HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 10/11/2023
AGENDA
South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee
City Hall 3rd Floor, Room 301 at 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403
Participation Options: In Person: Room 301 – 180 Market St
Assistive Listening Service Devices Available upon request
Electronically: https://meet.goto.com/SBCity/bike_ped_committee_10-11-2023
Join By Phone: +1 (872) 240-3212 Access Code: 895-924-149
5:30 PM Wednesday October 11, 2023
1. Welcome, Emergency Exit and Virtual Meeting Instructions, Gratitude – Havaleh (5:30 PM)
2. Changes or additions to the agenda – Havaleh (5:35 PM)
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda – Havaleh (5:40 PM)
4. Consideration of minutes from September 13, 2023 – Havaleh (5:45 PM)
5. South Burlington Energy Festival Recap (5:50 PM)
6. ***City Updates – Erica (6:10 PM)
7. ***Transportation Climate Action Implementation Plan Discussion – Erica (6:25 PM)
8. ***Public Traffic Evaluation Request Process and Initial List – Erica (6:40 PM)
9. ***Review projects to be listed on FY25 CIP – Bob (6:50 PM)
10. Work with Parks & Recreation Committee on Park near Allenwood project – Bob (7:15 PM)
11. Updates Ongoing Committee/Liaison Work (7:30 PM)
• Chair Updates – Havaleh
• DRB – Mark
• DPW/Safety – Bob, Dana, Amanda, Doug
• Bike Friendly Community Planning – Nic
• Communications/Outreach – Donna
• Mapping – Amanda, Nic
• ***Signs and Wayfinding – Nic, Donna, Dana
12. Confirm November 8, 2023 Meeting (7:55PM)
13. Adjourn (by 8:00 PM)
*** Attachments Included
1
To: South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
From: Erica Quallen, Deputy Director of Capital Projects and Staff Liaison
Date: October 11, 2023
Re: DPW Updates to Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
Since our committee meeting on September 13, 2023, I have the following updates to report on behalf of
Public Works and City staff:
• The Williston Road Crosswalks project has reached substantial completion, and the sidewalks will
be open to the public imminently.
• The ROW process for the I-89 Bike/Ped Bridge has started and is planned to be complete this
fall.
• FY25 CIP is in development for Bike/Ped projects. Timelines for key projects include:
o Dorset Street Path: Summer 2025 (FY26) construction
o Spear Street Path: Summer 2025 (FY26) construction
o Hinesburg Road Path: 2024 – 2026 (FY25 – FY27) design, 2026 – 2027 (FY27 – FY28)
construction
o Spear Meadows / Swift Street Path Connection: 2024 – 2025 (FY25 – FY26) design
and construction
o Dorset/Songbird and Spear/Pheasant Crosswalks: 2024 – 2025 (FY25 – FY26) design
and construction
• New pedestrian signals on Dorset Street are going in throughout October and November.
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.1 VEHICLE ELECTRIFICATION AND EFFICIENCY
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Replace 75% of gas vehicles with EVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles to reduce emissions by 42%
TITLE:
ACCELERATING THE INSTALLATION OF EV CHARGING AT EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS
ACTION T.1.1:
Work with a consultant to inventory current multi-family electric vehicle charging network
needs/capabilities to inform a policy for existing multi-family properties to install electric vehicle
charging equipment. The policy could include an incentive program for rental owners to allocate space
for charging stations.
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENTS:
New Incentive and Regulatory Programming, Citywide Program to Assist in Installation of EV Charging in
Multi-family Housing
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION: Planning & Zoning
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS: City Manager’s Office, City Council, Green Mountain Power (GMP), Drive
Electric Vermont (DEV), Multi-Family Property Owners, Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs)
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2024 to 2030 (7 Years)
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.1.1, T.1.2, T.1.3, T.1.4, T.1.5, T.1.6
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating
External Funding Sources: Vermont Community EV Charger Program
(State/GMP), Electric Vehicle Charging Station
and Workplace Charging Station Loan Programs
(Vermont Economic Development Authority),
Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
Discretionary Grant Program (Federal Highway
Administration)
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 3
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
2
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week): 16 to 24
External Technical Support Required: Yes
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]):2 4
CO-BENEFITS:
• Economic Value
• Mobility/Accessibility Enhancement
• Public Health
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Step 1: Enact EVSE Charging Policies
A. Hire a consultant to analyze the current and projected EV charging network capabilities and
needs amongst the City’s multi-family developments.
B. Understanding these capabilities and needs, review the City’s existing Land Development
Regulations (LDRs) to ensure they appropriately include specific allowances, regulations, and
incentives (e.g., density bonuses, priority parking) for EV charging stations. Ensure that siting
standards, including ADA accessibility, fire protection, and other traffic safety features, are
adequately addressed in the City’s codes and ordinances. Ensure this is aligned with CAP Action
T.1.2.
C. Offer expedited permitting and inspection processes for existing multi-family property owners
proposing to install residential, workplace, or public charging stations. Ensure this is aligned with
CAP Action T.1.2.
D. Explore supporting a state, or enacting a local, “right-to-charge” policy that would require
HOAs/property managers to consider reasonable requests for adding EV charging.
Step 2: Develop and Distribute a ‘Guide to EV Charging in Existing Multi-Family Developments’
A. Engage owners and residents of multi-family developments to understand and document their
questions and concerns related to EVSE procurement, installations, and operations.
2 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
3
B. Work with GMP and DEV to develop a reference document that addresses these questions and
concerns, as well as provides practical implementation guidance (e.g., conducting a building
level EVSE needs assessment). Refer to relevant resources provided by the Alternative Fuels
Data Center available at: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_charging_multi.html.
C. Engage the target audiences to build awareness of this guidance document and explain its
purpose and applications. Conduct this engagement through targeted workshops and/or
roadshows. Ensure the document is readily accessible in both digital and printed formats.
D. Plan for regular updates to ensure the guidance document is current based on the latest
regulations and other requirements, funding sources, and technologies, amongst other
considerations.
Step 3: Form a City EVSE Technical Assistance Team
A. Using the City’s Stormwater Utility as a model, develop a team of staff that can perform direct
outreach to encourage property owners to install EVSE as well as provide on-call support to
those that decide to proceed with an EVSE installation.
Step 4: Pilot a Program that Allows EV Owners to Charge EVs Across the Public Sidewalk
B. Establish the goals and objectives of the pilot program, aligned with the problem and needs it
aims to address.
C. Prepare a detailed plan for the execution and evaluation of the pilot program (e.g., scope,
timeline, required resources, and performance indicators). In this plan, include any partnerships
necessary, for example, with multi-family property owners and GMP.
D. Work with partners to secure funding for the pilot program.
E. Prepare program guidelines, requirements, and resources aligned with its goals and objectives.
F. Identify and recruit multi-family property owners and EV owners residing in multi-family
developments, particularly where off-street parking is limited, to participate in the pilot
program. Note that this pilot would need to address the City’s winter on-street parking ban.
G. Implement the pilot program. Monitor its effectiveness, including through participant and other
stakeholder feedback, and refine it as necessary.
H. At the close of the pilot, analyze its impact and outcomes, and decide whether to scale the pilot
across the City (where appropriate), iterate it to address areas of improvement, or close it out.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION:
• Funding can be made available to support EV-Readiness through local match and/or support for
grant applications like the Multiunit Dwelling Electric Vehicle Charging Grant that prioritizes
affordable housing developments.
• Networked charging stations are capable of robust data collection, which could assist multi-
family property owners in understanding when and how often their EVSE is utilized as well as to
4
quickly identify and troubleshoot maintenance issues. However, these are more expensive to
own and maintain than non-networked charging stations.
• Integrated load management software enables power output/charging speed reductions during
times when the regional electrical grid is stressed. Such software could be applied to minimize
the need for multi-family property owners to upgrade upstream electrical infrastructure and
help avoid peak demand charges (applicable to EVSE tied to a meter with a commercial rate).
• Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) or other V2X bidirectional charging technologies could allow EVs to send
power back to the grid during times of peak power demand. Alternatively, such technology
could be utilized to make multi-family developments more resilient during power outages.
• New EVSE installations could be coupled with solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and/or renewable
energy financing to increase the composition of clean energy the EVs consume.
• New EVSE installations could be coupled with battery storage capabilities to provide back-up
power to the charging stations and/or the buildings in which they are contained.
• Along with EVs, electric bikes (e-bikes) are growing in popularity. E-bikes provide another, more
convenient way to travel longer distances than are readily accessible by walking, especially for
persons with mobility limitations. Incorporation of charging infrastructure for e-bikes can
support the growth of this zero or low emission mode type.
FOCUS ON EQUITY
• The costs of EVSE installations and maintenance are likely to be passed onto residents through
either minimum use fees, higher than approved GMP charging rates, or amenity fees.
Accordingly, the City should explore mechanisms – perhaps requiring a change to the City’s
Charter – that would place limits on such cost pass-throughs to minimize having them impact
low-income households disproportionately.
• Robust usage of EV charging stations will depend, in part, on the availability of standardized,
multi-language signage and education.
• The deployment of EVSE should consider that more affordable, used EVs may have less
prevalent connector types (e.g., CHAdeMO).
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Property Owner/HOA Engagement
The success of this CAP action is dependent on the support and contributions of owners and property
managers of multi-family properties as well as HOAs. Accordingly, engage these stakeholders early the
implementation of the above-described steps, where appropriate. In doing so, convey the common
purpose of these steps and their benefits. Address perceptions of added costs directly by placing EVSE in
the context of available incentives and potential cost recovery.
5
Electrical Grid Capacity
Property owners may need to coordinate with GMP to ensure that EVSE installations are feasible with
respect to local utility infrastructure, baseload electricity supply, and upstream safety considerations
(e.g., compliance with fire codes). This can be accomplished by requesting an “ability to serve” letter
from the utility. The City may need to provide special allowances to accommodate site capacity
constraints.
Charging Standards
New charging stations in multi-family developments should consider the various Level 2 connectors
available, including CHAdeMO and J1772. Further, the U.S. DOT recently released National Electric
Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements applicable to EV charging stations supported by
federal funds. Consider emerging standards, such as the megawatt charging system (MCS).
Municipal Inspections and Training
Infrastructure associated with EV-Capable, EVSE-Ready, and EVSE-Installs will require specialized training
for municipal staff carrying out new building and fire inspections.
Charging Session Fees
Owners of existing multi-family buildings will need to establish fee structures for occupant use of
installed EV charging stations. As it may not be possible or advantageous to connect individual EVSE to
unit electricity meters, if choosing to charge consumption fees, developers could install electrical
metering devices at the charging stations themselves or invest in stations that have the ability to collect
payments. Alternatively, they could enact a flat or scaled rate for persons using the charging stations.
ADA Compliance
Multi-family property owners should be made aware that current ADA guidance points to the need for
accessible EV charging spaces, but notes that they cannot count toward required ADA spaces. The City
should track and share evolving regulations, as well as consider recommending charging stations be
installed at planned ADA spaces as well as making EV charging spaces ADA-compliant but not exclusive.
CASE STUDIES:
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE
Chelan, WA and City of Atlanta, GA – Removed barriers to EV adoption within the city codes.
Quincy, WA – Provides density bonuses for the installation of EVSE.
6
City of Orlando, FL and City of Atlanta, GA – Developed guidebooks on “EV Readiness” that provide
locally-relevant information on EVSE deployment (e.g., installation best practices, incentives,
regulations, etc.)
San Diego, CA – Worked with property owners to install curbside EVSE in front of multi-family
developments.
City of Cambridge, MA – Approved a pilot program to allow residents without access to a driveway or
off-street parking the ability to cross public sidewalks to charge their EVs. Participants must obtain a
permit for the activity, and are required to provide an accessible ramp over the cord to ensure the
sidewalk remains accessible for pedestrians.
EQUITY APPROACH
Seattle, Washington - Explores removing barriers to EV adoption by increasing access to charging
infrastructure.
OTHER RESOURCES:
Summary of Right-to-Charge Laws - Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management – NESCAUM
Siting Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) with Equity in Mind - ACEEE
Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment Municipal Permitting Information – CCRPC
Electric Vehicle Charging for your Multi-Family Dwelling – Drive Electric Vermont
Multi-Unit Dwelling Electric Vehicle Charging - CCRPC
Electric Vehicle Charging for Multi-Family Housing - U.S. Department of Energy
Electric Vehicle Charging Station Guidebook – Drive Electric Vermont
Charging Installation Guide – Drive Electric Vermont
Design Recommendations for Accessible Electric Vehicle Charging Stations – U.S. Access Board
National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements – U.S. DOT
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire: When
asked about personal impacts related to transitioning to EVs, charging and cost were concerns widely
expressed.
From the Senior Center Focus Group: “EV charging stations need to have the same convenience factor as
current gas stations.”
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.1 VEHICLE ELECTRIFICATION AND EFFICIENCY
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Replace 75% of gas vehicles with EVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles to reduce emissions by 42%
TITLE:
NEW BUILDING EV CHARGING
ACTION T.1.2:
Adopt a policy to require (e.g., building code or zoning regulation) all new buildings have the
appropriate amount of electric vehicle (EV) charging equipment and 200-amp electric service. Work with
Drive Electric Vermont and/or Green Mountain Power to determine the appropriate amount.
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENT(S):
Amended Land Development Regulations, Permit Fee Schedule, and Expedited Permitting Processes for
EV-Readiness
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION: Planning & Zoning
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS: South Burlington Planning Commission, South Burlington City Council,
Development Community, Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), Green Mountain Power (GMP),
Drive Electric Vermont (DEV), University of Vermont Transportation Research Center
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2025 to 2030 (6 Years)
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.1.1, T.1.3, T.1.4, T.1.5, T.1.6
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating
External Funding Sources: Agency of Commerce and Community
Development – Municipal Planning Grant
Program
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 1
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
2
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week):2 Less than 8
External Technical Support Required: Yes
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]):3 3
CO-BENEFITS:
• Economic Value
• Mobility/Accessibility Enhancement
• Public Health
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Step 1: Establish Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)-Ready Space Targets
A. Engage a consultant to understand the level of EV charging required in new construction to
meet the established CAP target of replacing 75% of gas vehicles with EVs and plug-in hybrid
vehicles.
B. Coordinate with VTrans to understand the statewide EV adoption curve through 2030 and work
with the consultant to scale that down to the local level.
C. Using the findings of Steps 1.A and 1.B, work with DEV to develop EV-Capable, EVSE-Ready, and
EVSE-Installed space targets by land use type and charging level (i.e., Level 1 [AC], Level 2 [AC],
Level 3 [DC Fast Charge]). Refer to the Case Studies section below for examples of how other
communities set their own space targets.
Step 2: Build upon the Residential Building Energy Standards (RBES) Stretch and Commercial Building
Energy Standard (CBES) Codes
A. Update the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to include the EV-Capable, EVSE-Ready,
and EVSE-Installed space targets defined under Step 1. Ensure that targets for new multi-family
developments comprising between 2 and 10 dwelling units are included, as this is a
development type that is not currently covered by the RBES. Note that amendments to the RBES
have been proposed, which would increase requirements to one Level 2 capable EV charging
parking space per dwelling unit and then 25% of any remaining spaces not utilized by dwelling
units.4 These amendments are expected to become effective in July 2024.
2 “Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort” associated with T.1.2, Step 5 covered under CAP Action T.1.1.
3 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
4 Administrative Procedures – Proposed Filing (vermont.gov)
3
Step 3: Evaluate and Implement Municipal Incentives to Support EV-Readiness
A. Explore reducing permitting fees and/or expediting permit approvals.
B. Develop criteria for exceedances and related permit fee reductions and/or expedited approvals
based on building and land use types.
