morristown north end business district circulation study3c01460c-7f49-40f5-b243-0ca7924f23… ·...

MorristownNorthEnd

BusinessDistrictCirculationStudy

Morristown,VT

September30,2011

DATA ANALYS I S SOLUT IONS

FINALPLAN

Preparedfor:

TheLamoilleCountyPlanningCommission(LCPC)incooperationwiththeVermontAgencyofTransportation(VTrans),forthetownofMorristown.PreparedBy:

The preparation of this report has been funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration [and Federal Transit Administration], U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and opinions of the authors [or agency] expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U. S. Department of Transportation.

Morristown North End Circulation Study – Final Plan

TableofContentsIntroduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Project Area .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Zoning ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Land Use & Employment....................................................................................................................... 8

Origins and Destinations ....................................................................................................................... 8

Transportation Network ..................................................................................................................... 10

Access Management ........................................................................................................................... 11

Planned Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 12

Traffic Growth ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Truck & Freight Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 13

Highway Sufficiency Rating ................................................................................................................. 13

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................................... 14

Transit Service ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Parking ................................................................................................................................................ 17

Existing Traffic Performance and Safety Analysis ....................................................................................... 18

Traffic Performance ............................................................................................................................ 18

Vehicle Crash Histories........................................................................................................................ 20

High Crash Locations ........................................................................................................................... 21

Utilities and Stormwater ............................................................................................................................. 23

Summary of Existing Conditions Findings ................................................................................................... 25

Future Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 27

Future Land Use ...................................................................................................................................... 27

Future Travel Demand ............................................................................................................................ 29

Future Traffic Analysis Results ................................................................................................................ 31

Vision and Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 33

Improvement Strategies and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 34

Planning Overview .................................................................................................................................. 34


Page ii

Street Network Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 35

Streetscaping Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 38

Intersection Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 42

Truck Travel / Access ............................................................................................................................... 44

Access Management Recommendations ................................................................................................ 44

Bike Facility Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 45

Pedestrian Facility Recommendations .................................................................................................... 46

Transit Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 50

Parking Management .............................................................................................................................. 51

Stormwater Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 52

Monitoring and Planning Recommendations ......................................................................................... 52

Funding Sources & Opportunities ............................................................................................................... 54

Federal and State Transportation Funds ................................................................................................ 54

Local Funds (LF) ....................................................................................................................................... 55

Private Funds (PF) ................................................................................................................................... 56

Additional Resources .............................................................................................................................. 56

Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 57

Appendices

1. Map of surveyed Businesses in Project Area

2. VTrans Access Management Program Guidelines – Table 1.1

3. Morristown By‐Pass Travel Demand Project Memo, UVM TRC 3‐11‐11

4. AADT estimates with and without the ATR by VTrans Traffic Research

5. 2034 traffic volume worksheets

6. Access Management Site Opportunity – Photos and Plan view details

7. Example Parking Management Strategies – Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute

8. Meeting Notes


ListofFigures

Figure 1: Project Area ................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Zoning in Project Area .................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3: Local Trips Entering/Exiting the Project Area and Proportion To/From Zones (PM Peak Hour) ... 9

Figure 4: Road Network and Traffic (AADT) ................................................................................................ 10

Figure 5: Daily Traffic Variation (Veh/Hr vs. Time of Day) .......................................................................... 10

Figure 6: 2003‐2010 AADT in the Study Area ............................................................................................. 13

Figure 7: Existing Pedestrian Facilities and Desired Connections ............................................................... 14

Figure 8: Transit Service Routes .................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 9: Parking Resources & Approximate Spaces .................................................................................. 17

Figure 10: Vehicle Crash History (2003‐2009) ............................................................................................ 20

Figure 11: Number of Crashes by Time of Day ........................................................................................... 20

Figure 12: Reported Vehicle Crashes within the Project Area .................................................................... 21

Figure 13: Significant Sewer & Stormwater Features in Project Area ........................................................ 23

Figure 14: Future Development Project Location Map .............................................................................. 29

Figure 15: Change in Daily Traffic Due to the ATR in 2034 ......................................................................... 31

Figure 16: Future Access and Circulation .................................................................................................... 37

Figure 17: New Streetscaping in Morrisville Plaza ...................................................................................... 38

Figure 18: Streetscaping to Include a Sidewalk .......................................................................................... 38

Figure 19: Existing Cross Section of Brooklyn Street Looking North .......................................................... 39

Figure 20: Reconstructed Cross Section of Collectors (Brooklyn Street) with Bike Lane, No Parking ........ 39

Figure 21: Reconstructed Cross Section of Local Collectors (Brooklyn Street) with Bike Lane, with Parking

.................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 22: Local Street Cross Section .......................................................................................................... 40

Figure 23: Local Street Cross Section with Sidewalk ................................................................................... 41

Figure 24: Potential Roundabout at Harrel Street & Brooklyn Street ........................................................ 42

Figure 25: Needle Eye/Silver Ridge Rd Intersection ................................................................................... 43

Figure 26: Stafford/Northgate/VT100 Intersection .................................................................................... 43

Figure 27: Truck Circulation and Access to ATR .......................................................................................... 44

Figure 28: LVRT Access Points to Project Area............................................................................................ 46

Figure 29: Short and Medium Term Sidewalk, Bus Stops and Access Management Improvements ......... 47

Figure 30: Future Long Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities................................................................... 48

Figure 31: Standard Overhead Yellow Flashing Beacon for Crosswalk Enhancement ............................... 49

Figure 32: Embedded Pavement Flashing Lights for Crosswalk Enhancement .......................................... 49

Figure 33: Examples of Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs (with RRFB) .................................. 50


Page iv

ListofTables

Table 1: Area of Zoning Districts in Project Area (as adopted 2009) ............................................................ 7

Table 2: Existing Land Use Survey (2005) ..................................................................................................... 8

Table 3: Roadway Features ......................................................................................................................... 11

Table 4: Sufficiency Ratings for VT 15 and VT 100 in the Study Area ......................................................... 13

Table 5: Operation Details of Transit Routes in the Study Area ................................................................. 16

Table 6: Annual Transit Ridership ............................................................................................................... 16

Table 7: LOS Criteria for Intersections ........................................................................................................ 18

Table 8: 2011 PM Peak Hour Performance Results for Signalized Intersections ........................................ 19

Table 9: 2011 PM Peak Hour Performance Results for Unsignalized Intersections ................................... 19

Table 10: Severity of Crashes and Weather Related Crashes ..................................................................... 21

Table 11: Type of Crashes ........................................................................................................................... 22

Table 12: Contributing Factors of Crashes .................................................................................................. 22

Table 13: Potential Future Development Projects ...................................................................................... 28

Table 14:Future Land Use Scenario Trip Generation Estimate ................................................................... 30

Table 15: 2034 Performance Results with the Expected Future Traffic and Travel Patterns ..................... 33

Table 16: Implementation Items, Time Frame and Category (continued next page)................................. 57

Table 17: Execution Plan ‐ Responisble Party, Funding and Budgets (continued next page) ..................... 59

30 September 2011

Page 5

IntroductionThis report has been commissioned by the Lamoille County Planning Commission (LCPC) and the Town

of Morristown. A diverse group of stakeholders took part in this study, including staff from the LCPC,

Town Administration, Planning and Public Works, local businesses (Crosspoint Associates, Hearthstone,

Manosh, Union Bank), the Lamoille Region Chamber of Commerce, Lamoille Economic Development

Corporation, and the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). Several Stakeholder meetings were

held in order to gain input and review this plan at each milestone. A public meeting was held early in the

project schedule to present the existing conditions findings of this report and solicit comments and ideas

for needed improvements. See meeting notes in Appendix 8.

This study is intended to be a multimodal traffic circulation plan for the North End Business District, and

includes a list of recommendations and implementation strategies to help the Town plan for necessary

transportation improvements in this area.

The main components of this plan are as follows:

An assessment of existing conditions regarding land use, transportation infrasturture, safety,

demand and congestion.

An estimate of expected future growth and change in traffic, and the implications over the

network with respect to all modes of transportation.

A vision statement that outlines the goals for the future of this area.

A future circulation plan overview, and specific recommendations for improvements to the

network including; intersections, sidewalks, bike facilities, parking, transit and other related

infrastructure.

A list of potential funding sources specific to these types of improvements.

An implementation plan that lists each recommendation in terms of expected time frame for

completion, cost and the most likely funding source.


Page 6

ExistingConditionsExisting conditions pertaining to land use within the study area and the associated transportation

infrastructure are presented to serve as a baseline for comparison in future conditions and

recommendations of this study.

ProjectAreaThe project area (see Figure 1) is bounded by the Village Line and the Lamoille River to the south, and

extends just north of VT 15 to include abutting commercial properties.

Figure 1: Project Area

30 September 2011

Page 7

ZoningZoning within the project area (see Figure 2) includes the commercial zone adjacent to VT 100 and VT 15, as well as two separate industrial zones. A flood zone adjacent to the Lamoille River limits a portion of the southern Industrial District. Total area of each district (less highway rights of way) is summarized in Table 1.

Figure 2: Zoning in Project Area

Table 1: Area of Zoning Districts in Project Area (as adopted 2009)

District # of Parcels Land Area (acres)

Commercial 77 154

Industrial 2 10 50

Industrial 3 61 144

Total 148 347


Page 8

LandUse&EmploymentExisting commercial and industrial land use was surveyed1 in the project area in 2005, and has been

summarized in the Table 2. The difference in area between Table 1 and Table 2 can likely be attributed

to numerous residential properties, common in the east side of the project area, as well as vacant land.

Table 2: Existing Land Use Survey (2005)

Land Use # of

Properties Land Area (acres)

Building area(sq ft)

Commercial 45 133 640,000

Industrial 10 62 128,000

Residential 2 <1 8,000

Unknown 1 1 14,000

Total 58 197 790,000

It is interesting to note that past growth in employment in the Town of Morristown is nearly the highest

in the county at +34% between 1990 and 2000. Along with Stowe, the two towns account for 70% of the

county’s employment growth in that period. The project area, with connections to municipal services,

access to both major arterials and close proximity to downtown Morrisville, make it a prime candidate

for a growth center.

