8. Transportation

TRANSPORTATION • CHAPTER 8 8. Transportation As is the case in most of rural America, any consideration of transportation in Waitsfield is largely dominated by a discussion of the automobile and the impacts of an automobile-dependent culture on our community. The town is not directly served by rail, a commercial airport, or any regional bicycle and pedestrian network other than public roadways. Recognizing this dependence on the automobile, the town has attempted to coordinate land use planning with traffic and transportation policies as a means of providing pedestrian opportunities, promoting transit, and ensuring traffic safety and efficiency throughout the community. This chapter examines the town’s transportation network, including state and local roads, traffic safety, pedestrian travel and transit, and evaluates current conditions and issues relating to that network. PHOTO: MAD RIVER ROCKET DECEMBER 2005 • WAITSFIELD TOWN PLAN • 77 CHAPTER 8 • TRANSPORTATION ROADS & HIGHWAYS In addition to serving as the Valley’s principal arterial highway, Route 100 functions as Main Street State Highways through Waitsfield Village and Irasville. A result of Primary access to the town is provided by Route 100, this can be high traffic volumes during peak periods, which runs the length of the state and serves most as well as potential conflicts between through-traffic tourist destinations along the main range of the and turning movements at busy commercial intersec- Green Mountains. Route 100 links the Valley with tions. This raises specific concerns relative to traffic Interstate 89 in Waterbury (exit 10) and Middlesex safety and efficiency within village centers, addressed (exit 9), both approximately 10 miles to the north. It in more detail below. provides access to passenger rail service in Waterbury, as well as commercial air service and regional popula- Highway Improvements. While the Vermont Agency tion and employment centers in Chittenden County of Transportation (VTrans) has only planned a few and Montpelier. Route 100 not only serves town highway improvement projects in the coming years, residents, but also provides the primary access to the several of these have a significant bearing on the com- Valley for visitors from Montreal and southern New munity. Projects which are presently under develop- England. ment by the agency are summarized in Table 8.1. Route 100 serves Sugarbush (Lincoln Peak) in Of the projects under development, the replacement Warren, as well as the White River Valley further of the Route 17 bridge over Mill Brook and associ- to the south. Access to Waitsfield is also provided ated improvements to the Route 100 and Route 17 from the west by Route 17, which crosses the Green intersection are the most significant. The bridge is Mountain Range over Appalachian Gap in Fayston, considered deficient by VTrans due to several geo- providing a link between Route 100 and Mad River metrical problems, limited capacity and severe dete- Glen and Mount Ellen. rioration, resulting in a low sufficiency rating of 22.2 (out of a possible rating of 100). TABLE 8.1 SUMMARY OF STAte HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJects VTrans Projects Description Schedule Reconstruct Route 17 bridge over the Mill Brook just before the not scheduled Route 17 BR 38 Fayston Town Line (see discussion this chapter). (see discussion) Rehabilitate/widen bridge over small stream (adjacent to Pines Route 100 BR 181 not scheduled Rest Area) Construct sidewalks along Route 100 from Bragg Hill Road north Route 100—Irasville 2006/07 to elementary school. Reconstruction, including widening and guardrail installation, of Route 100—North 2005 Route 100 north from North Fayston Road intersection. Source: VT Agency of Transportation 78 • WAITSFIELD TOWN PLAN • DECEMBER 2005 PHOTOS: BEV KEHOE TRANSPORTATION • CHAPTER 8 In addition, the intersection is characterized by limit- ity has been relocated further to the south on Route ed sight distance (especially the northerly approach), 100, in the Limited Business District. This facility steep grades and significant traffic delays at peak pe- should meet the state’s maintenance needs for the riods. The proximity of the Bragg Hill Road inter- foreseeable future. section further exacerbates the inadequacies of the Highway Design Standards. Until 1997, VTrans ap- Route 100/17 intersection. Existing conditions of plied the American Association of Surface and both the bridge and intersection are described in de- Highway Transportation Organizations (AASHTO) tail in an initial scoping report prepared by VTrans in 1999. That report also evaluates several alternative bridge replacement and intersection redesign plans. The town has long maintained that replacing the de- teriorated bridge on its present alignment will lock-in an inadequate intersection design for 50-75 years. The intersection of Route 100 and Bridge Street also raises safety concerns due to the poor site distance to the south. This problem was improved several years ago when a power pole was moved from the south- east