Appendices

Burlington Bike Path Improvement Feasibility Study

Burlington, VT

February 21, 2012

DATA  ANALYSIS  SOLUTIONS

Bike Path Task Force Members & Affiliations: John Bossange, Task Force Chair, Parks & Recreation Commission Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur, Task Force Vice-Chair, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Bob McKearin, Dinse Knapp & McAndrew, BBA Waterfront Action Group Jane Knodell, University of , former City Councilor Katharine Montstream, Montstream Studios Kurt Wright, Burlington City Council Lisa Aultman-Hall, UVM Transportation Research Center, Local Motion Board Patrick Standen, St. Michaels College, Northeast Disabled Athletic Association Peter Clavelle, ARD Inc., former Mayor of Burlington Steve Allen, Burlington Parks & Recreation Commission (former member) Will Flender, Burlington Walk/Bike Council Zandy Wheeler, Skirack, King Street Board Member

Local Motion: Chapin Spencer, Executive Director

Department of Parks and Recreation: Mari Steinbach, CPRP, MPA, Director Deryk Roach, Superintendent of Park Operations and Maintenance Jen Francis, Parks Planner

Department of Public Works: Nicole Losch, Bicycle/Pedestrian Environmental Planner

Community & Economic Development Office (CEDO): Larry Kupferman, Director

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC): Peter Keating, Senior Transportation Planner

Prepared by:

Prepared for: The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission in conjunction with the Burlington Department of Parks and Recreation APPENDIX A-RELEVANT PLANS AND STUDIES ...... 1 APPENDIX B-PUBLIC OUTREACH ...... 14 APPENDIX C-EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 27 APPENDIX D-ENVIRONMENTAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 41 APPENDIX E-DESIGN STANDARDS ...... 48

Burlington Bike Path Improvement Feasibility Study Appendices page i

APPENDIX A-RELEVANT PLANS AND STUDIES This section summarizes recent and ongoing plans and studies that are relevant to the Burlington Bike Path to ensure consistency with previous work and to bring forward recommendations that are still relevant.

Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (in progress) The Burlington Department of Parks and Recreation is working with the Federal Figure 1: Blanchard Beach; Photo from Burlington Free Press 6/9/11 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “Hazards close stretches of Burlington Bike Path.” to address damage caused by the record flooding in Spring 2011 (Figure 1). Portions of the Burlington Bike Path (Lakeside Avenue to Perkins Pier and Starr Farm to the North Avenue Extension shown in Figure 2) were the most heavily damaged. Parks and Recreation is still pursuing FEMA funds to implement recommendations from the Army Corps of Engineers. In late August of 2011 was once again raised above flood levels when tropical storm Irene hit. Although the damage from this storm was not as significant as earlier flooding, Parks and Recreation is still pursuing FEMA funds to aid in the recovery process. Several of the damaged areas from both storms were below design standards prior to the flooding. Therefore, Parks and Recreation is working to determine repairs that are consistent with the longer-term recommendations identified in this feasibility study, rather than re-establishing elements of the path that were outdated to begin with.

Figure 2: Closed Path Due to Flood Damage

Burlington Bike Path Improvement Feasibility Study Appendices page 1

University of Vermont Transportation Research Center’s 2010 Estimating Tourism Expenditures In 2010 the ’s Transportation Research Center (TRC) conducted a study analyzing the revenue that the Burlington Waterfront Path draws from tourism. This study, “Estimating Tourism Expenditures for the Burlington Waterfront Path and the Island Line Trail," examined data collected by Local Motion, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), and the Vermont Tourism Data Center. The TRC compiled count data from 2008 from Local Motion and the CCRPC regarding users of the bicycle path along the waterfront. These data consisted of four major count locations, Oakledge Park, Waterfront Park, Leddy Park, and the Causeway. These locations can be seen in Figure 3. At these locations employees and Figure 3: Count Locations for the UVM TRC Survey local volunteers collected data pertaining to the user type, age, gender, helmet use, as well as more detailed survey information concerning the users’ hometown, trip purpose, duration of stay in VT, and any comments for improvements along the bicycle path. The data were broken down into percentages of users in all categories. As shown Table 1, bicyclists comprise nearly 60% or more of the users on the path, and most users are adults, who might be assumed to be more experienced, skilled riders than children. The majority of users were from Chittenden County or Grand Isle, and most path use was for recreational purposes. More detail pertaining to specific volume data is presented along with the existing conditions in Appendix C. In conjunction with these data, 24 hour count data from the CCRPC were used to estimate a seasonal volume of users of the path, from May 2008 to September 2008, as well as where the user is visiting from (Table 2). After total user estimations were assembled, the Vermont Tourism Data Center provided data concerning the economic impact that different trail users have on the local community. In order to estimate the economic activity from each visiting user type the TRC used the total monthly volumes of users, the whereabouts of which the users are from, and the average expenditures of each user. The expenditure data is shown in Table 3. By relating the volume and types of users to the economic impact that each has on community, the TRC came upon a conservative estimation of over $4.5 million dollars of tourist revenue from the Waterfront Park segment of the bike path per summer.

Final Report February 21, 2012 Appendices page 2

Table 1: UVM Research Mode and Usage Splits Mode Split Use Location Day Pedestrians Bicyclists Other Recreation Work Shop School Social Other

Oakledge Weekday 30.9% 66.7% 0.8% 73.0% 18.0% 2.2% 1.2% 2.2% 3.4% Park 37.9% 59.4% 1.8% 75.7% 14.4% 3.4% 0.7% 3.2% 2.6% Waterfront Weekday Park Weekend 36.7% 59.9% 1.4% 90.5% 3.5% 1.8% 0.4% 1.8% 2.1% 14.4% 80.4% 3.8% 78.3% 15.2% 3.6% 0.0% 1.2% 1.7% Leddy Weekday Park Weekend 11.1% 84.7% 2.2% 91.3% 2.7% 3.4% 0.4% 1.1% 1.1%

Causeway Weekend 1.4% 98.6% 0.0% 97.6% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%

Table 2: UVM Research Age and Location Splits Age Groups Visitor Type Location Day 12 and 13 - 65 and Chittenden In- Out-of- 21 - 64 Domestic Under 20 Older County State Country Oakledge Weekday 8.0% 9.0% 77.0% 6.0% 82.4% 3.9% 11.8% 2.0% Park 5.0% 13.0% 78.0% 4.0% 62.8% 8.9% 22.9% 5.4% Waterfront Weekday Park Weekend 9.0% 10.0% 72.0% 9.0% 50.8% 13.7% 30.0% 5.5%

Weekday 6.0% 9.0% 81.0% 4.0% 76.0% 6.3% 9.8% 7.9% Leddy Park Weekend 7.0% 9.0% 81.0% 3.0% 61.7% 11.4% 18.3% 8.5%

Causeway Weekend 9.0% 7.0% 84.0% 0.0% ______

Table 3: Visitor Spending by Location

Burlington Bike Path Improvement Feasibility Study Appendices page 3

Island Line Sign and Amenities Plan (2005) The Island Line Sign and Amenities Plan was developed in 2005 and provides many detailed recommendations for the length of the Island Line from South Hero through Burlington. The Plan includes sign improvements (wayfinding, regulatory and warning, as well as reducing existing sign clutter) and recommendations for locations of amenities (restrooms, information kiosks (Figure 4), mile markers, interpretive displays, bike racks, and pause places) to develop a cohesive, consistent regional facility. These recommendations have not been brought forward with the others of this Bike Path Feasibility study, as it is believed that the original Sign and Amenities Plan should be reviewed and