Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 08/14/2019 Bike & Pedestrian Committee Meeting Agenda August 14, 2019 5:30 p.m. South Burlington City Hall, Champlain Room 575 Dorset Street 1. Welcome and emergency evacuation procedures (5:30 p.m. - 5min) 2. Changes or additions to the agenda (5:35 p.m. - 5min) 3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda (5:40 p.m. - 5min) 4. Consideration of minutes - see SBBPC Mintues 07-10-19_DRAFT (5:45 p.m - 5min) a. Objective: Motion to adopt final draft of July minutes 5. Minor - Kimball/Community/Greggory Intersection - Cathy (5:50 p.m. - 10min) a. Objective: Official committee comment on design preference for DRB 8/20/19 6. Major - Updates from the City - Ashley (6:00 p.m. - 15min) a. New Agenda b. Laserfiche 7. Major - VT Way to Go Schools Presentation - Deb Sachs (6:15 p.m. - 25min) a. Objective: Motion to add Way to Go Schools to the committee priorities b. Objective: Motion to create a subgroup to work on Way to Go Schools 8. Major - FY19 Annual Report & FY20 Work Plan - Shawn & Bill (6:40 p.m. - 20min) a. Objective: Motion to approve final version to submit to the City on 8/16 9. Minor - September Symposium Presentation & Poster - Group (7:00 p.m. - 10min) a. Objective: Identify sub-group(s) to develop materials for Committee Symposium on 9/26 10. Minor - CIP Updates - Submitted by Bob (7:10 p.m. - 10min) a. Objective: Motion to approve final recommendations on CIP updates to the City 11. Minor - Proposed Agenda Format Changes - Shawn (7:20 p.m. - 10min) a. Objective: Review & informal approval on new proposed format 12. Updates: Ongoing Committee Work (7:30pm - 25min) a. Update: P4P Project Updates - Ashley b. Update: Monthly DPW meeting - Shawn c. Update: CCRPC Update - Amanda & Donna d. Update: Interim Zoning - Amanda & Donna e. Update: DRB Update - Cathy & Shawn f. Update: Article on bike boxes - Cathy g. Update: General Business - Shawn 13. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, September 11, 2019 (7:55 p.m.) 14. Adjourn (8:00 p.m.) Bike & Pedestrian Committee - Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2019 @ 5:30 pm Meeting Location: South Burlington City Hall, Champlain Room 575 Dorset Street Members Present: Dana Farr (Chair), Cathy Frank (Vice Chair), Shawn Goddard (Clerk), Amanda Holland, Donna Leban, Bob Britt, Havaleh Gagne, Nic Anderson Members Absent: Bill Wooden (Co-Clerk) City Representative: Ashley Parker, Project Manager Also Present: Coralee Holm (South Burlington Director of Community Engagement & Innovations), Kevin Dorn (South Burlington City Manager), Sue Fletcher Meeting documents are in the folder named: 7. July 2019 & updates can be found in the Talking Points July 2019 document. For homework, see the Homework Report 2019. Meeting began at: 5:30pm. 1. Dana welcomed everyone and gave directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Changes or additions to the agenda ■ Bob added - City ordinances ■ Bob added - Bike/Ped & DPW ride (added to DPW meeting section) 3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda ■ Kevin Dorn - Spoke to the committee about a concerning email that he saw from someone on the committee to Ashley. He reminded us that Ashley is a liason, not a scribe or assistant to the committee. She works for the City and for Kevin, not for the committee. He reiterated that the city and he appreciates the committees work, but that we all must maintain a sense of professionalism and respect. She has limited bandwidth and a lot of other responsibilities. We must respect that and ensure that we try to maintain the highest level of professionalism and respect. 1. Nic asked about a Liaison role definition. Coralee reviewed this - Details under item #7 below. 4. Consideration of minutes from the previous meeting(s) ■ Cathy moved that we approve ■ Donna seconded ■ All were in favor 5. Discussion: Welcome new members ■ Havaleh Gagne ■ Nic Anderson 6. Discussion: Open Meeting Law - Ashley ■ Quorum = ½ committee +1 (currently that means 5 or more) ■ Any meeting/discussion that contains a quorum must be announced/warned the Thursday before the meeting. ■ Minutes must be posted within 5 calendar days of the meeting ■ Public has the right to see all documents and attend any meetings (w/a quorum). ■ Social media - can’t have these accounts because they can facilitate group discussions. 1. Dana reported that we have a FB and Twitter account that we don’t use. Cathy recommended that we delete these entirely. We did not identify who would do this - added to homework. ■ Email: 1. Can send FYI type of things to the full committee 2. If you’re communicating with a smaller work group (not over the 50%+1) you can collaborate over email or meet without the meetings being warned. ■ Ashley posted a video in the New Member Materials folder which we should all watch. 7. Report & Discussion: Google drive, City website, etc… - Coralee Holm ■ Liaison role key points: 1. Ensures meeting & record keeping is consistent with laws 2. Serves as a communication link between committee & city 3. Provide professional guidance, issue analysis, and recommendations 4. Assist the committee with research, report preparation, and correspondence that falls under the committee’s annual work plan. 5. Assistance must fit within the liaison’s workload and time available. 6. Present committee recommendations to City Council 7. Assist the committee in staying on track & focused 8. Maintain positive working relationship with committee 9. Liasons do not work for or at the direction of the committee...they work with us. ■ Shawn asked that the Committee Leadership Workshop - May 2019 powerpoint document be shared with the committee. Ashley will do that. ■ September 26th (Thursday) - All Committee Symposium 1. Area for exhibits/posters - showcase what we’re working on. a. They’ll give us a formatting template soon. 2. Speed briefing with the City Council 3. Work due prior to symposium: a. Annual Report - due August 16th b. Work plan for FY20 - due August 16th 4. Formal agenda will be coming out ■ Website: 1. Reminded us that our page on the City website is the only place that we can officially share information. 2. We can add content to our page, but it has to be on our page on the City website. 3. Cathy asked about making our page more prominent vs having to access it through the Parks & Rec pages. a. Coralee is very open to making updates - we should work through Ashley b. Articles/content can be posted on the front page - just send it to her. c. Images are not only allowed, but encouraged. 4. Nic is interested in working with Coralee to add some of the content that he wants posted (along the lines of the sample website he created) 5. Nic asked about a subdomain or alias (e.g. southburlington/bike) that can be used to get to our page. a. Coralee will ask the vendor about that idea. 6. Bob asked about the Localmotion webpage. a. That’s their website and it can link to our city webpage, but it can’t be how we communicate official committee business. b. That webpage is also linked on the South Burlington website 7. Donna asked about maps a. There is a link for maps and we can add more as we develop them. 8. Sue Fletcher said that she works with IT and web programming and she struggled to find the committee webpage. a. She also suggested more content posted regularly - the latest news posted on the front page is almost a month old currently. 9. Dana asked about whether the site would be made more mobile friendly. a. That was the intention and the site is supposed to be mobile friendly, but at this point we’re somewhat limited to the specific vendor we have contracted with. i. Coralee is working with the company on doing a revision to make it more user friendly. Please provide her feedback so she can include that in her discussions with the vendor on the revision. 10. Bob asked about reporting a maintenance issue - he asked for the # of characters that can be entered to be expanded (currently very restrictive in “Location of the Issue” & “Tell us what the issue is”). Coralee will look into that. a. Nic mentioned that the field labeled “Name” isn’t clear - please change to “Your Name” 11. Coralee mentioned that the city has invested in a company called Laserfiche to manage the committee and city documentation and the intention is to have all content (minutes, permits, all city documents) available digitally. a. They are scanning in all of the City documents. b. Link to this new site c. Bike/ped minutes page ■ Coralee reported that the City is developing a new Google Drive space as well as a new system for digital document storage. 1. Will be the repository for all committee documents 2. NOT to be used as a forum for discussion or for the committee to collectively edit/create a document. a. Example: Can’t create a meeting agenda on the Google Drive & have a quorum building it on the drive space. i. Technically if we only have a small # (e.g. 3 members) we can do this, but it’s easy to slip and have documents that we collectively work on. ii. Talking points is an example of a broad collaboration that technically violates the rules. b. Best practice is for it to be used as a repository only 3. Example of how the City envisions this working is the City Council Agendas & Minutes page. 4. Shawn asked for a flow chart or high-level visualization that allows people to better understand how all this fits together. 5. Amanda asked about a system/tools that we can use so that everyone has visibility to current status, which actions have been closed, which are still due, etc. 6. Committee all had a lot of questions and definitely wants more work/guidance on this. ■ The committee and Coralee discussed the need for us to copy Ashley on committee communications to other City staff. 1. This includes articles, images, or other updates for the website. 2. This includes scheduling of meetings, reporting of issues, or other committee requests. 3. This also includes submissions to The Other Paper. 4. If the communication is not committee business, Ashley doesn’t have to be copied. a. Ashley will inform us if we’re “over sharing” with her. 8. Report & Discussion: Updates from the City - Ashley ■ Ben is still looking for leader & sweeper for the SOBU Family Bike rides. Please email him if anyone has availability. 1. It would be great to have Bike/Ped representation on all the rides if possible. 2. August 4th - Shawn & Bob 3. August 18th - 4. September 1st - Havelah &... 5. September 15th - Bob & Nic ■ Ilona Blanchard is still working on the I89 bike/ped bridge Grant and needs a recommendation letter from the Bike/Ped Committee - Cathy volunteered. 1. Bob moved to have Cathy write the letter on behalf of the committee 2. Amanda seconded 3. All approved ■ Ashley reminded us to use the Consensus App to interface with the City. 1. Feedback to Coralee a. How do we setup to get notifications when new questions are posted? b. If the response choices are too many words the text goes off the screen rather than wrapping. i. Coralee asked for feedback of this kind on future issues/suggestions. 1. Must be email to Coralee - no current option for feedback in the App ii. Coralee also wants our input on new questions related to bike/ped 2. Nic suggested some of the questions raised more questions, so drilling down on the answers or asking more precise questions that lead to actionable answers on the first round. 3. Cathy asked about the personal information required - seems like it’s too much. Coralee reported that these “asks” have been updated to reduce the personal info they ask for. ■ New logo developed for Penny For Paths projects 1. Nic asked where does #SOBU get us? Should work within Twitter and Facebook. 2. Committee agreed the logo looks great a. Wanted to be able to add to the logo for specific applications, like: i. Coming soon… ii. Paid for by… 9. Report & Discussion: Annual Work Plan & Report - Bill & Shawn ■ Shawn is putting this together - needs input from committee members on work done in the 1st-half of this year that should be included. ■ Plan to present the draft at next month’s meeting & then it needs to be submitted to the City 2 days after (not a lot of time to revise) 10. City Ordinances (added) - Bob ■ New parking ordinance ■ New traffic ordinance 11.Updates: Ongoing Committee Work ■ NOTE - Cathy suggested that our agendas are always too long and suggested we take this section out of the official agenda unless there’s a specific topic that requires an update. 1. Dana said that this was added because the committee was running out of time so they placed it on the agenda. Hasn’t worked great. 2. Shawn asked about elevating anything that needs discussion to an actual agenda item & leaving it off if not. 3. Ashley reported that other committees call this section Member & Staff Reports. a. They spend very little time on this section. b. Review: Homework Review - Dana c. Update: P4P Project Updates - Ashley d. Update: Policy and Safety Recommendations Update - Bob e. Update: Monthly DPW meeting - Bob & Shawn ■ Notes from the July meeting posted f. Update: CCRPC Update - Amanda & Donna g. Update: Interim Zoning - Amanda & Donna h. Update: DRB Update - Cathy & Shawn i. Update: General Business - Dana 12. Elections: Election of new officers: ■ Can do a 1yr rotation - we have to do annual elections anyway, so there’s always the opportunity to step down even if we don’t do a formal rotation. ■ Dana nominated Shawn as Chair, Nic seconded - All in favor ■ Bob nominated Cathy as Vice Chair, Dana seconded - All in favor ■ Shawn nominated Bill as Clerk, Dana seconded - All in favor 13. Ashley reviewed homework for next meeting - Not done ■ Homework/actions pulled together after the meeting from the minutes. 14. Confirmation that the next bike/ped meeting is Wednesday, August 14 ■ Cathy won’t be able to attend ■ Bob won’t be able to attend 15. Adjourned @ 8:15pm Bike/Ped Activity Report Cathy Frank 8-3-2019 I submitted a “News” article with diagram to Ashley asking that she forward it to Coralee for the home page of the South Burlington website. The article was about how Bike Boxes work as we now have a Bike Box intersection at the intersection of Farrell and Swift streets. I had Justin review the draft before submitting it. I also submitted the article to The Other Paper with an added paragraph of my short observations watching cars go through the intersection. The Bike Box markings had been in place for about 2 ½ weeks at the time I was observing them. I watched again on 8-3-19 in order to get a picture at the Other Paper’s request of a car stopping where it was suppose to, behind the green bike box. At Bike Box intersection bikers are suppose to move into the green bike box which is placed in front of vehicular traffic. Additionally, no cars are allowed to turn “right on red”. My informal observation was that all cars wanting to turn right when the light was red did d, many without stopping at all. Additionally, almost all cars that had to stop for the red light pulled into the green bike box to do so. My conclusion is: 1. A lot of education needs to be done to get drivers to know what they are suppose to do at Bike Box intersections. 