OriginsandDestinations

RSG used available commercial and industrial space survey data, along with estimates of building density in several different subareas of each zoning district to estimate the likely proportion of through and local traffic (traffic that is destined to, or originates in the project area). This estimate concludes that approximately half (50%) of traffic entering the project area makes a stop in the project area (i.e. local traffic).

Figure 3 illustrates what portion of this local traffic entering and exiting the project area originates in, or is destined for each zone during a typical afternoon peak hour.

Based on typical commercial pass‐by trip rates, it is also estimated that about 250 users make more than one stop in the project area in the PM peak hour. This helps understand the demand and use of connections between parcels, where users are making multiple trips may take unconventional routes.

1 derived from town lister information and regional economic development records by LCPC

30 September 2011

Page 9

Figure 3: Local Trips Entering/Exiting the Project Area and Proportion To/From Zones (PM Peak Hour)

Note that approximate 750 additional trips are entering and leaving the project area without stopping

(i.e. through traffic).

Bicycle trips to the project area are likely to follow this same pattern of density in use within the project

area, however the origin of a bicycle trip outside the project area is more likely to be nearby, within

several miles, thus the entry/exit point to the project area would be much more likely to be from the

south, from the Village.


Page 10

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

TransportationNetworkThe project area is currently served from the south exclusively by VT 100 (Brooklyn Street). VT 15, to the

west, provides access to Hyde Park and northwest Vermont, and to the east provides a gateway to the

Northeast Kingdom.

Figure 4: Road Network and Traffic (AADT)

Annual average daily traffic (AADT) is approximately

12,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on VT 100, and on VT

15 west of Brooklyn St. Traffic volume drops by half

on VT 15 to the east of VT 100, to approximately

6,000 VPD. Traffic varies throughout the day2, with

a sharp peak in the afternoon at approximately 4‐5

pm (see Figure 5).

The speed limit on VT 100 transitions from 25 mph

in the local jurisdiction (south of Professional), to 40

mph throughout the remainder of the project area

(including where it shares the road with VT 15).

2 VTrans automatic traffic recording station SL181 just west of VT100 on VT15, April 2010

Figure 5: Daily Traffic Variation (Veh/Hr vs. Time of Day)

30 September 2011

Page 11

Posted speed on Harrell is 30 mph.

Important road features are summarized in Table 1. Road shoulder width plays an important role in

safety and capacity, as well as the ability to serve bicycle use. Road jurisdiction determines

responsibility for road improvements and maintenance, and can affect the design features of future

improvements. The planned Alternate Truck Route parallels VT100 (see Figure 4) and is expected to

change traffic patterns and volumes significantly when finished (see Planned Improvements section).

Table 3: Roadway Features

Road (segment*)

Total Width (ft)

Shoulder Width (ft)

Class (jurisdiction) AADT / year** (vpd)

change due to ATR (estimate) #

VT100 (south) 30 3 Minor Arterial (Local) 11,400 / 2010 ‐79‐84%

VT100 (north) 30 3 Minor Arterial (State) 11,100 / 2010 ‐61‐73%

VT15 (west) 33 3‐4 Minor Arterial (State) 12,500 / 2010 +7%

VT15 (mid) 30 3 Minor Arterial (State) 7,100 / 2010 ‐39%

VT15 (east) 30 3 Minor Arterial (State) 5,800 / 2010 +4%

Harrell 22‐23 0 Local 2,800 / est. ‐45%

Munson 22‐24 0 Local 2,200 / est. ‐45%

Industrial 23‐24 0 Local 1,000 / est. No change

Stafford 26‐28 0 Local 900 / 2011 +61%

Center 22 0 Local 2,100 / 2009 +4%

*Segments are defined as follows: VT100 south – AADT breaks at Industrial, jurisdiction breaks at Professional.

VT15 west – breaks at VT100, east breaks at Center Rd. **estimated AADT from turning counts or other sources. #

2011 estimate by UVM‐TRC. Some segment values are averaged.

AccessManagementAccess management has been identified as an issue in the project area, along VT 100, in the VT 100

Corridor Study. The density and spacing of driveways create many small intersections which result in

frequent, often overlapping conflict areas and result in inefficient roadway operation.

The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) follows a system of access management categories,

depending on road classification, used for guidance in the decision making process when reviewing

access permits. VT 100 and VT 15 are considered access management category three and need to

satisfy corresponding standards (See Appendix Table 1.1, excerpt from VTrans Access Management

Program Guidelines July 22, 2005).

VTrans Access Management Guidelines note six basic principles to follow in order to achieve the

benefits of access management,

Limit the number of conflict points.

Separate conflict points.

Separate turning volumes from through movements.

Locate traffic signals to facilitate traffic movement.

Maintain a hierarchy of roadway functions.

Limit direct access on higher‐speed roads (i.e. favor assess to side roads).


Page 12

The benefits of access management typically include;

Reduced vehicle crash potential.

Preserves roadway capacity and the useful life of roads.

Decreases travel time and congestion.

Improves access to properties.

Helps coordinate adjacent land use and transportation decisions.

Maintains travel efficiency and related economic prosperity.

PlannedImprovementsThe soon to be constructed Alternate Truck Route (see Figure 4) is likely to significantly change traffic

patterns within the project area by diverting truck and other thru traffic from Brooklyn Street, thereby

reducing congestion and allowing local land uses better access. A secondary access to the ATR will be

provided to Stafford Avenue. Access will be allowed from the west only at Professional Drive.

A recent study3 by the University of Vermont Transportation Research Center predicted that traffic

would drop on Brooklyn Street by as much as 80% due to the bypass, and traffic on VT 15 west of the

bypass would increase by 7%.

Planned new traffic control measures for the Alternate Truck Route (ATR) include a single lane

roundabout at VT 15 and a new traffic signal at Bridge St. The at‐grade intersections with Professional

Drive and Stafford Avenue will be stop controlled on the side streets only. The owner of the Hannaford

shopping center has recently installed a traffic and pedestrian signal at VT 100/TH 82.

TrafficGrowthGrowth in traffic in the project area (see Figure 6) has been relatively flat, except on VT 100 south of

Northgate Avenue, where estimates show that traffic rose significantly between 2004 and 2006. During

this period several new retail developments were opened, notably Peebles clothing shop, Big Lots and

Kinney Drugs. Traffic at all recording stations moderated in 2008, except for the section of Brooklyn

Street just south of VT 15.

3 See Appendix for full report.

30 September 2011

Page 13

Figure 6: 2003‐2010 AADT in the Study Area

Truck&FreightTrafficVT 100 and VT 15 are the primary freight transportation routes in the County. VTrans records (2008)

show that VT 100 (just south of VT 15) carries approximately 450 trucks per day (340 medium‐single unit

trucks and 110 tractor trailers), on an average day. VT 15 (just west of VT 100) carries more than twice

that – an average of 950 per day (240 of them tractor trailers).

The effects of the ATR on truck traffic are expected to be significant, and similar to the estimates

provided in Table 3, however no estimate of the split between local and through traffic has been

determined.

HighwaySufficiencyRatingVTrans rates all State and Federal Aid Urban highways by assigning a point rating to the various highway

elements (structure, safety and service) based on the actual condition, dimensions, and service of the

highway and its ability or inability to carry the traffic efficiently when compared to a uniform set of

standards. A highway which meets the standards in every respect receives 100 points4. Based on the

latest sufficiency rating report from VTrans (2008), the roadway segments of VT 15 and VT 100 in the

study area are both considered in fair condition. Sufficiency rating Table 4 summarizes some basic

characteristics of these two routes. The threshold for poor condition is a sufficiency rating of 60.

Table 4: Sufficiency Ratings for VT 15 and VT 100 in the Study Area

Route Structural condition

(50 pts) Safety (25 pts)

Service (25 pts)

Roadway rating (100 pts)

VT 15 29.0 20 20.2 69.2

VT 100 25.8 20 18.3 64.2

4 Good (80‐100), Fair (60‐79), Poor (40‐59), Bad (0‐39)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010

Vehicles per Day

VT15‐just west of VT100

VT100‐Bridge to Northgate

VT100‐just South of VT15

VT15‐East of VT100 to Center

VT15‐East of Center


Page 14

BicycleandPedestrianFacilitiesThe bike and pedestrian network is represented in Figure 7 below, where existing and planned sidewalks are shown, as well as desired connections that were expressed during a recent public survey by the Town (2010 Walkability Survey). The proposed Lamoille Valley Rail Trail is also shown, which has excellent potential for access to the Village, neighboring Towns and several points within the project area. VT100 in the project area, and throughout Lamoille County, is designated a regional bike route in the Lamoille County Regional Transportation Plan. Existing shoulder width on VT 15 and VT 100 (3‐4’) meets the minimum requirement suggested in the Vermont State Standards5 for shared use. Standards for local roads call for 28 feet of total road way width when AADT exceeds 2,000 vpd (26 ft. if AADT is between 1,500 and 2,000 vpd). Harrell and Munson do not meet this standard. Where dedicated bike lanes are desired they should be 4 feet minimum, and striped/signed accordingly.

There are no marked midblock crosswalks on the State controlled portion of VT 15 or VT 100 as the

AADT exceeds VTrans guidance for their installation.6

Figure 7: Existing Pedestrian Facilities and Desired Connections

5 VTrans, 1997, Minor Arterial, Table 4.7 Minimum Width to Accommodate Shared Use by Bicycles 6 Not recommended where AADT exceeds 9,000 vpd on a 3 or 4 lane highway.

30 September 2011

Page 15

TransitServiceTransit service in the project area is provided by Green Mountain Transit Agency (GMTA) and Rural Community Transportation (RCT). Several routes and stops are accessible in the project area, as depicted in the figure below.

