BURLINGTON BIKE PATH RESTORATIONRehabilitation of the City’s Shoreline Treasure

BURLINGTON BIKE PATH RESTORATIONRehabilitation of the City’s Shoreline Treasure

BIKE PATHPUBLIC FORUM

Contois Auditoriumin City Hall

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012,

5:30 – 7:00 pm.

BIKE PATHPUBLIC FORUM

Contois Auditoriumin City Hall

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012,

5:30 – 7:00 pm.

Evening AgendaEvening Agenda

1. Overview of the Process (20 min) Introduction Review of fact sheet Review of evaluation tools

2. Policy Discussion (30 min) General policies Location-specific policies Q&A!

3. Funding Discussion (30 min) Review of packages/costs by segment Funding options Q&A!

4. Next Steps (10 min) Additional Q&A!Contact info

Fact Sheet… WHATFact Sheet… WHAT

The City Council passed a Resolution on September 14th, 2010 creating the 12-member Bike Path Task Force and charged it to:

Review the current bike path system and the capital needs focusing on the 7.5 miles and its connections to other paths in the network

Review the 2002 Feasibility Study and 2005 Island Line Sign & Amenities Plan; make recommendations and revisions

Review current maintenance budget and capital budget allocations

Identify any financial gaps in the operation budget and future capital budgets

Understand how the Bike path is a part of the Island Line Trail and explore opportunities for regional signs, funding and or maintenance

Recommend a preferred funding mechanism to address maintenance/capital funding gaps

Create a concise written action plan to address funding gaps and Feasibility Study

Present findings

Fact Sheet… WHEREFact Sheet… WHERE

The Task Force was charged with assessing the 7.5 miles of bike path along the shoreline of Lake Champlain, beginning from Austin Drive and ending at the Winooski River Bridge.

Fact Sheet… WHYFact Sheet… WHY

The bike path was built 25 years ago and was one of the first in New England. However, it was not built to today's standards and with heavy use and lakeshore impacts some sections are now unsafe and impassable.

Yearly repair is no longer a sustainable option for the major restoration and rehabilitation issues.

Because the Bike Path is so important to alternative transportation goals, to the health and wellness of our residents, and to the tourism industry in Burlington the City Council created the Task Force with the goals listed above.

Fact Sheet… WHOFact Sheet… WHO

As directed by the City Council, the Parks & Recreation Commission appointed Task Force members:

John Bossange (Chair) Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur (Vice-chair) Bob McKearin Jane Knodel Katherine Monstream Kurt Wright

Additional support has come from…

Department of Parks & Recreation Mari Steinbach, Director Deryk Roach, Parks Superintendent Jen Francis, Parks Planner

Department of Public Works Nicole Losch, Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Environmental Planner

Lisa Aultman-Hall Patrick Standen Peter Clavelle Steve Allen Will Flender Zandy Wheeler

Local Motion Chapin Spencer, Executive Director

CEDO Larry Kupferman, Director

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) Peter Keating

Fact Sheet… HOWFact Sheet… HOW

The full Task Force has met every other month along with sub-committee work between Task Force meetings. Initiatives and action steps were created to meet the criteria of the Resolution.

Consulting engineers, Resource Systems Group was hired to write a feasibility study assessing and recommending necessary projects with accompanying estimates.

Public input was received, reports were generated and decisions were made regarding the design, prioritization & restoration processes.

Evaluation Tools – Prioritization MatrixEvaluation Tools – Prioritization Matrix

The Path was divided into sixteen sections and the projects in each section were carefully assessed using the matrix criteria:

SAFETY (personal security, traffic security, signs & markings) DESIGN STANDARDS (width & shoulders, surface type, storm water management) CONNECTIVITY (local connections and enhanced access points, community destinations) ECONOMIC VITALITY (visitor information, restrooms, drinking fountains, mile markers) MAINTENANCE EFFICIENCY (utilities, trees & shrubs, cleanliness)

Each criteria guideline was given a grade and guideline grades were averaged to develop the overall improvement grade.

Evaluation Tools – Prioritization MatrixEvaluation Tools – Prioritization Matrix

Matrix used to evaluate the 74 specific recommendations in the feasibility study…

Evaluation Tools – Improvement SpreadsheetEvaluation Tools – Improvement Spreadsheet

An improvement spreadsheet was developed to prioritize each project and summarize costs. Each section was evaluated and broken into three categories: A’s, B’s and C’s + D’s.