Step 4: Monitor EV Adoption Rates and Revise LDR Space Targets As Necessary
A. As market conditions for EVs are continuously evolving, regularly monitor local EV adoption
rates to ensure the LDR space targets remain appropriate. An accelerating EV adoption curve
may necessitate further LDR amendments.
Step 5: Leverage the City’s EVSE Technical Assistance Team (Planned as part of T.1.1)
A. Utilize the City’s EVSE Technical Assistance Team to support proponents of new construction
with EVSE installations and navigating the outcomes of Steps 2 through 4, as applicable.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION:
• Funding can be made available to support EV-Readiness through local match and/or support for
grant applications like the Multiunit Dwelling Electric Vehicle Charging Grant that prioritizes
affordable housing developments.
• The City could partner with property developers to allow for the installation of curbside/on-
street EV charging stations. This could support CAP Action T.2.11 (Parking Management).
• Networked charging stations are capable of robust data collection, which could assist
developers in understanding when and how often their EVSE is utilized as well as to quickly
identify and troubleshoot maintenance issues. However, these are more expensive to own and
maintain than non-networked charging stations.
• Integrated load management software enables power output/charging speed reductions during
times when the regional electrical grid is stressed. Such software could be applied to minimize
the need for developers to upgrade upstream electrical infrastructure and help avoid peak
demand charges (applicable to EVSE tied to a meter with a commercial rate).
• Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) or other V2X bidirectional charging technologies could allow EVs to send
power back to the grid during times of peak power demand. Alternatively, such technology
could be utilized to make multi-family developments more resilient during power outages.
• New EVSE installations could be coupled with solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and/or renewable
energy financing to increase the composition of clean energy the EVs consume.
• New EVSE installations could be coupled with battery storage capabilities to provide back-up
power to the charging stations and/or the buildings in which they are contained.
• Along with EVs, electric bikes (e-bikes) are growing in popularity. E-bikes provide another, more
convenient way to travel longer distances than are readily accessible by walking, especially for
4
persons with mobility limitations. Incorporation of charging infrastructure for e-bikes in new
construction can support the growth of this zero or low emission mode type.
FOCUS ON EQUITY
• The costs of EV-Readiness could be passed onto low-income households, for example, through
minimum use fees, higher than approved GMP charging rates, and amenity fees. Accordingly,
the City should explore mechanisms that place limits on these cost pass-throughs.
• Robust usage of EV charging stations will depend, in part, on the availability of standardized,
multi-language signage and education.
• The deployment of EVSE should consider that more affordable, used EVs may have less
prevalent connector types (e.g., CHAdeMO).
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Developer Community Support
Engage developer stakeholders early in the development and adoption of new LDRs for their ideas on
implementation. In the process, overcome potential apprehension regarding new requirements and
associated costs by developing a common understanding of purpose and benefits driving the new
codifications, as well as education on implementation with tangible examples (see Case Studies).
Address perceptions of added costs directly by placing EV-Readiness in the context of overall
development costs, additional costs for retrofits, available incentives, and potential cost recovery.
Parking Management
The City may receive feedback related to the management of dedicated EV parking spaces, particularly
early on when demand for such spaces may be low. This can be particularly problematic in combination
with developing parking maximums (Action T.2.11). Phasing in space targets can mitigate this issue to an
extent. However, the City could also work with the developer community to identify short-term
workarounds, for example, dedicating spaces to EVs only during certain times of the day.
Electrical Grid Capacity
The City should coordinate with GMP to ensure that the LDR targets are feasible with respect to local
utility infrastructure, baseload electricity supply, and upstream safety considerations (e.g., compliance
with fire codes). Note that specific sites may need to conduct their own coordination by requesting an
“ability to serve” letter from GMP.
Charging Standards
New charging stations should consider the various connectors available, including CHAdeMO, J1772, CCS
Type 1, and Tesla/NACS. Further, the U.S. DOT recently released National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
5
Standards and Requirements applicable to EV charging stations supported by federal funds. Consider
emerging standards, such as the megawatt charging system (MCS).
Municipal Inspections and Training
Infrastructure associated with EV-Capable, EVSE-Ready, and EVSE-Installs will require specialized training
for municipal staff carrying out new building and fire inspections. Such training should also address the
RBES stretch and CBES codes more broadly.
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Design Capacity
Ensure consistency between the LDR targets for EV-Capable, EVSE-Ready, and EVSE-Installs with any
existing (e.g., LDR-23-01) or new requirements for on-site solar PV generation. EV charging loads should
be appropriately considered in system design.
Charging Session Fees
Developers will need to establish fee structures for occupant use of installed EV charging stations. As it
may not be possible or advantageous to connect individual EVSE to unit electricity meters, if choosing to
charge consumption fees, developers could install electrical metering devices at the charging stations
themselves or invest in stations that have the ability to collect payments. Alternatively, they could enact
a flat or scaled rate for persons using the charging stations.
ADA Compliance
Current ADA guidance points to the need for accessible EV charging spaces, but notes that they cannot
count toward required ADA spaces. The City should track evolving regulations, as well as consider
recommending charging stations be installed at planned ADA spaces as well as making EV charging
spaces ADA-compliant but not exclusive.
CASE STUDIES:
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE
City of Boston, MA – Adopted in 2019, all new development projects that require the Boston
Transportation Department’s TAPA approval and/or the Article 80 Large Project Review must equip 25%
of their total parking spaces to be EV-Installed and the remaining 75% of the total spaces to be EV-
Ready.
Portland, ME – The Southern Maine Planning and Development Commission and Maine Clean
Communities Coalition developed a Municipal EV Readiness Toolkit in 2021 to guide ordinance
development and implementation. In 2022, the City of Portland Technical Manual Transportation
Systems and Street Design Standards implemented updated minimum thresholds for spaces that are EV-
Capable (Level 2 or higher in 20%) and EV-Ready (50%) in new structured or surface parking.
6
TARGET SETTING
Lakewood, CO – 1. Single or Two-Family Dwellings: one EV-Capable space (i.e., electrical capacity,
though no junction box or charging outlet) per dwelling unit; 2. Multi-Family Unit Dwellings: 2% EVSE-
Installed (i.e., charging station installed), 18% EV-Capable (10+spaces); and 3. Commercial: 2% EVSE-
Installed, 13-18% EV-Capable (10+spaces).
San Jose, CA – 1. Single or Two-Family Dwellings: one EV-Ready space per dwelling unit; 2. Multi-Family
Unit Dwellings: 10% EVSE-Installed, 20% EVSE-Ready, 70% EV-Capable; and 3. Commercial: 10% EVSE-
Installed, 40% EV-Capable.
St. Louis, MO – 1. Single or Two-Family Dwellings: one EV-Ready space per dwelling unit; 2. Multi-Family
Unit Dwellings: 2% EVSE-Installed, 5% EVSE-Ready (to increase to 10% in 2025); and 3. Commercial: 2%
EVSE-Installed, 5% EVSE-Ready.
EQUITY APPROACH
State of Colorado – Charge Ahead Colorado provides grants for 80% of cost for EV charging for
multi-family or workplace based installations.
Bay Area Aire Quality Management District – The Clean Cars for All Program provides grants for home
charging , portable charging, and public charging cards.
OTHER RESOURCES:
South Burlington Solar Ready
Residential Building Energy Standards
Commercial Building Energy Standards
Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment Municipal Permitting Information – CCRPC
Electric Vehicle Charging for your Multi-Family Dwelling – Drive Electric Vermont
Multi-Unit Dwelling Electric Vehicle Charging - CCRPC
Electric Vehicle Charging for Multi-Family Housing - U.S. Department of Energy
Electric Vehicle Charging Station Guidebook – Drive Electric Vermont
Charging Installation Guide – Drive Electric Vermont
Design Recommendations for Accessible Electric Vehicle Charging Stations – U.S. Access Board
National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements – U.S. DOT
7
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire: When
asked what about their concerns regarding requiring new buildings to have EVSE, the majority of
concerns received involved increasing the cost of housing and development. It should be noted that 72%
of respondents did not express any concerns.
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.1 VEHICLE ELECTRIFICATION AND EFFICIENCY
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Replace 75% of gas vehicles with EVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles to reduce emissions by 42%
TITLE:
CLOSING GAPS IN THE CITY’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGING STATION NETWORK
ACTION T.1.3:
Partner with GMP to speed up EV adoption in South Burlington including siting, make-ready
infrastructure, fast charging stations, and incentives.
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENT(S):
New Publicly Accessible EV Charging Deployments; New Incentive Programming
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION: Planning & Zoning
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS: Public Works, City Manager’s Office, Finance, City Council, Green
Mountain Power (GMP), Drive Electric Vermont (DEV), Vermont Department of Transportation, Private
Property Owners, South Burlington Business Association (SBBA)
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2024 to 2030 (7 Years)
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.1.1, T.1.2, T.1.3, T.1.4, T.1.5, T.1.6, GO.2.3, GO2.4
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating and Capital
External Funding Sources: Community EV Chargers Incentive Program
(GMP), Vermont Community EV Charger
Program (State/GMP), Electric Vehicle Charging
Station and Workplace Charging Station Loan
Programs (Vermont Economic Development
Authority), Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
Discretionary Grant Program (Federal Highway
Administration)
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 2
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
2
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
External Technical Support Required: Yes
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]):2 4
CO-BENEFITS:
• Economic Value
• Living Affordability
• Mobility/Accessibility Enhancement
• Public Health
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Step 1: Determine Gaps in the Local EV Charging Network
A. Engage CCRPC and/or a Consultant to map the existing, publicly-accessible EV charging network
(by location, level of charging, and ownership) within and proximate to the City’s boundaries.
B. Quantify the required number of publicly-available EVSE of various types by City geographies
(e.g., blocks, neighborhoods). This should be based on the number of expected EVs (i.e.,
75 percent of registered vehicles by 2030), where those EVs are expected to charge (i.e., home,
workplace, or public), how much energy will be required, and average length of charging
sessions.
C. Determine the City geographies where there are gaps in the charging network. These
geographies are likely to coincide with the locations of multi-family housing developments.
Step 2: Identify and Develop Sites for Public EVSE Deployment
A. Within areas with identified gaps in the EV charging network, conduct a geospatial assessment
to determine optimal, publicly-owned properties for new EVSE deployments. Work with GMP
and DEV to develop the evaluation criteria to be used in this analysis. Suggestions for these
criteria include:
I. Level II Charging Stations
i. Sites with high visibility (e.g., near major collector roads and trip generators).
ii. Sites affording low difficulty, cost-effective connections to the electrical grid.
iii. Existing or planned parking facilities that are or will be in high-use.
iv. Sites that have nearby amenities, such as cafés and other retail locations.
2 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
3
II. Level III (DC fast charge) Stations
i. Sites within 1 travel mile of a major highway (i.e., I-89) exit or intersection.
ii. Sites that are publicly accessible 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
iii. Sites near long-range destinations (e.g., hospital facilities, the Patrick Leahy
Burlington International Airport).
iv. Sites that are capable of providing power to the charging station(s) (i.e.,
480 volt, 3-Phase AC-input) and can accommodate their size.
B. Conduct a fatal flaw analysis on the identified sites that could preclude them from EVSE
installations. For example, land use and/or environmental constraints.
C. For sites that pass the fatal flaw analysis, coordinate with GMP to confirm previous assumptions
regarding connections to the electrical grid and assess local infrastructure capacity. Determine
whether infrastructure upgrades are necessary and advantageous.
D. For publicly-owned priority sites, begin a solicitation process to install the EVSE. For privately-
owned priority sites, coordinate with property owners, landlords, and/or tenants and provide
necessary guidance and informational resources to support EVSE installations; explore public-
private partnerships in the process.
Step 3: Build Financial Incentive Programming and Awareness/Education
A. In association with GMP, explore developing new or enhancing existing incentive programming
for EVSE installations, particularly as new funding sources are made available at the federal and
state levels.
B. Investigate City-sourced incentives for EVSE installations (e.g., preferential tax rates) and/or
charging station use (e.g., free charging sessions).
C. Centralize and share information on existing and new incentive programs that offset the cost of
EVSE installations, such as Vermont Community EV Chargers
(https://www.vermontevchargers.com/).
D. Conduct education events within the community, in partnership with GMP and others (as
appropriate), to build awareness and understanding of the available incentives, as well as EVSE
more broadly.
E. Target new incentive programming and education events in areas where there are gaps in the
EV charging network, particularly in areas with disadvantaged populations, where there is high
multi-family development density, and emerging commercial centers.
Step 4: Develop Charging Guidance
A. As necessary, work with GMP and Drive Electric Vermont to update the “Electric Vehicle
Charging Station Guidebook” to provide the public with guidance, information, and resources on
EVSE and EVSE installations. Include in the aforementioned centralized website and education
events.
4
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION:
• Networked charging stations are capable of robust data collection, e.g., frequency of use, which
could assist the City in understanding when and how often their EVSE is utilized as well as to
quickly identify and troubleshoot maintenance issues. However, these are more expensive to
own and maintain than non-networked charging stations.
• Integrated load management software enables power output/charging speed reductions during
times when the regional electrical grid is stressed. Such software could be applied to minimize
the need for upstream electrical infrastructure and help avoid peak demand charges (applicable
to EVSE tied to a meter with a commercial rate).
• Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) or other V2X bidirectional charging technologies could allow EVs to send
power back to the grid during times of peak power demand.
• Couple EV charging stations with solar panels/canopies and battery storage capabilities for
backup power purposes.
• Curbside charging options, particularly where there are power lines and adequate sidewalk
widths, could support more ubiquitous EVSE availability as well as save money by retrofitting
existing infrastructure (i.e., lamp post) compared to standalone stations.
• Along with EVs, electric bikes (e-bikes) are growing in popularity. E-bikes provide another, more
convenient way to travel longer distances than are readily accessible by walking, especially for
persons with mobility limitations. Incorporation of charging infrastructure for e-bikes at planned
EV charging hubs can support the growth of this zero or low emission mode type, particularly
when they are located along or near bike paths.
FOCUS ON EQUITY
• Lower-income households and households within multi-family housing developments are more
likely to be reliant on publicly accessible charging stations or may not have the ability install
their own charging compared to wealthier, single-family households. The installation of EVSE
that is publicly-accessible or at existing multi-family housing developments should therefore be
prioritized.
• Lower-income EV drivers may be adversely and disproportionately impacted by the cost of
charging, particularly at DC fast chargers, and any future state-mandated road usage fees (i.e.,
mileage-based fees instead of the gas tax). The City should explore policies with GMP and the
Department of Motor Vehicles and/or subsidies that make charging more affordable for these
drivers.
• Robust usage of EV charging stations will depend, in part, on the availability of standardized,
multi-language signage and education.
5
• The deployment of EVSE on publicly owned locations should consider that more affordable,
used EVs may have less prevalent connector types (e.g., CHAdeMO) and slower fast charging
capabilities.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Ownership Options
In developing the public solicitations under Step 2.D, consider the City’s preferred ownership model. In
other words, does the City want to own the EVSE or have third-parties own the systems enabled via
lease. Factors to consider include maintenance responsibilities, revenue sharing, and data sharing.
Site Considerations
For stations at publicly-owned locations, the City should ensure that there is signage and pavement
markings that adequately guide and inform EV drivers to charging stations, particularly from major
highways. Further, the City should take into consideration site safety and evolving ADA requirements
pertaining to EV-dedicated spaces.
Charging Standards
New charging stations should consider the various connectors available, including CHAdeMO, J1772, CCS
Type 1, and Tesla/NACS. Further, the U.S. DOT recently released National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
Standards and Requirements applicable to EV charging stations supported by federal funds. Consider
emerging standards, such as the megawatt charging system (MCS).
Community Education
The deployment of new EVSE at publicly-owned locations should be accompanied by an education
campaign to bring awareness to the availability of the new infrastructure and inform potential EV drivers
on their use.
