HomeMy WebLinkAboutPedestrian & Bicycle Feasibility Study - 02012017
South Burlington, VT
Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
February 2017
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
2
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404
P 802.846.4490
F 802.846.4494
www.ccrpcvt.org
Submitted by:
Toole Design Group
33 Broad Street, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
3
Project Steering Committee (PSC)
Peter Keating, Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission
Justin Rabidoux, City of South Burlington
Paul Conner, City of South Burlington
Katelin Brewer-Cole, Local Motion
John Dempsey, Toole Design Group
This scoping study was a collaborative effort of City staff, CCRPC, Local Motion, and Toole Design
Group, who possessed a wealth of combined knowledge and expertise regarding project background,
history, local insight, and existing conditions. Their valuable insight and assistance was instrumental in
developing the implementation strategy.
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant from the Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State
Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title
23, U.S. Code, as well as matching funds provided by Chittenden County’s municipalities and the
Vermont Agency of Transportation. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
4
Table of Contents
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Project Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.3 Project Oversight ................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Relevant Plans and Studies ................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Existing Resources ................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Allen Road Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 Parcel Data and Property Ownership ..................................................................................................... 10
2.4.2 Natural Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 10
2.4.3 Built Environment ......................................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 11
2.5 Dorset Street Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................... 11
2.5.1 Parcel Data and Property Ownership ..................................................................................................... 13
2.5.2 Natural Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 13
2.5.3 Built Environment ......................................................................................................................................... 14
2.5.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 14
2.6 Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road Existing Conditions ................................................................................ 15
2.6.1 Parcel Data and Property Ownership ..................................................................................................... 17
2.6.2 Natural Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 17
2.6.3 Built Environment ......................................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.4. Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 18
2.7 Spear Street Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 18
2.7.1 Parcel Data and Property Ownership ..................................................................................................... 20
2.7.2 Natural Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 20
2.7.3 Built Environment ......................................................................................................................................... 21
2.7.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 21
3.0 Concept Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................................. 22
3.1 Project Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................. 22
Purpose:..................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Need: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Allen Road Concept Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 22
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
5
3.2.1 Evaluation of Concept Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Preferred Concept Alternative .................................................................................................................. 23
3.2.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs ............................................................................................... 23
3.2.4 Evaluation Matrix .......................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Dorset Street Concept Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Evaluation of Concept Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 Preferred Concept Alternative .................................................................................................................. 25
3.3.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs ............................................................................................... 26
3.3.4 Evaluation Matrix .......................................................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road Concept Alternatives ............................................................................ 28
3.4.1 Evaluation of Concept Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 28
3.4.2 Preferred Concept Alternative .................................................................................................................. 28
3.4.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs ............................................................................................... 29
3.4.4 Evaluation Matrix .......................................................................................................................................... 30
3.5 Spear Street Concept Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 32
3.5.1 Evaluation of Concept Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 32
3.5.2 Preferred Concept Alternative .................................................................................................................. 32
3.5.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs ............................................................................................... 33
3.5.4 Evaluation Matrix .......................................................................................................................................... 33
4.0 Project Summary .................................................................................................................. 36
4.1 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendices
Appendix A: South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Appendix B: Preferred Concept Alignment Alternatives and Typical Cross Sections
Appendix C: Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
6
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) and the City of South Burlington
(City) initiated this scoping study to analyze and evaluate the feasibility of additional sidewalk and shared
use paths at four (4) proposed study site locations:
o Allen Road from the existing shared use path terminus east of Baycrest Drive to Spear Street;
o Dorset Street from the existing shared use path north of Autumn Hill Road to Dorset
Street/Nowland Farm Road/Old Cross Road intersection;
o Airport Parkway from Kirby Road to Lime Kiln Bridge; and
o Spear Street from the existing South Burlington shared use path south of Davis Road to US
Route 2 Jug Handle/East Terrace.
This report analyzes and evaluates existing conditions, provides conceptual alignment alternatives, and
details opinion of probable construction costs. Preferred concept alternative alignments as identified
with the Project Steering Committee (PSC), through the public participation and outreach during the
scoping study process, are highlighted within this scoping study.
1.2 Project Study Area
The proposed project study site locations are shown in Figure 1.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
7
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
8
1.3 Project Oversight
This scoping study project was conducted and
coordinated with public involvement through
workshops, presentations, and meetings with the
steering committee and the South Burlington Planning
Commission.
Project meetings and public involvement included the
following:
Kickoff Meeting: July 22, 2015 – TDG staff
and Steering Committee Members met to
discuss project scope, study area limits, and
schedule.
Alternatives Presentation: May 10, 2016 –
TDG staff presented project alternatives to
members of the public and the South
Burlington Planning Commission.
Preferred Alternatives Presentation: September 13, 2016 – TDG staff presented the
preferred alternative plans and the findings of the Scoping Study to members of the public and
the South Burlington Planning Commission.
2.0 Existing Conditions
2.1 Site Characteristics
All base mapping for this scoping study was compiled from Geographic Information System (GIS) and
orthographic imagery data as available from the CCRPC, State of Vermont, and the City. No field survey
was performed. Site fieldwork was conducted to field verify all topographic features within the project
study area and subsequent fieldwork findings were added to the original base mapping.
2.2 Relevant Plans and Studies
The 2005 Airport Drive/Airport Parkway Improvements Scoping Study, 2006 Road Safety Audit Review Airport
Parkway/Lime Kiln Intersection and the 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan documents were reviewed
and consulted to ensure consistency with this scoping study.
