2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Adopted January 19, 2005
Communities working together to meet Chittenden County’s transportation needs
Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
30 Kimball Ave., Suite 206 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 t 802-660-4071 f 802-660-4079 www.ccmpo.org/[email protected]
The preparation of this document has been financed through transportation planning funds provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and by matching funds provided by Chittenden County’s 18 municipalities, the Vermont Agency of Transportation, and the Chittenden County Transportation Authority.
Prepared by: CCMPO Staff with assistance from Wilbur Smith Associates
Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
CCMPO Board
Robert Penniman – Chair, Jericho Jeff McDonald, Charlotte – Vice Chair Michael O’Brien, Winooski – Secretary-Treasurer
Gerard Mullen, Bolton Tom Buckley, Westford William Keogh, Burlington George Gerecke, Williston Jeff McDonald, Charlotte Michael O’Brien, Winooski Chris Conant, Colchester Dawn Terrill, State of Vermont Jeff Carr, Essex Dale Arango, Essex Junction Ex-officio, non-voting Andrea Morgante, Hinesburg Chris Cole, CCTA Richard Moulton, Huntington Lewis Wetzel, CCRPC Robert Penniman, Jericho John Hamilton, Burlington Int’l Airport James Manley, Milton Mike Flaherty, Vermont Transportation Virginia Clarke, Richmond Authority Phil Beliveau, St. George Jerome Hebda, Vermont Railway Jim Dudley, Shelburne Christopher Jolly, FHWA Jim Condos, South Burlington Andrew Motter, FTA Stan Hamlet, Underhill
CCMPO Staff
Daryl Benoit, Transportation Planner William Knight, Executive Director Paul Craven, Project Manager David Roberts, Sr., Transportation Planner Bernadette Ferenc, Executive Assistant Susan Smichenko, Sr. Transportation Christine Forde, Sr. Transportation Planner Planner Peter Keating, Sr. Transportation Planner Donata Sikon-Amato, Secretary
MTP Steering Committee (All members 2000 – 2004)
Bruce Bender Aaron Frank Polly McMurtry Jeanette Berry Beth Humstone Andrea Morgante Neil Boyden Faith Ingulsrud Ken Nolan Tom Buckley Amy Jestes Bryan Osborne Gina Campoli Chris Jolly Clay Poitras Marc Companion Deborah Linehan Zander Ponzo Brian Dunkiel Mary Lintermann Peter Potts Mark Eldridge Jane Marvin Peggy Treanor Mike Flaherty Sam Matthews Lew Wetzel
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES...... IV LIST OF FIGURES ...... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1.0 BACKGROUND TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP)...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Overview of Metropolitan Planning Organizations...... 1 1.3 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization: Organization and Operation ...... 2 1.4 Intergovernmental Cooperation...... 3 1.4.1 Municipal Responsibilities ...... 3 1.4.2 The CCMPO/VTrans/CCTA/Vermont Transportation Authority Relationship ...... 3 1.5 Required Elements of MTP ...... 4 1.6 Federal Guidelines for MTP Development and Content ...... 4 1.6.1 Air Quality...... 5 1.6.2 Congestion Management ...... 5 1.6.3 Environmental Justice...... 5 1.6.4 Economic Development and Smart Growth ...... 6 1.7 Metropolitan Transportation System...... 6 1.8 The MTP Steering Committee and Its Role ...... 6 1.9 CCMPO Approval/Adoption Process...... 9 1.10 MTP as Part of the Chittenden County Regional Plan ...... 9 1.11 Appendix Documents Incorporated into the MTP...... 9 2.0 THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS AND REGIONAL DESIRES AND ASPIRATIONS ...... 11 2.1 Introduction ...... 11 2.2 Vision and Goals ...... 11 2.2.1 Transportation Vision ...... 11 2.2.2 Regional Transportation Goals ...... 11 2.3 Public Involvement Process...... 12 2.3.1 Themes Emerging from Public Meetings ...... 12 2.3.2 Year 2000 Public Opinion Survey ...... 14 3.0 POPULATION, ECONOMICS AND TRANSPORTATION: CHARACTERISTICS, BEHAVIORS AND TRENDS ...... 17 3.1 Introduction ...... 17 3.2 Population and Economic Forecasts for Chittenden County...... 17 3.2.1 Overview ...... 17 3.2.2 Background...... 18 3.2.3 Population...... 18 3.2.4 Employment...... 19 3.2.5 Housing...... 19 3.3 Current Transportation Conditions...... 19 3.3.1 Arterial Roadways and Existing Congestion ...... 20 3.3.2 High Accident Locations ...... 20
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page i Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
3.3.3 Public Transit...... 22 3.3.4 Passenger Rail...... 22 3.3.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...... 22 3.3.6 Intermodal Facilities ...... 23 3.3.7 Air Service Facilities ...... 23 3.3.8 Rail and Freight-Supportive Facilities ...... 23 3.3.9 Relocation of Vermont Railways Freight Operations...... 24 3.3.10 Bridges...... 24 3.4 Transportation Analyses...... 24 3.4.1 The Chittenden County Transportation Model ...... 24 3.4.2 Travel Patterns...... 25 3.5 Forecast of Future Transportation Conditions...... 26 3.6 Chapter Summary...... 27 4.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS...... 29 4.1 Introduction ...... 29 4.2 Federal Requirements for Financial Analysis in MTP ...... 29 4.3 Funding Sources ...... 29 4.3.1 Federal Funding...... 29 4.3.2 State Funding...... 30 4.3.3 Local Sources of Funding...... 30 4.3.4 Private Sources ...... 30 4.4 Determination of Financial Constraint ...... 31 4.5 MPO Jurisdiction over Funding Sources...... 32 4.6 Summary...... 33 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS...... 35 5.1 Land Use Scenarios ...... 35 5.2 Baseline Scenarios: 2000 and 2025...... 35 5.3 Performance Measures ...... 36 5.4 Cost Considerations...... 40 5.5 Alternatives Development ...... 40 5.5.1 Initial Alternatives ...... 40 5.5.2 Hybrid Alternatives ...... 41 5.5.3 Refined Alternatives ...... 42 5.6 Recommended MTP Alternative...... 46 5.7 Chapter Summary...... 59 6.0 2025 MTP ...... 61 6.1 Introduction ...... 61 6.2 Overview of the Corridor-Oriented MTP Concept...... 61 6.3 MTP Corridors...... 62 6.3.1 Regional Core ...... 62 6.3.2 Northern Corridor ...... 70 6.3.3 Northeastern Corridor...... 76 6.3.4 Route 15 West Corridor...... 80 6.3.5 Southeastern Corridor...... 85 6.3.6 Vermont Route 116 Corridor...... 86 6.3.7 Eastern Corridor...... 91
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page ii Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
6.3.8 Southern Corridor ...... 96 6.3.9 Cross County Corridor...... 101 6.4 Summary...... 105 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION...... 107 7.1 Financial Plan ...... 107 7.1.1 Review of Financial Resources...... 107 7.1.2 System Preservation Costs...... 108 7.1.3 Funds allocated to key priorities...... 109 7.1.4 Key Projects and Programs...... 110 7.1.5 Projects Beyond Financial Constraint...... 110 7.1.6 The Dilemma of Transit Operations Funding ...... 113 7.1.7 Implementation Strategies ...... 113 7.2 Other Key Issues...... 114 7.2.1 The Critical Role of Land Use in Transportation Planning ...... 114 7.2.2 The MTP/Act 250 Relationship...... 115 7.2.3 Land Use – Transportation Decision Support System (DSS) ...... 115 7.2.4 Air Quality and the MTP ...... 116 7.2.5 MTP Impacts on Adjoining Regions ...... 117 7.2.6 Implications of an Expanded MPO Region ...... 118 7.2.7 Developing a Project Prioritization Process...... 120 7.3 Performance Monitoring: Measuring MTP Success – The Regional Indicators Report ...... 121 8.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS...... 123
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page iii Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Publicly Preferred Transportation Strategies...... 15 Table 3-1: Chittenden County Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts...... 17 Table 3-2: 2025 Roadway Congestion...... 21 Table 4-1: Projected Transportation Funding Resources for Chittenden County...... 32 Table 4-2: Projected Funds Under CCMPO Jurisdiction – FY2001-FY2025 (in millions) ...... 33 Table 5-1: Assumptions for Allocation of Housing and Employment by Planning Area...... 36 Table 5-2: Performance Measures and Relevance to the MTP Goals...... 39 Table 5-3: Sequence of Alternatives Development ...... 40 Table 5-4: Summary Evaluation of Initial Alternatives (Concentrated Land Use)...... 42 Table 5-5: Overview of Hybrid Alternatives ...... 43 Table 5-6: Evaluation of Hybrid Alternatives with Concentrated Land Use...... 44 Table 5-7: Overview of Refined Alternatives...... 45 Table 7-1: Federal Funding Sources for Transportation...... 108 Table 7-2: Estimated Order of Magnitude Cost to Preserve the Existing Transportation System...... 109 Table 7-3: Funds Available for New Projects...... 109 Table 7-4: 2025 MTP Capital Costs by Category...... 110 Table 7-5: Projects and Programs ...... 111 Table 7- 6: Inter-County Travel 1990 – 2000: Major Increases in Worker Flow...... 119
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page iv Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Metropolitan Transportation System...... 7 Figure 3-1: Travel Model Process…………………………………. …………………………………………………...25 Figure 3-2: Travel Flows (PM Peak) Between Communities: Urban, Suburban and Rural...... 26 Figure 4-1: Projected Transportation Resources in Chittenden County, FY2001 - 2025 ...... 31 Figure 5-1: CCRPC Future Land Use ...... 37 Figure 5-2: Proposed Public Transportation Services...... 47 Figure 5-3: Proposed Bike/Pedestrian Facilities...... 49 Figure 5-4: Proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Areas and Park and Ride Facilities 51 Figure 5-5: Transportation System Management (TSM) and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Projects ...... 53 Figure 5-6: Proposed Congested Roadway Projects ...... 55 Figure 5-7: Proposed Interstate, Freeway and Connector Road Projects...... 57 Figure 6-1: Transportation Corridors...... 63 Figure 6-2: Regional Core ...... 65 Figure 6-3: Northern Corridor...... 71 Figure 6-4: Northeastern Corridor ...... 77 Figure 6-5: Route 15 West Corridor ...... 81 Figure 6-6: Route 116 Corridor ...... 87 Figure 6-7: Eastern Corridor...... 93 Figure 6-8: Southern Corridor...... 97 Figure 6-9: Cross-County Corridor...... 103
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page v Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page vi Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (CCMPO) 2025 long range plan, one of the organization’s chief responsibilities. This document—nearly four years in development—has been prepared under the detailed guidance specified in federal regulations governing its content and development process, including extensive public involvement and outreach.
Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the context within which the MTP was created, including:
• a description of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in general and the CCMPO in particular,
• the role of the region’s towns and cities, and other organizations in the transportation planning process,
• the federal guidelines on MTP content and development,
• a description of the transportation system over which the MTP has jurisdiction,
• the special role of the MTP Steering Committee, and
• the MTP’s relationship to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s (CCRPC) regional plan.
Chapter 2 describes:
• the MTP vision statement and goals which were distilled from public input and vetted through MTP Steering Committee discussions,
• the key themes from public meetings, and
• the results from the early public outreach efforts including the region-wide public opinion survey.
Chapter 3 provides the necessary background information for making long-range transportation recommendations, including:
• data on existing and forecast population, employment and housing,
• a description of the current transportation system with travel patterns and system condition,
• a projection of future transportation system condition, and
• a discussion of the analytical method focusing on the CCMPO’s travel demand computer model.
Chapter 4 identifies the long term transportation funding expectations, including:
• discussions of funding sources,
• the method calculating the expected total fiscal resources, and
• the proportion of funding over which the CCMPO has control.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page ES-1 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Chapter 5 describes the analytical process of evaluating transportation alternatives, including:
• details on how land use factored into the analysis, baseline and transportation scenario development,
• the evolution of the transportation alternatives,
• the performance measures used to evaluate the alternatives, and
• the elements of the preferred alternative – the projects and strategies that form the MTP’s recommendations.
Chapter 6 identifies and describes for each of nine transportation corridors:
• primary travel movements,
• land use characteristics,
• major mobility and accessibility issues,
• projects and strategies targeted to that corridor, and
• any additionally foreseen planning concerns.
Chapter 7 addresses ways to advance the MTP to implementation, including:
• the MTP role in Act 250,
• uses for the Decision Support System (the CCMPO and CCRPC’s land use/transportation model),
• a reiteration of the important role land use plays in transportation,
• air quality issues,
• the MTP impacts on adjoining counties,
• the possibility of future CCMPO area expansion, development of a project prioritization system, and
• a recommended method of evaluating MTP implementation progress.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page ES-2 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
1.0 BACKGROUND TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP)
1.1 Introduction
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is the long-range transportation plan for the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO). The MTP not only addresses current problems of congestion, accessibility and mobility but lays out the framework for the transportation system of the future. The MTP acknowledges today’s fiscal, political and social realities while extending beyond the status quo to better integrate the disciplines of transportation and land use planning through regional collaboration.
This MTP started out as a wholly new project, designed to be a fresh approach to regional long range transportation planning and a break from past efforts. Our previous MTP, adopted in 1997, was not, at first, considered the model we intended to follow this time. However, as we approach the conclusion of this MTP round, the continuity with that previous plan has become very apparent. The reader comparing the two documents will see a familiar format, presentation, and chapter sequence. Many of the same relevant issues, project recommendations, and implementation techniques continue in this version. Just as the 1997 Plan did, this MTP again stresses the all important role land use plays in transportation decision- making. In essence this MTP has come full circle, starting by taking a new and different path and ending, unexpectedly, close to where we concluded our 1997 efforts.
This opening chapter is intended to provide the reader with background and context for MTP development. It contains an introduction to the federally-mandated role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and the federal requirements for MTP preparation and contents, as well as an overview of the CCMPO, its composition and operating environment.
1.2 Overview of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a transportation policy and decision-making organization made up of representatives from local government and transportation agencies. MPOs are required for any urbanized area greater than 50,000 people.
Congress created MPOs in the 1960s to ensure that existing and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs were based on a “continuing, cooperative and comprehensive” (3-C) planning process. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. MPOs have five core functions:
1. Establish and maintain a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision-making in the metropolitan area;
2. Evaluate transportation alternatives;
3. Develop and maintain a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the metropolitan area covering a planning horizon of at least twenty years that fosters (1) mobility and access for people and goods, (2) efficient system performance and preservation, and (3) quality of life;
4. Develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that is based on the MTP and designed to serve the area’s goals; and
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 1 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
5. Involve the public, including the general public and all the significantly affected sub-groups, in the four essential functions listed above.
The metropolitan planning process is structured to include active outreach strategies that give people opportunities to provide input. Opportunities for the public to be involved should occur throughout the process, especially during plan and program development. Federal guidelines also encourage MPOs to give special attention to those groups who have been underrepresented or underserved in the past in terms of the expenditure of transportation dollars.
One of the MPO’s most important responsibilities is to make decisions about funding. Funding for transportation plans and projects comes from a variety of sources including the federal government, state governments, special authorities, assessment districts, local government contributions, impact fees and tolls or other user fees.
Federal funds are made available to the State and in consultation with the MPO, project funding priorities are identified. All of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds and part of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds are administered by the state transportation agencies. A portion of the FTA funds are provided directly to transit operators through direct grant agreements.
MPOs, therefore, do not have direct control over funding. However, MPOs do set priorities for regional transportation projects and do identify funding sources for each of the proposed projects through the MTP development process and transportation improvement program (TIP) development process, conducted in consultation with the State and local transit authority. In this way, MPOs are responsible for the allocation of federal transportation funds.
1.3 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization: Organization and Operation
Formally established in 1982, the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) is the MPO for the Chittenden County region’s 18 municipalities and Buels Gore. Chittenden County has Vermont’s only U.S. Census-designated urbanized area with a population over 50,000, which makes CCMPO Vermont's only MPO. The Chittenden County region includes some 149,000 people, representing nearly 25 percent of the State’s population.
In its role as the MPO, the CCMPO administers approximately $30 to $40 million annually in federal transportation projects in consultation with the State and local transit authority; evaluates and approves proposed transportation improvement projects; provides a forum for interagency cooperation and public input into funding decisions; sponsors and conducts studies, assists the region’s municipalities with planning activities, and develops and updates the MTP and other transportation planning documents.
The CCMPO is governed by a Board of Directors, which consists of a representative appointed by each of the 18 participating municipalities and one representative from the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). The Board also includes, as ex-officio (non-voting) members, representatives from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), the Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA), Burlington International Airport, Vermont Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Representatives of the rail, freight movement, land use planning, and special needs communities also participate directly in the CCMPO process through various committees. All of these municipalities, agencies and interests work together in a comprehensive, continuing, and cooperative process to meet the region’s critical transportation needs.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 2 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
One standing committee—the Technical Advisory Committee, (TAC)—makes recommendations on action items to be considered by the Board of Directors. The TAC is comprised of planners and engineers from member municipalities and agencies, as well as appointed representatives of the region’s public interest groups. As warranted, the TAC will appoint special subcommittees to focus on specific topics or projects. The Board and TAC are supported by a professional staff, located in South Burlington.
The CCMPO prepares and updates a number of documents that detail the investments and planning activities that will address regional transportation. The major planning documents include:
• Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP): Updated every five years, the MTP sets out a vision for the development of the region's transportation infrastructure over the next 20 years. It includes goals and objectives, analyses of regional trends, and planned improvement projects throughout the county in all modes of transportation.
• Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Updated annually, the TIP is a three-year prioritization program of improvement projects and activities. To be eligible for federal funding, proposed projects must be approved by the CCMPO Board for inclusion in the TIP.
• Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP): Updated annually, the UPWP describes the transportation planning activities of the CCMPO staff, its member agencies and other transportation and planning agencies conducting work in the region and budgets the CCMPO’s planning funds from all sources.
All scheduled Board of Directors, TAC and subcommittee meetings are open to the public, and the CCMPO welcomes and encourages public participation in and input to the metropolitan transportation planning process. The Board of Directors meets in public session on the third Wednesday of each month. The TAC also meets monthly, usually on the first Tuesday. All regular CCMPO meetings include an opportunity for public comments on pertinent issues. In addition, public hearings on specific items, such as amendments to the TIP, are held as needed throughout the year.
1.4 Intergovernmental Cooperation
1.4.1 Municipal Responsibilities
The CCMPO is comprised of local municipalities that, in conjunction with state and local transit authority, are responsible for all CCMPO activities and products. In Vermont, municipalities typically provide half of the funds to meet federal matching requirements. Thus, the CCMPO planning budget is generally comprised of 80 percent federal funds, 10 percent state funds and 10 percent municipal funds.
1.4.2 The CCMPO/VTrans/CCTA/Vermont Transportation Authority Relationship
In accordance with federal regulations, the CCMPO is required to carry out metropolitan transportation planning in cooperation with the State (i.e., VTrans) and with operators of public owned transit services (i.e., CCTA and the VTA). The process, therefore, is designed to be cooperative such that no single agency or organization is given complete responsibility for the planning, construction, operation or maintenance of the region’s transportation system. All parties function under MOU agreements between them.
The CCMPO Board of Directors includes one representative each from VTrans and CCTA. The CCMPO is also responsible for actively seeking the participation of all relevant agencies and stakeholders in the
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 3 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
transportation planning and prioritization process. The CCMPO approves the MTP and both the governor and the CCMPO approve the TIP.
1.5 Required Elements of MTP
The MTP is the region’s principal transportation planning document and sets regional transportation priorities. It should, therefore, also be the central mechanism for structuring effective investments to enhance transportation system efficiency. It should consist of short- and long-range strategies to address transportation needs and lead to development of an integrated, inter-modal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods.
As mandated by the federal government, the MTP must both articulate and work towards the region’s comprehensive long-range land use plans, development objectives, and the region’s overall social, economic, environmental, system performance and energy conservation goals and objectives. It should also be consistent with the statewide transportation plan and the CCMPO should make special efforts to engage all interested parties in the development of the Plan.
Federal law requires the MTP to be updated every five years. This schedule was established to ensure that the Plan remains valid and consistent with developing trends in the transportation system use and conditions. The federal government also mandates that the MTP:
• Identify transportation policies, strategies and projects for the future;
• Determine demand for transportation services for a 20-year period;
• Identify congestion management strategies to address future demand;
• Maintain a multi-modal focus;
• Concentrate on the systems level, including roadways, transit, bicycle, pedestrian and inter-modal connections;
• Estimate costs and identify reasonably available financial sources for operation, maintenance and capital investments; and
• Determine ways to preserve existing roads and facilities and make efficient use of the existing system.
The MTP also must incorporate a financial section that estimates how much funding over the life of the plan will be needed, and how much will be available for transportation investments and the maintenance and operation of the existing system. The financial section must outline how the MPO can reasonably expect to fund all included projects and programs within a fiscally constrained environment, drawing on all anticipated revenues from the federal and state governments, regional or local sources, the private sector and user charges.
1.6 Federal Guidelines for MTP Development and Content
In the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the federal government set out seven broad areas to be considered in the transportation planning process. These areas recognize that the growing importance of operating and managing the transportation system is the focal point for transportation planning. The seven areas are:
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 4 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency;
2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;
4. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life;
5. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;
6. Promote efficient system management and operation; and
7. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
The federal government also sets broad planning considerations for the planning process and establishes guidelines that relate to other issues, such as air quality, congestion management, environmental justice and smart growth/economic development, as discussed below.
1.6.1 Air Quality
A metropolitan area’s designation as an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area creates additional requirements in the transportation planning process. In areas with air quality problems, for example, transportation plans, programs and projects must conform to state air quality plans.
Because Chittenden County currently is classified as an “attainment area” for all transportation-related pollutants, it is not subject to air quality conformity requirements. This designation is anticipated for the time period encompassed in the 25-year planning horizon.
1.6.2 Congestion Management
Areas with populations over 200,000 or that have been designated as a nonattainment for air quality purposes are called “transportation management areas” (TMAs)1. TMAs must have a congestion management system (CMS) that identifies actions and strategies to reduce congestion and increase mobility.
Because the population of Chittenden County currently is less than 200,000, a TMA is not required. However, before the end of the planning period, the population is forecasted to reach 200,000 and the region may be deemed a TMA, thus triggering the CMS requirement. Chapter 7 discusses the implications of this, including a potential future larger MPO.
1.6.3 Environmental Justice
The goal of Environmental Justice is to ensure that services and benefits are distributed fairly to all people, regardless of race, national origin, or income and that they have access to meaningful
1 Not to be confused with ‘Transportation Management Associations’ which are organized groups applying carefully selected approaches to facilitating the movement of people and goods within an area. TMAs are often legally constituted and frequently led by the private sector in partnership with the public sector to solve transportation problems.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 5 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
participation. The legal foundation for environmental justice is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in any program receiving federal assistance.
As the agency responsible for coordinating the MTP, the CCMPO must ensure that all segments of the population have been involved with the planning process. The CCMPO should also ensure that the impact of proposed transportation investments on the underserved and underrepresented population is part of the Plan’s evaluation process.
1.6.4 Economic Development and Smart Growth
Although not a specific requirement, the federal government recognizes the role that transportation plays in economic development and, therefore, encourages agencies to take advantage of opportunities to use transportation to have a positive influence on development (i.e., smart growth).
As the lead organization that drafts and adopts the MTP, the CCMPO is in a unique position to influence transportation investments toward improving the quality of life in the region and tailor some transportation activities to improve both specific economic development projects and regional mobility in general. Federal guidelines, therefore, encourage the CCMPO to leverage its influence to promote smart growth.
1.7 Metropolitan Transportation System
The primary focus of the MTP is the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS). It is the multimodal network of highways, arterial and collector roadways, transit services, rail lines, bicycle paths, Burlington International Airport, and other inter-modal facilities critical to the movement of people and goods in the region. Figure 1-1 depicts the existing Chittenden County MTS.
The MTS is also a planning tool used to identify metropolitan transportation problems, develop system- level solutions and serve as a focus for performance monitoring. The MTS distinguishes the locally important transportation facilities from those that are strategically significant at the regional, state and even federal levels. These facilities and services form the regionally significant modal components critical to Chittenden County’s mobility needs. As this system evolves and grows over time based on the recommendations in Chapter 6, the MTS system will change to accommodate those new facilities and services. The MTS is not stagnant but a dynamic system requiring regular updates.
For example, the MTS concept recognizes that planners must consider an urban bus transit system runs on local streets and arterials, and therefore they cannot analyze transit operations independently of arterial congestion. Similarly, an MTP that addresses arterial access management must also provide for appropriate pedestrian facilities and operations within that same arterial corridor. Resulting problems may be difficult to resolve, as a single facility is expected to provide for conflicting roles. However, by addressing the transportation system as a single entity of interrelated elements, planners become more aware of potential conflicts in the planning stage, rather than finding unexpected consequences when a given project is under design or construction.
1.8 The MTP Steering Committee and Its Role
To guide development of the MTP and ensure broad-based representation in its development, the CCMPO established an MTP Steering Committee. This Steering Committee included representatives from the CCMPO Board of Directors, local planners, business groups, the Vermont Forum on Sprawl, bicycle and pedestrian advocates, senior citizens, transit service providers, the Chittenden County
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 6 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 1-1: Metropolitan Transportation System
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 7 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 1-1 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 8 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Regional Planning Commission, the Vermont Agency of Transportation, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and the Federal Highway Administration.
The MTP Steering Committee met periodically to review progress, comment on reports, and provide direction to the CCMPO staff and consultants. The MTP Steering Committee was also responsible for final review and comment on the MTP drafts to the CCMPO Board of Directors.
1.9 CCMPO Approval/Adoption Process
Following federal requirements, the CCMPO developed this MTP according to an intensive and inclusive public involvement process that addressed the elements required under law and regulation. Following input from the MTP Steering Committee, a multi-level review and comment process was carried out, including final review by the CCMPO Board, the CCMPO member jurisdictions, and the public. The final draft of the MTP was distributed as part of this process and then presented at a public hearing. Once a final version of the MTP was agreed upon, the CCMPO Board approved the plan.
1.10 MTP as Part of the Chittenden County Regional Plan
The MTP, after adoption by the CCRPC Board, serves as the transportation element of the Chittenden County Regional Plan. During MTP development, the CCMPO made efforts to ensure that the MTP is consistent with and supports the goals, objectives, and assumptions of the Chittenden County Regional Plan.
1.11 Appendix Documents Incorporated into the MTP
Several studies/plans, previously approved by the CCMPO Board, form integral parts of the MTP and are appended to this document. These include the 2003 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update, the 2004 Chittenden County Park and Ride Facility Prioritization, the Chittenden County 2000 ITS Strategic Deployment Plan, the 2001 MTP Existing Conditions Report, and the 2001 Burlington-Essex Corridor Alternatives Analysis Phase 1A report.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 9 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 10 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
2.0 THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS AND REGIONAL DESIRES AND ASPIRATIONS
2.1 Introduction
Public participation is an integral element of MTP development. For purposes of developing the MTP, the public includes anyone who resides, has an interest, or does business in the area potentially affected by transportation decisions related to the MTP. Thus, the public includes individuals, organized groups, providers of transportation services (including both public and private entities), and those traditionally underserved by the existing system (such as the elderly, low-income, and minority groups).