ADA Compliance
Current ADA guidance points to the need for accessible EV charging spaces, but notes that they cannot
count toward required ADA spaces. The City should track evolving regulations, as well as consider
recommending charging stations be installed at planned ADA spaces as well as making EV charging
spaces ADA-compliant but not exclusive.
CASE STUDIES:
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE
6
City of Albany, NY – Undertook an assessment to make the city “EV Ready.” This included policy
recommendations and a feasibility study that identified priority sites for publicly-accessible Level 2 and
Level 3 EVSE.
City of Orlando, FL and City of Atlanta, GA – Developed guidebooks on “EV Readiness” that provide
locally-relevant information on EVSE deployment (e.g., installation best practices, incentives,
regulations, etc.)
Chelan, WA and City of Atlanta, GA – Removed barriers to EV adoption within the city codes.
Quincy, WA – Provides density bonuses for the installation of EVSE.
Seattle, Washington – The City and Seattle City Light initiated a pilot program for curbside EV charging,
including pole-mounted stations.
Oregon – Conducted a Transportation Electrification Infrastructure Needs Analysis that recognized
charging equipment for e-bikes represents a key contributor to achieving the state’s greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goals under the transportation sector.
EQUITY APPROACH
Seattle, Washington - Explores removing barriers to EV adoption by increasing access to charging
infrastructure.
OTHER RESOURCES:
Siting Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) with Equity in Mind - ACEEE
Electric Vehicle Charging Station Guidebook – Drive Electric Vermont
Charging Installation Guide – Drive Electric Vermont
Design Recommendations for Accessible Electric Vehicle Charging Stations – U.S. Access Board
State of Vermont National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan
National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements – U.S. DOT
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire: When
asked about personal impacts related to transitioning to EVs, charging and cost were concerns widely
expressed.
From the Senior Center Focus Group: “EV charging stations need to have the same convenience factor as
current gas stations.”
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.2 REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Reduce vehicle miles traveled by 2.5% annually to reduce emissions by 19%
TITLE:
MICROTRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES
ACTION T.2.3:
Research the applicability for microtransit programs in South Burlington.
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENTS:
Microtransit Pilot Projects
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION: Planning & Zoning
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS: Green Mountain Transit (GMT), Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission (CCRPC)
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2024 to 2030 (7 Years)
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.2.7, T.2.8, T.2.10, T.2.13, T.2.14, T.2.16, T.2.19, GO.3.1
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating and Capital
External Funding Sources: Unified Planning Work Program (CCRPC),
Municipal Planning Grant Program (Agency of
Commerce and Community Development),
Mobility and Transportation Innovations Grant
Program (Vermont Agency of Transportation)
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 4
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
External Technical Support Required: Yes
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
2
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]):2 3
CO-BENEFITS:
• Energy Conservation and Efficiency
• Economic Value
• Living Affordability
• Equality, Equity, and Justice
• Public Health
• Mobility/Accessibility Enhancement
KEY DEFINITION:
• Microtransit – Form of shared transportation that provides on-demand, flexible transit services
operating within a defined area and typically using vans or minibuses. These services are often
tech-enabled.
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS:
Step 1: Support GMT in its development of the Chittenden County Microtransit Feasibility Study, and in
the process, advocate for microtransit services within the City and connecting South Burlington to other
core Chittenden County communities.
A. Participate in GMT’s planning process by serving as a key stakeholder with continuous input
opportunities, particularly related to the identification of service areas, service populations
(special and general), and the identification and evaluation of pilot projects. The evaluation of
pilot projects should include a focus on quantifying VMT reduction benefits and serving
historically disadvantaged communities.
B. Concurrent with Step 1.A, in coordination with GMT, conduct public outreach targeting the City’s
stakeholders (e.g., residents, property owners, businesses, employees) to understand their needs
(e.g., service areas) and barriers to understand where pilot projects or future service(s) should be
targeted.
Step 2: Work with this action’s implementation partners in preparing grant applications to secure funds
to support prioritized pilot project(s) within the City.
A. GMT will need to determine whether they will operate the service or seek a vendor to provide
the service.
Step 3: Once funding is secured, support the implementation and monitoring of the pilot project(s).
2 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
3
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION:
• There may be opportunities to streamline or replace fixed route service with microtransit,
potentially reducing transit costs.
• Costs can be reduced by implementing a volunteer-based microtransit system. However,
organizational needs and oversight of this system could be challenging. In addition, reliance on
volunteer availability and unpaid labor for this vital resource could challenge reliability of
service.
• Vendors continue to update their dispatching and user software to improve matching,
information, dispatch, and overall experience. A request for proposals (RFP) should require
vendors to emphasize the user and operator benefits of their software package and how these
improve workflow, user experience, and save time and/or money.
• There are opportunities to use transportation network companies (TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft,
to provide supplemental service, either to reduce crowding at peaks or to replace service in low-
demand hours.
• Right-sizing vehicles based on demand can help to deploy vehicle equipment that does not
require a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) to operate, expanding opportunities for drivers
without a CDL to operate vans or smaller buses.
• Zero-emission vehicles are available and should be considered for new service as there are
grants to assist with their purchase. This would minimize the carbon impact of new/expanded
services.
o Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) charging stations could enable electric microtransit fleets to send
power back to the regional grid during times of peak power demand.
FOCUS ON EQUITY:
• Microtransit has the potential to reach a wider range of riders and destinations by providing
service to moderate or low-density areas, allowing more equitable access to jobs and services.
• When implementing microtransit, it is important that service planning consider overall quality of
service for all populations, considering elements such as service span, transfers, response time,
coverage, and accessibility that could change if replacing fixed route service with microtransit.
• Many microtransit implementations require payment via an app or, occasionally, over the
phone, via credit card to eliminate cash transactions. This can disproportionately affect low-
income populations who are less likely to have a credit card or seniors who may be unfamiliar
with or more hesitant to use the technology. Best practice includes the microtransit fares
matching the fixed-route fare policy, including the use of multi-ride passes and fare media.
• Education and the availability of resource materials on new microtransit services will be
important, particularly for senior populations and non-English speakers. A lack of understanding
the new services will be a barrier to ridership.
4
• Public engagements conducted in the development of the Chittenden County Microtransit
Feasibility Study should include focus groups representing disadvantaged populations and follow
the City’s upcoming “equity in planning” outreach toolkit.
• In pursuing micro-transit, the City should also be mindful dilute successful fixed-route transit
services.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
• Vehicles, software, drivers, and related support facilities will need to be procured by GMT
and/or a vendor.
o A shortage of drivers may be a prevalent issue. However, depending on the vehicle size
and number of passengers, microtransit drivers often do not need a CDL, which opens
up labor opportunities. Regardless, the City could play a role in driver recruitment and
retention.
• Microtransit works best when coupled with an app on a smart phone but can also work via
phone by offering call-in reservations. Consider smart phone ownership and access to phones
when planning service and costs.
• Service area and average wait times are inversely related to the number of vehicles serving the
area. It will be important to work closely with the service planners to align the areas at the
outset of service so as not to result in excessive wait times while balancing vehicle productivity
and providing a response time that is similar to area fixed-route headways. Flexibility early in
implementation is important as service demand can be hard to predict when implementing a
new service.
• Many of the companies who evaluate microtransit feasibility are also vendors who provide
turnkey operations. This gives them a very strong understanding of the cost and operations
model, but may predispose them to recommend microtransit.
• GMT currently operates a range of vehicle types, including cutaway buses, vans, and minivans.
Its smaller fleet vehicles may be well suited to microtransit services, though such services may
require a fleet expansion and additional maintenance investments. Alternatively, these services
could be vendor contracted.
• Special Services Transportation Agency (SSTA), Senior Van Services, and Age Well may be
potential partners; however, their ability to participate may be constrained due to capacities
and limitations on how they can expend their funding sources.
• Battery electric vehicles are available for suitable vehicle types, but few manufacturers may
offer an appropriate vehicle/chassis. Additionally, range must be carefully considered when
designing the service if an EV is planned to ensure appropriate charging time and battery
buffers given winter reductions in range. Procurement lead times may be longer for EVs than
for traditional vehicles.
5
o Note that GMT’s Transit Asset Management Plan details replacement plans that
transition its fleet to electric alternatives.
CASE STUDIES:
FEASIBILITY STUDIES
• Montpelier, Vermont – Completed an evaluation of microtransit to replace the existing fixed
route service. The microtransit service began January 2021 and is operated by GMT and
marketed as “MyRide”.
• Williston, Vermont – Completed a feasibility study for a microtransit service to provide on-
demand transportation that complements current public transit options.
• Tri-Town Area (Jericho, Underhill, Cambridge), Vermont – Conducted a study to develop a
comprehensive “alternative” transportation system for their residents.
• Southwest Regional Planning Commission, New Hampshire – Recently completed a
comprehensive study of the suitability of microtransit including an in-depth look at operating
models and vehicles.
IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATIONS
• Wilson, North Carolina – The FTA recently released an evaluation of the city’s transition to
microtransit. The system has won several awards and the report offers several lessons-learned
and recommendations when implementing microtransit in small cities and rural areas.
• Montgomery County, Maryland – The county implemented a microtransit pilot in a medium
density suburb aimed at replacing traditional fixed-route service. The evaluation provides a
comprehensive analysis of a wide range of customer satisfaction and cost-effectiveness metrics.
• Bay Transit Express/Met Go, Virginia – The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
recently released a comprehensive review of two grant funded pilots for small city/rural
microtransit. The report includes lessons-learned as well as a rural microtransit suitability
checklist and implementation toolkit.
• Porterville, CA – The city has contracted with Uber to allow microtransit appear as an option in
the Uber app, though riders can book over the phone and pay cash on-board. Those using the
app without a credit card can add funds at any CVS. The fleet consists of 12 all-electric,
wheelchair accessible vans.
OTHER RESOURCES:
• Microtransit Definitions, Trends, and Application - CALSTART
• 2022-2026 Transit Asset Management Plan - GMT
6
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire: When
asked about bus and SSTA operational factors, operating schedules, route options, access to bus stops,
and convenience were rated the most important.
From the Senior Center Focus Group: “[We] need more flexibility in SSTA services, e.g., last minute or
emergency use cases.”
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.2 REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Reduce vehicle miles traveled by 2.5% annually to reduce emissions by 19%.
TITLE:
HIGHER DENSITY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
ACTION T.2.8:
Prioritize higher density, mixed use development and affordable housing through the land development
regulations in areas with existing or planned reliable transit options, services, and infrastructure
(including bike/ped) within the transit overlay district.
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENT(S):
Amended Land Development Regulations
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION: Planning & Zoning
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS: South Burlington Planning Commission, South Burlington City Council,
Development Community
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2024 to 2026 (3 Years)
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T2.3, T.2.4, T.2.6, T.2.7, T.2.9, T.2.10, T.2.11, T.2.12, T.2.17, T.2.18, GO.3.1
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating
External Funding Sources: Agency of Commerce and Community
Development – Municipal Planning Grant
Program
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 2
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week): N/A
External Technical Support Required: Yes
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
2
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]):2 4
CO-BENEFITS:
• Natural Resource Protection and Enhancement
• Energy Conservation and Efficiency
• Economic Value
• Living Affordability
• Equality, Equity, and Justice
• Mobility/Accessibility Enhancement
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Note: This implementation plan recognizes that encouraging thoughtful higher-density development in
the City has been an ongoing effort of the community for several decades and will continue into the
future. The following steps and considerations below provide recommendations for the next stage of this
work and discourse.
Step 1: Foster Higher Residential Development Density
A. Within the boundaries of the transit overlay (TO) district or similar priority areas, map: (a)
existing residential densities (i.e., housing units per acre) and (b) existing and planned public
transit and bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure and associated levels of service (transit) and stress
(bicycle/pedestrian).
B. Reference available resources and case studies to determine appropriate increases to existing
minimum residential development densities – at least 15 units per acre. Measure these
increases against the outputs of Step 1.A.
C. Explore the various ways that higher density development can physically take shape and
evaluate how these various options can contribute to, and whether they are appropriate for, the
TO district or relevant priority area.
D. Review the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to determine how they currently either
support or inhibit the desired level(s) of residential density. For example, leverage the LDRs to
require a variety of unit sizes and live-work units.
E. Draft LDR amendments to require the type(s) of development that are deficient within and
appropriate for the TO district, as well as to address the opportunities and/or inhibitors
identified under Step 1.D.
2 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
3
Step 2: Incentivize Mixed-Use Developments
A. Review the LDRs to determine how they either support or inhibit mixed-use development in the
TO district. For example, leverage the LDRs to further incentivize infill development, require
active use of street frontages, and right-size parking requirements.
B. Draft LDR amendments that incentivize mixed-use walkable zoning (i.e., a mix of uses within a
single building and across neighboring parcels), addressing the opportunities and/or inhibitors
identified under Step 2.A. For example, establishing pedestrian focused overlay zones, limiting
driveway access points, and providing greater allowances for light industrial uses (e.g., small
scale manufacturing/construction shops).
Step 3: Address Neighborhood Completeness
A. Within the boundaries of the City’s Transit Overlay (TO) district, study neighborhood
completeness. In other words, geographically map key amenities and services (e.g., schools,
open spaces, grocery stores, coffee shops, etc.) and calculate their surrounding walkable and
bikeable areas (i.e., areas accessible within 15 minutes by walking and/or biking). Consider non-
use factors, such as streetscape quality.
B. Using the results of the neighborhood completeness study, identify the amenities and services
that are missing or otherwise deficient within the district.
C. Review the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to determine how they either support or
inhibit complete neighborhood development.
D. Draft LDR amendments that incentivize or require the types of development that are deficient
within the TO district, as well as to address the opportunities and/or inhibitors identified under
Step 3.C.
E. Concurrent with Step 3.D, explore non-regulatory actions that support neighborhood
completeness, such as business recruitment and the provision of tax incentives.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION:
• Review the LDRs to identify opportunities and remove barriers in zoning processes that could
delay development timelines, increase their costs, or prevent them entirely. For example, it may
be worth reviewing the City’s height standards, as compared to density targets and preferred
physical forms.
• In amending the LDRs, incentivize or require diverse housing types focused on the “missing
middle” (i.e., housing types in scales between single-family homes and multi-family buildings
with 20 or more dwelling units).
• The City should take a proactive approach and give project developers the expectation that they
should build their projects around the core idea that people using their properties will want to
reach destinations on foot or on wheels, and that supporting infrastructure should be provided
4
that is accessible by all ages and abilities. Such project design should also consider ideas around
enabling greater outdoor activity during all seasons.
• Regulatory tools can and should be paired with non-regulatory implementation, such as public-
private partnerships for affordable housing and businesses development, acquisition and
development of public amenities such as parks, recreation / cultural facilities, and state &
federal programs to support private sector investment
FOCUS ON EQUITY
• Attempts to increase housing supply should consider affordability. The City can review and
revise its inclusionary zoning provisions, as necessary. Further, ensuring a variety of housing
types and sizes also supports housing affordability, as does connecting developers with available
incentives.
• The costs of living in new and existing housing developments can be further offset by educating
residents on available income-based incentives, for example, energy efficiency services.
• Ensure that all EVSE are handicap accessible.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Public Service and Infrastructure Capacities
Increases in residential densities and mixed-use development should consider existing capacities of
municipal services and infrastructure. The City should integrate plans to invest in such resources, as
needed, into the development of future Capital Improvement Plans that align with the LDR amendments
associated with this action.
Impact Mitigation
Increased development intensities have the potential for adverse impacts, such as those affecting
pedestrian safety. These impacts may differ by the target audience of individual developments, for
example, higher income households are likely to have one or more automobile. The City should review
new developments and require appropriate mitigation of the developers (e.g., transportation demand
management measures), as applicable – ensuring that there is a demonstrated connection between the
development impacts and the nature of the mitigation being required. Further, the City should consider
its own mitigation, for example, supplementing active transportation infrastructure.
