HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 04/14/2021
1. Welcome and Review of Virtual Meeting Procedures - S. Goddard (5:30 p.m.)
2. Changes or additions to the agenda (5:32 p.m.)
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda (5:35 p.m.)
4. Consideration of minutes from the previous meeting(s): February 10, 2021 & March 17, 2021
(5:40 p.m)
5. Discussion on improving Bike/Ped/Auto interactions - Chief Shawn Burke & Officer Aaron
Schwartz - South Burlington Police Dept (5:45 p.m. - 30min)
a. Three main topics:
i. Current training/standards for South Burlington Police officers
ii. Potential recommended updates to our standards
iii. How can the Bike/Ped Committee best assist in this effort?
6. Updates from the City - Ashley (6:15 p.m. - 10min)
7. O’Brien Development Prep for next DRB meeting on 4/20/21 - Cathy (6:25 p.m. - 20min)
a. Objective: Review latest materials & define feedback for upcoming DRB
8. P4P & Bike/Ped Priority List Discussion (Airport Parkway Sidewalk Project Update) - All (6:45
p.m. - 30min)
9. Swift & Spear Intersection Feasibility Study - input from Bike/Ped to Planning Commission - All
(7:15 p.m. - 20min)
10. Committee membership outlook - All (7:45 p.m. - 10min)
11. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, May 12, 2020 @ 5:30pm
12. Adjourn (by 8:00 p.m.)
South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, April 14, 2021 @ 5:30 p.m.
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recent legislation. Presenters and
members of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or
by telephone. There will be no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/283992509
By telephone (audio only): 1-312-757-3121; Access Code: 283-992-509
South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 10, 2020 @ 5:30 p.m.
Meeting was held virtually
Committee Attendees: Shawn Goddard (Chair), Cathy Frank (Vice-Chair), Nic Anderson (Clerk), Bob Britt,
Eric Silverman, Donna Leban, Amanda Holland, Havaleh Gagne
Other Attendees: Ashley Parker (City Liaison), Justin Rabidoux (City DPW), Eric Alling (Stantec), Caela
Waite (Stantec).
Many members of public: Laura & Steve Demaroney, Janaka DeSilva, Helen Riehle, Brock & Jennifer
Lyman, Amy S., Bill Slattery, Randy Kay, Kay Frances Schepp, Denny, Christina Griffin, Judy, Elizabeth
Walker, Arthur Shields, Rich, D. Ehler-Vock, Sandie Blair, Noah Hyman, Kim Chittenden, John Calcagni,
Barb Sirvis, Danielle Carpenter, Kelley Scarmeas, Matthew Garcia, Randy Bunders, Kris Stepenuck,
Roxanne, Rick Hubbard, 802-734-1920, Marj Meyer, 802-658-3586, Maryann Lisak, Craig Thrall, Greg
1. Welcome and clarification of meeting procedures
a. Shawn introduced committee members. Handed presentation over to Ashley.
2. Public forum/input on Dorset St shared-use path - Public (5:30 p.m. - 60min)
a. Ashley and Shawn presented (Presentation (with green border) from Packet). Noted
many links within slides that can help people to get to more details.
b. Eric Alling from Stantec presented (presentation (orange) from packet). Likely 2023
Construction.
c. Laura Demaroney – Live on Dorset at intersection of Cider Mill. Concern and missing
from Conceptual is south bound left turn lane which was required as part of Phase 1 of
Cider Mill. Road will be completely refigured. Not addressed in plans.
d. Justin Rabidoux – DPW. Can grab whatever DRB has approved and give to Stantec so he
can include that into these plans.
e. Laura noted it was Plat SB18-28.
f. Randy Kay – Question about ROW in front of Cider Mill. Asked if plans for rec path on
Cider Mill Drive connecting over to Dorset once it would be completed. Is there going to
be a connection. There is frequently traffic there.
g. Justin – Noted that this could be voiced to the Bike Ped Committee to add this project to
a future gap project.
h. Linda Demaroney – Rec path does not have to be access to commercial buildings. This is
a rec path. There is a path already that connects to Dorset Farms and through.
i. Kim Chittenden – Live next to Cider Mill. Really dangerous to get to Mill. Project is a lot
bigger than just access to the Mill. Really important project that addresses safety issues.
Thanked committee
j. Christina Griffin – There are sections of path that parallel and this 0.7m section seems
very expensive. Followed chat on Front Porch Forum. Creemees are only available for 14
weeks. Could a path connection be made. Asked if Dorset Heights was every conceived
for a connection of the path network. Much quieter and safer. About 22 homes will
benefit. Detailed locations. There may be more pressing needs of bike paths including
commuters on Spear St.
k. Justin – Would not be having this discussion of we didn’t have 80% funded by the State
already. Sees this as a continuation of the built infrastructure. Need to connect south
and east which is where the growth is happening. Noted impact fees are based on new
development which creates new demands. Only through these funding sources we can
do it. Becoming expensive to build but little will be borne by city tax base. Direction
connections are important. This is a project that will benefit the larger community.
l. Noah Hyman – Live off Dorset St. Asked if safety signage has been factored into price.
Asked about construction traffic impacts during construction.
m. Eric – Signs etc. factored into price. There will be times when traffic may go down to one
lane. Will work with contractor to come up with the appropriate levels of impact during
construction.
n. Rick Hubbard – Recreation paths are for a lot more than recreating. When we drive, we
use the most direct path. When we bike we shouldn’t have to go out of our way to bike
direct to work. Dorset street is not designed to be safe. Need to have facilities to make
that. This is the only gap in Dorset St. One of the big missing links. Important getting
people to their destinations quickly but also safely.
o. Comment in Chat from Kris Stepenuck: “Agree with Rick. Bike commuting on the most
direct route is preferable.”
p. Barb Sirvis – Long distance walker. Supports what is proposed. Spend more time talking
about bikes than pedestrians. Would like to have educational campaign to help bikes
not impact pedestrians. Would like to hear education about that.
q. Shawn noted we call them shared use paths now and education is on our minds.