Figure 8: Transit Service Routes

The operation details of these routes are listed in the Table 5. The VT 100 Commuter, as the name

implies, is purposed to serve commuters destined to and from the State Office Complex in Waterbury.

The 102 and 103 Routes serve local residents within Morrisville, connecting to various retail destinations

in the project area. A fourth route has recently started as a service connecting points east and north.

Price Chopper

Hannaford M’villePlaza


Page 16

Table 5: Operation Details of Transit Routes in the Study Area

Rt. 100 Commuter

(GMTA) 102 Morrisville Loop

(GMTA) 103 Shopping Shuttle

(GMTA) Ridge Runner (RCT)

Days of Operation Monday‐Friday Monday‐Friday Monday‐Friday 1st & 3

rdTuesdays

Origin Price Chopper/Big Lots Price Chopper West Branch Apts. Hannaford /

Northgate Plaza

Extent / Destination Waterbury State

Complex/Park Row Morrisville

Stowe / Morrisville Plaza

Greensboro/ Craftsbury

Hours of Operation, Northbound

5:45 AM‐6:45 PM 8:31 AM‐2:46 PM 12:35 PM varies

Hours of Operation, Southbound

6:15 AM‐7:15 PM 8:05 AM‐2:55 PM 3:03 PM varies

No. of Runs/Weekday (both directions)

16 7 2 varies

The latest full year of ridership data has been summarized for each route in Table 6 below. Due to the

short time frame of operation no data is available for the Ridge Runner route at this time. The more

recent, partial year, data available from GMTA (8 months, July ’10‐Feb ’11) indicates a 10‐15% increase

in ridership.

Table 6: Annual Transit Ridership7

Rt. 100 Commuter

(GMTA) 102 Morrisville Loop

(GMTA) 103 Shopping Shuttle

(GMTA) Ridge Runner (RCT)

Total annual ridership 7,500 1,850 1,675 TBD

Peak period / run 7:10 am 1:10 pm 12:35 pm TBD

Peak run annual ridership 1,850 400 775 TBD

7 7/1/09 to 6/30/10, D Armstrong, GMTA/CCTA

30 September 2011

Page 17

ParkingSeveral large parking areas exist in the project area, many within short distances of each other. All of

these lots are privately owned and controlled. Field observations show that parking in these larger lots

appear to be underutilized, with the more remote sections nearly empty throughout the day. Given

appropriate planning and connectivity measures, these lots could be considered parts of a larger

resource which could operate more efficiently through sharing with existing or future developments,

reducing costs to business owners as well as impact on the environment.

Significant parking lots in the project area have been identified in Figure 9. Those within walking

distance of each other could be candidates for shared parking considerations (i.e. where use peaks don’t

overlap, such as restaurants and offices). Shared parking in urban areas has been shown to significantly

reduce typical parking requirements for standalone, isolated businesses. Reducing parking needs for a

given business can have significant benefits such as reduced infrastructure costs, higher density

allowances, reduced stormwater runoff, and reduced heat island effects.

Figure 9: Parking Resources & Approximate Spaces


Page 18

ExistingTrafficPerformanceandSafetyAnalysis

TrafficPerformanceTraffic turning movement counts for the VT 15/VT 100 intersection were provided by VTrans, performed

in the summer of 2009. The remaining intersections were counted by RSG staff in February of 2011. All

counts were adjusted to the Design Hour (DHV)8 using the methodology outlined in the VTrans

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies. Traffic performance for the significant intersections within the

project area was estimated using Highway Capacity Manual methods using Synchro software (v7 by

Trafficware).

Level‐of‐Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the operating conditions as perceived by

motorists driving in a traffic stream. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines six grades to

describe the level of service at an intersection. Level‐of‐service is based on the average delay per

vehicle. Table 7 shows the various level‐of‐service grades, qualitative descriptions, and quantitative

definitions for unsignalized and signalized intersections.

Table 7: LOS Criteria for Intersections

The delay thresholds for LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections differ because of the driver’s expectations of the operating efficiency for the respective traffic control conditions. According to HCM procedures, an overall LOS cannot be calculated for two‐way stop‐controlled intersections because not all movements experience delay. In signalized and all‐way stop‐controlled intersections, all movements experience delay and an overall LOS can be calculated.

The VTrans policy on level of service is:

Overall LOS C should be maintained for state‐maintained highways and other streets accessing the state’s facilities.

Reduced LOS may be acceptable on a case‐by‐case basis when considering, at minimum, current and future traffic volumes, delays, volume to capacity ratios, crash rates, and negative impacts as a result of improvement necessary to achieve LOS C.

LOS D should be maintained for side roads with volumes exceeding 100 vehicles/hour for a single lane approach (150 vehicles/hour for a two‐lane approach) at two‐way stop‐controlled intersections.

8 The DHV is the 30th highest hour of traffic for the year and is used as the planning standard in Vermont.

LOS CHARACTERSTICS SIGNALIZED DELAY

(sec)

UNSIGNALIZED DELAY

(sec)

A Little or no delay < 10.0 < 10.0

B Short delays 10.1-20.0 10.1-15.0

C Average delays 20.1-35.0 15.1-25.0

D Long delays 35.1-55.0 25.1-35.0

E Very long delays 55.1-80.0 35.1-50.0

F Extreme delays 80.0< 50.1<

30 September 2011

Page 19

Table 8 and 9 below summarize the results of the traffic performance analysis. Notable signs of

excessive congestion are highlighted in green.

Table 8: 2011 PM Peak Hour Performance Results for Signalized Intersections9

Signalized Intersections (and each street approach) PM Peak Hour

LOS Avg. Delay (s) v/c

VT 15/VT 100

Overall C 21.2 0.72

Northbound left, VT 100 C 23.2 0.74

Northbound right, VT 100 B 11 0.09

Southbound left, thru and right, VT 100 B 10.3 0

Eastbound thru, VT 15 B 19.3 0.4

Eastbound right, VT 15 B 17 0.21

Westbound left and thru, VT 15 C 27 0.7

Table 9: 2011 PM Peak Hour Performance Results for Unsignalized Intersections

Unsignalized Intersections – by approach and lane group PM Peak Hour

LOS Avg. Delay (s) v/c

VT 15/Center Rd.

Northbound left, thru and right from Center Rd. B 14.1 0.02

Southbound left and right from Center Rd. B 14.3 0.28

Eastbound left from VT 15 A 8.2 0.1

VT 100/Stafford Ave.

Northbound left from VT 100 A 0.1 0.01

Eastbound left and right from Stafford Ave. F 52.8 0.5

Westbound left and right from Stafford Ave. C 24.1 0.16

VT 100/Industrial Dr.

Southbound left from VT 100 A 9 0.04

Eastbound left and right from Industrial Dr. C 23.6 0.01

Westbound left and right from Industrial Dr. D 28.1 0.4

VT 100/Hannaford/Northgate Plaza


Southbound left from VT 100 A 8.8 0.03

Eastbound left, thru and right from Hannaford F 51.2 0.71

Westbound left, thru and right from Northgate Plaza D 30.7 0.37

VT 100/Harrel St.


Southbound left from VT 100 A 0.6 0.05

Eastbound left and right from Harrel St. C 21.6 0.04

Westbound left, thru and right from Harrel St. F 94.7 0.88

Based on this analysis traffic congestion is notable at the stop controlled intersection side streets of VT 100 from Harrell to VT 15. The traffic signal at VT 15/VT 100 operates with relatively moderate levels of delay and congestion.

9 v/c is the volume to capacity ratio, representing the ratio of the traffic demand compared the capacity to process vehicles during the study hour. A v/c greater than 0.75 typically indicates heavy congestion.


Page 20

VehicleCrashHistories

Crash histories were collected from VTrans (2003‐2009) for segments of VT 15 and VT 100 in the study area, and along Munson Ave. VTrans maintains a statewide database of all reported crashes along all state highways and federal aid road segments.10

A reportable crash is a collision with at least one of the following results caused by the event:

property damage exceeding $1,000

personal injury

fatality

Figure 10 shows the total number of reported crashes that occurred on two segments of VT 15 (between mile markers 0.59 and 1.5) and VT 100 (between mile markers 5.98 and 6.6) in the study area, for each year from 2003 to 2009.

While the total number of crashes has been mostly constant, more crashes occurred on VT 100 than VT 15, yet the level of traffic is more similar, suggesting VT100 is more prone to crashes. Crashes decreased significantly in 2009. Figure 11 shows the time of day crashes for VT 15 and VT 100 in the study area. While the crashes are constant for VT 15, the 3‐6 pm period shows the most crashes for VT 100.

10 This data is exempt from Discovery or Admission under 23 U.S.C. 409.

0

5

10

15

20

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

VT 15

VT 100

0

10

20

30

40

5‐9 AM 9‐Noon Noon‐3 3‐6 PM After 6 PM

VT 15

VT 100

Figure 10: Vehicle Crash History (2003‐2009)

Figure 11: Number of Crashes by Time of Day

30 September 2011

Page 21

HighCrashLocations

In order to be classified as a High Crash Location (HCL), an intersection or road section (0.3 mile section) must meet the following two conditions:

1. It must have at least 5 crashes over a 5‐year period

2. The Actual Crash Rate must exceed the Critical Crash Rate for a similar facility.

Based on the most current analysis by VTrans there is one HCL Section along VT 100, and one on VT 15 in the project area (see Figure 12). There is one HCL Intersection at VT 15 & VT 100, where 32 crashes were reported between 2003 and 2009.

Figure 12: Reported Vehicle Crashes within the Project Area

Inclement weather does not appear to be a significant factor in crashes along these segments of VT 15 and VT 100 in the study area since over three‐quarter of the crashes occurred when it was clear or cloudy. There were no fatal crashes reported, and one‐fifth of the crashes resulted in personal injuries.