This chapter both describes the process undertaken to involve the public and reports on some of the key opinions, ideas and suggestions that resulted from public involvement. The first section presents the transportation vision as developed during the public involvement process and the goals prepared by the MTP Steering Committee to support and articulate that vision. The second section outlines the overall public involvement process (including the results of the Chittenden County Transportation Survey conducted in 2000), and highlights key themes which emerged.
2.2 Vision and Goals
2.2.1 Transportation Vision
Early in the MTP update process, the CCMPO and MTP Steering Committee crafted the following Vision statement and vetted it during the public involvement process. The Vision articulates how people in the region envision their transportation system to work in the year 2025. The Vision is intended to clearly and concisely describe the overall purpose of the transportation system, how that system should perform and the system’s role relative to the overarching themes of community, environment, economic vitality, equity, and cultural heritage.
Chittenden County MTP Vision for Transportation in 2025
Our transportation system enhances and connects healthy, vibrant communities. It is safe, efficient, multi-modal and accessible to all. It supports economic vitality and is designed and operated to complement and respect our cherished natural resources and cultural heritage.
2.2.2 Regional Transportation Goals
The MTP Steering Committee prepared 12 supporting goals to articulate and expand on the Vision. These goals state regional desires and aspirations for the transportation system as well as for the people and communities served by the transportation system.
Goal 1: Preserve and improve the physical condition and operational performance of the existing transportation system.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 11 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Goal 2: Reinforce sustainable land use patterns, such as growth centers, as set forth in local and regional plans. Goal 3: Create a transportation system that offers constantly improving safety, accessibility, flexibility, and comfort for everyone. Goal 4: Establish a transportation system that minimizes the time and total cost of moving people and goods, allowing the region’s economy to thrive. Goal 5: Protect or enhance the region's built and natural environments. Goal 6: Create a transportation system that builds community, enhances neighborhood vitality, and minimizes noise, glare, and vibration. Goal 7: Provide levels of access and mobility that insure people and goods can travel when and where they need to go. Goal 8: Consider ways to improve transportation system efficiency before increasing transportation capacity. Goal 9: Establish a transportation system that uses diverse sources of power and maximizes energy efficiency and conservation. Goal 10: Develop a transportation system that features a variety of travel modes and encourages the reduction of single-occupant vehicle use. Goal 11: Educate the public—from children to seniors—about the implications of different development patterns and mode choice decisions. Goal 12: Provide improvements to transportation facilities and services expeditiously through an inclusive and cost effective process.
2.3 Public Involvement Process
The public outreach and involvement effort for MTP development included a wide range of techniques. Some techniques involved interaction with residents and elected officials (such as surveys, advisory groups, and public meetings), while other techniques focused on the dissemination of information about the planning process (such as newsletters, progress updates, and web-based publications). The public also was invited to comment on the initial draft of the MTP. The objective of all these efforts was to ensure that the MTP responded to the needs of Chittenden County residents.
The cornerstone of the MTP public involvement process was public meetings. The CCMPO convened 10 public meetings across the County to provide a forum to evaluate transportation-related wants and needs, and to identify the full range of issues that needed to be addressed in the Plan. Four meetings were held on specific transportation topics, and six meetings were held with groups or organizations that had an interest in transportation or represented a unique perspective.
2.3.1 Themes Emerging from Public Meetings
Although members of the public who took part in the MTP public involvement process may have disagreed on many things, most tended to agree on the following themes.
Transportation Priorities
• Transportation is an important aspect of modern life and has a significant role in the quality of life for everyone. Transportation infrastructure and services, therefore, are valued and people stress that
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 12 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
these resources should be well-maintained with a focus on providing safe and reliable travel opportunities.
• Transportation should focus on mobility and accessibility, so that places are easy to get to for all segments of the population including those that can’t or don’t travel by automobile.
• Change is a given—while there are disagreements about the pace of change, it is generally accepted that things will change.
• Unsafe conditions cannot be tolerated.
• Connectivity and mobility are desirable; that is, it should be easy and inexpensive for people to get where they want to go; places should be connected, and there should not be gaps in the transportation system.
• The needs of disadvantaged populations (poor, elderly, disabled, etc.) are especially important.
Everything is Connected
• One cannot talk about transportation without talking about development patterns, the economy, the environment, education, and quality of life—and vice versa.
• Within the transportation system, it is recognized that modes are interdependent and related. Even if a person drives to a shopping center, for example, they still walk from the parking lot to the shops.
Transportation and Land Use
• Since most members of the public work outside the home, the transportation system influences where and how they live and work. Transportation also influences where and how employers access the labor force, markets, and suppliers.
• The transportation system, along with other factors, contributes to changes in land use, by making areas more accessible; likewise changes in land use have an impact on how the transportation system functions.
• The physical separation of different land use types—especially residential and small-scale commercial/service types—is no longer assumed to be desirable.
Transportation is Political
• Everyone is affected by transportation.
• There is a wide variety of stakeholders and political interests surrounding transportation infrastructure and services. Any decision or policy about transportation has the potential to affect many different people and impact them in a wide variety of ways. For example, the impact of a change in transportation services will have different impacts (real or perceived) on residents, business owners, political leaders, institutions, environmentalists, local governments, chambers of commerce, and emergency responders. Consequently, the opinions these different groups have about a project will vary.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 13 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Individuals view the world differently. Transportation issues, therefore, are often contentious ones and may need to be resolved through the political process.
Congestion is a Major Issue
• Increasing traffic volumes and delays are undesirable. Some want to divert traffic away from village centers by creating alternate routes for trucks and through travelers, but others oppose rerouting or the construction of new roads.
• The public is increasingly looking to mitigate congestion through the use of alternative means, such as traffic calming and Intelligent Transportation Systems.
Existing Facilities should be Well-Maintained
• Existing facilities should be well-maintained. Unfortunately, maintenance is sometimes deferred or does not take place at all.
• Poor maintenance has significant negative long-term financial impacts. It also has adverse short term effects, such as people not being able to get where they must go due to the lack of maintenance during or following foul weather.
The Project Development Process is Cumbersome
• Project development takes too long.
• Opinions vary about whether delays are due to a) too little money for implementation and construction, b) onerous permitting requirements, or c) public opposition (the “Not in My Backyard” effect).
• The process length can be reduced through local control (i.e., if local governments, as opposed to the State, take responsibility for managing the project).
Information Technology will Improve Transportation
• Computers and information technology will improve transportation over time by providing tools to make the transportation system more efficient and by helping planners make better decisions.
• Information technology will never totally replace the basic need to move materials and people.
Small “Low-Tech” Solutions bring Benefits
• Small, low-tech, or limited scale solutions to transportation problems can have significant benefits. Although modest solutions might not provide all the benefits of more extensive ones, they can be implemented much more readily.
2.3.2 Year 2000 Public Opinion Survey
In the year 2000, the CCMPO commissioned a survey of people who live and work in Chittenden County to measure satisfaction with the County’s transportation system. The survey aimed to quantitatively assess opinions on how future transportation dollars should be spent in the region. Several topics within the broad objectives were evaluated, ranging from highway efficiency to transit development to bike/walk
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 14 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
facilities. The results of this analysis formed a quantitative framework for understanding public opinion and gauging regional priorities.
One of the main functions of the survey was to broadly indicate regional priorities for the transportation system. The survey asked the public to assess seven transportation strategies. “Preserving existing structures” was identified as the most important strategy, while “improving ridesharing incentives” received the lowest rating. Table 2-1 shows the ranking of the seven strategies tested together with the highest rated issue in each of these seven categories.
Table 2-1 Publicly Preferred Transportation Strategies Ranking Transportation Strategy Highest Rated Issues in Category * 1 Preserving Existing Structures Fixing poor bridges (87%) Repaving existing roads (75%) Upgrading existing sidewalks (75%) Repainting road lines (75%) 2 Improved Safety Providing sidewalks and bicycle paths (86%) Fix dangerous intersections (85%) 3 Bike/Walk Facilities Repairing existing, poor condition sidewalks (88%) Providing bicycle lanes along existing roads (79%) Providing separated bicycle lanes (78%) 4 Transit Service Expanding transit to/between all suburban towns (68%) Providing express transit services to rural towns and park and ride lots (66%) 5 Minor Highway Efficiency Improving traffic signal timing and coordination (89%) Projects Adding turning lanes at intersections (80%) 6 Major Road Projects Adding more travel lanes to congested roads (69%) Building more local arterial roads to provide more travel options (52%) 7 Ridesharing Encouraging employers to subsidize bus passes (61%) Providing guaranteed ride home programs for carpoolers (59%) *The table includes the two issues within each strategy with the highest scores and any additional issue that was within two percentage points of either of the two highest scoring issues
The survey tested several different elements of the transportation system using a variety of questioning formats. Generally-speaking, responses were consistent across types of questions posed. Several themes emerged which had stronger support than others:
• Preserving the existing structures in the transportation system is the highest priority. • Having a safe transportation system is also a high priority. • Bike and walk facilities are important and there is a general perception that the existing facilities are insufficient.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 15 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Congestion is a concern and something most respondents consider when they plan and make trips. • Respondents said they depend on their car to get around, but they also expressed a willingness to walk, take transit or work from home. • Responses to questions about transportation and quality of life, such as traffic and pollution, were varied, suggesting that some neighborhoods and areas are more severely impacted than others. • Although many respondents are positive about transit and consider it important, there also was a lack of awareness of the system services and routes.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 16 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
3.0 POPULATION, ECONOMICS AND TRANSPORTATION: CHARACTERISTICS, BEHAVIORS AND TRENDS
3.1 Introduction
Evaluation of future transportation systems is based on understanding the relationship between economic activity, demographic trends, land use patterns, and travel behavior. This Chapter provides an overview of this analytical process. The first section outlines historical and forecasted economic and demographic data, as well as corresponding land use patterns. The next section provides an overview of the CCMPO travel model (the primary transportation forecasting tool) and an analysis of current travel patterns. The final sections describe the existing transportation system and outline implications of forecasted economic and demographic data for the future transportation network.
3.2 Population and Economic Forecasts for Chittenden County
3.2.1 Overview
To help lay a foundation for their long-range planning efforts, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) and the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) jointly contracted with Economic and Policy Resources (EPR) of Williston, Vermont to develop long-term demographic forecasts for the County and its region. EPR’s forecasts, prepared in August 2000 (the population forecasts were updated in June 2001 and were reaffirmed in April 2003) cover the period from 2000 to 2035 and have been adopted by both the CCMPO and CCRPC. The MTP update focuses on a 25-year planning horizon from 2000 and 2025. The MTP employs EPR’s June 2001 updated population forecasts for 2025 and EPR’s August 2000 housing demand and employment forecasts for 2025 (see Table 3-1).
Table 3-1 Chittenden County Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts Population Housing Employment Demand 2000 146,571 58,955 124,203 2005 158,998 65,015 139,205 2010 169,760 71,609 151,112 2015 182,176 78,613 163,466 2020 197,324 86,386 176,676 2025 212,884 94,629 190,583 Total Increase 66,313 35,674 66,380 Percent Change 45% 61% (1) 53% Source: Economic and Demographic Forecasts, EPR, August 2000 and June 2001 (1) The forecasted rate of growth in housing demand is greater than those of both population and employment due to historical developments in the housing market. See Section 3.2.5 for more detailed explanation.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 17 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
3.2.2 Background
Transportation systems are intended to provide facilities to move people and goods. Requirements for the movement of people and goods are influenced by a myriad of interrelated socio-economic factors such as population, housing, employment, land use patterns and economic growth. The preparation of long-range transportation plans such as the MTP, therefore, must make assumptions with regards to the future of these socio-economic elements.
The economic and population forecasts prepared for Chittenden County are based on forecasts for the metropolitan region encompassing the six counties of Northwest Vermont (Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Chittenden, Addison, and Washington). Northwest Vermont is an economic region with a central core (the urbanized area of Chittenden County) and a socially and economically interconnected periphery.
The development pattern of this economic region is characterized by (1) a central core with relatively dense existing development and relatively higher land costs, and (2) a periphery with relatively lower land costs that attracts housing and other types of land-intensive activities (especially in areas where the periphery is accessible to the core via transportation investments). Over time, the increased development of land in the periphery causes land prices to increase, creating pressures for development to seek lower land prices in outlying communities. Thus, as they develop, areas formerly regarded as periphery gradually become part of the urban core, and the outlying areas become the new periphery. Both this pattern and these pressures are evident both within Chittenden County and the wider Northwest Vermont region.
Forecasted growth for Chittenden County will have a variety of implications for the region, in addition to the transportation system. The actual amount and rate of growth experienced in the region will be influenced and ultimately determined by public policies and community decisions. For example, a policy decision that impacts development densities across the fringe towns may alter the pattern of future population change. Likewise, changes in the regional economy could also change the forecasts dramatically.
This metropolitan development pattern has been observed in many other parts of the United States. It also forms one of the underlying assumptions for the long-term forecasts incorporated into MTP development. Accordingly, while the MTP assumes that the urban core will continue to contain the majority of population and development, the MTP also assumes that future growth rates will be greater in the urban fringe and rural periphery.
3.2.3 Population
In 2002, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Chittenden County was 148, 916. Chittenden County is the most urbanized and most densely populated county in the State and comprises about 25 percent of Vermont’s population. Chittenden County also has been one of the fastest growing counties in Vermont, especially since 1960. In the period between 1960 and 2000, the population in Chittenden County almost doubled from an estimated 74,425 to 146,571. This represents a net gain of 72,146 persons or an average annual growth rate of about 1.7 percent. During the same period, the non- Chittenden County portion of Vermont’s population increased from 317,735 to 462,256, representing a net gain of 144,521 or an average annual growth rate of only about 1.0 percent.
In the 25-year planning period between 2000 and 2025, Chittenden County’s population is forecast to increase by approximately 66,313 persons, an overall increase of about 45 percent and an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. This growth is anticipated to occur more slowly in the near-term (between
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 18 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
2000 and 2010) with an average annual rate of 1.4 percent as compared with the longer term (2010 to 2025) when a slightly faster annual rate of growth is forecast at 1.6 percent.
The County’s population is not only growing, it is also changing. Demographic trends observed over the past several decades are forecasted to become more pronounced. The strongest of these trends is an increase in the number of persons over age 65. Other notable trends include fewer persons of school age and smaller household sizes. These trends will affect the local economy, the housing market and the provision of transportation infrastructure and services.
3.2.4 Employment
Total employment in Chittenden County increased 20 percent between 1990 and 2000, for a net gain of some 24,527 jobs (EPR, 2000). Full and part-time employment in Chittenden County is estimated to increase by 75 percent or approximately 39,263 jobs between 2000 and 2025. Employment is expected to grow an average of 2.0 percent per year from 2000 to 2010 and then slow to an average of 1.6 percent per year from 2010 to 2035. This is nearly half of the rate of growth seen between 1980 and 1990, which was about 4.0 percent per year.
Forecasts suggest a continuation of the trend where service sector employment increases from 35 percent of total employment in 2000 to 44 percent by the year 2025. Concurrently, employment in manufacturing will comprise an increasingly smaller proportion of the economy. By the end of the planning horizon, 2025, there will be an estimated 25,000 manufacturing jobs in Chittenden County, representing about 13 percent of all jobs in the County. In 1980, manufacturing jobs comprised 22 percent of total jobs in the County.
3.2.5 Housing
Housing demand in Chittenden County has been robust over the past 20 years, with an increase of more than 20,000 units (52 percent) between 1980 and 2000 to nearly 59,000 units.
Demographic changes are also likely to affect the housing market. These trends include an aging population, the children of the baby boom generation entering adulthood and starting their own households, and people generally staying in their housing longer as they tend to both live and work longer than the previous generation.
Another factor affecting housing in the County is the lagged response of housing production to housing demand. Demand for housing in Chittenden County created in the 1990s has not to date been totally satisfied. Requirements for more housing are expected to continue as the population ages and people stay in their housing longer. Strong demand for housing, therefore, will continue to be high in the near-term (i.e., 2000 to 2010) period.
Over the 25-year planning horizon, the demand for housing is expected to be for an addition of approximately 35,700 units, a net increase from 2000 levels of some 61 percent. The average annual rate of increase is forecast as 2.0 percent in the near term (i.e., 2000–2010), and slowing slightly to 1.8 percent in the longer term (i.e., 2010-2025).
3.3 Current Transportation Conditions
The current status of the region’s transportation system was assessed in the Existing Conditions Report (2001) prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates. The focus of the Existing Conditions Report is the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS). The MTS is described in greater detail in Section 1.7. The
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 19 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Existing Condition Report provides strong evidence of the need for maintenance and improvement of the MTS. This section highlights the major issues described in greater detail in the Existing Conditions Report.
3.3.1 Arterial Roadways and Existing Congestion
The road network in the region consists of highways classified as Interstate Highways, Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, and Collectors. The classification system is organized as a hierarchy of facilities based on the degree to which the roadway facility serves mobility and access to adjacent land uses.
Arterials are only 17 percent of County road mileage, yet carry two thirds (67 percent) of all vehicle miles traveled. Additionally, 65 percent of arterials have “fair” or worse sufficiency ratings. Highway sufficiency ratings describe the safety, service, and level of maintenance found at specific locations along a transportation network. The system does not account for the region’s challenging climate, although some have suggested that such systems should do so. Ratings include “bad”, “poor”, “fair”, and “good”. According to data reported through 1996, a number of the state highway segments with the lowest reported sufficiency ratings are found along long-established arterial routes (US 7, US 2) in outlying portions of the region. Arterial congestion is growing faster than population or employment. As a result, travelers are increasingly seeking cut-through and bypass routes on neighborhood and residential streets.
Using the congestion measure of volume to capacity ratio (V/C) the CCMPO’s Transportation Model (see discussion in section 3.4.1 below) projects 2025 congestion problems in the afternoon peak hour on those road segments identified in Table 3-2 below. The locations of these areas are identified on Figure 5-6 and Table 7-5 identifies future roadway projects related to these segments.
Not shown in Table 3-2 are congested roads in Burlington and Winooski. These areas are the most densely populated and most urbanized parts of the region and congestion levels are perceived differently. This is further discussed in Chapter 6 under Regional Core, Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues, followed by a list of urban area congestion management strategies.
The combination of truck and automobile traffic on arterials further exacerbates congestion, primarily due to slow truck acceleration at traffic signals and in stop and go traffic. Designation of truck routes or specific truck lanes could help alleviate this problem.
3.3.2 High Accident Locations
High Accident Locations (HALs) are road segments and intersections where the rate of crashes exceeds a threshold known as the critical rate. According to the VTrans High Accident Location Report for 1990 through 1994, there are six HAL road segments in the Chittenden County region, as well as 24 HAL intersections.
HAL segments are located along both relatively low volume routes such as VT 128 in Essex (at Osgood Hill, Bixby Hill, and Thomas Lane), as well as higher volume routes such as VT 2A, and VT 15 in Essex Junction (at Five Corners), and US 2 in Burlington and South Burlington (at City boundary). The worst rated HAL intersections—with crash rates two times the critical rate—are US 2 in Richmond (at VT 117) and VT 15 in Winooski (at I-89 Ramp). Other intersections with a high crash rate identified using the VTrans data include US 2 in South Burlington (at Airport Drive), US 7 in Burlington (at US 2 and Main Street), VT 15 in Winooski (at Dion Street), VT 116 in Hinesburg (at Shelburne Road/CVU Road), and US 7 in Colchester (at VT 2A and US 2 intersections).
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 20 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Table 3-2 2025 Roadway Congestion Projected 2025 Municipality(ies) Road Name Location Average V/C (Percent) Heineberg Bridge to just north of Porters Colchester Heineberg Drive Point 157 Williston VT 2A I-89 Exit 12 to Old Creamery Road 153 Richmond US 2 I-89 Exit 11 through Village 146 Milton US 7 W. Milton Rd to Bombardier 142 So. Burlington/Williston US 2 Shunpike Dr. to Industrial Ave. 141 Williston Industrial Ave. US 2 to VT 2A 135 Jericho VT 15 Lee River Rd. to Underhill Flats 132 Essex Town VT 15 Sand Hill Rd. to Circumferential Highway 128 So. Burlington VT 116 Cheesefactory Rd to I-89 127 Williston US 2 Maple Tree Place to No. Williston Rd. 126 Essex Town VT 117 Sand Hill Rd. to Circumferential Highway 126 Williston US 2 Maple Tree Place to Brownell 126 Milton/Colchester US 7 Catamount Industrial Park to US 2 124 Winooski/Colchester US 7 Tigan St. to Severance Corners 123 Milton/Colchester US 2 I-89 Exit 17 to County Line 123 Hinesburg/Shelburne/St.George VT 116 Shelburne Falls Rd to So. Brownell 123 Williston Mountain View Redmond Road to VT 2A 121 Williston/Essex Junction VT 2A Industrial Ave. to Five Corners 119 Jericho/Essex Town VT 117 Barber Farm to No. Williston Rd. 108 Richmond US 2 Richmond Village to Jonesville 103 Hinesburg Silver St, VT 116 to Monkton Town Line 102 Essex Town VT 128 VT 15 to Westford Town Line 101 So. Burlington Williston Rd. I-89 Exit 14 to VT 116 97
New crash data (1998 to 2002) were released by VTrans as the MTP was nearing completion. The new report noted that the late 1990’s volume of crash records dropped nearly in half compared with earlier in the decade then dramatically increased threefold in 2002. VTrans thinks the 2002 data are a better reflection of actual crash activity. However, due to the underreporting of crash data from 1998 to 2001, there were no intersections that met High Crash Location criteria.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 21 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
The latest data reveal 86 HAL road segments in the County. The CCMPO will work with VTrans, utilizing their Highway Safety Improvement Program, to identify proper HAL countermeasures. This will be addressed more fully in the next MTP update.
3.3.3 Public Transit
The Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) has been providing transit services in parts of Chittenden County since 1974. CCTA operates 12 scheduled transit routes in the Greater Burlington area plus the Link Express a commuter service between Burlington and Montpelier. CCTA also provides ADA paratransit (door-to-door) services for the disabled in Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski, Williston, Essex Junction, Shelburne and Colchester through a contract operator (Special Services Transportation Agency - SSTA). CCTA is working to ensure that previous capital investments in transit are maintained.
CCTA currently provides over two million trips per year. The public transit service area and frequencies, though adequate for some non-driving segments of the population (low income, seniors and children) are not yet adequately expanded to effectively encourage most people to get out of their cars. However, the new inter-regional commuter services are beginning to capture some of this market.
Complimenting CCTA service is SSTA, the public paratransit operator primarily providing door to door services to the elderly and disabled through a variety of contracts with social service agencies. SSTA’s service area is slightly larger than CCTA’s reaching the County’s rural, as well as, urban areas.
3.3.4 Passenger Rail
Intercity rail service available in Chittenden County consists of Amtrak’s Vermonter Train, with Vermont stops in Essex Junction, Brattleboro, White River Jct., Montpelier, Waterbury, and St Albans. This service was established in April 1995 as a reconfiguration of the discontinued Montrealer train from Montreal to Washington, D.C. Amtrak now makes the connection between St. Albans and Montreal by bus. The Vermonter provides one inbound and one outbound trip daily. Southbound service to New York and Washington, D.C. originates at St. Albans in the morning, returning later in the evening.
The Champlain Flyer was reportedly the smallest commuter rail service in the United States. The Flyer was initiated in December 2000, but was suspended indefinitely by the State of Vermont in early 2003. The service initially provided multiple inbound and multiple outbound trips each morning and afternoon/evening. Originally conceived to provide alternative means of transportation during the reconstruction of US 7/Shelburne Road, the 15-mile service had stops in Charlotte, Shelburne Village (Shelburne Station), South Burlington (Bartlett Bay Road), and downtown Burlington (Union Station). There is currently no formal plan for resuming this service.
The State of Vermont is also pursuing a project known as the “Albany-Bennington-Rutland-Burlington,” or “ABRB” passenger rail project. As of September 2003, VTrans is studying needed improvements to the Vermont Railway System track and rail facilities between Rutland and Burlington and plans to begin prioritizing those improvements for capital programming before the end of 2003. However, no timetable for implementing actual Amtrak service to Burlington has been set.
3.3.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Chittenden County has a range of dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as other facilities that may be used for bicycle and pedestrian purposes. Facilities dedicated to non-motorized uses (such as sidewalks and off-road, multi-use paths) are concentrated in and around the metropolitan core. Non-
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 22 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
dedicated facilities that bicyclists and pedestrians share with motorized users are located throughout the region. According to data compiled by the CCMPO in 1999, Chittenden County had 435 miles of sidewalk and 42 miles of multi-use paths/bicycle lanes. Most paths are recently built and currently in good condition; however, some sidewalks need significant repair/reconstruction. Community support for non-motorized facilities is substantial, as the 2000 survey revealed. An important amenity in making these facilities attractive to older users are frequently spaced seating/resting areas.
3.3.6 Intermodal Facilities
Chittenden County has pursued and continues to pursue development of various intermodal transportation facilities. Intermodal centers have most recently been proposed for Burlington, Essex Junction, Winooski and Milton to serve various local and intercity bus and passenger rail services. As of September 2003, none of these facilities had yet progressed past the planning stage.
3.3.7 Air Service Facilities
The region’s air travel and shipping needs are served primarily by the Burlington International Airport (BIA). BIA is owned by the City of Burlington and governed by an Airport Commission. It is located in the City of South Burlington, about three miles east of Burlington’s downtown and one mile east of Exit 14 of Interstate Route 89. The Airport is accessed primarily from US 2 (Williston Road). The airport is a vital link to the national air transportation system for the residents and businesses of the County, Northwest Vermont and northern New York State. Currently, seven commercial airlines and several air cargo carriers provide service at BIA. BIA serves as a base for general aviation services and home to a unit of the Air National Guard.
3.3.8 Rail and Freight-Supportive Facilities
Chittenden County has a well-developed freight distribution system. About six million tons of freight flow into, out of, or within the region each year, far more than in any other region of Vermont. According to the 2001 CCMPO Regional Freight Study and Plan, more than 91 percent of the freight tonnage moved in the County moves by truck, with rail moving another 5.7 percent. Rail has historically been used to carry large volumes of bulk materials, such as fuel, stone, wood chips, and salt. Nearly 60 percent of the region’s freight flows go to or come from nearby – other parts of Vermont, New Hampshire, or New York.
In recent years, the County’s freight system has had to adapt to a changing and more competitive marketplace. With the advent of new information technologies, truck containers, rail cars and airplanes are increasingly viewed as mobile warehouses that feed goods into the production process or on to market shelves in “time definite” service.