Everyone has responsibilities to share. Will be working on more.
r. Brock and Jennifer Lyman – On Sadie Lane. Dorset Street speedway. See the value and
safety. Concern of loss of privacy screening they have. Does it get lost during
construction.
s. Eric – Will be approached directly during Right of Way phase. Will have individual
discussions with the property owners. If trees removed within area then they will be
replaced.
t. Justin – We will meet with each property owner. Some may want trees removed and
others may want screening. Ashley will follow up individually.
u. Randy Bunders asked how long it would take to finish once started.
v. Answer in Chat from Justin: “Hi Randy - probably in the area of 6-8 weeks. It will depend
a bit on how a contractor proposes to build it, are they slow and have an extra crew or
two to throw at it? Do they have some ideas that would help it go faster in terms of
traffic control, etc. We won't know 100% until we have a signed contractor on board
and an approved schedule.”
w. Steve Demaroney – Noted dimensions of street and active ditch. Doesn’t think we can
fit all this stuff into the ROW. Linda asked if people would buy the land?
x. Justin – Depends on the taking. There is a national standard that governs this process.
Degree of impact is assessed. We have appraisers which advise on value of impact.
Come to agreement with each landowner.
y. Steve – Could be put on the other side of the road. All future growth would be on the
other side of the road.
z. Justin – All the properties and the path are on that side of the road. Another path could
happen if other houses happen then.
aa. Linda – All the safety issues have not been addressed and questions about how this will
go in if there are a lot of assumptions.
bb. Justin – We will discuss with all property owners and ensure safety and rights of the
owners.
cc. Kay Frances Schepp – Supports project. Many charity runs etc. use this area and it will
help. Asked if they will be expected to remove anything as part of project. Thanked
committee. Will be good for school children to not have to go on back paths.
dd. Kelley Scarmeas – Thanked committee and support. One of the properties that does not
have access to a path. Very dangerous the way it is and supports even if there are some
safety concerns of crossing the path. There is a large number of children and dogs in
that area. Not just for recreation but dogs and bikes.
ee. Kris Stepenuck – On opposite corner of Old Cross Rd there is the property that has the
Christmas light display which could have an impact. Could look at having grass pavers
etc. in that area to reduce maintenance needs of replacing grass every year. Comment
in chat from Kris which reiterated: “Not sure this is possible financially, but just a
suggestion based on current homeowner actions, which is that you might consider using
grassed pavers between Dorset and the path at the corner of Old Cross Rd. (to
accommodate cars parking there in December to see the holiday lights and to prevent
erosion). I also offer my thanks to the committee and support for the project, and I look
forward to future projects on Spear St and Hinesburg as well.”
ff. John and Kristin Calcagni – Live on Link. Support proposal. Dorset is unsafe. People are
on the street right now and aren’t taking the other paths. This is needed. Appreciate all
the work.
gg. Christina Griffin – Was the connection of the existing path sections ever an option given
that the infrastructure is there?
hh. Justin - there are many people who feel it is important. This is an important link for
transportation too. This is the most direct route. People are using it anyway so why not
make it safe.
ii. Comment in Chat from Helen Riehle: “Thanks for your good work committee. I
appreciate the comments of all the neighbors and their participation in the process.”
jj. Laura - Agrees that connecting the existing paths makes the most sense. All commuters
use the road and never use the bike path. This is only serving those people that live right
there. Thanked Christina’s comments.
kk. Comment in Chat from Randy Bunders: “More people come to walk on the current path
then the people who live in the area”
ll. Comment in Chat from Kris Stepenuck: “I do both. (Bike on Dorset and use the rec
paths)”
mm. Comment in Chat from Amy S: “I run on the side of this road frequently and am grateful
that it will be safer. I would appreciate if it is asphalt versus concrete, for continuity of
surface type with the other paths.”
nn. Comment in Chat from Rich: “Thank you committee for your excellent work. This Dorset
Street section in this project is heavily used by walkers and bikers and it is very unsafe
for both.”
oo. Comment in Chat from Randy Bunders: “it is definitely a danger walking on the road
from Dorset St to the current path. I hold my breath when I walk on the rd to get to the
path”
pp. Comment in Chat from Kim Chittenden: “If you observed how many people use Dorset
Street on bikes, walking dogs, pushing baby carriages, and not getting creemies, but
exercise especially during COVID times on this unsafe road you would be surprised. This
plan is necessary. Thank you for all of your hard work.”
qq. John and Kristin Calcagni – Dorset Heights have no delineation at all. Would never send
my children to there with no markings or delineation. Critical connection needs to be
completed.
rr. Bill Slattery – Lives on Link Rd. No-one has spoken about older people connecting to
path. Strongly recommend and support.
ss. Matthew Garcia – Appreciate work on project. Lives there. Critical for us with children
and pets. It’s a quality of life issue also. Working from home more, the opportunity to
walk to store etc. is a work life balance. Could be additional economic benefits from this.
tt. Comment in Chat from D Ehler-Vock – “agreeing with Christina and speaker- there is an
alternative. Need to see connector between Oak Creek/Butler off Hinesburg Road to the
sidewalk towards Kennedy Dr. Lots of people on shoulder of road and narrow section
crossing over the interstate. Thank you for everyone's interest.”
uu. Kelley Scarmeas – Mill is a high use place that people want to get to one way or another.
To have a link but no path would be a bad idea.
vv. Christina – Asked if this committee works with developers so that there are not gaps.
Developers who benefit should be involved to have skin in the game.
ww. Justin – There are good examples where developers have built paths. This is only a small
link and no one development would cover the length. The impact fees paid by
developers are being applied to this (alongside the grant and penny for paths fees).
Developers did help pay for this with their impact fees.
xx. Shawn – Vice Chair Cathy Frank does attend DRB meetings. Have developers at our
meetings for input. We are involved in that. A lot of our development has resulted in
new infrastructure that serve other users. That is how SB ended up with so many gaps. A
lot of developments have built great systems but we have to connect them. This is what
the Penny for Paths was to do – close the gaps. Best attended committee meeting ever.
We are volunteers. The more input the better. We meet monthly. We want to benefit
the most people as possible.
3. Changes or additions to the agenda.
a. None
4. Comments from the public not related to the agenda.
a. None
5. Consideration of minutes from the previous meeting(s).
a. Motion by Bob to approve. Cathy seconded. Vote: All in favor. Minutes approved
6. Updates from the City - Ashley (6:45 p.m. - 10min)
a. In packet. Read through her document.
b. Bob asked about funding for Kimball culvert? Asked if Williston paying too. Ashley thinks
it will be half. Can check with Justin.
c. Bob asked about Allen Road timeline. Ashley still hoping for summer/fall. Spring seems
too early.