Table 10: Severity of Crashes and Weather Related Crashes

VT 15 % of crashes VT 100 % of crashes

Inclement weather 13 21% 5 6%

Injury crash 13 21% 17 20%

Fatalities 0 0% 0 0%


Page 22

Nearly one‐half of the crashes in the segment of VT 15 were rear end collisions, while turning traffic,

broadside, and rear end collisions each composited over one‐fifth of the total crashes in the segment of

VT 100 (see Table 11).

Table 11: Type of Crashes


Sideswipe 6 10% 7 8%

Rear end 26 42% 24 28%

Single vehicle 2 3% 3 3%

Other 6 10% 3 3%

Turning traffic 5 8% 23 26%

Broadside, no turns 6 10% 20 23%

Head on 11 18% 7 8%

Total 62 87

While several factors contribute to the crashes, inattention and failure to yield right of way are two

major contributing factors for segments of both VT 15 and VT 100 in the study area (see Table 12).

Table 12: Contributing Factors of Crashes


Inattention 20 32% 32 37%

Failed to yield right of way 22 35% 40 46%

Distracted 3 5% 3 3%

Other improper actions 6 10% 4 5%

Followed too closely 10 16% 17 20%

Visibility obstructed 6 10% 4 5%

Driving too fast for conditions 1 2% 2 2%

Total No. of Crashes 62 87

Note: some crashes have more than one contributing factor

In summary, there are an unusually high number of crashes on VT100 and VT15/100 in the project area.

This is exemplified by two designated HCL sections and one HCL intersection. The frequency of rear end

and turning crash types is significant, and inattention and failure to yield are common contributing

factors. These types and factors in crashes are common on roadways with heavy congestion and closely

spaced, poorly defined driveways. The high number of injury crashes is in large part due to the high

number of right angle (turning) and broadside crashes.

30 September 2011

Page 23

UtilitiesandStormwaterMunicipal sewer and water service is provided in much of the project area. Several sewer expansion

areas have been planned by the Town, shown in Figure 13 below.

Stormwater is primarily directed through surface conveyances (sheet flow, ditches and culverts)

ultimately leading to the Lamoille River. Several onsite subsurface collection systems exist in the bigger

developments (Price Chopper, Hannaford, Morrisville Plaza, for example). One significant subsurface11

stormwater collection system exists along Brooklyn Street, discharging to Wilkins Ravine after being

treated in an underground swirl sediment separator at the approximate location shown in Figure 13.

This system has seen recent improvements, including the sediment separator, at significant cost to the

Town.

Figure 13: Significant Sewer & Stormwater Features in Project Area

The State regulations address stormwater for developments that have more than 1 acre of impervious surface. In 2009, the Town adopted regulations that require stormwater treatment for developments that create less than 1 acre of imperious surface. As this area of town is developed and impervious surface area increases, the amount of stormwater runoff in the project area will also increase. Since 2002 the town has been working with the VT DEC to address stormwater issues on a case‐by‐case basis

11 Subsurface drainage systems are typically characterized by a series of catch‐basins (drop inlets) and underground piping connections.


Page 24

by retrofitting systems. Currently no overall plan is in place for adding stormwater capacity or addressing existing issues.

Stormwater issues12 in the project area include:

Along Munson Ave. where the collection system from the Price Chopper area discharges to surface swales, and many adjacent parcels have no collection or treatment systems, significant flooding has been noted, particularly near the CCS parcel. This uncontrolled and untreated water has also created erosion issues as it eventually leads across Harrel St. and Harvey’s Manufactured Home parcel, to the river floodplain.

At the VT15 crossing, the subsurface drainage system leading to Brooklyn Ave is undersized and needs replacement.

The watershed and intermittent stream that starts on Trombley Hill Road, crosses VT15, and then crosses Houle Avenue, is showing stress in the form of erosion, undue encroachment from adjacent developments, and signs of pollution.

Soils in the project area have shown good capability to accept infiltration which could help mitigate

some of these issues, given a suitable design and collective planning.

The Morrisville Alternate Truck Route (see Figure 4) will have a new stormwater collection and

treatment system, owned and maintained by VTrans, which will discharge to Wilkins Ravine. This new

system will pick up and treat stormwater from many of the adjacent parcels, notably Hannaford and VT

Precision Woodworks.

12 Correspondence with Jim Pease, VT DEC. April 2011.

30 September 2011

Page 25

SummaryofExistingConditionsFindings Traffic congestion is moderate to heavy at the study intersections, with several areas of concern

including:

o At VT100 and Stafford Avenue, stop controlled traffic delay on the sideline exceeds the

VTrans Level of Service guideline threshold of D. While the sideline volume is currently

low enough to be exempt from warranting more traffic control such as a signal or 4‐way

stop, expected increases in traffic on Stafford due to the ATR may prove otherwise.

o At VT100 and Harrell Street, stop controlled traffic delay on the sideline approach

exceeds VTrans Level of Service guidelines under current conditions. This condition

combined with a record of elevated crashes at or near this intersection warrant the

need for some improvement in this area.

o At VT100 and the Hannaford entrance, delay on this sideline exceeded VTrans Level of

Service guideline threshold of D, however the newly installed traffic signal should

correct this deficiency.

The elevated frequency of vehicle crashes is at least partially attributable to poor access

management (indicated by turning and broadside crashes), combined with congestion.

Traffic volume;

o The average daily traffic volumes on VT 15 and VT 100 in the project area have not

grown much in the last seven years.

o Overall traffic is expected to increase when the Alternate Truck Route (ATR) is

constructed.

o The ATR is expected to significantly reduce truck and other through traffic on the

existing road network in the project area, except adjacent to the ATR terminus along VT

15, where traffic is expected to increase.

Bicycle facilities;

o There are no specific designated on‐road accommodations for bicyclists,

o VT 15 and VT 100 shoulders meet the minimum Vermont State Standard width for on

road use. Many local streets do not meet this standard.

o The completion of the planned rail trail would be a significant improvement for bicycle

access to land uses in the project area, but connectivity is lacking..


Page 26

Transit;

o Two local transit shopping routes operate between the village and the study area, with

relatively low frequency.

o A third route serves local commuters going to and from the State Office Complex in

Waterbury.

o A fourth route (also considered a shopping route) connects the project area to towns as

far east as Greensboro, and as far north as Craftsbury.

o No transit service currently serves towns to the west.

Pedestrian facilities are limited to a sidewalk on the east side of Brooklyn St, and small

unconnected segments on Harrel St. and Munson Ave.

Several large parking areas exist in the project area, many within short distances of each other.

Given appropriate planning and connectivity measures, these lots could be considered parts of a

larger resource which could operate more efficiently through sharing, reducing costs to business

owners as well as impact on the environment.

30 September 2011

Page 27

FutureConditionsThis section of the plan develops and analyzes future conditions in order to determine and plan for

transportation system recommendations. To be consistent with forecasts developed for the ATR, the

assumed planning horizon is 2034. Over the course of this planning horizon, transportation demand is

expected to change in several ways, such as:

‐ Growth due to more intensified land use in the project area

‐ A change in vehicle traffic patterns due to the Alternate Truck Route (ATR)

‐ Growth in background traffic due to the attractiveness of the ATR

‐ Growth in background traffic due to county‐wide growth expectations

‐ A change in travel mode choice and subsequent growth in alternate transportation facilities (i.e.

sidewalks, bike facilities and transit service).

Each of these factors is discussed below.

FutureLandUseBecause transportation demand is driven by the intensity and types of commercial and residential

development within a particular area, a future land use scenario was developed for the business district.

The future land use scenario includes anticipated development projects and an estimate of the potential

“build‐out” of vacant parcels for which there are no known development projects. The first component

of the future land use scenario, known/anticipated development projects, was created in in

collaboration with the Town and LCPC planning staffs. The projects are identified in Table 13 and Figure

14.

The second component of the future land use scenario, build‐out of vacant parcels, considers

constraints such as zoning, physical limitations, and natural constraints to develop an estimate of

buildable‐area. Specific considerations include:

Zoning – the general type of land development (office, commercial, industrial) was determined

based on the allowable uses in the Town’s zoning regulations.

Physical limitations – lots with physical limitations such as steep slopes, flood prone areas,

stream courses or wetlands were discounted for future development. Land within the footprint

of the planned ATR was excluded.

Scale limitations – particularly large potential projects, such as large tracts of undeveloped land,

were phased over a period of time greater than the ultimate build‐out year. In effect only a

percentage of the full build‐out of these parcels was accounted for.


Page 28

Table 13: Potential Future Development Projects

ID Description Possible new development

1 Butternut Mtn Farm business expansion (manfg)

2 MSI Storage Bldg. general industrial use

3 Underdeveloped general commercial use

4 Aubuchon / Gas Station Maplefields

5 Hanniford general commercial

6 Alpine Snow Guards business expansion (manfg)

7 Former Decart, Inc. general industrial use

8 Greene Foundry general industrial use

9 Turtle Fur business expansion (manfg)

Parcels that are undeveloped:

A Sewer expansion area general industrial use

B Commercial area N of VT15 general commercial use

C 5 lot subdivision 18,000 office+

D Undeveloped general industrial use

E Undeveloped general industrial use

F Adjacent land to Decart general industrial use

Parcels that are developed, but are either vacant, underdeveloped

or planned for redevelopment:

30 September 2011

Page 29

Figure 14: Future Development Project Location Map

FutureTravelDemandGrowth in traffic associated with the future land use scenario was estimated using trip generation rates

from the Institute of Engineer’s Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Known/anticipated project developments

were quantifiable by building size and use, while the build‐out sites were analyzed using typical rates by

acre of buildable area. The resulting trip generation is summarized in Table 14 beloow.


Page 30

Table 14:Future Land Use Scenario Trip Generation Estimate

NOTE: ksf‐thousands of square feet

The estimated future land use traffic was assigned to the road network in proportion to turning

movement patterns that account for the effect of the ATR. The shift in traffic due to the construction

and operation of the ATR was estimated using model results obtained from the University of Vermont

Transportation Research Center (UVM TRC)13, and subsequent interpretations from the Vermont Agency

of Transportation (VTrans). The model used was an updated version of the Statewide Travel Demand

Model (Model), isolated and enhanced specifically for the purposes of determining the effect of the ATR.