The Regional Freight Study noted that the freight infrastructure in Vermont does not meet national industry standards for motor carriers and railroads and this affects the access to Chittenden County. For example, US 7 and VT 22A are insufficient as a north/south highway in western Vermont. Further, the rail system serving Chittenden County has weight and clearance limits that affect its ability to function effectively in the regional, national and North American rail systems. As a result of the railroads’ downsizing in the last few decades, Chittenden County has a reduced number of direct rail sidings and limited transload facilities. Consequently, as the Regional Freight Study notes, Chittenden County has a demand today for a number of transload facilities for the transfer of bulk commodities between truck and rail.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 23 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
3.3.9 Relocation of Vermont Railways Freight Operations
An issue of continuing interest to the region is the potential for relocating the Vermont Railway’s freight operations away from the existing rail yard along the Burlington waterfront to a more suitable site. VTrans undertook a study of relocation site options in the late 1990s, but no further major actions have occurred on this issue. There is significant interest among representatives of the City of Burlington, the business community, the CCMPO, and the CCRPC in determining how best to pursue the development of a new Burlington area rail yard and reclaim the waterfront site for more desirable recreational, residential, and commercial purposes. However, at this time no funding has been identified to undertake the relocation process, nor a suitable alternative site selected.
3.3.10 Bridges
There are a total of 179 bridge structures greater than or equal to 20 feet in length in Chittenden County. Of these, 86 are owned by the State and the remaining 93 by local governments. Nearly all (78 of 86) of the State owned bridges over 20 feet long are located on major highways, i.e. principal arterials and major collectors. The majority of municipally owned bridges (61 of 93) over 20 feet long are located on less heavily traveled highways, i.e. minor collectors and local roads. Note that many bridges and other structures less than 20 feet long are also maintained by both the State and municipalities.
The condition of local and State bridges is evaluated every two years by VTrans. Using a sufficiency rating system developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, bridges are assigned a value between 0 and 100. Ratings are based on evaluations in three areas – structural adequacy and safety, essentiality for public use, and serviceability and functional obsolescence – with special reductions allowed for extreme safety problems and lack of alternative routes.
Sufficiency ratings on bridges are used to determine the eligibility for funding for improvements. A sufficiency rating between 80 and 100 indicates that the bridge is not eligible for rehabilitation funding. A rating between 50 and 80 indicates eligibility for rehabilitation money. A score of less than 50 indicates that the bridge is eligible for replacement funding. Based on this system, 16 percent (29 of 179) of all bridges are eligible for replacement – 23 locally owned and 6 State owned. Nearly half of the total number are eligible for rehabilitation as well – 86 of 179; 49 owned by the State and 37 by the municipalities.
3.4 Transportation Analyses
This section builds on the previous analysis to explain how transportation planners incorporated socio- economic forecasts and anticipated land use trends into analytical tools to evaluate the future transportation system. This analysis of the future transportation system forms the framework for evaluating alternatives considered in the MTP.
3.4.1 The Chittenden County Transportation Model
The CCMPO conducted much of the analysis of existing transportation conditions and forecasts of future transportation conditions using a tool known as the Chittenden County Transportation Model (the “model”). The model simulates the interaction between housing, employment and a multi-modal transportation system. System-wide transportation models have been used in Chittenden County since the mid 1980s. The current model was developed in 1994 and updated in 1998. The current model uses custom designed computer software and incorporates several advanced features including the ability to estimate bus, commuter rail, walk/bike and shared and single occupancy vehicle trips, and sensitivity to the effect transportation projects have on where trips are made.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 24 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
The model is able to analyze morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hour conditions. The afternoon peak hour was adopted for analysis of transportation alternatives because the PM peak represents the most congested conditions and therefore highlights any problem areas in the transportation system.
The model follows a five-step process as shown in Figure 3-1. This process is built first to replicate existing travel conditions and then adapted to simulate future scenarios.
Figure 3-1 The five model steps break-down the relationship Travel Model Process between the land use, economic activity and travel behavior. Trip generation, for example, estimates
Base Year Land Use the total number of trips to be taken and trip distribution estimates where these trips will go. Both of these steps are based on economic activity Future Year Land Use Trip Generation and land use patterns. The mode choice model evaluates how people will travel (i.e. automobile, bicycle, walk, etc.) and trip assignment estimates Trip Distribution which route or path travelers will use.
The Chittenden County Transportation Model is a Mode Choice powerful and important analytical tool, but it is just that – a tool for helping us to better understand transportation issues. The model does not make decisions, but is one of numerous Assignment resources the CCMPO calls upon to help make more informed choices about how to invest limited resources in the region’s transportation system.
3.4.2 Travel Patterns
Residents of Chittenden County make thousands of trips every day (for example, people driving to work, children walking to school, shoppers taking the bus to the market and students cycling to a friend’s house). Transportation planners typically classify travel as peak and off-peak trips. Traditionally, peak- period trips focus on commuter traffic in the early morning (AM peak) and late afternoon (PM peak) periods, while off-peak trips refer to shopping and leisure trips taken throughout the day and in the evening. Peak and off-peak trips typically make different demands on the transportation network. As previously mentioned, peak period travel is the most congested whilst adding the greatest amount of stress to the transportation system.
In Chittenden County, most peak period trips (as measured in person-trips) are internal, meaning they do not cross sub-regional boundaries (e.g. urban, suburban and rural boundaries). Figure 3-2 highlights these trip-making patterns by showing the number of trips originating and ending in each of the three sub- regions, urban, suburban and rural. The largest share (40 percent) of peak-hour person trips begin and end in the region’s urban communities (Burlington, South Burlington, and Winooski). A smaller share (16 percent) takes place within suburbs (or from suburb to suburb). Peak suburban trips are about equal to the peak trips between suburban areas and urban areas.
Fewer trips take place within rural communities or between rural communities. Roughly the same amount of travel occurs within rural areas as takes place between rural areas and other areas of the County. Accordingly, these travel patterns reflect lower levels of economic activity in rural areas
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 25 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
resulting in rural residents traveling to the suburbs or urban core for employment and shopping. These trip patterns reflect the metropolitan land use patterns described previously that show employment and economic development moving to the periphery.
Figure 3-2: Travel Flows (PM Peak) Between Communities: Urban, Suburban and Rural
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
To Rural Trips 20,000 To Suburban
To Urban 15,000
10,000
5,000
0 From Urban From Suburban From Rural
Source of Data: Chittenden County Travel Model
The amount of travel originating from outside Chittenden County into the County is relatively small compared to the total amount of travel in the region. This travel totals about 2,800 trips in the morning (AM) peak and about 3,300 trips in the afternoon (PM) peak. During both peak periods, about three percent of all trips in the region are between external areas and the urban core, while about two percent are between external areas and the region’s suburban communities. Less than half of one percent of all trips in the region during the morning and afternoon peak periods are “through trips” (i.e., trips that begin and end outside the region).
3.5 Forecast of Future Transportation Conditions
The transportation model described in Section 3.4 was used to inventory the existing transportation network in Chittenden County. The model also was used to prepare a set of baseline conditions reflecting the forecasted future socio-economic, land use and travel pattern data impact on the County’s transportation system. This analysis consisted primarily of compiling a series of indicators of travel and speed on the network and did not assume any major changes to the infrastructure. Effectively, the forecast conditions, illustrated by selected performance measures from the model described below, represent a “do-nothing” scenario – a baseline for the formation of alternatives and plans for the future network.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 26 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Future Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT): Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) is a measure of the total demand placed on a transportation system during the evening peak hour. One vehicle traveling one mile contributes one vehicle mile of travel. Modeling suggests that peak hour VMT is likely to increase by about 50 or 60 percent between 2000 and 2025. To put this in historical perspective, VTrans data show that statewide VMT rose 96 percent over the 1975 to 2000 period. The projected future growth equates to an average annual increase of 1.6 to 1.9 percent, compared with population growth of about 1.5 percent per year.
Future Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT): Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) measures the amount of time vehicles travel during the evening peak hour. When considered along with VMT, VHT gives an indication of the system demand as well as system efficiency. Modeling suggests that peak hour VHT is likely to increase on the order of 100 percent between 2000 and 2025 (i.e., it would double from current levels). This equates to average annual growth of about 2.8 percent. The large gap between VMT growth and VHT growth means that the region’s transportation infrastructure will not be capable of sustaining current levels of service without additional investment.
Future Average Speed in Peak Hour: The measure “Average Speed Traveled in the Peak Hour” also provides an indication of system efficiency. Modeling suggests that average vehicle speed in the peak hour will fall by roughly one-fifth, from approximately 33 miles per hour to around 26 miles per hour. A reduction in travel speed along a highway segment is sometimes associated with increased levels of “alternative path seeking”, (i.e., using local streets rather than regional arterials as short cuts to a final destination).
Future Percent VMT over Capacity: Highway segments and intersections have limited capacities. When the number of vehicles attempting to use a highway segment or intersection exceeds its capacity, congestion results. The Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand model was used to forecast the percentage of regional VMT taking place on highways with volumes that exceed highway capacity referred to as congested VMT. This modeling indicates that the increase in VMT over capacity in the evening peak hour could approach 400 percent between 2000 and 2025. This equates to average annual growth in the area of about 5.7 percent, compared with VMT growth of between 1.6 and 1.9 percent.
Percent of Trips Possible by More than One Mode: The transportation system is intended to be multi-modal and provide opportunities for people to travel on a variety of modes, including transit, walk/bike and shared vehicle person trips. Percent of Trips Possible by More than One Mode, therefore, measures the amount of multi-modal choices available. Modeling suggests that with no changes in land use patterns and assuming the committed transportation network only, the proportion of trips possible by more than one mode will decrease over the next 25 years such that nearly 10 percent fewer trips will be possible by non-drive alone modes. Thus, without any changes, the transportation system will become increasingly reliant on single-occupant vehicle trips.
3.6 Chapter Summary
This Chapter provided an overview of the demographic, economic and travel trends and patterns shaping Chittenden County’s transportation system performance and needs for the 25-year planning horizon. Future transportation conditions were forecast against the base case or “do-nothing” scenario. The objective of the analysis was to highlight base conditions against which alternatives may be evaluated. Key points of the Chapter included the following:
• Population, employment and housing are forecast to increase in Chittenden County. The net increase in population is forecasted to be slightly more than 66,000 persons over the 25 year period (45
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 27 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
percent). Over the same period, employment is forecasted to increase by just over 66,000 jobs (53 percent) and housing demand is forecasted to increase by nearly 36,000 units (61 percent). • An urban core that will continue to host the majority of employment and population, but will experience lower rates of growth in employment and population than the suburban and rural areas, characterizes the forecasted land use patterns for Chittenden County. New economic activity will be attracted to the periphery as land prices and densities in the urban core increase. Employment and population in both suburban and rural areas will grow at higher rates than in the urban core. Overall, rural areas are forecast to add the most population—both in absolute terms and in terms of percentage increase. This is in keeping with the trends of services and employment moving to periphery locations. • Changes to the composition of the population that will have significant impacts on the use of the transportation network and demand for services include an aging population, fewer school-aged children and smaller average household sizes. • Travel patterns reflect economic activity and land use trends. The majority of peak period person- trips are entirely within either the urban core or suburban areas. Trips originating in rural areas are more likely to be to urban or suburban areas. • There is strong evidence of the need to maintain and improve the region’s existing transportation system. Sixty-five percent of arterial roads in Chittenden County have a “fair” or worse sufficiency rating. Arterial congestion is growing at a rate faster than population or employment. Travelers increasingly are seeking cut-through and bypass routes on neighborhood and residential streets. • Indicators of future system performance show that significant improvements to the existing transportation system will be necessary to accommodate forecasted growth in population, employment and housing. Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT), for example, is forecast to increase at a faster rate than population growth. Without a corresponding improvement in system management and/or capacity, Vehicle Hours of Travel will increase and Average Speeds will decrease significantly.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 28 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
4.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
Financial analysis and planning is an important element of the MTP. The following Chapter outlines federal regulations for financial analysis in the MTP, provides an overview of possible funding sources for transportation projects in Chittenden County, and estimates transportation resources for Chittenden County over the 25-year planning horizon.
4.2 Federal Requirements for Financial Analysis in MTP
MPOs are required by federal law to consider funding needs and availability in conjunction with long range transportation planning. The MTP must include a financial section that estimates how much funding will be needed over the life of the plan and identify funding sources for each project in the plan, including resources needed for the maintenance and operation of the existing transportation system.
4.3 Funding Sources
Funding for transportation projects and programs are available from three primary sources: federal, state and local governments. Private sources also may be available for a limited amount of funding.
Most large transportation projects, such as highway improvements and enhancements, will rely on federal funds. For these federally funded projects, the federal government usually supplies 80 percent of the funding with local and state sources typically paying the remaining 20 percent.2
4.3.1 Federal Funding
Federal funds for transportation are authorized by Congress for the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The USDOT allocates its resources into various programs, primarily through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Most FHWA funds are sent to and administered by the state DOT (e.g., VTrans). The state allocates federal money to projects and programs based on local priorities and needs. Most FTA funds for urban areas are sent directly from the FTA to the transit operators. FTA funds for rural areas are administered by VTrans.
FHWA’s largest source of revenue is the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The HTF is supported primarily by user-fees on motor fuels, tires, and heavy trucks with revenues distributed back to states in the following three major program areas:
1. The Interstate Maintenance (IM) and National Highway System (NHS) programs: Funding for roadways that serve long-distance and interstate travel;
2. The Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation program: Funding for bridge rehabilitation and replacement; and
3. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) (including Enhancement and safety funds) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds: Flexible funding that may be used on any Federal aid eligible project.
2 The actual ratio of federal to non-federal funds may vary from project to project, depending on the specific program from which federal funds are obtained. For the purposes of establishing of reasonable fiscal constraint level for this 25-year Plan, the CCMPO has assumed an average ratio of 80 percent federal/20 percent non-federal funds for all projects.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 29 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
FTA programs receive revenue from the mass transit account of the HTF (a proportion of the motor fuel tax), the general fund, and interest. The FTA programs that provide funding for transit services with the most relevance to the State of Vermont are:
1. Urbanized Formula program: funding to transit agencies in urbanized areas allocated through a formula (CCTA is eligible for funding under this program);
2. Non-urban and Rural Transit Assistance program: funding for transit operators in rural area and urban areas with a population of less than 50,000;
3. Elderly and Persons with Disabilities program: funding to private and non-profit organizations meeting the transportation needs of senior citizens and persons with disabilities; and
4. Other funding is occasionally provided through special programs, such as Access to Job grants or transfers from the Surface Transportation Program (STP).
The State of Vermont and the CCMPO also receive federal transportation funds from Congressional “earmarks;” (i.e., money set aside by members of the Vermont Congressional delegation for a specific project). Because these funds are allocated outside of the normal process and typically are associated with a particular project, they are difficult to anticipate and cannot be relied upon as a continuing funding source.
4.3.2 State Funding
The State of Vermont maintains a State Transportation Fund to pay for transportation programs and projects. The Fund is primarily supported by revenues collected from the Motor Fuel Tax ($0.19/gallon on gasoline and $0.17/gallon on diesel) and the purchase and registration of motor vehicles. Miscellaneous taxes and fees provide additional revenues for the Fund. State funds are primarily used to match federal funds.
State transportation resources are allocated through the State Legislature’s annual capital and budgetary process and are identified in the Transportation Capital Program. State transportation funding allocated to projects and programs in Chittenden County is determined through this process, in consultation with the CCMPO.
4.3.3 Local Sources of Funding
Local funding sources vary by jurisdiction. In some cases, such as where a tax increment financing (TIF) district has been created, sources can also vary within a jurisdiction. The local funding sources for transportation in Chittenden County are property tax revenues, special financing (such as Tax Increment Financing), local user fees collected on a project-specific basis (such as impact fees), and miscellaneous other sources. Of these, the property tax provides the majority of local transportation funding.
4.3.4 Private Sources
In some cases, private funds are available for transportation projects. These funds usually are associated with project development. In other cases, a private developer may directly make or pay for transportation improvements in order to mitigate the transportation impacts of their developments.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 30 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
4.4 Determination of Financial Constraint
The total transportation funding expected to be available for Chittenden County over the 25-year MTP planning period between 2001 and 2025 is $2.05 billion. This estimate includes federal, state and local funding sources; it does not include private funds. Figure 4-1 provides a breakdown of the total resources by funding source.
Figure 4-1: Projected Transportation Resources in Chittenden County, FY2001 - 2025
State $273.8 M 13%
Local $935.3 M 46%
Federal $837.5 M 41% Projected 25-year Total: $2.05 Billion
Table 4-1 shows projected transportation resources by source in five-year increments, which is a format consistent with the State Long Range Transportation Plan. The five-year breakdown reveals a modest decline in federal, local, and total fiscal resources during the 2006-2010 period, expected due to the assumed full funding of several major “pipeline” projects during the 2001-2005 period.3 After 2010, modest revenue growth is expected in line with both forecasted growth in population and economic activity and the forecasted availability of transportation funds.
From 2006 to 2025, the 25-year estimates are based on the following assumptions:
• Adopted “current law” revenue sources and levels only are used.
• All figures are in current dollars (no adjustment for inflation).
3 Among the major projects assumed to be fully funded during the initial five-year period are the Chittenden County Circumferential Highway (Segments A and B); Shelburne Road Reconstruction; Champlain Parkway; and Kennedy Drive Expansion.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 31 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Table 4-1 Projected Transportation Funding Resources for Chittenden County – FY2001-FY2025 (in millions) 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total Federal 156.9 145.8 160.9 177.7 196.2 837.5 State 47.8 50.9 54.5 58.3 62.3 273.8 Local 169.7 163.0 181.4 200.2 221.1 935.3 Total 374.4 359.7 396.8 436.2 479.7 2,046.8
• No distinction is drawn between capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) funds. Vermont’s transportation spending is typically on a “pay as you go” basis, with little incidence of bonding for transportation capital investments. Consequently, this blending of capital and O & M funds should not be of much significance for the 25-year analysis.
• Federal funds were estimated using an average amount of actual TIP funding for the previous five years (FY98-02) and assuming an average annual growth rate of two percent. This assumption is consistent with the State Long Range Transportation Program (LRTP).
• State funds were estimated in a manner similar to federal funds. The first year is based on a three- year average of State resources allocated to projects in Chittenden County. These resources include State matching funds, VTrans appropriations to District 5 operations and town highway grants. Future years were grown at an assumed average annual rate of 1.35 percent. Sources for these assumptions include the Joint Fiscal Office of the Vermont Assembly and the Vermont State LRTP.
• For local funds, FYs 2001-2002 represent actual budget figures as reported by municipalities; FYs 2003-2010 are based on averaged annual growth rates consistent with the period FY2000 through FY2002; and FYs 2011-2025 assume two percent annual growth. Sources for these estimates include municipalities, Vermont League of Cities and Towns, VTrans and the State LRTP.
• No attempt has been made to account for the effect of specific future Congressional “earmarking,” as it is difficult to predict their frequency, value or specific purpose. However, earmarks were a part of the 5 years of TIPs used to estimate the availability of future federal funds. Past earmarks were included as a factor in determining anticipated future federal funding levels. Vermont typically has been a beneficiary of the earmarking process for transportation projects.
• No private funds were explicitly included in the analysis. However, it is reasonable to assume that a significant amount of local funds identified as transportation funds include funds from private sources.
4.5 MPO Jurisdiction over Funding Sources
In Vermont, the MPO’s jurisdiction pertaining to planning, programming and prioritization of transportation projects is primarily limited to those projects receiving federal funds. Accordingly, any project within the MPO boundaries that seeks federal funds must be included in the CCMPO TIP. Therefore, it is reasonable that the “fiscal constraint” level associated with the MTP reflects the estimated 25-year amount of federal transportation funds plus required non-federal matching funds. An averaged 80 percent/20 percent ratio was applied for forecasting purposes. On this basis, as shown in Table 4-2, an
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 32 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
estimated total of $1,047 million ($1.047 billion) is forecast to be available for CCMPO programming purposes during the 25-year planning period of the MTP.
Table 4-2 Projected Funds Under CCMPO Jurisdiction – FY2001-FY2025 (in millions) 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total Federal 156.9 145.8 160.9 177.7 196.2 837.5 Match 39.2 36.5 40.2 44.4 49.0 209.4 Total 196.1 182.3 201.1 222.1 245.2 1046.9
4.6 Summary
This Chapter presented and discussed financial planning associated with the MTP with a focus on the transportation funding anticipated to be available over the 25-year MTP planning horizon. The highlights of this Chapter include:
• The MTP is required by federal law to include financial planning;
• Transportation funding is available from federal, state and local governments plus private sources;
• A total of $2.05 billion in transportation funding is forecasted to be available for Chittenden County over the 25-year MTP horizon;
• The sources for these funds are divided among the federal (41 percent), state (13 percent) and local (46 percent) governments. Two other potential sources of funding, Congressional earmarks and private sources, were not included in the estimates because they are made available on a project- specific bases and therefore difficult to forecast; and
• Of the total resources forecast over the MTP planning horizon, an estimated $1.046 billion are within CCMPO jurisdiction.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 33 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 34 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
This Chapter describes the development and evaluation of the transportation alternatives prepared by the CCMPO in conjunction with possible future land use patterns. These were used to determine the relative effectiveness in realizing the overall vision for transportation in Chittenden County. Each alternative consists of different combinations of land use scenarios, transportation strategies, services, and projects (including all committed projects as identified in the Transportation Improvement Program) that reflect the transportation goals identified in the public involvement process. The CCMPO conducted the evaluation process as an iterative effort that first looked at “Initial Alternatives,” then prepared successively more focused and refined “Hybrid Alternatives” and “Refined Alternatives to achieve the “Preferred Alternative” recommended by the 2025 MTP.
5.1 Land Use Scenarios
The CCMPO used input from its public outreach efforts, in conjunction with the transportation vision and goals, to define and refine ideas under consideration for the future transportation network. The process started with a set of very broad, mode-specific initiatives which were tested in combination with two scenarios for future land use development. For the purpose of the alternatives analysis, the CCMPO developed two future land use patterns; “trend” and “concentrated” scenarios. As explained below, a third was developed later.
All the land use development scenarios assumed equal numbers of households and jobs, but had markedly different assumptions with regards to where in Chittenden County these households and jobs would locate.
• The trend scenario assumed decentralized land use patterns , following existing patterns of new housing locating throughout the County and most new jobs locating in the urban and suburban core.
• The concentrated scenario assumed that a significant share of new housing and jobs would locate within designated growth centers. These growth centers typically were confined to a small geographic area and included a mix of housing and jobs.
• A third land use scenario was based on the CCRPC’s Regional Plan. This scenario was developed later in the process and used to analyze the preferred alternative. Figure 5-1 shows a map of the CCRPC’s 2001 Regional Plan Planning Areas. Table 5-1 shows the allocations of 2025 housing and employment assumed in the different planning areas that were used in the Regional Plan land use scenario.
5.2 Baseline Scenarios: 2000 and 2025
The CCMPO prepared two baseline scenarios to represent the existing transportation network given no significant changes in current planning, patterns and policy (but including all committed projects as identified in the TIP). The baseline scenarios were prepared for the years 2000 and 2025 and were intended to serve as benchmarks against which changes to the transportation network (i.e., alternatives) could be compared and evaluated.
• 2000 Baseline Scenario: The CCMPO used the existing transportation system and development patterns together with year 2000 demographic data to create this scenario.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 35 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Table 5-1 Assumptions for Allocation of Housing and Employment by Planning Area Planning Area* Housing Employment Metropolitan 45% 45% Transition 25% 20% Village 15% 15% Rural 15% 5% Special Use 0% 15% TOTAL 100% 100%
• 2025 Baseline Scenario: A “committed network” and trend scenario of land use were assumed for this scenario. The committed network was comprised of the existing transportation system plus new projects that have funds committed in the CCMPO TIP. The most significant committed projects include Segments A and B of the Circumferential Highway between I-89 in Williston and VT 117 in Essex, the Champlain Parkway in Burlington, widening of Shelburne Road in Shelburne/South Burlington, widening of Kennedy Drive in South Burlington, and commuter rail between Essex and Burlington.
5.3 Performance Measures
The CCMPO’s Chittenden County Regional Transportation Model (the model) was used to evaluate the various combinations of transportation and land use scenarios and generated data for the performance measures (over 40 individual measurements were examined). For more information on the model see page 24. Modeled data used for this analysis concentrated on performance during the PM peak hour (afternoon rush hour). The PM peak was adopted as the benchmark because it represents maximum use of transportation services and facilities and therefore best highlights system successes and failures.
The evaluation process employed specific performance measures to gauge how well the transportation system functions in different ways and to measure progress towards achieving regional transportation goals. Comparisons of the “scores” for different performance measures among the alternatives and baseline scenarios clarifies the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking different combinations of transportation strategies, services, and projects.
The CCMPO grouped the performance measures used during the MTP process into four categories:
• Multi-Modal Measures: Measures include changes in the number of trips made by modes other than driving alone in an automobile (i.e. transit, walk, bicycle and carpool trips) and are measured by changes in the number of trips with multi-modal possibilities;
• System Efficiency Measures: Measures include changes in time and cost of trip making (measured by changes in the hours traveled, total cost of the trip and external costs for person trips; measured by changes in hours traveled for automobile trips);
• Highway System Performance Measures: Measures include total miles traveled, including total miles traveled on local streets, congestion levels, and vehicle crashes; and
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 36 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-1: CCRPC Future Land Use
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 37 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-1 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 38 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Air Quality Measures: Measures include changes in vehicle-related emissions.
In addition to these four categories of quantitative measures, qualitative techniques also were discussed in the evaluation process, primarily during presentation of the alternatives at MTP Steering Committee meetings. Combined with the quantitative performance measures, these techniques supported the transportation goals identified in Chapter 3. Table 5-2 illustrates how performance measures in the various categories are used to help gauge conformance with MTP goals.
Table 5-2 Performance Measures and Relevance to the MTP Goals Performance Measure Category MTP System Performance Multi- System- Highway Air Qualitative Goal Modal Efficiency System Quality Preserve and improve the physical condition and 9 9 operational performance of the existing transportation system. Reinforce sustainable land use patterns, such as growth centers, 9 9 as set forth in local and regional plans. Create a transportation system that offers constantly improving 9 9 9 safety, accessibility, flexibility, and comfort for everyone. Establish a transportation system that minimizes the time and total cost of moving people and 9 9 goods, allowing the region’s economy to thrive. Protect or enhance the region's 9 9 built and natural environments. Create a transportation system that builds community, enhances neighborhood vitality, and 9 9 9 9 9 minimizes noise, glare, and vibration. Provide levels of access and mobility that insure people and 9 9 9 goods can travel when and where they need to go. Develop a transportation system that features a variety of travel modes and encourages the 9 reduction of single-occupant vehicle use. Note: “9” indicates that the performance measures within that category support that MTP System Performance Goal.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 39 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
5.4 Cost Considerations
The CCMPO estimated and included “order of magnitude” capital costs for each alternative and considered these costs in the evaluation process so that a total cost of each alternative could be identified and compared. Where available, capital costs for projects and services were based on estimates prepared in other studies. For projects with no existing cost estimate available, unit cost data was estimated using national data and experience with other similar types of projects.
5.5 Alternatives Development
The CCMPO conducted the evaluation process as an iterative effort that looked at broad “initial” alternatives and successively focused the alternatives through “hybrids” and “refined” alternatives with the ultimate goal to identify projects and strategies of a “preferred” alternative. Table 5-3 illustrates the evolutionary process of transportation alternatives development.