7. Neighborhood Schools Greenway Project Update - Nic (6:55 p.m. - 15min)\
a. Nic detailed proposal. Document in packet.
b. Cathy – Would be great to get a physical example in place to show people. Don’t wait
too long.
c. Nic asked about April Vs August
d. Cathy – Had parent pool of walking school bus to get to crossing guard. If the decision
was made to get it running, could get volunteer help for crossings.
e. Donna – Perfect way to encourage those who already are walking or biking and a way to
promote what they are doing. Tried to approach the schools last year but didn’t get far.
This could be good by having the students lead the way. A paper article highlighting
would be good. Signage is important. City would have say on what that could look like.
Signs for safe way.
f. Havaleh – Build it and promote it. Build enthusiasm and momentum. If waiting could
lose momentum and take away from it.
g. Amanda – Would we need a crossing guard for Hinesburg.
h. Nic –
i. Havaleh – What would the cost be?
j. Nic – Jonathon is looking into that.
k. Amanda – Other schools have crossing guards at certain times but also do the walking
school buses. Could have parent or community volunteer. Having those types of events
could work.
l. Shawn – Walked this route with Nic. Impressed with project. If we had a crosswalk, it
would be just stencils and signs. Remember when Kevin Dorn mentioned when we can
do effective but cheap things we should do it. Amazing service for not much money at
all. These things would help parents decide to move to SB. Will improve community
involvement and promote exercise.
m. Nic – Next steps. Connect with Patrick Burke at High School
n. Amanda – Working with State on another pop up so could find out what is useful.
8. Review of letter to the City Council on improved bike/auto/ped interaction - Shawn/All (7:30
p.m. - 15min)
a. Donna provided edits to a letter drafted by Shawn. Bob thought letter and edits was
great. Around bullet of vertical in-road pedestrian signs was good to include as another
safety measure, especially as a entrance to the city.
b. Shawn – Broke it out because we don’t see them much in SB. Wanted to make sure it
wasn’t too wordy.
c. Bob – could include with signs discussion. Putting attachment with pictures instead.
d. Nic – Agree
e. Havaleh – Like its brief. Should we vote on top 3? Painting is inexpensive and get bang
for buck.
f. Shawn – Could change order to show importance
g. Dana – That is her thought also. Putting top 3 or 4 bullets would be good.
h. Shawn – Went through bullets.
i. Nic - #1 painting and #2 speed.
j. Donna – Slowing people is good but need narrower roads.
k. Nic – Order is important. Trying to go with the ones that are cheaper.
l. Havaleh – Liked the data analysis bullet.
m. Nic – Have VTrans crash data and Local Motion commuting data.
n. Shawn – Can get crash locations, but don’t have the data on the finer points. If we need
to root cause, and try to work out why, we can help work on improvements.
o. Havaleh – Not sure police have the bandwidth to police more.
p. Shawn – Would like to talk with police chief on training of how officers are trained and
what they are looking out for more. There are dangerous locations and would hope they
were more sensitive to those spaces.
q. Dana – Used to meet regularly with Police. Should again. Crash reporting form updates
we talked about previously to capture more bike ped info was talked about previously
but may have fallen apart. Could we reach out to the Chief or designee?
r. Shawn – See the benefit of connecting with Police, Fire and EMT.
s. Ashley – Could reach out to the Police to see if they could. Once letter is finalized it
could be good to send to them and they could use it to determine who could discuss
with. Might be a good idea to give Shaun a draft or final draft so he can take a peek.
Don’t think there is anything that is going to concern him. Would be helpful before it
gets to council level.
t. Shawn – So will provide tweaks, will send to police to set up time to discuss and send to
Council at the same time.
u. Ashley – Nothing here would be too big. These are ideas for discussions. I don’t think it
would hurt to discuss with Police.
v. Shawn – could change to just “engage with Police…” to show it’s the start of a
discussion. Will move priorities around. Will finish tweaks and then will get draft to
Ashley to get to Chief Burke and City Council (Ashley to ask Kevin if it needs to be
discussed in a session or just straight to Megan).
w. Cathy asked for a copy of the finished product as could be good basis for future articles.
x. Shawn asked Ashely if we should send to Justin. Ashley thought it would be a good idea.
9. Shelburne Rd Bike Facilities/Transportation Impact Fees – All (7:10 p.m. – 20min)
a. Ashley - Committee homework was to go back and review what facilities Shelburne
Street would need and to have more information. Committee didn’t come to consensus
on what should happen on corridor.
b. Bob – Read CIP brief for project. Bike path to get to Macintosh. Did we need more to get
all the way down Shelburne Rd towards Price Chopper. Doesn’t think its got enough
money to do more.
c. Shawn – I think it should at least get to Swift St. The section over the highway is not
safe.
d. Nic – I would take Williston Rd over that highway Section of Shelburne Rd any day.
e. Donna – Taking Fayette and going through is OK. Don’t see many people trying to do it
now.
f. Nic – Would need to have a scoping study to do anything north.
g. Havaleh – Where is this mentioned?
h. Shawn – In Impact Fee Ordinance. Adjusting what is written in there.
i. Bob – The Impact Fee Ordinance has “path”. I would be satisfied that this project is just
this section.
j. Shawn – Connecting to Swift would really connect the all of the paths and lanes in that
general area.
k. Havaleh – Did a site visit in December and was almost hit from a car in a driveway.
Needs something. There are many driveways and need to be designed appropriately.
l. Amanda – Noted Envision89 project and could be a good chance for committee input
into the project. South Burlington City Council presentation if anyone was interested.
m. Shawn – Propose adjust entry to have on road bike lanes all the way to Swift St on both
sides of the road.
n. Bob – Maybe having it be a Rec Path would be safest and best. There is a sidewalk now.
o. Eric – Not a world class sidewalk. Well used. A lot more driveways on the east side than
west.
p. Nic – Does the cost change between bike lanes and sidewalk vs just rec path.
q. Ashley – Wouldn’t worry about price too much. Will need to be adjusted anyway. If
sidewalk replacement it wouldn’t be covered by Impact Fees
r. Shawn asked if we would want to keep shared use path
s. Havaleh thinks there should be a rec path on one side at least
t. Shawn – People don’t look for people on rec paths, they look at the road. Lanes
preferred. Families and people walking have more stopping ability.
u. Donna – I would vote for just bike lanes. Don’t add much when sidewalk becomes multi-
use path. Sidewalk needs replacement anyway.
v. Shawn – Can bring that back to Justin.
w. Shawn motion to change Shelburne Road project to be strictly bike lanes all way to Swift
Street on both sides of road, from end of existing bike lane to the south. Seconded by
Bob. Vote: Approved unanimously.