The results of this model are depicted in Figure 15.

The Model carefully considers countywide growth (see 2034 Forecasting, page 5, Appendix 3), and the particular effects to the areas adjacent to the ATR. In particular, population growth is expected to increase 10% per decade countywide, but to be more intense to the north and south of the ATR (12%). Employment growth is estimated at 10% per decade north and south of town, and 6% along the ATR, but 2% in the rest of Morrisville. Truck traffic demand on local roads is expected to drop precipitously with the ATR, as through truck

traffic will almost entirely shift from VT100 and VT15 to the ATR. Internal truck traffic (trucks bound to

and from businesses within the project area) will of course remain, and increase according to expected

development growth.

13 See memo from UVM TRC in Appendix for more information

New Trips generated

PM peak hour trips

ID Description ac. size units Total Enter Exit

1 Butternut Mtn Farm 2 manufacturing 14 ksf 10 4 6

2 MSI Storage Bldg. 5 General Industrial 23 ksf 22 3 19

3 Underdeveloped 8 commercial blend 30 ksf 43 22 21

4 Aubuchon / Gas Station 2 gas station/ store 1 ksf 23 12 11

car wash 6 stalls 12 6 6

5 Hanniford 8 commercial blend 10 ksf 14 7 7

6 Alpine Snow Guards 2 manufacturing 14 ksf 10 4 6

7 Former Decart, Inc. 2 General Industrial 23 ksf 22 3 19

8 Greene Foundry 4 General Industrial 20 ksf 19 2 17

9 Turtle Fur General Industrial 15 ksf 15 2 13

Parcels that are undeveloped:

A Sewer expansion area 16 acres ‐ industrial 16 acres 44 16 28

B Commercial area N of VT15 46 commercial blend 50 ksf 72 37 35

C 5 lot subdivision 6 office 18 ksf 31 5 26

D Undeveloped 2 acres ‐ industrial 2 acres 16 6 10

E Undeveloped 2 acres ‐ industrial 2 acres 17 6 11

F Adjacent land to Decart 2 acres ‐ industrial 2 acres 17 6 11

total 387 141 246

Parcels that are developed, but

are either vacant,

Basis for Trip

Generation Estimate:

30 September 2011

Page 31

Bicycle and pedestrian travel will increase along with expected employment and population growth

within and around the north end business district, and as the number of origins and destination in close

proximity increases. More importantly the phenomenon of “build it and they will come” could have a

much more pronounced effect on the number of people choosing to walk or bike within the north end

business district by removing obstacles that release latent demand.

Figure 15: Change in Daily Traffic Due to the ATR in 2034

This change in traffic due to the ATR and the increase in traffic due to future development assumptions

were combined with the known traffic turning movement volumes to define the 2034 future traffic

scenario.

FutureTrafficAnalysisResultsThis section summarizes the traffic analysis for the 2034 planning horizon. The analysis assumes that the

ATR is complete and includes the associated geometric or traffic control measures such as:


Page 32

A one lane roundabout at VT 15

A traffic signal at Bridge Street

2‐way stop controlled intersection at Stafford Avenue

A southbound left turn lane at Stafford Avenue

Criteria for Mobility and Congestion

Capacity and safety deficiencies identified in the Future Conditions analysis were assessed in this phase

of the study to determine possible improvements, given the following criteria:

Overall Level of Service (LOS) for intersections must be D or better.

Individual turning movements with Level of Service E or F were assessed on a case by case basis

to determine if queuing or capacity affect operation or safety.

Unsignalized intersections with stop‐controlled approaches nearing capacity (volume/capacity

ratio (V/C) of 0.90 or higher) were assessed for potential improvements (additional lanes,

alternate control such as signals, etc.)

High Crash Locations are assessed through the review of crash records to determine what

improvements are applicable.

Future traffic performance was analyzed consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual methodologies

using the Synchro software package. The results are shown in Table 15 below and indicate the

following;

With one exception, there are no significant congestion issues projected at the study

intersections.

The Stafford Street westbound approach to the ATR is projected to operate with significant

delay in the PM Peak condition (LOS F). However, the projected traffic volume on this approach

is low (less than 100 vehicles per hour) and there is ample capacity remaining (V/C is 0.6).

Under these circumstances, elaborate traffic control or additional lanes are not justified and,

thus congestion is acceptable.

30 September 2011

Page 33

Table 15: 2034 Performance Results with the Expected Future Traffic and Travel Patterns

VisionandGoalsThe Alternate Truck Route will have a profound effect on travel to and through the North End Business

District. By removing regional through traffic, the ATR will change the function of Brooklyn Street and

will create an opportunity for its evolution from an arterial highway to a boulevard that serves as the

spine of an interconnected, local street network. Land use change is just as important. As development

intensifies in the North End Business District, the area’s role as a regional destination will continue to

PM Peak Hour

LOS Delay (s) Q Length (ft) v/c

VT 15 / Center Rd

Eastbound, along VT 15 A 3 11 0.13

Westbound, along VT 15 A 0 0 0.00

Northbound, from driveway C 17 2 0.02

Southbound, along Center Rd C 18 50 0.41

VT 15 / VT 100

Overall B 14 N/A 0.41

Eastbound, along VT 15 B 11 85 0.22

Westbound, along VT 15 B 14 175 0.44

Northbound, along VT 100 B 20 106 0.36

Southbound, from driveway B 16 7 0.00

VT 100 / Stafford Ave

Eastbound, along Stafford Ave C 16 30 0.3

Westbound, from driveway B 12 5 0.07

Northbound, along VT 100 A 0 1 0.01

Southbound, along VT 100 A 0 1 0.01

VT 100 / Industrial Dr

Eastbound, from driveway B 11 0 0

Westbound, along Industrial Dr B 11 6 0.07

Northbound, along VT 100 A 0 0 0


VT 100 / Hannafords / Northgate Plz

Overall A 5 N/A 0.22

Eastbound, from Hannafords A 8 14 0.34

Westbound, from Northgate Plz A 8 8 0.16

Northbound, along VT 100 A 3 21 0.18


VT 100 / Harrel St

Eastbound, along Harrel St B 10 1 0.01

Westbound, along Harrel St B 12 15 0.16

Northbound, along VT 100 A 0 0 0


VT 15 / ByPass

Eastbound, along VT 15 N/A N/A N/A 0.61

Westbound, along VT 15 N/A N/A N/A 0.48

Northbound, along ByPass N/A N/A N/A 0.5

Stafford Ave / ByPass

Eastbound, along Stafford Ave D 32 57 0.46

Westbound, along Stafford Ave F 59 90 0.64

Northbound, along ByPass A 1 2 0.02

Southbound, along ByPass A 0 0 0

2034 Build With ByPass


Page 34

grow. More development will attract more traffic from the outside, but will also increase the amount of

people circulating between North End businesses and to some extent housing. This long term vision for

transportation and circulation in the study area is focused on the infrastructure needs of the public,

landowners and businesses to support the transition from an area centered on a through route to a

“place” in its own right and regional destination. Travel within the North End Business District will be

served by an interconnected and multi‐modal network of streets, pedestrian and biking facilities and

transit service that will achieve the following goals:

provide internal circulation through walking, biking and driving between land uses on

continuous facilities with seamless transitions;

provide efficient connections to areas beyond the North End Business District for personal

vehicles, trucks and buses to the ATR and VT 15; and for pedestrians and cyclists to the Lamoille

Valley Rail Trail;

provide efficient and pleasant connections for transit riders to and from final destinations in the

North End District;

provide transportation system capacity to accommodate development;

enhance the community through streetscape and other amenities that create and foster

desirable places to work and live;

Incorporate comprehensive stormwater planning in all transportation infrastructure projects.

ImprovementStrategiesandRecommendations

PlanningOverviewAs noted in the Future Conditions section, travel patterns in the North End Business District will change

significantly due to the ATR. In addition to traffic volume changes, the overall circulation changes will

significantly affect the nature of several key roadways and access points to the project area. Brooklyn

Street will act more like a collector road rather than an arterial, and Stafford Avenue will become a

through road and access point rather than a dead end street.

As a completely new and high volume approach to the North End Business District, the ATR (and

Stafford Avenue to a lesser extent) will reorient users and businesses from aesthetic, marketing and

logistics (truck access) standpoints. Stafford Avenue, as one of only two access points to the ATR in the

project area, will become a primary gateway. This and other major gateways are shown in Figure 16.

Brooklyn Street, with projected 2034 traffic volumes cut by more than half due to the ATR and few

heavy vehicles would be more suited to the cross section of a collector street rather than an arterial.

Slower speeds and on street parking would be reasonable expectations here. On street parking could

replace large blocks of existing parking in the shopping centers, allowing for denser / additional

redevelopment closer to the road, with a more urban and pedestrian scale. This redevelopment closer

to the street would have a significant positive impact on increasing pedestrian connectivity between and

30 September 2011

Page 35

across Brooklyn Street, thereby further enhancing the urban atmosphere of the area. This potential

redevelopment zone is depicted in Figure 16.

A mix of land uses is also a significant factor that will contribute to an increase in pedestrian traffic.

Pedestrian traffic from outside the project area is likely to continue to be modest as walkers have been

shown to resist distances greater than ½ mile. Residential uses within the project area, particularly

dense multistory/multi‐unit projects, would not only greatly increase the mix of land use, but contribute

significantly to the urban fabric by widening the hours of activity, increasing the value of shared parking,

and supporting new businesses.

Vehicle access and circulation are sometimes competing goals. Generally higher function streets (in this

case a collector like the future Brooklyn Street vs. a local street like Munson or Northgate) should have

less access in favor of mobility and reducing congestion. Circulation within the project area can be

enhanced by increasing connectivity between parcels, thereby reducing the demand for travel on

Brooklyn Street.