Neighborhood and Developer Community Engagement
The City should engage the existing property owners, residents, and employers within the TO district, as
well as the Vermont development community, early in the preparation of new LDRs. The City’s
observations and intentions should be clearly explained so that all stakeholders have a common
5
understanding of terms and concepts. Feedback should be integrated, where feasible, or otherwise
provided with an explanation of dismissal.
Relatedly, as noted above, dense residential development can take many forms, from multiplexes, to
mid-rise or high-rise apartment buildings – standalone or in combination with other land uses. In
conjunction with Step 1.C., the City could consider engaging stakeholders in a visual preference exercise
to get feedback on physical design alternatives to inform the LDR amendments.
With respect to neighborhood completeness, it will be important to work with the business community
to help identify what makes people start the types of businesses that are lacking within the TO district,
who typically starts them, what are capital requirements, and what population numbers and
demographics are required to make them work.
CASE STUDIES:
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE
Portland, Maine – Undertook the Complete Neighborhoods Program, which mapped areas of the city
that are underserved as determined by walking distances to select amenities and services.
Cambridge, MA – Requires certain infill developers to prepare an Infill Development Concept Plan that,
among other requirements, must include a Retail Plan demonstrating how the development will
enhance the existing retail environment, including through the provision of target uses (e.g., grocery
stores, pharmacies).
San Francisco, California – Implemented ground floor standards that limit pedestrian interactivity with
street frontages.
Seattle, Washington - Allows for smaller, more compact dwelling unit types in its Municipal Code.
TARGET SETTING
Metropolitan Council – Establishes target residential densities for shared rights-of-way, local bus routes
on a high frequency network at 15 to 60+ dwelling units per acre.
CRCOG – Found sharp increases in public transit ridership as average residential densities approach
30 units per acre.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development – The Multi-Family Zoning
Requirement for MBTA Communities requires a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre within a
half-mile of a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station.
6
EQUITY APPROACH
Harnessing Upzones as a Redistributive Policy Tool - Explores alternative land use policies to ensure
equitable housing.
OTHER RESOURCES:
RSG and VHB. (2022). VMT & Land Use: Literature Review. Vermont Agency of Transportation.
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire: When
asked about factors that could influence respondents to consider living in a mixed-use, high-density
neighborhood, stated top factors included increased housing affordability, more opportunities for
walking and biking, greater accessibility to green space, amenities, and other services.
From the Senior Center Focus Group: “I would like to see...a community corner store that [offers a]
variety of the stuff that you want and have that corner store close by.”
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.2 REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Reduce vehicle miles traveled by 2.5% annually to reduce emissions by 19%.
TITLE:
PARKING MANAGEMENT
ACTION T.2.11:
Develop parking maximums.
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENT(S):
Amended Land Development Regulations, Parking Maximum Formulas, and Parking Fee Structure
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION: Planning & Zoning
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS: South Burlington Planning Commission, South Burlington Development
Review Board, South Burlington City Council, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC),
Development Community
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2025 to 2027 (3 Years)
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.1.2, T.2.3, T.2.4, T.2.6, T.2.7, T.2.8, T.2.9, T.2.12, T.2.13, T.2.16, T.2.17, T.2.18, GO.3.1
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating
External Funding Sources: CCRPC – Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP); Agency of Commerce and Community
Development – Municipal Planning Grant
Program
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 1
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week): N/A
External Technical Support Required: Yes
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
2
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]):2 3
CO-BENEFITS:
• Economic Value
• Living Affordability
• Public Health
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Step 1: Engage in a Parking and Transportation Management Study
A. Identify overlay or zoning districts that would benefit from parking maximums, parking fees, or
other requirements. Leverage the study already conducted for City Center.3
B. Ascertain existing parking conditions (public and private) within each district. This should include
parking occupancy, turnover, uses, regulations, etc.
C. Develop goals and/or recommendations for parking requirements based on district context. This
could include context appropriate parking maximums for new development based on use
categories or formulas, potential parking caps for a district to encourage shared parking based
on adjacent uses, paid on-street or public lot parking, or other mechanisms.
Step 2: Develop Appropriate Parking Maximums
A. Develop appropriate parking maximum formulas or tables as a function of current and
anticipated land uses. This can include leveraging results from the parking study to inform
demonstrated oversupply associated with current uses and/or reviewing best practices to
inform formulas or use categories.
B. Adjust parking maximum formulas or tables to generate context appropriate regulations for new
development within different districts that help to meet goals and/or recommendations.
Step 3: Develop Parking Management District and Fee Structure, as appropriate
A. Identify parking management district(s), if appropriate, for implementing parking fee structure
for paid public on-street or public lot parking. Leverage recommendations from City Center
study.
B. Develop parking fee structure appropriate for the current and anticipated occupancy and
turnover based on the parking and transportation management study results.
2 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
3 South Burlington, VT (ccrpcvt.org)
3
Step 4: Amend Land Development Regulation and Parking Ordinance
A. Draft Land Development Regulation (LDR) amendments for City Council’s approval that reflect
recommendations from the parking and transportation management study, including parking
districts and parking maximum requirements.
B. If appropriate, draft LDR amendments to establish parking management district(s) and parking
fee structure. Amend parking ordinance as needed to reflect parking management district, fee
structures, and enforcement.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION:
• Consider requiring and/or incentivizing shared parking arrangements to maximize parking
efficiency.
• The City could prioritize types of parking, for instance, by favoring bike parking, followed by
electric vehicle (EV) parking, high occupancy vehicles/carpool, carshare vehicles, and then all
others.
• With respect to EVs, incentivize parking spaces with charging infrastructure in coordination with
parking maximums and fee structures, which may entail waivers, TDM incentives, or other
mechanisms to align with EV charging goals (refer to CAP Actions T.1.1, T.1.2, and T.1.3).
• Engagement with existing property owners, businesses, employers, and the development
community should occur early in the implementation process, starting with the parking study
and through the process of preparing LDR amendments for parking maximums and/or new
ordinances for parking fee structures.
FOCUS ON EQUITY
• Limiting new parking enables development of more housing units, contributing to affordability
and availability of needed housing.
• Excessive use of space attributed to parking can be better allocated to more equitable land uses
including needed housing units, other modes of transportation, and open space.
• Public parking fees shift the cost of parking to the driver, making it more equitable for non-
drivers and users of other modes.
• For parking infractions, consider implementing sliding scale fines based on income.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Parking Minimums
The City has already removed parking minimums in recognition of the costs (monetary and otherwise)
associated with an oversupply of parking. A shift to parking maximums enables improved, context-
sensitive management of land dedicated to parking.
4
Transit Overlay
Consider using the Transit Overlay districts as a guide to the parking and transportation management
study development.
Context Sensitive Parking Management
Consider adjustments to parking maximums within certain districts to align with goals and
recommendations of the parking study. These adjustments should consider the impacts of spill-over
parking, such as the presence or absence of public parking, its characteristics, etc.
Public Parking Management
In considering the impacts of maximum parking on adjacent areas, the City should examine the need for
management of nearby public parking in residential areas.
CASE STUDIES:
Burlington, VT – Identified the need to revise parking as part of a policy reform goal to generate more
affordable housing and meet net zero goals with improved transportation options. The updated policies
are embedded in the Comprehensive Development Ordinance.
Denver, CO – Details maximum parking requirements for the Downtown Neighborhood Context in its
zoning code. Additionally, a process to request excess parking beyond the maximum is detailed in the
Denver Municipal Code under the Landmark Preservation chapter.
Portland, OR – Details parking maximum requirements by zone in City Code Chapter 33.266 “to promote
alternative forms of transportation, to promote efficient use of land and to protect air and water
quality.”
Hartford, CT - Eradicated parking minimums and the City’s Zoning Regulations identify maximum
parking requirements based on use.
Charlotte, NC – Amended its zoning ordinance to establish minimum and maximum allowable parking
based on use only within Transit Oriented Development Districts.
Vancouver, BC, CA – Enacted a parking by-law that identifies parking maximums and implements a total
parking capacity in downtown.
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.2 REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Reduce vehicle miles travel by 2.5% annually to reduce emissions by 19%.
TITLE:
WALK BIKE PLAN
ACTION T.2.12:
Create a walk/bike master plan, recommend investments in retrofits of infrastructure, including
widening or narrowing where needed and consideration of making bike/pedestrian infrastructure safer.
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION:
Planning & Zoning, Public Works, South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (SBBPC)
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS:
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCPRC), Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans),
Local Motion, Neighborhood and Business Associations, Major Employers, Blue “Bird” Bikeshare
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2023 to 2030 (8 Years)
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENTS:
Walk Bike Master Plan; Prioritized Projects and Programs Included in Capital Improvement Plan;
Established Progress Monitoring Approach
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.2.1, T.2.3, T.2.4, T.2.5, T.2.6, T.2.7, T.2.8, T.2.9, T.2.11, T.2.13, T.2.15, T.2.17, T.2.18, GO.3.1
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating and Capital
External Funding Sources: CCRPC – Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP); VTrans – Transportation Alternatives
Program; VTrans – Bicycle and Pedestrian
Program; ANR – American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA); U.S. DOT – Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) Grant Program; Penny for Paths (South
Burlington); Traffic Impact Fees
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 5
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): 32 to 60
External Technical Support Required: Yes
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]):2 3
CO-BENEFITS:
• Economic Value
• Energy Conservation and Efficiency
• Equality, Equity, and Justice
• Living Affordability
• Mobility/Accessibility Enhancement
• Public Health
• Public Safety
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS:
Step 1a: Engage in the Plan Development Process.
A. Procure a consultant to provide technical and outreach assistance in plan development.
B. Inventory and map the existing pedestrian and bicycle networks (e.g., sidewalks, roadways, and
dedicated pathways), along with existing and future land use patterns. Review existing data on
pedestrian and bike infrastructure (including the Bird “Blue” Bikeshare and Local Motion’s bike
lending library), transit routes and stops, crash data, destinations and desire lines, amenities
(including benches and bike parking), level of traffic stress (LTS), user trends and patterns, etc.
Enhance or supplement these data, as needed.
C. Conduct a gap analysis to identify project alternatives informed by existing conditions and
community input (see Step 1b).
I. This analysis should have a specific focus on areas with historically disadvantaged and
underserved populations, such as low-income households, communities of color,
seniors, and households with limited access to vehicles, etc.
II. This analysis should also prioritize the creation of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) 1 facilities
(i.e., all ages and abilities).
D. Develop plan goals and evaluation criteria. Rank proposed project alternatives based on
evaluation criteria.
E. Develop recommended projects to address needs, including network and design treatments.
F. Develop recommended management, maintenance, operations, and programming to support
walking and biking in alignment with shared vision and goals.
G. Prioritize projects and develop implementation plan with timeline, lead agency, conceptual cost,
and funding opportunities.
2 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
H. Develop plan documentation and present it for endorsement by the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Committee and City Council.
Step 1b: Concurrent with Step 1a, Obtain and Incorporate Public Feedback.
A. Engage with the public and other stakeholders to craft and refine:
I. A shared vision, needs, opportunities, and high-level priorities
II. Needs, goals, evaluation criteria, and potential rankings
III. Projects, programs, prioritization, and implementation
Step 2: Program Projects and Secure Funding.
A. Develop targets for capital improvement and maintenance activities for walking and biking
infrastructure that align with Walk Bike Plan goals and recommendations.
B. Program projects through the capital improvement program process.
C. Develop grant proposals for projects based on plan-identified funding opportunities.
Step 3: Implementation & Monitoring.
A. In partnership with SBBPC, once funding is secured, procure consultant for design on a project-
by-project or bundled project basis.
B. Upon final design, develop bid materials to procure contractor for construction.
C. Coordinate with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee to track progress and milestones on the
plan implementation on an annual basis.
OPPORTUNITES FOR INNOVATION:
• Consider quick build projects, where street space is realigned or reassigned with painting or
object installations.
• In coordination with T.2.16 (Invest in Public Transit), integrate bike infrastructure into a central
transit center/mobility hub within the City’s transit overlay district or distributed amongst
several mini hubs to be located across the City, as applicable.
• Consider digital community input maps as one outreach tool to enable community members to
identify issues and opportunities for walking, wheeling, and biking.
• Consider digital maps and GIS for tracking walking/wheeling/biking assets, including
management, maintenance, projects, and plan progress. These tools can be used internally for
management and externally for process transparency and public information purposes.
• Consider installing permanent data collection devices in new infrastructure to enable ongoing
utilization tracking to help inform future decisions.
• Emerging technologies in electric bikes and broadening market of different types of bikes (e.g.,
cargo bikes) are rapidly expanding the feasibility of biking for different trip purposes, along
routes with more challenging topographies, and longer trip lengths. This evolving bicycle
marketplace and its influence on trip trends and safety should be considered in the evaluation of
future networks and in defining and prioritizing projects.
• The acceleration of e-bike adoption can be supported through the provision of
strategically placed charging infrastructure (e.g., along the bicycle networks and near
amenities, such as ”fix-it” stations and areas with shelters) and incentive programming
(e.g., free cargo baskets for persons making e-bike deliveries). Relatedly, the City should
consider expanding its partnership with the Bird “Blue” Bikeshare.
FOCUS ON EQUITY:
• Accessibility for all should be at the forefront of plan development and subsequent construction
of bike/ped infrastructure. For example, the LTS analysis should be related to LTS network
expectations (recommended LTS 1 – all ages and abilities). Further, use inclusive language like
"wheeling" or "rolling" with every mention of walking in the plan.
• Ensure that the Walk Bike Plan adheres to the recently issued federal guidelines3 regarding
pedestrian accessibility in public rights of way, including crosswalks, sidewalks, and shared use
paths.
• Investments in walking, wheeling, and biking serve to provide transportation options more
equitably to the community, particularly for the non-driving population.
• Priority for first and last mile connections should be given to transit users, who are often
persons from historically disadvantaged communities.
• Engagement through the plan development, project prioritization, and implementation should
seek to reach overburdened and underserved communities to address barriers and gaps unique
to their experience.
• Ensure walking/biking infrastructure is well connected to transit stops and other modal options,
and with adequate bike parking.
• Robust usage of the local pedestrian and bicycle network will depend, in part, on the availability
of standardized wayfinding and multi-language signage and education.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
• Pair with the implementation of CAP Actions T.2.8 (Higher Density Mixed Use Development),
T.2.11 (Parking Maximum), T.2.13 (CATMA Membership), and T.2.18 (Lane Reduction).
• Funding is programmed for the Walk Bike Plan development in the CCRPC UPWP for FY 2024.
• SBBPC has an existing prioritized list of needs that should be considered for incorporation into
the Walk Bike Plan.
• Ensure that maintenance is considered as part of project designs, with the end purpose of
creating a four-season network. Ensuring user safety (e.g., via path lighting) should also be a
condition of satisfaction for project delivery.
• The Walk Bike Plan should recommend, reinforce or is otherwise synergistic with
complementary land use goals (e.g., higher density developments that are close together) and
other community goals (e.g., transportation demand management).
3 New Accessibility Guidelines for Public Rights-of-Way | Vermont League of Cities and Towns (vlct.org)
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) assessment or audit is in progress. This can identify
another input of potential needs, projects, and/or harmonization of projects where accessibility
issues can be addressed alongside infrastructure improvements
CASE STUDIES:
• City of Burlington, VT – Developed the PlanBTV Walk Bike Plan in 2017. The City’s Department of
Public Works and the Burlington Walk/Bike Council annually evaluate this plan to monitor
progress.
• City of Winooski, VT – Is currently engaged with CCPRC in the development of its Walk Bike Plan.