10. Review results from DPW quarterly review - Bob (7:45 p.m. - 10min)
a. Pushed to next meeting
11. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, March 10, 2020 @ 5:30pm
a. Shawn may not attend, in Colorado. Cathy will help build agenda and run it. Shawn may
attend.
12. Update
a. Nic happy to announce we have officially applied for a Bicycle Friendly Community
designation from the League of American Bicyclists. No promises but at least the
application was finally made. Huge thanks to all who helped throughout the application
process. Started in 2019 so a relief to get it submitted.
13. Adjourn (by 8:00 p.m.)
a. Shawn moved to adjourn. Seconded by Eric. All approved. Adjourned 8:10pm
South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 17, 2021 @ 5:30 p.m.
Meeting was held virtually
Committee Attendees: Shawn Goddard (Chair), Cathy Frank (Vice-Chair), Nic Anderson (Clerk), Bob Britt,
Donna Leban, Amanda Holland, Havaleh Gagne
Other Attendees: Ashley Parker (City Liaison), Jonathon Weber (Local Motion)
1. Welcome and clarification of meeting procedures
2. Changes or additions to the agenda.
a. Cathy – Obrien property next hearing before DRB is April 20th. Spent a lot of time with
suggestions from the committee. One of those was bike path down Old Farm Rd. They
balked at that and may bring something to that meeting about that. Will have their docs
at next meeting to see what they are proposing.
b. Sketch Plan going before DRB on April 6th for Long Property. Proposing 49 units to south
of South Pointe and is a key connection between South Village and Underwood. Should
discuss and have comments for DRB. Since Cathy lives there, she has recused herself
from speaking on behalf of Bike Ped. Need committee to attend to ensure this key
connection is done.
c. Shawn – Will discuss later after the I-89 discussion.
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda.
a. No public present and nothing to discuss.
4. Discuss the CCRPC I-89 2050 Study & Finalize Comments
a. Cathy - Goal is to make recommendation of various options for interchanges.
b. Havaleh – Should also discuss the weighting of the metrics. If we have an outcome
desired
c. Shawn – Spend about 15 mins discussing weighting and then recommendations.
d. Nic – CCRPC already have these. Thought tonight was more about discussing the
options.
e. Havaleh – Lets talk about the weighting at least because its not due until the 22nd.
f. Nic – Two deliverables. One is weighting comments to CCRPC and the other is a
recommendation to City Council
g. Shawn – Lets discuss metrics and weighting.
h. Nic – Need to discuss if we think one or the other is more important.
i. Donna – Need to also think about the details such as safety not just all users but
particularly bike ped.
j. Shawn pulled up details in presentation
k. Cathy – Found it was easier to talk metrics when it was specific to the interchanges.
l. Shawn – Clarified how we should discuss it.
m. Started with Exit 14.
n. Cathy – Need to acknowledge that a bike ped bridge could be done quicker. This may
never be done.
o. Jonathon noted that the diverging diamond does not increase capacity, just makes it
safer.
p. Donna – DD safer from a bike ped perspective. Confusing and may not be better for
safety.
q. Bob – Could be better for bikes and mass transit.
r. Jonathon – Huge benefit for vehicle safety. Less crashes for cars.
s. Bob – Meets metric for being direct. Much better for commuters.
t. Shawn – More flexibility for crossing Williston Rd separately. Very efficient for bike/ped.
Showed vid from Exit 16. Sticky point for 14 is the crossing points at the flow areas on
and off highway at right turns
u. Donna – Still concerned with the uncontrolled crossings each way.
v. Shawn – There are more uncontrolled in the Cloverleaf.
w. Havaleh – What about paint?
x. Shawn – Straw vote on DD got most votes
y. On to Exit 12B
z. Written comments from Bob submitted before meeting (below)
aa. Donna – Doesn’t think building sooner would actually be a good thing. May actually
increase negative impacts.
bb. Cathy – Will change traffic patterns, not be good for residential areas, creates too much
commercial and industrial.
cc. Bob – But don’t we want to concentrate industrial/commercial and be a big city.
dd. Donna – We want development but not the traffic levels that will be created by this
interchange. Will be more bike ped friendly if there is not an interchange. Liked
comments from Affordable Housing Committee that Hinesburg Road is a more quieter
part of town.
ee. Cathy – People would start using it as a back way to get into Winooski using Patchen Rd
and Route 15. Could add more traffic to urban area roads.
ff. Shawn – Bobs comments articulated commercial benefits. Weird thing about this
interchange is that its wedged between commercial and residential. Could impact safety
of kids on all residential etc. All traffic going to airport would be going down there.
gg. Bob – Comments support if the other roads are done, then it would work. Would need
rec path all the way to Cheesefactory. Have to take the whole bundle of other roads at
the same time.
hh. Shawn – This would add a third exit to City and would be a significant impact, rather
than 2 using feeder roads like Kennedy.
ii. Nic – Concern of goal around commercial benefit takes away the goal of livability for
those on Hinesburg rd. Concerned that 12B would only work if the feeder roads were
built at the same time to get vehicles to Kimball instead of using Hinesburg Rd
jj. Havaleh – 13 could meet goals of commercial and would help with livability. Likely
could not be needed in 20 years. Not sure if it took into account the Obrien farm
development
kk. Amanda – Conflicted. Not digging the Tilley Dr connection as it creates more city street
needs. Has been planned for a long time. As a regional planner, would rather
commercial development be kept here instead of taking over open space. Also agree
that it would open up residential to truck traffic.
ll. Shawn – Sounds like hearing more people support 13 over 12B.