corner of the intersection, although the adjacent building, and attached porch, still limit visibility. While options to improve intersection safety should be explored, it is important that improvements not occur at the expense of the compact, historic character of the Village. Of lesser concern, but still noteworthy, is the pro- highway design standards to roads in the state posed widening of Route 100 and associated guard- (as did the transportation agency for each of the rail installation north from the North Fayston Road other 49 states). In response to growing concern into Moretown. This section of highway is located that AASHTO standards were inappropriate for within the National Register Historic District (see Vermont’s small villages and rural settings, the state Chapter 4). Improvements should be carefully de- prepared and adopted Vermont State Standards for the signed to avoid negatively impacting the scenic and Design of Transportation Construction, Reconstruction historic character of the area, should not interfere and Rehabilitation of Freeways, Roads & Streets (1997). with existing farming operations, and should not re- These include standards for roads serving urban, vil- sult in excessive traffic speeds. lage and rural contexts that are designed specifically for use in Vermont. The upgrade and construction Highway Maintenance. Until 1998, the regional high- of state, town and private roads in Waitsfield should way maintenance facility used by VTrans to maintain be guided by these standards. Route 100 and 17 in the Mad River Valley was located adjacent to the Lareau swimhole, approximately Town Roads ½ mile south of Irasville. The 1998 flood, however, Waitsfield maintains nearly 37 miles of town roads, accomplished what Valley towns had attempted for including 9.45 miles of class 2 and 20.22 miles of class at least two decades—the permanent removal of the 3 roads, with an additional 7.2 miles of class 4 roads. riverside maintenance facility. A more modern facil- Class 2 and 3 roads are maintained for year-round DECEMBER 2005 • WAITSFIELD TOWN PLAN • 79 CHAPTER 8 • TRANSPORTATION TABLE 8.2 • WAItsFIELD ROAD CLAssIFICATIONS Road(s) Mileage Class Function Aid Route 100, 17 7.83 State Arterial Federal/Primary Town Highways 9.45 2 Collector Federal/Secondary Town Highways 20.22 3 Local Access Local/State Remaining Roads 7.16 4 Access/Recreation Local Total Miles 44.66 travel. Class 2 roads serve as major collectors provid- this plan. In 1997, the Planning Commission and ing access between towns. These include the North Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission Fayston Road, Bragg Hill Road, North Road and East contracted with consulting engineers Lamoureux, Warren Road. Class 3 roads are all other roads except Stone & O’Leary to prepare the Waitsfield Circulation state routes that are negotiable in all seasons. A sum- and Access Management Plan. That plan identified sev- mary of road mileage by classification and function is eral conceptual road connections designed to provide included in Table 8.2. In most instances, regardless of alternative routes to distribute local traffic and thereby classification, the town owns a 50’ right-of-way (either improve highway efficiency, to support land use goals as an easement or in fee simple) to accommodate town for Irasville and Waitsfield Village, and to enhance pe- roads. The town road network, including road classifi- destrian and bicycle safety. cations, is depicted on Map 1. While several of the conceptual alignments are not fea- Waitsfield’s roads are generally in good shape and sible due to site constraints, others are widely viewed adequate to accommodate current traffic volumes. as offering potential benefits to the community. These While the town does not maintain a formal, long- include: term road improvement program, the Selectboard, u A route connecting the Old County Road with Carroll Town Administrator and Road Commissioner have Road to the south; attempted to schedule road maintenance in an effi- u Extending the Slow Road and/or Mad River Canoe cient and cost effective manner which minimizes year- Road north to Carroll Road; to-year fluctuation in the municipal property tax rate. u A connection from the new Mad River Green (North- field Savings Bank) Road south to Bragg Hill Road; Three significant road improvement projects have u A connection from Fiddlers Green to Route 100 north been undertaken in recent years: the repavement of of Village Square shopping center; and the East Warren Road in 1998, the replacement of the u A road running parallel to Route 100 from the Airport Butternut Hill Bridge in 1999, and the repavement of Road to the Old County Road. the North Road and a portion of the Tremblay Road It is important to note that, in most instances, specific in 2002. alignments for these connections have not been iden- In 2002 there were no major road improvement tified, and in many cases potentially affected landown- projects included in the town’s capital budget and ers have not been involved in planning for possible program.

Load more