Table 5-3 Sequence of Alternatives Development
Initial Hybrid Refined Preferred
10 Initial 5 Hybrid Alternatives – 2 Refined 1 Preferred Alternatives – a set core of transportation Alternatives – Alternative – 5 mode-specific, strategies then combinations of common strategies a distillation of combined with 2 road improvements added. and projects but projects and distinct land use Assumes concentrated land use different strategies from scenarios scenario. Circumferential previous analytical Highway completion steps. CCRPC scenarios. Assumes Regional Plan land concentrated land use assumed.
5.5.1 Initial Alternatives
The Initial alternatives examined the effectiveness of five mode-specific programs in conjunction with either 1) the Trend land use scenario or 2) the Concentrated land use scenario, resulting in a total of 10 transportation system/land use combinations. Each alternative also included all committed projects as identified in the TIP.
The five mode-specific initial alternatives were:
1. Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM): TSM refers to minor operational changes to the transportation system to improve travel efficiency such as adding turn lanes at intersections, installing roundabouts, improving traffic signal timing and minor adjustments to transit services. TSM also includes intelligent transportation systems (ITS) projects that primarily consist of technology-based tools to manage traffic volumes and flows. TDM refers to programs to reduce commute trips such as promoting ridesharing, telecommuting and employer subsidized transit passes. Park and ride lots are also a key component of the TDM strategy tested for this alternative. The methodology assumes that a regional TDM program is successful at
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 40 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
reducing home to/from work single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips by 10 percent to the major employment centers identified on Figure 5-4 (see page 51). It is important to emphasize that the 10 percent reduction is assumed only for home to/from work trips associated with the target TDM areas. The result is an approximate reduction of 1.5 percent in county-wide vehicle trips. This methodology does not explicitly measure specific TDM strategies such as flex-time, ride-share programs, preferential parking for car-pools, parking space cash-out, etc. Rather, the 10 percent reduction of home to/from work SOV trips is a reasonable goal based on the local experience of the Campus Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA). This mode share is directly attributable to CATMA programs such as subsidizing transit passes, incentives for walking and biking, and rideshare programs. The 10 percent goal is further supported by the success stories presented in the Online TDM Encyclopedia published by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm71.htm. The TDM Encyclopedia gives examples of reductions in SOV home to/from work trips ranging from 10 to 25 percent.
2. Transit 1: Urban/Suburban Transit Service Improvements: This alternative includes expanding the CCTA service area to Colchester, Williston and Milton and increasing service frequencies within the existing and expanded service area; and, developing commuter rail services between Charlotte – Burlington – Essex and developing a bus-way along College Street and connecting with the University Mall.
3. Transit 2: Urban/Suburban Improvements Plus Express Service to Rural Areas: Transit 2 includes all of the service expansions as described in Transit 1 plus express bus service to Underhill, Westford, Jericho, Richmond and Hinesburg. Frequencies within the urban/suburban area are reduced relative to Transit 1, but are higher than those in existing CCTA service.
4. Arterial Improvements: This alternative includes highway capacity improvements along most of the major arterials of the County such as US 7, US 2, VT 116, VT 2A, VT 117 and VT 15. Capacity improvements may include building additional lanes, shoulder widening and intersection modifications.
5. Freeway Expansion: This alternative includes: new interchanges at VT 116/I-89, South Burlington and West Milton Road/I-89, Milton; a full interchange at Exit 15, Winooski; a full interchange at Exit 13/Dorset Street, South Burlington; a completed Circumferential Highway from Williston to Colchester at four lanes; and three lanes each direction on I-189 and I-89 from Exit 12 to Exit 17.
The 10 transportation/land use alternatives were evaluated using the performance measures. The key finding from this analysis is that a concentrated land use development pattern is the single most effective strategy at producing improvements in transportation system performance. However, concentrating land use alone does not increase the multi-modal choices available and does not adequately address congestion. However, the concentrated land use scenario was used for all subsequent alternatives analyses up to identification of the Preferred Alternative, due to its clear advantages over the trend land use. The Preferred Alternative used a land use scenario consistent with the CCRPC Regional Plan.
Table 5-4 provides a summary of the evaluation of the mode specific alternatives with the concentrated land use patterns.
5.5.2 Hybrid Alternatives
The next step in the evaluation process combined elements of the 10 single-mode Initial alternatives into five multi-modal Hybrid alternatives (see Table 5-5). The CCMPO developed these Hybrid alternatives following an iterative process starting with Hybrid 1. In each case, analysts tried to balance the goals of
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 41 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
minimizing building and construction costs with effectively addressing all shortcomings in the system. All five Hybrid alternatives also assume the Concentrated Land Use scenario.
Table 5-4 Summary Evaluation of Initial Alternatives (Concentrated Land Use) Mode- Performance Measure Category Specific Multi-Modal Systems Highway Air Quality Cost Alternative Efficiency System (millions) TDM/TSM 9 9 $16.5 Transit 1 9 9 9 $128.6 Transit 2 9 9 9 $131.4 Arterials 9 $107.0 Freeways 9 9 $198.2 Note: “9” indicates that the alternative meets or surpasses the performance measures established for the respective category.
Hybrid 1 is a low-build, low-cost alternative and relies primarily on transportation system management and bike/walk strategies. After evaluating Hybrid 1 for system-wide performance, its shortcomings became apparent: the alternative did not adequately address congestion. Consequently, additional projects were added to Hybrid 1 to create Hybrids 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Hybrid 4, the most comprehensive of the hybrid alternatives, was more expensive than the MTP financial constraint (compare discussion in Section 4.4 with Table 5-6). Hybrid 5 is a scaled-back version of Hybrid 4 that is within the MTP financial constraint. Hybrid 5 was designed specifically to determine if building the Circumferential Highway would help reduce congestion on the Interstate and eliminate the need to add additional highway capacity to I-89 (thus saving costs). The results of this evaluation indicated that additional Interstate improvements would still be needed.
Table 5-6 summarizes the evaluation process and shows the strengths, weaknesses, and costs of each of the five Hybrid Alternatives.
5.5.3 Refined Alternatives
The evaluation of the Hybrid alternatives led to creation of two Refined alternatives. As detailed in Table 5-7, both Refined alternatives are composed of transportation strategies, services and projects that are most like those found in Hybrid 3 and Hybrid 4. Hybrid 3 was within the MTP financial constraint, but was less effective than Hybrid 4 at reducing congestion. Hybrid 4 was the most effective Hybrid alternative at addressing problems, but exceeded the MTP financial constraint. As with the Hybrid alternatives, these were also based on the Concentrated Land Use scenario.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 42 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Table 5-5 Overview of Hybrid Alternatives Alternative Basic Features Hybrid 1 • Concentrated Land Use • Completion of Committed Projects • TDM/TSM • Intensified Transit Service • Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Network Hybrid 2 • Hybrid 1 plus: − Capacity improvements along arterials and at intersections where volume exceeds capacity − Additional local connector roads as identified in the Arterial Improvement Alternative − A full Interchange at Exit 15, Winooski − A new interchange at West Milton Road, Milton Hybrid 3 • Hybrid 2 plus: − Three lanes each direction on I-89 from Exit 12, Williston to Exit 17, Colchester − Three lanes each direction on I-189 Hybrid 4 • Hybrid 1 plus: − Full Circumferential Highway at four lanes − Three lanes each direction on I-89 from Exit 12, Williston to New Milton Interchange − Three lanes each direction on I-189 − A full Interchange at Exit 15, Winooski − A new interchange at West Milton Road, Milton − A new interchange at VT 116, South Burlington − A full interchange at Exit 13, South Burlington − Capacity expansion to arterials and intersections as necessary − Airport Drive Connector Road, South Burlington Hybrid 5 • Hybrid 1 plus: − Full Circumferential Highway at four lanes − A full Interchange at Exit 15, Winooski − A new interchange at West Milton Road, Milton − Capacity expansion to arterials and intersections as necessary − Airport Drive Connector Road, South Burlington
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 43 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Table 5-6 Evaluation of Hybrid Alternatives with Concentrated Land Use Costs ($m) Alternative Strengths Weaknesses Capital Operations/ Maintenance Hybrid 1 • Increases use of non-auto • Does not produce $161 $1.26 modes benefits to overall • Increases travel mode system efficiency choices available • Does little to address • Lowest cost congestion Hybrid 2 • All benefits of Hybrid 1 • Congestion remains a $300 $2.04 • Starts to address congestion problem on Interstate Hybrid 3 • All benefits of Hybrid 2 • Miles of congested $353 $2.61 • Begins to address roadway remain similar congestion on Interstate to Hybrid 2 • Further reduces overall congested VMT Hybrid 4 • All benefits of Hybrid 3 • Most expensive $452 $4.07 • Reduces miles of congested roadway and congested VMT • Greatest impact on system- wide efficiency, and transportation costs Hybrid 5 • Benefits of Hybrid 3 • No reduction in $364 $3.20 • Less expensive than Hybrid Interstate congestion 4 • Benefits similar with to Hybrid 3 but more expensive
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 44 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Table 5-7 Overview of Refined Alternatives Refined Basic Features Alternative
Both Refined • Completion of projects committed in CCMPO TIP Alternatives • Concentrated Land Use • TDM/TSM • A new interchange at West Milton Road, Milton • Expanding I-89 Exit 15, Winooski to a full interchange • Expanding I-89 Exit 13, South Burlington to a full interchange that allows direct access to Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive • Expanding I-89 from two lanes to three lanes in each direction between Exit 12, Williston and the proposed interchange in Milton at West Milton Road • Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian improvements
Refined • Full Circumferential Highway at four lanes Alternative A • Does not include additional capacity for Prim Road and West Lakeshore Drive, Colchester (VT 127), however sidewalks and bicycle lanes on these roads are included • Capital Costs $417.4.0 million • Annual Operations/Maintenance Costs $3.8 million
Refined • Only includes Segments A and B of Circumferential Highway (as in Alternative B TIP): • Does include additional capacity for Prim Road and West Lakeshore Drive, Colchester (VT 127) along with sidewalks and bicycle lanes • Capital Costs $333.1 million • Annual Operations/Maintenance Costs $2.6 million
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 45 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
5.6 Recommended MTP Alternative
Following MTP Steering Committee discussion of the Refined Alternatives, the CCMPO Board made key decisions on elements of the Preferred Alternative, including commitments to the full Circumferential Highway, maintenance of the existing system, TSM and TDM, the Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan, and expanded public transit. With this guidance, the following projects, strategies and programs were combined into the Preferred Alternative, the core of the 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plan:
• Preservation of the existing highway and transit systems;
• Adherence to a more concentrated development pattern for future land use in the County based on the CCRPC’s Regional Plan (refer to Table 5-1);
• Completion of committed transportation programs in the CCMPO TIP, including Circumferential Highway Segments A and B*; the Champlain Parkway, Burlington; US 7/Shelburne Road widening, Shelburne/South Burlington; Kennedy Drive widening, South Burlington; and, Commuter Rail;
• Completion of the full Circumferential Highway* at two lanes from Essex through Colchester (Figure 5-7);
• Expansion of the CCTA service area to Milton, Colchester and additional areas of Williston; commuter services to selected rural areas; increased transit service frequencies; and, passenger rail service to Franklin, Washington and Addison Counties (See Figure 5-2);
• Development of a regional bicycle path network as recommended in the 2003 CCMPO Bicycle- Pedestrian Plan (See Figure 5-3);
• Establish a regional system of park and ride facilities and a region-wide TDM program that targets regional employment centers (See Figure 5-4);
• Implementation of key TSM strategies with a variety of ITS projects (See Figure 5-5);
• Develop a corridor and arterial congestion management program (See Figure 5-6). This program will develop detailed solutions to the projected congestion problems along the VT 15, US 2, VT 116, VT 117, US 7 and VT 2A corridors;
• Improve access to I-89 with new interchanges at West Milton Road, Milton, and VT 116, South Burlington (See Figure 5-7);
• New Connector Roads (Figure 5-7); and
• Preservation of mobility on I-89 by increasing the number of lanes in each direction between Exit 13, South Burlington and the proposed interchange with the Circumferential Highway in Colchester (See Figure 5-7).
The projects mentioned above are discussed in the following chapter under the corridor discussion.
* The Circumferential Highway, Sections A and B, is currently (as of January 2005) being analyzed in a formal Environmental Impact Statement process. The process includes a full assessment of other alternatives, including the no build alternative, that may meet the transportation needs described by the federal notice of intent.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 46 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-2: Proposed Public Transportation Services
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 47 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-2 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 48 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-3: Proposed Bike/Pedestrian Facilities
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 49 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-3 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 50 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-4: Proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Areas and Park and Ride Facilities
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 51 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-4 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 52 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-5: Transportation System Management (TSM) and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Projects
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 53 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-5 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 54 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-6: Proposed Congested Roadway Projects
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 55 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-6 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 56 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-7: Proposed Interstate, Freeway and Connector Road Projects
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 57 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 5-7 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 58 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
As mentioned previously, the single most important factor to improving transportation system performance is to move toward a land use pattern based on concentrated development similar to that identified in the CCRPC Regional Plan. In fact, the success of the future transportation system investments outlined in the Preferred Alternative above is dependent upon achieving the development pattern identified in Table 5-1. The costs of implementing the CCRPC’s land use plan, however, is not included in the capital cost funds associated with the Preferred Alternative.
A full evaluation using the performance measures to compare the Preferred Alternative with the baseline scenario was also prepared as part of this analysis. This information was released as part of the Alternatives Analysis report in November 2002. A summary has been included for reference in the Appendix.
The multi-step alternatives analysis produced a Preferred Alternative (the 2025 MTP) for implementation with available funds over the next 25 years. The recommended alternative includes a variety of multimodal projects and strategies that comprise an implementable and beneficial long-range transportation plan for Chittenden County that achieves the following:
• It sets aside adequate funds to complete transportation projects currently identified in the CCMPO TIP and to preserve the existing highway and transit system over the 25-year planning horizon;
• It creates a multi-modal transportation system by increasing transit service, creating a regional bicycle and pedestrian network, encouraging shared vehicle trips through a county-wide transportation demand management program, and incorporating a land use development pattern which further encourages the use of non-auto modes;
• It improves overall system efficiency and cost per trip by combining transit, highway, transportation demand management, and intelligent transportation systems that together help reduce travel time, vehicle miles of travel, and external social and environmental costs associated with emissions, safety, and noise;
• It slows the total growth and geographic spreading of traffic congestion on the arterial and freeway system helping to reduce through traffic on local streets and collector roads, which will improve quality of life for residents along these routes; improve travel time for goods moved by truck; and help to keep existing growth centers accessible; and
• As compared with the baseline, it reduces emissions from motor vehicles and other transportation sources.
5.7 Chapter Summary
The purpose of the MTP is to assess regional transportation needs and develop a preferred alternative for Chittenden County’s future transportation system. This chapter described the process of identifying and evaluating a series of alternatives and the steps by which the CCMPO developed a preferred MTP alternative. Key points include:
• The public involvement process stressed the desire for a multi-modal, integrated transportation system where the relationship between land use and transportation is leveraged for system efficiency. The CCMPO combined these comments with the identified transportation vision and 12 supporting goals to develop a set of initial alternatives.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 59 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• The CCMPO evaluated alternatives against a set of performance measures, which were designed to assess how well various actions and projects helped the region meet the MTP transportation goals and vision. A baseline scenario was also developed. Performance measure scores in the baseline scenario formed a benchmark against which alternatives could be compared.
• The CCMPO developed alternatives in conjunction with two distinct land use scenarios: the trend scenario that followed recent historical trends in development patterns, and the concentrated scenario that assumed more concentrated development. The concentrated development scenario was found to have a significant positive impact on the performance of each of the transportation alternatives. A revised land use scenario based on the CCRPC Regional Plan was used to evaluate impacts for the Preferred Alternative, the 2025 MTP.
• The CCMPO undertook an iterative process in which ten mode-specific initial alternatives were tested. This led to development of five multi-modal hybrid alternatives all of which were based on the concentrated land use scenario. The hybrid alternatives led to preparation of two refined alternatives, then to a CCMPO selected Preferred Alternative, the core of the 2025 MTP.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 60 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
6.0 2025 MTP
6.1 Introduction
The previous chapter introduced the MTP’s broad-brush recommendations. This chapter presents the projects, programs, and strategies to implement these recommendations by corridor—the most logical and easily understood method of describing and understanding the functional characteristics and impacts of Chittenden County’s transportation system.
As reported in Chapter 5, the projects, strategies and programs were combined to form a preferred alternative based on how well the combination helped achieve the MTP goals identified in Chapter 2. The preferred alternative is now identified as the 2025 MTP.
The priorities established in the 2025 MTP include:
• System maintenance, defined as keeping the existing transportation infrastructure of roads, bridges, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and inter-modal facilities in acceptable operational condition. Future acceptable conditions will be determined by using accepted standards such as VTrans’ asset management system or municipal infrastructure management systems.
• Encouraging higher density and mixed use land development, as proposed by the CCRPC’s Regional Plan, in order to improve the efficiency of transportation investments.
• Completing all projects identified in the CCMPO’s FY2004-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
• Expanding the region’s transit system to outlying suburban and rural areas and adjoining regions.
• Expanding the bicycle and pedestrian networks with on- and off-road facilities and more sidewalks.
• Employing more Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies through employer based trip reduction programs and an expanded network of park and ride facilities.
• Implementing Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies, including Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) investments, intersection improvements and access management along major arterials, to improve the efficiency of the existing infrastructure.
• Addressing corridor congestion problems along key arterials with capacity enhancements as needed.
• Improving Interstate access at two selected sites and preserve Interstate mobility by increasing lane capacity between South Burlington and Colchester.
• Finishing the full Circumferential Highway.
• Building new connector roads in South Burlington.
6.2 Overview of the Corridor-Oriented MTP Concept
Corridor-oriented planning considers the transportation connections between major settlement areas of Chittenden County. These corridors represent easily recognizable and dominant directional movements of persons and goods, while also accounting for localized travel markets. The corridor delineations
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 61 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
identified below are based on the analysis of existing and emerging travel and land use patterns discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. They are tied to the various trip origins and destinations both within and outside of the region. The defining feature of each corridor is one or more major or minor arterial roadway.
Building the MTP around these corridors facilitates an inter-municipal/regional understanding of transportation conditions and priorities and can help decision-makers as they grapple with the diverse needs of a complex region. Corridor-oriented planning also strengthens the CCMPO’s ability to look across municipal boundaries and beyond isolated single-mode solutions to better address transportation problems. As we address transportation problems with new programs and projects identified with the following corridors, it is important to repeat and stress that maintenance of the existing infrastructure is critically important and should remain the County’s top priority.
Key corridors (see Figure 6-1):
1. Regional Core: The transportation network in the Greater Burlington area;
2. Northern Corridor: US 2/7 and I-89 from Winooski to the County line, VT 127 through Colchester, and the rail line north from Essex Junction;
3. Northeast Corridor: Essex Junction to the County line along VT 128 and VT 15;
4. Route 15 West Corridor: Winooski to Essex Junction including Winooski Branch rail line;
5. Southeastern Corridor: Richmond to Buels Gore, including Huntington Road and Main Road;
6. Route 116 Corridor: VT 116, South Burlington to the County line;
7. Eastern Corridor: US 2, I-89, VT 117, and the Burlington and Essex Junction rail line east to the County line;
8. Southern Corridor: US 7 and rail line from Burlington to County line;
9. Cross County Corridor: VT 2A and Circumferential Highway from St. George/Williston to Colchester.
6.3 MTP Corridors
6.3.1 Regional Core
6.3.1.1 Primary Travel Movements
The Regional Core is defined here essentially as the City of Burlington and adjoining areas of Winooski and South Burlington (see Figure 6-2). This area is both origin and destination for much of the region’s travel, and the evolution of the road network servicing it clearly demonstrates its relative importance in the state’s economic and cultural history. There are four primary corridor entries to the Regional Core:
1. The Southern Corridor brings traffic to and from South Burlington and points south. Traffic from the east and north also merges with this corridor via I-189. Pine Street and Shelburne Street are the primary traffic distributors. The Vermont Railway also provides freight service through this area.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 62 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-1: Transportation Corridors
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 63 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-1 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 64 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-2: Regional Core
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 65 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-2 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 66 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
2. The Eastern Corridor brings people and goods to and from points east along US 2 and I-89, then loads traffic onto US 2 before distribution to the street network around the University of Vermont (UVM).
3. From the northeast, the Northeastern and Northern corridors merge in Winooski, move across the Winooski River via US 2/7, and distribute traffic to Colchester Avenue and Riverside Avenue. The Central Vermont Railroad’s Winooski Branch also provides freight services via this corridor.
4. Another branch of the Northern Corridor crosses the Heineberg Bridge, where trips to and from Colchester have access to North Avenue and VT 127, the Northern Connector.
5. Another entry to the Regional Core Corridor comes from the seasonal ferry service link to Port Kent, New York. The role of the ferry in the county’s transportation system is relatively minor.
Burlington features a well-developed grid street network that distributes trips once into the city. More non-single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips are made within Burlington than anywhere else in the region. Nearly 4 percent of work trips are made by transit, and 18 percent of work trips are walk/bike trips. This is a surprisingly high percentage given Burlington’s small size and cold climate. Add in the carpool share and only two thirds of all work trips within Burlington are made in SOVs.
The high volume arterial roads that access the Regional Core also serve on-road bicyclists. From three directions, bicyclists face less-than-ideal choke points—along Shelburne Road through the commercial strip and I-189 intersection, along Williston Road in front of the Sheraton (although the addition of green shoulder lane striping on the Exit 14 bridge appears to be a significant improvement), and the US 2/7 bridge over the Winooski River. In contrast, through the Heineberg Bridge area, adequate shoulder widths enhance bicyclist safety. Pedestrian access to the Regional Core via these corridors is adequate as all feature sidewalks and/or wide shoulders. Within the City itself, sidewalks are present on nearly every street.
Existing CCTA transit service offers its highest levels of service in the Regional Core in terms of frequencies, geographic coverage, and hours of service. Only one significant park and ride facility serves this area, the Lakeside lot, which intercepts downtown and Hill Institution employment trips. (The term Hill Institutions refers to UVM, Fletcher Allen Health Care and other organizations located in the vicinity of the UVM Campus.)
6.3.1.2 Land Use
The Regional Core area of Chittenden County is the most densely settled and built up area in Vermont. There are neighborhoods where the population density is in the thousands per square mile, while job density is equally high downtown and at the Hill Institutions. The Regional Core is truly an urbanized area, albeit relatively small in total population. While open spaces remain, there is a perception that much of this area is built to capacity, although infill opportunities, redevelopment, and higher floor to area ratios (FAR) could accommodate more growth. However, a consequence of the extensive existing development coverage has been a growth rate significantly less than other parts of the region.
The land uses differs slightly along the approaches to the Regional Core. From the south, along Shelburne Road, a small commercial area gives way to residential use before entering the downtown business district. From the north, across the Heineberg Bridge and onto North Avenue, residential uses dominate, with mixed commercial through the heart of Burlington’s New North End. VT 127 skirts the New North End, crossing open lands before entering the dense residential area of the Old North End. From the northeast, the corridor passes through Winooski’s downtown and into residential areas of
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 67 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Burlington and eventually transitioning to the Hill Institutions and downtown. From I-89, US 2 passes a short commercial stretch and then to UVM and downtown.
All of Burlington, Winooski, and adjoining areas of South Burlington fall into the Regional Plan’s Metropolitan Planning Area. This is where the highest intensities of development are recommended to occur. For this to happen, population and employment densities will need to increase, which may necessitate taller buildings and development of some open spaces. Current expansions at Fletcher-Allen and UVM demonstrate how expansion can take place in already built-up areas. Similarly, the Burlington Legacy Project showed how City development regulations could increase development potential. While plans encourage growth in these areas, development can be more costly and encounter more opposition. The Regional Core area is forecasted to continue to grow, but at a pace considerably slower than Chittenden County’s suburban and rural areas.
6.3.1.3 Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues
As mentioned above, multimodal options in the Regional Core are the best in the state. Part of the reason modes other than SOVs are attractive is due to the dense development and resulting volume of vehicles producing congested conditions. By 2025, several of Burlington’s arterial roadways will experience volume to capacity ratios (a congestion measure) of over one in the afternoon peak hour. These include North Avenue, Pine Street, North Street, Main Street, Pearl Street and Colchester Avenue.
Where transportation planners would recommend road capacity enhancements or efficiency improvements elsewhere to reduce congestion, for the urbanized area a different approach is taken. This is the region’s primary activity center and congestion is a condition of its vibrancy and vitality. The walk/bike/transit modes will remain attractive as alternatives here as long as the vehicle speeds remain relatively low. Establishing intercept park and ride facilities at the Regional Core’s periphery that focus on employment trips can help manage the number of cars entering the area and assist visitors by providing a wider array of available parking opportunities.
Because the Regional Core has a significant residential component, yet provides a conduit for high traffic volumes and possesses a well-connected grid street system, knowledgeable drivers can use neighborhood streets to avoid congested arterials. To minimize this practice, traffic-calming techniques should be used in those cut-through neighborhoods to maintain safety, enhance street life, encourage walking and bicycling, and direct the cut-through traffic back onto the arterials.
Parking here is perceived as constrained despite inventories to the contrary. However, parking costs are higher than elsewhere in the region, where undeveloped land is considerably less expensive. Locating, designing, and funding parking facilities poses a dilemma and businesses can be attracted by less costly and more welcoming expansion opportunities outside the Regional Core. Striking a parking balance between many competing interests is a vexing challenge here.
A well-developed sidewalk network already exists in the Regional Core although its age shows and significant reinvestment will be required to maintain its integrity and meet federal accessibility requirements. Bicycling is well provided for in the shared use path network around this area; however, many of these trips start and end in places served only by city streets. A well signed and designed on- street network, especially focusing on north/south travel, is needed to provide citywide, safe, on-road bicycle travel.
Public transit coverage is superior to anywhere else in the state. However, new services and facilities, with adequate funding, can improve this. Higher frequency levels, more hours of service during the day,
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 68 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
more weekend service, and a well-located, high quality transit hub downtown will help the system grow and appeal to a wider traveling public.
TDM programs at the Hill Institutions have helped promote transportation alternatives, reduce parking pressures, and have better managed traffic flow in and around these facilities. Applying a similar program to downtown employees could help relieve congestion and parking demand there. Successful implementation of TDM programs at the Hill Institutions is accomplished through their membership in a TMA, Campus Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA), the region’s first successful TMA.
6.3.1.4 Corridor Strategies/Projects
Because the character of the Regional Core significantly differs from the corridors that feed and sustain its vibrancy, the types of transportation strategies and projects recommended below, differ from those recommended in the corridors.
TDM/ITS/TSM
• Continue the ITS investments on US 7 (referred to as the US 7 Smart Corridor) through South Burlington into Burlington to the South Willard Street intersection.
• Implement Advanced Traffic Management System techniques such as traveler information, incident detection, and traffic control along I-189 and connect to a completed Champlain Parkway.