mm. On to exit 13
nn. Single Use Diamond – Cathy - This one meets the needs of being direct. Could easily do
a small branch over to the bike path beside 189 which would be great. Connects all the
way to Shelburne Rd from Farrell.
oo. Donna – Crossing Spear on the bridge and then getting off would be good.
pp. Cathy – Cars go pretty fast on 189 so getting off as soon as possible would be good.
qq. Shawn – Struggles with crossings over southbound ramp on 189.
rr. Nic – Speed would be changed by the tightness of the ramps. Should still have RRFB or
HAWK at the crossings.
ss. Cathy – People would take Kennedy which never seems overburdened so would take a
lot of traffic from Williston Rd/Exit 14
tt. Shawn – Sounds like all people like the Single point diamond over the Hybrid option.
uu. Donna – Simplifies and actually connects the two sections of South Burlington.
vv. Havaleh – Would be a good commuter option.
ww. Cathy – 189 has a good path so would be great to connect.
xx. Shawn – Need to get recommendation to City Council.
yy. Motion by Cathy to support Exit 14 DDI and Exit 13 SDI with amendment to ensure it
goes OVER the Spear St bridge and that there is connection to the existing path there.
Nic added to recommend all crossings for both interchanges have signals of some kind
at ramps. Seconded by Havaleh.
zz. Vote – All in favor
5. Sketch Plan for Long Property
a. Cathy - We need to be prepared to recommend how multi use path could go through
the property.
b. Bob – They are proposing a road to connect to Parkside Drive.
c. Cathy – Do we want the bike path there too? There is nothing in the plans there. At one
point it showed along spear street. Logical place is straight across Parkside and connect
to branch.
d. Donna - Was a comment at City Council that they wanted to ensure Spear St could
accommodate paths on that section. Need to widen Spear St.
e. Bob – Sent through personal comments to add lanes on Spear. Can send comments
through if you want it.
f. Cathy – Were excellent comments that Bob sent. Increased traffic from other locations
show the need to have Spear St paths.
g. Bob – The Longs ARE recommending a path along Parkside.
h. Cathy – Important that we have bike ped member at the meeting to advocate for that
small connection. April 6th. Bob and Donna and Shawn will be there.
i. Bob discussed the different roads and how they would work. Sidewalk from Pheasant to
So Pointe would be good. Will provide his comments to the committee.
j. Lots of discussion about how its going to be impossible to do left turns from all
neighborhoods out onto Spear soon.
k. Donna – Spending a lot of time with Climate Council meetings. We need to reduce
vehicles and fuel use not just manage.
6. Adjourn (7:00 p.m.)
Considerations In Support of an Exit 12B:
• Assumes that a new Exit 12B could be built much earlier in years than the
reconstruction of Exit 13 whose bridge may not need to be replaced for another 15 or
more years
• Assumes that this new exit will significantly reduce the commuter vehicle traffic on
Williston Road, Dorset Street, Market Street and Kennedy Drive since people working in
the Technology Park and vicinity businesses will use this exit as well as vehicles heading
to Burlington International Airport
• This exit will support the growth of industrial and commercial businesses in this area
that will help to rebalance the commercial/residential tax base within South Burlington
that has steadily been shifting to add more burdens on residential taxpayers
• This exit will encourage more industrial and commercial business growth in an area
where this type of development is preferred and zoned to be located
• Having this exit will encourage additional airlines to provide service at Burlington
International Airport because there is a more direct route to the airport (alleged
Southwest Airlines example)
• Further assumes that the Exit 12B “bundle” would include the following:
o The concurrent building of the “Commercial/Industrial” road connecting the end
of the exit ramp directly to Kimball Avenue at the intersection with Tilley Drive.
This will help minimize the traffic the heads to Hinesburg Road
o The building of a separated bicycle and pedestrian facility on the I-89 bridge over
the highway on Hinesburg Road
o A shared use path the length of Hinesburg Road from Cheese Factory Road to
Kennedy Drive
o The concurrent building of the U-turn ramp on I-189 to allow vehicles coming
southbound on I-89 to access eastbound Kennedy Drive and for vehicles heading
westbound on Kennedy Road to access northbound I-89
February 10, 2021
South Burlington City Council,
Last fall you asked the South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee to provide
input on how to improve bicyclist-pedestrian-motorist interactions. This request was in response
to concerns raised by a citizen who had multiple confrontations with motorists in South
Burlington. This is far from an isolated event and something the Committee takes very seriously.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input.
Though the specific incidents did not result in injury, tragic outcomes are all too common
when unprotected individuals share space with drivers of multi-ton vehicles. We look forward to a
time when our infrastructure is better suited for shared use; and when all bikers, walkers, and
drivers have a more shared-use mindset. That is not where we are today. In the short term, we
may even see these issues get worse before they get better, as new bikers and walkers enter
spaces that have predominantly been designed for and used by motorists. We are at a risky point
in our transition, making this concern especially pressing and relevant.
Both Local Motion and VTrans have guidance and resources available to assist in this
process. Local Motion has published guidance in the form of Rules of the Road, and VTrans has
its Share the Road initiative. These are excellent sources that provide guidance to walkers,
bikers, and drivers on how to effectively and safely share space. Programs like these make it
clear that all users are responsible for safe and positive interactions. Still, the most significant
risks fall disproportionately on walkers and bikers - especially children, the elderly, and persons
with disabilities. It’s crucial that we account for this asymmetric risk as we navigate this transition.
Education and awareness are critical, and the resources developed by Local Motion and
VTrans are excellent guides to use in improving multi-modal interactions. But, we must not
simply rely on education to solve this problem, and we certainly can’t wait until we’ve built the
perfect multi-use transportation system. Below are some specific recommendations that we think
are best suited to help mitigate this issue moving forward.
Specific Recommendations:
1. Increase our road painting budget (long lines, crosswalks, bike lanes, sharrows, etc).
○ These markings, when maintained, make our pedestrians safer in crosswalks, our
bikers safer in bike lanes, and demonstrates to all users who ‘belongs’ there.
○ Whatever we paint MUST be maintained to be effective. This can’t be overstated.
Our budgets allow for only ~30% of the necessary painting to be done, annually.
February 10, 2021
○ Standardize using the new/high-vis green paint for bike boxes and intersections,
as well as in potentially dangerous crossings on our path system.