2.3 Existing Resources
The following sections provide a summary assessment of existing resources to understand potential
impacts for concept alternatives. Each of the resource types specified in the VTrans Project Scoping
Manual are addressed within each study location below. The data referenced was obtained from the
City of South Burlington, Vermont Center for Geographic Information, the Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources and VTrans Online Map Center.
2.4 Allen Road Existing Conditions
Allen Road (Figure 2) is classified by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) as an urban
collector with a posted speed limit of 35 MPH and 2012 average annual daily traffic (AADT) of 4,100. It
runs in an east-west direction, connecting Spear Street to the east and US Route 7 to the west. Within
the study area, Allen Road provides two travel lanes. The existing pavement width is 24 feet and the
markings are generally in good condition. Refer to Table 1 for roadway characteristics of Allen Road.
Allen Road at the Spear Street intersection
looking south.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
9
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
10
Allen Road is signalized at the Spear Street
intersection. There are no crosswalk markings
present at this intersection. Spear Street has on-
street marked bicycle facilities and a 10 foot
shared use path on the east side of the road
providing access to the residential development.
Allen Road has an existing 8 foot wide shared use
path with 28 foot wide grass buffer/setback on
the north side of the roadway. The path is
provided for approximately 1,200 feet west of
Baycrest Drive and approximately 165 feet east of
Baycrest Drive.
The intersection with Baycrest Drive is stop-
controlled on the side street approach with
crosswalk markings connecting the two path
segments. The general topography is sloping up
from Baycrest Drive to the Allen Road/Spear
Street intersection at approximately less than 15 percent.
2.4.1 Parcel Data and Property Ownership
The primary parcel data within the study area consists of single family residential. The study will examine
potential alignments within the existing road segment right-of-way, however there are approximately
five (5) separate adjacent property owners that may be impacted.
2.4.2 Natural Resources
Lakes/Ponds/Streams/Rivers
There are no lakes, ponds, streams or rivers located within the study area.
Wetlands
There are no classified wetlands within the study area.
Floodplains
The study area is considered a zone of minimal flood hazard.
Soil Conditions
The study area consists of soils classified as potentially highly erodible. West of Baycrest Drive, hydric
soils have been identified. No roads in the study area are identified as susceptible to road erosion.
Allen Road
Functional classification Urban Collector
Jurisdiction City
Right-of-way width (feet) 65’*
Roadway width (feet) 24’ (11’ travel lanes, 1’ shoulders)
2012 AADT** 4,100
Posted speed limit 35 MPH
*Approximate Right-of-Way
**AADT= Average Annual Daily Traffic
Allen Road looking east.
Table 1: Roadway Characteristics (source: VTrans Route Log Data)
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
11
Agricultural Land
The study area contains prime, statewide and statewide (a) agricultural soils.
Forest Land
No forest lands have been identified within the study area and the majority of the site is classified as
estuarine scrub/shrub wetland.
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species
No rare, threatened or endangered species have been identified within the study area.
2.4.3 Built Environment
Hazardous Waste
There are no parcels containing hazardous waste within the study area.
Utilities
Overhead utility poles are located in the buffer/setback and an existing open drainage swale on the
north side of Allen Road within the study area.
2.4.4 Cultural Resources
Historic
There are no historic sites located within the study area.
Archeological
An Archeological Resource Assessment (ARA) is not being conducted as part of this study and is not
considered to have historic or precontact sensitivity.
Architectural
The building stock located within the study area consists of residential development of the 20th century.
Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties
There are no Section 4(f) or 6(f) properties within the study area.
2.5 Dorset Street Existing Conditions
Dorset Street (Figure 3) is classified by VTrans
as an urban collector with a posted speed limit
of 40 MPH and 2012 AADT of 5,000. It runs in a
north-south direction providing access to
residential developments to the south and City
of Burlington to the north. Within the study
area, Dorset Street provides two travel lanes.
The existing pavement width is 28 feet and the
markings are both generally in good condition.
Refer to Table 2 for roadway characteristics of
Dorset Street.
Dorset Street looking south.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
12
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
13
The intersection of Dorset Street/Old Cross
Road/Nowland Farm Drive is stop-controlled
on Nowland Farm Drive and Old Cross Road.
An existing crosswalk is marked across Dorset
Street on the north side of the intersection,
connecting the existing shared use paths on
both sides of the road. All existing shared use
path segments are 10 feet wide. The existing
crosswalk is emphasized by a Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB) with supplemental
warning sign assemblies. During the time of our
fieldwork, the push button of the RRFB on the
west side of the intersection was not
operational.
There is also currently an 8 foot wide shared
use path from Autumn Hill Road north
approximately 1,000 feet intersecting with the
Dorset Park Recreation Path. Between the
intersection of Dorset Street/Old Cross Road/Nowland Farm Drive and Dorset Park Recreation Path
within the existing right-of-way, a worn path on the east side on the road indicates pedestrian and
bicycle traffic may exist between the two path segments.
A popular destination for pedestrians and bicyclists within the study area is the Mill Market & Deli
property located south of Cedar Mill Drive on the east side of Dorset Street.
2.5.1 Parcel Data and Property Ownership
The primary parcel data within the study area consists of single family residential with the exception of
the Mill Market and Deli property. The study will examine potential alignments within the existing road
segment right-of-way, however there are approximately fifteen (15) separate adjacent property owners
that may be impacted.