They have had success reaching underserved populations through a series of informal
engagement efforts.
• Burlington and Winooski, VT – Developed multi-modal transportation hubs within their
respective downtowns, inclusive of CCTA transit stops, Carshare Vermont pods, and Bike Link™
secure bike lockers.
• City of Kingston, NY – With a population similar in size to South Burlington, developed a
Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan that includes a fairly extensive set of potential treatments
and their impacts as well as prioritized improvement projects.
OTHER RESOURCES:
• Chittenden County Active Transportation Plan Update - CCRPC
• Best Practices for Bicycle Master Planning and Design – Sacramento Transportation & Air Quality
Collaborative
• Creating Walkable + Bikeable Communities – Ibpi and alta Planning + Design
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire: Many
open-ended responses identified more sidewalk/shared use path infrastructure, safer pedestrian
crossings, and more lighting/snowplowing as improvements that would make it easier to walk to
destinations; and more bike lanes/shared use path infrastructure as improvements that would make it
easier to bike to destinations.
From the Senior Center Focus Group: “Sidewalks are not friendly – ensure they are paved and smoothed
so that they do not pose a trip hazard.”
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.2 REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Reduce vehicle miles traveled by 2.5% annually to reduce emissions by 19%.
TITLE:
TDM AND INCREASE CATMA MEMBERSHIP
ACTION T.2.7 & ACTION T.2.13:
T.2.7 – Adopt a Transportation Demand Management requirement for development/redevelopment.
Include incentives or requirements for multi-modal transportation or parking maximums where feasible,
parking disincentives or other tools. Include bike share, car share, and supporting city policies.
T.2.13 – Partner with Chittenden Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA) to increase
membership among employers (City Government, Senior Center, School District, and large
employers/collection of employers) in the City to reduce driving alone to work and encourage transit
use through reduced fares, carpooling, telecommuting, and walking/biking/bike sharing, bike storage,
and showers. Offer rewards for employees who do this.
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENTS:
Engage and increase transportation demand management (TDM) practices, including joining CATMA’s
network; Engage with sustainable TDM programming for existing and future businesses, employers,
institutions, residential developments; Amended Land Development Regulations (LDRs) with
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for new development or redevelopment.
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION: Planning & Zoning, Public Works
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS:
CATMA, Go! Vermont, CarShare Vermont, Green Mountain Transit, Vermont Agency of Transportation
(VTrans), Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCPRC), South Burlington Business
Association (SBBA), Bird Bikeshare, Local Motion, Vermont Clean Cities Coalition, Net Zero Vermont
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2023 to 2027 (5 Years)
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.2.1, T.2.3, T.2.5, T.2.7, T.2.8, T.2.9, T.2.19, GO3.1
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating and Capital
External Funding Sources: CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP),
Municipal Planning Grants, or Mobility and
Transportation Innovation Grants; Traffic Impact Fees
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 3
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week): N/A
External Technical Support Required: Yes
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5
[Hard]):2
4
CO-BENEFITS:
• Economic Value
• Living Affordability
• Mobility/Accessibility Enhancement
• Public Health
KEY DEFINITIONS:
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – Strategies, initiatives, and/or incentives that
encourage the use of alternatives to driving single occupancy vehicles, expanding the use of
other modes and means of travel.
• Transportation Management Association (TMA) – An organization that supports and promotes
transportation demand management strategies, initiatives, and/or incentives by offering travel
planning and services to partnering entities including employers.
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS:
Step 1: Engage with Existing Businesses, Employers, Institutions, Residents (Phase 1: Voluntary TDM)
A. Coordinate with CATMA, SBBA, and other employer, institutional, or residential networks to
host educational workshops to educate and share information on the benefits of TDM, CATMA’s
Transportation Coordinator Network (TCN), and value of CATMA membership. Consider
establishing workshop host locations based on geography or interested core businesses.
Leverage additional TDM services and resources such as Go! Vermont, CarShare Vermont, Bird
Bikeshare, Local Motion Bike Library, Net Zero Vermont Walk to Shop Program, etc. Note that
Local Motion provides assistance to public and private entities for bike parking siting and design.
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000) 2 For implementation complexity ratings: 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
B. Encourage existing businesses, employers, institutions, and residential developments to
designate a Transportation Coordinator and join CATMA’s TCN. This is currently a free program.
Consider incentivizing involvement in the TCN with a targeted campaign, one-time raffle, or
similar reward opportunity.
C. Encourage existing businesses, employers, institutions, residential developments to audit their
existing TDM strategies by completing CATMA’s Worksite Assessment and explore suitable
effective TDM strategies for their employees, users, potential patrons, etc. This should include
individual strategies and/or CATMA membership. Consider incentivizing involvement with a
targeted campaign, one-time raffle, or similar reward opportunity.
D. Identify incentives (e.g., raffles for new strategies) or other resources (e.g., discounted bike
parking installation) that the City could support and offer to businesses, employers, and
institutions engaged in voluntary TDM. Consider this as ongoing service for regular, successful
TDM programming including target setting, strategy deployment, monitoring, and evaluation.
This could be done standalone or within TMA membership, but would require staff management
for standalone.
E. Consider leveraging traffic impact fees or other funding resources (e.g., metered parking) to
offer discounted TMA memberships or scholarships. Ensure that the use of these funds for TDM
purposes is transparent.
F. Develop network of local businesses to sponsor rewards or raffle prizes for membership Reward
Programs.
Step 2: Develop TDM Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment (Phase 2: Required TDM)
A. Amend LDRs to require TDM programming and/or equivalent services through TMA
membership for new development and redevelopment.
B. Develop a schedule of requirements based on project type, size, and location, with particular
attention on proximity to transit access, bikeshare, bike facilities, and pedestrian facilities.
Consider flexibility in TDM programming by developing a menu of applicable strategies
acceptable to meet City standards and/or expectations so the approach can be right sized for
the development’s particular needs.
Step 3: Engage in TDM Program Plan Development (Phase 3: Expand TDM)
A. Solicit proposals for the development of a city wide TDM Program Plan that sets in motion a
community driven approach to TDM in South Burlington and encourages community ownership
of resulting, recommended TDM policies and strategies for the City.
B. The scope of the TDM Program Plan should consider engaging in the following elements:
I. Review previous plans and studies and identify successes, deficiencies, and
opportunities for TDM in South Burlington.
II. Review best practices and identify relevant case studies, context appropriate examples,
and measures of effectiveness.
III. Engage with stakeholders including CATMA, developers, businesses, employers,
institutions, residential developments, city staff, and the public.
IV. Set community driven goals and objectives for TDM programming in South Burlington.
V. Evaluate feasibility of various policies and strategies for South Burlington community.
VI. Draft recommendations to enact policies and strategies that detail implementation,
identify program monitoring requirements, and evaluate based on criteria and/or
targets.
Step 4: Enact Policies and Implement Strategies Recommended from Study (Phase 4: Implement TDM)
A. Depending on the outcomes of the study, enact policies and implement strategies to require
TDM for a range of new developments, redevelopments, existing businesses, employers,
institutions, and residential developments in South Burlington.
B. It is anticipated that refinements to the short-term approaches in Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be
recommended in Phase 3 and implemented in Phase 4.
C. Develop an annual City-wide monitoring program to track progress towards goals and objectives
identified in Phase 3. Leverage individual program monitoring requirements and coordinate with
entities engaged in TDM programming (including through CATMA membership or voluntary
programs) to inform metrics and performance.
D. Leveraging outcomes and recommendations from the study in Step 3, identify and codify
enforcement approach for TDM requirements.
OPPORTUNITES FOR INNOVATION:
• Driving Change, a policy guidance developed by CATMA for South Burlington in 2014,
emphasized the importance of “language, buy-in, and management” as the three key policy
elements for successful TDM programming.
• Consider Transportation Coordinator cooperatives, where a group of businesses, employers, or
residences in close proximity to one another could assign one coordinator for multiple entities.
This could be advantageous for smaller businesses, employers, or residences that have limited
staff capacity. The City could provide the framework for this by designating areas where entities
can join cooperatives and template agreements on sharing the Transportation Coordinator role
and responsibilities across entities.
• There is a broad and expanding menu of practices that can enable increased TDM through
financial incentives, programs, and services, including but not limited to subsidized transit,
carpools and vanpools, telework, walking/biking, micromobility (carshare, bikeshare), bike
parking, and showers.
• Public/private partnerships can be leveraged to install active transportation infrastructure that
provides access to its employment centers. The City could engage its largest employers in these
types of projects.
FOCUS ON EQUITY:
• TDM strategies encourage the use of alternatives to driving single occupancy vehicles,
expanding the use of other modes and means of travel. This expansion of use provides critical
mass to enable further investments in modes and means that serve residents and visitors with
more sustainable and equitable transportation options.
• TDM practices available through a TMA or through TDM programming need to consider
accessibility. For instance, Section 508 compliance can be a guidepost for entities in the
development of materials and information sharing that are not necessarily mandated to comply
(i.e., federal agencies).
• As language diversity expands, TDM programming and partnering entities and agencies need to
provide information and support across languages to eliminate language barriers to use. For
instance, transit route and stop information needs to be simple and interpreted across
languages with additional multilingual support and consistent messaging and/or symbology.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
• TDM plan development is programmed to start in Fall 2023.
• Consider a phased approach to TDM, as outlined above, where voluntary, required, expanded,
and implemented TDM policies and strategies are adopted over time for South Burlington.
• Engage with developers, employers, institutions, CATMA, South Burlington Business Association,
the public, and other stakeholders early in the TDM program development process, but also
consistently on a quarterly or semiannual basis to establish two-way communication on
programming, successes, and challenges.
• Consider waiver or credit schedules for assessing local traffic impact fees. Currently an approved
TDM Plan can yield up to a 25% credit for the fee based on South Burlington Impact Fee
Ordinance.
• Leverage framework for TDM credits through Act 250 Permitting or Act 145 Impact Fee
processes. Currently, the TDM adjustment for Act 250/Act 145 purposes is capped at 20% made
up of a mix of various strategies with assigned percentage adjustments. In areas with existing
transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities, the only eligible applicants must join a TMA or have an
existing or planned TDM program. Updates to the Act 250 Program are anticipated with a
Stakeholder Steering Committee currently conducting a legislative report and should be
considered upon approval.
• Expand eligible projects or programs to leverage traffic impact fees in support of multimodal
capacity expansion and TDM, including infrastructure, equipment, and TDM programming (e.g.,
program incentives or membership subsidies) as well.
• Consider both voluntary and mandatory aspects of TDM programming and the feasibility for
developers, employers, businesses, and institutions.
• Consider, and plan for, the demand TDM will place on other infrastructure including transit
service, bike facilities, and pedestrian facilities.
CASE STUDIES:
City of Burlington, VT – Has a TDM requirement embedded in Article 8: Parking of its Comprehensive
Development Ordinance. A TDM program is required based on the type and size of development, such
that development requires TDM programming as follows:
• 10 or more dwelling units, non-residential or mixed use >8,000 sq ft, or 15,000 sq ft GFA require
all provisions of TDM programming
• Affordable projects containing 75% of dwelling units meeting or exceeding affordability criteria
require outreach and education components of the provision and signed commitment to the
City
• 5 to 9 dwelling units the cost of parking is unbundled from the leases or deeds associated with
the units.
City of Winooski, VT – Is proposing to update its draft parking regulations with some TDM incentives.
OTHER RESOURCES
TDM Guidance – VTrans
South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire: When
asked about interest in utilizing CATMA, 22% indicated “Yes,” while 36% expressed that they were
“Unsure” or “Not familiar with CATMA.”
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.2 REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Reduce vehicle miles traveled by 2.5% annually to reduce emissions by 19%
TITLE:
INVEST IN PUBLIC TRANSIT
ACTION T.2.16:
Invest in Green Mountain Transit to increase transit ridership on existing routes, identify new routes,
and increase frequency.
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENTS:
Study for Improved and Expanded Public Transit Service
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION:
Planning & Zoning
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS:
Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), Green Mountain Transit (GMT), Chittenden County
Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC)
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2024 to 2030 (7 Years)
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.2.1, T.2.3, T.2.7, T.2.8, T.2.10, T.2.11, T.2.12, T.2.13, T.2.14
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating and Capital
External Funding Sources: State and Federal Transit Funds to GMT
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 4
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
External Technical Support Required: Yes
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]): 2 3
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
2 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
2
CO-BENEFITS:
• Economic Value
• Living Affordability
• Equality, Equity, and Justice
• Public Health
• Mobility/Accessibility Enhancement
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS:
Step 1: Working with CCPRC and GMT, as appropriate, prepare and implement a Public Transit
Improvement and Expansion Study.
A. Collect data on public transit ridership, routes, and schedules within the City.
i. Analyze the data to identify areas within the City that have existing high ridership levels,
where increased service (i.e., greater frequency and/or expanded hours) could yield
additional riders, and areas with low ridership levels, where services could be reduced.
ii. Identify emerging higher density residential and commercial/employment centers
within the City that would benefit from increased service and/or potential new routes or
stops.
B. Using Origin-Destination data (e.g., ridership, mode split, transit transfers, first- and last-mile
distances, travel duration by mode, and peak hours), evaluate GMT’s existing transit system for
service gaps and inefficiencies, as well as opportunities to attract “choice riders” (i.e., individuals
with access to personal vehicles).
C. Conduct a rider survey and focus groups to better understand usage patterns, the appeal of
service expansion(s), and ridership barriers.
D. Based on the findings of Steps 1.A through 1.C, develop improvement and expansion options
that not only include extended schedules, increased frequency, and potential new or modified
routes, but also new modes of transportation (e.g., light rail and bus rapid transit). A focus of
these options should be intra-city travel.
E. Evaluate the improvement and expansion options based on potential ridership gains, VMT
reduction potential, cost, wealth generation potential, and environmental impacts (among other
factors). Prioritize them based on their relative performance as measured against these criteria.
F. Obtain public input on the prioritized options and refine them, as necessary.
G. Prepare an implementation plan for the refined options. This should include identifying
implementation responsibilities, funding sources, and timelines.
i. Engage GMT to explore and identify funding mechanisms (e.g., congestion fees, dynamic
tolling) that would supply the system with additional revenue to support the expanded
services in the City. In the process, explore regional collaborations, where applicable and
appropriate.
3
H. Implement the Public Transit Improvement and Expansion Study (i.e., secure funding, designing
and building new infrastructure, and launching new services).
Step 2: Coordinate with GMT in monitoring system ridership for continuous improvement opportunities.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION
• Pair with the implementation of CAP Actions T.2.3 (Microtransit), T.2.8 (Higher Density Mixed
Use Development), T.2.11 (Parking Maximums), T.2.12 (Walk Bike Plan), and T.2.13 (CATMA
Membership).
• Leverage the Public Transit Improvement and Expansion Study to explore the need and
feasibility of a central transit center/mobility hub within the City’s transit overlay district or the
distribution of mini hubs across the City. These hubs should be strategically located near large
origin and destination centers and well connected to existing and planned walk/bike paths.
• Giving transit prioritized signaling will reduce trips lengths, which would improve the
competitiveness of transit compared to other modes of transportation.
• The City should advocate to the Vermont Legislature for the implementation of funding
alternatives identified in the CCRPC's Transit Financing Study.
• Zero-emission buses (e.g., electric or hydrogen) are available and should be considered for new
service as there are grants to assist with their purchase. Note that GMT’s Transit Asset
Management Plan details replacement plans that transition its fleet to electric alternatives.
o The City can support GMT’s fleet electrification through shared or dedicated EVSE
accessible from the agency’s existing bus routes.
o Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) charging stations could have electric buses send power back to the
regional grid during times of peak power demand.