2. South Burlington’s speed limits must be reviewed and reduced wherever possible. Many
of our neighboring towns have speed limits that are 5-10mph lower on similar roads.
○ The stopping distance for a car traveling at 35mph is over 60% longer than the
same vehicle traveling at 25mph (per VTrans Share the Road).
○ A pedestrian hit by a vehicle traveling at 40mph has an 85% chance of dying.
That risk drops to 20% at 20mph (per VTrans Share the Road).
3. Narrow vehicle lanes to the minimum South Burlington DPW standard (10’ in most cases)
to help slow vehicle speeds and maximize shoulders for pedestrians and bicyclists.
○ Traffic calming studies consistently show that narrowing lanes is one of the most
effective actions to naturally reduce vehicle speeds and minimize crashes while
allowing additional pedestrian, bike, and green space.
4. Better, clear, and consistent signage is required across all shared spaces (roads,
sidewalks, paths). Good signage is imperative to reduce multi-user friction.
5. Increase the funding for RRFBs (user-initiated flashing crossing lights) - both new
crossings as well as resources to maintain and upgrade the existing units.
6. Increased focus on policing of shared-use spaces & interactions - signage, paint, and
improved infrastructure can only do so much. Police would ideally pay special attention to
behaviors and the specific risks that exist in these shared spaces.
7. Williston Rd over I-89 remains dangerous and needs attention. This can not wait 5-10+
years for a bike/ped bridge. The Bike/Ped Committee is ready to work with DPW on this.
8. Learn from our accidents - any major multimodal accident (car/bike, car/ped, bike/ped)
should be reviewed to identify contributing factors and potential solutions. Ideally, we’d
eliminate all accidents, but if and when they do occur we must take the opportunity to
learn and improve.
These are our primary recommendations to improve bicyclist-pedestrian-motorist interactions in
the near term. We look forward to continuing this discussion as we work together to effectively
build a top-notch multimodal transportation system in South Burlington.
Thank you.
South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
Bike/Ped Staff Update – 4/14/2021
• UPWP Scoping: The Burlington-South Burlington project has a scope of work being reviewed by
the project team. Once the terms are agreed upon, the consultant will begin their work on the
study.
• E-Bikes are here. Staff is meeting to determine a launch date, so stay tuned for more
information.
• Committee Member Term Limits Expiring: Staff sent notices to Bob, Amanda, and Havaleh that
their term on the Committee is expiring at the end of June. They need to submit another
application by April 12th, and interviews are slated to be conducted April – May, with
appointments made by Council in June. There are four total seats to be filled this time around.
• COVID Updates: Staff are slowly transitioning back into City Hall as more Vermonters receive the
vaccine. The building will remain closed to the public, but many services remain available on-
line. Staff will update the Committee as more information becomes available.
Penny for Paths Projects Updates – 4/14/2021
• Jug Handle Sidewalk: Additional lighting work and landscaping still need to be completed. DPW
has moved this project to the bottom of their 20+ project to-do list. It should still be completed
this FY.
• Allen Road Rec Path: Construction bid documents have been finalized and were officially
released on April 6th. Bids are due May 4th. This project is on track to be completed this
construction season.
• Airport Parkway Sidewalk & On-Road Bike Lanes: As the project team was working through
construction bid documents for this project, a final construction estimate indicated that this
project is going to be significantly more expensive to build than originally estimated in the
scoping study. Staff recommends that the Committee consider pausing this project and
prioritizing a different project from the Committee’s project list. Design, engineering, and ROW
is mostly complete for this project. Supplemental funding will be needed to construct the
project.
• South Dorset Street Shared Use Path: The design continues to move through the NEPA
permitting process. There are not a lot of updates with this project since the public forum in
February.
• Underwood Parcel Shared Use Path: Staff is still working to finalize an agreement with the SE
Group to work on the design and engineering for the viewing area, on-site parking, and
pedestrian connectivity elements. Once we can officially kick off that portion of the work, we
will have a better idea of when we can begin the permitting process for these elements in
conjunction with the shared use path.
• Kimball Culvert & Bike/Ped Infrastructure: This project has been put out to bid with bids due
April 29th.
• RRFB Upgrades & Dorset Street Barriers: DPW is still moving both of these projects forward.
• Twin Oaks/Kennedy Drive Crosswalk: This project was awarded funding from the VTrans Small-
Scale Bike/Ped Program. It received the full amount requested, and staff is moving forward with
a consultant to complete any additional design/engineering to implement this crosswalk.
• Spear Street Phase 1: This project was awarded funding through the VTrans Transportation
Alternatives Program. It will receive $300,000 in federal funding, the maximum award for this
grant program. A project commitment form has been signed, but staff is still awaiting a grant
agreement document. Once that is completed, the search for a consultant will begin. As a
reminder, this project is for the design/engineering/construction of a shared-use path
connection between the UVM Forestry Building and the Swift/Spear intersection. There may
also be some work done to the alignment of that intersection pending the outcome of the
ongoing scoping study that is looking at that intersection.
• Hinesburg Road Crosswalks: Staff received feedback from VTrans regarding the scoping concepts
provided for crosswalks along Hinesburg Road, between Williston Road and Kennedy Drive.
DPW is planning on implementing recommendations for the crossing at St. John Vianney before
doing any additional work here. This will involve upgrading and upsizing signage, as well as
adding gate posted signage (back to back signs on both sides of the road). VTrans also
recommended adding a 2” reflective strip on the posts and that DPW clear some vegetation on
the west side to improve visibility of existing signage. If these improvements do not improve the
safety at this crossing, VTrans may then consider adding RRFBs here. Staff is also looking to
implement three of the proposed new crossing, including: Prouty Parkway, Ruth Street, and at
the Awasiwi Trail crossing. There needs to be some additional design and engineering work
done, and staff needs to connect with at least one landowner at the Ruth Street crossing. All of
this work can be put under one 1111 permit for VTrans review, and the timing of this review
should be fairly quick once submitted. Staff is waiting on a scope of work to tackle the minor
engineering work associated with these projects.