2. The word “STOP” needs to be painted in large white letters needs to be placed behind the bike box so drivers will know they have to stop before the bike box. This sort of lettering appears at most large newly painted intersections. 3. Additionally, there needs to be an additional “No Turn on Red” sign well before you get to the turn location. The current sign which is large enough, is right at the intersection preceded by two other signs that partially block it until one gets past them. I think most people don’t see it in time and are already into their right turn. From what I have learned about bike boxes and how they work in the cities who use them, they are a great safety improvement for both bikers and pedestrians. I think the committee needs to play a role here in helping them work for South Burlington. ***** Roundabouts vs Signaled intersections. – We have been asked by Planning and Zoning to weigh in on the type of intersection South Burlington should recommend for Community Drive and Kimble Ave where a new Fedex transfer facility is going to be built. The DRB hearing is 8-20- 2019. I have asked Shawn put this item on our 8-14-19 agenda and am attaching several links to help our discussion. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/00067/000675.pdf Important – you do not have to start reading this long US Department of Transportation document until report page 108. There are about 5 or 6 pages that pertain to our topic. It is a very good article. https://streets.mn/2017/11/17/are-roundabouts-safer-for-pedestrians/Are Roundabouts safer for pedestrians – The other point of view. I believe Planning and Zoning want us to recommend a roundabout or a signaled intersection if we can, or at least give them the pros and cons and say the current thinking is inconclusive. Unfortunately ,most of the studies have been done to see the effect on vehicular traffic and most of those studies show that roundabouts gets vehicles through the intersection faster time-wise and with fewer accidents. My personal conclusion from reading these and other pros and cons about each is that the answer in most cases is not obvious but that given the right type of roundabout, roundabouts are better. Conditions: 1. Roundabouts that have only one lane for vehicles to travel in as opposed to 2 or 3 full circle lanes (see diagram below) 2. Pedestrians have a center island at each of their potential 4 crossings so they can cross traffic going in one direction at a time and have a safe island to stand on while waiting for the second on ramp to be clear. 3. Speed limit in roundabout is important also. In both car/truck and pedestrian/bike accidents the accidents are less severe because cars are going slower. So a safe roundabout needs to have lower speed limit. One lane around about. STOP STOP \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\cad\ts\57831_JDBwrk.dwg October 10, 2018 Figure 1Roundabout Concept Kimball Ave and Community Drive 0 40 Feet80 Telecom pedestal KIMBALL AVE COMMUNITY DRGREGORY DR140 ft Existing Right-of-Way Transformer andtelecom pedestal Overhead light Right-of-wayImpacts STOPSTOPKIMBALL AVE.KIMBALL AVE.GREGORY DR. COMMUNITY DR. Q:\2015 Drawings\15011 SunCap Property\Current\C-1 Intersection Improvement Plans.dwg Plotted: 6/5/2019 10:23:08 AM Proposed Distribution Facility South Burlington, VT Charlotte, NC SunCap Property Group C-03Community DriveCIVIL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, CROSS APPROVED: PHC CHECKED: PHC DRAWN: DSW DESIGN: DSW DATE: 2019-06-10 PROJECT: 15011 P.C. Kimball Ave. & Community Dr. Improvement Plan St. Albans, Vermont 05478 Cross Consulting Engineers, P.C. Fax. 802-524-9681 103 Fairfax Rd. Tel. 802-524-2113 ©COPYRIGHT 2019 Safety5 5.1 Introduction 103 5.2 Conflicts 104 5.2.1 Vehicle conflicts 105 5.2.2 Pedestrian conflicts 108 5.2.3 Bicycle conflicts 110 5.3 Crash Statistics 111 5.3.1 Comparisons to previous intersection treatment 111 5.3.2 Collision types 113 5.3.3 Pedestrians 117 5.3.4 Bicyclists 120 5.4 Crash Prediction Models 122 5.5 References 125 Exhibit 5-1.Vehicle conflict points for “T” Intersections with single-lane approaches. 105 Exhibit 5-2.Vehicle conflict point comparison for intersections with single-lane approaches. 106 Exhibit 5-3.Improper lane-use conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 107 Exhibit 5-4. Improper turn conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 108 Exhibit 5-5.Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at signalized intersections. 109 Exhibit 5-6.Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at single-lane roundabouts. 109 Exhibit 5-7.Bicycle conflicts at conventional intersections (showing two left-turn options). 110 Federal Highway Administration102 Exhibit 5-8.Bicycle conflicts at roundabouts. 111 Exhibit 5-9.Average annual crash frequencies at 11 U.S. intersections converted to roundabouts. 112 Exhibit 5-10.Mean crash reductions in various countries. 112 Exhibit 5-11.Reported proportions of major crash types at roundabouts. 113 Exhibit 5-12.Comparison of collision types at roundabouts. 114 Exhibit 5-13.Graphical depiction of collision types at roundabouts. 115 Exhibit 5-14.Crash percentage per type of user for urban roundabouts in 15 towns in western France. 116 Exhibit 5-15.British crash rates for pedestrians at roundabouts and signalized intersections. 117 Exhibit 5-16.Percentage reduction in the number of crashes by mode at 181 converted Dutch roundabouts. 117 Exhibit 5-17.British crash rates (crashes per million trips) for bicyclists and motorcyclists at roundabouts and signalized intersections. 120 Exhibit 5-18.A comparison of crashes between signalized and roundabout intersections in 1998 in 15 French towns. 120 103Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety Chapter 5 Safety Roundabouts may improve the safety of intersections by eliminating or altering con- flict types, by reducing speed differentials at intersections, and by forcing drivers to decrease speeds as they proceed into and through the intersection. Though round- about crash records in the United States are limited, the experiences of other coun- tries can be used to help design roundabouts in this country. Understanding the sensitivity of geometric element parameters, along with the crash experience, will assist the designer in optimizing the safety of all vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and bicyclists. 5.1 Introduction Many studies have found that one of the benefits of roundabout installation is the improvement in overall safety performance. Several studies in the U.S., Europe, and Australia have found that roundabouts perform better in terms of safety than other intersection forms (1, 2, 3, 4). In particular, single-lane roundabouts have been found to perform better than two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections in the U.S. (5). Although the frequency of reported crashes is not always lower at roundabouts, the reduced injury rates are usually reported (6). Safety is better at small and medium capacity roundabouts than at large or multilane roundabouts (1, 7). While overall crash frequencies have been reduced, the crash reductions are most pronounced for motor vehicles, less pronounced for pedestrians, and equivocal for bicyclists, de- pending on the study and bicycle design treatments (4, 6, 7). Crash statistics for various user groups are reported in Section 5.3. The reasons for the increased safety level at roundabouts are: •Roundabouts have fewer conflict points in comparison to conventional intersec- tions. The potential for hazardous conflicts, such as right angle and left turn head-on crashes is eliminated with roundabout use. Single-lane approach round- abouts produce greater safety benefits than multilane approaches because of fewer potential conflicts between road users, and because pedestrian crossing distances are short. •Low absolute speeds associated with roundabouts allow drivers more time to react to potential conflicts, also helping to improve the safety performance of roundabouts. •Since most road users travel at similar speeds through roundabouts, i.e., have low relative speeds, crash severity can be reduced compared to some tradition- ally controlled intersections. •Pedestrians need only cross one direction of traffic at a time at each approach as they traverse roundabouts, as compared with unsignalized intersections. The conflict locations between vehicles and pedestrians are generally not affected by the presence of a roundabout, although conflicting vehicles come from a more defined path at roundabouts (and thus pedestrians have fewer places to check for conflicting vehicles). In addition, the speeds of motorists entering and exiting a roundabout are reduced with good design. As with other crossings Roundabouts may improve intersection safety by: •Eliminating or altering conflicts •Decreasing speeds into and through the intersection •Decreasing speed differentials Federal Highway Administration104 requiring acceptance of gaps, roundabouts still present visually impaired pe- destrians with unique challenges, as described in Chapter 2. For the design of a new roundabout, safety can be optimized not only by relying on recorded past performance of roundabouts in general, but primarily by applying all design knowledge proven to impact safety. For optimum roundabout safety and operational performance the following should be noted: •Minimizing the number of potential conflicts at any geometric feature should reduce the multiple vehicle crash rate and severity. •Minimizing the potential relative speed between two vehicles at the point of conflict will minimize the multiple vehicle crash rate and severity (it may also optimize capacity). To reduce the potential relative speed between vehicles, either the absolute speeds of both vehicles need to be reduced or the angle between the vehicle paths needs to be reduced. Commuter bicyclist speeds can range from 20 to 25 km/h (12 to 15 mph) and designs that constrain the speeds of motor vehicles to similar values will minimize the relative speeds and improve safety. Lower absolute speeds will also assist pedestrian safety. •Limiting the maximum change in speed between successive horizontal geo- metric elements will minimize the single vehicle crash rate and severity. 5.2 Conflicts The frequency of crashes at an intersection is related to the number of conflict points at an intersection, as well as the magnitude of conflicting flows at each conflict point. A conflict point is a location where the paths of two motor vehicles, or a vehicle and a bicycle or pedestrian queue, diverge, merge, or cross each other. Besides conflicts with other road users, the central island of a roundabout pre- sents a particular hazard that may result in over-representation of single-vehicle crashes that tend to occur during periods of low traffic volumes. At cross intersec- tions, many such violations may go unrecorded unless a collision with another vehicle occurs. The following sections present a variety of conflicts among vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Both legal conflicts (queuing at an intersection, merging into a traffic stream) and conflicts prohibited by law or by traffic control devices (failure to yield to pedestrians, running a stop sign) have been included for completeness. Even though traffic control devices can significantly reduce many conflicts, they can not eliminate them entirely due to violations of those devices. Many of the most seri- ous crashes are caused by such violations. As with crash analyses, conflict analyses are more than the simple enumeration of the number of conflicts. A conflict analysis should account for the following fac- tors: •Existence of conflict point; Conflict points occur where one vehicle path crosses, merges or diverges with, or queues behind the path of another vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle. Conflicts can arise from both legal and illegal maneuvers; many of the most serious crashes are caused by failure to observe traffic control devices. 105Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety •Exposure, measured by the product of the two conflicting stream volumes at a given conflict point; •Severity, based on the relative velocities of the conflicting streams (speed and angle); and •Vulnerability, based on the ability for a member of each conflicting stream to survive a crash. 5.2.1 Vehicle conflicts 5.2.1.1 Single-lane roundabouts Exhibit 5-1 presents a diagram of vehicle-vehicle conflict points for a traditional three-leg (“T”) intersection and a three-leg roundabout. As the figure shows, the number of vehicle-vehicle conflict points for roundabouts decreases from nine to six for three-leg intersections. Note that these diagrams do not take into account the ability to separate conflicts in space (through the use of separate left or right turning lanes) or time (through the use of traffic control devices such as stop signs or traffic signals). Roundabouts bring the simplicity of a “T” intersection to intersections with more than three legs. Exhibit 5-1. Vehicle conflict points for “T” Intersections with single-lane approaches. Exhibit 5-2 presents similar diagrams for a traditional four-leg (“X” or “cross”) inter- section and a four-leg roundabout. As the figure shows, the number of vehicle- vehicle conflict points for roundabouts decreases from 32 to 8 for four-leg intersec- tions. Federal Highway Administration106 Exhibit 5-2. Vehicle conflict point comparison for intersec- tions with single-lane ap- proaches. A four-leg single-lane round- about has 75% fewer vehicle conflict points—compared to a conventional intersection. Conflicts can be divided into three basic categories, in which the degree of severity varies, as follows: •Queuing conflicts. These conflicts are caused by a vehicle running into the back of a vehicle queue on an approach. These types of conflicts can occur at the back of a through-movement queue or where left-turning vehicles are queued waiting for gaps. These conflicts are typically the least severe of all conflicts because the collisions involve the most protected parts of the vehicle and the relative speed difference between vehicles is less than in other conflicts. •Merge and diverge conflicts. These conflicts are caused by the joining or separat- ing of two traffic streams. The most common types of crashes due to merge conflicts are sideswipes and rear-end crashes. Merge conflicts can be more se- vere than diverge conflicts due to the more likely possibility of collisions to the side of the vehicle, which is typically less protected than the front and rear of the vehicle. •Crossing conflicts. These conflicts are caused by the intersection of two traffic streams. These are the most severe