• Encouraging GMT to provide regular updates to City leaders and residents on the progress of
public transit improvements and expansion will improve accountability and transparency of this
action’s implementation.
FOCUS ON EQUITY
• Existing services likely focus on households with limited vehicle ownership and lower incomes
(“captive” riders). Adding additional services to attract “choice” riders will need to be balanced
against service improvements which improve equity for currently targeted populations.
• Late-night and early morning service often has lower ridership, but can be important for certain
workers. Limited service during these periods if aligned with major employers can be successful
and improve overall mobility and equity. The same applies to weekend service.
• GMT was fare free from March 2020, and through additional funding secured, will remain fare
free until January 2024. Fares on South Burlington routes are expected to return in the future,
4
and accordingly, the City should explore and advocate for funding that would eliminate such
costs to riders.
• Public engagements conducted in the development of the Public Transit Improvement and
Expansion Study should include focus groups representing disadvantaged populations and follow
the City’s upcoming “equity in planning” outreach toolkit.
• Conduct education events for seniors to increase their understanding of the GMT system.
• Consider providing hard copy route information to seniors and other populations with limited
access to technology.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• The identified improvement and expansion options should be coordinated with GMT’s
Microtransit Study as part of CAP Action T.2.3 to ensure no overlap of future service and to
align funding requests.
• Route and system reconfiguration can optimize service and allow for more effective
deployment of transit resources. This may result in reduced geographic coverage but faster and
more frequent service along key corridors and result in a net increase in ridership.
• If a zero-emissions bus is desired, this will likely increase procurement time and costs though
may result in operational savings. Additionally, refueling/recharging infrastructure and related
costs must be considered when planning for such vehicles. Range must be carefully considered
when designing the service as it can be lower than a traditional diesel or hybrid bus.
• The rider survey and focus groups can help concentrate service improvements. For example,
riders may want direct service or need service outside of current service span. Additionally, for
many riders, frequency is not as important as directness of route and having reliable real-time
arrival information.
• Route modifications are subject to GMT’s public participation plan (PPP) in addition to funding
approval and related processes. New routes will also need to comply with GMT’s established
service standards.
• Route modifications and new routes should be done in conjunction to make sure changes are
easily understood by the public. Consider tailoring these communications to target audiences,
including both “captive” and “choice” riders.
• Changes to span are most likely successful if they apply to multiple routes to reduce confusion
about different span across different routes.
• Public transit expansion may require GMT to hire additional drivers. A shortage of drivers may
be a prevalent issue. South Burlington could play a role in driver recruitment and retention.
• The provision of amenities at bus stops (e.g., shelters) can promote the use of public transit
service. Such amenities may be necessitated by extreme weather conditions (e.g., urban heat).
5
CASE STUDIES:
• Green Mountain Transit – The NextGen Transit Plan sought to change public transportation
across GMT’s service areas to make it more convenient and attractive. Improvement
recommendations were identified, including for Chittenden County and South Burlington.
• Burlington and Winooski, VT – Developed multi-modal transportation hubs within their
respective downtowns, inclusive of GMT transit stops, Carshare Vermont pods, and Bike Link™
secure bike lockers.
OTHER RESOURCES:
• Transit Financing Study – CCPRC
• Urban Transit Development Plan – Chittenden County Transportation Authority (Now GMT)
• 2022-2026 Transit Asset Management Plan - GMT
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire: When
respondents were asked whether they would take public transportation for frequent trips if all their
public transit concerns were addressed, only 47 percent indicated “Somewhat Likely” or “Very Likely”.
From the Senior Center Focus Group: “[We] need more bus routes that connect to places within the City.”
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.2 REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Reduce vehicle miles travel by 2.5% annually to reduce emissions by 19%.
TITLE:
REDUCE TRAVEL LANES
ACTION T.2.18:
Where feasible and safe, reduce travel lanes to accommodate bike lanes.
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION:
Planning & Zoning, Public Works
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS:
Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCPRC)
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: See Action T.2.12
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENTS:
Lane reduction or lane narrowing pilots or projects
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.2.1, T.2.4, T.2.5, T.2.7, T.2.8, T.2.12, T.2.15, T.2.16, T.2.17, T.2.18
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating and Capital
External Funding Sources: CCRPC – Unified Planning Work Program;
Agency of Commerce and Community
Development - Municipal Planning Grant
Program
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 1 – Short-term Demonstration Projects
4 – Long-term Implementation Projects
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Accounted for Under Action T.2.12
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Accounted for Under Action T.2.12
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
2
External Technical Support Required: Yes
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]):2 3
CO-BENEFITS:
• Equality, Equity, and Justice
• Mobility/Accessibility Enhancement
• Public Health
• Public Safety
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS:
Step 1: Establish a Project Purpose and Need.
A. The purpose and need should clearly identify the objectives of the project. Foundational
assumptions of this purpose and need should include: 1) that vehicle congestion is not a limiting
factor in the determination of lane reduction and/or lane narrowing projects, and 2) that bike lanes
installed as part of lane narrowing/reduction projects should strive to provide adequate
vertical/buffered protection be provided to create accessibility for all.
Step 2: Identify and inventory candidate roadways for lane reduction and/or lane narrowing.
A. Primary screening should focus on roadways with existing four-lane (or more) cross-sections, as
shown in Table 1, that could be candidates for lane reduction. Gather data on existing conditions
including roadway widths, lane widths, vehicular and bicycle volumes, and vehicle speeds, etc.
B. Secondary screening should focus on existing roadway widths that could be adaptively repurposed
through lane narrowing and bike lane or other edge line striping (e.g., shoulders or advisory lanes).
C. Tertiary screening should focus on intersections, particularly those with auxiliary lane configurations,
which could be candidates for improved bike or pedestrian facility connections through adaptively
repurposed turn lanes or pavement widths. Gather data on existing conditions including lane
configuration, lane widths, turning radii, volumes (vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian), and
intersection control (signal timing/phasing, stop conditions, etc.).
Step 3: Evaluate feasibility of lane reduction and/or lane narrowing.
A. For the primary screening, traffic analysis should be conducted with a focus on the throughput,
metering, and intersection capacity limitations. For roadways with less than 15,000 vehicles per day
(vpd), consider signal retiming and other possible adjustments as part of traffic analysis. For
roadways with greater than 15,000 vpd, conduct a corridor analysis to further assess potential
adjustments or improvements to be made in conjunction with the lane reduction.
B. For the secondary screening, inventory pavement widths and lane widths starting with arterials and
collectors. Compare to allowable lane widths and necessary pedestrian and bike accommodations
2 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
3
based on the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Article 11A: Street Typologies, which are moving
to the soon-to-be published Department of Public Works’ Standards and Specifications (no change
from currents LDRs). Use the inventory to identify lane width reduction and edge line or bike lane
striping opportunities.
C. For the tertiary screening, evaluate intersection capacity and design vehicle limitations associated
with reconfiguration and repurposing of intersection geometry and existing pavement widths. For
locations with auxiliary lanes, right turn slip lanes, or other configurations (e.g., jug handle),
screening level evaluations should focus on capacity and design vehicle implications of lane
reduction or removal. Project teams should also assess opportunities for quick builds, where street
space is realigned or reassigned with painting or object installations.
Step 4: Prioritize projects.
A. Coordinate with the implementation of CAP Action T.2.12 (Walk Bike Plan) to identify priority
locations for lane reduction or lane narrowing based on needs identified in the plan development.
Focus on the City Center, as well as areas that lack safe walk/bike accommodations to connect
between neighborhoods and to/from key destinations (e.g., schools, parks, services, dense housing
or mixed-use areas, etc.).
B. Cross reference with planned asset management and maintenance activities to identify
opportunities for coordination/harmonization with repaving/restriping.
C. Identify opportunities for pilot projects and/or educational demonstrations.
Step 5: Implement priority pilot projects and program projects according to prioritization/harmonization.
A. Implement priority pilot projects in coordination with Public Works.
B. Program lane narrowing and lane reduction projects as part of capital plan development.
Table 1. 4-Lane (or more) Corridor Segments with 2019 and 2021 AADT
Roadway Segment 2019 AADT 2021 AADT
Williston Road Spear Street to Exit 14 44,556 41,089
Williston Road Exit 14 to White Street 30,032 27,707
Williston Road White Street to Hinesburg Road 24,529 22,620
Kennedy Drive Hinesburg Road to Williston Road 12,759 12,273
Kennedy Drive Dorset Street to Hinesburg Road 16,799 15,499
Dorset Street Kennedy Drive to Market Street 14,211 13,111
Dorset Street Market Street to Williston Road 23,552 21,728
Shelburne Road* South of IDX Drive 26,734 25,606
Shelburne Road* IDX Drive to Laurel Hill Drive 34,641 31,960
Shelburne Road* Laurel Hill Drive to Swift Street 38,277 35,298
* State Highway
OPPORTUNITES FOR INNOVATION:
• Coordinate with other construction activities or repaving projects for project harmonization.
4
• Consider pilot projects as an avenue to demonstrate lane reduction and collect data to support
feasibility.
• Coordinate with yearly road re-striping for lane narrowing efforts as this is an existing budget line
item.
FOCUS ON EQUITY:
• The reallocation of right-of-way to dedicate space to uses other than driving makes for a more
equitable transportation system that can better serve younger and older community members,
zero car households, low-income households, and others. Ensure that such spaces are designed
to accommodate all types of mode (pedestrian or bicyclist) and users (e.g., kids, older adults,
persons with physical impairments, etc.)
• Prioritize lane reduction and lane narrowing connecting to neighborhoods that lack safe and
comfortable walk, bike, and roll accommodations.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS:
• Consider collecting new traffic volume data to inform the base condition and future projections
based on post-pandemic (COVID-19) travel activity.
• Leverage existing planning and corridor studies, like the Williston Road Network Transportation
Study Phase I and Phase II.
• Foster community buy-in through educational opportunities, safety metrics, pilot projects, and other
outreach.
• Coordinate with the implementation of CAP Action T.2.12 (Walk Bike Plan) to identify and prioritize
lane reductions that could address gaps in walking/biking network connectivity.
• Class 1 Town Highway Reclassification may be one avenue to pursue when considering the range of
possible treatments to the candidate corridors. Shelburne Road (US 7) is state-owned and operated,
whereas a large portion of Williston Road (US 2) is Class 1 Town Highway.
• Revisit Land Development Regulations to consider Citywide policy to limit lane expansion on
“Avenue” street typologies, which allow for 2 to 4 lane configurations.
• Where appropriate, consider traffic calming measures (e.g., installing bumps outs) as enhancements
or alternatives to lane reduction projects, particularly in the City’s older neighborhoods with wider
streets.
• The removal of pavement through lane reductions can benefit natural resources through the
removal of impervious surfaces as well the City’s operating budget, for example, through lower
maintenance and paving costs.
• Lane reductions can take place with or without moving curbs. When curbs are moved, there is an
opportunity to invest in the streetscape to transform the character of the area and to consider
undergrounding of overhead utilities. These actions could be considered as phases of long-term
projects.
5
CASE STUDIES:
• Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT – The Colchester Avenue Complete Street Demonstration Project
saw the conversion of a four-lane cross-section to a three-lane cross section with bike lanes and
dedicated turn or shared left turn lanes. This enabled the repurposing of the curb-to-curb width and
additional accommodations like safe midblock crossing installations.
• North Avenue, Burlington, VT – The North Avenue Pilot Project saw the reconfiguration of 4-lane
segments to 3 lanes, as well as the installation of bike lanes and other changes to enhance safety for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
• Williston Road, South Burlington, VT – The section of Williston Road from Cottage Grove Ave to
Milham Court was reduced from 4 vehicular lanes to 2 lanes, 2 bike lanes, and a center turn lane
(except at the Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive intersections) in the early 2010s. In 2023, the City
is constructing mid-block pedestrian crossing with refuge islands to connect the Chamberlin and
Mayfair Park neighborhoods. Internal coordination with the managers of these projects should be
conducted to obtain any lessons learned.
• Nickerson Street, Seattle, WA – This project entailed the reconfiguration of a 4-lane corridor with
parking stalls on both sides into a corridor with single travel lanes in each direction, shared left turn
lane, bicycle lanes, and retention of parking stalls. The project enabled strategic curb bulb outs and
pedestrian refuge islands in order to retain midblock crossings that were, by policy, being removed
from 4-lane roadways due to safety concerns.
• Indianapolis Cultural Trail, Indianapolis, IN – This lane reduction project entailed reconfiguration of 5
and 6 lane cross sections and reduction of lane widths in downtown Indianapolis to enable the
addition of an 8-mile, separated walking and biking facility. The space gained within the right of way
was reallocated to curb, treebelt, and/or parking separated trail facilities. Though these trail facilities
were shared in most places, with the space reallocation separate biking and walking facilities were
incorporated into the design in some locations.
• C Street NE, Washington, D.C. – A project along C Street NE in Washington, D.C. re-envisioned the
corridor from a median separated 5-lane travel way with bike lanes and parking on both sides to a
multimodal complete street with 3 travel lanes, sidewalk level, separated bike facilities, enhanced
bus transit stops, and significant streetscape improvements.
• U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Compiled
road diet case studies across the U.S.
OTHER RESOURCES:
• Road Diets – U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire: When asked
about reducing the number of travel lanes to accommodate bikes, a majority of responses expressed concerns
or apprehension about reducing vehicular travel lanes, with 36% expressing no concerns.
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
T.2 REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
2030 SCIENCE-BASED TARGET:
Reduce vehicle miles traveled by 2.5% annually to reduce emissions by 19%.
TITLE:
PARK AND RIDE
ACTION T.2.11:
Establish Park & Ride / carpool lots to connect with public transportation, (e.g., I-189 Exit, Chittenden
County Park and Ride Plan). Identify synergies with I-89 Corridor Project.
PLANNED ACHIEVEMENT(S):
New park and ride and/or intercept facilities within South Burlington
LEAD RESPONSIBLE CITY ORGANIZATION: Planning & Zoning, Public Works
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS: Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), Chittenden County Regional
Planning Commission (CCRPC), Green Mountain Transit (GMT), Potentially Private Parcel Owners
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: 2025 to 2030 (6 Years)
RELEVANT CAP ACTIONS:
T.1.3, T.1.6, T.2.4, T.2.7, T2.12, T.2.13, T.2.14, T.2.16, T.2.17, T.2.18, GO.3.1
FUNDING:
Operating or Capital Budget Requirements: Operating
External Funding Sources: CCRPC – Unified Planning Work Program
(UPWP); VTrans - Municipal Park and Ride
Grant Program, Agency of Commerce and
Community Development – Municipal Planning
Grant Program
Estimated Costs (1 [Low] to 5 [High]):1 5
LEVEL OF EFFORT:
Estimated Upfront Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
Estimated Ongoing Level of Effort (Hours/Week): Less than 8
External Technical Support Required: Yes
1 For cost ratings: 1 (Less than $100,000), 2 ($100,000 to $500,000), 3 ($500,000 to $1,000,000), 4 ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000), 5 (Greater than $5,000,000)
2
Implementation Complexity (1 [Easy] to 5 [Hard]):2 3
CO-BENEFITS:
• Economic Value
• Living Affordability
• Public Health
KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Step 1: Conduct a feasibility study to further site and scope potential locations for park and ride and/or
intercept facilities in South Burlington.
A. Locations identified in the 2022 Chittenden County Park and Ride Plan should be the focal areas
for study, including the US-2 / Williston Road corridor north of the I-89 Exit 14 interchange and
US-7 / Shelburne Road corridor south of the I-189 interchange.
B. For I-89 Exit 14 at US-2 / Williston Road, it has been over a decade since the Exit 14 Intermodal
Facility scoping process declined to select a preferred alternative. Refinements to the scoping to
meet current purpose and need should be pursued.