StreetNetworkRecommendationsSeveral new local road concepts are suggested in Figure 16 to enhance local circulation and improve

connections to the ATR and VT 15. The proposed local roads would take advantage of shared lot lines,

while maintaining minimal separation distances14 from other intersections. These connections are

intended to either eliminate awkward inefficient geometry (such as at Center Rd and VT 15, and at

Stafford/Northgate) or to make more internal connections, taking pressure off the higher function

streets such as Brooklyn Street or VT 15. The proposed local roads are conceptual only and are not

intended to be the only solution available to increasing circulation as they will be dependant largely on

the cooperation of the individual landowners. Many variations on these concepts are possible.

A hierarchy of street types should be established and repeated on this grid like pattern, as suggested

below. This list starts with the highest mobility functioning roads (with the least access) and progresses

to roads intended for maximizing access to project area land use. Specific streets that might fall in each

category, and the corresponding vehicle speed and bicycle / pedestrian accommodations are also listed

for each category as shown below and in Figure 16.

14 Intersection offsets should take into account sight distances, turning conflicts and potential queuing. A suggested minimum is 300 ft between minor (local) street intersections 200 ft. for commercial driveways.


Page 36

Heirarchy of Road Types in Project Area

1) Limited Access

Jurisdiction: State

Example: the planned ATR

Speed: 50 mph

Bike/Ped: accommodate crossings at all planned access points

2) Arterial

Jurisdiction: State

Example: VT 15

Speed: 40 mph

Bike/Ped: bike shoulder (4’ min), accommodate crossings at all signalized intersections

3) Collector – see suggested cross sections in Streetscaping section

Jurisdiction: Local

Example: Brooklyn, Stafford, Harrel

Speed: 25‐30 mph

Bike/Ped: travel lane (11‐12 ft.), bike accessible shoulder (3’ min), bike lane (4‐5 ft.) &

sidewalks both sides is preferred.

4) Local – see suggested cross sections in Streetscaping section

Jurisdiction: Local

Example: Houle, Industrial, Northgate, Professional

Speed: 25 mph

Bike/Ped: wide shared lane (14 ft), sidewalk (both sides preferred)

5) Local Alleyways ‐ informal private streets that provide additional connectivity.

Jurisdiction: Private

Example: Shopping center connections

Speed: 25 mph

Bike/Ped: 9‐10 ft shared lane, sidewalk one side

30 September 2011

Page 37

Figure 16: Future Access and Circulation


Page 38

StreetscapingRecommendationsA general model for streetscaping should be adopted for each street classification described above and

implemented when opportunities arise. Examples

of what’s been recently implemented in the

Morrisville Plaza (Figure 17) is a good starting

point as it includes lighting and trees, and

separates parking from thoroughfares. A sidewalk

would be an ideal enhancement in this case (see

example Figure 18).

The ultimate streetscaping cross section would

include a wide path for bikes and pedestrians,

ample lighting, streetscaping amenities such as

benches, trash receptacles, wayfinding signs and

a landscaped buffer to the street – in essence a

linear park. In reality it is often necessary to choose a subset of these to fit within the space available, as

the two previous examples exemplify.

Following the construction of the ATR and the planned

transfer of jurisdiction of VT100 to the Town (and

designated historic VT100), there will be a great opportunity

to reconfigure Brooklyn Street as a local urban street /

boulevard. This redesign could include more multimodal

features with sidewalks on both sides, streetscaping, bike

lanes and on‐street parking.

Figure 19 shows a cross section of the existing condition on Brooklyn Street, and the following figures show suggested reconstructed conditions for collector streets (including Brooklyn), with and without on‐street parking. Figure 22 and Figure 23 show appropriate cross sections for Local Streets, without and with sidewalks, respectively.

Figure 17: New Streetscaping in Morrisville Plaza

Figure 18: Streetscaping to Include a Sidewalk

30 September 2011

Page 39

Figure 19: Existing Cross Section of Brooklyn Street Looking North

Figure 20: Reconstructed Cross Section of Collectors (Brooklyn Street) with Bike Lane, No Parking


Page 40

Figure 21: Reconstructed Cross Section of Local Collectors (Brooklyn Street) with Bike Lane, with Parking

Figure 22: Local Street Cross Section

30 September 2011

Page 41

Figure 23: Local Street Cross Section with Sidewalk


Page 42

IntersectionRecommendationsAs noted above, no future traffic congestion issues were identified in the project area for the 2034

planning horizon assuming the ATR is constructed. Therefore, it is not necessary to add lanes or install

new traffic signals to accommodate future development and the related growth in traffic volumes. From

a safety and access management perspective, it is still critical that driveways are well defined,

appropriately spaced and intersections line up across from each other as much as possible (see below

for additional discussion of access management recommendations).

Conditions in the future without the ATR would be similar or slightly worse to those shown in the

existing conditions report (see Table 9). Of note is the intersection of Harrell and VT 100 where

excessive delay and volume to capacity ratio (V/C) approaching 1.0 suggests some improvements or

changes are in order if the ATR is not built. While traffic volumes do not appear to warrant a traffic

signal or 4‐way stop, a roundabout would provide excellent level of service on all approaches (Figure

24), while reducing overall delay and vastly increasing safety. In addition a roundabout would slow and

calm traffic for all vehicles and would create a visual gateway on this approach to the North End

Business District.

Figure 24: Potential Roundabout at Harrel Street & Brooklyn Street

30 September 2011

Page 43

Several intersections have misaligned or poor

geometry, that could benefit from improvement,

including;

Needle Eye/VT 100/VT15/ Silver Ridge Rd.

– this intersection has poor definition in

general. Paved and gravel areas beyond

the optimal travel alignment (Figure 25)

should be eliminated. Note that some

improvements are proposed here as part

of the ATR plans (southern side of

intersection only).

Stafford/Northgate/Brooklyn – while it

would be difficult to realign these two

offset intersections into one 4‐way

without severe impact to adjoining

properties ‐ as sideline traffic increases

the potential for conflicts also increases.

Short term plans should discourage heavy

truck traffic at this intersection, but long

term plans could include realignment

should the adjoining properties be

redeveloped.

Center Rd/VT 15 – The proximity of this

intersection to the Signal at Brooklyn St is

problematic in that turning traffic must

negotiate the queue waiting at a red

signal. Several of the crashes associated

with the High Crash Location intersection

are actually at this intersection.

Each of these realignments are depicted more

generally in Figure 16. As an alterative to a 4way

intersection at Stafford/Northgate and VT100 an

oval shaped roundabout could work, thus

minimizing property impacts (see Figure 26).

Figure 25: Needle Eye/Silver Ridge Rd Intersection

Figure 26: Stafford/Northgate/VT100 Intersection


Page 44

TruckTravel/AccessSeveral observations were made in the first

public meeting concerning the potential

effects of the ATR on truck circulation

patterns. In particular it was noted that while

through truck traffic is sure to take advantage

of the new route, trucks bound for

developments within the North End Business

District would likely use Stafford Avenue.

However trucks crossing Brooklyn at Stafford

(and bound for Northgate Ave) will find that

intersection is poorly aligned and ill suited for

large vehicles, as shown in Figure 27. A better

and more suited route would be to access the

project area from the VT15‐Munson Avenue

intersection. Alternately, a long term improvement would be providing a new local road that would

create a fourth leg to the Stafford Avenue‐Brooklyn Street intersection (See Figure 16, page 37).

AccessManagementRecommendations The need for better access management along VT 100 has been identified as a high priority in both the

existing conditions report and the previous VT 100 Access Management Study. The proliferation of

driveways from Professional Drive to VT 15 creates numerous overlapping conflict points and safety

issues. The fundamental strategy for improving access management is to eliminate unnecessary access

points, combine adjacent access points and narrow/straighten/align or otherwise better define the

remaining access points. This strategy supports the intended function of the road network, as outlined

in the Planning Overview. The following list refers to locations identified in Figure 29, and further

illustrated in the Appendix.

Access management (AMO) opportunities include:

1) Combine driveways on western side of the Center Rd. approach to VT 15. Provide landscaped

buffers to parking areas. Include a sidewalk to Langdell Rd.

2) Define driveway on north approach to VT15/VT100 intersection.

3) Define driveway on south approach to VT15/Center Rd. intersection.

4) Define and align driveways on south approach to VT15/VT100 intersection.

5) Eliminate access on VT100 and allow access on Stafford only.

6) Eliminate access on VT100 and allow access on Stafford only.

Figure 27: Truck Circulation and Access to ATR

30 September 2011

Page 45

7) Provide landscaped buffers to parking areas along Northgate Ave.

8) Define intersection and adjacent drives/parking on all approaches to Harrel / VT100.

BikeFacilityRecommendationsThe most significant planned bike facility is the Lamoille Valley Rail Trail (LVRT). This facility will provide a

safe and pleasant passageway on the edge of the North End Business District. It provides an opportunity

for connections to outlying areas, and has the potential to attract new users to the North End Business

District to work, shop, or simply access the path trailhead(s).

LVRT conceptual plans currently (September 2010) show a formal trailhead planned at Portland Street

(in the Village, south of the project area – see Figure 28). Trailheads would ideally be located at one or

several points within the project area. A previously identified trailhead at the Engine House site (off of

Stafford Avenue) would ideally include parking, as well as on‐street bicycle access from the east into the

North End Business District. Because the ATR will be a limited access highway, an at‐grade bicycle and

pedestrian crossing will require special attention and approval. Thus, this site and a potential

bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the ATR at Stafford Avenue will need to be studied further to weigh

alternatives and ensure the at‐grade crossing can be used safely without causing significant delay to

through traffic on the ATR. A secondary access point from the LVRT to the North End Business District

would be from Brooklyn Street (at the grade crossing to the south). The LVRT access through Brooklyn

Street will not provide the same degree of connectivity or access for the North End Business District as

one at Stafford Avenue; which is centrally located in the North End Business District and would provide a

direct connection to the LVRT.