• Connect Advanced Traffic Management System technologies from the completed Circumferential Highway to the Northern Connector, VT 127. This will include incident detection, traffic operations and control, and traveler information.
• Extend the US 2 Urban Traffic Management System—a system to improve signals and monitor traffic—from South Burlington onto Burlington’s Main Street to Battery Street.
• Establish a region-wide Traffic Management and Information Center allowing system-wide management technologies to more efficiently move vehicles.
• Encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts focusing on employers in downtown Burlington and the Pine Street corridor through the potential establishment of corridor Transportation Management Associations.
• Expand the Lakeside Avenue park and ride facility and create incentive programs for its use.
• Build a park and ride intercept facility at I-89 Exit 14 and create incentive programs for its use.
• Plan for a park and ride facility in the vicinity of the railroad underpass with the Northern Connector.
Public Transportation
• Increase frequencies on all current CCTA routes. Create new routes linking outlying areas—Milton, Jericho, Richmond, Hinesburg, and Charlotte—to the rest of the CCTA system.
• Start new high frequency service linking Burlington, South Burlington and Winooski and linking with the planned I-89 Exit 14 park and ride facility.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 69 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Provide new intercity bus service, leading eventually to rail service, to Franklin and Addison counties.
• Build a new downtown public transit hub.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• Improve the shared use path connections to South Burlington and Winooski.
• Provide on-road bicycle accommodations wherever feasible, in conjunction with road rehabilitation or reconstruction projects, especially on the north/south corridors of Winooski Avenue, Prospect Street, and Pine Street.
• Maintain, rebuild, and expand Burlington’s sidewalk system.
6.3.1.5 Future Planning Areas and Needs
While growth in the Regional Core area has been slow, it is still expected to continue at a slow upward trend and the area will remain the primary economic, cultural and social hub of the region for the foreseeable future. Without any major road projects recommended here, congestion is therefore bound to increase despite a stronger focus on SOV alternatives in the future. The following will need to be monitored and plans advanced as conditions warrant:
• The CCMPO transportation demand model predicts significant congestion by 2025 along nearly the entire length of North Avenue. The scale and pattern of development along North Avenue suggests that increasing its capacity will be problematic. The City should foster discussions on how residents desire to confront this issue.
• Preparations and plans for the eventual return of passenger rail services, both local commuter and Amtrak, should begin anew in the near future.
• Relocation of the Burlington Railyard has been examined in the past without a clear alternate site identified. As pressure increases over time on redeveloping this property on Burlington’s waterfront, revisiting this study will need to occur.
6.3.2 Northern Corridor
6.3.2.1 Primary Travel Movements
The Northern Corridor serves north/south travel needs connecting the Regional Core area and points east and south to Colchester, Milton, and Franklin and Grand Isle counties (see Figure 6-3). The primary road facilities are I-89, US 2, and US 7. Interstate 89 connects communities in Chittenden County with Montpelier and New Hampshire to the south and Northwestern Vermont and Canada to the north. It is an essential component of Chittenden County’s transportation system and is heavily used by freight shippers, commuters, and recreation and tourism travelers. The section within the Northern Corridor serves both through traffic and intra-regional trips. US 7 is another critical element of Chittenden County’s transportation network. In its entirety, US 7 is the principal means of north/south access on the western side of Vermont. In the Northern Corridor, US 7 is primarily used for intra-regional travel and provides local connections between Burlington, and the towns of Winooski, Colchester and Milton. In Colchester, US 2 branches off the corridor and heads northwest to Grand Isle County—Vermont’s fastest growing county—where 50 percent of its 3,500 workers commute to jobs in Chittenden County.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 70 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-3: Northern Corridor
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 71 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-3 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 72 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
The New England Central Railroad line travels through this corridor and is used for both through freight and passenger trains. While there are currently no passenger stations located here, there are, however, freight rail sidings in Colchester and Milton.
Bicycle and pedestrian travel in this corridor is mostly on-road, with sidewalks available in the Malletts Bay and Village areas of Colchester, Milton Town Center, and throughout most of Winooski. Some arterials, notably US 2 to the Islands, parts of US 7, and Colchester’s Heineberg Drive, have adequate shoulder width providing safe travel for on-road bicyclists and walkers. Transit services, with the exception of the Vermont Transit Lines Burlington to Montreal route, have not yet come to this part of the county. There is currently one park and ride facility, near I-89 Exit 17, while the Exit 16 area has been identified as a priority site for another facility.
6.3.2.2 Land Use
Land uses in the Northern Corridor span the spectrum from dense urban to sparse rural. The corridor starts north of Burlington, in the urban downtown edge of Winooski, and continues to the northwest along the VT 127 corridor in Colchester. Land uses along US 2/7 north through Winooski into Colchester around I-89 Exit 16 transitions from mixed use, residential and commercial to exclusively commercial activity at the interchange. North from Exit 16 development diminishes until the area around the VT 127 and VT 2A intersections, where commercial activity dominates. A more sparsely settled land use pattern resumes up to the divergence of US 2 to the Islands at Chimney Corners. Commercial development is again prevalent around Chimney Corners and continues over the Milton town line where an industrial park and strip residential uses dominate. Within about three miles of this area is the Milton Town Core area, with predominant land uses of commercial activities, homes, and schools. North of the Town Core, on the west side of Arrowhead Mountain Lake, rural uses again emerge up to the County line. On the Lake’s east side the industrial campus of the Husky Corporation sits within the surrounding rural open space and residential land uses. Along VT 127 from Burlington through Colchester there is a near steady pattern of residential and commercial land uses through Malletts Bay before this road merges with US 2/7.
Future land use plans provide for denser development patterns in the area of I-89 Exit 16, the Severance Road/US 7 area, around Interstate Exit 17, and throughout the US 7 corridor in Milton. Malletts Bay and Colchester Village are planned for more mixed use and infill development as well. Scattered rural residential development likely will continue, although more growth is planned to be concentrated in those areas mentioned. These areas correspond to the Chittenden County Regional Plan’s Metropolitan, Village, and Transition areas (see Figure 5-1).
6.3.2.3 Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues
North/south movement in this corridor is currently relatively efficient and non-congested. East/west travel through Colchester, however, is constrained and will likely remain so pending completion of the Circumferential Highway. By 2025 congestion problems will become more apparent along Heineberg Drive and on US 7 through the Exit 16 area in Colchester, further north on US 2 out to the Islands, and on stretches of US 7 north of Interstate Exit 17 through the southern approach to the Milton Town Core area.
Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are improving, especially within the village areas, although connecting travel between the more heavily settled areas by bicycle and on foot is encumbered by narrow road shoulders in some areas. By contrast, the road shoulders on US 2 from Chimney Corners to the Sandbar Causeway are exemplary examples of adequate width to accommodate cyclists and walkers.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 73 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
The lack of public transportation services here is notable. Colchester and Milton are two of the larger suburban communities in the region and the only two of their size without direct bus service, with the exception of VT 15 service through the southeast corner of Colchester. Transit services are anticipated to run in this corridor if grant funding becomes available or when the transit operations funding dilemma is resolved. (See Chapter 7 discussion on transit funding.) In addition to bus transit, future passenger rail connecting Essex Junction to Franklin County is included in the MTP recommendations.
6.3.2.4 Recommended Corridor Strategies/Projects
The following projects and strategies are recommended for this corridor: (Note that the roadway improvement/expansion projects identified for any corridor only identify areas of future congestion and do not suggest any particular solution to that congestion.)
TDM/ITS/TSM
• New Park and Ride facilities at I-89 Exit 16, Milton Village, Severance Corners, and at the planned Circumferential Highway terminus near Heineberg Bridge.
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) education efforts focused on employers in the area around I-89 Exit 16 and in the US 7 corridor through Milton through the potential establishment of corridor Transportation Management Associations.
• Intersection modifications/improvements at the following locations: 1. US 2 at I-89 Exit 17 2. US 2/7 at VT 2A/Creek Farm 3. US 2/7 at I-89 Exit 16 4. US 2/7 at Watertower Hill 5. US 2/7 at Rathe Road 6. US 2/7 at Hercules Drive 7. US 2/7 at Blakely/Severance 8. VT 2A at East Road and Millpond Road 9. US 7 at Main Street in Milton 10. Main Street at North and East Roads in Milton 11. US 2/7 at Spring Street in Winooski 12. US 2/7 at LaFountain Street 13. US 2/7 at Tigan Street
• US 7 Urban Traffic Management System—ITS investments related to traffic detection and control, traveler information, and signal communications—from Milton Main Street through Winooski.
• Application of access management techniques along the US 2/7 and VT 127 corridors, especially within locally designated growth areas.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 74 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Public Transportation
• US 7 corridor bus service connecting Milton Village, through Colchester, to Burlington.
• Extension of CCTA bus service to Colchester.
• Bus service, leading to passenger rail service, from Franklin County to Essex Junction and Burlington.
• Rural area demand response service.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• Shared use path extension connecting the Colchester bike path to the Milton Town Core area.
• New shared use path from Heineberg Bridge to Malletts Bay and continuing east to parallel Blakely Road and Kellogg Road to Essex Town.
• New shared use path to link Airport Park to Heineberg Drive path.
• New shared use path paralleling Malletts Bay Avenue into Winooski.
• Causeway Path improvements.
• On-road bicycle facilities to be implemented wherever feasible in conjunction with road rehabilitation/reconstruction projects.
• Sidewalk improvements as identified by municipalities and/or the 2003 Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Update.
Roadways - Interstate improvements/expansions
• New I-89 interchange at West Milton Road.
• Complete Circumferential Highway segments I and J.
• Widen I-89 to three lanes from Exit 13 to new interchange with the Circumferential Highway.
• Reconstruct I-89 Exit 17.
Roadways -Arterial improvements/expansions
• Heineberg Drive, Colchester.
• US 7 from West Milton Road to Bombardier Road in Milton.
6.3.2.5 Future Planning Areas and Needs
The Northern Corridor recently underwent a comprehensive analysis in the CCMPO’s 2001 US 7 Corridor study that extended from Winooski to Georgia in Franklin County. There are currently no pressing planning needs to be undertaken in this corridor although the following items bear monitoring:
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 75 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Commuter numbers from the north are the largest into Chittenden County.
• Consideration of potential new bus transit options with links to existing and proposed park and ride facilities.
• International trade/freight growth in the I-89 corridor.
• Access and mobility options related to development of the Milton Town Core, Exit 17, and Severance Corners growth areas.
• Development of projects to link the Colchester shared use path network to Milton.
6.3.3 Northeastern Corridor
6.3.3.1 Primary Travel Movements
The Northeastern Corridor serves the municipalities of Essex, Westford, Jericho, and Underhill, providing a link to the employment and commercial centers of the greater Burlington area via VT 15 and VT 128 (see Figure 6-4). These roads also connect parts of Franklin and Lamoille counties to Chittenden County. Old Stage Road in Essex and Westford, and River Road/Pleasant Valley Road in Underhill form parallel collectors channeling traffic through this corridor as well.
Increasing commuter traffic from these communities and the adjoining counties has occurred as the population has grown, attracted by less costly yet more distant housing opportunities. This corridor also sees tourist traffic traveling to resort areas in Jeffersonville and Stowe. Two cross-corridor collector systems—Sand Hill Road in Essex and Browns Trace Road/Jericho Road in Jericho and Richmond—link this corridor with the region’s Eastern Corridor, while Westford Road and Westford-Milton Road do the same to the Northern Corridor.
The predominant mode of travel in this corridor is the single-occupant vehicle (SOV), with very limited opportunities for bicycle, pedestrian or transit movement. However, within some designated growth areas, including Essex Center, Jericho Village, and Underhill Flats, planned or existing sidewalks and shared use paths will soon be expanding. CCTA bus serves the western end of this corridor via the Essex Center Route.
There is one small park and ride facility in Underhill Center and two others just outside the County in Fairfax and Cambridge. The CCMPO has identified priority new facilities in Underhill Flats and Essex Center.
6.3.3.2 Land Use
Moving northeast along VT 15 from Essex Junction the corridor transitions from a small urban traditional center to a newer growth area at the VT 289 intersection featuring mostly commercial uses with some residential development. The corridor then branches out to VT 128 to the north while VT 15 continues east and both become increasingly rural. On VT 128, the only land use interruption from rural/agricultural countryside is Westford Village. Along VT 15 the village areas of Jericho and Underhill Flats, and Underhill Center along River Road, all stand out as traditional settlement areas with intervening rural land uses.
Future land use plans recommend growth within Essex Junction Village, continued development around Lang Farm, and within the Underhill Flats and Westford village planning areas. Further industrial
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 76 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-4: Northeastern Corridor
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 77 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-4 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 78 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
development is slated for the Saxon Hill area of Essex as well. Similar to the rest of the region, scattered rural residential development is expected to continue, though a shift to more concentrated development in the designated growth areas is encouraged and anticipated.
6.3.3.3 Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues
Travel into this corridor from the outlying towns and counties flows relatively well today. However, it is expected that by 2025 stretches of VT 15 through the Lang Farm/Essex Center areas will be significantly congested along with VT 15 from Jericho Village through Underhill Flats. In addition, the lower reaches of VT 128 from Essex Center will also be experiencing congested conditions. An inter- regional study of the VT 15 corridor from Jericho to Hardwick is underway and may identify more precisely areas for improvements.
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are advancing in this corridor, especially in the designated growth areas of Essex Junction, Lang Farm/Essex Center, and Underhill Flats. Roadway improvements to accommodate bicyclists are needed and are planned for when the arterials are rehabilitated or reconstructed. Currently, much of the corridor features inadequate shoulder width for safe bicycling but should see steady incremental improvements by 2025.
While limited public transportation is available in the more densely populated southwestern part of the corridor, longer-term CCTA commuter service to the proposed park and ride in the vicinity of Underhill Flats is planned with a possible extension of service to Lamoille County.
Minor intersection/signal improvements along the VT 15 corridor from Five Corners in Essex Junction to Jericho Village are planned to improve traffic flow. Other recommendations for improvements may come from the Hardwick to Jericho study mentioned above.
As the Metropolitan Planning Area at Saxon Hill in Essex develops over time, this area will be monitored for appropriate Transportation Demand Management measures such as employer based commuter assistance programs.
6.3.3.4 Corridor Strategies/Projects
The 2025 MTP identifies specific projects and strategies to meet the MTP goals. In this corridor these are:
TDM/ITS/TSM
• New Park and Ride facilities near the Lang Farm, Allen Martin Parkway/VT 15 intersection, Underhill Flats and Westford Village.
• TDM outreach efforts to employers in the Essex Center, Sand Hill Road and Saxon Hill areas through the potential establishment of corridor Transportation Management Associations.
• Intersection modifications/improvements on VT 15 at the Five Corners, VT 289, Essex Way, Sand Hill Road, Allen Martin Drive, and Lee River Road.
• VT 15 Urban Traffic Management System from Essex Center through the Five Corners—ITS investments related to traffic detection and control, traveler information, and signal communications.
• Applying access management techniques along VT 15 especially within the designated growth areas in Essex Junction, Essex Town and Jericho.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 79 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Public Transportation
• Commuter bus service to Underhill Flats and beyond to Lamoille County.
• Rural area demand response service.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• Shared use path extension from Lang Farm area through Essex Center out to Underhill Flats paralleling VT 15.
• On-road bicycle facilities to be implemented wherever feasible in conjunction with road rehabilitation/reconstruction projects.
• Sidewalk improvements as identified by municipalities and/or the 2003 Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Update.
Roadway improvements/expansions
• VT 15 from VT 289 to Sand Hill Road.
• VT 15 from Jericho Village to Underhill Flats.
6.3.3.5 Future Planning Areas and Needs
A corridor study is underway from Jericho past the County line that will highlight problem areas there. Other areas that will need to be examined more closely include:
• The Allen Martin Parkway link to VT 289.
• The effects of heavy log trucks on local roads.
• Access and mobility issues related to targeted growth areas along VT 15.
• Project development to extend the Essex shared use path network into Jericho.
6.3.4 Route 15 West Corridor
6.3.4.1 Primary Travel Movements
Parts of the roadway network from the Northeastern, Northern, and Eastern corridors intersect in the Route 15 West Corridor, and feed into the Regional Core area (see Figure 6-5). This results in significant traffic volumes substantially put on one arterial roadway, VT 15 from Essex Junction to Winooski. One of the feeder roads, Susie Wilson Road in Essex Town, carries the majority of traffic to and from the Northern and Northeastern Corridors.
Parallel to VT 15 is the Winooski Branch rail line, a little used freight rail segment that links the Vermont Railway system on the west side of the state to the Central Vermont Railway in the east and north. Public transit primarily consists of one of CCTA’s most successful routes, the Essex Junction Route, carrying from 250,000 to 350,000 passengers per year.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 80 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-5: Route 15 West Corridor
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 81 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-5 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 82 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Extensive pedestrian networks exist at both ends of the corridor in Essex Junction and Winooski and a sidewalk runs along VT 15 connecting the two communities and up Susie Wilson Road as well. Bicycling, however, is on-road in this corridor, and parts of VT 15 are not considered safe for average skilled bicyclists. A scoping study for a VT 15 parallel shared-use path is underway.
6.3.4.2 Land Use
The western end of the corridor is located in one of Chittenden County’s, and Vermont’s, most urbanized and densely settled areas, the City of Winooski. Winooski is an older, traditional settlement of mixed uses that has seen little population and economic growth over the last several decades. However, it is about to undergo substantial urban renewal in its downtown core.
East from Winooski, large institutional uses prevail along the corridor, including St. Michaels College, the Army Guard base, and the Fanny Allen Campus of Fletcher-Allen Health Care. The World War I era facility, Fort Ethan Allen, now mostly housing, is another major land use. The corridor then transitions through residential uses to a suburban strip commercial pattern, including a large events venue at the Champlain Valley Exposition, before ceding briefly to residential uses just before the Five Corners in Essex Junction Village. Susie Wilson Road, which enters at the corridor’s mid-point, features commercial uses.
The future land use density could be different from recent history. Winooski is breaking ground on a sizable downtown renewal project that will see significant new housing and commercial growth. As part of a VT 15 corridor project, the other affected municipalities are considering Transit Oriented Design (TOD) to encourage denser development around transit stops, which may someday support passenger rail. Continued commercial and institutional growth in the Susie Wilson/Kellogg Road area is also planned.
6.3.4.3 Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues
In contrast to the other major corridors discussed, significant traffic volumes travel on VT 15 west with no parallel alternative route available. Not surprisingly, the capacity of the little used rail line running by its side has been examined closely for its potential to alleviate some of VT 15’s traffic demands. Congestion problems have also spurred interest in ITS investments to improve traffic flow.
As mentioned, one of CCTA’s most heavily used services follows VT 15 and efforts to improve that service include ITS investments to give buses priority at traffic signals. In addition, a large park and ride facility is planned from which shuttle services to large institutions such as UVM, Fletcher-Allen Health Care and St. Michaels College can operate. Longer term, public rail transit will be necessary to keep this corridor operating at efficient levels.
The pedestrian environment is relatively good in this corridor with extensive sidewalk networks in Essex Junction and Winooski. Along VT 15, there is a sidewalk (along the north side primarily but both sides in Essex Junction) that provides safe pedestrian travel all along the corridor. However, the need for a parallel bicycle facility is clear, as on-road bicycle travel poses dangers. Local efforts in each of the corridor’s municipalities are addressing ways to improve both pedestrian and bicycle travel.
A corridor carrying such high traffic volumes—over 25,000 vehicles per day and no alternative routes— needs to be managed carefully to keep the traffic moving efficiently, including signal coordination and an emphasis on access management. As development increases, access demands to VT 15 will increase as well. Managing how and where that new development accesses the road will help or hinder traffic flow. Effective access management will be crucial to keep people and goods moving safely and efficiently.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 83 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
6.3.4.4 Corridor Strategies/Projects
The list that follows identifies each of the projects or strategies that are part of the 2025 MTP. These were analyzed and shown to be effective in addressing future transportation problem areas.
TDM/ITS/TSM
• Corridor wide signal coordination with transit vehicle priority and emergency vehicle preemption on VT 15 and Susie Wilson Road.
• VT 15 Urban Traffic Management System—ITS projects to provide traveler information, network surveillance, and traffic control.
• VT 15 Intersection improvements at East Spring Street, Lime Kiln Road, and the Five Corners.
• New park and ride facility near Fort Ethan Allen.
Public Transportation
• Higher frequency bus service on VT 15.
• Transit/shuttle services to a future park and ride facility.
• Passenger rail with coordinated bus service.
• Bus feeder services to the VT 15 corridor.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• A shared use path connecting Essex Junction Village to Lime Kiln Road in Colchester.
• On-road bicycle accommodation wherever feasible when road rehabilitation or reconstruction takes place.
• Sidewalk improvements as identified by municipalities and/or the 2003 Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Update.
6.3.4.5 Future Planning Areas and Needs
This corridor has been the focus of in-depth studies the past several years and will continue to be studied into the future. In 1999, the Burlington/Essex Passenger Rail Feasibility Study was completed. This led to the Burlington-Essex Corridor Alternative Analysis Phase 1A report. Project development projects related to bicycle/pedestrian improvements, signal coordination and intersection changes followed from this report. In June 2002, a report titled Burlington-Essex Rail Project Draft Environmental Assessment was completed and, most recently, Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities for the Route 15 Corridor concluded. Future work here will focus on:
• The Susie Wilson Corridor and efforts to engage and educate the public on the merits of TOD.
• Consideration to expanding I-89 Exit 15 in Winooski into a full interchange.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 84 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
6.3.5 Southeastern Corridor
6.3.5.1 Primary Travel Movements
The Southeastern Corridor serves the rural southern part of Richmond and the Huntington River Valley. Though the least-traveled of the corridors examined, the Southwestern Corridor is one of the most scenic. Most morning peak-hour traffic is headed north, then west to the greater Burlington area for jobs, shopping and other activities. There is some tourist traffic using the corridor to get to the recreational areas to the east in the Mad River Valley, accessing Camels Hump hiking trails or enjoying the fall foliage. There is also a notable use of the corridor by heavy log trucks bringing timber from the north to processing facilities to the south.
Virtually all traffic in this corridor follows Huntington’s Main Road onto Richmond’s Huntington Road and Bridge Street. Corridor congestion is minor and principally confined to morning peak hour delays on Bridge Street in Richmond Village or when a slow freight train backs traffic up on to US 2. Pavement condition is generally good throughout the corridor, as the towns have undertaken a sustained maintenance program. The main roads in virtually all other MTP corridors are state routes or class one town highways. That is not the case in this corridor. The Richmond and Huntington roads are strictly local responsibilities.
With the exception of Richmond Village where a sidewalk network exists, pedestrian travel is on-road. Walkers or runners must compete for limited roadway space with motor vehicles. Horizontal and vertical curves of the road put foot travelers at significant risk. Likewise, bicycle travel is also on-road and this corridor is popular with bicycle groups throughout summer and fall due to the relatively low traffic volumes. Conflicts between motorists and bicyclists, though infrequent, do occur, as the shoulders are narrow and sight distances inadequate in some locations.
No transit services or park and ride facilities exist in the corridor.
6.3.5.2 Land Use
The corridor starts in Richmond Village and extends south over low hills, past an ancient glacial lake delta, and then descends into the Huntington River Valley and an agricultural landscape. Continuing south the corridor passes through the three primary settlement areas in Huntington, the Lower Village, Huntington Center, and Hanksville. Interspersed between settlements is farmland, woods and rural housing. The valley narrows, signs of human activity lessen, and traffic diminishes as the corridor enters Buels Gore and terminates on VT 17. From here in dense forest, the links are east over Appalachian Gap to the Mad River Valley and west down to Bristol and Addison County.
Future land use likely will combine the current trend of low-density rural housing development with more compact mixed uses in Richmond Village, Huntington’s Lower Village and Huntington Center.
6.3.5.3 Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues
Traffic volumes are very low in this corridor by regional standards and, as mentioned, congestion is only an issue in the morning peak hour at the Bridge Street/US 2 intersection in Richmond. No congestion problems are foreseen in this corridor over the 25 years of this Plan. However, US 2, which this corridor feeds, is expected to experience serious capacity constraints within the timeframe of this Plan. Heavy log truck use may lead to surface and subsurface road deterioration sooner leading to more frequent road maintenance.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 85 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Pedestrian opportunities will remain limited and increasing traffic volumes will likely lessen walkers’ safety. Similarly, with bicyclists, the potential for more vehicle conflicts exists with increasing traffic thereby reducing safety margins. The Huntington Road/Main Road is identified in this Plan as an on-road bicycle facility and therefore the Towns will be expected to find ways to accommodate bicyclists when major road rehabilitation or reconstruction work takes place.
No regular transit services currently exist, although paratransit service that focuses on the elderly and disabled populations will expand to allow demand response service to the general population.
6.3.5.4 Corridor Strategies/Projects
This corridor’s rural character, light traffic levels, and peripheral location, not surprisingly leads to few regional level transportation recommendations.
TDM/ITS/TSM
• New park and ride facility in Richmond Village.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• On-road bicycle accommodation wherever feasible, whenever road rehabilitation or reconstruction takes place, especially on Huntington Road and Main Road.
• Sidewalk improvements as identified by municipalities and/or the 2003 Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Update with the main focus on Richmond Village.
Public Transportation
• Rural demand response service.
6.3.5.5 Future Planning Areas and Needs
The following issues should be monitored in this corridor:
• Maintenance of the structural integrity of Huntington Road and Main Road and make them safer for bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Addressing bridge deficiencies in a timely manner.
• Accident rates at the Hillview/Huntington Road intersections and safety improvements as warranted.
• Operations of the US 2/Bridge Street intersection.
6.3.6 Vermont Route 116 Corridor
6.3.6.1 Primary Travel Movements
This corridor links the Town of Hinesburg and rural northeastern Addison County towns to Chittenden County’s employment and commercial centers (see Figure 6-6). Northbound traffic during the weekday morning peak hour and the reverse in the evening are the dominant traffic movements in this corridor.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 86 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-6: Route 116 Corridor
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 87 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-6 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 88 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
As the corridor name implies, VT 116 defines this north/south corridor, with Silver Street feeding into it in Hinesburg Village. Also feeding into this corridor and providing east/west crossing movements are Charlotte Road, Falls Road, CVU Road and Mechanicsville Road. At the northern end of the corridor significant levels of traffic diverge onto VT 2A and onto the Cross County Corridor.
Outside of Hinesburg Village, bicycle and pedestrian travel is on-road, although the road shoulders are not sufficiently or consistently wide enough for safe travel. Hinesburg Village has a sidewalk network that is expanding although safe crossing of VT 116 remains a serious pedestrian problem. Transit service is currently only available at the extreme northern end of the corridor.
6.3.6.2 Land Use
From Addison County, land use in the corridor consists of rural residential, agricultural lands and a gravel and sand resource extraction operation before coming to the traditional Village center in Hinesburg. North of the Village, rural land uses again dominate before extending into South Burlington where higher density housing and employment exists.
The Chittenden County Regional Plan’s land use recommendations would not substantially alter the existing pattern. More growth in and around Hinesburg Village is called for and more rural residential growth is likely to occur as well. However, at the northern end of the corridor in South Burlington, more significant residential and industrial development is planned.
