Final Report - VHB.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5 Evaluation of Options 5.1 Evaluation Criteria When considered in the context of the existing transportation system and environmental resources described in Chapters 2 and 3, review of the conceptual engineering plans described in Chapter 4 allows comparison of the relative benefits and impacts of each strategy and option. The methodologies and criteria used in conducting such an evaluation are described in this chapter, along with results of the analysis. 5.1.1 Addressing Purpose and Need As discussed in Chapter 1, the Purpose and Need Statement defines which possible options are reasonable, prudent, and practicable. Thus, an evaluation of whether a particular strategy or option meets the Study purpose and need is an important element of the Feasibility Study. Table 5.1-2 provides guidance on how well each Study strategy and option satisfies the objectives of the Purpose and Need Statement. Following are the five questions asked in the matrix to assist in determining whether the Study objectives are met: How well does the option… Improve mobility Enhance safety Encourage multimodal mobility Accommodate NASB travel demands Dovetail with community goals These questions were asked of each Study strategy and option on review of the existing crash trends in the Study Area, the 2035 DHV No Action and Build trafficoperational analysis results, and local planning initiatives and long-term plans. The questions were answered using a color-coding system that establishes green as substantially meeting the objective, yellow as moderately meeting the objective, and red as minimally or failing to meet the objective. Conclusions 137
5.1.2 Traffic Operations As previously discussed in Subsection 2.2.2, traffic operations usually are defined through LOS, which also is generally described in that subsection. Typically, feasibility and planning studies prepared for transportation infrastructure improvement projects strive to achieve LOS C or LOS D traffic operations under Build conditions. However, whereas the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham and the MaineDOT seek to encourage multimodal transportation use and reduce single-occupancy vehicles in the Study Area, this Feasibility Study and its improvement options attempt to balance the need for adequate roadway capacity by promoting TDM. Therefore, it was determined that the traffic-operations criteria for this Study could consider LOS E or LOS F operations as acceptable under Build conditions if the LOS under the specific option strongly promotes TDM for travel in the Study Area. 5.1.3 Transportation Demand Management An evaluation was conducted to determine the percentage of trip reduction that could be achieved in the Study Area by implementing various levels of TDM programs. The TDM evaluation in this Feasibility Study was not conducted as a standalone Build option; it is doubtful that TDM measures alone can reduce vehicle trips to the extent that they address existing levels of congestion currently experienced in the Study Area corridors and anticipated future demands on the roadways with redevelopment of the NASB. More important, given the expressed commitment of the local communities to a multimodal approach of addressing transportation needs as opposed to relying solely on the continued construction of new and wider roadways, TDM actions are not considered as an either/or alternative but rather as actions that should be implemented as aggressively as possible – regardless of the implementation of other physical modifications to the transportation system. For this reason, a series of sensitivity analyses was conducted assuming various model inputs. The results were used to conduct a supplemental traffic-operational analysis of the Feasibility Study strategies and options to understand the level of operational improvement that could be achieved by implementing an aggressive areawide TDM program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) COMMUTER Model Version 2 [1] was used to approximate the effect of TDM on the Study Area. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the following three separate employment populations: [1] COMMUTER Version 2.0 release from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Conclusions 138
Page 1 and 2:
Transportation Feasibility Study Re
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 6 and 7:
4.11.1 Maine Street/US Route 1 Inte
Page 8 and 9:
List of Figures Figure No. Descript
Page 10 and 11:
Executive Summary Introduction/Back
Page 12 and 13:
motorists to get out of their vehic
Page 14 and 15:
along each of the cross roadways. U
Page 16 and 17:
leg of the intersection, which prov
Page 18 and 19:
Route 1 intersection could be consi
Page 20 and 21:
1 Introduction 1.1 Project Backgrou
Page 22 and 23:
Throughout this Feasibility Study,
Page 24 and 25:
1.4.1 Public Informational Meetings
Page 26 and 27:
Table 1.4-3. Study Advisory Committ
Page 28 and 29:
F CATHANCE RIVER MEADOW RD W HITEHO
Page 30 and 31:
as a principal arterial and extends
Page 32 and 33:
membership fee of $35. ZipCar membe
Page 34 and 35:
network, with the goal of providing
Page 36 and 37:
Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pede
Page 38 and 39:
2009 Design Hour Volume The unit of
Page 40 and 41:
Table 2.2-1. Existing Traffic-Volum
Page 42 and 43:
USE CROOSING RD JESSE RD D AUGUST C
Page 44:
Table 2.2-3. Unsignalized Intersect
Page 47 and 48:
were identified, individual police
Page 49 and 50:
determined to be HCLs. A sixth inte
Page 51 and 52:
HOUSE CROOSING RD JESSE RD RD AUGUS
Page 53 and 54:
grocery store. The size of the pond
Page 55 and 56:
The Strategy 2B Study Area east of
Page 57 and 58:
Sections 435-449). However, the riv
Page 59 and 60:
Areas mapped by the NRCS as Prime F
Page 61 and 62:
OUSE CROOSING RD JESSE RD RD AUGUST
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
the MRRA. This report presents info
Page 69 and 70:
anged between 14 sales in 2008 and
Page 71 and 72:
to have covered the entire town. No
Page 73 and 74:
Table 2.4-1. Properties Listed in t
Page 75 and 76:
Town/Address /Location Name Brief D
Page 77 and 78:
unclear whether any other additiona
Page 79 and 80:
Strategy 2B Based on field observat
Page 81 and 82:
P USE CROOSING RD JESSE RD D AUGUST
Page 83 and 84:
3 Future Conditions 3.1 Introductio
Page 85 and 86:
3.3 NASB and Topsham Annex Trip Est
Page 89 and 90:
(also known as internal capture). A
Page 91 and 92:
4 Summary of Options 4.1 Introducti
Page 93 and 94:
Site Walk Access Improvements: This
Page 95 and 96: 4.5 Passenger Rail and Bus Rapid Tr
Page 97 and 98: and then overpasses US Route 1 adja
Page 99 and 100: parallel to US Route 1. They termin
Page 101 and 102: MAP-41 LOT-14E MAP-41 LOT-14D MAP-4
Page 103 and 104: MAP-41 LOT-17B MAP-44 LOT-1 MAP-44
Page 105 and 106: o o Options 3A and 3B assess the po
Page 107 and 108: short distance (i.e., 0.1 mile) bef
Page 109 and 110: 4.7.5 Option 3A Option 3A (Figure 4
Page 111 and 112: Option 5 widens and reconstructs a
Page 113 and 114: HORTON PL REST DR UV196 ANTHONYAV 2
Page 115 and 116: AV Map R05A Lot 30- Map R05A Lot 31
Page 117 and 118: Map R04 Lot 18- Map R04 Lot 47-2 LL
Page 119 and 120: 4.8 Strategy 2B - Improve Mobility
Page 121 and 122: four options, and the maximum benef
Page 123 and 124: oundabout from the south. This opti
Page 125 and 126: MAP-U25 LOT-20 Bailey Ln Ln B ailey
Page 127 and 128: MAP-U24 LOT-2A River Rd MAP-U24 LOT
Page 129 and 130: MAP-U25 LOT-20 MAP-16 LOT-1 Bailey
Page 131 and 132: MAP-U25 LOT-20 MAP-16 LOT-1 Bailey
Page 133 and 134: Option 1 includes continuous sidewa
Page 135 and 136: MAP-U23 LOT-94 MAP-U23 LOT-90 Map U
Page 137 and 138: The primary challenge with Option 1
Page 139 and 140: Town of Brunswick, Maine MAP-U04 LO
Page 141 and 142: Town of Brunswick, Maine 1 £¤ And
Page 143 and 144: Results of the preliminary screenin
Page 145: Summary of Options 136
Page 149 and 150: 5.1.4 Cost Estimates Planning-level
Page 151 and 152: impacted property. However, using t
Page 153: Bath Road. The following signalized
Page 156 and 157: 5.2.3 Build Options A traffic-opera
Page 158 and 159: (USACE) if it is selected for advan
Page 160 and 161: oadways located on the northeast an
Page 162 and 163: intersection of US Route 201 and Ol
Page 164 and 165: etaining a signalized intersection
Page 166 and 167: 5.2.3.4 Strategy 2C - Improve Mobil
Page 168 and 169: Environmental Impacts Environmental
Page 170 and 171: 6 Conclusions The purpose of this F
Page 172 and 173: Because the secondary connector roa
Page 183 and 184: Appendix B Throughout the study, th
Page 185 and 186: From: missysdad@hotmail.com [mailto
Page 187 and 188: everyday traffic for doctor visits
Page 189 and 190: carpool, mass transit, or other. Wh
Page 191 and 192: decision makers are going to faced
Page 193 and 194: From: cwiercinski@sitelinespa.com S
Page 195 and 196: From: mar-e_trebilcock@msad51.org [
Page 197 and 198:
From: Chris Baker, Harpswell [chris
Page 199 and 200:
I thought that the Topsham Coastal
Page 201 and 202:
From: charris@tidewater.net Sent: F
Page 203 and 204:
Brunswick, ME 04011 207-729-0787 Al
Page 205 and 206:
proposals it requires the most land
Page 207 and 208:
From: cp348@aol.com [mailto:cp348@a
Page 209 and 210:
Do NOT add to mailing list. Email s
Page 211 and 212:
'inner' Pleasant Street is a barrie
Page 213:
We are requesting that as part of t
show all

Final Report - VHB.com

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?