Page 46

Figure 28: LVRT Access Points to Project Area

Roadway improvements should include appropriately designed on road bike accommodations. The

complete long term future bike network could look something as shown in Figure 30.

Bike accessible shoulders on arterials and collectors should be 3 ft minimum, and 4‐5 ft where designated bike lanes are desired (see suggested cross sections in the Streetscaping section). Low volume low speed local streets can continue to use a share the road approach with wide curb lanes. A wide curb lane allows motorists and cyclists to share the same travel lane and provides enough room for a car to pass a bike without crossing the centerline (See existing conditions report Table 3.) Potential formal bike routes include along VT 15, Harrel and Brooklyn Street.

PedestrianFacilityRecommendationsNew sidewalk routes were suggested in a 2010 Walkability Survey; however future pedestrian traffic will

also follow future development trends. Suggestions in the survey include new connections from the

existing sidewalk along Brooklyn Street to the shopping centers, a connection across VT 15 and along

Center Rd. to Langdell Rd. and a connection from Professional Drive to the Hannaford plaza.

Approximate alignments for short and medium term improvements are shown in Figure 29, along with

new potential crosswalks.

Engine House

Trailhead

(proposed)

Brooklyn St

Grade

Crossing

Portland St

Trailhead

(planned)

30 September 2011

Page 47

Figure 29: Short and Medium Term Sidewalk, Bus Stops and Access Management Improvements

hg

Connect Brooklyn

St. to Langdell Rd.

Access Management Opportunity New Sidewalk Medium term SW Crosswalk Landscape Island

Connect Brooklyn

St. & Shopping

Centers

Potential Bus Stops

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

Existing Bus Stops

Potential Bus Shelters(Approximate location)

LEGEND

Long term plan to

connect future

development area

Crossing Requires Further Study

Existing Sidewalk

Medium term

plan for sidewalks

on both sides of

Brooklyn

Connect

Professional Dr. to

Shopping Centers

Bypass

hg


Page 48

The vision for the future, with the ATR in place, includes Brooklyn Street as a local collector/boulevard

since the ATR replaces its function as a regional arterial. This presents the opportunity to make Brooklyn

Street a “complete street” that equally and fully serves all roadway users. To achieve the vision,

Brooklyn Street should include sidewalks on both sides of the street, with clear and easy connections to

adjacent land uses and transit stops. Infill development closer to the road would help develop these

connections. All new developments (and ideally existing ones) should be connected to this network. A

long term plan for pedestrian connections is shown in Figure 30. This plan shows a hierarchy of bicycle

and pedestrian facilities following a grid pattern much like the planned street network.

Figure 30: Future Long Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Additional crosswalks could be added where desire lines have resulted in significant numbers of

pedestrian crossings at specific locations. Current pedestrian traffic is relatively low in this respect.

Midblock marked crosswalks on Brooklyn Street or VT15 are not recommended in the short term unless

substantial measures are provided, such as protective refuge islands or flashing signals. Note that

marked crossings that are infrequently used have not been shown to be safer compared to unmarked

crosswalks. In the long term, as pedestrian facilities are built out and new or pent up demand can take

advantage of them, these types of treatments may not be necessary.

Examples of “substantial measures” that enhance crosswalk prominence include flashing beacons

(Figure 31), Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), bulb‐outs and or islands, or in‐pavement flashers (Figure 32).

Connect buildings and

future developments

to sidewalk network

LVRT

Trailhead

30 September 2011

Page 49

Figure 31: Standard Overhead Yellow Flashing Beacon for Crosswalk Enhancement

Embedded pavement flashing lights can also be used for crosswalk enhancement, and example of which

is shown in Figure 32 below. The lights flash only when pedestrians are present to alert approaching

motorists of pedestrian activity. The pavement lights are activated either when the pedestrian pushes a

button or passes through motion or video detectors.

Figure 32: Embedded Pavement Flashing Lights for Crosswalk Enhancement

When the criteria for a marked crosswalk are not met, pedestrian warning signs may be installed to alert

road users to locations where unexpected entries into the roadway by pedestrians might occur. These

signs do not give the pedestrian the right of way over vehicular traffic, but serve as warning devices. A

typical example is shown in Figure 33 below.


Page 50

TransitRecommendationsExisting bus routes provide adequate coverage in the project area, particularly in the commercial areas

and those of higher employment. Bus stops are not prominent, however, and offer no formal shelter for

waiting passengers. Storefronts can be used in some cases, but makes it difficult for bus drivers to

detect waiting passengers. After consultation with GMTA planning staff it is suggested that shelters

should first be considered for the Big Lots parking lot (central to those store fronts), as well as Northgate

Plaza. These two potential shelter areas have been identified in Figure 29. GMTA has a system for

installing bus shelters, driven primarily by ridership and the need to split‐up and balance its limited

resources. Additional shelters should be considered on this basis.

GMTA boarding policy is to pick‐up passengers whenever the driver feels it is safe to stop, e.g. long

sight‐lines, room to pull off roadway, slower posted speed limits, etc. Two potential new bus stops near

high employment areas in the southern end of the district at Harrel Street / Munson Avenue and

Brooklyn Street / Professional Drive are shown in Figure 29.

Suggestions from the first public meeting revealed that bus routes are not well publicized and route

information not well understood. A campaign for short and long term publication by print news, radio

postings and other means is currently being undertaken by GMTA. In addition GMTA is currently

developing its Transit Development Plan for Lamoille County. This in‐depth study of transit need,

demand and potential improvements will be instrumental in identifying future needs for the system.

Coordination with the RCT system is part of this planning.

The technologies for providing real‐time bus location information by phone, smart phone and/or the

web are becoming common, and have been shown to increase ridership as well as provide convenience

to passengers. These technologies should be part of future plans, as funding allows.

Figure 33: Examples of Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs (with RRFB)

30 September 2011

Page 51

ParkingManagementAs noted in the existing conditions section of this report there are many large privately owned parking

lots in the project area within short distances of each other and these lots could be considered parts of a

larger resource which could operate more efficiently through sharing. Lots within walking distance of

each other are obvious candidates for such arrangements. Shared parking in urban areas has been

shown to significantly reduce typical parking requirements for standalone, isolated businesses.

Reducing parking needs for a given business can have significant benefits such as reduced infrastructure

costs, higher density allowances, reduced stormwater runoff, and reduced heat island effects.

Parking considerations should include:

Promote Shared Parking between uses with different peak demand times. This simple step has

been shown to be beneficial to both the public as well as business owners, as efficient parking

reduces resource costs and impacts, while making room for increased land use density.

Increase Land Use Mix ‐ Where there’s a greater mix of uses, there’s a greater potential for

shared parking. Generally evening uses such as restaurants and residences are a great match for

day uses such as offices. Retail tends to span a longer time period and peaks seasonally.

Relocation and Dispersion of Parking ‐ Traditional parking strategies exemplified in the shopping

centers focus on one aspect – maximizing the number of available spaces. This comes at the

expense of pedestrian accommodations, stormwater treatment, traffic flow, aesthetics (scale)

and efficiency. Smaller lots provide breaks and natural areas for green space (as well as

stormwater treatment), sidewalks and alleyways. As sites are redeveloped form based

planning15 suggests buildings adjacent to roadways, which promotes pedestrian access and

further emphasizes the urban and human scale.

On‐Street Parking ‐ Provide on‐street parking wherever feasible. As streetscaping plans are

implemented – both private and public – integrating on street parking reduces the needs for

parking lots, enhances the urban nature of the area by establishing a more pedestrian scale, as

well as provides traffic calming.

Park & Ride – Good planning for connectivity and efficiency would include providing a place to

leave a vehicle in order to ride the transit system or ride share. A new facility in the project area

would supplement the existing spaces in the Village, and be more conveniently located at the

end of the commuter transit line.

15 For more information of Form Based Planning see http://www.formbasedcodes.org/


Page 52

StormwaterRecommendationsBased on the previously identified stormwater concerns, LCPC met with the Morristown Town Planner

on July 26, 2011 to prioritize potential future projects in the municipal right‐of‐way to improve

stormwater. After further discussion with the Town Administrator and Highway Foreman, the following

list of projects has been offered which the Town could undertake to improve stormwater management

in the North End Business District:

1. Once funding is available, the Town will address drainage and erosion concerns along Munson

Ave with a grass swale. The Town will request assistance from LCPC and/or the State

Stormwater Division to identify funding for this project, and the Town will commit in‐kind

services with road crew labor.

2. The Town will work with LCPC to draft a letter to VTrans requesting the culverts along Route 15

in this area are upgraded in capacity and function during the next paving project in order to

address existing drainage concerns.

3. The Development Review Board and Planning Commission will review the local stormwater

ordinance and discuss increasing the rainfall first flush event from 0.4 to 0.9 inches (to align

with state permit amounts). This change will require better treatment and storage, thereby

reducing the potential for pollution and soil erosion.

4. The Town Administrator and Selectboard will discuss development plans and stormwater

options with the Langdell Farm/CCS parcel (northeast of the Center Rd/VT 15 intersection) at

the next available opportunity.

The implementation of a local stormwater assessment district or utility to assist with the cost of

maintaining the existing stormwater infrastructure was discussed however the Town has decided to

continue to pay for these costs and a function of government.

Future developments should be encouraged to take advantage of the pervious soils in the project area,

with sensitivity to public drinking water supplies (see Figure 13), in order to minimize additional

stormwater runoff.

MonitoringandPlanningRecommendationsFuture monitoring and planning for improvements should include the following:

1. Catalog and track parking use, particularly in the major commercial areas, to better understand

demand and sharing opportunities.16

2. Strengthen planning bylaws that allow or credit creative parking strategies such as sharing, one

way travel isles or compact spaces allocations.

16 For example data collection, sharing considerations, and zoning allowances see memo from Todd Litman regarding suggested parking strategies, including data collection for Downtown Burlington in the Appendix

30 September 2011

Page 53

3. Allow reduction in on‐site parking for proposed development projects that have access to on‐

street parking.