2.5.2 Natural Resources
Lakes/Ponds/Streams/Rivers
There are no lakes, ponds, streams or rivers located within the study area.
Wetlands
Class 2 wetlands can be found north of Nowland Farm Drive/Old Cross Road/Dorset Street
Dorset Street
Functional classification Urban Collector
Jurisdiction City
Right-of-way width (feet) 65’*
Roadway width (feet) 28’ (12’ travel lanes, 2’ shoulders)
2012 AADT** 5,000
Posted speed limit 40 MPH
*Approximate Right-of-Way
**AADT= Average Annual Daily Traffic
The intersection of Dorset Street/Old Cross
Road/Nowland Farm Drive looking south.
Table 2: Roadway Characteristics (source: VTrans Route Log Data)
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
14
intersection, as well on the east side of Dorset Street starting approximately 300 feet south of Old
Cross Road and at the intersection of Dorset Street/Hemlock Lane.
Floodplains
The study area is considered a zone of minimal flood hazard.
Soil Conditions
The study area consists of soils classified as potentially highly erodible.
Agricultural Land
Most of the study area contains statewide agricultural soils. No roads in the study area are identified as
susceptible to road erosion.
Forest Land
No forest lands have been identified within the study area. The majority of the site is classified as
estuarine scrub/shrub wetland and developed, low and medium density.
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species
No rare, threatened or endangered species have been identified within the study area.
2.5.3 Built Environment
Hazardous Waste
There are no parcels containing hazardous waste within the study area.
Utilities
Utility poles exist and alternate on both sides of the road corridor. During the day of our fieldwork,
standing water was observed in the open drainage on the east side of Dorset Street from approximately
the Mill Market & Deli to the existing path north of Autumn Hill Road. The Mill Market & Deli property
had standing water in the parking area.
2.5.4 Cultural Resources
Historic
There are no historic sites located within the study area.
Archeological
An Archeological Resource Assessment (ARA) is not being conducted as part of this study and is not
considered to have historic or precontact sensitivity.
Architectural
The building stock located within the study area consists of residential development of the 20th century.
Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties
There are no Section 4(f) or 6(f) properties within the study area.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
15
2.6 Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road Existing Conditions
Airport Parkway (Figure 4) is classified by
VTrans as an urban minor arterial with a
posted speed limit of 25 MPH and 2013 AADT
of 7,400. It generally runs in a north-south
direction providing access to Burlington
International Airport, residential
neighborhoods in South Burlington, and
College Parkway (State Route 15) in the Town
of Colchester. Within the study area, Airport
Parkway provides a travel lane in each
direction. The existing pavement width varies
from 31 to 33 feet wide with constrained
sections reduced to 22 feet wide located north
and south of the intersection of Airport
Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln
Road/Shamrock Road. The markings are
generally in good condition. Refer to Table 3
for roadway characteristics of Airport
Parkway.
An existing 5 foot wide sidewalk with 4 foot buffer segment is provided on the west side of Lime Kiln
Road from the Lime Kiln Bridge south for approximately 1,000 feet. The sidewalk terminates
approximately 100 feet south of an existing residential driveway and directs users to cross Lime Kiln
Road at this location. A ramp and detectable warning panel is present, however no crosswalk markings,
signage or receiving facility on the other side of Lime Kiln Road is provided.
The intersection of Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Shamrock Road is stop-
controlled on Ethan Allen Drive and Shamrock Road. The existing four-leg intersecting road alignment,
geometry and topography result in poor intersection sight distance, which is a safety concern for all
users. The offset geometry of the side streets combined with the curvature of Lime Kiln Road through
the intersection and the island within the intersection result in very confusing intersection operations.
No pedestrian or bicycle accommodations are provided at the intersection.
Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road
Functional classification Urban Minor Arterial
Jurisdiction City
Right-of-way width (feet) 60’*
Roadway width (feet) 31-33’ (15.5’-16.5’ travel lanes)
22’ (11’ travel lanes) constrained
2013 AADT** 7,400
Posted speed limit 25 MPH
*Approximate Right-of-Way
**AADT= Average Annual Daily Traffic
Lime Kiln Road looking south at the terminus of the
existing sidewalk.
Table 3: Roadway Characteristics (source: VTrans Route Log Data)
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
16
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
17
From this intersection traveling south, Lime Kiln
Road becomes Airport Parkway. For
approximately 600 feet, the road has a
constrained width of 22 feet with guardrails on
both sides and steep grade. This segment of
roadway is built up from the adjacent wetlands
with a steep embankment on both sides of the
road.
Additional activities along Airport Parkway
include a sewage treatment facility and a dog
park at the terminus of Kirby Road. An on-going
noise abatement study, funded by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently
underway. Under this study, home acquisition is
a voluntary program.
2.6.1 Parcel Data and Property Ownership
The study area has a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and airport uses along the corridor. The
study will examine potential alignments within the existing road segment right-of-way, however there
are approximately thirty-six (36) separate adjacent property owners that may be impacted.
2.6.2 Natural Resources
Lakes/Ponds/Streams/Rivers
The Winooski River separates the City of South Burlington and Town of Colchester in the study area. A
small lake/pond has been identified between Landfill Road and Airport Parkway.
Wetlands
Class 2 wetlands have been identified on the northside of Airport Parkway at the intersection of
Shamrock Road. The areas south and south west of the Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road and areas
between Shamrock Road/Ethan Allen Drive have been identified as hydric soils within the study area.
