Final Report - VHB.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5.1-1. Environmental Evaluation Metrics Resource/Impact Wetlands Water Quality Floodplains Aquifer Farmland Rare, Threatened, Endangered Species/Habitat Parkland & Recreation ROW Displacement Historic/Archeological Resources Hazardous Waste Construction Cost ROW Cost Estimated Annual Tax Loss Metric Acres of Dredge/Fill Number of Stream Crossings Acres of New Pavement Acres of New Pavement Acres of Disturbance Acres of Disturbance Acres of Disturbance Within the Proposed Project Footprint Acres of Full Acquisition Acres of Partial Acquisition Number of Known Archeological Sites Number of Standing Potential Structures Within the Proposed Project Footprint 2010 Dollars 2010 Dollars 2010 Dollars 5.2 Options Evaluation This section summarizes evaluation results for each strategy and option considered in this Feasibility Study, as well as evaluation results for the No Action Option. Figure 5-1 shows the 2035 DHV LOS for each option. Table 5.1-2 tabulates impacts and costs of each option and provides a green, yellow, or red rating to demonstrate how well each option meets the objectives of the Study. Section 5.2.2 describes the potential effect of the various TDM measures on peak traffic demands (i.e., DHV) in the Study Area. As discussed in Chapter 4, supplemental analyses were performed for each Build Option considering the implementation of an aggressive TDM program in the Study Area and region. The level of improvement in traffic operations associated with the TDM reduction in DHV is described for each applicable Build Option. 5.2.1 No Action The No Action Option is the continuation and perpetuation of the existing transportation infrastructure in the Study Area. Therefore, the No Action analysis scenario does not consider any physical roadway or intersection improvements in the Study Area (except those previously discussed in Chapter 3). However, it assumes that traffic volumes will continue to grow to the design year 2035, including redevelopment of the NASB and Topsham Annex. As shown in Figure 5-1, the No Action Option results in the substantial degradation of traffic operations at eight of the Study Area signalized intersections along State Route 196, Pleasant Street, and Conclusions 143
Bath Road. The following signalized intersections are all expected to experience 2035 DHV demands that exceed existing capacity: State Route 196 and US Route 201 State Route 196 and Village Drive/Community Way Pleasant Street and Church Street Pleasant Street and River Road/Webster Street Pleasant Street and Mill Street/Stanwood Street Bath Road and Federal Street/Sills Drive Bath Road and Merrymeeting Plaza Bath Road and US Route 1 Ramps/Gurnet Road Of these eight intersections, four are projected to operate at LOS F and three at LOS E under the 2035 DHV condition. In addition to the signalized intersections, several of the unsignalized Study Area intersections are projected to substantially deteriorate under the No Action Option. Poor traffic operations under 2009 existing conditions will continue to degrade at the unsignalized intersections of US Route 201 and Canam Drive, US Route 201 and Eagles Way, Maine Street and the US Route 1 southbound off-ramp, and Maine Street and Mason Street. In addition, at the intersection of State Route 196 and the US Route 1 southbound on-ramp, unsignalized left turns from State Route 196 to the onramp are projected to degrade from LOS B under 2009 existing conditions to LOS E under 2035 DHV conditions. 5.2.2 Travel Demand Management The TDM sensitivity analysis suggests that the implementation of moderate measures (i.e., Employer-Support Program Level 2 and $1/day increase in parking costs for single-occupancy vehicles) could result in a 1 to 4 percent reduction in peakhour traffic volume demands in the Study Area for all three employment populations considered. However, with the implementation of the more aggressive program (i.e., Employer-Support Program Level 4 and $2/day increase in parking costs for singleoccupancy vehicles), the percent reduction could range from 13 to 16 percent. Noting the strong local- and state-level <strong>com</strong>mitment for promoting TDM in the Study Area and the region, the supplemental analyses conducted for each of the applicable Build Options applied a reduction factor of 10 percent to all local traffic, which is defined for the purpose of this evaluation as all 2035 DHVs except regional through traffic on US Route 1 and State Route 196. Adjusting for the split of regional through traffic versus local traffic on these two corridors results in an effective reduction factor ranging from 6 to 8 percent for the US Route 1 and State Route 196 corridors. Again, all other movements were reduced by 10 percent. Conclusions 144
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 and 146: Summary of Options 136
Page 147 and 148: 5.1.2 Traffic Operations As previou
Page 149 and 150: 5.1.4 Cost Estimates Planning-level
Page 151: impacted property. However, using t
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?