Funding Packages – Three OpportunitiesFunding Packages – Three Opportunities

Projects were clustered into these three improvement funding packages based on the graded rating system.

1 - Rehabilitation (Comprehensive Rehabilitation) = A’sPreliminary Estimate: $11,645,000Defined as costs that must be expended to save the bike path and meet the current design standards for sub-base, path width, surface, shoulders and drainage.

2 - Functional (Additional Safety Improvements) = A’s + B’sPreliminary Estimate: $13,875,000Defined as recommendations that improve safety, add capacity, or improve

conditions beyond the existing system including fencing near slopes, lighting in key areas, directional signage, etc.

3 - Enhancement (Additional Amenities) = A’s + B’s + C’s + D’s Preliminary Estimate: $16,873,000Defined as enhancements to the path’s character and aesthetics including trailhead kiosks, pause places, learning stations, drinking fountains, etc.

Policy – RecommendationsPolicy – Recommendations

Recommendations were organized in two categories: 1.) general actions that should be taken for the length of the corridor to improve uniformity and 2.) location-specific actions. The recommendations address:

Rehabilitating the path to include a wider paved section and unpaved shoulders to improve safety for users and increase the structural ability of the path to accommodate maintenance vehicles.

Upgrading the path-roadway intersections to improve safety for all users.

Enhancing connectivity to and from the path.

Constructing gateways/trailheads to enable visitors to more easily find and navigate the facility.

Enhancing the path with a comprehensive suite of amenities such as pause places, wayfinding, and interpretive stations.

General Policy – Cross-SectionGeneral Policy – Cross-Section

The majority of existing path is 8’ wide… with informally developed running paths along each side between 0-2’ wide.

The recommended minimum cross-section is 11’ wide…with 2’ of defined unpaved shoulders on either side of the path.

A widened (11’) path is the minimum width needed for two bicycles traveling in opposite directions to pass one another AND a pedestrian (AASHTO).

A widened path will accommodate

maintenance & emergency vehicles.

General Policy – Cross-SectionGeneral Policy – Cross-Section

Associated cross-section (path width) costs…

General Policy – Path-Road IntersectionsGeneral Policy – Path-Road Intersections

Each intersection differs and will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis but general elements should be consistent:

Right-of-way assigned to vehicles on the road and intersection control is therefore to be applied to the path. Recommended because of seasonal variety of path use and emissions reductions.

4-way stop signs are NOT recommended due to variability of volume.

Traffic calming should be applied on the road to reduce vehicle speeds including speed table/raised crosswalk, neck down to 11’ travel lanes and splitter islands.

Intersection control is dictated by sight distances. The lease intersection control that is effective should be used (that is, ‘yield’ is preferable to ‘stop’).

Intersection treatments are based on AASHTO and MUTCD guidelines and standards.

General Policy – ConnectionsGeneral Policy – Connections

To improve path’s regional connectivity, the recommendations of the CCRPC Regional Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan and Metropolitan Transportation Plan should be pursued.

Locally, consider two issues:

1.) Improving existing connections where gateways should be developed to raise the level of amenities

2.) Defining connections that are currently informal

The connection behind Burlington College The gap between Starr Farm Road and North Avenue Extension Depot Street Improved access at the Lakeside Avenue bridge staircase

Example gateway treatment at Manhattan Drive

General Policy – Signs & AmenitiesGeneral Policy – Signs & Amenities

The 2005 Island Line Plan, suggested for implementation, includes design and placement recommendations for:

Directional and regulatory signs Interpretive markers, Entry/gateway kiosks with interpretive/safety info Pause places Restrooms Benches Bike racks

The feasibility study recommends additional enhancement items:

Drinking fountains “You are here” maps Trash receptacles Dog waste bag dispensers Signs to existing restrooms Mile markers

Sample etiquette signage

Directional signage design

General Policy – Centerline StripingGeneral Policy – Centerline Striping

Recommendations:

4” wide yellow striping (broken where it is safe to pass and solid in no passing zones)

