Articles Archives - Page 2 of 2

When I started designing non-motorized trails in the Holland area about 16 years ago, trail development was still in its infancy. Since then, I have designed or managed construction of about 150 miles of trails. As your community’s trail system develops, maintenance becomes a real concern. Here are 13 of my favorite maintenance-minimizing trail design tips:

Paving

For a paved trail, use two courses of asphalt. The second course minimizes cracking and provides a much smoother surface for minimal extra up front cost. Contractors may ask if they can pave the same thickness in one course, because it saves them a little money. Do NOT allow it!
Extend your gravel sub-base at least one foot beyond the paved trail edge. Any less and the edges can crack and eventually fail.
Test the gravel gradation and compaction during construction. The wrong mix or sloppy compaction will cause early cracks in the pavement.

Vegetation

If it is necessary to clear vegetation to build your trail, be careful to remove all roots – especially willow trees and yucca plants. They will grow back right through the pavement!
Remove all dead and dying trees within 10 feet each side of the trail. Falling branches can be dangerous and the debris clutters trails.
Keep your trail away from trees if possible. Roots and debris are two of a trail’s most common maintenance headaches.
If you cannot dodge trees and you are worried about roots wrecking the trail surface, consider installing a product similar to bio-barrier. Products like this do not injure the trees, but when installed correctly, they prevent the roots from growing under the trail.
If your trail parallels a road, as often as possible, maintain a grass strip between the pavement edges. This protects both the trail and the road shoulder. It also minimizes road gravel washing all over your trail after it rains.

Layout and Structure

If fill to build your trail, make sure the downhill side-slope is no steeper than 1 ft. of rise over 3 ft. width. If it is too steep, the slope often settles and takes the pavement edge with it.
If your trail includes a bridge or boardwalks, include concrete approach ramps. This minimizes the inevitable settlement and “bump” at the transition point.
If your trail goes downhill for longer than 300 ft., find a way to drain water off the trail surface into a swale, ditch, gutter or catch basin. Otherwise, the edge of the path, shoulders or the grass along the trail could wash out.
If you are building a trail above native clay soil, consider placing a filter fabric between the clay and the sand/aggregate sub-grade. It will help produce a uniform stress on the clay and prevent uneven settlement and pavement cracks.
In wet areas, make sure drainage goes under the trail, not over it. Build the trail higher if necessary. Use a culvert to convey flow or equalize ponding on both sides of the trail. Otherwise the trail becomes frequently wet and potentially dangerously slippery.

Scott Post is a board member at the West Michigan Trails and Greenways Coalition. He has designed nearly 150 miles of non-motorized trails in Michigan.

By Scott Post, PE

In my last post, I talked about where to find money for a non-motorized trail project. Here are nine ways you can help your project compete for grants:

Have a written recreation plan, and designate non-motorized trails as your #1 priority.
Commit as high a matching fund percentage as possible. Put a matching funds line item in your annual budget, so you can stockpile cash and react to an opportunity. Better yet, propose a millage for trails or parks. Many communities have discovered their constituents easily pass these millages.
Provide connections to existing trails and trail networks, locally and especially regionally.
Connect existing parks and schools together and with commercial and residential areas.
Provide handicapped accessibility.
Provide fishing or wildlife viewing opportunities.
Have preliminary design completed and ready to go when funds become available. Your project doesn’t need to be “shovel ready”, but if preliminary design is complete it can easily be finished to the particular requirements of any grant program. If not, at least have a good cost estimate ready so you do not request too little grant funding.
Develop your operations and maintenance plan and budget before building your trail or applying for grants. This shows funders your commitment to being a good steward of their money.
Develop a “Friends of the Trail” group. This shows community support, commitment, and organization. “Friends” groups are typically official non-profit entities. This way private donations to your trail project are tax deductible!

Scott Post is a board member at the West Michigan Trails and Greenways Coalition. He has designed nearly 150 miles of non-motorized trails in Michigan.