RaisedCrosswalk& RRFBOld Farm RoadAdvisory Bicycle LanesPotential Future ConnectionLEGENDPrepared: 4/1/21RecFieldParkParkCommunityCenterDog ParkKe
n
n
e
d
y
D
r
i
v
e
Kimball AvenueTilley DriveAdvisoryBicycle LanesRaisedCrosswalk& RRFBNew SharedUse PathNew SharedUse PathNew SharedUse PathExisting Shared Use PathBike Connectivity to Be DeterminedDuring Phase 1 Plat PermittingProposed Shared Use PathProposed Advisory Bicycle LaneProposed CrossingChanges to Site PlanNew SharedUse PathGateway Feature(Transition from AdvisoryBike Lane to Shared Use Path)Future StreetConnection(By Others)New SharedUse Path
50' Wetland Setbac
k
Wetland A
T
y
p
e
I
I
I
50'
W
e
t
lan
d
Se
t
b
ac
k
Wetland B
T
y
p
e
I
I
I
50' WetlandSetbackWetland C
Type III
Storm Water
Detention
HILLSIDE @
O'BRIEN FARM
OWNER AND APPLICANT:
ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY INFORMATION:
C-1
OVERALL SITE
PLAN
Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive,
South Burlington, Vermont
O'BRIEN BROTHERS
1855 WILLISTON ROAD
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403
164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375
Colchester, Vermont 05446
email@krebsandlansing.com
pcg 338.5
LIMIT OF
EASTVIEW
EASTVIEW
EX.
POND #1
EX.
POND #2
EX.
POND #3
WET
POND A
GRAVEL
WETLAND
#1
GRAVEL
WETLAND
#2
GRAVEL
WETLAND #3
GRAVEL
WETLAND #4
GRAVEL
WETLAND #5
GRAVEL
WETLAND #6
GRAVEL
WETLAND #7
GRAVEL
WETLAND #8
Lot 1
8.9 ac
Lot 2
5.0 ac
Lot 3
2.0 ac
Lot 4
1.1 ac
Lot 5
8.8 ac
Lot 6
3.0 ac
Lot 7
2.4 ac
Lot 5
8.8 ac
Lot 8
4.6 ac
Lot 9
1.9 ac
Lot 10
0.9 ac
Lot 11
1.2 ac
Lot 13
2.78 ac
Lot 15
2.38 ac
Lot 12
1.6 ac
Lot 14
1.1 ac
Lot 17
1.78 ac
Lot 16 2.61 ac
Lot 20 2.06 ac
Lot 21
1.90 ac
Lot 22
2.21 ac
Lot 23
0.78 ac
Lot 24
1.37 ac
Lot 25
2.20 ac
Lot 26
1.87 ac
Lot 27
1.49 ac
Lot 28
2.46 ac
Lot 32
2.92 ac
Lot 30
2.39 ac
Lot 31
4.80 ac
Lot 34
2.38 ac
Lot 45
Open Space
12.64 ac
Lot 29
0.73 ac
Lot 38
3.06 ac
Lot 39
3.91 ac
Lot 44
3.96 ac
Lot 46
Open Space
4.56 ac
Business
Park North
Lot 4
2.4 ac
Archaeology
Zone
Archaeology
Zone
Lot 33
1.30 ac
Lot 37
3.54 ac
Lot 18
Open Space
1.17 ac
Lot 19
Open Space
1.51 ac
16-1 16-2 16-3 16-4
16-716-616-5 16-8 16-9 16-10 16-11 16-12 16-13 16-14
16-1516-1616-17
20-131-131-231-331-431-531-631-731-831-931-1031-1131-1231-1331-143
1
-
1
5
31
-1631-1731-1831-1931-2031-2131-2231-2331-2
4
30-1
30-5
30-7
30-9
3
0
-
1
3
3
0
-
1
4
3
0
-
1
5
3
0
-
1
6
3
0
-
1
7
3
0
-
1
8
3
0
-
1
9
33-1
33-3
33-6
33-7
37-137-237-3
37-4
37-537-637-737-837-9
37-1037-1136-136-236-336-436-5
33-2
33-4
33-5
33-8 33-9
30-2
30-3
30-4
30-6
30-8
30-10
30-1130-1220-220-320-420-520-620-720-820-920-1020-1120-1220-1320-1420-1520-1620-1720-1820-1920-2020-2120-2220-2320-2420-2520-263
0
-
2
0
3
0
-
2
1
Lot 36
1.55 ac
34-1
34-2
34-3
34-4
34-5
34-6
34-7
34-8
34-9
34-10
Lot 40
3.42 ac
Lot 41
3.95 ac
Lot 42
3.51 ac
Lot 43
2.90 ac
Lot 35
1.77 ac
16-18
16-19
16-20
3
0
-
2
2
3
0
-
2
3
3
0
-
2
4
3
0
-
2
5
3
0
-
2
631-2534-12
34-13
34-14
34-15
34-16
34-17
34-18
35-1
35-2
35-3
35-4
35-5
35-6
35-7
34-11
GENERAL FUND
BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURE
BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:STATUS: Part of FY'19 UPWP CCRPC scoping study. Review by Bike/Ped Committee delayed due to COVID-19. An application for the Vtrans Transportation Alternatives grant is being prepared and will be submitted November 2020. If this project is awarded funding, the timeline will shift up.Total Estimated Revenues:
Total Estimated Savings:
Department Contact:Ashley Parker
Changes from FY 2019-2028 CIP:
SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 FY 31 Total:
Allen Rd. Shared Use Path (Upper)270 - - - - - - - - - 270
Airport Parkway (Phase 1)186 - - - - - - - - - 186
Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path (Phase 1)180 - - - - - - - - - 180
Williston Road Crosswalk Locations 150 100 - - - - - - - - 250
S. Dorset Street Shared Use Path 80 350 360 - - - - - - - 790
Hinesburg Road Crosswalk Locations 60 - - - - - - - - - 60
Kennedy Dr/Twin Oaks Crosswalk 40 - - - - - - - - - 40
City Rec Path Wayfinding Project 10 - - - - - - - - - 10
Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements (Phase 1)- 200 250 200 - - - - - - 650
Queen City Park Road Sidewalk - 50 50 - - - - - - - 100
Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path (Phase 2)- - 60 240 100 - - - - - 400
Hinesburg Rd Bike Facilities - - 50 50 150 250 - - - - 500
Shelburne Rd Crosswalk Imp - - 23 93 - - - - - - 116
Allen Rd. Sidewalks (Lower)- - - 167 140 - - - - - 307
Vale to Spear/Swift Streets Path - - - - 558 - - - - - 558
Airport Parkway (Phase 2)- - - - 100 100 300 300 - - 800
Shelburne Road Ped/Bike Facilities - - - - 58 289 231 - - - 578
Queen City Park Road Shared Use Path - - - - 50 250 - - - - 300
Spear Street/UVM Bike/Ped Infrastructure - - - - - - 150 300 340 - 790
Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements (Phase 2)- - - - - - 50 100 300 - 450
-
TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:976 700 793 750 1,156 889 731 700 640 - 7,335
The BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENT CIP projects (not including those listed as part of the City Center, Open Space and Roads CIP that are listed separately)
address identified facility needs in the City's bicycle and pedestrian transportation and recreational infrastructure.
