Final Report - VHB.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Maine Street from Lincoln! Which is why I continue to navigate through Mill Street every day.) Cindy Folsom Do NOT add to mailing list. Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET From: Claudia & Ed Knox [mailto:eknox@suscom-maine.net] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:39 PM To: Mann, Chris A Cc: Margo Knight; Benet Pols; Nancy Randolph; Vicky Marr; Suzan Wilson Subject: NASB Study Comments Dear Chris, Below please find some appreciation for study 'concepts' that I believe are positive, and then (a longer) critique if study 'concepts' that I believe would endanger the economic and social well being of the town I live in, Brunswick. I. Appreciations Proposed Pleasant Street roundabouts at the end of the route 295 ramp, at Church Street, and at River Road, are worth really exploring. These locations are the right ones for signaling gradual transitions in land uses as Pleasant morphs from highway commercial in tone to a more urban and pedestrian commercial/residential mix. The roundabouts also help to calm traffic while facilitating steady traffic flow and offering opportunities to reverse direction. These traffic management tools can support Pleasant Street businesses. Widening of the Coastal Connector is completely logical and economical - it was designed for this destiny. The overpass recommendation makes sense to me and I hope that it does to Topsham. Changes in the signage on 295 directing through traffic, should encourage use of the Coastal Connector and discourage use of Pleasant Street for this segment of the driving public. As roundabouts are built on Pleasant Street, and as the Coastal Connector is widened and an overpass is added, more local drivers will select the Topsham route because they will perceive it as faster. Reduction in traffic volumes on Pleasant Street will encourage local shoppers to patronize Pleasant Street businesses. II. Critiques NASB addresses needs to move traffic to Brunswick Landing to the exclusion of addressing the needs of the Brunswick community to reconnect with its primary commercial roadway, Pleasant Street, and with its Androscoggin riverfront. Some of the NASB 'concepts' exacerbate the alienation of Brunswick from Pleasant Street and from the River. Furthermore, the 'concepts' are based upon traffic modeling for limited high use periods, not upon normal (e.g. peak travel on a weekday in October or May) traffic flow. This approach engineers roadways for atypical situations, and gives precedence not to local users but to vacationers. This is both expensive to the State and damaging to healthy local development. The massive intersection proposed for Pleasant/Mill Street, exactly where the riverfront and Brunswick's historic neighborhoods begin, is a huge mistake - an insult even. This idea compounds earlier errors in traffic engineering and will further erode downtown residential and commercial property values. Mill Street should be kept to two lanes, with dedicated left turns as needed. Traffic should be calmed to a relatively low speed. Pedestrian access to the swinging bridge and the future riverwalk should have priority. The proposed elevated pedestrian walkway is laughable - poorly positioned and fundamentally useless. There should be no median barrier on Mill Street that inhibits pedestrian crossing at Cushing Street. Any new design for the Pleasant/Mill Street intersection should not preclude the future return of two-way traffic between Stanwood and Union Streets on Pleasant Street, or, potentially, between Stanwood and Maine Streets on Pleasant Street. This is Pleasant Street's historic function, to conduct Brunswick drivers to businesses on Pleasant Street and to allow them to easily travel between the North and South sides of Brunswick's downtown. A one-way 27
'inner' Pleasant Street is a barrier to normal commercial and social interaction. A one-way 'inner' Pleasant Street distorts logical driver choice, sending vehicles onto Maine Street, Mill Street, Union Street, Stanwood Street, and numerous smaller side streets, all in a convoluted effort to get out of town. This excess burden of traffic is deleterious to a vibrant downtown and to residential neighborhoods. The location of Brunswick's new police station at Stanwood and Pleasant opens opportunities for better management at this key intersection and the restoration of two-way traffic. Proposed median barriers on 'outer' Pleasant Street seem counterproductive to me - I don't think they are a necessary adjunct to the roundabouts. I think better design standards for the roadway can reduce the number of potential left turns by reducing the number of curb cuts. Can some dedicated left turn stacking lanes be worked in Parallel roads may be a good addition to driver choices particularly if they are carefully coordinated with the interests of some residential enclaves. Lastly, Sage Hill Road now functions as a dead end and is problematic because its only inlet/outlet is via Mill Street. Its connection to Pleasant Street should be established. Sincerely, Claudia Knox Brunswick From: McInnes, Richard D. [mailto:mcinnes@mitre.org] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 10:43 AM To: Mann, Chris A Cc: McInnes, Richard D. Subject: Traffic Circles Sir, I am concerned that Traffic Circles are being considered. Other states are spending a lot of money removing traffic circles. One particular example is the traffic circle in Concord Massachusetts. It is my understanding that they are getting ready to spend $ Millions to implement a new solution. Bath just built a traffic circle when a simple traffic light would have worked. I understand that they built it because they received funding from some government agency but I think we all need to be good stewards of our tax dollars as they are in short supply. Best Regards, Richard McInnes Brunswick From: Scott Taylor [mailto:scott@brunswicktelegraph.com] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:03 PM To: Kennedy, Marty Cc: Cooney, Leighton; Louise Subject: NASB Study - NWBNA comments Marty Kennedy VHB Consulting Re: NASB Transportation Study Dear Marty: 10 September 2010 28
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 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: Do NOT add to mailing list. Email s
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?