By Scott Post, PE

Whenever I meet with a new non-motorized trails group or client, one of the first questions I am asked is, “Where can we get grants to pay for our trail?” If your group or community is planning a non-motorized trail, check out my seven favorite trail funding sources:

Michigan’s Natural Resources Trust Fund (For example, Cannon trail)
Grants a maximum of $300,000 per project. Applications are due April 1 each year.
MDOT’s Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) (For example, Fred Meijer CIS Trail between Ionia and Owosso)
Emphasizes regional trail connectivity.
MDOT’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program (For example, Blue Star Trail)
Can be used if your community is in a non-attainment zone for air quality. Trails can be constructed to provide access for alternative modes of transportation.
Recreation or trails millages (For example, Spring Lake Township)
Many communities have successfully passed trail millages to use for the development and maintenance of trail projects.
Benefactors and Foundations (For example, Greenville Trail)
Often local corporations in your community may see this as an opportunity to give back.
Fund Drives (For examples, Big Rapids’ Access for All for the Riverwalk)
Many local organizations will assist with fundraising for community projects that they support.
MDOT’s Safe Routes to School program (For example, Allegan’s Monroe Street)
Safe Routes to School funding will require a community non-motorized plan and the adoption of a Complete Streets ordinance.

Scott Post is a board member at the West Michigan Trails and Greenways Coalition. He has designed nearly 150 miles of non-motorized trails in Michigan.

By Jim Hegarty, P.E.

Unlike many Grand Rapidians, I missed the worst of Grand Rapids’ Great Flood of 2013. I was in Clearwater, Florida, reading the national news about our flood from the safety of my beach chair. Being in a relaxed and contemplative state, I began to ruminate about “our” flood in terms as only a civil engineer could.

To whit: The Grand River at downtown Grand Rapids saw its highest water level in over 100 years, but it wasn’t a 100-year flood.

What?

A 100-year flood is one whose flow has a 1% (1 in 100) chance of occurring in a given year. Statisticians study historical flood records to determine mathematically the magnitude of a 100-year flood. Prior to 2013, Grand Rapids’ weather statisticians figured that the flood with a 1% chance of occurring in a given year is larger than the one that caused the highest water levels we’ve seen downtown in over 100 years! In reality, the flow we saw in the great Grand Rapids flood equated to only a 16-year flood according to Mark Walton from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service.

Why, then, was the river so high? One word: floodwalls.

The floodwalls channeling the Grand River through downtown Grand Rapids haven’t been there for 100 years, and they raise the water level as the Grand River races between them to a more natural setting downstream. The walls “pinch” the river’s otherwise wide floodplain in this heavily-developed area, increasing both the river’s surface level and its velocity between them. Mayor Heartwell credited the floodwalls with saving the city from a massive flood.

The “100-year flood plain” is the ground elevation contour reached by the theoretical 100-year flood. People living within the 100-year flood plain are eligible for government-backed flood insurance, but only if Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) engineers have calculated and mapped the 100-year flood elevation for a given watershed.

Currently in draft form, FEMA’s updated Grand River floodplain maps show the Great Flood of 2013 remained within the 100-year floodplain because, as explained in the previous paragraphs, it was less than an “official” 100-year flood.

One of the reasons FEMA’s report remains in draft form is that it cannot “certify” that Grand Rapids’ floodwalls will contain the 100-year flood. FEMA’s current “draft” flood model shows that while the 100-year flood in Grand Rapids will not overtop the existing floodwalls, it will come within one foot of overtopping them. By FEMA’s definition a “certified” floodwall must have at least three feet of “freeboard” remaining between the 100-year water level and the top of the floodwall. Because the existing floodwalls are not “certified”, FEMA hydrologists revised their flood model to treat the current floodwalls as if they do not exist. The result, and a cause for great angst among Grand Rapids officials, is that much of the West Side is deemed to be within the 100-year floodplain!

Another irony is that there were no recorded 100-year storms directly preceding the Great Flood of 2013. A 100-year storm is one which has a 1% probability of occurring in a given year. The “storm” is usually rainfall, and in Grand Rapids it takes 6.15 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period, or 2.8 inches in one-hour, to qualify as a 100-year storm.

Even 100-year storms do not guarantee 100-year floods. Why?