Floodplains
Most of the Airport Parkway study area is considered a zone of minimal flood hazard. A small section
east of Shamrock Road is considered to have 0.2% annual chance of flood hazard.
Soil Conditions
The study area consists of soils classified as not highly erodible near the airport parcel and potentially
highly erodible outside the airport parcel.
Agricultural Land
Most of the study area is identified as statewide, statewide (b) and prime agricultural land. No roads in
the study area are identified as susceptible to road erosion.
Forest Land
No forest lands have been identified within the study area and the majority of the site is classified as
developed, open space and developed, medium and high density.
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species
A habitat block has been identified to the north of Berard Drive and Airport Parkway intersection which
also contained identified state-endangered species. Rare species have also been identified from
Intersection of Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen
Drive/Shamrock Road/Lime Kiln Road looking north.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
18
approximately the intersection of Ethan Allen Drive and Airport Parkway in the study area north until
the Winooski River.
2.6.3 Built Environment
Hazardous Waste
The parcel containing 700 and 1205 Airport Parkway is noted as a hazardous waste site.
Utilities
Utility poles exist and alternate on both sides of the road corridor within the study area. Located on the
south side of the road there was observed to be an underground utility vault structure that may
potentially connect to existing drainage structures within Airport parkway.
2.6.4. Cultural Resources
Historic
There are no historic sites located within the study area.
Archeological
An Archeological Resource Assessment (ARA) is not being conducted as part of this study and is not
considered to have historic or precontact sensitivity.
Architectural
The building stock located within the study area consists of residential development, commercial and
light industrial development of the 20th century.
Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties
There are no Section 4(f) or 6(f) properties within the study area.
2.7 Spear Street Existing Conditions
Spear Street (Figure 5) is classified by VTrans as an urban minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 25
MPH and has a 2013 AADT of 5,600. It runs in a north-south direction providing access to residential
developments, City of Burlington to the north, and the University of Vermont (UVM) campus
immediately adjacent on the west side. Within the study area, Spear Street provides two travel lanes.
The existing pavement width is 28 feet and the markings are generally in good condition. Refer to Table
4 for roadway characteristics of Spear Street.
Spear Street
Functional classification Urban Minor Arterial
Jurisdiction City
Right-of-way width (feet) 65’*
Roadway width (feet) 28’ (12’ travel lanes, 2’ shoulders)
2013 AADT** 5,600
Posted speed limit 25 MPH
*Approximate Right-of-Way
**AADT= Average Annual Daily Traffic
Table 4: Roadway Characteristics (source: VTrans Route Log Data)
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
19
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
20
At the south end of the project study area
exists the South Burlington Recreation Path.
This shared use path borders the UVM
campus, terminating at Spear Street on the
west side. An existing natural surface
sidewalk on the east side connects the South
Burlington Recreation Path to Davis Road. A
midblock crossing with supplemental RRFBs
at the Davis Road/Spear Street intersection is
provided. This crossing connects with a
paved sidewalk that provides access to and
from UVM campus to the East Terrace
neighborhood.
A short segment of sidewalk is provided on
the west side from the PFG Road/Spear
Street intersection north for approximately
175 feet. Another crosswalk is provided
crossing Spear Street at the termination of this sidewalk segment. The crossing is also supplemented
with two RRFBs. Crossing to the east side, a wide paved shoulder is provided, however there is no
vertical curbing provided for separation. The large pavement area acts as two slip lanes as vehicles
approach the jug handle.
2.7.1 Parcel Data and Property Ownership
The study area site consists of the UVM campus to the west and single family residential on the east
side. The study will examine potential alignments within the existing road segment right-of-way,
however there are approximately twenty-three (23) separate adjacent property owners that may be
impacted.
2.7.2 Natural Resources
Lakes/Ponds/Streams/Rivers
There are no lakes, ponds, streams or rivers located within the study area.
Wetlands
There are no wetlands identified within the study area.
Davis Road at Spear Street looking north.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
21
Floodplains
The study area is considered a zone of
minimal flood hazard.
Soil Conditions
The study area consists of soils classified as
potentially highly erodible.
Agricultural Land
Statewide and statewide (b) agricultural lands
have been identified within the study area.
No roads in the study area are identified as
susceptible to road erosion.
Forest Land
No forest lands have been identified within
the study area and the majority of the site is
classified as high density, developed.
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species
No rare, threatened or endangered species
have been identified within the study area.
2.7.3 Built Environment
Hazardous Waste
The parcel containing 82 Spear Street is noted as a hazardous waste site.
Utilities
Utility poles exist primarily on the east side and an open drainage swale exists on the west side within
the study area. The overhead utility poles measure approximately 7 feet from the edge of existing
pavement. During the day of our fieldwork, standing water was observed in the open drainage swale.
2.7.4 Cultural Resources
Historic
There are no historic sites located within the study area.
Archeological
An Archeological Resource Assessment (ARA) is not being conducted as part of this study and is not
considered to have historic or precontact sensitivity.
Architectural
The building stock located within the study area consists of residential development of the 20th century
and contemporary institutional buildings.
Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties
There are no Section 4(f) or 6(f) properties within the study area.
Spear Street looking south.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
22
3.0 Concept Alternatives Analysis
3.1 Project Purpose and Need
Purpose: The purpose of the South Burlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study is to provide
analysis, evaluation, and recommendations for pedestrian and bicyclist facilities at the four (4) study
areas previously discussed.