of all conflicts and the most likely to involve injuries or fatalities. Typical crash types are right-angle crashes and head-on crashes. As Exhibit 5-1 and Exhibit 5-2 show, a roundabout reduces vehicular crossing con- flicts for both three- and four-leg intersections by converting all movements to right turns. Again, separate turn lanes and traffic control (stop signs or signalization) can often reduce but not eliminate the number of crossing conflicts at a traditional intersection by separating conflicts in space and/or time. However, the most se- vere crashes at signalized intersections occur when there is a violation of the traf- fic control device designed to separate conflicts by time (e.g., a right-angle colli- sion due to running a red light, and vehicle-pedestrian collisions). Therefore, the ability of single-lane roundabouts to reduce conflicts through physical, geometric features has been demonstrated to be more effective than the reliance on driver obedience of traffic control devices. Crossing conflicts are the most severe and carry the highest public cost. Diverging Crossing Merging 107Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety 5.2.1.2 Double-lane roundabouts In general, double-lane roundabouts have some of the same safety performance characteristics as their simpler single-lane counterparts. However, due to the pres- ence of additional entry lanes and the accompanying need to provide wider circu- latory and exit roadways, double lane roundabouts introduce additional conflicts not present in single-lane roundabouts. This makes it important to use the mini- mum required number of entry, circulating and exit lanes, subject to capacity con- siderations. For example, according to United Kingdom roundabout crash models, for a 10,000 entering Average Daily Traffic (ADT), flaring the entry width from one to two lanes is likely to increase injury crashes by 25 percent (8). The number of vehicular and pedestrian conflicts points in both conventional inter- sections and roundabouts increases considerably when they have additional ap- proach lanes. The designer is encouraged to graphically determine conflicts for a particular location, as this information can raise awareness of design issues and may be useful in public presentations. The types of conflicts present in multilane roundabouts that do not exist in single- lane roundabouts occur when drivers use the incorrect lane or make an improper turn. These types of conflicts are depicted in Exhibit 5-3 and Exhibit 5-4, respec- tively. While these types of conflicts can also be present in other intersection forms, they can be prevalent with drivers who are unfamiliar with roundabout operation. The conflicts depicted in Exhibit 5-4, in particular, can be created by not providing a proper design geometry that allows vehicles to travel side-by-side throughout the entire roundabout (see Chapter 6). Crashes resulting from both types of conflicts can also be reduced through proper driver education. Double-lane roundabouts have some of the same safety performance characteristics as single-lane roundabouts, but introduce additional conflicts. Incorrect lane use and incorrect turns are multilane roundabout conflicts that do not exist in single-lane roundabouts. Exhibit 5-3. Improper lane-use conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. Federal Highway Administration108 As with single-lane roundabouts, the most severe vehicular crossing conflicts are eliminated and replaced by less severe merging conflicts. The additional conflicts unique to multilane roundabouts are generally low-speed sideswipe conflicts that typically have low severity. Therefore, although the number of conflict points increases at multilane roundabouts when compared to a single lane roundabouts, the overall severity of conflicts is generally less than alternative intersection control. 5.2.2 Pedestrian conflicts Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts can be present at every intersection, even those with minimal pedestrian volume. The following sections examine pedestrian conflicts at signalized intersections and at roundabouts. Signalized intersections offer the opportunity to reduce the likelihood of pedes- trian-vehicle conflicts through the use of signal phasing that allows only a few movements to move legally at any given time. Exhibit 5-5 summarizes the typical pedestrian conflicts present on one approach to a signalized intersection. As the exhibit shows, a pedestrian crossing at a typical signalized intersection (permitted or protected-permitted left turns, right turns on red allowed) faces four potential vehicular conflicts, each coming from a different direction: •Crossing movements on red (typically high-speed, illegal) •Right turns on green (legal) •Left turns on green (legal for protected-permitted or permitted left turn phasing) •Right turns on red (typically legal) In terms of exposure, the illegal movements should be accorded a lower weight than legal conflicts. However, they may be accorded an offsetting higher weight in terms of severity. For an intersection with four single-lane approaches, this results in a total of 16 pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Exhibit 5-4. Improper turn conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. Types of pedestrian crossing conflicts present at signalized intersections. 109Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety Exhibit 5-5. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at signalized intersec- tions. Pedestrians at roundabouts, on the other hand, face two conflicting vehicular move- ments on each approach, as depicted in Exhibit 5-6: •Conflict with entering vehicles; and •Conflict with exiting vehicles. At conventional and roundabout intersections with multiple approach lanes, an ad- ditional conflict is added with each additional lane that a pedestrian must cross. The direction conflicting vehicles will arrive from is more predictable for pedestrians at roundabouts. Exhibit 5-6. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at single-lane round- abouts. Federal Highway Administration110 5.2.3 Bicycle conflicts Bicycles face similar conflicts as motor vehicles at both signalized intersections and roundabouts. However, because bicyclists typically ride on the right side of the road between intersections, they face additional conflicts due to overlapping paths with motor vehicles. Conflicts unique to bicyclists occur on each approach to con- ventional four-leg intersections, as depicted in Exhibit 5-7 (showing left turns like motor vehicles or left turns like pedestrians). Exhibit 5-7. Bicycle conflicts at conventional intersections (showing two left-turn options). At roundabouts, bicycles may be provided the option of traveling as a vehicle or as a pedestrian. As a result, the conflicts experienced by bicyclists are dependent on how they choose to negotiate the roundabout, as shown in Exhibit 5-8. When trav- eling as a vehicle at a single-lane roundabout, an additional conflict occurs at the point where the bicyclist merges into the traffic stream; the remainder are similar to those for motor vehicles. At double-lane and larger roundabouts where bicycles are typically traveling on the outside part of the circulatory roadway, bicyclists face a potential conflict with exiting vehicles where the bicyclist is continuing to circu- late around the roundabout. Bicyclists may feel compelled to “negotiate” the circle (e.g., by indicating their intentions to drivers with their arms) while avoiding con- flicts where possible. Bicyclists are less visible and therefore more vulnerable to the merging and exiting conflicts that happen at double-lane roundabouts. When traveling as a pedestrian, an additional conflict for bicyclists occurs at the point where the bicyclist gets onto the sidewalk, at which point the bicyclist continues around the roundabout like a pedestrian. On shared bicycle-pedestrian paths or on sidewalks, if bicyclists continue to ride, additional bicycle-pedestrian conflicts occur wherever bicycle and pedestrian movements cross (not shown on the exhibit). Bicycles can be provided with the option of traveling as either a vehicle or a pedestrian through a roundabout. 111Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety 5.3 Crash Statistics This section summarizes the overall safety performance of roundabouts in various countries (including the U.S.) and then examines the detailed collision types expe- rienced in France and Queensland, Australia. Pedestrian and bicycle crash statis- tics are discussed separately, including design issues for visually impaired pedes- trians. 5.3.1 Comparisons to previous intersection treatment Exhibit 5-9 shows the crash frequencies (average annual crashes per roundabout) experienced at eleven intersections in the U.S. that were converted to roundabouts. As the exhibit shows, both types of roundabouts showed a reduction in both injury and property-damage crashes after installation of a roundabout. It should be noted that due to the small size of the data sample, the only result that is statistically significant is the injury crash reduction for small and moderate roundabouts. Exhibit 5-8. Bicycle conflicts at roundabouts (showing two left-turn options). Bicycle-pedestrian conflicts can also occur on shared pathways adjacent to the roundabout. Federal Highway Administration112 Percent Change 5 Exhibit 5-9. Average annual crash frequencies at 11 U.S. intersections converted to roundabouts. Notes: 1. Mostly single-lane roundabouts with an inscribed circle diameter of 30 to 35 m (100 to 115 ft). 2. Multilane roundabouts with an inscribed circle diameter greater than 50 m (165 ft). 3. Inj. = Injury crashes 4. PDO = Property Damage Only crashes 5. Only injury crash reductions for small/moderate roundabouts were statistically significant. Source: (9) Compared to results from Australia, France, and the United Kingdom, these crash frequencies are quite high. Annual crash frequencies in France, Australia, and United Kingdom of 0.15, 0.6, and 3.31 injury crashes per roundabout, respectively, have been reported (1, 10). The reader should note that the UK has many high-volume, multilane roundabouts. In spite of the higher frequencies, injury crash rates, which account for traffic vol- ume exposure, are significantly lower at U.S. roundabout sites. In a recent study of eight single-lane roundabouts in Maryland and Florida, the injury crash rate was found to be 0.08 crashes per million entering vehicles (5). By comparison, the injury crash rate was reported to be 0.045 crashes per million entering vehicles in France and 0.275 crashes per million entering vehicles in the United Kingdom (1, 10). Experiences in the United States show a reduction in crashes after building a round- about of about 37 percent for all crashes and 51 percent for injury crashes. These values correspond with international studies with much larger sample sizes, as shown in Exhibit 5-10. Small/Moderate1 8 4.8 2.0 2.4 2.4 0.5 1.6 -51% 73% -32% Large2 3 21.5 5.8 15.7 15.3 4.0 11.3 -29% -31% -10% Total 11 9.3 3.0 6.0 5.9 1.5 4.2 -37% -51% -29% Type of Roundabout Sites Before Roundabout Roundabout Total Inj. PDO Total Inj. PDOTotal Inj. 3 PDO4 Exhibit 5-10. Mean crash reductions in various countries. Country Mean Reduction (%) All Crashes Injury Crashes Australia 41 - 61% 45 - 87% France 57 - 78% Germany 36% Netherlands 47% United Kingdom 25 - 39% United States 37% 51% Source: (2), France: (11) 113Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety Crash Type of Entering- Single Country Description Roundabout circulating Rear-end Vehicle The findings of these studies show that injury crashes are reduced more dramati- cally than crashes involving property damage only. This again is in part due to the configuration of roundabouts, which eliminates severe crashes such as left turn, head-on, and right angle collisions. Most of these studies also show that crash reduction in rural areas is much higher than in urban areas. Note that the geometry of many studied sites may not necessarily conform to good roundabout design. Improved design principles, such as an emphasis on achiev- ing consistent speeds, may result in better safety performance. It should also be noted that these crash reductions are generally for sites where roundabouts were selected to replace problem intersections. Therefore, they do not necessarily rep- resent a universal safety comparison with all other intersection types. Collisions at roundabouts tend to be less severe than at conventional intersec- tions. Most crashes reported at roundabouts are a result of drivers failing to yield on entry, referred to as entering-circulating crashes. In addition, rear-end collisions and single vehicle crashes have been reported in many studies. Exhibit 5-11 shows the percentage of the three main crash types reported in different countries. Caveats for comparing the results of crash studies. 1. Percentages do not necessarily sum to 100% because only three major crash categories are shown. Source: (10) Exhibit 5-11. Reported proportions of major crash types at roundabouts. Australia All crashes Single and 51% 22% 18% multilane France Injury crashes Single and 37% 13% 28% multilane Germany All crashes Single lane 30% 28% 17% Switzerland All crashes Single and 46% 13% 35% multilane United Kingdom Injury crashes Single and 20 - 71% 7 - 25% 8 - 30% multilane Type of Crash1 5.3.2 Collision types It is instructive for designers to examine details of collision types and location at roundabouts. Statistics are available for roundabouts designed according to local practices in France, Queensland (Australia), and the United Kingdom. It should be noted that the reported frequencies are to some extent related to the specific design standards and reporting processes used in these countries. Exhibit 5-12 presents a summary of the percentage of crashes by collision type. The numbered items in the list correspond to the numbers indicated on the dia- grams given in Exhibit 5-13 as reported in France. The French data illustrate colli- sion types for a sample of 202 injury crashes from 179 urban and suburban round- abouts in France for the period 1984–1988 (12). For comparison purposes, data Federal Highway Administration114 from Queensland, Australia (13) and the United Kingdom (1) have been superim- posed onto the same classification system. The results in Exhibit 5-12 are instructive for a number of reasons: •A variety of collision types can take place at roundabouts. A designer should be aware of these collision types when making decisions about alignment and location of fixed objects. It is recommended that these collision types be adopted as conflict types in the U.S. to conduct traffic conflict analysis and report crashes at roundabouts. •Although reporting methodologies may vary somewhat, crash experience var- ies from country to country. This may be due to a combination of differences in driver behavior, and design features. 