4. Identify and evaluate locations for a Park & Ride facility in the North End Business District. The

park‐and‐ride could serve diverse group of users including commuters, transit riders, and people

meeting for recreational /social purposes. Potential location may be publicly funded and

operated or leased from private landownders. Publicly owned sites, particularly ones that use

federal funds, have to be formal with specific agreements and arrangements, while privately (or

locally) sponsored facilities can be based on more flexible arrangements.

5. Evaluate modifications to zoning and planning codes to encourage a mix of uses and with site

plans and building designs that improve access and community character. Form based codes

emphasize physical outcomes (build to lines, frontage treatments, etc.) rather than relying on

strict numerical parameters (density, coverage, etc.), and result in more pedestrian scale, multi‐

use, multi mode, community oriented urban environments. The use of form based codes is one

option that is currently receiving a lot of attention, but other changes to basic dimensional

standards and other performance components of zoning regulations (such as parking and

streetscape standards) may also be effective at achieving the same goal of a mixed use well

designed area.

6. Develop planning bylaws that encourage (credit) off peak travel demand such as allowing flex

time, or 4‐10 hour days. Shifting travel to off peak times reduces congestion and maximizes the

effectiveness of available infrastructure with little or no cost.

7. Provide planning bylaws that encourage (credit) multimodal trip use such as ride sharing, transit,

biking or walking.

8. Monitor crashes specifically at the Harrell/VT100 and Stafford/VT100 intersections. These

intersections see significant delay on the side streets but do not warrant major changes, unless

crashes increase.

9. Monitor crashes at the designated VTrans High Crash Locations and seek assistance from the

VTrans safety section for potential short term improvements such as signage and striping.

10. Consider adopting an Official Map. An official map is a bylaw, supported with a map of the

municipality, which may reserve land for streets, drainage, schools, and other public facilities.

Several of the new local roads suggested above could be identified on an official town map.

Inclusion on town maps creates an opportunity to preserve the future connections through the

development review process. 11. Evaluate access options to the LVRT Trailhead and implications to the ATR / Stafford Avenue

crossing.

12. Continue to strengthen the stormwater requirements for developments as suggested in the

corresponding section herein.


Page 54

FundingSources&OpportunitiesThe recommendations presented in this plan were developed at a conceptual level and will require

additional engineering, design and public input before they are ready for implementation. A project’s

funding source will affect the process requirements and timelines. Recommendations that have little or

no footprint impact (like optimizing traffic signals, adding cross‐walks, or installing signs) and that are

paid for with local or private funds can be implemented in a short time frame assuming the funds are

available, and it is not necessary to acquire right‐of‐way. Projects that use federal and state funds need

to follow the VTrans project development process, which includes development of a purpose and need

statement, evaluation of alternatives, selection of a locally preferred alternative, and a public input

process. Following approval of the locally preferred alternative, a project would then move through

various design phases, providing the environmental documentation required by the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), acquiring other local and state permits, and right‐of‐way acquisition if

necessary. Typical funding sources are described below.

FederalandStateTransportationFundsFederal transportation funds are provided through several standard programs and typically require a

non‐federal match. The match is most often covered with a combination of state funds (approved by the

Legislature) and local funds (in municipal capital budgets approved by the voters). Non‐federal match

could also be provided from private sector sources. Federal/state programs that may fund some portion

of the recommendations include the following:

SurfaceTransportationProgram/VTransCapitalProgram(STP)– Projects on the federal aide highway system can be funded through the Surface Transportation Program. STP funds

have the most flexible uses of any federal transportation funds and may be used for highway,

transit, park and ride lot, and non‐motorized facility construction and improvements. STP funds

are distributed to a variety of transportation programs. The non‐federal match is 20%. For

projects that are completely on the state system, the state covers the 20% match. When local

roads or bridges are involved, a local match of 10%–20% may be required depending on the

classification of the highways involved and other factors. Projects using STP funds must be the

state’s Transportation Capital Program approved by the Legislature.

TransportationEnhancementProgram(TE) – Transportation enhancements include

several types of projects, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities; landscaping and other scenic

beautification projects; and rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings, structures, and

facilities. This competitive grant program provides a maximum of 80% federal funds with the

non‐federal match often funded by the applicant.

BicycleandPedestrianProgram(B/P) – This competitive grant program is similar to the

transportation enhancement program and could be used to fund specific bicycle and pedestrian

facility improvements identified for implementation in the short‐ and medium‐term.

HighwaySafetyImprovementProgram(HSIP)– The goal of the HSIP is to enhance safety on all Vermont roads. It specifically addresses safety issues at high crash or high crash potential locations in the state. The HSIP is eligible for federal funding which may include a variety of

30 September 2011

Page 55

sources including 164 Penalty and 148 Safety Funds. Identified High Crash Locations (HCLs/roadway sections and intersections) are eligible for HSIP funds depending on priority level and funding availability.

CongestionMitigationandAirQuality(CMAQ) – VTrans uses most of its CMAQ funds to

support public transit. These funds have a three year time limit for specific projects and could be

applied toward capital or operational costs for initiating transit recommendations in the plan.

TownHighwayGrants(THG)– Funded throughVtrans. Annual allocation based on miles of

Class 1, 2 or 3 highways. Class 2 highways may qualify for additional funding for resurfacing or

reconstruction. (Contact District).

MunicipalPark&RideProgram(P&R) – Funded throughVtrans. For development of small

municipally owned park and ride facilities. Must be near State Highways. (Contact LTF Section)

Transportation,Community,andSystemPreservationProgram(SPP) – Funded throughFHWA. For planning, implementation and research projects. Must be done in collaboration with

VTrans.

StormwaterMitigationGrants(SMG)– Funded throughVTrans and Vermont Local Roads

Program, Provides financial assistance to Vermont municipalities for projects to reduce water

pollution generated by, or directly associated with, existing public roads and road maintenance

activities.

HazardMitigationGrantProgram(HMG) – Funded throughFEMA. For any project that

prevents future loss due to natural disaster. Must have an approved and adopted mitigation

plan to be eligible.

LocalFunds(LF)

Local funds can be used to match federal‐ or state‐funded projects or to finance the complete cost

of a project. Property taxes are the primary source of local funds, but other sources, such as impact

fees, can be used to help pay for transportation projects.

TrafficImpactFees –Through impact fees, new developments pay a “fair‐share” of the costs

related to updating and improving infrastructure based on the amount of “impact” the development

would have on that infrastructure. Impact fees are calculated to pay for a specific list of projects that

are necessary to accommodate development and are identified in adopted ordinances. Impact fees

can only be used for projects that add capacity or otherwise serve new development and cannot be

used for maintenance or repair of existing infrastructure.

MunicipalBonds– Some municipalities choose to use municipal bonds to fund large infrastructure projects. Local governments have several options available to raise revenue for paying back a bond, including annual property tax revenue. The most common options are briefly described below. Careful review of the advantages of each method, including reliable estimates on how these options affect local tax rates, is necessary before selecting an appropriate funding mechanism.

SpecialAssessmentTaxDistrict – A special assessment district can be created where property

owners, who presumably benefit from the investment, pay a special tax to cover the cost of bond


Page 56

payments. Special assessment districts could be established for a designated area of a municipality

or could be distributed across an entire municipality.

TaxIncrementFinancingDistrict – A tax increment financing district (TIF) can be established

that dedicates the non‐school taxes generated by increased property values to paying off the bond.

A TIF is most appropriate where property values are expected to increase significantly. For most

municipalities, only the municipal portion of the property tax can be retained (the balance goes to

the state education tax pool), significantly reducing the amount of revenue that can be generated

from a TIF.

LocalOptionSalesTaxes – The State of Vermont allows the following taxes to be collected as part

of the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST): A 1% sales tax; a 1% meals and alcoholic beverages tax; and a

1% rooms tax. LOST is permitted for Vermont municipalities that were affected a certain way by Act

60 and Act 68. Only certain municipalities are allowed to implement Local Option Sales Taxes

(Williston has LOST and South Burlington is considering LOST).

PrivateFunds(PF)

Developers or any entity that is seeking to develop or redevelop land, may contribute through impact fees as described above but often pay for and implement additional modifications to the transportation system. Private participation in transportation projects also occurs through public‐private partnerships outside of the development review process. The contribution could be financial or may include donation of land to support a specific project.

AdditionalResourcesEconomicDevelopmentCouncilofNorthernVermont,EconomicDevelopmentFund. Provides credit financing for ventures that contribute to economic and community development. The Fund seeks

investments that increase employment, stabilize cyclical industries, improve wage scales and strengthen

industrial sectors. http://www.edcnv.org/

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,RuralDevelopment,CommunityFacilityandRuralBusinessEnterpriseGrants. Community Facility grants can be used by rural communities to develop or improve

essential public community facilities. Rural Business Enterprise grants fund the purchase of technical

assistance and equipment for small and emerging businesses, as well as their construction and

expansion. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/rbeg.htm

GrowthCenterPlanningGrants,VermontDepartmentofHousingandCommunityAffairs.Provides financial assistance to a town or towns already in the process of growth center planning

with the intention of applying for growth center designation.

http://www.dhca.state.vt.us/Admin/Grants.htm

30 September 2011

Page 57

ImplementationImplementation of recommendations for the North End Business District should be made with the

overall vision in mind. Small or short term improvements should work towards the larger goal.

Recommendations in this regard have been organized into short, medium and long term improvements

and are presented in Table 16 below.

Table 16: Implementation Items, Time Frame and Category (continued next page)


Page 58

An execution plan shows potential responsible parties, possible funding sources and budgetary costs for

those projects that are difinable is presented in Table 17 below.

30 September 2011

Page 59

Table 17: Execution Plan ‐ Responisble Party, Funding and Budgets (continued next page)


Page 60

morristown north end business district circulation study3c01460c-7f49-40f5-b243-0ca7924f23… ·...

Documents