Need: Specifically, this feasibility study is needed to:
Create a preferred alternative for walking and bicycling on Allen Road, Dorset Street,
Airport Parkway, and Spear Street corridors within the identified study areas.
Maximize safety for users walking and bicycling in these corridors.
Support future connections in the City of South Burlington.
Provide an estimate of probable construction costs for the preferred alternatives to
serve as a basis for the City to apply for grant applications.
The following sections provide further comparison for each conceptual alternative including an analysis,
evaluation, and selection of the preferred concept alternative with an evaluation matrix and opinion of
probable constructions costs.
3.2 Allen Road Concept Alternatives
3.2.1 Evaluation of Concept Alternatives
The proposed alternatives studied include a 10 foot wide bituminous concrete shared use path with a
varying grass buffer on the north side of Allen Road. The proposed shared use path segment would
connect an approximate 800 foot gap between the existing path on Allen Road and Spear Street. Shared
use path Alternative 1 maintains the existing 10 foot wide path alignment that appears to be outside of
the existing Allen Road right-of-way. Shared use path Alternative 2 shifts the majority of the proposed
path connection within the existing Allen Road right-of-way. Additional improvements for each
alternative include;
Providing a 6 foot sidewalk segment to connect an approximate 150 foot sidewalk gap between
Allen Road East and Spear Street on the south side of Allen Road East (optional);
Providing ADA-compliant ramps and crosswalk pavement markings across intersecting roadway
segments;
Extending the existing sidewalk on the south side of Allen Road East approximately 150 linear
feet to the intersection of Spear Street (optional);
Providing pedestrian signal heads and accessible push buttons on the existing signal poles at the
signalized intersection of Allen Road and Spear Street;
Providing centerline pavement markings on the proposed shared use path to indicate directional
separation (optional);
o Additional compliant warning signage to alert users of changes in slope; and
o Additional optional signage reminding users of proper path etiquette, such as announcing
when engaging in a passing maneuvers may further assist in reducing conflicts;
Providing landscape tree plantings as approved by the City; and
Reconstructing two driveway aprons to accommodate the shared use path.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
23
3.2.2 Preferred Concept Alternative
Evaluating design impacts, input from public involvement through workshops, presentations, and
meetings; Alternative 1 has been identified and supported by the Planning Commission as the
recommended preferred alternative for Allen Road. The preferred alternative maintains the same
general alignment and setback from the edge of pavement as the existing path on Allen Road. This wide
buffer provides an increased setback to increase the comfort level of pedestrians and bicyclists from
motor vehicle traffic. Alternative 1 also minimizes impacts to existing open drainage systems and existing
utility structures. Refer to Figure 2 for the preferred concept alternative cross section. Further
coordination and property acquisition will be required if the City selects this concept alternative for
implementation.
3.2.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
The opinion of probable construction costs for the Allen Road project study area is $310,000. The cost
estimate was developed from the preferred concept alternative plans and account for the anticipated
construction costs which include engineering, construction, construction administration, and a 20%
contingency. The cost estimate does not include potential environmental permitting, easement or
property acquisition. For the purposes of this study and in coordination with the City of South
Burlington, it was anticipated $10,000 per parcel would be used for right-of-way acquisition costs.
Alternative 1 assumes three parcels would need to be acquired for this shared use path alignment.
3.2.4 Evaluation Matrix
All of the anticipated costs, resource impacts, and permit requirements for Allen Road Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 have been summarized in the evaluation matrix below in Table 5.
Figure 2: Allen Road preferred cross section looking west.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
24
Item
Alternative 1 (Outside Right-of-
Way)
Alternative 2 (Inside Right-of-
Way)
Construction Characteristics
Facility Length 850 LF 860 LF
Facility Width 10 FT 10 FT
Buffer Width 24 FT 5 FT
Proposed Surface Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete
Terrain Rolling natural slopes Rolling natural slopes
Potential Impacts
Agricultural Lands None, Previously Disturbed None, Previously Disturbed
Archeological Impacts None None
Class 2 Wetland Impacts None None
Floodplain None None
Historic Property Impacts None None
Rare, Threatened, Endangered None None
Right-of-Way Impacts Yes Temporary Easements Required
Trees- Removed/Replaced Yes Yes
Utility Impacts- Aerial None Yes
Utility Impacts- Underground None None
Permits
ACT 250 No No
401 Water Quality No No
NEPA Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion
404 Corps of Engineer Permit No No
ANR Wetlands No No
Stream Alteration No No
Conditional Use Determination No No
Stormwater Discharge No, construction <1 acre No, construction <1 acre
Shoreland Encroachment No No
Archeological- Phase 1B No No
Section 106 / Historic No No
VTRANS Access Permit No No
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs*
Conceptual Cost Estimate $310,000 $290,000
*Refer to Appendix C- Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for detailed breakdown of unit costs.
