Final Report - VHB.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

etaining a signalized intersection at this location, which is projected to operate at LOS D or better compared to LOS F under No Action. Similar to the Church Street intersection, Option 1 calls for a new roundabout at the intersection of Pleasant Street and River Road/Webster Street, whereas Options 2 and 3 call for retaining traffic-signal control. The roundabout is projected to operate at LOS E but improve to LOS D with the aggressive TDM program. The signalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS C for both Options 2 and 3 with and without TDM. Options 1 and 1A substantially meet the objectives of improving mobility, enhancing safety, accommodating NASB travel demands, and dovetailing with community goals but only moderately meet the objective of encouraging multimodal mobility. Options 2 and 2A meet the objectives at a similar level except for dovetailing with community goals, which was rated as moderately meeting that objective. Option 3, the five-lane cross-section, substantially improves mobility and substantially accommodates NASB travel demand, moderately enhances safety, but only minimally encourages multimodal mobility and dovetails with community goals. Environmental Impacts Strategy 2B, which is defined by the Pleasant Street (US Route 1) corridor from Exit 31 to Mill Street, currently exists as an urbanized landscape with limited natural resources present in the strategy area. The footprints associated with Options 1 and 2 are identical along Pleasant Street, except at the intersections of Church Road and River Road, where Option 1 calls for roundabouts and Option 2 calls for traffic signals. Option 3 requires the least amount of new pavement (i.e., 7.8 acres) and causes the least environmental impact. Environmental Resources As previously mentioned, limited natural resources exist in the strategy area, and those present are located along the margins of the Study Area. For example, based on current concept plans and current mapping, wetlands and stream impacts are expected to be negligible. The potential water-quality impacts are similar among all options because each requires a similar amount of new pavement, ranging from 7.8 acres (Option 3) to 9.2 acres (Option 2A). All of the options would similarly impact two areas of Zone AE floodplains associated with two unnamed perennial streams, totaling 0.2 acre. Furthermore, each option would impact a similar amount of the sand and gravel aquifer, ranging from 3.9 acres (Option 3) to 5.7 acres (Options 1A and 2A). More important, there are a substantial number of potential hazardous-material sites present within the corridor that would need to be considered as part of the construction for any option. Each option could impact at least 10 known hazardousmaterial sites, many of them underground petroleum tanks. Although each site Conclusions 155
would warrant further investigation during final design to minimize health and safety risks, it is expected that the research would determine that most of them pose no substantial risk. Right-of-Way Impacts The urbanized landscape associated with Pleasant Street means that construction within this corridor would result in greater ROW acquisition costs and affect a larger population than any of the other strategies. All of the options require full acquisition of approximately 5.5 acres of private property. Additional partial ROW acquisition is needed, ranging from 1.5 acres (Option 1) to 1.7 acres (Option 3). Options 1A and 2A, both of which involve the relocation of River Road, have the greatest combined impact on ROW acquisition. The corresponding loss of tax base is estimated to range from $32,000 to $81,000. Cultural Resources No known archeology sites exist within the corridor, and it is not anticipated that any sensitive archeology areas would be affected by any of the options. However, Strategy Area 2B contains approximately 10 potentially historic structures, primarily located along the south side of Pleasant Street. Option 1 takes two former houses at 113 and 115 Pleasant Street, which now serve as offices. The building located at 113 Pleasant Street is a ca. 1915 four-square house; 115 Pleasant Street is a side-gable, four-bay house with a central chimney that may date to the early 19th century or even earlier, but the windows and front entrance appear to have been altered. The Paul Street/Turner Street connector road south of Pleasant Street in all four options runs through the rear of three parcels containing older buildings (i.e., 133 Pleasant Street, a more recent motel structure with two ca. 1870 houses in the rear; 139 Pleasant Street, a ca. 1940s single-family house; and 141 Pleasant Street, a ca. 1890 front-gable house with a rear shed). The small ca. 1920 bungalow at 6 Robinson Avenue would be acquired for the Owen Street connector between Church Road and Pleasant Street in all options except Option 3. The area in which the Westminster Avenue connector will be built (proposed in all four options) to connect River Road and Pleasant Street contains smaller residences that date from the 1870s through the 1920s, along with more recently constructed houses. No potentially historic buildings would be acquired for the connector road. The Lombard Street connector, Pleasant Street, and Stanwood Street on the west side of this portion of the Study Area would be located adjacent to 15 Lombard Street, a single-family residence that appears to date to the 1950s. Lombard Street north of this house contains early 20th-century bungalows as well as mid-20 th -century singlefamily houses. An inventory of all buildings older than 45 years would be required to fully understand potential impacts to historic structures, although it is not anticipated that any of these properties are NRHP–eligible. Conclusions 156
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 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 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?