1. Failure to yield at entry (entering-circulating) 36.6% 50.8% 71.1% 2. Single-vehicle run off the circulatory roadway 16.3% 10.4% 8.2%2 3. Single vehicle loss of control at entry 11.4% 5.2%2 4. Rear-end at entry 7.4% 16.9% 7.0%3 5. Circulating-exiting 5.9% 6.5% 6. Pedestrian on crosswalk 5.9% 3.5%4 7. Single vehicle loss of control at exit 2.5% 2.6%2 8. Exiting-entering 2.5% 9. Rear-end in circulatory roadway 0.5% 1.2% 10. Rear-end at exit 1.0% 0.2% 11. Passing a bicycle at entry 1.0% 12. Passing a bicycle at exit 1.0% 13. Weaving in circulatory roadway 2.5% 2.0% 14. Wrong direction in circulatory roadway 1.0% 15. Pedestrian on circulatory roadway 3.5%4 16. Pedestrian at approach outside crosswalk 1.0%4 Other collision types 2.4% 10.2% Other sideswipe crashes 1.6% Notes: 1. Data are for “small” roundabouts (curbed central islands > 4 m [13 ft] diameter, relatively large ratio of inscribed circle diameter to central island size) 2. Reported findings do not distinguish among single-vehicle crashes. 3. Reported findings do not distinguish among approaching crashes. 4. Reported findings do not distinguish among pedestrian crashes. Sources: France (12), Australia (13), United Kingdom (1) Queensland United Collision Type France (Australia) Kingdom1 Exhibit 5-12. Comparison of collision types at roundabouts. 115Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety Exhibit 5-13. Graphical depiction of collision types at roundabouts. Source (8) Federal Highway Administration116 Three of the predominant types of collision are: (1) failures to yield at entry to circulating vehicles, (2) single vehicle run-off the circulatory roadway, and (3) single vehicle run-into the central island. A more recent crash study (14) confirmed a high proportion of single vehicle crashes: 49 percent in rural areas, versus 21 percent in urban areas. According to crash models from the United Kingdom, single vehicle crashes range between 20 and 40 percent depending on traffic and design charac- teristics of sites. In the United Kingdom models, separation by urban and rural areas is not provided. To reduce the severity of single vehicle crashes, special attention should be ac- corded to improving visibility and avoiding or removing any hard obstacles on the central island and splitter islands in both urban and rural environments. A French study (14) identified a number of major obstacles that caused fatalities and injuries: trees, guardrail, concrete barriers, fences, walls, piers, sign or light poles, land- scaping pots or hard decorative objects, and steep cross-slopes on the central island. In rural areas, the benefit of lighting has not yet been quantified. In France, only 36 percent of the rural sites are lighted. At these sites, 46 percent of all crashes, and 49 percent of single vehicle crashes occur at night (14). The French study (7) in 15 towns of 202 urban roundabout crashes compared with all crossroads reported the percentage of crashes by user type, as shown in Ex- hibit 5-14. The percentage of crashes concerning pedestrians was similar to all crossroads. However, the percentage of crashes involving bicycles and mopeds was larger—15.4 percent for urban crossroads overall versus 24.2 percent for round- abouts, i.e., almost 60 percent more. Exhibit 5-14. Crash percent- age per type of user for urban roundabouts in 15 towns in western France.Pedestrians 6.3% 5.6% Bicycles 3.7% 7.3% Mopeds 11.7% 16.9% Motor cycles 7.4% 4.8% Cars 65.7% 61.2% Utility vehicles 2.0% 0.6% Heavy goods vehicles 2.0% 3.0% Bus/coach 0.8% 0.6% Miscellaneous 0.4% 0.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% Source: (7) User All Crossroads Roundabouts 117Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety 5.3.3 Pedestrians As was described previously, vehicular injury crashes normally decrease when round- abouts are installed at an existing intersection. The safety benefits of roundabouts have been found to generally carry over to pedestrians as well, as shown in British statistics of Exhibit 5-15. This may be due to the reduced speeds at roundabouts as compared with the previous intersection forms. Exhibit 5-15. British crash rates for pedestrians at roundabouts and signalized intersections. For pedestrians, the risk of being involved in a severe collision is lower at round- abouts than at other forms of intersections, due to the slower vehicle speeds. Likewise, the number of conflict points for pedestrians is lower at roundabouts than at other intersections, which can lower the frequency of collisions. The splitter island between entry and exit allows pedestrians to resolve conflicts with entering and exiting vehicles separately. A Dutch study of 181 intersections converted to roundabouts (4) found reductions (percentage) in all pedestrian crashes of 73 percent and in pedestrian injury crashes of 89 percent. In this study, all modes shared in the safety benefits to greater (passenger cars) or lesser extents (bicycles), as shown in Exhibit 5-16. Exhibit 5-16. Percentage reduction in the number of crashes by mode at 181 converted Dutch roundabouts. Mini-roundabout 0.31 Conventional roundabout 0.45 Flared roundabout 0.33 Signals 0.67 Source: (1, 15) Pedestrian Crashes Intersection Type per Million Trips Passenger car 63% 95% Moped 34% 63% Bicycle 8% 30% Pedestrian 73% 89% Total 51% 72% Source: (4) Mode All Crashes Injury Crashes Federal Highway Administration118 A risk analysis of 59 roundabouts and 124 signalized intersections was carried out on crash data in Norway between 1985 and 1989. Altogether, 33 crashes involving personal injury were recorded at the 59 roundabouts. Only 1 of these crashes involved a pedestrian, compared with the signalized intersections, where pedestri- ans were involved in 20 percent of the personal injury crashes (57 of 287 injury crashes) (16). Further, there is no quantitative evidence of increased safety for pedestrians at roundabouts with striped (zebra) crossings, where pedestrians have priority. There- fore, striped crossings have generally not been used in other countries. However, in the U.S., it is recommended that all crosswalks be striped except at rural loca- tions with low pedestrian volumes. Although this is not their intended function, striped crosswalks may further alert approaching drivers to a change in their appro- priate speed near the yield point. Crash data have not been collected to indicate whether a pedestrian has a disabil- ity, and no studies have focused specifically on the safety of visually impaired pe- destrians at roundabouts. This is an area requiring further research. 5.3.3.1 Information access for blind or visually impaired pedestrians Roundabout crossing skills may be difficult for disabled pedestrians to perform without assistance. For example, audible pedestrian-activated signals may be con- sidered on an approach, although this treatment is not typical. Any leg of any round- about could be equipped with a pedestrian-activated signal at the pedestrian cross- ing, if a balanced design requires providing assistance to pedestrians at that loca- tion. For example, motorized volume that is too heavy at times to provide a suffi- cient number of gaps acceptable for pedestrians may warrant a pedestrian signal equipped with audible devices to assist people with visual disabilities. When crossing a roundabout, there are several areas of difficulty for pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired. It is desirable that a visually impaired pedestrian with good travel skills should be able to arrive at an unfamiliar intersection and cross it with pre-existing skills and without special, intersection-specific training. Round- abouts pose problems at several points of the crossing experience, from the per- spective of their access to information: •The first task of the visually impaired pedestrian is to locate the crosswalk. This can be difficult if the roundabout is not properly landscaped and if the curb edge of the ramp is not marked with a detectable warning surface (see Chapter 6). The crosswalk direction must also be unambiguous. Zebra-stripe markings are recommended at most roundabouts to indicate pedestrian crossings. Safety of visually impaired pedestrians at roundabouts requires further research. Challenges that roundabouts pose to visually impaired pedestrians. •Depending upon whether the visually impaired pedestrian is crossing the round- about in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, they must listen for a safe gap to cross either the entrance or exit lane(s). The primary problem is the sound of traffic on the roundabout, which may mask the sound of cars approaching the 119Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety Chapters 6 and 7 provide suggestions on designing roundabouts to accommodate persons with disabilities. crosswalk. While crossing the exit lane poses the greater hazard to the pedes- trian who is visually impaired because of the higher speed of the vehicles, cross- ing the entrance may also pose significant problems. Entering traffic, while slower, may also be intimidating as it may not be possible to determine by sound alone whether a vehicle has actually stopped or intends to stop. Sighted pedestrians often rely upon communication through eye contact in these situations; how- ever, that is not a useful or reliable technique for the pedestrian who is visually impaired. Both these problems are further exacerbated at roundabouts with multilane entrances and exits. In these roundabouts, a stopped car in the near lane may mask the sounds of other traffic. It may also block the view of the driver in the far lane of the cane or guide dog of a person who is visually im- paired who begins to cross (this is also a problem for children and people using wheelchairs on any crossing of a multilane road). •The third task is locating the splitter island pedestrian refuge. If this refuge is not ramped, curbed, or equipped with detectable warnings, it is not detectable by a pedestrian who is visually impaired. •Crossing the remaining half of the crossing (see the second bullet above). •Locating the correct walkway to either continue their path or locate the adjacent crosswalk to cross the next leg of the roundabout. Unless these issues are addressed by a design, the intersection is “inaccessible” and may not be permissible under the ADA. Chapters 6 and 7 provide specific suggestions to assist in providing the above information. However, more research is required to develop the information jurisdictions need to determine where round- abouts may be appropriate and what design features are required for people with disabilities. Until specific standards are adopted, engineers and jurisdictions must rely on existing related research and professional judgment to design pedestrian features so that they are usable by pedestrians with disabilities. Possible design remedies for the difficulties faced by pedestrians include tight en- tries, raised speed tables with detectable warnings, treatments for visually im- paired pedestrians to locate crosswalks, raised pavement markers with yellow flash- ing lights to alert drivers of crossing pedestrians, pedestrian crossings with actu- ated signals set sufficiently upstream of the yield line to minimize the possibility of exiting vehicle queues spilling back into the circulatory roadway (6). However, the safety of these treatments at roundabouts has not been tested in the United States. Federal Highway Administration120 Exhibit 5-17. British crash rates (crashes per million trips) for bicyclists and motorcyclists at roundabouts and signalized intersections. A French study (7) compared the crashes in 1988 in 15 towns in the west of France at both signalized intersections and roundabouts, as shown in Exhibit 5-18. The conclusions from the analysis were: •There were twice as many injury crashes per year at signalized intersections than at roundabouts; •Two-wheel vehicles were involved in injury crashes more often (+77 percent) at signalized intersections than on roundabouts; •People were more frequently killed and seriously injured per crash (+25 per- cent) on roundabouts than at signalized intersections; •Proportionally, two-wheel vehicle users were more often involved in crashes (16 percent) on roundabouts than at signalized intersections. Furthermore, the con- sequences of such crashes were more serious. 5.3.4 Bicyclists As shown in Exhibit 5-17, at British roundabouts bicyclists fare worse in terms of crashes at roundabouts than at signalized intersections. Mini-roundabout 3.11 2.37 Conventional roundabout 2.91 2.67 Flared roundabout 7.85 2.37 Signals 1.75 2.40 Source: (1, 15) Intersection Type Bicyclists Motorcyclists Exhibit 5-18. A comparison of crashes between signalized and roundabout intersections in 1998 in 15 French towns. Number of crossroads 1,238 179 Number of personal injuries 794 59 Number of crashes involving 2-wheel vehicles 278 28 Personal injury crashes/year/crossroad 0.64 0.33 2-wheel vehicle crashes/year/crossroad 0.23 0.13 Crashes to 2-wheel vehicles per 100 crashes 35.0 40.7 Serious crashes/year/crossroad 0.14 0.089 Serious crashes to 2-wheel vehicles/year/crossroad 0.06 0.045 Serious crashes/100 crashes 21.9 27.1 Serious crashes to 2-wheel vehicles/100 crashes to a 2-wheel vehicle 27.0 33.3 Source: (7) Signalized Crossroads Roundabouts 121Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety All European countries report that a more careful design is necessary to enhance bicyclists’ safety. The type of bicycle crashes depends on the bicycle facilities pro- vided at the roundabout. If there are no bicycle facilities, or if there is a bike lane on the outer area of the circulatory roadway, crashes typically occur between entering cars and circulating bicyclists as well as between cars heading into an exit and circulating bicyclists. Improperly placed signs on the splitter island may also be a contributing factor. As a result, most European countries have the following policies: •Avoid bike lanes on the outer edge of the circulatory roadway. •Allow bicyclists to mix with vehicle traffic without any separate facility in the circulatory roadway when traffic volumes are low, on single lane roundabouts operating at lower speeds (e.g., up to 8,000 vehicles per day in the Netherlands (4)). •Introduce separated bicycle facilities outside the circulatory roadway when ve- hicular and bicycle volumes are high. These separated bicycle facilities cross the exits and entries at least one car length from the edge of the circulatory road- way lane, adjacent to the pedestrian crossings. In some countries, bicyclists have priority over entering and exiting cars, especially in urban areas (e.g., Ger- many). Other countries prefer to give priority to car traffic showing a yield sign to bicyclists (e.g., Netherlands). The latter solution (i.e., separate bicycle facili- ties with vehicular traffic priority at the crossing points) is the standard solution for rural areas in most