Table 5: Allen Road Evaluation Matrix; Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
25
3.3 Dorset Street Concept Alternatives
3.3.1 Evaluation of Concept Alternatives
The proposed alternative studied includes a10 foot wide bituminous concrete shared use path with a
varying grass buffer on the east side of Dorset Street. A constrained section of the shared use path will
need to be reduced to 8 feet wide. The proposed shared use path segment would connect an
approximate 3,500 foot gap between the existing paths on Dorset Street. There are existing 10 foot
shared use paths also present on Nowland Farm Drive and Old Cross Road, connecting with the Dorset
Street intersection. Shared use path Alternative 1 utilizes the existing Dorset Street right-of-way for a
proposed path connection. During the analysis of conceptual alternatives, the PSC identified a path on
the east side would provide enhanced connectivity to adjacent facilities and also increased benefits to
users, thus a second alternative was not studied. Additional improvements for Alternative 1 include;
Providing ADA-compliant ramps and crosswalk pavement markings across intersecting roadway
segments;
Providing centerline pavement markings on the proposed shared use path to indicate directional
separation (optional);
o Additional compliant warning signage to alert users of changes in slope; and
o Additional optional signage reminding users of proper path etiquette, such as announcing
when engaging in a passing maneuver may further assist in reducing conflicts;
Implementing access management techniques to remove unwarranted driveways entering or
exiting for the Mill Market & Deli property (optional);
o Providing curb radii reductions for the entrance and exit driveways at the Mill Market &
Deli reducing the shared use path crossing distances and increasing visibility for all users;
Constructing a retaining wall approximately 300 feet south of the Old Cross Road/Nowland
Road intersection;
Implementing a lane diet- reducing the travel lane widths to 10 feet and providing 4 foot
shoulders;
Providing landscape tree plantings as approved by the City; and
Reconstructing eleven driveway aprons to accommodate the shared use path.
3.3.2 Preferred Concept Alternative
Evaluating design impacts, input from public involvement through workshops, presentations, and
meetings; Alternative 1 has been identified and supported by the Planning Commission as the
recommended preferred alternative for Dorset Street. The preferred alternative would replace the
existing desire line identified during field visits and concept development. During the analysis, it also
became apparent a dedicated walking and bicycling facility would provide greater connectivity to
destinations along the east side of Dorset Street, as well as better connect users to existing shared use
path facilities on the east side. Refer to Figure 3 for the preferred concept alternative cross section.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
26
3.3.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
The opinion of probable construction costs for the Dorset Street project study area is $610,000. The
cost estimate was developed from the preferred concept alternative plans and account for the
anticipated construction costs which include engineering, construction, construction administration, and
a 20% contingency. The cost estimate does not include potential environmental permitting, easement or
property acquisition.
3.3.4 Evaluation Matrix
All of the anticipated costs, resource impacts, and permit requirements for Dorset Street Alternative 1
and a No-Build alternative have been summarized in the evaluation matrix below in Table 6.
Figure 3: Dorset Street preferred cross section looking north.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
27
Item Alternative 1 No-Build Alternative
Construction Characteristics
Facility Length 3,350 LF 0 LF
Facility Width 8-10 FT 0 FT
Buffer Width Varies 3-5 FT 0 FT
Proposed Surface Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete
Terrain Rolling natural slopes Rolling natural slopes
Retaining Wall Yes No
Potential Impacts
Agricultural Lands None, Previously Disturbed None
Archeological Impacts None None
Class 2 Wetland Impacts None None
Floodplain None None
Historic Property Impacts None None
Rare, Threatened, Endangered None None
Right-of-Way Impacts Temporary Easements Required None
Trees- Removed/Replaced Yes None
Utility Impacts- Aerial Yes None
Utility Impacts- Underground None None
Permits
ACT 250 No No
401 Water Quality No No
NEPA Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion
404 Corps of Engineer Permit No No
ANR Wetlands No No
Stream Alteration No No
Conditional Use Determination No No
Stormwater Discharge Yes, construction >1 acre No
Shoreland Encroachment No No
Archeological- Phase 1B No No
Section 106 / Historic No No
VTRANS Access Permit No No
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs*
Conceptual Cost Estimate $610,000 $0
Table 6: Dorset Street Evaluation Matrix; Alternative 1 and No-Build Alternative
*Refer to Appendix C- Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for detailed breakdown of unit costs.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
28
3.4 Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road Concept Alternatives
3.4.1 Evaluation of Concept Alternatives
Two alternatives were studied as part of the Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road project study area. The
proposed alternatives both include a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk with granite curbing with a varying
grass buffer on the Airport side of Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road. The proposed alternatives also
looked at creating a lane diet by reallocating excessive travel lane width to introduce bicycle lanes for
the majority of the project study area. In order to accommodate the proposed concrete sidewalk and
on-road bicycle facilities, Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road would need to be widened by approximately
8-10 feet for a distance of approximately 1,000 linear feet west of Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive
intersection and approximately 850 linear feet east of Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive intersection.
The alternatives also identified alignment and geometry recommendation improvements to the four-leg
Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Shamrock Road intersection. Alternative 1 proposes
converting this intersection into a modern roundabout which would also include dedicated pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. Studies have shown that roundabouts can be more safe than traditional stop sign or
signal-controlled intersections. In addition, roundabouts actually move traffic through an intersection
more quickly and promote a continuous flow of traffic.
Alternative 2 proposes realigning Ethan Allen Drive to terminate at Shamrock Road at a 90 degree angle
and would be stop-controlled on Ethan Allen Drive. Shamrock Road would also be realigned to
terminate at Airport Parkway at a 90 degree angle and would be stop-controlled on Shamrock Road.
