A recent blog comment asked about whether funding for the extension bridge over 114 for the Huckleberry Trail was to be funded by DCR or by VDOT because the website had links to the DCR grant information. (I think there is some confusion because there are several projects related to the Huckleberry Trail that are going on right now. The one I refer to is the 114 Bridge proposed in Christiansburg that is to link the existing Huckleberry Trail with the extension that will take the Trail to the Aquatic Center and beyond.)
In the
Minutes of the Town Council Meeting Audio File 06/17/08, this issue was discussed. Funding was to have been through T funding through VDOT, The Transportation Enhancement Project (Federal Funds) is the anticipated source.
A few quick telephone calls to various VDOT offices around the state yielded the same results. The construction MUST be ADA compliant whenever State or Federal Funds are involved.(The Yellow Pages and a telephone can be as good a source of information as the internet.)
VDOT coverage of the Huckleberry would be under the
Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accomodations. This document notes in #2 Purpose: "This policy provides the framework through which the Virginia Department of Transportation will accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians,
including pedestrians with disabilities, along with motorized transportation modes in the planning, funding, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of Virginia’s transportation network to achieve a safe, effective, and balanced multimodal transportation system."
It is important to remember that the Huckleberry is a shared-use pedestrian walkway that is designed to be used by walkers, bicycle riders, skaters, wheelchair users, etc. Overall, it is the use of federal transportation money that makes the issue of ADA compliance important. If the Town is not using any source of federal money, then it is possible that money sources can be found that do not require ADA compliance. In that instance, I would simply ask "What is the right thing to do?" The links I provided from DCR are just one of many sources of information about ADA compliance. The initial grant for this project was turned down. If the town is to look at other possible funding sources, it will be important to know what the requirements are for that source.
It is my understanding that whatever is done with the current bridge design will have to be built in such a manner that it does not need to be replaced and does not restrict the proposed widening of 114 that is on VDOT's schedule (no information as to the increased cost of the project because of this has been presented at any public meeting). At the time that VDOT widens 114, VDOT would have to put a bridge over 114 for the trail. Christiansburg would have to pay for some of the costs of that (I have heard that it would be 20% of cost but I have not been able to verify that yet) with the bulk of the money (80%) coming from the VDOT Transportation Enhancement Project or other funding source, not taking away money from Chrisitiansburg Secondary Road funds.
I think the Mayor did the right thing in asking for written documentation from the funding source before a decision is made. I think it would be a shame to build something that resulted in fines and rebuilding later on. It is always a good idea to know what you are doing before you do it. Wonder if a report was done by the Planning Department and presented to the Town Council so that Council members would know the legal requirements in the variety of funding scenarios that could be used?
I also think it is a shame that we are even having to discuss whether or not the bridge should be ADA compliant. It is my opinion that there should be no question. ADA compliance should be a goal whenever and wherever possible!!!