European countries. Speed is a fundamental risk factor in the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Typi- cal bicyclist speeds are in the range of 20 to 25 km/h (12 to 15 mph), and designs that constrain the speeds of vehicles to similar values will minimize the relative speeds and thereby improve safety. Design features that slow traffic such as tight- ening entry curvature and entry width, and radial alignment of the legs of a round- about, such as with the urban compact design, are considered safe treatments for bicyclists (17). In the Netherlands, a 90 percent decrease in injury crashes was experienced with separate bicycle paths around roundabouts where bicyclists do not have right-of- way at the crossings (17). A bicycle crash prediction model from Sweden has been validated against data for Swedish, Danish, and Dutch roundabouts (18). The model provides reasonable re- sults for roundabouts with up to 12,000 vehicles per day and 4,000 bicycles per day. The model tends to over-predict crashes (i.e., is conservative) for roundabouts carrying more than 12,000 vehicles per day that are also designed with separate bicycle paths with crossings on the approach legs. It is calibrated for crossroad intersections as well as roundabouts. To obtain the expected cycling crashes per year at roundabouts, the value derived from the general junction model is factored by 0.71, implying that bicycle crashes at roundabouts are 71 percent less frequent than at junctions in general. However, the reader is cautioned when extrapolating European bicycling experience to the U.S., as drivers in Europe are more accus- tomed to interacting with bicyclists. Typical European practice is to provide separated bicycle facilities outside the circulatory roadway when vehicular and bicycle volumes are high. Federal Highway Administration122 5.4 Crash Prediction Models Crash prediction models have been developed for signalized intersections in the U.S., as discussed previously in Chapter 3. However, no crash prediction models exist yet for U.S. roundabouts and driver behavior. Given the relatively recent intro- duction of roundabouts to the U.S. and driver unfamiliarity with them, crash predic- tion models from other countries should be used cautiously. As reported earlier in Section 5.3, crash statistics vary from country to country, both in terms of magni- tude and in terms of collision types. Consequently, the application of a crash pre- diction model from another country may not accurately predict crash frequencies at U.S. locations. Nonetheless, these crash prediction models from other coun- tries can be useful in understanding the relative effects of various geometric fea- tures on the number of crashes that might be expected. The user is thus cautioned to use these models only for comparative purposes and for obtaining insights into the refinement of individual geometric elements, not to use them for predicting absolute numbers of crashes under U.S. conditions. Crash models relating crash frequency to roundabout characteristics are available from the United Kingdom. The sample consisted of 84 four-leg roundabouts of all sizes, small to large and with various number of approach lanes and entry lanes (flared or parallel entries) (1). Approach speeds were also evenly represented be- tween 48 to 64 km/h (30 to 40 mph) and 80 to 113 km/h (50 to 70 mph). Crash data were collected for periods of 4 to 6 years, a total of 1,427 fatal, serious, and slight injuries only. The proportion of crashes with one casualty was 83.7 percent, and those with two casualties was 12.5 percent. The models are based on generalized linear regression of the exponential form, which assumes a Poisson distribution. Their goodness of fit is expressed in terms of scaled deviations that are moder- ately reliable. No additional variables, other than those listed below, could further improve the models significantly (see also (8)). The British crash prediction equations (1), for each type of crash are listed in Equa- tions 5-1 through 5-5. Note that these equations are only valid for roundabouts with four legs. However, the use of these models for relative comparisons may still be reasonable. Entry-Circulating: (5-1) where: A = personal injury crashes (including fatalities) per year per roundabout approach; Qe = entering flow (1,000s of vehicles/day) Qc = circulating flow (1,000s of vehicles/day) Ce = entry curvature = 1/Re e= entry width (m) v= approach width (m) R= ratio of inscribed circle diameter/central island diameter Pm = proportion of motorcycles (%) q = angle to next leg, measured centerline to centerline (degrees) Crash prediction models have not been developed for U.S. roundabouts. 123Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety Approaching: (5-2) where: A = personal injury crashes (including fatalities) per year at roundabout approach or leg; Qe = entering flow (1,000s of vehicles/day) Ce = entry curvature = 1/Re Re = entry path radius for the shortest vehicle path (m) e =entry width (m) Single Vehicle: (5-3) where: A = personal injury crashes (including fatalities) per year at roundabout approach or leg Qe = entering flow (1,000s of vehicles/day) Ce = entry curvature = 1/Re Re = entry path radius for the shortest vehicle path (m) V = approach width (m) Ca = approach curvature = 1/Ra Ra = approach radius (m), defined as the radius of a curve between 50 m (164 ft) and 500 m (1,640 ft) of the yield line Other (Vehicle): (5-4) where: A = personal injury crashes (including fatalities) per year at roundabout approach or leg Qec = product Qe • Qc Qe = entering flow (1,000s of vehicles/day) Qc = circulating flow (1,000s of vehicles/day) Pm = proportion of motorcycles Pedestrian: (5-5) where: A = personal injury crashes (including fatalities) per year at roundabout approach or leg Qep = product (Qe + Qex). Qp Qe = entering flow (1,000s of vehicles/day) Qex = exiting flow (1,000s of vehicles/day) Qp = pedestrian crossing flow (1,000s of pedestrians/day) According to the U.K. crash models, the major physical factors that were statisti- cally significant are entry width, circulatory width, entry path radius, approach cur- vature, and angle between entries. Some of the effects of these parameters are as follows: •Entry width: For a total entry flow of 20,000 vehicles per day, widening an entry from one lane to two lanes is expected to cause 30 percent more injury crashes. At 40,000 vehicles per day, widening an entry from two lanes to three lanes will cause a 15 percent rise in injury crashes. Moreover, the models could not take into account the added hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians who will have to travel longer exposed distances. (8) Federal Highway Administration124 •Circulatory width: Widening the circulatory roadway has less impact on crashes than entry width. Crashes are expected to rise about 5 percent for a widening of two meters. (8) •Entry path radius: Entry-circulating collision type increases with entry path ra- dius (for the fastest path), while single vehicle and approach collision types decrease. For a double-lane approach, an optimum entry path radius is 50 to 70 m (165 to 230 ft). (8) •Approach curvature: Approach curvature is safer when the approach curve is to the right and less so when the curve is to the left. This implies that a design is slightly safer when reverse curves are provided to gradually slow drivers before entry. For a double-lane approach roundabout with entering flow of 50,000 ve- hicles per day, changing a straight approach to a right-turning curve of 200 m (650 ft) radius reduces crash frequency by 5 percent. (8) •Angle between entries: As the angle between entries decreases, the frequency of crashes increases. For example, an approach with an angle of 60 degrees to the next leg of the roundabout increases crash frequency by approximately 35 percent over approaches at 90-degree angles. Therefore, the angle between entries should be maximized to improve safety. An approach suggested in Australia (13) differs from the British approach in that the independent variables are based on measures related to driver behavior. For in- stance, the collision rate for single vehicle crashes was found to be: (5-6) and (5-7) where: Asp= the number of single vehicle crashes per year per leg for vehicle path segments prior to the yield line. Asa = the number of single vehicle crashes per year per leg for vehicle path segments after the yield line. Q = the average annual daily traffic in the direction considered—one way traffic only (veh/d) L = the length of the driver’s path on the horizontal geometric element (m). S = the 85th-percentile speed on the horizontal geometric element (km/h). DS = the decrease in the 85th-percentile speed at the start on the horizon- tal geometric element (km/h). This indicates the speed change from the previous geometric element. R = the vehicle path radius on the geometric element (m). These equations demonstrate a direct relationship between the number of crashes, overall speed magnitudes, and the change in speed between elements. Therefore, this equation can be used to estimate the relative differences in safety benefits between various geometric configurations by estimating vehicle speeds through the various parts of a roundabout. Maximize angles between entries. 125Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • 5: Safety 5.5 References 1. Maycock, G., and R.D. Hall. Crashes at four-arm roundabouts. TRRL Laboratory Report LR 1120. Crowthorne, England: Transport and Road Research Labora- tory, 1984. 2. Garder, P. The Modern Roundabouts: The Sensible Alternative for Maine. Maine Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning, Research and Community Services, Transportation Research Division, 1998. 3. Brilon, W. and B. Stuwe. “Capacity and Design of Traffic Circles in Germany.” In Transportation Research Record 1398. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1993. 4. Schoon, C.C., and J. van Minnen. Accidents on Roundabouts: II. Second study into the road hazard presented by roundabouts, particularly with regard to cy- clists and moped riders. R-93-16. The Netherlands: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, 1993. 5. Flannery, A. and T.K. Datta. “Modern Roundabouts and Traffic Crash Experience in the United States.” In Transportation Research Record 1553. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1996. 6. Brown, M. TRL State of the Art Review—The Design of Roundabouts. London: HMSO, 1995. 7. Alphand, F., U. Noelle, and B. Guichet. “Roundabouts and Road Safety: State of the Art in France.” In Intersections without Traffic Signals II, Springer-Verlag, Germany (W. Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 107–125. 8. Bared, J.G., and K. Kennedy. “Safety Impacts of Modern Roundabouts,” Chapter 28, The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety, Institute of Transporta- tion Engineers, 2000. 9. Jacquemart, G. Synthesis of Highway Practice 264: Modern Roundabout Prac- tice in the United States. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Wash- ington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1998. 10. Brilon, W. and L. Bondzio. White Paper: Summary of International Statistics on Roundabout Safety (unpublished), July 1998. 11. Guichet, B. “Roundabouts In France: Development, Safety, Design, and Capac- ity.” In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections With- out Traffic Signals (M. Kyte, ed.), Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. University of Idaho, 1997. 12. Centre d’Etude des Transports Urbains (CETUR). “Safety of Roundabouts in Urban and Suburban Areas.” Paris, 1992. 13. Arndt, O. “Road Design Incorporating Three Fundamental Safety Parameters.” Technology Transfer Forum 5 and 6, Transport Technology Division, Main Roads Department, Queensland, Australia, August 1998. 14. SETRA/CETE de l’Ouest. “Safety Concerns on Roundabouts.” 1998. Federal Highway Administration126 15. Crown, B. “An Introduction to Some Basic Principles of U.K. Roundabout De- sign.” Presented at the ITE District 6 Conference on Roundabouts, Loveland, Colorado, October 1998. 16. Seim, K. “Use, Design and Safety of Small Roundabouts in Norway.” In “Inter- sections Without Traffic Signals II”, Springer-Verlag, Germany (W. Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp.270–281. 17. Van Minnen, J. “Safety of Bicyclists on Roundabouts Deserves Special Atten- tion.” SWOV Institute of Road Safety Research in the Netherlands, Research Activities 5, March 1996. 18. Brude, U., and J. Larsson. The Safety of Cyclists at Roundabouts—A Compari- son Between Swedish, Danish and Dutch Results. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Nordic Road & Transport Research No. 1, 1997. Bike/Ped Staff Update – 8/14/2019  Committee Process: - Liaisons have been instructed to create packets for posting (like the Council has) when posting the agenda. That means that I will need to have all meeting materials, including supporting documents, by the Thursday afternoon before the meeting to create the PDF document for posting. This PDF document will also have links in the agenda to help users navigate it and find the appropriate supporting documents. I will be sharing this PDF with the Committee via an online link the Friday before the meeting. - Liaisons were given more information related to the content of the Committee’s Draft meeting minutes. Essentially, the draft minutes that get posted only needs to include: attendees, start time, action items and the resulting action, and the time of adjournment. These minutes need to be posted 5 calendar days after the meeting. Any changes that need to be made to the draft minutes can be made all the way up until they are approved at the next meeting. - Any documentation that does not make it into the meeting packet will have the opportunity to be added to the approved meeting minutes. All meeting materials have to be available to the public. - I introduced Shawn to Larry King, one of the City’s IT staff. He will be working with the Committee on transitioning documents into the City’s Google Drive. I highly recommend the Committee begin working on transitioning to this system.  The Committee Symposium is September 26th, from 4:30 PM to 9:30PM, at a location still TBD. I will pass along any additional information as I get it. You will only need to provide bullets related to your goals for the next year and highlights from your Work Plan, as well as some of your achievements. Staff will collate your information and put it into poster format and print here. Penny for Paths Projects Updates – 8/14/2019  Jug Handle Sidewalk: UVM has requested that we revise their property boundary again, and include bollard lighting along the sidewalk for the safety of users. We are currently working with them on this layout, and to determine what power source is available to connect the bollards to. I hope this will be the last piece of this site plan, and then we can finalize an agreement with them to construct this project.  