Puplic Hearing FY 2022-2031 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT Page 68 of 144
Difficulty and Speed Ranking
Quick and Easy (Possibly could be done by DPW Crew?)Notes
1 Prouty Parkway On Route 116. In 4 Project Scoping Study. Should be contracted out and done at same time as top 6.
2 Ruth Street On Route 116. In 4 Project Scoping Study. Needs sidewalk section. Should be contracted out and done at same time as top 6.
3 Wright Court On Route 116. In 4 Project Scoping Study. Needs sidewalk section. Should be contracted out and done at same time as top 6.
4 Awasiwi Trail On Route 116. In 4 Project Scoping Study. Needs sidewalk section. Should be contracted out and done at same time as top 6.
5 St John Vianney On Route 116. In 4 Project Scoping Study. RRFB's Only. Should be contracted out and done at same time as top 6.
6 Songbird Rd Would need small sidewalk connection to street. See prelim assessment by SBBPC. Should be contracted out and done at same time as top 6.
7 Dorset Street & UMall & Garden St. Intersection
Need North/South facing pedestrian-activated, crosswalk lights to cross from Healthy Living to Trader Joe's on east side and from Sears Auto to
Xfinity/Comcast on west side. Need crossing lights and traffic light timing (?).
8 Brewer Parkway & New Hannaford Entrance Need East/West crosswalk across Shelburne Road. Distances between nearby crosswalks are too far. Need crossing lights and traffic light timing (?).
9 Laurel Hill Dr & Hannaford Drive Need East/West crosswalk across Shelburne Road. Distances between nearby crosswalks are too far. Needs engineering, paint, crossing lights and
traffic light timing (?).
10 Dubois Dr/Butler Dr Already has sidewalks on both sides. Easy in terms of engineering but 45MPH. Needs state review and RRFB at least!
11 Cider Mill Dr Where rec path terminates beside mail boxes. Start with just paint like the rest of them
12 Ascension on Allen Phase 2 - Install 500ft of sidewalk to connect to Pillsbury and rec path
Harder and Longer Needs Engineering plans? Bigger price tag
1 W Twin Oaks In Williston Kennedy Scoping Study. Needs median. Anticipate doing at same time as Williston Rd
2 Elsom Parkway In Williston Rd Scoping Study. Needs median. Anticipate doing at same time as Kennedy
3 Mills Avenue In Williston Rd Scoping Study. Needs median. Anticipate doing at same time as Kennedy
4 S. Pointe Dr To connect to new sidewalk to Pheasant Way. Will need to have 350ft if sidewalk at same time
5 Park Rd/Nicklaus Circle Needs path or sidewalk to connect with Nicklaus. Would require partnership with association for possibly them intalling sidewalk
6 Pine Tree Terrace In Williston Rd Scoping Study. Needs median
Allen Rd Will be done as part of Allen Rd Rec Path Connection
Van Sicklen Rd Really? Speed issue, connecting to what?
Out of our hands Needs Engineering, Developers, State
1 Lindenwood/Queen City Parkway Maplefields not approved. Pending CCRPC scoping of Queen City Park Road rec path currently process.
2 Tilley Drive Already in process due to development
10Impact Fee Project DetailsAirport Parkway from Kirby Rd to Lime Kiln. Phase 1 from Kirby to Berard Rd. Install 5' wide sidewalk and bike lanes from Kirby Road to Lime Kiln Road. Includes widening of cross section between Lime Kiln and top of the hill.Allen Road / Harbor Heights Path: Shelburne Rd to Baycrest10' recreation path.Dorset Street: Old Cross Rd to Sadie Lane 10' shared use path.Garden Street North of Market St. (1) connect existing Garden Street to Midas drive with 2-lane roadway, add 10' shared use path, trees, lights - 450' length; (2) Midas Drive upgrade, sidewalk, street trees, lights, 10' rec path -500'; (3) correct Midas/Williston and Hinesburg / Williston Road intersections and replace sidewalk with 12' recreation path and streetscape on south side of the road.Hinesburg Rd / Tilley Drive Intersection signalizationInstall signal and crosswalk at intersection. No lane re-alignmentsHinesburg Road Shared Use Path Williston Road to Kennedy.Replace existing sidewalk (portions asphalt) with 10' recreation path.Kimball Avenue Muddy Brook crossing Includes a crossing of Muddy BrookKimball/Community Dr East Intersection ImprovementsTraffic signal with mast arms, grading, crosswalksShelburne Road: Imperial to McIntosh both sidesShared use path.Shelburne Road: path connection from IDX Dr to Imperial Dr.Shared use path connection.Spear Street Path jughandle to UVM athletic facilities6' sidewalk on east side and 10' recreation path on west side of Spear Street.Spear Street Path: Swift Street to Shelburne Town Line (phase 2)sidewalk and on-road bike lanesSpear Street Path: US Forest Service Bldg to Swift Street (phase 1)10' recreation path.Tilley to Community Drive Road 2-lane roadway. Parallel to existing shared use path. Involes wetland / archeology crossing. 850' total lengthWilliston Road Streetscape South Side Replace existing sidewalk with 12' wide shared use path, greenbelt, street trees, pedestrian lighting. 2,000' lengthWilliston Road: new Street on north side, from Dorset to PatchenIncludes 2 sections, Dorset St to Windjammer front drive aisle (500') and Windjammer access road to Patchen Rd (1,500'). 2 lanes, on-street parking, sidewalk, rec path, street trees*These projects are all included in the CIP