BURLINGTON BIKE PATH RESTORATION Rehabilitation of the City’s Shoreline Treasure BIKE PATH PUBLIC FORUMContois Auditorium in City HallWednesday, March 14th, 2012, 5:30 – 7:00 pm.
Evening Agenda1. Overview of the Process (20 min) Introduction Review of fact sheet Review of evaluation tools2. 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… WHATThe City Council passed a Resolution on September 14th, 2010creating 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 itsconnections to other paths in the network Review the 2002 Feasibility Study and 2005 Island Line Sign & Amenities Plan; makerecommendations 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 forregional 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… 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… WHYThe bike path was built 25 years ago and was one of the first inNew England. However, it was not built to todays standardsand with heavy use and lakeshore impacts some sectionsare now unsafe and impassable.Yearly repair is no longer a sustainable option for the majorrestoration and rehabilitation issues.Because the Bike Path is so important to alternativetransportation goals, to the health and wellness of ourresidents, and to the tourism industry in Burlington the CityCouncil created the Task Force with the goals listed above.
Fact Sheet… WHOAs directed by the City Council, the Parks & RecreationCommission appointed Task Force members: Lisa Aultman-Hall John Bossange (Chair) Patrick Standen Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur (Vice-chair) Peter Clavelle Bob McKearin Steve Allen Jane Knodel Will Flender Katherine Monstream Zandy Wheeler Kurt WrightAdditional support has come from… Local MotionDepartment of Parks & Recreation Chapin Spencer, Executive Director Mari Steinbach, Director Deryk Roach, Parks Superintendent CEDO Jen Francis, Parks Planner Larry Kupferman, DirectorDepartment of Public Works Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Nicole Losch, (CCRPC)Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Environmental Planner Peter Keating
Fact Sheet… HOWThe full Task Force has met everyother month along with sub-committee work between Task Forcemeetings. Initiatives and action stepswere created to meet the criteria ofthe Resolution.Consulting engineers, ResourceSystems Group was hired to write afeasibility study assessing andrecommending necessary projectswith accompanying estimates.Public input wasreceived, reports weregenerated and decisionswere made regarding thedesign, prioritization &restoration processes.
Evaluation Tools – Prioritization MatrixThe Path was divided into sixteen sections and the projects ineach 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 theoverall improvement grade.
Evaluation Tools – Prioritization MatrixMatrix used to evaluate the 74 specific recommendations in thefeasibility study…
Evaluation Tools – Improvement SpreadsheetAn improvement spreadsheet was developed to prioritize eachproject and summarize costs. Each section was evaluated andbroken into three categories: A’s, B’s and C’s + D’s.
Funding Packages – Three OpportunitiesProjects were clustered into these three improvement funding packages based on the gradedrating system.1 - Rehabilitation (Comprehensive Rehabilitation) = A’s Preliminary Estimate: $11,645,000 Defined 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’s Preliminary Estimate: $13,875,000 Defined as recommendations that improve safety, add capacity, or improveconditions 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: $16,873,000 Defined as enhancements to the path’s character and aesthetics including trailhead kiosks, pause places, learning stations, drinking fountains, etc.
Policy – RecommendationsRecommendations were organized in two categories: 1.) general actions that should be taken for the length ofthe corridor to improve uniformity and 2.) location-specificactions. The recommendations address: Rehabilitating the path to include a wider paved section and unpaved shoulders toimprove safety for users and increase the structural ability of the path to accommodatemaintenance 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 navigatethe facility. Enhancing the path with a comprehensive suite of amenities such as pause places,wayfinding, and interpretive stations.
General 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 A widened path will two bicycles traveling in accommodate opposite directions to passmaintenance & emergency one another AND a vehicles. pedestrian (AASHTO).
General Policy – Cross-SectionAssociated cross-section (path width) costs…
General Policy – Path-Road IntersectionsEach intersection differs and will need to beconsidered on a case-by-case basis butgeneral elements should be consistent: Right-of-way assigned to vehicles on theroad and intersection control is therefore tobe applied to the path. Recommendedbecause of seasonal variety of path use andemissions reductions. 4-way stop signs are NOT recommendeddue to variability of volume. Traffic calming should be applied on theroad to reduce vehicle speeds includingspeed table/raised crosswalk, neck down to11’ travel lanes and splitter islands. Intersection treatments are based on AASHTO and Intersection control is dictated by sight MUTCD guidelines and standards.distances. The lease intersection controlthat is effective should be used (that is,‘yield’ is preferable to ‘stop’).
General Policy – ConnectionsTo improve path’s regional connectivity, the recommendations of the CCRPC RegionalBicycle-Pedestrian Plan and Metropolitan Transportation Plan should be pursued.Locally, consider two issues:1.) Improving existing connectionswhere gateways should be developedto raise the level of amenities2.) Defining connections thatare currently informal Example gateway treatment at Manhattan Drive 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
General Policy – Signs & AmenitiesThe 2005 Island Line Plan, suggested forimplementation, includes design and placementrecommendations for: Directional and regulatory signs Interpretive markers, Entry/gateway kiosks with interpretive/safety info Pause places Restrooms Benches Sample etiquette signage Bike racksThe feasibility study recommendsadditional enhancement items: Drinking fountains “You are here” maps Trash receptacles Dog waste bag dispensers Signs to existing restrooms Mile markers Directional signage design
General Policy – Centerline StripingRecommendations: 4” wide yellow striping(broken where it is safe to pass and solid in no passing zones) “Keep Right” pavement markings
Policy – Location-SpecificMap of location-specific recommendations
Location-Specific Policy – Kiosks & LightingGateways & 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 BeachLighting Southern portion of the bike path (south of round house point) Waterfront North/Urban reserve Kiosk design North of North Beach
Location-Specific Policy – AlignmentAlignment refers to the bike path’s course and footprint asit passes through an area.Some sections of the path may be considered forrealignment 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
Funding – Review of Packages1 - Rehabilitation (Comprehensive Rehabilitation) = A’s Preliminary Estimate: $11,645,000 Defined 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’s Preliminary Estimate: $13,875,000 Defined as recommendations that improve safety, add capacity, or improveconditions 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: $16,873,000 Defined as enhancements to the path’s character and aesthetics including trailhead kiosks, pause places, learning stations, drinking fountains, etc.
Funding – Costs by SegmentScenario costs estimates by segment…
Funding – How to pay?Federal Congressional Delegation FEMA shoreline restoration TIGER IV grant application Enhancement grantsState 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 AssistanceA bond option could be put forward on the November ballot tosecure 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 rateThis 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&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 rateThis translates to about $75.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000. 11.6 Million Bond 20 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 Bond 20 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! 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: firstname.lastname@example.orgThis 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.cfmThank you for your support in the restoration of our bike path!