6.3.6.3 Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues
Existing congestion levels throughout the corridor remain relatively low except during commuter peak hours through Hinesburg Village and towards the northern terminus in South Burlington. By 2025, however, nearly the entire length of VT 116 from Hinesburg Village to the Interstate, as well as Silver Street, will be operating over capacity in the afternoon peak hour. The planned new I-89 interchange at VT 116 will improve overall regional accessibility, especially for Burlington International Airport. However, this interchange also is expected to increase congestion in this area.
Along VT 116 shoulder widths are inconsistent and in some areas too narrow for safe bicycle and pedestrian travel. Pedestrian crossing remains a public safety problem in Hinesburg Village as well. Over the long term, improvements are expected to accommodate bicyclists on Hinesburg’s stretches of VT 116 and Silver Street, and improvements are also expected to the sidewalk network within and adjacent to Hinesburg Village. While on-road bicycle facilities are not planned for north of the intersection of VT 116 and VT 2A, bicycle and pedestrian travel within South Burlington will be improved as their long term commitment to provide these facilities through their development review continues.
Currently, public transportation barely skims the northern fringe of this corridor but is planned to expand south to Hinesburg Village in the form of peak hour commuter service.
6.3.6.4 Corridor Strategies/Projects
In order to address future anticipated problems and needs in this corridor, the following are recommended:
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 89 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
TDM/ITS/TSM
• New park and ride facilities in Hinesburg Village, near the VT 116 and VT 2A intersection, and at the proposed new I-89 interchange in South Burlington.
• Improvements at the following intersections with VT 116: CVU/Falls Road, Mechanicsville Road and Charlotte Road.
• Access management along VT 116 in the Hinesburg Village Planning Area, and through South Burlington, especially from the new I-89 interchange north to Burlington International Airport, and along Kennedy Drive.
Public Transportation
• Peak hour commuter transit service to Hinesburg Village.
• Rural area demand response service.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• Complete the Hinesburg Pathway.
• On-road bicycle accommodation wherever feasible whenever road rehabilitation or reconstruction takes place.
• Sidewalk improvements as identified by municipalities and/or the 2003 Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Update with a focus on Hinesburg Village.
Roadway Improvements/Expansions
• New I-89 interchange at VT 116.
• VT 116 from I-89 south to Cheese Factory Road.
6.3.6.5 Future Planning Areas and Needs
A planning study encompassing all of northwestern Vermont will be looking closely at the VT 116 and US 7 corridors in the coming months and may conclude with some transportation and land use recommendations. In addition, the following should be closely monitored:
• Growing congestion and safety concerns along Silver Street.
• Access and mobility issues related to further targeted growth in South Burlington’s southeast quadrant and Hinesburg Village.
• Growth and transportation implications identified in the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed interchange at VT 116 and I-89.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 90 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
6.3.7 Eastern Corridor
6.3.7.1 Primary Travel Movements
The Eastern Corridor serves east/west travel needs connecting urban and suburban Chittenden County and points further east and south to the Regional Core area (see Figure 6-7). The primary road facilities are Interstate 89, US 2, and VT 117, which branches off US 2 in Richmond and serves parts of Jericho and Essex before terminating in Essex Junction.
I-89 connects communities in Chittenden County with Montpelier and New Hampshire to the south and Northwestern Vermont and Canada to the north. It is an essential component of Chittenden County’s transportation system and is heavily used by freight shippers, commuters and recreation and tourism travelers. The section of I-89 in Chittenden County is used both by through-traffic and for intra-regional trips.
US 2 is also a critical element of Chittenden County’s transportation network. In the Eastern Corridor, US 2 is primarily used for intra-regional travel and provides local connections through Burlington, South Burlington, Williston, Richmond and Bolton.
VT 117 is primarily an east/west route connecting the growth areas around Essex Junction with the eastern Chittenden County towns of Jericho, Richmond, Bolton, and Huntington. It also connects the Northeast Corridor with I-89.
Bicycle and pedestrian travel is limited in the eastern part of the corridor but increases as the corridor heads toward the Regional Core area. Village areas and most of US 2 in South Burlington feature sidewalks for safe pedestrian travel and a growing parallel shared use path system—that will eventually link Williston and South Burlington—is improving the bicycling environment.
Public transit service is available throughout most of the corridor although high service frequencies are only available in the western end where it feeds the Regional Core area. CCTA’s Link Express, traveling on I-89 and linking Burlington to Montpelier, and the Williston and Essex Center routes offer relatively low levels of transit service. Amtrak’s once a day Vermonter, with its stop in Essex Junction, offers train travel with connections to Amtrak’s national grid from points south. Vermont Transit is the private intercity bus carrier and serves points east from its Burlington station.
6.3.7.2 Land Use
Heading east from the Regional Core area, the Eastern Corridor traverses a built up landscape dominated by housing and commercial uses, through the recently developed commercial dominated center around Taft Corners, past lower density residential areas, into river bottom farmland through Richmond, Jonesville, and Bolton Villages and finally the Winooski Valley notch in the Green Mountains. In its eastern extremes, through agricultural land and narrow valley, this corridor is quite scenic. The VT 117 branch of the corridor follows a similar land use transition as it leaves Essex Junction and moves towards Richmond.
Air traffic growth at Burlington International Airport (BIA), which is primarily served by US 2, will likely, in the near term, exacerbate congestion in the corridor. BIA has seen significant passenger growth the past two years and is expected to continue growing with expanded services from low cost carriers. Ground access to BIA was the focus of a CCMPO study in 2002 concluding with several recommendations for improvements, including a new I-89 interchange (now proposed at VT 116), a
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 91 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
realigned Airport Parkway to improve north/south traffic flow, capacity increase on US 2 east toward Williston, and improved transit service to the airport.
Future land use plans will see the current pattern continue with growth continuing in the already built up areas and adjacent lands, and the farmlands between towns and village areas remaining in agriculture or other open space uses.
6.3.7.3 Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues
Traffic flow along US 2 is encumbered at several congested intersections including Taft Corners, Airport Drive/Kennedy Drive and especially Dorset Street. In addition, segments of this road in Richmond and Williston are projected to operate over capacity by 2025. VT 117 through parts of Jericho and Essex are also expected to see operational deficiencies by 2025 as well.
Bicycle/Pedestrian travel is relatively low volume in the eastern part of the corridor although adequate shoulder widths on US 2 through Bolton make for relatively safe conditions. Moving closer to Burlington, the level of bicycle and pedestrian travel increases, as well as the availability of off-road shared-use paths and sidewalks. US 2 lane widths are adequate through Williston, but in South Burlington higher traffic volumes, narrower shoulders and more numerous curb cuts make for challenging on-road bicycling. Along VT 117 bicyclists and walkers face a less than ideal environment although with relatively lower traffic volumes and fewer curb cuts than US 2, trips are less daunting. Once into Essex Junction the environment changes markedly for the better with on-road designated bicycle lanes, slower vehicular speeds, and sidewalks.
Transit services have expanded into Williston over the past several years and a new inter-regional commuter bus from Burlington to Montpelier, the Link Express, has recently started running with a stop at the Richmond Park and Ride. The frequency of transit service diminishes the further east one travels in this corridor. Over time, growth and development in Williston will likely lead to demands for increases in transit service.
6.3.7.4 Corridor Strategies/Projects
In order to meet future transportation needs, while managing increased congestion, the following multimodal approach is recommended:
TDM/ITS/TSM
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts focused on employers in the Exit 14, Taft Corners and IBM Campus areas through the potential establishment of a corridor Transportation Management Associations.
• New park and ride facilities in Richmond Village, at the Circumferential Highway/Mountainview Road and VT 117 intersections, at the proposed I-89/VT 116 interchange, and at I-89 Exit 14.
• Expand the existing I-89 Exit 11 park and ride in Richmond.
• Intersection modifications/improvements at I-89 Exit 12; along US 2 at intersections with Dorset Street, Mary Street, Midas Drive, White Street, Hinesburg Road, Kennedy Drive and Shunpike Road; and at the VT 117 intersections with North Williston Road and Skunk Hollow Road.
• I-89 Advanced Traffic Management System—ITS investments to better manage incidents, inform travelers, and maintain traffic flow from Exit 12 to Exit 16.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 92 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-7: Eastern Corridor
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 93 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-7 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 94 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• US 2 Urban Traffic Management System—ITS investments to improve signalization and monitor traffic from North Williston Road to Burlington’s lakefront.
• Application of access management techniques throughout the US 2 and VT 117 corridors, especially from the Williston Village Planning Area west through South Burlington.
Public Transportation
• Increased service frequencies connecting the South Burlington City Center area, Burlington International Airport area, and Taft Corners area to Burlington and Essex Junction.
• Bus service, leading to passenger rail service, from Washington County to Essex Junction.
• Rural area demand response service.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• New shared use paths through Richmond and Williston to connect with the existing Williston network.
• Completed connection between the Williston and South Burlington shared use path networks.
• On-road bicycle accommodation, wherever feasible, for road rehabilitation or reconstruction projects, especially along US 2, VT 117 and Industrial Avenue.
• Sidewalk improvements as identified by municipalities and/or the 2003 Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Update.
Roadways - Interstate Improvements/expansions
• Safety and congestion improvements to I-89 Exits 12 and 14.
• Recommendations from planned I-89 Exit 14 scoping report.
Roadways - Arterials/Collectors Improvements/expansions
• US 2 between Millham Court and Industrial Avenue and from I-89 Exit 11 east to Richmond Village.
• Industrial Avenue.
• New east/west service road between Marshall Avenue and Hinesburg Road.
• Relocated Airport Parkway away from residential neighborhood.
6.3.7.5 Future Planning Areas and Needs
Of the major corridors linking the region to the rest of the state, the Eastern Corridor has gone the longest without the benefit of an in-depth analysis. The CCMPO has, therefore, programmed the start of a comprehensive corridor study for US 2 in the FY 2005 work program. This corridor plan will identify deficiencies and recommend solutions for the corridor from Burlington’s Hill Institutions to Williston Town Center. In addition, the following should be closely monitored:
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 95 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Access and mobility along the projected congested sections of US 2 through the Richmond Village planning area, including the need for sidewalks on East Main Street.
• Growth and transportation implications identified in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed interchange at VT 116 and I-89.
• The proposed EIS to expand I-89 to three lanes north from Exit 13.
• The future need to reconstruct Jericho Road in Richmond and link School Street to US 2.
6.3.8 Southern Corridor
6.3.8.1 Primary Travel Movements
The heart of the Southern Corridor is US 7, the main north/south arterial on the western side of the state (see Figure 6-8). US 7 currently is being reconstructed along segments in South Burlington and Shelburne. To a lesser extent, the parallel local roads of Spear and Dorset Streets also provide a north/south route along the western edge of Chittenden County. While US 7 serves the majority of the traffic, and operates at times under congested conditions, the two parallel roads increasingly serve as alternate routes, to the dismay of local officials and neighborhood residents in Shelburne, Charlotte, and South Burlington. As the primary north/south route in western Vermont, US 7 also sees a considerable amount of truck traffic.
Parallel to US 7 is the Vermont Railway’s line. For a short period this line carried passenger service but has returned to its primary role providing freight services to its Burlington yard and moving some cargo to the New England Central line via the Winooski Branch.
Bicyclists are mostly relegated to on-road facilities in this corridor and currently only Spear Street offers adequate shoulder width, albeit in one direction. A parallel shared use path does exist along Dorset Street north from Old Cross Road. Sidewalks are partly in-place along US 7 in South Burlington and the reconstruction project underway south from Imperial Drive will include bicycle lanes and sidewalks allowing safer travel from near Shelburne Village through most of South Burlington.
CCTA’s South End/Shelburne Route serves this corridor with half hour frequencies through South Burlington. Service on to Shelburne is less frequent focusing primarily on morning and afternoon peak hours. Passenger rail service operated briefly here but was terminated in 2003 due to lower than projected ridership. Infrastructure improvements to the line further to the south will extend the capability of potential future rail services into Addison County. Vermont Transit’s intercity bus service operates in this corridor connecting Burlington to Rutland and points further south.
6.3.8.2 Land Use
The trip northward from the Addison County line on US 7 reveals the slow progression of increasing development. In the south, low density residential, and to a lesser extent farms, dominate. This pattern transitions to commercial and institutional uses before entering the traditional village settlement and use pattern of Shelburne Village. Within a mile of leaving the Village the roadway corridor begins to take on the appearance of the familiar commercial strip development, and as one proceeds into South Burlington the density of commercial uses increases as well. Dorset and Spear streets pass through agricultural and rural residential land with the housing density increasing as one gets nearer the Regional Core area. On Dorset Street a golf course and park separate residential areas in South Burlington and on Spear Street there is also golf links.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 96 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-8: Southern Corridor
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 97 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-8 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 98 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Future land development is planned to include more activity within the US 7 corridor through both Shelburne and South Burlington as these are designated Metropolitan or Transition Planning Areas in the Chittenden County Regional Plan. Similarly, the Spear Street corridor straddles both rural and higher density development planning areas so increased development and development densities are planned in the coming years. Dorset Street and US 7 through Charlotte likely will remain low density/rural in character.
6.3.8.3 Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues
The northern end of Shelburne Road (US 7) features some of the region’s highest traffic volumes and is prone to congestion in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Extending the four lane section southward from Imperial Drive to north of Shelburne Village, adding a median, controlling access, and improving signal coordination and traveler information systems—most of which are elements of the current reconstruction project—should improve traffic flow. Most of this improvement project is expected to be completed over the next two to three years. The continued use of Dorset and Spear Streets as US 7 alternatives will exacerbate quality of life issues for the increasing number of households in new and growing neighborhoods located along these roads.
Truck freight traffic adds to the congestion in the US 7 corridor and finding ways to move some of that freight to the parallel rail line could help both congestion levels and wear and tear on the roadway. Though primarily a Regional Core issue, moving the Burlington Railyard out of downtown would also change the truck/rail freight dynamic along Shelburne Road, with unknown potential consequences. Depending on an alternative railyard site and its design, congestion here could be helped or hindered.
The improvements to Shelburne Road will significantly help bicycle and pedestrian travel along the improved sections. However, north of this area bicycling will remain difficult and the sidewalk system will continue to require improvements to enhance walkers’ safety. Any improvements to Spear and Dorset streets should include the needs of bicyclists and walkers in order to encourage the use of these modes.
Without passenger rail, the CCTA South End/Shelburne bus route is the primary public transportation service in the corridor, but its service frequency to Shelburne is limited. The demand to extend service levels further south will increase as development continues and the number of elderly Shelburne residents rises.
While the Southern Corridor moves north/south traffic relatively efficiently, it has long been recognized that east/west movement across the corridor is quite limited and inefficiently connected. As development has increased toward Williston, the need for better east/west connections has become evident. The City of South Burlington has recognized this need and proposed new roadways to address the problem. These connections are planned to coincide with residential developments in the City’s Southeast Quadrant as this area grows. The Town of Williston has expressed concerns regarding the traffic impacts of these connections on their roads and rural residential areas.
6.3.8.4 Corridor Strategies/Projects
While the significant improvement over a substantial length of US 7 will help this corridor more efficiently move people and goods, problem areas will remain. The following will address the longer term issues over the wider corridor:
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 99 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
TDM/ITS/TSM
• Locating and establishing new park and ride facilities at the northern and southern ends of the corridor.
• A new or expanded park and ride in or near Shelburne Village.
• TDM education efforts focused on employers in South Burlington’s US 7 corridor through the potential establishment of a corridor Transportation Management Association.
• Full implementation of ITS technologies along US 7 from Shelburne into Burlington. This project is referred to in the CCMPO’s ITS Project Development Plan as the US 7 Smart Corridor and includes traveler information, signal coordination and traffic detection and control.
• Application of access management techniques along the US 7 corridor, especially within the Village, Transition, and Metropolitan Planning Areas of Charlotte, Shelburne, and South Burlington.
• Intersection improvements at Swift and Spear streets.
Public Transportation
• Bus service, leading to passenger rail service, connecting Addison County to Burlington.
• Increased bus frequencies to Shelburne.
• Commuter shuttle service to Charlotte.
• Rural area demand response service.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• Shared use paths connecting Charlotte to Burlington along or near the rail corridor and Shelburne’s Long Meadow/Webster Road path, to link with South Burlington’s path system.
• On-road bicycle accommodation wherever feasible whenever road rehabilitation or reconstruction takes place, especially along US 7 and Spear Street.
• Sidewalk improvements as identified by municipalities and/or the 2003 Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Update.
6.3.8.5 Future Planning Areas and Needs
This corridor was studied extensively over a brief period in the early nineties starting with a statewide US 7 Corridor project, followed by a rail feasibility study, then an Environmental Assessment of the corridor for a passenger rail project in 1993. A planning study encompassing all of northwestern Vermont will be looking closely at this and the VT 116 corridors in the coming months and will likely conclude with some transportation and land use recommendations. In addition, the following should be monitored or advanced:
• Any further planning related to relocation of the Burlington Railyard and its effects on US 7.
• The performance of new inter- and intra-regional transit services along the corridor.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 100 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• The effectiveness of the Shelburne Road reconstruction project on all modes.
• Progress toward full implementation of the Shelburne Road Smart Corridor ITS investments.
• Traffic increases and potential congestion on Spear and Dorset streets and their impact on South Burlington neighborhoods.
• Project development for the shared use path linking Shelburne’s Long Meadow/Webster Road path to South Burlington’s network.
• Examine the traffic impacts to Shelburne Village following completion of the Shelburne Road reconstruction project as well as examine future long term needs and alternatives to mitigate the impact of increasing US 7 traffic through the village.
6.3.9 Cross County Corridor
6.3.9.1 Primary Travel Movements
The corridors discussed previously either directly link other parts of the region to the Regional Core or primarily feed those corridors. The Cross County Corridor is different. While it feeds other corridors to and from the Regional Core, it also provides links between activity centers separate from and bypassing the Regional Core. The corridor provides connections between points south and the activity and employment centers in Williston, Essex, and Essex Junction, and to the growing residential and mixed use areas of Colchester (see Figure 6-9).
The primary road in the corridor today is VT 2A although when further segments of the Circumferential Highway are completed it is expected that this road will play a more significant role in moving corridor traffic. The existing segments of the Circumferential Highway through Essex and Kellogg Road and Severance Road also form part of the corridor.
Bicyclists at the southern and northern ends of the corridor are confined to on-road travel with varying shoulder widths. From I-89 Exit 12 north through Essex Junction, the shoulder widths are sufficient for bicyclists and some shared use path and sidewalk alternatives are also present. Williston is in the midst of an ambitious project to expand their sidewalk and shared use path networks with much of the investment within and adjacent to this corridor. Essex Junction features a well developed sidewalk network throughout the Village area and Essex Town has addressed bicyclists and pedestrian needs in the recent reconstruction of Kellogg Road.
Current transit service in this corridor is limited to CCTA’s Williston Route that connects Essex Junction to Williston at relatively low frequency levels and in a rather circuitous manner. Although Williston receives CCTA services, the Town, like Colchester, has not joined the transit authority.
A park and ride facility at I-89 Exit 12 was removed several years ago to allow for road widening; however, a significantly larger replacement should soon be in place.
6.3.9.2 Land Use
At the center of this corridor is the region’s most rapidly developing activity center, Williston’s Taft Corners, where retail uses dominate but office and some residential uses also occur. South of I-89 Exit 12 the corridor is rural residential in character all the way to its terminus at VT 116. North of Taft Corners there are higher density residential uses with a short commercial strip just before VT 2A enters Essex
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 101 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Junction Village. The Village, an historic village center that evolved around the intersection of two rail lines in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, features high density residential uses surrounding a tight village core commercial district. The VT 2A corridor to its northern terminus at US 2/7 is residential with a scattered mix of commercial uses, followed by a mix of uses through Colchester Village. The Circumferential Highway, a limited access roadway, traverses rural lands from VT 117 to Essex Center where it provides access to the growing activity center, then crosses more open space before ending at VT 2A. The short extension connecting to Susie Wilson Road is also limited access. Kellogg Road features commercial uses, but the character changes once into Colchester and onto Severance Road, where lower density residential uses primarily dominate.
Future land use development likely will see significant changes in intensity along the central and northern parts of this corridor through Williston north of I-89, Essex, Essex Junction and into Colchester. Most of the new development in this corridor will focus in four areas: Taft Corners, infill and redevelopment in Essex Junction’s core, continued growth in the Essex Center area, and the new mixed use growth area at the Severance Road/US 7 intersection in Colchester. South of I-89, the corridor’s land use pattern and development density should see little change.
6.3.9.3 Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues
The pace and scale of growth in the Taft Corners area will lead to congested roads, most notably on VT 2A from Marshall Avenue south through I-89 Exit 12. Exit 12 is undergoing a project development study and will have improvements recommended and hopefully implemented over the next decade. The functionality of VT 2A here will require study as well. Circumferential Highway Segments A and B through Williston have been assumed to be in place for this MTP’s technical analysis. Though delayed, implementation of this project remains crucial to meeting this corridor’s future traffic demands. The Circumferential Highway’s westward segments will similarly be needed to address this corridor’s, as well as the region’s, needs.
Road projects alone will not sufficiently address the congestion problems here. Increasing transit frequencies, connecting the transit to new park and ride facilities, building more sidewalks and other bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and introducing ITS and TSM at critical locations, will also contribute to more efficient use of the corridor. Better control over curb cuts to VT 2A (access management) will help reduce conflicts and contribute to roadway efficiency and safety. Without a multimodal and system management approach, the development growth here could eventually overwhelm VT 2A.
The IBM Campus in Essex Junction and Williston will experience significant congestion on its VT 2A and Redmond Road access roads. These conditions should be addressed through employer based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) initiatives. A TDM program for Taft Corners employers is also anticipated in order to reduce the number of peak hour work trips to and from this area.
6.3.9.4 Corridor Strategies/Projects
The list below identifies the projects and transportation strategies designed to address the corridor’s transportation needs.
TDM/ITS/TSM
• New park and ride facilities in the following location: at the VT 2A intersections with VT 116 and the Circumferential Highway; at the Circumferential Highway intersections with Mountainview Road, VT 117, and VT 15; and, at the Severance Road/US 2/7 intersection.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 102 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Figure 6-9: Cross-County Corridor
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 103 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Figure 6-9 Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 104 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
• The Circumferential Highway Advanced Traffic Management System featuring incident detection, traffic controls, and traveler information.
• Transportation System Management (TSM) projects to improve the following VT 2A intersections: I- 89 Exit 12, Mountainview Road, Rivercove Road, Five Corners, East Road, and US 7.
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) education efforts targeted to the Taft Corners area and the continuation of existing TDM efforts at IBM through the potential establishment of Transportation Management Associations.
• Access management along VT 2A from I-89 Exit 12 to Essex Junction.
Public Transportation
• Increased bus service frequencies between the Taft Corners area and Essex Junction.
• Rural area demand response service.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements
• New shared use paths paralleling VT 2A from Marshall Avenue to the Five Corners, along the Circumferential Highway from VT 117 to VT 2A, and along Kellogg Road and Severance Road.
• On-road bicycle accommodation wherever feasible in conjunction with road rehabilitation or reconstruction projects especially along VT 2A and Severance Road.
• Sidewalk improvements as identified by municipalities and/or the 2003 Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan Update.
Roadway Improvements/Expansions
• VT 2A from Old Creamery Road to Exit 12.
• Complete Circumferential Highway segments G and H in Essex and Colchester.
6.3.9.5 Future Planning Areas and Needs
The VT 2A corridor from Exit 12 to Essex Junction was the subject of a detailed 2003 consultant report that specified a number of multimodal improvements. To the north through Colchester, this road is slated for reconstruction and no congestion problems are anticipated over the span of this MTP. The only part of the VT 2A corridor that bears further analysis at this time is the segment south of Exit 12 where the CCMPO’s travel demand model projects significant congestion by 2025.
The pace and intensity of growth around Taft Corners should prompt planning for new transit services that not only link this area to Burlington and Essex Junction at higher frequencies, but provide service to the adjoining neighborhoods and commercial areas as well.
6.4 Summary
The corridor approach to transportation system description and solutions was selected due to its simplicity and logical, systematic method. Traffic flow is easiest explained using this approach and multimodal
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 105 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
strategies are easily presented and understood as solutions. This methodology also was previously used in the CCMPO’s 1997 Long Range Transportation Plan.
Each corridor featured a short description of its travel movements, the land use patterns (current and future planned) within the corridor, and the major transportation issues facing each. Each of the MTP’s recommended projects and strategies was then identified by the corridor to which they apply. Each corridor discussion concluded with the identification of outstanding planning issues that need to be monitored in the future.
Identifying what needs to happen, and in which corridor, is only part or the MTP’s task. Finding ways to make the recommended projects and strategies actually materialize is the subject of the next chapter – plan implementation.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 106 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION
The first part of this chapter describes the fiscal resources that have been identified for MTP implementation, reiterates the limits of these resources expected over the 25 years of the MTP, pairs the MTP strategies and projects with their estimated costs, and concludes with some specific implementation strategies. The second part identifies and describes a number of MTP related issues that need to be taken into consideration as the MTP recommendations are implemented over time. The final section describes a method of monitoring MTP performance and progress over the coming years.
7.1 Financial Plan
7.1.1 Review of Financial Resources
As described in Chapter 4, Federal regulations require that the investments recommended by the MTP be financially realistic. There must be a reasonable relationship between the plan and the level of funding that can realistically be anticipated over the life of the plan. Funding for capital investments comes primarily from three sources: federal, state and local governments. The federal government—through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)—normally supplies 80 percent of the funding. For highway projects, a combination of state and local funds typically pays for the remaining 20 percent. Most transit programs receive the 20 percent match from local sources.
Federal Sources of Funding
Table 7-1 below identifies each of the federal funding sources applicable to the CCMPO region and how they are allocated. The CCMPO must concur with these allocations by identifying the projects funded from these sources in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
State Sources of Funding
• Transportation Capital Program – primarily from motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle registrations and fees.
• The General Fund – the main source of funding for all state programs. Primary revenue sources include the income, rooms and meals, and sales taxes.
Local Sources of Funding
• Local property tax revenues.
• Special financing such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
• Transportation impact fees.
Private Sources
• Transportation improvements constructed by or paid for by developers to mitigate the transportation impacts of their developments.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 107 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Fiscal Limitations
Chapter 4 also analyzed the financial resources expected to be available over the time horizon of this MTP. The CCMPO’s jurisdiction over planning, programming and prioritization of transportation projects is primarily limited to those projects receiving funds through the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations. Therefore, the “fiscal constraint” level associated with the MTP reflects the estimated 25-year amount of federal transportation funds (from FHWA and FTA sources) plus required non-federal matching funds. On this basis an estimated total of $1.047 billion (federal plus non-federal match) is forecast to be available for CCMPO programming purposes over the 25-year planning period of the MTP.