The sidewalk and bicycle facilities would be maintained through the intersection on Airport
Parkway/Lime Kiln Road. Additional improvements for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 include;
Providing ADA-compliant ramps and crosswalk pavement markings across intersecting roadway
segments;
Constructing a retaining wall approximately 800 feet north of the Airport Parkway/Kirby Road
intersection;
Installing two crosswalks with ADA-compliant ramps crossing Lime Kiln Road with Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) warning signage;
o One at approximately 418 Lime Kiln Road; and
o One at approximately 303 Lime Kiln Road;
Providing landscape tree plantings as approved by the City; and
Reconstructing five driveway aprons to accommodate the sidewalk facility.
3.4.2 Preferred Concept Alternative
Evaluating design impacts, input from public involvement through workshops, presentations, and
meetings; Alternative 1 has been identified and supported by the Planning Commission as the
recommended preferred alternative for Airport Parkway. Due to the existing geometry and unique road
angles for the Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Shamrock Road intersection, a
modern roundabout design would be less expensive than realigning the road geometry to a stop-control
condition. A roundabout would likely reduce overall delay, improve traffic flow, and increase safety for
all modes of transportation for this intersection. Modern roundabouts also are designed so vehicles are
moving at a slower rate of speed. Refer to Figure 4 for the preferred concept alternative cross section
and refer to Figure 5 for the preferred concept modern roundabout plan.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
29
3.4.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
The opinion of probable construction costs for Airport Parkway Alternative 1 is $2,600,000 and
Alternative 2 is $2,810,000. Alternative 2 has a higher anticipated construction cost due in part from the
modified road geometry and site topography of Ethan Allen Road and Shamrock Road. At the request of
the City, the Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Shamrock intersection treatments for
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were further broken out to identify only these intersection
improvements. The opinion of probable construction costs for Alternative 1 intersection improvements
are approximately $750,000. The opinion of probable construction costs for Alternative 2 intersection
improvements are approximately $950,000.
The cost estimates were developed from the preferred concept alternative plans and account for the
anticipated construction costs which include engineering, construction, construction administration, and
a 20% contingency. The cost estimates do not include potential environmental permitting, easement or
property acquisition. For the purposes of this study and in coordination with the City of South
Burlington, it was anticipated $10,000 per parcel would be used for right-of-way acquisition costs.
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 assume two parcels would need to be acquired for each concept.
Figure 4: Airport Parkway preferred cross section looking north between Kirby Road and Berard Drive.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
30
3.4.4 Evaluation Matrix
All of the anticipated costs, resource impacts, and permit requirements for Airport Parkway Alternative
1 and Alternative 2 have been summarized in the evaluation matrix below in Table 7.
Figure 5: Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Shamrock Road modern roundabout
preferred concept plan.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
31
Item Alternative 1 (Roundabout) Alternative 2 (Stop Control)
Construction Characteristics
Pedestrian Facility Length 7,000 LF 7,000 LF
Bicycle Facility Length 7,000 LF 7,000 LF
Pedestrian Facility Width 6 FT 6 FT
Bicycle Facility Width 5-6 FT 5-6 FT
Vertical Curbing Yes Yes
Retaining Wall Yes Yes
Proposed Surface Bituminous Concrete/Concrete Bituminous Concrete/Concrete
Terrain Rolling natural slopes Rolling natural slopes
Potential Impacts
Agricultural Lands None, Previously Disturbed None, Previously Disturbed
Archeological Impacts None None
Class 2 Wetland Impacts None None
Floodplain None None
Historic Property Impacts None None
Rare, Threatened, Endangered None None
Right-of-Way Impacts Yes (Modern Roundabout) Yes (Roadway Realignment)
Trees- Removed/Replaced Yes Yes
Utility Impacts- Aerial None None
Utility Impacts- Underground Yes Yes
Permits
ACT 250 No No
401 Water Quality No No
NEPA Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion
404 Corps of Engineer Permit No No
ANR Wetlands No No
Stream Alteration No No
Conditional Use Determination No No
Stormwater Discharge Yes, construction >1 acre Yes, construction >1 acre
Shoreland Encroachment No No
Archeological- Phase 1B No No
Section 106 / Historic No No
VTRANS Access Permit No No
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs*
Conceptual Cost Estimate $2,600,000 $2,810,000
Table 7: Airport Parkway Evaluation Matrix; Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
*Refer to Appendix C- Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for detailed breakdown of unit costs.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
32
3.5 Spear Street Concept Alternatives
3.5.1 Evaluation of Concept Alternatives
Three alternatives were studied as part of the Spear Street project study area. Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 include a 6 foot sidewalk facility on the east side of Spear Street connecting with existing
sidewalks in the jug handle area and East Terrace neighborhood. The sidewalk alignment for Alternative
1 is located on the west side of the existing utility poles and the sidewalk alignment for Alternative 2 is
located on the east side of the existing utility poles. Due to the relative close proximity of the sidewalk
layout to the edge of pavement, Alternative 1 utilizes vertical curbing to establish physical separation
from pedestrians and vehicles continuing around the jug handle to East Terrace. Alternative 2 provides
an approximate 7 foot buffer between the edge of pavement and proposed sidewalk facility alignment
continuing around the jug handle to East Terrace. This wide buffer eliminates the use of vertical curbing
and the sidewalk would remain flush with the approximate roadway grade. Also as part of Alternative 1
and Alternative 2 is a proposed shared use path on the west side of Spear Street from PFG Road to US
Route 2. Alternative 3 includes a shared use path facility on the west side of Spear Street for the entire
project study area. The west side of the Spear Street corridor does have physical site constraints
including potential additional engineering to address the relatively steep slopes between the edge of
pavement and UVM property. This alignment may also impact the existing mature trees along the natural
surface walk between Davis Road and the South Burlington Recreation Path. Since the alignment of
Alternative 3 would cover the existing open drainage system on the west side of Spear Street,
subsurface drainage and stormwater improvements would need to be implemented for this alternative.
