Consultants present Western Gateway scoping study, board hears options for underpasses, boardwalks and phased work

Dan Malik, a landscape architect and certified planner with DeBo & King, presented the Western Gateway scoping study to the Richmond Select Board on June 17, describing a federally funded active‑transportation project to link Richmond Village, the park‑and‑ride and Riverview Commons.

The study examines technical feasibility, public support and planning‑level costs. Malik said the work builds on earlier 2014 studies and recent wetlands mapping; it incorporated two surveys (149 responses to an initial local‑concerns survey and 94 to a design‑concepts survey) and focus groups with the cemetery commission, school staff and nearby residents.

The presentation outlined three alternatives: a north‑side route generally adjacent to Route 2, a more off‑alignment "Gateway Trail" that would use more boardwalk and two underpasses under I‑89 ramps, and a no‑build option that would not advance a multi‑use path. Malik said the Gateway Trail scored slightly higher on a matrix that balanced safety, transport value, environmental impact and cost.

Malik described technical challenges that will require engineering: steep slopes that may need retaining walls and railings, wetlands and floodplain constraints near the interchange, right‑of‑way limits next to private property and the rail corridor, and potential utility pole relocations. He also described measures to meet Americans with Disabilities Act parameters — for example, limiting overall grade to about 8% with flat rest areas and railings where required — but emphasized a final determination requires engineering work.

On costs, Malik gave planning‑level estimates: a more Overland Gateway Trail with limited underpasses and boardwalks was estimated at about $1 million in his presentation; the option that included more extensive boardwalks and underpasses produced an estimate in the multiple millions ("about four plus million," per Malik). He noted potential federal funding sources, including Reconnecting Communities grants and Safe Streets and Roads for All, and discussed typical local matches (planning grants often have a lower local match than construction).

Residents and board members raised several concerns during a lengthy question period: whether underpasses could become water channels in flood events, how the project would affect unmarked graves near the cemetery, and whether proposed alignments would require tree removals or utility relocations on private property. Malik said wetlands and floodplain permitting would involve DEC review and that engineering design must address drainage and underpass safety features such as floor drains and illumination.

Board members emphasized phasing: several said a first phase should prioritize connecting Riverview Commons to the park‑and‑ride to address longstanding access inequities. No formal selection of a preferred alternative was recorded at the meeting; staff and the consultant agreed to "let it season" and follow up with further revisions and a potential decision at a later meeting.

What's next: the consultant will finalize the report, incorporate board input (including possible title changes and clearer outreach language), and return a final packet with appendices. The board discussed returning to the issue after the July 1 time frame mentioned during discussion and directing staff on next steps or additional engineering work as appropriate.