Besides rainfall, a river’s flood level depends on the beginning river depth before the storm and the extent of existing ground saturation. Also, an intense rain may only occur over a small portion of the overall watershed. It’s possible to have a 100-year storm in a dry watershed and not create a 100-year flood. And, as in Grand Rapids’ case, it’s possible to have less than a 16-year storm create a 16-year flood with already-saturated ground and high river levels.

By James R. Hegarty, P.E., Barbara Marczak, P.E., and Brian Vilmont, P.E.

Our infrastructure provides the foundation on which our communities are built: the roads that enable our transportation, the watermains that provide our drinking water, the sewers and treatment plants that put clean water back into our environment, and the buildings upon which our communities depend for services and support. All the assets that make up our infrastructure systems must be managed in order to maintain their value to our communities. Without asset management, our limited funds will continue to be depleted with reactionary repairs instead of leveraged to maximize the value of each dollar spent.

Asset management is not a new concept. The old Aesop fable of the grasshopper, who sings during summer instead of preparing for winter, and the ant, who stores up food for winter during the summer, ended with this lesson: “It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.” We know that our assets will not last forever, but we can get the most value from them if we invest in their management and maintenance. Like the ant, it is important that we do our work now and not wait for the proverbial winter for our assets to fail. To be able to choose from the many tools available for asset management, it is important to understand the fundamentals first.

How asset management works

The goal of asset management is to provide the desired level of service from our assets at the lowest, long–term costs. Proactive asset management can reduce short–term reactionary expenditures and make the most out of the available funding. To accomplish this, we need to follow these basic steps:

1. Appraisal

Identify Assets
Document System History & Concerns
Determine Existing & Proposed Level of Service
Select Desired Management System
Develop Work Plan *
*Required to apply for SAW Grant Funding

2. Inventory

Mapping
Criticality Review

3. Assessment

Condition: Physical & Capacity
Risk
Cost: Maintenance & Rehabilitation/Replacement

4. Asset Management Plan

Maintenance Strategies
Capital Improvement Plan
Funding Alternatives & Strategies

5. Implementation

Public Education
Culture: Staff & Community Investment
Funding: Internal & External Sources
Tracking & Reporting: Community Dashboard

Grants Available

The State of Michigan is moving forward with funding of asset management plan development for municipalities through the Stormwater, Asset Management, and Wastewater (SAW) Grants. Later this summer, MDEQ will accept grant applications for this program, providing up to $2,000,000 in grant funding per municipality. SAW Grants will be awarded on a first–come, first–served basis. For more information about Asset Management Plans and MDEQ SAW Grants, contact Jim Hegarty, P.E., Brian Vilmont, P.E. at (616) 364–8491, or Barbara Marczack, P.E. at (231) 798-0101.

Not everyone is aware of downtown development authorities (DDA), or why they are important. Many cities have one, and Michigan has 35 of them. Prein&Newhof often works with DDAs on projects related to streetscapes and downtown infrastructure.

Downtown is considered the heart of the city. It is an expanse of a few streets that are pedestrian-oriented and often show the historical aspect of the community. It is an important driver for commerce, a stage for public events, and a representation of the city’s identity.

Many cities’ development has focused on suburbs and subdivisions in the last 60 years. This pattern stems from the invention of cars and streetcars. Streetcar suburbs are now often the main thoroughfares of major cities, since we build where transportation is available. Although downtown living has been abandoned in the past century, the resurgence in the last ten years has been significant. We still value our downtowns and direct special funds and efforts to keep them vibrant.

DDAs use incremental property taxes from downtown property owners to make public improvements, which encourage private investment. DDAs are formed by the municipal government after public hearing and approval, and are given boundaries as a district.

Place-based economic development has become a popular issue in response to the economic recession of the last few years. Michigan cities have seen that local identity can drive local commerce, which stabilizes local economies.

Prein&Newhof was happy to be involved with the design of Greenville’s streetscape for M-91, which built the character and identity of Greenville’s downtown and was partially funded by Greenville’s DDA.

Do you think downtowns are worth our investment?