Additional improvements for Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 include;
Providing ADA-compliant ramps and crosswalk pavement markings across intersecting roadway
segments;
Providing centerline pavement markings on the proposed shared use path to indicate directional
separation (optional);
o Additional optional signage reminding users of proper path etiquette, such as announcing
when engaging in a passing maneuver may further assist in reducing conflicts;
Constructing a retaining wall approximately 800 feet north of the Spear Street/Davis Road
intersection (limited to Alternative 3 only);
Installing crosswalk pavement markings with ADA-compliant ramps crossing Spear Street in the
location of the S Burlington Recreation Path with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
warning signage;
Implementing a curb radius reduction for the UVM entrance road;
Providing landscape tree plantings as approved by the City; and
Reconstructing 20 driveway aprons to accommodate the sidewalk facility.
3.5.2 Preferred Concept Alternative
Evaluating design impacts, input from public involvement through workshops, coordination with UVM
Campus Planning Services, presentations, and meetings; Alternative 2 has been identified and supported
by the Planning Commission as the recommended preferred alternative for Spear Street. Alternative 3
has been identified as the medium to long term conceptual alternative for the project study area. Refer
to Figure 6 and Figure 7 for the preferred concept alternative cross sections.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
33
3.5.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
The opinion of probable construction costs for Spear Street Alternative 1 is $732,000, Alternative 2 is
$490,000, and Alternative 3 is $711,000. Alternative 1 anticipated construction costs are higher because
of the vertical granite curbing. Alternative 3 anticipated construction costs are higher because of both
retaining wall feature and a closed drainage system. At the request of the City, the Jug Handle
treatments for Alternative 2 were further broken out to identify only these segment improvements. The
opinion of probable construction costs for Alternative 2 Jug Handle segment improvements are
approximately $120,000.
The cost estimate was developed from the preferred concept alternative plans and account for the
anticipated construction costs which include engineering, construction, construction administration, and
a 20% contingency. The cost estimate does not include potential environmental permitting, easement or
property acquisition.
3.5.4 Evaluation Matrix
All of the anticipated costs, resource impacts, and permit requirements for Spear Street Alternative 1,
Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 have been summarized in the evaluation matrix below in Table 8.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
34
Figure 7: Spear Street shared use path facility preferred cross section looking north.
Figure 6: Spear Street sidewalk facility preferred cross section looking north.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
35
Item Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Construction Characteristics
Pedestrian Facility Length 2,000 LF 2,000 LF 400 LF
Bicycle Facility Length 1,200 LF 1,200 LF 2,100 LF
Pedestrian Facility Width 6 FT 6 FT 6 FT
Bicycle Facility Width 11 FT 11 FT 11 FT
Pedestrian Facility Surface Concrete Concrete Concrete
Bicycle Facility Surface Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete
Vertical Curbing Yes No Yes
Retaining Wall No No Yes
Terrain Generally, Flat Generally, Flat Generally, Flat
Potential Impacts
Agricultural Lands None None None
Archeological Impacts None None None
Class 2 Wetland Impacts None None None
Floodplain None None None
Historic Property Impacts None None None
Rare, Threatened, Endangered Yes Yes Yes
Right-of-Way Impacts Yes Yes Yes
Trees- Removed/Replaced Yes Yes Yes
Utility Impacts- Aerial None None None
Utility Impacts- Underground None None Yes
Permits
ACT 250 No No No
401 Water Quality No No No
NEPA Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion
404 Corps of Engineer Permit No No No
ANR Wetlands No No No
Stream Alteration No No No
Conditional Use
Determination No No No
Stormwater Discharge
No, construction <1
acre
No, construction <1
acre
No, construction <1
acre
Shoreland Encroachment No No No
Archeological- Phase 1B No No No
Section 106 / Historic No No No
VTRANS Access Permit No No No
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs*
Conceptual Cost Estimate $732,000 $490,000 $711,000
Table 7: Spear Street Evaluation Matrix; Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3
*Refer to Appendix C- Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for detailed breakdown of unit costs.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
36
4.0 Project Summary
4.1 Conclusion
The South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study was prepared at the request of the
CCRPC and the City of South Burlington to analyze and evaluate all concept alternatives for sidewalk
and shared use path connections. This report presents the existing conditions data, conceptual design
alternatives, selection of the preferred conceptual design alternative, and opinion of probable
construction costs for each project study area. At the conclusion of the public participation and
outreach process, in which the findings of this report were presented and reviewed, the South
Burlington Planning Commission approved the preferred design alternatives identified in this report.
The South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study is an important step in advancing a
more walkable, bikeable, and vibrant community. The process which crafted this document is only the
beginning and the conversation must continue to real project implementation. It is worth noting for
project implementation, individual recommendations may be broken out as smaller projects separate
from the entire preferred design alternative project. It’s recommended the City collaborate with the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee to develop an action plan that identifies potential project timeframes
for the recommended improvements. This may be advantageous from a development, funding, and
phasing implementation perspective.
The proposed recommendations and preferred design alternatives align with the transportation goals in
the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, 2016 and will continue to develop walking and bicycling
infrastructure within the community.