Final Report - VHB.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

leg of the intersection, which provides access to property on the south side of Pleasant Street that could present a redevelopment opportunity. This relocated intersection would be a roundabout or a signalized intersection. Strategy 2C - Improve Mobility along Mill Street Based on public input, there is little agreement about which actions should be taken to improve safety and mobility along Mill Street. Some people contend that as a principal arterial, Mill Street (i.e., US Route 1) should be widened to four lanes (i.e., two lanes in each direction); others, stressing the proximity of the nearby residential neighborhood on the south side and the Androscoggin Brunswick-Topsham Riverwalk (with its recent restoration of the historic John A. Roebling Swinging Bridge) on the north side, believe that Mill Street should remain a two-lane roadway. In addition to the No Action Option, which maintains the existing two-lane cross section, three- and four-lane options were evaluated. The three-lane option consists of two northbound and one southbound travel lanes separated by a raised-center median. The basis for the three-lane section is that maintaining the single southbound lane (and the resulting delay) may encourage through traffic destined to I-295 to use the Coastal Connector. This perspective is consistent with the trafficcalming actions that are targeted for the Pleasant Street corridor. The four-lane option consists of two northbound and two southbound travel lanes separated by a raised-center median. To enhance pedestrian safety and provide the desired bicyclists and pedestrian connectivity, both the three- and four-lane options include sidewalks along Mill Street and construction of a pedestrian bridge in the vicinity of the existing railroad bridge. The pedestrian bridge essentially extends the Androscoggin Brunswick- Topsham Riverwalk to the residential neighborhood located on the opposite side of Mill Street. Strategy 3 - Extend the Existing Rail Spur to the NASB In keeping with the desire to consider opportunities for nonautomobile-oriented modes of access to the NASB, options were developed for extending the Rockland Branch Railroad spur - which currently runs along the north side of Bath Road - into the NASB. Two route options were developed for the spur, each of which provides rail access to the NASB near Hangar No. 6. The two route options consider crossing Bath Road either at grade or by way of grade separation where the rail spur crosses beneath Bath Road, resulting in four rail-spur options. The primary difference between the two route options is the origin of the spur on the Rockland Branch Railroad and the route to Hangar No. 6 on the NASB. The western alignment intersects Bath Road just east of Jordan Avenue; the eastern alignment intersects Bath Road just west of the Merrymeeting Plaza Shopping Center. Executive Summary 7
Evaluation/Next Steps Based on results of the evaluation and extensive public input, the following overarching plan elements were identified: Improve the safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic through access management. Reduce the dominance of vehicular traffic by introducing traffic calming. Encourage multimodal mobility through enhanced pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations and through the support of public transportation. Limit the need to continually increase roadway capacity by the implementation of aggressive TDM strategies and by the willingness to accept some level of traffic congestion on the roadway system. With regard to the interchange options that were evaluated to provide a direct connection between the NASB and US Route 1, the results - at a planning level - suggest that although each option does have impacts, the concept of constructing a new direct-connection interchange is feasible. However, the pursuit of this strategy would likely require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment as a provision of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The NEPA study would examine the project options and impacts in greater detail and also entail additional in-depth public involvement. Given that this improved access is critical to the redevelopment of the NASB reaching its full potential, the general public support of this strategy voiced during the Feasibility Study, and the time needed to conduct such an in-depth study, the MaineDOT should consider pursuing this strategy as an early-action item. Project funding should be programmed prior to the initiation of the NEPA study. With regard to the strategies to improve mobility along the Coastal Connector, Pleasant Street, and Mill Street, consensus still must be reached on a fundamental question: whether the functional characteristics of these three principal arterials should be changed so as to encourage through traffic to use the Coastal Connector. This sentiment was voiced by many throughout the Feasibility Study’s publicparticipation process. If the decision is to encourage regional through traffic to use the Coastal Connector and as a result reclassify (i.e., downgrade) Pleasant Street and Mill Street, then options such as the widening of the Coastal Connector to a uniform four lanes and grade-separating the Route 196/Route 201 intersection should be pursued early, followed by the traffic-calming options considered for Pleasant Street. These options also may require NEPA action. . Because the secondary connector roadways, which comprise an important component of the Pleasant Street access-management plan, are likely to be implemented over time as properties along the corridor redevelop, the full implementation of the Pleasant Street modifications may be phased and take many years. However, installation of the gateway roundabout at the Exit 28 Connector/US Executive Summary 8
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 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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?