C. For US-7 / Shelburne Road, site feasibility and scoping should be pursued to develop purpose
and need, identify criteria for selection, conduct analysis to identify suitable sites, assess
feasibility of sites, evaluate alternatives, identify a preferred alternative, and develop a
conceptual design.
Step 2: Pursue public/private partnership and/or VTrans Municipal Park and Ride Grant Program funds to
support design and construction.
Step 3: Issue Request for Proposals for the design and bids for the construction of park and ride
facility(ies).
2 1 (Easy - No Barriers), 2 (Some Difficulty – Internal Capability), 3 (Some Difficulty – External Capability), 4 (Multiple Barriers Exist or Dependent on Third-Parties), 5 (Regulatory or Other Highly Challenging Barriers Present)
3
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION:
• Given the park and rides could serve South Burlington residents connecting to multimodal
transportation options, transit connections, carpooling, or ridesharing, as well as serve as
intercept facilities for those connecting to destinations in South Burlington or neighboring
Burlington (e.g., from Bristol, Hinesburg, Charlotte, and Shelburne), considerations for
multimodal and transit connections should be prioritized.
• Co-locating park and rides with destinations, such as grocery stores or other services with
surface lots, could improve user convenience.
• Coordinate with GMT to serve these locations with existing, fixed route services while exploring
options to serve with more frequency and flexibility through on-demand transit services.
• The 2022 Chittenden County Park and Ride Plan notes the opportunity for electric vehicle (EV)
charging at new and existing facilities. Currently, the state is not installing EV charging
equipment at new or upgraded state facilities as they are unable to assess fees for charging. The
implementation of this action should be coordinated with CAP Actions T.1.3 (EV Adoption) and
T.1.6 (EV Carshare).
• Other emerging technologies, like e-bikes, should be carefully considered in the siting and
design of new intercept or park and ride facilities.
• Consider sustainability in design by limiting impervious surfaces in stormwater management,
collocating with solar canopy projects to produce energy, or mitigating heat island effects
through landscaping.
FOCUS ON EQUITY
• Park and ride and intercept facilities provide an opportunity for accessing transportation options
regardless of proximal access at home, work, or other destination locations, creating more
equitable access to transportation choices to more of the population.
• Park and ride lots can be offered as a free amenity. If parking fees are to be collected, the City
should consider offering a discounted fee for qualifying low-income earners.
• Park and ride lots can minimize the usage, and therefore the costs, of vehicle ownership. This
enables low-income earners to redirect monies to other household needs.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• The feasibility study that identifies and evaluates potential locations for new park and ride
and/or intercept facilities in South Burlington should consider the travel patterns of South
Burlington residents as well as those traveling into the City. For example, many travelers to
South Burlington originate from Bristol, Hinesburg, Charlotte, and Shelburne.
4
• The park and ride grant program enables municipalities to establish park and rides on
municipally owned or leased land. These park and rides are included in the state inventory and
display signage consistent with the broader park and ride system.
• Coordinate with GMT to enable connection to transit. Assess with GMT the transit access and
circulation needs at each potential site.
• As potential hubs of multimodal connection, consider infrastructure and amenities, such as
dedicated bike and pedestrian network connections, transit service connections, bike parking, e-
bike charging, transit shelters, etc. in the site feasibility and conceptual design phases.
Depending on scale, comfort amenities such as restrooms or vending machines may be
considered.
• Consider collocating with land uses needed in the surrounding community. Refer to CAP Action
2.8 (Higher Density Development).
• Coordinate with the Chittenden County Transportation Demand Management planning effort to
align with TDM targets identified in the I-89 2050 Study, including tripling transit services and
improving frequency.
CASE STUDIES:
• Burlington, VT – Supported by CCRPC, the City of Burlington is currently conducting a feasibility
study of a multimodal intercept facility in the South End of Burlington
• Kitsap Transit – Conducted a feasibility study of a new park and ride facility along SR 16 using
multilayer screening methods to identify a recommended site and conceptual design.
• Charlotte, VT – Conducted a Park and Ride feasibility study in collaboration with CCRPC to
identify a new site along the US 7 corridor.
• Portland, OR – Details parking maximum requirements by zone in City Code Chapter 33.266 “to
promote alternative forms of transportation, to promote efficient use of land and to protect air
and water quality.”
5
OTHER RESOURCES:
• 2022 Chittenden County Park and Ride Plan - CCRPC
• 2011 Chittenden County Park-and-Ride & Intercept Facility Plan - CCRPC
• Decision-Making Toolbox to Plan and Manage Park-and-Ride Facilities for Public Transportation:
Guidebook on Planning and Managing Park-and-Ride – National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine
From the South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Implementation Questionnaire:
Although only 4% indicated they use a park and ride when they carpool, 23% offered locations in South
Burlington where they would use a park and ride, including near I-89 Exit 14 and Shelburne Road near
I-189.
1
South Burlington Climate Action Plan – Transportation Sector Implementation
Supporting Action Implementation
Pathway 2030 Target Identifier Description Key Supporting Actions Lead
Department
Partners Connected
High Impact
Actions
Estimated
Costs
Complexity Timeframe Average
Estimated
Weekly Staff
Hours
T.1: Vehicle
Electrification
and
Efficiency
Replace 75% of gas
vehicles with all
electric vehicles
(EVs) and plug-in
hybrid vehicles to
reduce emissions by
42%
T.1.4 Educate student drivers about eco-
driving, electric and high efficiency
vehicle and transportation options
including electric bikes.
1. Develop and/or adapt relevant
educational programming and materials
and distribute in both centralized (e.g.,
through a dedicated webpage on the
City’s website) and decentralized (e.g.,
sharing with partners for their own
distribution) manners.
2. Work with the South Burlington School
District and other educational
administrations to hold in-school
education roadshows.
3. Continuously update the programming
and materials as the context around the
subject matter changes, for example, as
relevant technologies mature.
Planning &
Zoning
• Vermont Energy
Education
Program
• Drive Electric
Vermont
• Local Motion
• Safe Routes to
School
• South Burlington
School District
• National Summer
Transportation
Institute
• Go! Vermont
• Local Driver
Training Schools
T.1.1, T.1.2,
T.1.3, T.2.3,
T.2.12, T.2.16,
T.2.17
1 2 2024 to 2030
(7 Years)
Less than 8
T.1.5 Utilize Drive Electric VT resources and
car dealerships to offer the
community education opportunities
about electric vehicles. Educate
consumers about EV incentives being
offered by utilities, Mileage Smart,
and other programs.
1. Develop and/or adapt relevant
educational programming and materials
and distribute in both centralized (e.g.,
through a dedicated webpage on the
City’s website) and decentralized (e.g.,
sharing with partners for their own
distribution) manners.
2. Work with local car dealerships, as
applicable, to hold on-site ride-and-drive
events and to integrate them into other
City-sponsored events (e.g., SB NiteOut).
Planning &
Zoning
• Drive Electric
Vermont
• Mileage Smart
• Car Dealerships
• Vermont Clean
Cities Coalition
• Energy
Committee
T.1.1, T.1.2,
T.1.3
1 3 2024 to 2030
(7 Years)
Less than 8
2
Pathway 2030 Target Identifier Description Key Supporting Actions Lead
Department
Partners Connected
High Impact
Actions
Estimated
Costs
Complexity Timeframe Average
Estimated
Weekly Staff
Hours
T.1: Vehicle
Electrification
and
Efficiency
(Cont.)
Replace 75% of
gas vehicles with
all electric vehicles
(EVs) and plug-in
hybrid vehicles to
reduce emissions
by 42% (Cont.)
T.1.6 Work with CarShareVT to consider
expanding EV car share program to
South Burlington.
1. Identify potential public locations to
host CarShareVT vehicle(s).
2. Incentivize private host locations
through reduced impact fees for new
development and redevelopment to
host a CarShareVT vehicle.
3. Leverage programming for co-locating
CarShareVT pods with affordable
housing.
4. Work with CarShareVT to place
electric vehicles at new pods at
preferred public and private host
locations.
5. Work with CarShareVT to promote use
of car share in community.
Planning &
Zoning
• CarShareVT
• Private property
owners
T.1.1, T.1.2,
T.1.3, T.2.11,
T.2.19
1 4 2025 to 2030
(6 Years)
Less than 8
T.2: Reduce
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
(VMT)
Reduce vehicle
miles traveled by
2.5% annually to
reduce emissions
by 19%
Plan for compact
high density to
reduce emissions
by 4%
T.2.1 Work with the school district to
develop a policy for discouraging
driving to school (disincentives) and
encouraging students to ride the bus,
bike, or walk to reduce single
occupancy driving to school.
1. Identify a School District champion for
developing policies and procedures.
2. Conduct school transportation studies
and outreach to identify safety issues
and barriers to access. Incorporate
findings into Walk Bike Master Plan
priorities.
3. Develop and distribute educational
materials to students and families.
4. Track mode share for students and
staff.
5. Develop incentive program for walk,
bike, and bus use.
Planning &
Zoning
• School District
• Safe Routes to
School
• Local Motion
• Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Committee
T.2.8, T.2.12,
T.2.16, T.2.18
1 3 2024 to 2025
(2 Years)
Less than 8
T.2.2 Create policy to reduce duplication
of service from solid waste haulers.
Include enforcement mechanism.
1. In collaboration with solid waste
haulers, develop routes for efficiency.
2. In coordination with homeowner
associations and/or developers,
encourage contracting with single
provider for efficiency.
3. Identify mechanism for enforcement
and/or incentive to utilize most
efficient route(s).
4. Encourage electrification of solid
waste hauler equipment.
Public Works • Planning & Zoning
• Solid Waste
Haulers (Myers,
Casella, Gauthier,
etc.)
• Vermont Clean
Cities Coalition
N/A 1 4 2026 to 2028
(3 Years)
Less than 8
3
Pathway 2030 Target Identifier Description Key Supporting Actions Lead
Department
Partners Connected
High Impact
Actions
Estimated
Costs
Complexity Timeframe Average
Estimated
Weekly Staff
Hours
T.2: Reduce
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
(VMT) (Cont.)
Reduce vehicle
miles traveled by
2.5% annually to
reduce emissions
by 19%
Plan for compact
high density to
reduce emissions
by 4% (Cont.)
T.2.4 Maintain existing bike/ped
infrastructure used for transportation
purposes including snow removal to
ensure it can be utilized during all
seasons.
1. Set annual targets for number of feet
of sidewalk replaced, number of feet
of bike lanes restriped, and number of
feet of crosswalks restriped.
2. Develop policy and standard operating
procedure for prioritizing snow and ice
control of sidewalks, multi-use paths,
bike lanes.
3. Adopt and promote maintenance
policies.
Public Works • Planning & Zoning
• Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Committee
T.2.12,
T.2.13, T.2.18
2 2 2023 to 2030
(8 Years)
40 to 80
T.2.5 Work with the School District and
Safe to Routes to School to adopt a
policy to encourage more
biking/walking to school.
1. Conduct school transportation studies
and outreach to identify safety issues
and barriers to access. Can be
combined with T.2.1, Step 2.
2. Develop mechanism for incorporating
projects, with priority, into the Walk
Bike Master Plan.
Planning &
Zoning
• School District
• Safe Routes to
School
• Local Motion
• Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Committee
T.2.8, T.2.12,
T.2.18
1 1 2024 to 2025
(2 Years)
Less than 8
T.2.6 Foster basic services to exist within ½
mile of neighborhoods.
Implement as part of CAP Action T.2.8 (Higher Density Mixed-Use Development).
T.2.7 Adopt a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) requirement for
development/ redevelopment.
Include incentives or requirements
for multi-modal transportation or
parking maximums where feasible,
parking disincentives or other tools.
Include bike share, car share, and
supporting city policies.
Implement as part of CAP Action T.2.13 (TDM Requirement and Increase CATMA Membership).
T.2.9 Create higher density housing to
minimize vehicles miles traveled from
employees commuting to South
Burlington by creating denser
housing in the transit overlay
district.
Implement as part of CAP Action T.2.8 (Higher Density Mixed-Use Development).
4
Pathway 2030 Target Identifier Description Key Supporting Actions Lead
Department
Partners Connected
High Impact
Actions
Estimated
Costs
Complexity Timeframe Average
Estimated
Weekly Staff
Hours
T.2: Reduce
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
(VMT) (Cont.)
Reduce vehicle
miles traveled by
2.5% annually to
reduce emissions
by 19%
Plan for compact
high density to
reduce emissions
by 4% (Cont.)
T.2.10 Decrease pressure to build on
undeveloped land, encourage
conversion of existing
single family homes to multi-family
homes and renovations to add
studios or one-bedroom apartments
to existing homes. Prioritize use of
this new housing for long-term
rentals over short-term rentals.
Implement as part of CAP Action T.2.8 (Higher Density Mixed-Use Development).
T.2.14 Survey residents on approaches for
encouraging bus ridership.
Approaches could include advocating
for free ridership.
Implement as part of CAP Action T.2.16 (Public Transit).
T.2.15 City events reinforce transportation
goals, such as Open Streets event
(perhaps closing northbound lane of
Dorset Street and/or Market Street)
or showcase bike path with an
annual event (marathon/half
marathon/5k)
.
1. Develop and/or adapt relevant
educational programming and
materials for use at standalone events
or as part of other City-sponsored
events.
2. Identify and plan a series of short-
term (e.g., tied to project
demonstrations) and recurring (e.g.,
annual open streets events) events.
3. Inventory all City-sponsored events
and ascertain the appropriateness of
integrating materials on the CAP’s
transportation goals and objectives.
4. Continuously update the programming
and materials as the context around
the subject matter changes, for
example, as relevant technologies
mature.
Planning &
Zoning
• Public Works
• Recreation &
Parks
Department
• Vermont Energy
Education
Program
• Drive Electric
Vermont
• Local Motion
• Go! Vermont
• Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Committee
• Recreation
Committee
T.1.1, T.1.2,
T.1.3, T.2.3,
T.2.11,
T.2.12,
T.2.13,
T.2.16,
T.2.18, T.2.19
1 2 2023 to
2030
(8 Years)
Less than 8
T.2.17 Increase bike/ped infrastructure
(routes, bike parking, signage, and
striping) city wide to connect all
neighborhoods in South Burlington
and to adjacent communities in
support of a Walk Bike Master Plan.
Implement as part of CAP Action T.2.12 (Walk Bike Plan).