Table 7-1 Federal Funding Sources for Transportation Federal Source Allocating Organization VT General Assembly/Governor, based on VTrans Interstate Maintenance Recommendations VT General Assembly/Governor, based on VTrans National Highway System (NHS) Recommendations VT General Assembly/Governor, based on VTrans Surface Transportation Program (STP) Recommendations VT General Assembly/Governor, based on VTrans STP Safety funds Recommendations VT General Assembly/Governor, based on VTrans STP Enhancement funds Recommendations VT General Assembly/Governor, based on VTrans Bridge programs Recommendations Congressional earmarks US Congress Urbanized Area Formula Program (transit) FTA Transit Capital Program grants FTA VT General Assembly/Governor, based on VTrans FTA Section 5310 Program Recommendations VT General Assembly/Governor, based on VTrans Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Recommendations Recreational Trails funds VTrans, through the VT Agency of Natural Resources
7.1.2 System Preservation Costs
The MTP must include a financial section that estimates how much funding will be available over the life of the plan, as detailed in Chapter 4. In addition, funding sources for each project in the plan must be identified, including the resources needed for the maintenance and operation of the existing transportation system. In order to do this we estimated the costs of keeping the existing system in good operational
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 108 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
condition. Table 7-2 identifies the costs associated with the maintenance needs of our transportation system’s three major components, roads, bridges, and bus transit.
Allocating $572 million to maintain our existing system is a high priority and was subtracted from the total funds of $1.047 billion in order to determine the funds available to implement the various projects and strategies the MTP recommends. Also needed to come out of the total is the cost to implement the projects already committed to in the CCMPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This TIP cost is $150 million and includes completion of several major road projects such as Circumferential Highway Segments A and B, completion of the Champlain Parkway, and the reconstruction of Shelburne Road.
Table 7-2 Estimated Order of Magnitude Cost to Preserve the Existing Transportation System 2000-2025 (Federal, State, and Local Funds) System Millions Highways $ 276 Bridges $ 148 Bus Transit $ 96 Sub-Total $ 520 10% Contingency $ 52 Total $ 572
7.1.3 Funds allocated to key priorities
The total funding available for new projects and programs is calculated in Table 7-3 below.
Table 7-3 Funds Available for New Projects Financial Constraints Millions Total available $ 1,047 System Preservation $ 572 Committed Projects $ 150 Remaining Total $ 325
Table 7-4 identifies the allocations recommended to the broad MTP categories. These costs and their allocations are based on CCMPO Board decisions in December 2002 when the various strategic elements were discussed. Those decisions form the constituent elements of the MTP and are described broadly in Section 5.6, and in more detail by transportation corridor in Chapter 6.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 109 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Table 7-4 2025 MTP Capital Costs by Category Capital Cost Component (millions) System Preservation $572 TIP Projects $150 TDM/TSM/ITS $15 Transit $55 Arterial Road Projects $77 Connector Roads $5 Interstate and Freeway Projects $120 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan - Shared Use Paths $39 Sidewalks $14 Total Capital Costs $ 1,047
7.1.4 Key Projects and Programs
Table 7-4 allocates funding to broad categories while Table 7-5 provides more detail by assigning costs to individual projects. The intent of this table is to present all of the MTP’s recommended projects and strategies on one page for easy review. Projects are grouped by type, and information on corridor, location, description, and cost are identified for each. In addition, explanatory notes are added to some items to provide additional detail or important background information. This is as comprehensive a list of the recommended projects and strategies needed to address the County’s transportation needs through 2025 as we can assemble. However, projects not explicitly identified are part of the MTP as well. These could include transit operating and capital projects to expand service levels and service areas, passenger amenities, and inter-modal facilities, as well as projects in support of alternative fuels. Funding for these may come from sources such as Job Access, CMAQ, Transportation, Community and System Preservation program (TCSP), STP or NHS transfers, or congressional earmarks.
7.1.5 Projects Beyond Financial Constraint
Not all projects are accounted for in Table 7-5. For example, CCTA’s total capital needs are not reflected there. Other projects, while identified in Table 7-5, exceed the budgeted amounts allocated in Table 7-4.
Some projects, often due to their high cost, will need funding from other sources in order to move forward. Specifically, the needs for arterial improvements, transit expansion, and more park and ride facilities, exceed the funding levels identified in Table 7-4. For example, Table 7-5 identifies $71 million in future transit expansion capital costs while Table 7-4 reveals only $55 million allocated to transit.
In addition, the costs to build the intercept park and ride facilities, likely in excess if $20 million, are not accounted for in the MTP. Table 7-5 also notes a total of $240 million in arterial road needs, while only $77 million is available and assigned to project priorities, as shown in Table 7-4. Funding for some of these transit, park and ride and arterial road projects will most likely come from Congressional earmarks
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 110 Estimated Corridor Location Project Capital Cost Community Comments ($m) Arterial Projects Northern VT 127 Heineberg Drive $3.4 Colchester Cross County VT 2A I-89 Exit 12 to Old Creamery Road $4.4 Williston Eastern US 2 I-89 Exit 11 through Village $10.3 Richmond Northern US 7 W. Milton Road to Bombardier $6.4 Milton Eastern US 2 Millham Court to Industrial Ave $2.9 South Burlington-Williston Eastern Industrial Ave US 2 to VT 2A $4.9 Williston Northeast VT 15 Lee River Rd. to Underhill Flats $13.7 Jericho Northeast VT 15 Sand Hill Road to Circ Highway $8.8 Essex Town Route 116 VT 116 Cheese Factory Road to I-89 $9.8 So. Burlington Portion of actual cost estimate - balance of funding in Regional Core Champlain Pkwy Champlain Parkway $14.0 Burlington committed projects. Eastern US 2 Maple Tree Place to No. Williston Road Willliston $10.3m - Pending Additional Funding Eastern VT 117 Sand Hill Road to Circ Highway Essex Town $4.4m - Pending Additional Funding Eastern Corridor US 2 Maple Tree Place to No. & So.Brownell Willliston $4.4m - Pending Additional Funding Northern US 7 Catamount Industrial Park to US 2 Milton-Colchester $4.9m - Pending Additional Funding Northern US 7 Tigan St to Severance Corners Winooski-Colchester $13.2m - Pending Additional Funding Northern US 2 I-89 Exit 17 to County Line Milton-Colchester $27.4m - Pending Additional Funding Route 116 VT 116 Shelburne Falls Rd to So. Brownell Hinesburg-Shelburne-St. George $26.5m - Pending Additional Funding Eastern Mountain View Redmond Road to VT 2A Williston $8.8m - Pending Additional Funding Cross County VT 2A Industrial Ave to Five Corners Williston-Essex Junction $8.8m - Pending Additional Funding Eastern VT 117 Barber Farm Road to No. Williston Rd Jericho-Essex Town $8.8m - Pending Additional Funding Eastern Corridor US 2 Richmond Village to Jonesville Richmond $14.2m - Pending Additional Funding Route 116 Silver St VT 116 to Monkton T/L Hinesburg $16.7m - Pending Additional Funding Northeast VT 128 VT 15 to Westford T/L Essex Town $10.3m - Pending Additional Funding Eastern Williston Rd I-89 Exit 14 to VT 116 South Burlington $2.5m - Pending Additional Funding TOTAL ARTERIALS $78.7 Cost est=congested length x $4.9M $161.2 million - total projects without funding Connector Projects Eastern Airport Drive Airport Drive Extension to Airport Parkway $2.1 So. Burlington Eastern VT 116/Kimball VT 116 to Marshall Ave $3.2 Williston - So. Burlington Eastern Old Cross Rd Old Cross Road between Dorset and VT 116 $0.0 So. Burlington Local Responsibility Eastern Swift St Swift Street extension between Dorset and VT 116 $0.0 So. Burlington Local Responsibility Eastern Mary St Mary Street between Market St & Williston Rd $0.0 So. Burlington Local Responsibility TOTAL CONNECTORS $5.3 Bike/Pedestrian Projects Countywide Various Sidewalk Projects $14.0 County-wide Northern Milton Center Path Milton Path, Colchester line to Village $4.1 Colchester -Milton Shared Use Path Northern Causeway Causeway $1.5 Colchester Improvements to existing facility Northern VT 127/Prim Rd. Parallel Path Lakeshore Dr. - Winooski River/Burlington $0.9 Colchester-Burlington Shared Use Path Northern VT 127/Blakely Road Prim Road - US 2/7 $1.4 Colchester " Northern Mallets Bay Ave. Path Blakely Road - Winooski $1.1 Colchester " Northern Colchester Bike Path US 7/2 - VT 127/Mallets Bay Ave. $0.4 Colchester " Northern US 7/2 Parallel Path Milton - VT 127 $1.2 Milton - Colchester " Northern Severance Rd. Parallel Path US 7/2 - Essex $0.8 Colchester - Essex " Northern Mallets Bay Ave. Path Colchester - Winooski Center $0.3 Colchester - Winooski Center " Route 15 West VT 15 Parallel Path Winooski - Essex Center $0.3 Colchester " Northeast VT 15 VT 15 Path $2.1 Essex - Essex Junction " Cross County Essex - Colchester Connector Colchester - Susie Wilson Road $0.2 Colchester - Essex " Cross County Circ Hwy Parallel Path Severance Rd. - Essex $0.4 Colchester - Essex " Cross County Circ Hwy Parallel Path VT 2A - VT 117 $2.0 Essex - Colchester " Cross County VT 15 - Circ Highway Path VT 15 - Circ Highway Path $0.7 Essex Center - Essex Junction " Cross County VT 2A Parallel Path Five Corners - Winooski River/Williston $0.2 Essex Junction " Cross County VT 2A Path from River Cove Road to Winooski River $1.3 Williston " Cross County Essex - Williston Village Path VT 2A - Williston Center $0.9 Williston " Northeast Essex - Jericho Path Essex Center/VT 15 - Jericho $1.0 Essex Center - Jericho " Northeast Essex Center Path Butlers Corner to Essex Center $0.4 Essex " Northeast Jericho Center Path VT 15 - Jericho Center $1.3 Jericho " Route 116 Hinesburg Village Path Hinesburg Village to On Road Facilities $0.2 Hinesburg " Eastern Cross Vermont Trail US 2 - Williston Rd/Cochran Road $1.0 Richmond " Eastern Muddy Brook Williston to So. Burlington – So. Brownell Road to Kennedy Dr $1.2 Williston - So. Burlington " Eastern Swift St/Muddy Brook Path US 7 - Interstate 89 $0.8 South Burlington - Williston " Eastern US 2 Parallel Path UVM - VT 116 $0.5 Burlington - So. Burlington " Eastern US 2 - Lime Kiln Bridge Path US 2 - Winooski River $0.7 South Burlington - Winooski " Eastern Taft Corner Connector VT 2A - Williston Center Path $0.3 Williston " Eastern Williston Center - Richmond Path Williston Center - US 2/Williston $1.5 Williston - Richmond " Regional Core Intervale/Ethan Allen Homestead VT 127 - Winooski $0.4 Colchester-Burlington-Winooski " Regional Core Champlain Parkway Maple St - Austin Dr $0.9 Burlington - So. Burlington " Regional Core Colchester Avenue UVM campus to Winooski River Bridge $0.2 UVM - Winooski " Regional Core Rail with Trail Path Winooski - Intervale/Burlington $0.3 Winooski - Intervale/Burlington " Southern Shelburne-So. Burl. Conn. Path Mid-City Connector - Shelburne $0.9 South Burlington - Shelburne " Southern Shelburne Path Shelburne Path, Village north along Webster Road $2.2 Shelburne " Southern South Burlington Champlain Path (Partial – South Burlington segment) $1.4 So. Burlington " Southern Shelburne to Charlotte Champlain Path $2.1 Shelburne/Charlotte " Southern Shelburne to South Burlington Champlain Path $1.2 Shelburne/Charlotte " Southern Burlington-So. Burlington Path So. Burl.-Burlington connection across US7 along Queen City Park Rd $0.6 So. Burlington -Burlington " TOTAL BIKE/PEDESTRIAN $52.8 All projects are from the 2003 Bike/Ped Plan Interstate Projects Northern I-89 I-89 Exit at West Milton Road $10.7 Milton Cross County Circ Segments G & H of Circumferential Highway $40.9 Essex-Colchester To include 2 park and ride facilities Cross County Circ Segments I & J of Circumferential Highway $22.6 Colchester Northern I-89 Widen I-89 to 3 Lanes - Exit 13 north to Circ Highway interchange $14.6 South Burlington -Milton Eastern I-89 Reconstruct Exit 12 $5.0 Williston Eastern I-89 Reconstruct Exit 14 $5.0 So. Burlington To include a park and ride facility Eastern I-89/VT116 New Interchange at I-89/VT 116 $13.9 So. Burlington To include a park and ride facility TOTAL INTERSTATE $112.7 TDM/TSM/ITS Projects Northern US 2, US 7, VT 15 Corridors - UTMS $0.8 Burl, So. Burl, Winooski, Colch, Essex Urban Traffic Management System, ITS Northern I-89 Exit 16 Park & Ride $1.0 Colchester TDM Northern VT 127 Park & Ride at Heineberg Bridge $1.0 Colchester TDM Route 15 West VT 15 VT 15 Corridor - ITS Improvements $0.6 Essex-Colchester-Winooski ITS Northeastern VT 15, CCCH P&R Lot – Lang Farm $0.5 Essex TDM Eastern I-89/189 I-89 Exits 12-16 & I-89/189 ATMS $0.8 Williston-S.Burl-Winooski-Colch. Advanced Traffic Management Systems, ITS Earmark funding anticipated (not accounted for in fiscal Eastern I-89 Exit 14 Intercept/Satellite Park & Ride Facility $0.0 So. Burlington constraint total). Eastern I-89 Exit 11 Expanded Park & Ride $1.0 Richmond Expand existing facility Southern US 7 US Route 7 Shelburne Road Smart Corridor $0.9 Shelburne-So. Burlington ITS investments Southern US 7 US Route 7 Shelburne Rd Smart Corridor - Northern Extension $0.6 Burlington ITS Regional Core Burlington Champlain Parkway - ATMS $0.5 Burlington Advanced Traffic Management Systems, ITS Cross County Circ Circ Highway Segments A-F - ATMS $0.5 Williston-Essex-Colchester Advanced Traffic Management Systems, ITS Earmark funding anticipated (not accounted for in fiscal Regional Core Lakeside Ave and Champlain Pkwy Intercept/Satellite Park & Ride Facility $0.0 Burlington constraint total). Earmark funding anticipated (not accounted for in fiscal Route 15 West VT 15/Barnes Ave. Intercept/Satellite Park & Ride Facility $0.0 Colchester constraint total). Countywide Various Regional Traveler & Tourism Information System (County-wide) $0.4 Countywide ITS Countywide TBD Traffic Management Information Center $0.4 Countywide ITS Countywide Employment Centers Employer Programs $1.0 Various Locations See Figure 5-4 - TDM Countywide Various Minor Intersection Improvements $5.3 Various Locations See Figure 5-5 - TSM ITS projects from 2002 ITS Plan, Park & Rides from TOTAL TDM/TSM/ITS $15.3 2004 P&R Plan Transit Projects High Frequency Transit Connections from 1996 Regional Core Tri-Center Transit Tri-center Transit Recommendations $18.4 Burlington-So. Burlington - Winooski conclusion of LRT studies Route 15 West VT 15 Burlington-Essex Commuter Rail $25.7 Burlington-Essex From Corrdidor Alternatives Analysis report Countywide Expand Rail to Surrounding Counties $17.6 Franklin, Addison, Washington Cntys. Countywide Transit ITS $2.9 CCTA Service Area ITS Countywide Expand Bus Service $6.2 County-wide NOTE: Projects exceeding the $55 million allocated to TOTAL TRANSIT $70.8 transit (see Table 7-4) are pending the availability of additional funds.
Table 7-5 Projects and Programs Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Back
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 112 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
expressly appropriated to the projects. Should special funding through Congressional earmarks not occur, the costs to implement these improvements will need to compete with other projects via the normal funding sources, especially the Surface Transportation Program (STP). Should additional funding not become available, those projects beyond the fiscal constraint levels will not be funded. Note that Chittenden County has demonstrated some past success in garnering earmarks, especially for inter-modal facilities and transit projects.
7.1.6 The Dilemma of Transit Operations Funding
Achieving Chittenden County’s public transit goals requires development of alternative means of operations funding that would ease the burden on local governments and allow expansion of transit services statewide. The current funding structure relies too heavily on the local property tax and discourages new municipal members with financial impediments to joining. Over one third of the costs of operating CCTA comes from local property tax payers in CCTA’s member municipalities.
The CCMPO and CCTA have been working to reform the public transit operating financing problem for several years. The latest effort, undertaken by an appointed task force, proposes to create a new Regional Transit District with authority to levy taxes within areas served by transit. This model could be replicated statewide. Legislative changes will be required to make this happen, but without new money and governance structure it is likely that the transit service expansion plans identified in this MTP will be hampered.
7.1.7 Implementation Strategies
The CCMPO Board, CCTA, and VTrans will use the MTP in the following ways:
• The CCMPO will use the MTP to guide development of future Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWP). Work program tasks should be defined to further develop the projects and programs recommended in the MTP. For example, scoping (or project development) activities in the UPWP will directly correspond to MTP recommendations.
• Adherence to the MTP will be a primary factor in the project prioritization system/model the CCMPO will develop. See the prioritization discussion on page 120.
• The CCMPO Board and VTrans will use the MTP during the development of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Projects and programs identified in the TIP must conform to the MTP under Federal rule. Projects scoped under the UPWP proceed next into the TIP where its implementation schedule is more precisely defined.
• CCMPO members, including VTrans, will use the MTP in advising the Legislature and Congress of the region’s short-term and long-term transportation funding needs and priorities.
• CCTA’s short and long range plans are directly reflected in the MTP thereby assuring new transit projects seeking State or Federal funding can proceed.
• VTrans’ administration of the Enhancement and Bicycle/Pedestrian Programs should continue to include application requirements that demonstrate a proposed Chittenden County project’s conformance with the MTP.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 113 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
7.2 Other Key Issues
The MTP has several prescribed elements identified in Federal rules. However, there are other issues relevant to regional long-term transportation planning that also merit MTP discussion. These issues include:
• The critical role of land use in transportation planning,
• Additional applications of the MTP,
• Potential new implementation tools,
• Air quality concerns,
• How the MTP affects our neighbors,
• The long term implications of a growing MPO area,
• The role of a project prioritization system, and
• A system to measure MTP success.
7.2.1 The Critical Role of Land Use in Transportation Planning
Land use and land development, in terms of its type, intensity, and location, has a profound effect on our transportation system. This was clearly borne out in the analysis of alternatives described in Chapter 5 where it was found that “…the single most important component to improving transportation system performance is to move toward a land use pattern based on concentrated development…” The concentration of development in locally designated areas, when properly designed, enhance a sense of community, reduce transportation system investment, lessen region-wide congestion, yet still accommodate population growth and expanded economic development opportunities.
While the projects and strategies recommended in the MTP will play their role in addressing future transportation needs, concentrating more development in smaller designated areas will improve the transportation system even more. Therefore, the most important recommendation of this MTP is for our member municipalities and the CCRPC to plan for concentrated development centers and to undertake the necessary actions to implement those plans. This recommendation is closely aligned with the first goal of the Vermont Planning Statute: “To plan development so as to maintain the historic settlement pattern of compact village and urban centers separated by rural countryside.”
The implementation of land use plans does not flow from the MTP. Land use planning and development decisions are primarily made at the local level through municipal land development ordinances—zoning and subdivision regulations. Some larger scale development proposals are reviewed under the State’s Act 250 process. (See further discussion of Act 250 below.) One way for the CCMPO to assist in implementing concentrated development centers is by giving priority to projects that support these designated centers. This should be a criterion in the project prioritization system to be developed by the CCMPO—a tool further discussed later in this chapter.
The MTP also could be applied during the CCRPC’s confirmation of the municipal planning process or municipal plan approval process. These CCRPC reviews include consistency with the Chittenden County Regional Plan, which includes the MTP. The CCRPC staff also could encourage their member
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 114 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
municipalities to utilize their authority to adopt Official Maps to designate planned transportation rights- of-way. A recent publication of the CCRPC (March 2002), Transit Oriented Design (TOD) for Chittenden County, also offers land use and other guidelines to enhance and improve the efficiency of transit services. This document should be utilized by private developers and local governments to help implement land uses that focus on supporting local public transportation services.
7.2.2 The MTP/Act 250 Relationship
Proposed land development that exceeds certain threshold levels may need, in addition to local approvals, a land use permit from the state. These permits come under Vermont’s land use and development law, Act 250.
Any project requiring an Act 250 permit, that is determined to have any type of substantial regional impact, will be evaluated by CCRPC under Act 250’s criterion #10, to assess the proposed development’s conformance with the Chittenden County Regional Plan (i.e., the 2001Chittenden County Regional Plan adopted by CCRPC). When the CCRPC incorporates the MTP into its Regional Plan as the transportation element (per the November 2000 MOU between the organizations), then the MTP gains status under Act 250 and projects of regional impact will need to conform. Proposed projects will then be partly judged by how they conform with the MTP.
7.2.3 Land Use – Transportation Decision Support System (DSS)
The Chittenden County Land Use – Transportation Decision Support System (DSS) is a collaborative effort between the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) and CCMPO. The DSS software is a planning tool that provides local citizens and policy makers with enhanced tools to examine the relationships between land use and transportation. This is accomplished through detailed analysis and modeling of the interrelationships between transportation infrastructure and land use and development patterns, particularly housing and employment. The DSS functions at two very distinct levels:
1. DSS Snapshot examines selected property parcels at a defined point in time. This type of analysis is appropriate at the site plan level of analysis. CCRPC has provided training to several municipalities on the use of DSS Snapshot software.
2. DSS Forecast analyzes a regional land use and transportation scenario over a multi-year period. This type of analysis is suitable for examining regionally significant projects at a sketch planning level. The forecast is performed by dividing Chittenden County into a square grid of analysis cells, which are typically between 20 and 200 acres, depending on the level of detail necessary. The user provides information on future changes in the transportation system and other infrastructure along with Countywide totals for expected housing and employment growth over the analysis period. The DSS Forecast software then allocates the future housing and employment growth with a detailed methodology that accounts for transportation accessibility, municipal land use plans, municipal infrastructure, environmental constraints, and other associated factors.
More information on the DSS Snapshot and Forecast is available on the CCMPO website at: http://www.ccmpo.org/activities/Modeling/dss.html
CCMPO will continue working with the CCRPC on the application of the DSS software in relevant planning processes. CCRPC currently is working on the multi-region collaborative, the Northwest Vermont planning project, which will include DSS Forecast analyses of land use policies in the VT 116 and US 7 (south of Interstate-89) corridors. This will be the first large-scale application of the DSS
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 115 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
software, and CCMPO will work with CCRPC in support of this project. Objectives for the Northwest Vermont project include the following:
1. Identification of the potential patterns of growth within each corridor.
2. Evaluation of current policies within these corridors to provide information in support of effective planning for anticipated growth.
3. Development of land use planning tools to assist with the implementation of smart growth principles.
Future applications of the DSS software include the possible use of the software in CCMPO/CCRPC planning studies and the next updates of the CCRPC Regional Plan and the CCMPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan. For example, the DSS Forecast could be used to study interactions between the CCRPC Regional Plan land use recommendations and the CCMPO transportation plan. Results from this analysis could then be used to suggest changes to the MTP and Regional Plan to increase the consistency of goals and recommendations between the two plans.
While the DSS Snapshot and Forecast software provide additional information on land use and transportation connections, the DSS is not able to predict the future. With careful and informed interpretation of the results, the DSS Forecast provides another tool for decision-makers as they consider long term plans.
7.2.4 Air Quality and the MTP
The Clean Air Act is the comprehensive Federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), and the 1977 and 1990 CAA amendments, was established “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population” (42 U.S.C. s/s 7401).
An important link was made between transportation planning and air quality with the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). These regulations are intended to ensure that integrated transportation and air quality planning occurs in areas where air quality standards are not met.
In response to the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency established health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six air pollutants: particulate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Areas that fail to meet the NAAQS are designated “non-attainment” and are required to develop plans to come into compliance with the standards.
Chittenden County, as well as the entire state of Vermont, is currently an air quality attainment area for all six criteria pollutants.
For states that fail to meet the NAAQS, the CAA requires that a State Implementation Plan (SIP) be developed that addresses each pollutant for which the state fails to meet the air quality standards. The SIP is a collection of regulations the state will use to clean up polluted air. SIPs are based on emissions inventories and computer models to determine whether air quality violations will occur.
Further, for states that do not meet the NAAQS, transportation improvement programs (TIPs) developed by MPOs, must conform to the SIP. Specifically, the TIP must result in emissions consistent with those allowed in the SIP. The TIP is a multi-year prioritized list of projects proposed to be funded or approved
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 116 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
by FHWA or FTA. Since the TIP must also be consistent with the MTP, the MTP must be consistent with the air quality goals in the SIP.
The policy board of the MPO, in areas that do not meet the NAAQS, must formally make a conformity determination on its transportation plan and TIP prior to submitting them to the U.S. Department of Transportation for an independent review and conformity determination. The key components of the conformity determination include regional emissions analysis and project level analysis. Project level emissions analysis (also known as hot spot analysis) applies to carbon monoxide and particulate matter concentrations.
In addition, conformity determinations must be made as part of the review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FHWA/FTA funded projects must be found to conform to the SIP before they are adopted, accepted, approved or funded. With some exceptions, transportation projects must conform to the following criteria:
• They must come from a conforming transportation plan and TIP.
• The design concept and scope of the project that was in place at the time of the conformity finding must be maintained through implementation.
• The project design concept and scope must be sufficiently defined to determine emissions at the time of the conformity determination.
Transportation conformity is a way to ensure that Federal funding and approval goes to those transportation activities that are consistent with the NAAQS. Conformity applies to transportation plans, TIPs and projects funded or approved by FHWA or FTA in areas that do not meet, or previously have not met, air quality standards for various pollutants. A conformity determination demonstrates that the total emissions projected for a plan or program are within the emissions limits (“budgets”) established by the SIP, and that transportation pollution control measures are implemented in a timely fashion.
CCMPO will continue monitoring regional air quality for conformance with the standards. Maintaining conformity with the standards is our goal.
7.2.5 MTP Impacts on Adjoining Regions
When implemented, the MTP recommendations will affect our neighboring counties. New transit services into these regions and road projects at the periphery of Chittenden County will bring impacts. The need for interregional transit and road projects at or near our county lines is the result of Chittenden County’s role as the primary driver of the State’s economy. Our population, number of jobs, economic growth, and share of Vermont’s tax revenue generation clearly indicate this region’s dominant role. With that growth has come higher real estate costs that force some workers to find affordable housing outside the county. This in turn places greater demands on the transportation infrastructure bringing more and more people and goods into Chittenden County.