There’s a growing fear that the Great Lakes water is in danger, and that we need to work quickly to keep people from trying to steal it – or worse, sell and profit from it. Fortunately, this fear is unfounded, based largely on myths about current laws and practices.

Myth #1 – We are using too much of the Great Lakes’ water.

On an average day, 150 billion gallons of water arrive in Michigan through rain and snow, and we only use 6.7% of it. The rest stays in our groundwater, lakes, and streams until it evaporates or flows out to the Atlantic Ocean.

Most of the 10 billion gallons that Michigan communities and businesses do use every day goes right back into the water cycle. About 80% is used as cooling water in thermoelectric power plants and released back into the Great Lakes. The remaining 20% is used for public and private drinking water supply, farming, and manufacturing – after which it passes through our drainage or wastewater systems and re-enters Michigan’s lakes and streams.

Myth #2 – Drier areas of the country want to take our water.

Many people are worried about diversions – transporting the Great Lakes water to somewhere outside the Great Lakes watershed. Not only would a large diversion to the Southwest be ridiculously expensive, but there are already legal ways to prevent it. The Water Resources Development Act (passed by Congress in 1986) gives the governor of any Great Lakes state the right to veto any diversion. Moreover, leaders from the Great Lakes Basin states and provinces worked together to create the Great Lakes Charter – an agreement to minimize pollution and prevent diversions. Diversions to the thirsty southwest are not a threat.

Myth #3 – Bottled water companies are a threat to the Great Lakes.

The idea of bottled water companies selling “our” water makes a lot of people anxious, but we have to remember two things. First, hundreds of companies across Michigan already send water out of the Great Lakes Basin in the form of canned goods, processed food, and drinks. These companies have been sending our water all over the world for decades. Our economy has grown, and our environment hasn’t suffered for it. If this water use doesn’t concern us, why should bottled water?

Second, before we worry that bottled water companies will take “too much” water, we need to understand what “too much” means. Any time a company wants to draw significant amounts of water, studies should be performed to determine how much water goes in, how much will be taken out, and if the source can sustain the demands. That’s called sustainability – responsible water use that doesn’t dry up or damage wells, streams, and other sources. The emphasis should be on sustainability (using the right amount) not conservation (using less).

Myth #4 – We can protect the Great Lakes by enacting laws that restrict water use.

A set of bills regulating water use recently passed in Michigan, requiring communities to get DEQ approval before updating their water systems, and requiring businesses to obtain permits and file annual reports if they use significant amounts of water. In addition, a proposed Annex to the Great Lakes Charter requires all Great Lakes states to inventory and regulate their water withdrawals and set conservation goals. And recently, there has been a proposal to prohibit the sale of bottled water outside of the Great Lakes Basin.

These requirements may seem small, yet they have a large – and mostly negative – influence. First, they emphasize conservation, not sustainability. Implying that people should use less water is simplistic, and it’s not feasible if our communities and businesses are to continue to grow.

Second, when communities need permission to grow, they have to spend more time and money to make simple, necessary improvements. When businesses have to jump through expensive hoops (apply for permits, hire consultants to conduct tests, etc.) before they can expand and bring jobs to the state, they might decide to build elsewhere.

Michigan will continue to grow, and we should focus on using water wisely to our economic advantage. Sustainability is the key.

I think we should recruit more bottled water plants. They would bring jobs and tax money toMichigan– just the thing we’re trying to promote. After all, our most abundant resource – the one no one else can match – is fresh water. Let’s help everyone to use it well, rather than stifling our ability to grow.

Myth #5 – The greatest threat to the Great Lakes is over-use.

The greatest threat to the Great Lakes is contamination. We have to start talking about the quality of our water, about soil erosion, toxic waste discharges, and everything that gets through our wastewater system – like microorganisms that are resistant to chlorine, residual chemicals from prescription drugs, and chemicals from our soaps, perfumes, and cosmetics. The EPA is finding all of these in our lakes and streams, and there’s a big concern that these things will end up in our drinking water as well. If we want to protect our water, we should think first about improving its quality, not reducing the quantity that we use.

Articles

Important Information