structural modifications to
existing bridge
Constructability

For path construction only, not including
modifications to existing MBTA structure
$6,300,000
Concept Path Through the MBTA Yard
Existing MBTA Yard
Existing MBTA Yard
Existing MBTA Yard
Existing Path Alignment
Proposed Path Alignment
Existing Path Alignment
Proposed Path Alignment
Construction Costs : $620,000
Questions and Answers
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Attachment C:
Cost Estimate
Conceptual Cost Estimate - Alternative 1
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Dam Deck Repairs & Modifications

Retaining Walls (4' height)
Full Depth Pavement
Bituminous Concrete Walk
Safety Rail (off Structures)
Landscaping
Signage
Lock Gate Upgrades
(LS)
(LF)
(SY)
(SY)
(LF)
(LS)
(SF)
(LS)
$1,250,000.00
$325.00
$35.00
$35.00
$25.00
$4,000.00
$15.00
$3,000,000.00
Alternative 1
Quantity
1
560
550
720
1,420
1
200
1
Cost
$1,250,000.00
$182,000.00
$19,250.00
$25,200.00
$35,500.00
$4,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,000,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL COST:
$4,518,950.00
$903,790.00
$5,422,740.00
SAY:
$5,423,000.00
Description
Bridge Construction
Ramp Construction
Loam Borrow & Seed
Signage
Landscaping
Unit
Unit Cost
(LS)
(LS)
(SY)
(SY)
(SF)
(LS)
$5,140,000.00
$1,250,000.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.00
$10,000.00
Alternative 2A
Quantity
1
1
300
400
100
1
Cost
$5,140,000.00
$1,250,000.00
$10,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY
$6,414,000.00
$1,282,800.00
TOTAL COST:
$7,696,800.00
SAY:
$7,700,000.00
Alternative 2B
Description
Bridge Construction
Ramp Construction
Loam Borrow & Seed
Signage
Landscaping
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
(LS)
(LS)
(SY)
(SY)
(SF)
(LS)
$3,760,000.00
$1,250,000.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.00
$10,000.00
1
1
300
400
100
1
$3,760,000.00
$1,250,000.00
$10,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY:
$5,034,000.00
$1,006,800.00
TOTAL COST:
$6,040,800.00
SAY:
$6,100,000.00
Cost

Alternative 3
Description
Bridge Construction
Retaining Walls (4' height)
Safety Rail (off Structures)
Full Depth Pavement
Loam Borrow & Seed
Signage
Landscaping
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
(LS)
(SY)
(LF)
(LF)
(SY)
(SY)
(SF)
(LS)
$5,050,000.00
$35.00
$325.00
$25.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.00
$10,000.00
1
650
260
570
425
600
100
1
$5,050,000.00
$22,750.00
$84,500.00
$14,250.00
$14,875
$3,000.00
$1,500.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY:
$5,200,875.00
$1,040,175.00
TOTAL COST:
$6,241,050.00
SAY:
$6,250,000.00
Cost

Alternative 4
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
Bridge Construction
Bridge Approach Construction
Loam Borrow & Seed
Signage
Landscaping
(LS)
(LS)
(SY)
(SY)
(SF)
(LS)
$4,600,000.00
$590,000.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.00
$10,000.00
1
1
770
1,800
100
1
$4,600,000.00
$590,000.00
$26,950.00
$9,000.00
$1,500.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL COST:
20% CONTINGENCY
$5,237,450.00
$1,047,490.00
TOTAL COST:
$6,284,940.00
SAY:
$6,300,000.00
Cost

AED Feasibility Study Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

AED Feasibility Study Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Alternatives Analysis

Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing of

Exelon New England Holdings LLC and

VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1

Project Background and Need

Insert Figure 1 (remove page)

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a continuous

Insert Figure 2 (remove page)

Amelia Earhart Dam and Operations

Insert Figure 3 (remove page)

According to the MDC records at the dam, a maximum of approximately 50 vessels

A 24-foot wide paved access roadway

Shared Use Path Alternatives

The proposed river crossing evaluated in this analysis consists of providing an

Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Criteria

Shared Use Path Alternatives

control devise, the impact of opening/closing the lock gates for

Shared Use Path Alternatives

manufacturing and assembly plants. Today, most of these pollutants reside in

Overview of Proposed Mystic River Crossing

Alternative 1 Modify Access Roadway, Dam and Lock

Alternative 2 Construct a New Fixed-Span Shared-Use

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Insert Figure 4 (remove page)

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Alternative 3 Construct a New Movable Span SharedUse Path Bridge

Alternative 4 Modify the Existing MBTA Bridge to

Crossing Alternatives Descriptions

Alternative 1 Modify Access Roadway, Dam and Lock

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Insert Figure 5 (remove page)

Shared Use Path Alternatives

The recommendation for the lock crossing is to

Other Required Modifications/Impacts

Criteria 1: Compatibility with Dam Operations and River

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Criteria 2: Right-of-Way Impacts

Criteria 4: Trail Accessibility and Connections

Criteria 5: Compatibility with Local, Regional and State

Criteria 6: Construction Cost

Criteria 7: Grades/ADA Compliance

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Criteria 8: Aesthetic and Visual Conditions

Criteria 9: Environmental/Historic Impacts

Alternative 2 Construct a New Fixed-Span Shared-Use

Alternative 2a Concrete slab on girder

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Insert Figure 6 (remove page)

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Alternative 2b Prefabricated steel girder

Criteria 1: Compatibility with Dam Operations and River

Criteria 2: Right-of-Way Impacts

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Criteria 4: Trail Accessibility and Connections

Criteria 5: Compatibility with Local, Regional and State

Criteria 6: Construction Cost

Criteria 7: Grades/ADA Compliance

Criteria 8: Aesthetic and Visual Conditions

Criteria 9: Environmental/Historic Impacts

Shared Use Path Alternatives

Insert Figure 7 (remove page)

Shared Use Path Alternatives