Allen Road Rec Path: We have final plans. I need to connect with one landowner to discuss a spring easement that still exists within our ROW. I am working with our City Attorney on this process. Once we resolve this ROW issues, we should be able to build this project. I am going to be connecting with Justin regarding the construction of this section and whether SD Ireland will actually build it out. Attached is the latest plan set for this project.  Airport Parkway Sidewalk & On-Road Bike Lanes: The geotech work is completed for this project, and Justin and I met with our engineers to discuss options for the steeper grades along this route. We have some good ideas for this project, and the engineers are working on completing the first conceptual plans for it. When we have a better sense of what the ROW impacts will be, I will be reaching back out to adjacent landowners and beginning project conversations with them. After that happens, I will share the conceptual plans with the Committee. Bike and Pedestrian Committee Annual Report (July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019) Committee Overview ● The Mission of the Bike and Pedestrian Committee is to oversee the general operation of the City’s many recreational paths, including field trails and sidewalks, and to advise the City Council of operational needs and future development plans for the path network. ● Members: Amanda Holland, Bill Wooden (Co-Clerk from January, 2019), Bob Britt, Cathy Frank (Vice-Chair), Dana Farr (Chair), Donna Leban, Jamieson Goodwin (Clerk through August, 2018), Jim Grossman (through September, 2018), Katie Dolbec (September, 2018 through February, 2019), Roy Neuer (through August, 2018), Shawn Goddard (Clerk from September, 2018) Accomplishments and Events ● Penny for Paths o The Committee spent the summer doing extensive outreach to promote citizen awareness of the ballot initiative and engagement in the P4P effort. The ballot initiative passed on the August ballot with 73% of voters supporting both the additional one cent tax as well as the bond request. o The Committee has spent the fall working with City representatives to incorporate this new funding source into the City’s CIP with special focus on defining standards for what the P4P funds should be used for as well as prioritization of the various proposed bike/ped projects. o The Committee worked closely with the City on design updates for the top 4 P4P projects – UVM Jug Handle, Upper Allen Rd rec path, Airport Parkway, and South Dorset St rec path. ● Work with the City o The Committee worked cooperatively with Planning and Zoning and CCRPC on 4 recreation path/sidewalk/crosswalk scoping studies and offered recommendations to the City and to CCRPC. o A subgroup of the Committee meets every month or two with DPW director Justin Rabidoux to coordinate priorities, discuss issues, and revise City standards related to bike/ped infrastructure. o The Committee worked with City representatives to add more user-friendly links and forms for reporting maintenance and safety issues. o The Committee created and maintains a maintenance tracking sheet for bike/ped infrastructure issues. o The Committee worked with the City Council and DPW to provide an additional $10k to fund road striping annually in the DPW Budget. o A Committee member attends the DRB meetings to provide input on all bike/ped infrastructure for new development. o The Committee developed and presented five safety and policy recommendations to City Council. Four of the five were approved and adopted: ▪ RRFB standards update to include flashing beacons on both sides and directions. ▪ New pedestrian controlled crossing at Swift and Spear ▪ Annual Fog line striping should be completed by June 1st ▪ Add solid barriers to the short section of the Dorset St rec path that isn’t separated from the roadway. o The Committee worked with Planning and Zoning to update the South Burlington Street Type designations. o The Committee worked with the City on the VTRANS grant application for the South Dorset St rec path project. o The Committee contributed two maps to Parks and Recs for rides on the SB. o The Committee provided the City with a letter of recommendation for the I-89 bridge grant application. o Interim Zoning…? ● Work with other community groups o The Committee worked with Local Motion and DPW on a pop-up on Lime Kiln Rd to evaluate various pedestrian crossing solutions. o The Committee worked extensively to develop accurate maps of the South Burlington bike and pedestrian facilities as well as on a county-wide mapping effort with CCRPC. o The Committee worked with Local Motion to develop a regional bike count program to accurately assess usage of and needs for bike infrastructure. o The Committee reviewed e-bike & e-scooter plans with Gotcha Bikes and provided recommendations that South Burlington participate in the programs. o CCRPC UPWP…? ● Community Outreach o The Committee submitted multiple articles for the City Website and The Other Paper to keep South Burlington residents informed on crucial bike/ped issues and improvements. o The Committee aided Parks and Rec on the Bike Rodeo to provide residents with bike maintenance, helmet fitting, and bike skills and safety training. Quantitative Data ● ???? FY 2020 Goals and Priorities ● Engage closely with City on immediate and effective allocation of the Penny for Paths funds. ● Ensure alignment of the City CIP with our bike and pedestrian infrastructure priorities. ● Develop a strategic plan for funding all top priority recreation path and crosswalk projects. ● Work with the City to develop Penny for Paths signage to indicate infrastructure improvements “coming soon” or completed using funds from P4P. ● Meet regularly with DPW to drive alignment on maintenance needs and striping priorities. ● Work with the City to develop and deploy Rec Path signage. ● Continue mapping work on current and future bike/ped infrastructure. ● Investigate options for developing stronger 2-way communication with South Burlington residents on bike/ped infrastructure needs and priorities. ● Create a living document with links to recent, current, and future scoping studies and track progress regularly. ● Work to develop a process to maintain and updated and accurate assessment of the condition of our current infrastructure. ● Improve awareness of South Burlington as a bikeable, walkable city via community outreach, mapping work, and updates on People for Bikes and League of American Cyclists surveys. ● Support and participate in the first City Committee Symposium ● Support the City transition to the new Google Drive space and digital Laserfiche system. 575 Dorset Street Soouth Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4123 fax 802.846.4101 www.southburlingtonvt.gov July 22, 2019 Dear City of South Burlington Commission, Board or Committee Chair, This Winter the City Council will be undertaking the annual amendment of the Capital Improvement Program and Budget (CIP). The CIP policy document, among other uses, is developed to coordinate and plan for the orderly development of capital (brick and mortar) improvements and reduce large fluctuations in the tax rate from year to year. The City is requesting your commission or committee’s input prior to preparing the FY2021- FY2030 (July 2020-June 2030) Capital Improvement Program. If your committee has comments, please provide them to your committee’s City staff person by August 26, 2019. If a new project is proposed, information regarding the new project will need to include a project name, description, and estimated cost. Such projects should be prioritized by your committee’s estimation of their importance to the City in relation to other (existing or proposed) CIP projects within the department/service area. For your reference, The CIP reflects the following anticipated capital expenditures: 1) Forecasted costs related to maintaining South Burlington’s current level of service through rebuilding and replacing existing capital equipment and infrastructure including costs such as paving roadways, replacing vehicles, upgrades to existing sewer treatment plants and costly (greater than $10,000 in value) non-brick and mortar items such as cars, emergency apparatus, and IT equipment. 2) Estimated spending related to building public infrastructure that will result in a new downtown - City Center – including projects eligible for TIF District financing such as new roadways, streetscapes and bridges, structured parking, parks, municipal facilities, wetland mitigation and stormwater management systems. 3) Projects (generally related to transportation and parks) that are included in impact fee ordinances, requested by committees or the community, or shown in long range plans or studies that improve the level of service such as adding bicycle facilities to Spear Street and expanding recreation fields. A CIP is a road map to guide budget preparation based on an estimate of future needs and costs consistent with current City priorities and fiscal outlook. Page 2, FY2021-FY2030 Capital Improvement Program Comments 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4123 fax 802.846.4101 www.southburlingtonvt.gov The CIP incorporates Council priorities; committee recommendations which are solicited annually; adopted plans and ongoing projects; and equipment and facility maintenance, replacement and upgrade needs. As a financial planning tool, the CIP responds to the estimated fiscal capacity for each year going forward. It is not a static document and changes from year to year. The current adopted Capital Improvement Program may be viewed online. Please let me know if you would like any additional information. Ilona Blanchard and I are available to meet with your commission, board or committee if that would be helpful. Yours sincerely, Martha Machar Deputy Finance Officer cc: Ilona Blanchard, Project Director BPC Input into FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program and Budget (CIP) Planning See Request from City Updates not made last year as agreed: A copy of the BPC FY 2020-2029 CIP pages that the Committee agreed to as well as the Final Version adopted by the City Council are included in Google Docs along with notes as to the Committee’s final changes from last year’s CIP review. Unfortunately, the Committee’s edits and changes did not get into the adopted Final Version. Overview by Expenditure Tab: 1. Add sentence to Overview paragraph that reads: “It also includes many long range road projects related to transportation studies.” 2. Insert the words “(Road)” after the Lime Kiln Intersection, Spear Street Widening and Williston Road Improvements projects 3. Add an “s” on the end of “Location” to make it Hinesburg Road Crosswalk Locations 4. Change the “Spear Street Path Improvement” project to read “Spear Street Widening” 5. Place the word “(Road)” in parentheses following the Williston Road Improvements to indicate that it is one of the 3 road projects listed in the Bike/Ped Improvements CIP section. Lime Kiln Intersection Tab: 1. The P4P funding for this project was limited to $70K. Please see Dec 2018 draft New Comments: 1. Add the dollar amount parenthetically to the sentence added above to the Overview Paragraph in the summary to show the amount slated for Road Projects. 2. List projects in priority order showing projects that will be funded in the near term first and ones not slated for funding until later years down further in list. (waterfall format) 3. Move the 3 “road” projects to bottom of page with a blank line to separate them from Bike and Ped projects 4. Change “Spear Street Jug Handle Shared Use Path” to “Spear Street Jug Handle Sidewalk” and reduce cost of project accordingly. Alternately, delete this project all together if expected to be completed prior to the start of FY 2021. 5. Not sure if the Allen Road project is expected to be completed prior to the start of FY 2021. If so, delete this line. If not, check to make sure the funding estimate is correct. 6. The funding and construction of the Williston Road Crosswalks should happen sooner than FY 2023. 7. We need two lines for the South Dorset shared use path project as we begin planning the FY 2021-2030 CIP; one showing the $930K cost and timing if the City gets the grant and one if the grant is not approved and we go forward with the $610K cost and earlier timing. We can delete one or the other once we know the status of the grant. 8. The South Dorset project tab should also reflect that at least $250K or so will be funded by Recreation Impact Fees as this project is called out in the Ordinance. 9. Add a project for FY 2021 for $30K for the 2nd phase of installing additional RRFBs to each pole. Justin said that he will complete the first half in FY 2020. 