1 Nicole Losch, PTP Senior Transportation Planner Org Chart - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
1
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

1 Nicole Losch, PTP Senior Transportation Planner Org Chart - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 25, 2022 312 likes •696 views

1 Nicole Losch, PTP Senior Transportation Planner Org Chart Bryan Davis, AICP Steering Senior Transportation Committee Planner Project Advisory Jonathan Slason, PE Committee Project Manager Diane Meyerhoff Lucy Gibson, PE Mark Smith,

slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Jonathan Slason, PE

Project Manager

Steering Committee

Corey Mack, PE

Project Engineer

Lucy Gibson, PE

Senior Planner

Sophie Nichol Sauve, ASLA, LEED AP

Landscape Architect

Chris Sargent, AICP

Planner

Mark Smith, PE

Senior Engineer

Diane Meyerhoff

Public Engagement Specialist

David Grover, PE

Project Engineer

Sam Goater, PE

Planning Engineer

Dana Wall

Project Designer

Nicole Losch, PTP

Senior Transportation Planner

Bryan Davis, AICP

Senior Transportation Planner

Project Advisory Committee

Julia Ursaki, EIT

Staff Engineer/Planner

Michael Lydon

Principal Planner

Org Chart

Austen Fuela, PE

Project Engineer

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Winooski Ave Transportation Study

Project Advisory Committee Meeting #5 | Refined Options

March 26, 2019

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Project Advisory Committee Meeting #5: Meeting Goals

1) Review draft public engagement concepts, feedback on: a) Presenting alternatives b) Gathering public feedback c) Prioritizing alternatives and features 2) Recruit PAC volunteers to participate 3) Are these alternatives on the right track and presentable to public? 4) Obtain input and insight on metrics for evaluation

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Project Advisory Committee Meeting #5: Agenda

1) Welcome, Introductions, Changes to the Agenda 2) Public Comment Period 3) Plan for Public Meeting and Public Engagement 4) What We've Heard So Far... 5) Updated Project Alternatives 6) Public Comment Period 7) Initial Evaluation Criteria 8) Next Steps

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

What is this study?

A comprehensive transportation study of the entire Winooski Avenue corridor, developing multimodal improvement strategies that address safety, capacity, and connectivity. Final deliverable: An actionable implementation plan with near-term and longer-term recommendations.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Corridor Vision

  • Traveling along and across Winooski Avenue will be safe,

inviting, and convenient for people of all ages and abilities using any mode of transportation.

  • Walking and bicycling will be viable and enjoyable ways to

travel this corridor. Improvements will encourage active travel and alternatives to personal vehicle use.

  • Businesses will flourish with an activated streetscape and

convenient access along and near Winooski Avenue.

  • The mobility and parking needs will be balanced for property
  • wners, residents, businesses and the greater transportation

system.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

PROJECT STARTUP CORRIDOR VISION AND GOALS SELECT 6 FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION DRAFT REPORT & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL REPORT & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

2018

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug

2019

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CORRIDOR VISION Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Sept Oct Feb

1 2 1 3 4 6 3 4 5 2

Schedule

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Public Comment

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Public Meetings and Engagement

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Public Meetings and Engagement

  • NPA Road Show in April
  • Record, post and share short (3 min) video

about the project and concepts

  • Opportunities:

– Public open house / social the week of 5/6 – ONE business stakeholder outreach event – BBA / Church St business stakeholder outreach event – BCA Art Fair in May – Dewey Park Farmers Market

Volunteers??

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Summary of Feedback To Date

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

What We’ve Heard

Continuous, dedicated bike lanes are critical, and protected is preferred. Parking is full. There is a high demand on North Winooski. Why aren’t we looking into one-way pairs? (SB only from Pearl to Maple) Street trees and green strips are crucial for an inviting corridor. Main to Pearl is aggressive / stressful / dangerous / unattractive.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

What We’ve Seen – Affected Areas – Parking

85%

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Corridor Schematics

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Existing

Grant – North (35’) King – Maple (30’) Main-Pearl (40’) Archibald – Riverside (40’)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Areas of Focus:

  • Shared lanes between

Riverside and Union

  • One-way section between

Union and Pearl

  • Four lane section between

Pearl and Main

  • Bicycle Lane Gap between

Main and Maple

No ROW required Minimize widening for cost and streetscape impacts Continuous North/South bike lanes DESIGN GOALS

Existing

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Alternative 1

Conventional bike lanes

NB protected lane option

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

KING ST TO HOWARD ST

Alternative 2

Protected bike lanes with limited widening & limited parking RIVERSIDE AV TO UNION ST

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Alternative 3

Two-way protected bike lane within existing curbs MAIN ST TO HOWARD ST

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

1A 1B

  • Alt. 1

Options

Conventional bike lanes Maximize parking

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

1C

RIVERSIDE AV TO PEARL ST

1D

  • Alt. 1

Options

Conventional or shared bike lanes Maximize parking Improve access to ONE

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Protected lane option SB protected lane option

  • Alt. 2

Option

One-way conventional / protected bike lanes + retain some parking

Protected lane option

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Parking Impacts

Alt 1: Conventional Bike Lanes

Eliminate east side (NB) parking

Riverside to Union: -33 Union to North: -25 North to Pearl: -43 Total: -101 Options: 1A – retain most parking in place of planting strip 1D – retain parking and planting strip; shared lanes for biking