“Keep Right” pavement markings

Policy – Location-SpecificPolicy – Location-Specific

Map of location-specific recommendations

Location-Specific Policy – Kiosks & LightingLocation-Specific Policy – Kiosks & Lighting

Gateways & Kiosks: Oakledge Park (gateway & kiosk) King Street to College (kiosk) College Street to Lake Street (gateway & kiosk) North Beach to Little Eagle Bay (gateway) Little Eagle Bay to Shore Road (gateway & kiosk) Starr Farm Road to North Ave (kiosk) North Avenue Extension to Winooski River (kiosk)

Pause Places & Learning Stations Oakledge Park Lake Street through Urban Reserve North Beach

Lighting Southern portion of the bike path (south of round house point) Waterfront North/Urban reserve North of North Beach

Kiosk design

Location-Specific Policy – AlignmentLocation-Specific Policy – Alignment

Alignment refers to the bike path’s course and footprint as it passes through an area.

Some sections of the path may be considered for realignment to improve safety and user experience.

Oakledge Park The tight curve north of the Blodgett Ovens building by Lakeside Avenue The sharp turn North of the water treatment plant to Perkins Pier Between Perkins Pier/Maple Street and College Street

Policy – Q&APolicy – Q&A

Questions/Comments?General Policy: Cross-section Path-Road Intersections Connections Amenities Centerline Striping

Location-specific Policy: Kiosks & Lighting Alignment

Funding – Review of PackagesFunding – Review of Packages

1 - Rehabilitation (Comprehensive Rehabilitation) = A’sPreliminary Estimate: $11,645,000Defined as costs that must be expended to save the bike path and meet the current design standards for sub-base, path width, surface, shoulders and drainage.

2 - Functional (Additional Safety Improvements) = A’s + B’sPreliminary Estimate: $13,875,000Defined as recommendations that improve safety, add capacity, or improve

conditions beyond the existing system including fencing near slopes, lighting in key areas, directional signage, etc.

3 – Enhancement (Additional Amenities) = A’s + B’s + C’s + D’s Preliminary Estimate: $16,873,000Defined as enhancements to the path’s character and aesthetics including trailhead kiosks, pause places, learning stations, drinking fountains, etc.

Funding – Costs by SegmentFunding – Costs by Segment

Scenario costs estimates by segment…

Funding – How to pay?Funding – How to pay?

Federal Congressional Delegation FEMA shoreline restoration TIGER IV grant application Enhancement grants

State Agency of Transportation Bike Path Program Transportation Community Preservation (TCP)

Regional/Local Opportunities Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) TIF District – Waterfront Vermont Community Foundation Private/Corporate Contribution

Funding – Local AssistanceFunding – Local Assistance

A bond option could be put forward on the November ballot to secure a funding source for the local share.

16.9 Million Bond20 years / 4% / raises $1,234,000 per year to pay back the bond = about 3 cents on the tax rate This translates to about $75.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.

11.6 Million Bond20 years / 4% / raises $850.00 per year to bay back the bond= about 2 cents on the tax rateThis translates to about $50.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.

6.7 Million Bond20 years / 4% / raises $490,000 per year to pay back the bond= about 1 cent on the tax rateThis translates to about $25.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.

Funding – Q&AFunding – Q&A

Questions/Comments?16.9 Million Bond

20 years / 4% / raises $1,234,000 per year to pay back the bond = about 3 cents on the tax rate

This translates to about $75.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.

11.6 Million Bond20 years / 4% / raises $850.00 per year to bay back the bond

= about 2 cents on the tax rateThis translates to about $50.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.

6.7 Million Bond20 years / 4% / raises $490,000 per year to pay back the bond

= about 1 cent on the tax rateThis translates to about $25.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.

Next Steps – GET INVOLVED!Next Steps – GET INVOLVED!

For more information or further discussion, please contact: John Bossange, Task Force Chair (802) 578-7468 or Mari Steinbach, P&R Director (802) 864-0123.

Questions & comments may also be emailed to:

jsfrancis@ci.burlington.vt.us

This entire presentation is available online, along with the full Burlington Bike Path Improvement Feasibility Study. Please visit the Parks & Recreation website for additional details:

http://www.enjoyburlington.com/Parks/BikePath1.cfm

Thank you for your support in the restoration of our bike path!