Over the 25 years of this Plan, new inter-regional transit services—most likely bus leading eventually to passenger rail—will be in place connecting to most, if not all, of the neighboring counties. Service to Franklin and Addison Counties will begin in the near term and new service connecting Lamoille County is in the planning stages. CCTA already serves travel to and from Washington County and this service, along with the Addison and Franklin County buses will eventually lead to passenger rail service from those areas.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 117 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
The number of likely road projects directly impacting our adjoining regions will be few. However, congestion and safety issues will prompt the CCMPO and our neighbors to work collaboratively on solutions. The potential problem areas include US 2 from Colchester out to the causeway to South Hero. Growing population in the Islands will stress this road’s capacity prompting an analysis on ways to fix the problem. US 7 between Milton and Georgia may also see congestion problems by 2025, although the proposed new I-89 interchange in Milton would noticeably reduce the impact. The only other potential congestion issue at Chittenden County’s border is along the collector road of Silver Street between Monkton and Hinesburg. This road has long been recognized for safety deficiencies and it will be compounded by too many vehicles as well by 2025. Strategies to address the congestion and safety concerns will be considered in the interim and this project should be a joint effort of the CCMPO and the Addison County Regional Planning Commission.
Park and ride facilities will also play a role in providing inter-regional and intermodal transportation opportunities in the future. New facilities are planned in Grand Isle County, Franklin County and Addison County, as well as new or expanded facilities in Washington County. These lots, while impacting local traffic conditions, can help reduce local, regional, and statewide SOV use. They are an important element is the statewide transportation network and should not be seen as benefiting one area at the expense of any other.
A potential inter-state transportation issue is the consequence should the Charlotte to Essex, New York or Burlington to Port Kent, New York ferries become regularly scheduled and predictable year-round services. As the Champlain Valley grows, these routes can be expected to increase services as well. Commuting to and from both sides of the Lake could impact the terminal and road facilities supporting these services.
7.2.6 Implications of an Expanded MPO Region
As we look into the future, we must consider the eventuality that the CCMPO will become a multi-county transportation planning organization. Since the MTP has a horizon year of at least twenty years, the planning area should include at least the projected urbanized area twenty years into the future.
In analyzing Vermont, a case can be made that the Northwest corner of the state forms an economic entity regardless of the county boundaries. People live in one county and work in another. Table 7-6 shows the major changes in worker flow between Chittenden and its adjacent counties. Chittenden County is a major destination for shopping because of the major retail facilities located here. In addition, due to the location and role of Fletcher Allen Health Care, more than 25 percent of the patients of that facility are from outside Chittenden County.
The geographic area of the MPO is defined both by federal law and through an agreement between the MPO and the Governor. First, under federal law, 23USC Section 134 (b)(1), “To carry out the transportation planning process required by this section, a metropolitan planning organization shall be designated for each urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000 individuals.” CCMPO was originally made up of only the urban municipalities of Burlington, Colchester, Essex, Essex Junction, Milton, Shelburne, South Burlington, Williston, and Winooski. Later, by agreement between CCMPO and the Governor, the area was expanded to include all of Chittenden County, adding the nine rural towns to the MPO planning area.
Another planning area addressed in federal law is the Transportation Management Area (TMA – briefly discussed earlier on page 5 and not to be confused with Transportation Management Associations). Title 23 134 (i) states the designation of a new TMA is based on the Urbanized Area population of 200,000 or
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 118 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
greater. The only other way to designate a new TMA is by a joint request from the governor and the MPO. Specifically the language is as follows:
(i) Transportation Management Areas.-- (1) Designation.-- (A) Required designations.--The Secretary shall designate as a transportation management area each urbanized area with a population of over 200,000 individuals. (B) Designations on request.--The Secretary shall designate any additional area as a transportation management area on the request of the Governor and the metropolitan planning organization designated for the area.
Table 7- 6 Inter-County Travel 1990 – 2000: Major increases in worker flow 2000 Trips From 2000 Trips To County Number % Change Number % Change 1990-2000 1990-2000 Addison County 3,969 43 935 32 Franklin County 7,297 44 1,126 58 Grand Isle 1,714 30 167 69 County Lamoille 1,764 46 425 56 Washington 2,821 90 1,852 46 Source: U.S. Census
TMAs have additional authority and responsibilities. For example, a TMA automatically is provided a sub allocation of federal STP funds for which it is responsible to allocate to projects in consultation with the state. Then, the state must select projects on other parts of the federal-aid system in consultation with the MPO. A TMA is automatically reviewed by USDOT every three years to determine its compliance with federal requirements.
Our urbanized area population from the 2000 Census was 105,365, up from 1990’s 87,088. The change was approximately 21 percent. The table below shows it would take until the 2040 census to reach the 200,000 TMA threshold at that rate. The St Albans urban cluster had a population of 9,762 in 2000; this may increase the TMA opportunity once our urbanized area boundary extends northward.
In comparing the geographic coverage between 1990 and 2000, both the Urbanized Area and the larger Census designated Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) grew in size. As a result of the 2000 Census, all of Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle Counties are included in the MSA. In 1990, only the southern portions of Franklin and Grand Isle were in the MSA. The Urbanized area expanded north to include parts of Milton, northeast to include part of Jericho and east to include part of Williston. It is conceivable that with subsequent censuses, the Urbanized Area will continue to grow and could conceivably cross a county boundary into Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Washington, or Addison County as early as the 2010 Census. CCMPO might have to expand beyond the county boundary at that time to include all of the urbanized area as required under federal law. However, this would also provide the opportunity to look at more logical boundaries through at least another 20 years, the horizon year for the MTP.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 119 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Another consideration in determining an MPO’s jurisdictional area is air quality. If an area is in “nonattainment” (i.e. out of compliance) relative to air quality, then the MPO boundary is usually set to the boundaries of the MSA. We do not anticipate receiving the nonattainment area designation in the foreseeable future. However, should this happen, we face the potential of the MPO boundary including Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle Counties. This would introduce to the MPO the issue of international border crossings an area of new and expanding concerns.
Burlington Urbanized Area Population by Year, Historic and Projected
Year Population 1990 87,088 2000 105,365 2010 127,478 2020 154,231 2030 186,600 2040 225,761
The state of Vermont supports and relies upon a rural transportation planning process in each of the Regional Planning Commissions (RPC) throughout the state, with the exception of Chittenden County, where the CCMPO is a separate organization from the CCRPC. Each RPC undertakes transportation planning in cooperation with VTrans. It should therefore be the policy of CCMPO to work with the Regional Planning Commissions in our five adjacent counties to coordinate transportation planning across county boundaries and between counties. Some of this coordination is already taking place. This policy should be in place until such time that the boundaries of the MPO can be reevaluated.
7.2.7 Developing a Project Prioritization Process
CCMPO developed a project prioritization system in 1998 that was to be used to prioritize projects for inclusion in the MTP and the TIP. The system divided projects into seven categories as follows: system preservation, function and performance preservation, bridge preservation, capacity expansion, bicycle/pedestrian, inter-modal, and transit. Projects were assigned points under a variety of criteria that were specific to each project category and included items such as cost, functional class of the roadway, pavement conditions, average daily traffic, levels of service, safety, and ridership for transit projects. (A similar system was used to choose which projects should be scoped in the work program.)
Several test runs were made of the prioritization system, and results were presented for discussion to the CCMPO Board to aid in decision making processes. However, the prioritization system was not formally adopted by the CCMPO Board. Following completion of the MTP, the project prioritization system will be reevaluated and updated to ensure consistency with the goals for the region identified in the MTP. Prioritization criteria will likely include: municipal priority, regional significance (such as a critical inter- municipal link, serves a regional employment center, etc.), asset condition, relative use/need, cost, modal connectivity, congestion relief, safety benefits, supports the land use plan, and contributes to a balanced multi-modal system.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 120 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
The new prioritization system, developed with input from the CCMPO’s Technical Advisory Committee, will be used to assist the CCMPO in evaluating projects for inclusion in the TIP and to decide which projects are identified for scoping (project development) in the UPWP.
7.3 Performance Monitoring: Measuring MTP Success – The Regional Indicators Report
As part of the development of this MTP, the CCMPO produced a 2000 report, Measuring Our Progress Toward Chittenden County’s 20-Year Transportation Goals. Applying a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators, the study produced a report card assessing how well we were making progress toward the goals established in the 1997 MTP. With the establishment of standard regional indicators identified in the report, we could more readily see where we were making headway toward the former MTP’s long-term goals, where we needed to strengthen our efforts, and where we needed to rethink goals or approaches to meeting them. Further, the picture of our region given in that report was an important foundation for this new MTP.
We recommend again using this format to gauge how well we make progress in implementing this MTP. We now have different goals (although the 1997 sentiments remain) and the transportation demand model produces dozens of quantitative indicators in the categories of multimodalism, system efficiency, highway performance, and air quality. By combining these model outputs with qualitative assessment tools, and relating these to the relevant MTP goals, we propose renewing the 2000 report two years following MTP adoption. That assessment will then be used to measure our successes, help refine the next MTP, and assist our region’s decision-makers and residents in making the important transportation and growth choices that will confront us in the future.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 121 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 122 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
8.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
Access Management A process that provides or manages roadside access while preserving the transportation functions of the adjoining roadway.
Act 250 Vermont land use and development law. Required of any proposed land development meeting established thresholds.
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Federal legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. Requires accessible transportation services.
AIP Airport Improvement Program. FAA program that assists the development of a nationwide system of public-use airports by providing funding for airport planning and development projects.
Arterial A relatively continuous road serving through traffic and high volumes.
ATMS Advanced Traffic Management System. ITS applications designed to enhance traffic movement usually along transportation corridors.
Attainment Area Air quality designation where measures of selected pollutants do not exceed established (NAAQS) standards.
BIA Burlington International Airport
BR Bridge Program
CAA Clean Air Act. Federal law designed to control and limit air pollution.
CATMA Campus Area Transportation Management Association. Organization running TDM programs and managing parking and transportation resources for the “Hill” institutions in Burlington (UVM, FAHC, Champlain College and American Red Cross).
CCMPO Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization. The state’s only MPO. Established under federal law and responsible for transportation planning and programming within its jurisdiction.
CCRPC Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. The county’s comprehensive planning organization. Established under state law.
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. Federal funding program designed to address congestion and air quality issues through capital and operating projects.
CMS Congestion Management System. A systematic process for managing congestion and enhancing mobility through alternative transportation strategies and timely information to the traveling public.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 123 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
CCTA Chittenden County Transportation Authority. The region’s public transportation provider.
Collector Road carrying traffic between local streets and arterials where mobility and access are equally important.
CON Construction
DSS Decision Support System. Computer assessment tool that examines the relationships between land use and transportation.
Environmental Justice The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, programs and policies.
FAA Federal Aviation Administration. The USDOT agency responsible for aviation related programs.
FHWA Federal Highway Administration. The USDOT agency responsible for roadway related programs.
FRA Federal Railroad Administration. The USDOT agency responsible for railroad programs.
FTA Federal Transit Administration. The USDOT agency responsible for public transportation programs.
HAL High Accident Location. Intersections and road segments designated by a formula based on documented crash data.
HTF Highway Trust Fund. A financing mechanism established under federal law to account for tax receipts (primarily from motor fuel taxes) collected by the federal government and dedicated to surface transportation projects.
IM Interstate Maintenance Program. Federal program providing funding for resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating and reconstructing (4R) most routes on the Interstate Highway System.
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Federal legislation that introduced a comprehensive approach to transportation problems by emphasizing innovation, intermodalism, and flexibility.
ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems. The application to telecommunications and/or computing technologies to improve transportation system efficiency.
JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute. FTA program providing competitive grants to local governments and non-profit organizations to develop transportation services connecting welfare recipients and low-income persons to employment and support services.
Local Street Street designed to provide access to and from homes and businesses.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 124 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan. Federal requirement for MPOs and Agencies of Transportation to undertake every five years and looks out 20-25 years.
LTAP Local Transportation Assistance Program. Federally funded program through established centers to enable local governments to improve their roads and bridges by providing training and an information clearinghouse. The Vermont Local Roads Program at St. Michaels College is Vermont’s designated LTAP.
LTF Local Transportation Facilities. VTrans office established to assist local governments with project implementation.
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization. Federally established organization responsible for a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework to make transportation investment decisions within their designated area.
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area. A Census defined area based on selected criteria.
MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Same as LRTP
MTS Metropolitan Transportation System. The multimodal network of highways, arterial and collector roadways, transit services, rail lines, Burlington International Airport, and other intermodal facilities critical to the movement of people and goods in Chittenden County.
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Clean Air Act standards for wide- spread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment.
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act. Federal law requiring federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions.
NHS National Highway System Program. Federal program that provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the NHS, including Interstate Highways and designated connections to major intermodal terminals.
Paratransit A demand-response transportation system usually using smaller vehicles and catering to special needs populations such as the elderly and disabled.
PE Preliminary Engineering. Project development phase following scoping and preceding final design.
PFC Passenger Facility Charge. A surcharge added to the price of an airfare and used for capital improvements at airports.
P&R Park and Ride facility
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 125 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Roundabout Non-signalized circular intersection with specific design and traffic control features to ensure low travel speeds and efficient traffic movement.
ROW Right Of Way. Denotes land, or an interest in land, established for transportation purposes
SCP Scoping/Project Definition. A phase in the project development process that moves a recognized problem from an idea through the development of alternatives and environmental screening.
Sec. 5307 FTA grant program for capital and operating assistance in urban areas over 50,000 in population.
Sec. 5309 FTA grant for capital programs such as buses and bus facilities.
Sec. 5310 FTA grant program to States for the purpose of assisting private non-profit groups in meeting the transportation needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Shared Use Path A path separated from vehicle traffic by barrier or open space usually on its own right-of-way.
SIP State Implementation Plan. Clean Air Act plan which identifies how the state will attain and/or maintain NAAQS standards.
SSTA Special Services Transportation Agency. Chittenden County based non-profit paratransit provider.
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. The State’s three year list of fiscally constrained transportation projects planned for implementation statewide.
STP Surface Transportation Program. Federal program providing flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and bus facilities.
TAC The CCMPO’s Technical Advisory Committee
TCSP Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program. Federal program that provides funding for a comprehensive initiative including planning grants, implementation grants, and research to investigate and address the relationships between transportation and community and system preservation.
TDM Transportation Demand Management. The general term for strategies that result in more efficient use of transportation resources.
TEA 21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Replaced ISTEA and guides federal expenditures for surface transportation since 1998.
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 126 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
TIF Tax Increment Finance district. Locally designated area receiving targeted investments from increased property tax revenue.
TIP Transportation Improvement Program. The three year list of fiscally constrained transportation projects planned for implementation in the region.
T/L Town Line
TMA Transportation Management Areas – An urban area over 200,000 population, designated under federal transportation law, subject to additional planning requirements and entitled to funds earmarked for large urbanized areas under the Surface Transportation Program.
Transportation Management Associations - Private, non-profit, member- controlled organizations that provide transportation services in a particular area.
TOD Transit Oriented Design. High density and mixed use land development around transit system stops.
Traffic Calming A combination of measures to reduce the negative effects of vehicle use or to alter driver behaviors, to the benefit of non motorized travelers.
TSM Transportation Systems Management. Relatively low-cost improvements to improve transportation efficiency such as ITS applications or roundabouts.
UPWP Unified Planning Work Program. The MPO’s list of planning activities to be undertaken over a given year.
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
UTMS Urban Traffic Management System. ITS applications focused on traffic efficiency improvements in an urban area.
VAOT Vermont Agency of Transportation
VHT Vehicle Hours of Travel. Transportation performance measure that considers the amount of time trip-making takes.
VLCT Vermont League of Cities and Towns
VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel. A transportation performance measure that considers the distance vehicles travel.
VTA Vermont Transportation Authority
VTR Vermont Railway. A private operating railroad.
VTrans Vermont Agency of Transportation
2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Adopted January 19, 2005 Page 127
BBAAKKEERRSSFFIIEELLDD
G R A N D I S L E G R A N D I S L E GGEE OORRGGIIAA FFLLEETTCCHHEERR
FFAAIIRRFFAAXX
89
MMII LLTTOONN
SSOOUUTTHH HHEERROO
CCAAMMBB RRIIDDGGEE
7 15 2
WWEESS TTFFOORRDD
128
7
2
U N D E R H I L L CCOOLLCCHHEESSTTEERR U N D E R H I L L
EESSSSEEXX 2A
289 WWII NNOOOOSSKKII
EESSSSEEXX JJUUNNCCTTIIOONN
BBUURRLLIINNGGTTOONN
JJEERRIICCHHOO SSTTOOWWEE
9 18 117 89 SSOOUUTTHH BBUURRLLIINNGGTTOONN
WWII LLLLIISSTT OONN 2A
2 BBOOLLTTOONN WWAATTEE RRBBUURRYY 116 RRIICCHHMMOONNDD
SSTT.. GGEE OORRGGEE SSHHEELLBBUURRNNEE 89
7
HHIINNEESSBBUURRGG
CCHHAARRLLOOTTTTEE 116
DDUUXXBBUURRYY
HHUUNNTTIINNGGTTOONN c : \ p
M O N K T O N SSTTAARRKKSSBBOORROO r M O N K T O N o j e c t s 0
Significant Bike/Pedestrian Bridge 5
NOTE: 17 \ m
Spear Street in South Burlington is existing on one side of p FFEERRRRIISSBBUURRGG FFAAYYSSTTOONN o \ 5
road. Shared Use Path _ 3 BBUUEELLSS b Shared use paths are facilities on exclusive rights-of-way i k
G O R E e seperated from motor vehicles. G O R E p
Existing/Funded e d r
The purpose of the network is to provide high quality o u t connections between existing & identified growth areas. e s . Many of these connections currently exist; others will need Proposed m x improvement or new facilities. d Sidewalks not shown. On Road Facility 1:165,000 WWAAII TTSSFFIIEE LLDD Disclaimer: VVEERRGGEENNNNEESS Existing/Funded B R I S T O L Alignment of facilities, especially shared use paths, are B R I S T O L approximate and may change based on subsequent municipal Proposed lePvPeAAl dNNeTTciOOsiNNons. W A R R E N W A L T H A M W A R R E N F W A L T H A M NNEEWW HHAAVVEENN LLIINNCCOOLLNN 1 inch equals 3 miles November 2, 2004 i g u r e
5 -
Figure 5-3: Proposed Bike/Pedestrian Facilities 3 c:\projects05\mpo\5_4tdm.mxd Figure 5-4 4 0 y t 0 2 n
, u 2
o r e C s
b y d e n l d m a i e e o o v M d d B o R
a n 2
r N r o e e t r o t l t j i i a a 0 a h 0 M R W C 0 , 0 3 1 1 : s 1 k r 5 . e a 0 P i
d l l t l n d i 0 I i
h n t d d l n e n u i g a o n t e n t S o n S
m
L s - S o c t a
t n t r e e g a h a e s n t a n r o i r C a l n e
J o r u
- r e
D u b p s l
A y C
d - B
m F n r e k s
t m
n o R e s h e d e n a i
i t n u w t S g e R r w C i
e u
r
o l H t - n o o - i i
n a r t
t T - t e c
C o u n T 6 s
t S d
x a n b 1 n s s w l ' e
e I D i F o g t e t l m
t o e s i s l f l d l n i M l n i a
e i i h x s i o a D t r i B
d p W T I S H E M E P s - i g i
o ------x r o R 0 n
r E P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 R P &
k o M r i a D P T t &
a t k r r a o p P
s d n n a e c n a . - r e s n s . s l i e
o s
a e t
c r e f n r i u p o o u d
b
i r
T e o , u s r g o t / s s n h s o s e t d f
e o
s i R r t t n g t s i
u n s a n e t y i
i y t e e f r a i s i n a b t e u c e
n i u f n d e f d o Q f o
i e n t e n
i u . d C c n e i g
s i
e e
e e t n n s p m p e e e o w r e a t s d n r e h
e n r t t m n i o C
s
b e i r
e s
n t P e i d s t o t s
p i i f o h R p i
s a i h I s t i T
e
C
l h a y
C G m d
s . b
C A b i
e m C e
s n d t r s i d o h V d o n s n o n
h i
n f t u e - T n e o T
a a n v
o
a s i l l p y
. h r
r ) . t t e e o s d i O r g d r T r s s - e i
o o p e P p r m e V x e
y e
y B r t t - S e h M
n e e
t r a - o o e - v r v C y d c i e n r i t r b t n
u a
a C u u d a a s
o b o M o i n l
s s - m
n i r
i
l m a s W i
r n d r s
s c e W y a o
o o e r e
d r n i i f f a r - t n R u n s i o t n
t i e l o i s t m i s i a n
i s d a
t
D f s c a e s i n e y d a i a o f m e r g a
c n r m
f F a m y m P e
o a a e s l o r d
o
c o
,
e t c
: d a n r s y d d n
e a C T d r a l i u
b n e o e : g n u
o i p o r g R r t u s c
a s
m e u
a R B i n ( a o e c i t y r t
& s r r a c e
a l a n r e n g r a o k n :
c n e v j - o i M u r e w f l t r r s a
a e i r l o a h D o e f o u h t D T E P t s d o n S P T M T 4 - n 5 e
e m r e u g g a i n F a M
FFAAIIRRFFIIEELLDD BBAAKKEERRSSFFIIEELLDD
GGRRAANNDD IISS LLEE GGEEOORRGGIIAA FFLLEETTCCHHEERR
FFAAIIRRFFAAXX
89
LAK E RD
W M I L T O N E M I L T O N S T MA F IN ST O R D
R D D R ON ILT -M SSOOUUTTHH HHEERROO RD FO ST WE Northern CCAAMMBBRRIIDDGGEE D
R
N
O T
L I
M Corrido r W 7 15
2
D R W E S T F O R D W E S T F O R D O Y A M
D R
H T R 128 O W S N R A F
7
D R
BA T C O L C H E S T E R Y S C O L C H E S T E R RD 2 A E
D R
M I R P
B L A K E L Y R M R D A U N D E R H I L L D U N D E R H I L L G L L R E E B T T Northeastern E N S I
B E S D H A E V R Y E R Y A A N C E V E L R L D D A P Corridor R V L
A E T
T G N
T A A
S S E S S E X T
B E S S E X S A
U E D R L
R IV L E P
G R O R
H D
A V Rt. 15 N O KE 2A R LL T OG H G R A D B
V R
Y
O
W
W Corridor X
N
E
S
S
T S
R E L R E D E A
C IN R 289 E T IV
R E R R A R
O D M R U D T D N E R E L
1 L L 2 L A 7 I
W I N O O S K I H
W I N O O S K I
D
N
OA A K S West S T D R EESSSSEEXX JJUUNNCCTTIIOONN W O Y L W L NORTH ST K O AV P R T H TE R K S O N HE P U L ST LC P IR K PEAR O A A S C E T
S A C
H S P E T R N
O A R
V S D ST P MAIN E JJEERRIICCHHOO
C
T B U R L I N G T O N SSTTOOWWEE
B U R L I N G T O N
S
P
T
I Regional N
E
S Core T V A S L IA P TR M E US O A D U IN R NT
S A BA I RB ER F T N A RM RD VI EW Y DR KENNED R D D
O
R
S
89 E 1 T D S R T N 117 O T S T ST I SWIF L 89 IL W
N
SSOOUUTTHH BBUURRLLIINNGGTTOONN WWIILLLLIISS TTOONN
J
E
R
I
C
H
D O
R
R L
L D
E
N
W
O
R
B
S 2A Cross BAR S TOW RD
D R Y A County B T S E G WWAATTEERRBBUURRYY ID
H R B A 2 R Corridor B Eastern
O
D R
R
R L R I C H M O N D D L R I C H M O N D I
H
K Corridor RD B O L T O N R A STE CO B O L T O N E B O C W 116 H HR S H E L B U R N E U A S H E L B U R N E N R N D T
I N
G
T
O
N
S T . G E O R G E R S T . G E O R G E D DUX F BUR A Y RD
L
L
S
R IR D IS H H ILL 8 RD 9 TT RD MARS E
THOMAS RD SHELBURNE HINE SBURG RD
D R K IC W T S O B
D
R S H D E L N B U O
R D M N
G R H E
R F C A D I
E LL N R E S O N R D P B RD U VU S 7 C H
R
D
S
P
E
N A
O R
R
S T
T TTE RD H ARLO CH R
D D
R
O
L I H G RD HHIINNEESS BBUURRGG P BUR HINES T Southeast N Rt 116 U
O
M RD ILL Corridor H H RC Corridor U CH 116
M RY RD A FE R I N
CCHHAARRLLOOTTTTEE R D
T
S
R
Southern E V D U X B U R Y L I D U X B U R Y
S Corridor HHUUNNTTIINNGGTTOONN
H OLLO W RD
RD P ARK STATE
G
O
R
E
S T A R K S B O R O R MMOONNKKTTOONN S T A R K S B O R O D
17
FFEERRRRIISSBBUURRGG FFAAYYSSTTOONN
BBUUEELLSS GGOORREE d x m . s r o d i r r o c _ p 1:170,000 t m 1 _ 6 \
0 1 2 4 o WWAAIITTSSFFIIEELLDD p
Miles November 2, 2004 m \
V E R G E N N E S 5
V E R G E N N E S 0 s t
BBRRIISSTTOOLL c e j o r p \ : c N E W H A V E N PPAANNTTOONN N E W H A V E N WWAALLTTHHAAMM WWAARRRREENN LLIINNCCOOLLNN F i g u r e
6 -
Figure 6-1: Transportation Corridors 1
Figure 6-8: Southern Corridor V L A S IA P TR E S DU A IN R 2
S B U R LLIIN G TTO N 9 T Y DR KENNED D
O
R
S
E
T
S
T
T SWIFT S S O U TTH B U R LLIIN G TTO N
D
R
L
L
4 E
N
W W IILLLLIIS TTO N O
R
B
S
BAR STOW RD
D R Y A B
H
A
R
B
O
D R
R
R L
D L I
H
RD K R A BSTE S H E LLB U RWNE E O
S TT .. G E O R G E
F
A
L
L
S
R IR R IIC H M O N D D IS H H ILL RD TT RD MARSE
THOMAS RD SHELBURNE HINESBURG RD
D R K IC TW S O B
D
R
S D H E N L B O U M R D
N H R G E
C R F I A D E L R L N E S O N R D P B RD U U CV S
H
R
D
S
P
E
N
A
O
R
R
S
T
T E RD H LOTT CHAR R
D D
R
O
L I H RD P URG HINESB H IIN E S B U R G T
N
U
O
M RD C H A R LLLLO TTTTE HI CH UR CH
RD FERRY
T
S
R
E
V
L
I
S d x m . r o d i r r o c _ n r e h t u o s 8 _ 6 \ o Projects p m \ 5 0 s t
Interstate Interchange Project TSM Projects ITS Corridor Projects TDM Program Target Area c e j o r p \ :
I-89 ATMS 2 - Taft's Corner c New Interchange Existing and Proposed I-189 & Southern Connector ATMS 4 - Shelburne Rd 9 - Pine St - Shelburne St Passenger Rail US 2 UTMS Upgrade existing Interchange US 7 Smart Corridor Existing and/or Proposed Transit Arterial Project Park & Ride Location Existing/Funded Shared Use Path Critical Roadway Links Existing Proposed Shared Use Path Interstate Widened
Proposed Existing/Funded On-Road Bike Facility New Connector Road 1:111,996
0 0.5 1 2 Miles January 21, 2005