10. Add a project for FY 2021 for $20K for solid barriers of some kind to be installed on Dorset Street so vehicles do not use the rec path in the winter as an extra turning lane 11. Add a project for Stencils/Sharrows that Justin may need to purchase in 2021 to maintain proper striping for bike lanes. Not sure of cost. 12. Add a Queen City Park Road Shared Use Path project for the section from Shelburne Rd down to the entrance of the Burlington Shared Use Path. The timing should coincide with the construction of the I-189 extension project that Burlington is doing that closes off the south end of Pine Street. A guesstimate on cost would be $300K. 13. The Shelburne Road Crosswalk Improvement project should be moved up in timing 14. Switch the order of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements project. The Phase 1 project has been rejected so far by UVM and perhaps should be deleted in its entirety. The phase 2 section should read from U.S. Forest Service path to Swift Street as it is unlikely that any shared use path will be constructed on Spear Street until it is widened, etc. 15. Are P4P funds being used to fund the various 2018 and 2019 UPWP scoping studies? If so, this was never communicated to the BPC. 16. There should be no funding coming from P4P funds for the White St. north side sidewalk between Patchen and Airport Pkwy as this is not a BPC or a Chamberlain Neighborhood study group requested project. This funding should come from other sources. OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Ashley ParkerSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Eng., Inspection, GC, Legal 150                   215                   160                   116                   90                     363                   533                   258                   369                   ‐                  2,254                 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition ‐                   80                     130                   ‐                   150                   265                   ‐                   100                   ‐                   4,221               4,946              Construction 150                   250                   918                   1,040               264                   159                   851                   3,077               1,031               300                   8,040              Furniture & Equipment ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                  Total CIP Costs:300                  545                  1,208              1,156              504                  787                  1,384              3,435              1,400              4,521              15,240           Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes) ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   50                     ‐                   ‐                   50                    ‐                  Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Fund) 290                   370                   498                   445                   140                   213                   150                   150                   180                   ‐                   2,436              ‐                  Grant/Donation/Developer ‐                   125                   605                   545                   364                   309                   901                   481                   980                   4,421               8,731              Secured Debt Proceeds ‐                  Bond_Future ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   2,596               ‐                   ‐                   2,596              ‐                  Highway Impact Fee ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   115                   275                   ‐                   120                   ‐                   510                  Recreation Impact Fee ‐                   ‐                   75                     166                   ‐                   150                   58                     58                     50                     ‐                   557                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  Trade‐In Generated Revenues ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                  Other 10                     50                     30                     ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   ‐                   100                   70                     100                   360                   Total Funding Sources:300                  545                  1,208              1,156              504                  787                  1,384              3,435              1,400              4,521              15,240           The Penny for Paths CIP projects address identified bike/pedestrian facility needs in the City's Roadway and Sidewalk infrastructure.  It also includes many long range projects related to transportation studies, and gaps identified by the Bike & Ped Committee.BIKE/PEDS IMPROVEMENT CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW: GENERAL FUNDBIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREBIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Ashley ParkerChanges from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Intersection Improvements Airport Parkway‐Lime Kiln 50               200            200            ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            450           Williston Road Crosswalk Locations (TBD) ‐             50               50               150            ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            250           Allen Rd. Sidewalks (Lower)‐            ‐            167           140           ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐           ‐            307           Shelburne Rd Crosswalk Imp ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             23               93               ‐             ‐             ‐            116           Hinesburg Road Crosswalk Location ‐             80               30               ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            110           Spear Street Path Improvements ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             315            325            2,596         ‐             ‐            3,236       Williston Road Improvements ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             100            369            4,221        4,690       Queen City Park Road Sidewalk ‐             ‐             50               50               ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            100           Kennedy Dr/Twin Oaks Crosswalk 50               50               50               ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            150           Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path ‐             ‐             ‐             66               304            159            ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            529           Allen Rd. Shared Use Path (Upper) 100            ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            100           Spear Street Jug Handle Shared Use Path 50               50               ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            100           S. Dorset Street Shared Use Path ‐             25               375            400            ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            800           Shelburne Road Ped/Bike Facilities‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            58             289           231          ‐            578           Hinesburg Rd Bike Facilities 50               ‐             ‐             50               150            250            ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            500           Airport Drive/Parkway Shared Use Path to Lime Kiln Road ‐             40               186            ‐             ‐             ‐             100            100            300            300           1,026       Vale to Spear/Swift Streets  Path ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             558            ‐             ‐             ‐            558           Sidewalk on north side of White St: Patchen to Airport Dr ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐             50               40               200            250            ‐             ‐            540           Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements ‐             50               100            300            ‐             ‐             50               100            500            ‐            1,100       ‐           TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES: 300            545            1,208        1,156        504            787            1,384        3,435        1,400        4,521       15,240     0The BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS CIP projects (not including City Center which are presented seperately) address identified facility needs in the City's Roadway and Sidewalk infrastructure.  It also includes many long range projects related to transportation studies.  0 GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Intersection Improvements Airport Parkway‐Lime KilnDEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 50           50              Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐             Construction 200          200         400            Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:50            200         200         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          450            Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 120         120            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 40            150          50           240            Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee‐             Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other (VTANG contribution, see note) 10            50            30           90              TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:50            200         200         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          450            STATUS:  2006 Road Safety Audit Review and 2014 Sidewalk Gap Study completedDESCRIPTION: Overall intersection improvements per 2006 Road Safety Audit Review and 2014 Sidewalk Gaps StudyOPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: JUSTIFICATION:  Implement needed safety recommendations for vehicular, bike, and pedestrian traffic.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Included in Impact fee ordinance ‐ may be eligible for highway safety funding as well as a contribution (~15%) from the National Guard)AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Williston Road Crosswalk Locations (TBD)DEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 50            50           100            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐             Construction150         150            Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          50            50            150         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          250            Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 25            75           100            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 25            50            75           150            Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee‐             Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          50            50            150         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          250            STATUS: Part of ongoing FY'19 UPWP CCRPC scoping study.DESCRIPTION:  Install new crosswalks across Williston Road to improve pedestrian access and safety.  These projects are still in scoping and actual crosswalk locations need to be identified.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: JUSTIFICATION: Williston Road lacks safe pedestrian crossings between the large section of road from Kennedy Drive to Williston RoadAVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Use of Penny for Paths funding, grant funding, and other impact fees as necessary.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐  BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Allen Rd. Sidewalks (Lower)N/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 35           35              Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐             Construction132          140         272            Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          ‐          167         140         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          307            Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 70            70           140            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 60            70           130            Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee 37           37              Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          ‐          167         140         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          307            STATUS: Conceptual design underway as part of a FY'19 UPWP grantDESCRIPTION:    Extend a sidewalk west of the existing recreation path to connect to the sidewalk in front of the Allenwood apartment complex and west to connect to Shelburne Road.  Includes a brook crossing.  Construction would be a single season falling across two fiscal years, with construction bid the winter prior.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  Anticipated to be paid for from either future Bond Issue or Reserve Fund.JUSTIFICATION: The lack of a connection as it presently exists places pedestrians and bicyclists on the road. AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT:  Eligible for grant funding.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐  BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Shelburne Rd Crosswalk ImpN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal23           23              Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐             Construction93           93              Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          23            93            ‐          ‐          ‐          116            Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution43           43              Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 23            50           73              Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee‐             Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          23            93            ‐          ‐          ‐          116            STATUS:  DESCRIPTION:  Relocate and mark new crosswalk, and install new signalling at the intersection of Queen City Park Rd. and Shelburne Rd.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: JUSTIFICATION:  Existing crosswalk does not line up properly and does not provide for  efficient crossing for either pedestrians or bicyclists.  This is the main crosswalk to access Red Rocks and Bicycle Path from east side of Shelburne Road.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Options outlined by the committee include funding through Rec. Impact Fees, proposing a separate bond issue for a variety of projects, or the establishment of a reserve fund as a % of the Highway Roads Budget. May be State fund eligible.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐  BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:DEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 50           50              Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition 30            30           60              Construction‐             Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          80            30            ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          110            Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 50           50              Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 30            30           60              Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee‐             Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          80            30            ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          110            Hinesburg Road Crosswalk Locations (TBD)STATUS: Part of ongoing FY'19 UPWP CCRPC scoping study.DESCRIPTION:  Install new crosswalks across Hinesburg Road to improve pedestrian access and safety.  These projects are still in scoping and actual crosswalk locations need to be identified.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  JUSTIFICATION: Hinesburg Road lacks safe pedestrian crossings, would need Vtrans approval prior to moving forwardAVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Use of Penny for Paths funding, grant funding, and other impact fees as necessary.