Submission DateReevaluation Eligibility Location DescriptionSegment Length (miles) Speed Limit Street TypeTraffic Volume (AADT) 100s Over MinCrash History (5 years)Crash Rate (crashes per mile)Crash Involving Bike/Ped? Bike/Ped FacilitiesMid‐Block Crossing Within 500' People GeneratorsSchool Within 0.5 Miles?85th Percentile Speed Initial Preliminary Final Status9/22/2022 9/21/2025 Dorset Street (near SBHS)Pedestrian safety concerns due to vehicle speeds and insufficient lighting 0.3 35 Collector / Arterial 12400 114 15 10 Yes Shared Use Path Yes Directly Adjacent Yes 3844 6066Design in Progress4/11/2023 4/10/2026 Patchen Road Pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns due to vehicle speeds 1 25 Collector / Arterial 6000 50 46 9.2 Yes Sidewalk on 1 Side Yes More than 2 Blocks Away Yes 3744 5882Not Started2/5/2022 2/4/2025 Spear Street and Nowland Farm Road Concerns about crosswalk safety. Stop condition requested. 0.2 35 Collector / Arterial 7716 67 7 7 No Shared Use Path Yes Directly Adjacent No 040 5252Study Complete5/20/2022 5/19/2025 Spear Street and Cedar Glen DriveDifficult to turn out of Cedar Glen Drive due to Spear Street traffic 0.2 35 Collector / Arterial 7716 67 6 6 No None No More than 2 Blocks Away No 040 5252Not Started4/11/2023 4/10/2026 Spear Street at Quarry Hill CrosswalkPedestrian safety concerns due to vehicle speeds and non‐compliance at RRFB 0.19 25 Collector / Arterial 4500 35 5 5 No Shared Use Path Yes More than 2 Blocks Away No 40404270Not Started4/11/2023 4/10/2026 Market and RMCS EntrancePedestrian safety concerns during pickup/dropoff and speeds on Market Street 0.16 25 Local 1547 11 3 3 No Shared Use Path Yes Directly Adjacent Yes 3235 5165Design in Progress9/7/2023 9/6/2026 Dorset Street Crosswalk (near Medalist Drive)Crosswalk requested across Dorset Street between Medalist Drive and Vermont National CC 0.1 40 Collector / Arterial 5400 44 2 2 No Shared Use Path No 1 ‐ 2 Blocks Away No 028 3030Not Started9/27/2023 9/26/2026 Hinesburg Road Crosswalk (at Wright Court)Difficulty crossing Hinesburg Road from lack of crosswalk at Wright Court and vehicles speeds and volumes 0.1 30 Collector / Arterial 9200 82 2 2 No Sidewalk on 1 Side Yes More than 2 Blocks Away Yes 4128 4264Not Started9/13/2022 9/12/2025 Pheasant Way and Harbor Ridge Rd Stop sign and/or crosswalk requested 0.1 25 Local 1500 11 1 1 No Sidewalk on 1 Side Yes More than 2 Blocks Away No 3025 3545Not Started4/11/2023 4/10/2026IDX and Green Mountain Drive (near Blackberry Lane) Vehicle speed and noise concerns 0.13 25 Local 3053 27 1 1 No Intermittent Sidewalk on 1 Side No 1 ‐ 2 Blocks Away Yes 2525 4141Not Started7/13/2022 7/12/2025 1150 Airport Drive (near Beta) Crosswalk requested 0.1 25 Local 8500 81 0 0 No Sidewalk on 1 Side Yes Directly Adjacent No 3520 4060Not Started4/11/2023 4/10/2026 Imperial Drive Vehicle speed concerns 0.23 25 Local 792 4 2 1.7 No Intermittent Sidewalk on 1 Side No More than 2 Blocks Away No 3217 2741Not Started6/30/2023 6/29/2026 Timber Lane Crosswalk (at 1 Timber Lane)Crosswalk requested from sidewalk on Timber Lane to walkway at 1 Timber Lane 0.1 25 Local 0 0 2 2 No Sidewalk on 1 Side No Directly Adjacent No 010 2828Not Started1/1/2022 12/31/2024 Brand Farm Drive ‐ West Leg Vehicle speed concerns 0.26 25 Local 664 3 0 0 No Sidewalk on 1 Side Yes 1 ‐ 2 Blocks Away No 3461836Study Complete5/15/2023 5/14/2026 East Terrace Vehicle speed and parking concerns 0.5 25 Local 600 2 1 0.4 No Sidewalk on 1 Side Yes More than 2 Blocks Away No 061616Data Collection7/7/2023 7/6/2026Hayes Ave (Hinesburg Road to Foxcroft/Kingsley) Vehicle speed concerns 0.12 25 Local 0 0 1 1 No Sidewalk on 1 Side No More than 2 Blocks Away No 051313Not Started4/13/2022 4/12/2025 Bartlett Bay Road and South Beach Vehicle speed concerns 0.1 25 Local 583 2 0 0 No None No More than 2 Blocks Away No 3241630Not Started4/4/2023 4/3/2026 Golf Course Road Vehicle speed concerns 0.66 25 Collector / Arterial 0 0 1 0.3 No Sidewalk on 1 Side Yes More than 2 Blocks Away No 011111Not Started1/1/2022 12/31/2024 Brand Farm Drive ‐ East Leg Vehicle speed concerns 0.25 25 Local 226 0 0 0 No Sidewalk on 1 Side No 1 ‐ 2 Blocks Away No 2401010Study Complete1/15/2022 1/14/2025 Midland Ave and S Jefferson Rd Vehicle speed concerns 0.1 25 Local 0 0 0 0 No Shared Use Path No More than 2 Blocks Away No 0000Not Started4/13/2022 4/12/2025 Whiteface Street Vehicle speed concerns 0.11 25 Local 0 0 0 0 No Sidewalk on 1 Side No More than 2 Blocks Away No 0088Not Started2/21/2023 2/20/2026 Ruth Street and Heath StreetPeople are cutting through the neighborhood to avoid the light at Williston/Hinesburg 0.17 25 Local 300 0 0 0 No None Yes 1 Block or Less Away Yes 002323Not Started6/5/2023 6/4/2026 Duchess Ave and McIntosh Ave Vehicle speed concerns 0.1 25 Local 210 0 0 0 No None No More than 2 Blocks Away Yes 001616Not Started6/21/2023 6/20/2026 Cider Mill Neighborhood Vehicle speed concerns 0.5 25 Local 0 0 0 0 No Shared Use Path Yes 1 ‐ 2 Blocks Away No 0044Data Collection6/23/2023 6/22/2026 Hayes Ave Crosswalk (at Sweetbriar Lane)Crosswalk requested from Sweetbriar Lane to sidewalk on north side of Hayes Ave 0.1 25 Local 0 0 0 0 No Sidewalk on 1 Side No 1 ‐ 2 Blocks Away No 001010Not Started9/24/2023 9/23/2026 Shunpike RoadVehicle speed concerns from cut through traffic leading to pedestrian safety issues 0.3 25 Local 0 0 0 0 No Intermittent Sidewalk on 1 Side No More than 2 Blocks Away No 001010Not StartedNOTE: Initial Threshold = 30, Preliminary Threshold = 45
FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
OVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT
CIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
Department:Bicycle/Pedestrian
Contact:Erica Quallen
SUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total:
Estimated Costs:
Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 140 - 205 20 35 10 10 110 75 - 605
Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition 50 5 10 10 10 - - - 35 - 120
Construction 545 675 650 1,275 1,400 725 225 - 450 400 6,345
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Estimated CIP Costs:735 680 865 1,305 1,445 735 235 110 560 400 7,070
Funding Sources:
General Fund - - - - - - - - - - -
Secured Grants 500 250 100 - - - - - - - 850
Anticipated Grants - - 250 900 900 400 150 - 385 325 3,310
Penny for Path Debt Proceeds 145 200 415 385 395 225 85 110 150 75 2,185
Recreation Impact Fee - - - - - - - - - - -
Highway Impact Fee 90 230 100 20 150 110 - - 25 - 725
Developer Contributions - - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Estimated CIP Funding:735 680 865 1,305 1,445 735 235 110 560 400 7,070
The FY24 - 33 Bicycle and Pedestrian CIP is primarily funded through Penny for Paths, State, and Federal funding. Penny for Paths brings in between
$380,000 and $410,000 annually and is used to undertake smaller internal projects and provide the match for larger grants.
PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 6
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:Bicycle/PedestrianContact:Erica QuallenMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Dorset Street Shared Use Path510000000000510 Spear Street Shared Use Path1005003500000000950 Dorset Street and Songbird Road Cros5200000000025 Spear Street and Pheasant Way Cross 5150000000020 Hinesburg Road and Dubois Drive and5150000000020 Airport Pkwy Sidewalk Phase 100300275000000575 Queen City Park Road Shared Use Pat008051035500000945 Kimball Ave Shared Use Path00600340 4750000875 Shelburne Road Shared Use Path000000060160200420 Airport Pkwy Sidewalk Phase 2000000050400200650 Allen Road Shared Use Path00000260235000495 Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path0075520 750000001,345 Swift Street Shared Use Path Connect 208000000000100 Mary Street Sidewalk905000000000140 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:735 680 865 1,305 1,445 735 235 110 560 400 7,070 The FY24 ‐ 33 Bicycle and Pedestrian CIP projects reflect the needs identified by the City and include recommendations from the South BurlingtonBicycle and Pedestrian Committee. Most projects undergo a scoping study, design, and construction phase with consultant teams. Smaller projects, such as individual crosswalk installations, are typically completed in‐house. New projects which have not been included in previous bike/ped CIPs include the Swift Street Shared Use Path and Mary Street Sidewalk.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202222
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Dorset Street Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 1010 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction500500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:510 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 510 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants500500 Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds1010 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:510 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 510 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but near existing path which already gets plowed.Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Project is undergoing ROW phase and negotiations. Design to be complete in FY23, potential construction to begin in FY23, and finalize construction in FY24.DESCRIPTION: Construct 10' shared use path on Dorset St between Old Cross Rd and Sadie Lane.Improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by closing an existing gap in the Dorset St shared use pathEstimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202223
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Spear Street Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 5050 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition5050 Construction500 350 850 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:100 500 350 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 950 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants250 100 350 Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds100100 150 350 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee150 100 250 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:100 500 350 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 950 Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Conceptual design is complete. Final design and ROW will continue through the remainder of FY23 and FY24 for construction in FY25.DESCRIPTION: Construct 8‐10' shared use path along Spear St between Swift St and UVM Forsetry buildingClose gap between Swift St shared use path and shared use path at UVM forestry building to improve bicycle and pedestrian access in a frequently used area.Winter snow removal, regular restriping of crosswalk at UVM Forestry Building, and periodic repavingFINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but connects gap in path network which is already being plowed.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202224
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Dorset Street and Songbird Road CrosswalkJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 55 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction2020 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:5 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds52025 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:5 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Being studied as part of a multi‐site crosswalk assessment through CCRPC's FY23 UPWP. Final design and construction to occur in FY24/FY25.DESCRIPTION: Design and construct crosswalk across Dorset St at Songbird RoadThis is a high priority crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists who use Songbird Road as a connection between Spear St and the Dorst St shared use path.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Restriping of crosswalks, periodic updates to RRFBsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202225
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Spear Street and Pheasant Way CrosswalkJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 55 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction1515 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:5 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds51520 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:5 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Being studied as part of a multi‐site crosswalk assessment through CCRPC's FY23 UPWP. Final design and construction to occur in FY24/FY25.DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Restriping of crosswalks, periodic updates to RRFBsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202226
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Hinesburg Road and Dubois Drive and Butler Drive CrosswalkJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 55 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction 1515 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:5 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds51520 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:5 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Being studied as part of a multi‐site crosswalk assessment through CCRPC's FY23 UPWP. Final design and construction to occur in FY24/FY25.DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Restriping of crosswalks, periodic updates to RRFBsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202227
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Airport Pkwy Sidewalk Phase 1JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction300 275 575 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 300 275 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 575 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants200 100 300 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds100 175 275 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 300 275 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 575 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with plowingEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Final design complete since July 2020 with most recent cost estimate in 2022. Temporary construction agreements have been signed by property owners. Construction was stalled due to increased cost estimate from retaining walls.DESCRIPTION: Construct 5' sidewalk from end of existing sidewalk north of Kirby Road to Berard Drive.Continue expanding pedestrian access along Airport Pkwy through a phased approach. Airport Pkwy connects low‐income and senior housing to other parts of South Burlington.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal and periodic repairsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202228
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Queen City Park Road Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal7010 5 85 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition1010 Construction500 350 850 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 80 510 355 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 945 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants50 400 250 700 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds30 110 105 245 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 80 510 355 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 945 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Staff workload increase with plowing new path where no pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure currently exists. Potential for maintenance agreement with Burlington where they own the Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: CCRPC Scoping study completed in 2022 with preferred alternative of shared use path. Final design and construction to occur between FY26 ‐ FY28.DESCRIPTION: Design and construct approximately 2,500' of 10' shared use path on the south side of Queen City Park Road between Central Ave and Shelburne Road (excluding rail Improve current bicycle and pedestrian conditions which force all users to share the road. Implement preferred alternative from Scoping Study.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202229
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Kimball Ave Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 60 3090 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition1010 Construction300 475 775 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 60 ‐ 340 475 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 875 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants150 250 400 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds60140 125 325 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee50 100 150 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 60 ‐ 340 475 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 875 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but near existing path which already gets plowed.Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Scoping Study completed in 2022. Design not yet started.DESCRIPTION: Design and construct 10' shared use path between end of O'Brien Development path to existing shared use path west of Community Drive. Includes Potash Brook crossing.Pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the vicinity are intermittent and inconsistent.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202230
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Shelburne Road Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal60 60 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition10 10 Construction150 200350 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 160 200 420 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants85 125210 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds60 75 75210 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 160 200 420 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Not started.DESCRIPTION: Replace existing 5' sidewalk with 10' shared use path on the east side of Shelburne Road from Imperial Drive to McIntosh Ave.Improves safety for bicyclists not comfortable riding on Shelburne Rd between neighborhoods and in the vicinity of Orchard School.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202231
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Airport Pkwy Sidewalk Phase 2JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal50 75 125 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition25 25 Construction300 200500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 400 200 650 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants300 200500 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds50 75 125 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee25 25 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 400 200 650 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with plowingEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Not started.DESCRIPTION:Construct 5' sidewalk from Berard Drive to the existing sidewalk on Lime Kiln Road.This continues the Phase 1 sidewalk project and fully closes the gap in pedestrian infrastructure along Airport Parkway between Berard Drive and Lime Kiln Road.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal and periodic repairsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202232
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Allen Road Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal10 10 20 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction250 225 475 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 260 235 ‐ ‐ ‐ 495 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants150 150 300 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds100 85 185 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee10 10 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 260 235 ‐ ‐ ‐ 495 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but near existing path which already gets plowed.Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Not startedDESCRIPTION:Install 1700' of new shared use path from Shelburne Road to Farm Stand Apartments. Replace 400' of sidewalk with shared use path from Farm Stand Apartments to existing shared use path.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202233
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Hinesburg Road Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 75 10 85 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition10 10 Construction500 750 1,250 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 75 520 750 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,345 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants400 500 900 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds75 100 150 325 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee20 100 120 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 75 520 750 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,345 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Change to workload by requiring large plow for path, rather than sidewalk but in the vicinity of currently paved pathsEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Not started.DESCRIPTION: Scope, design, and replace existing 5' sidewalk with 10' shared use path on Hinesburg Rd between Williston Rd and Kennedy DrImprove pedestrian and bicyle safety on Hinesburg Rd and make connection between future shared use path on Williston Rd and existing shared use path on Kennedy DrEstimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202234
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Swift Street Shared Use Path ConnectionJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 2020 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition55 Construction7575 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:20 80 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds205070 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee3030 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:20 80 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but near existing path which already gets plowed.Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Not started.DESCRIPTION: Design and construct approximately 300' of shared use path to close the gap between the Spear Meadows and existing Swift Street shared use pathsUpon completion of the path in the Spear Meadows development, there will be a gap between this path and the existing path on Swift Street that needs to be closed to improve functionality of the path network.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202235
FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Mary Street SidewalkJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 4545 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction455095 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:90 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 140 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee9050140 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:90 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 140 FINANCIALS COMMENT:This project is impact fee eligible as it is in City Center and expands transportation capacity.Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Survey is complete and alignment alternatives have been developed.DESCRIPTION: Complete design and construct sidewalk from behind Allard Square to the existing sidewalk on Mary StreetMary Street has sidewalk at each end, but not in the middle. This street connects Williston Road and Market Street.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202236
Bike/Ped Wayfinding
County of Chittenden, VCGI, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA,USGS
Bike Ped Wayfinding
EXISTING
PROPOSED
BikePed_Infrastructure_Aug2023
Existing Lane
Existing Sidewalk
Existing Shared Use Path
Existing Trail
Planned Sidewalk
Planned Trail
Planned Lane
Planned Shared Use Path
Easement
South Burlington Boundary
World Street Map
10/5/2023
0 0.85 1.70.42 mi
0 1 20.5 km
1:71,823