Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Victoria Street Roadway & Trail Conceptual Design Study | Study Report - DRAFT | PAGE 47 <br /> <br />lines compared to 1,600 linear feet for a trail on the west side. It is also estimated to increase impervious <br />surface in the corridor by 1.77 acres compared to 1.21 acres for a trail on the west side. Approximately 62 <br />parcels would require temporary construction easements for an east side trail, compared to 58 for a west <br />side trail. Finally, a trail on the east side is estimated to require construction of an estimated 343 feet of <br />retaining wall, compared to an estimated 171 feet for a trail on the west side. <br />Evaluation Results <br />Table 3 summarizes the key differences between the ability of each of the concepts to address project <br />needs and minimize impacts. Further evaluation will be required to refine estimates of potential impacts <br />from the two concepts. Several additional potential impacts that were not evaluated at this early stage of <br />design will also require investigation. For example, impacts to trees would occur by constructing a trail on <br />either the west side or on the east side of Victoria Street. . These extent of these impacts will be <br />quantified in the future. <br />The study does not formally identify a preferred roadway and trail concept. The results of the technical <br />analysis suggest that a trail on the west side of Victoria Street is more favorable than a trail on the east <br />side. As shown in Table 3, the roadway concept with a trail on the east side would not fully address two <br />measures of bicycle and pedestrian mobility and connectivity. It is also anticipated that a trail on the east <br />side would result in in more impacts than a trail on the west side across several key social, economic and <br />environmental resources. <br />Table 3: Full Concept Evaluation – Summary of Key Differences <br /> Criteria Measure West (1) East (2) Notes Needs Bicycle and <br />Pedestrian <br />Mobility and <br />Connectivity <br />Direct connection to key <br />destinations west of <br />Victoria Street?   East side trail would require <br />additional crossings. <br />Connectivity with existing <br />trail/sidewalk facilities?   <br />East side trail not <br />consistent with Victoria St. <br />trails north and south of <br />study area. Impacts Utilities Likely to impact overhead <br />power lines? <br />Fewer <br />Impacts <br />More <br />Impacts <br />East side: impacts to more <br />linear feet of overhead <br />power lines are likely. <br />Above <br />Ground <br />Structures <br />Likely to require relocation <br />of mailboxes and/or <br />roadway signage? <br />More <br />Impacts <br />Fewer <br />Impacts <br />West side will impact <br />mailboxes. Both concepts <br />would impact road signs. <br />Drainage <br />Increases amount of <br />impervious surface in <br />corridor? <br />Fewer <br />Impacts <br />More <br />Impacts <br />East side: larger increase in <br />acres of impervious surface <br />is likely. <br />Right of Way <br />Impacts <br />Permanent right of way or <br />easement impacts likely? <br />More <br />Impacts <br />Fewer <br />Impacts <br />West side: permanent <br />impacts to more parcels are <br />likely. <br />Temporary <br />Property <br />Impacts <br />Temporary construction <br />impacts likely? <br />Fewer <br />Impacts <br />More <br />Impacts <br />East side: temporary <br />impacts to more parcels are <br />likely. <br />Retaining <br />Walls <br />Likely to require <br />construction of retaining <br />walls? <br />Fewer <br />Impacts <br />More <br />Impacts <br />East side: more linear feet <br />of retaining walls are likely. <br /> <br /> More Impacts OR <br />Does Not Meet Need Fewer Impacts <br />OR Meets Need <br /> <br /> <br />