Eliminate east side (NB) parking

Main to King: -12

Eliminate west side (SB) parking

King to Maple: -10 Option 1B: retain parking if one-way SB

Alt 2: Protected Bike Lanes

Eliminates most parking between Riverside to Pearl

West Side (SB) East Side (NB) Riverside to Union: -54 Riverside to Union: -33 Union to North: -6 Union to North: -25 North to Pearl: -21 North to Pearl: -43 Total: -182 Option 2A – parking protected lane in place of planting strip retains some parking, -137 spaces

Eliminate east side (NB) parking

Main to King: -12

Eliminate west side (SB) parking

King to Maple: -10 Maple to Howard: -77 Total: -87 Option 2A – parking protected lane in place of planting strip retains some parking, -26 spaces

Alt 3: 2-way Protected Bike Lane

Eliminate east side (NB) parking

Riverside to Union: -33 Union to North: -25 North to Pearl: -43 Total: -101

Eliminate east side (NB) parking

Main to King: -12

Eliminate east side (NB) parking

Main to King: -10

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Streetscape Impacts

Alt 1: Conventional Bike Lanes

Retains planting strips – opportunities to improve plantings

Options: 1A – remove planting strip in place of parking & bike lanes 1C – reduce planting strip for 2-way vehicle traffic & bike lanes 1D – retain parking and planting strip; shared lanes for biking

Alt 2: Protected Bike Lanes

Retains most planting strips – opportunities to improve plantings

Options: 2A – Reduces or removes planting strips to make bike lanes more inviting

Alt 3: 2-way Protected Bike Lanes

Retains planting strips in place of parking and protected, more inviting bike lanes

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Alternative Summary

1 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3

Continuous Conventional Bike Lanes

X X X X

Continuous Protected Bike Lanes

X X X

Shared Lanes (north of Pearl)

X

Two-Way Vehicles: Union to Pearl

X X

Two-Way Vehicles: Main to Maple

X X X X

Maintain Existing Curb

X X X X

Riverside to North

  • 58
  • 25
  • 58
  • 58
  • 118
  • 73
  • 58

North to Pearl

  • 43
  • 43
  • 43
  • 43
  • 64
  • 64
  • 43

Main to Maple

  • 22
  • 22
  • 12
  • 22
  • 22
  • 22
  • 22
  • 22

Maple to Howard

  • 77
  • 26

Total Parking Change

  • 123
  • 90
  • 113
  • 123
  • 22
  • 281
  • 185
  • 123

Impacts

P

Conventional Lanes Protected Lanes 2-way Protected Lanes

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

1 1a 1b 1c 1d 2 2a 3

Continuous Conventional Bike Lanes

X X X X

Continuous Protected Bike Lanes

X X X

Shared Lanes (north of Pearl)

X

Two-Way Vehicles: Union to Pearl

X X

Two-Way Vehicles: Main to Maple

X X X X

Maintain Existing Curb

X X X X

Total Parking Change

  • 123
  • 90
  • 113
  • 123
  • 22
  • 281
  • 185
  • 123

Green Strip Impacts (SF)

10,000- 16,000 9,200 6,400 9,200

Reconstructed Curb (FT)

1,600- 3,200 2,300 1,600 2,300

Relative Magnitude of Construction Costs $ $$-$$$ $ $$-$$$ $-$$ $$ $$$ $

P

Alternative Summary

Conventional Lanes Protected Lanes 2-way Protected Lanes

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

A few words on intersections…

We’ve considered roundabouts and signalized options at most intersections. Both can work from a vehicle perspective (mostly).

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

A few words on intersections…

The specific design of the intersections depends on the bicycle facility treatment:

  • One-way vs Two-way bicycle lanes
  • Protected or not protected

In general:

  • Protected bike lanes through roundabouts make a

much larger intersection (often requiring ROW)

  • Intersection alternatives will be developed after

receiving input on the roadway alternatives

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Discussion Time!

1) . 2) .

3) Are these alternatives on the right track and presentable to public?

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Public Comment

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Initial Evaluation Criteria

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Initial Evaluation Criteria

Bicycle Level of Stress Pedestrian Quality of Service Transit Quality of Service Vehicle Congestion Safety for all Users Change in Parking Spaces Utility Poles Impacted Street Trees Impacted Change in Green Strip Width Curb Changes Cost Equity Loading Zones Neighborhood Access Stormwater Opportunities Discussion:

1) Hide 2) . 3) .

4) Obtain input and insight on metrics for evaluation.

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

PROJECT STARTUP CORRIDOR VISION AND GOALS SELECT 6 FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION DRAFT REPORT & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL REPORT & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

2018

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug

2019

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CORRIDOR VISION Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Sept Oct Feb

1 2 1 3 4 6 3 4 5 2

What’s Next?

  • Alternatives presentation to public
  • Evaluation criteria
  • Areas of concern, improvement, focus
slide-35
SLIDE 35

JONATHAN SLASON | PROJECT MANAGER

RSG

Jonathan.Slason@rsginc.com 802.861.0508 BRYAN DAVIS bdavis@ccrpcvt.org 802.861.0129

CCRPC

Steering Committee Consultant Team

CONTACTS

NICOLE LOSCH nlosch@burlingtonvt.gov 802.865.5833

CITY OF BURLINGTON PUBLIC WORKS

COREY MACK

RSG

Corey.Mack@rsginc.com 802.861.0513

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Thank You!