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐  BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Spear Street Path ImprovementsN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal315          325         640            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐             Construction2,596      2,596        Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          315         325         2,596      ‐          ‐          3,236        Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution‐             Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 100          50           150            Anticipated Bond2,596      2,596        Roads Improvement Impact Fee115          275         390            Recreation Impact Fee100         100            Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          315         325         2,596      ‐          ‐          3,236        STATUS: In scoping.DESCRIPTION:  Reconstruct and widen Spear Street to add a shoulder on the east side of the road.  This project is the complete length of the street from Route 2 to the Shelburne Town line.  OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  JUSTIFICATION:  This project is outlined in the Spear Street Corridor Study and will improve the delivery of public services and access to Spear Street as a bicycle/pedestrian connection for users. AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Options outlined by the committee include funding through amendment of Rec. Impact Fees, proposing a complete street bond issue, or a reserve fund.  In current $.  City has the option to apply for a grant to complete the scoping study earlier.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Williston Road ImprovementsDEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal100          369         469                  Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition42214,221               Construction‐                   Furniture & Equipment‐                   TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐           ‐          ‐          ‐          100         369         4,221      4,690               Funding Sources:General Fund‐                   Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution179          41214,300               Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund)‐                   Anticipated Bond‐                   Roads Improvement Impact Fee120         120                  Recreation Impact Fee‐                   Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐                   Other (Airport Parking Garage Exp., see note)100          70           100          270                  TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐           ‐          ‐          ‐          100         369         4,221      4,690               STATUS: Corridor Study Completed 2008. Items completed are not included below.DESCRIPTION:  Implements 2008 Rte 2 Corridor Study between Hinesburg Rd  to City Line.  Includes projects such as extending 3rd lane from SB to NB ramps, installing new/ re‐timing signals, extend lane shift at Dorset Street, implement exclusive left‐turn lanes, install mid‐block crossings, pave shoulders east of Milham Court, add signals at key intersections. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  JUSTIFICATION: Improve traffic safety and congestion, pedestrian access, and place‐making outside of streetscape and intersection improvements associated with City Center.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Portion of project costs will come from Impact Fee Ordinance. $120 K from Airport Parking Garage expansion for Kennedy Drive/Williston Road instersection improvements.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐  BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Queen City Park Road SidewalkDEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29TOTAL:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐             Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐             Construction50             50            100            Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐           ‐           50             50             ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐              ‐           ‐          100            Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐               ‐            ‐           ‐             Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 50             50            100            Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee‐             Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐           ‐           50             50             ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐              ‐           ‐          100            STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Add about 600 feet of sidewalk along Queen City Park Road, connecting the Water District with Central Ave.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: JUSTIFICATION: The existing conditions put pedestrians and bicyclists on the road.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Kennedy Dr/Twin Oaks CrosswalkDEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 50           50                    Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition 50            50           100                  Construction‐                   Furniture & Equipment‐                   TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:50            50            50            ‐           ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          150                  Funding Sources:General Fund‐                   Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 50           50                    Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 50            50           100                  Anticipated Bond‐                   Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐                   Recreation Impact Fee‐                   Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐                   Other‐                   TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:50            50            50            ‐           ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          150                  STATUS: In scoping by CCRPC as part of FY'19 UPWP grant.DESCRIPTION:  Install a crosswalk at the intersection of Kennedy Dr and Twin Oaks Terrace.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  JUSTIFICATION: Create a safe crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists at this location.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSOVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Kimball Avenue Shared Use PathN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 66              40             106            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐            Construction264            159           423            Furniture & Equipment‐            TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          ‐          ‐          66              304           159           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐          529            Funding Sources:General Fund‐            Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 264            119           383            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 40              40             80              Anticipated Bond‐            Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐            Recreation Impact Fee 66             66              Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐            Other‐            TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          ‐          ‐          66              304           159           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐          529            STATUS: Scoped. Needs final design and construction funds.  ‐ Going to push back a bit to conincide w/repairs to recently failed culvertDESCRIPTION:  Construct a paved shared use path along Kimball Avenue to  link Kennedy Dr. and the existing path along Kimball Ave to Technology Park (Community Drive) at its westerly end, and construct the small section of path and stream crossing Muddy Brook from the easterly end of the existing path at Technology Park to the nearby Williston Town Line. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  none ‐ connects existing maintained pathsJUSTIFICATION: The lack of a connection places pedestrians and bicyclists on the road.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Eligible for VTrans funding.  Options also include Rec. Impact Fees, proposing a separate bond issue for a variety of projects, or using a reserve fund as a % of the Highway Roads Annual Budget.  Budget is based on current costs.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSRECREATION PATHS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Allen Rd. Shared Use Path (Upper)N/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐            Construction 100         100            Furniture & Equipment‐            TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:100         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          100            Funding Sources:General Fund‐            Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 100         100            Anticipated Bond‐            Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐            Recreation Impact Fee‐            Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐            Other‐            TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:100         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          100            STATUS: DESCRIPTION:  Construct  shared use path along Allen Road from Spear St. to the end of the existing path near Baycrest Drive.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  noneJUSTIFICATION: The lack of a connection as it presently exists places pedestrians and bicyclists on the road. This project will improve the delivery of public services and the quality of existing infrastructure.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Options  include VTrans funding,  Rec. Impact Fees, proposing a separate bond issue for a variety of projects, or the establishment of a reserve fund as a % of general funds spent on roadways.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND  ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSOVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Spear Street Bike/Ped ImprovementsN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 50            50            50            50200            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition 50            50           100            Construction300          500         800            Furniture & Equipment‐            TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          50            100         300         ‐          ‐          50            100         500         ‐          1,100        Funding Sources:General Fund‐            Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 50            50            150          50            50            400         750            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 50            100          50            50           250            Anticipated Bond‐            Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐            Recreation Impact Fee 50            50           100            Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐            Other‐            TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          50            100         300         ‐          ‐          50            100         500         ‐          1,100        STATUS:  In scoping.DESCRIPTION:  Construct bike and pedestrian facilities where there are gaps along Spear Street from Route 2 to Shelburne town line.  These projects will likely be phased depending on funding and complexity.  Phase 1 looks at adding a rec path where existing infrastructure ends at UVM fields to the terminus of Williston Rd.  Phase 2 looks at adding a combination of rec path, on road bike facilities, and sidewalk from the US Forest Service path to the town line with Shelburne.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Will be part of sidewalk maintanance operations.JUSTIFICATION:  There are pieces of infrastructure along Spear Street, but nothing that proivdes a through connection for bike or pedestrian users.  In many spots, bikes and pedestrians have to travel on the road with vehicles to get from one end to the other.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Is eligible for Vtrans funding, and CCRPC assistance with scoping study.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND  ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSOVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Spear Street Jug Handle Shared Use PathN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐            Construction 50            50           100            Furniture & Equipment‐            TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:50            50            ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          100            Funding Sources:General Fund‐            Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution‐            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 50            50           100            Anticipated Bond‐            Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐            Recreation Impact Fee‐            Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐            Other‐            TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:50            50            ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          100            STATUS:  In scoping.DESCRIPTION:  Construct a new paved shared use path between East Terrace and the connection to UVM path on Spear St., this would also require 2 crosswalks.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Will be part of sidewalk maintanance operations.JUSTIFICATION:  This path exists as a "people's choice" path, paving will provide an off street and designated route for pedestrians and bicyclists.  Paving will improve ADA and inclement weather accessability.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Is eligible for Vtrans funding, and CCRPC assistance with scoping study.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND  ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSOVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREPROJECT:S. Dorset Street Shared Use PathN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 25            25           50              Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐            Construction350          400         750            Furniture & Equipment‐            TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          25            375         400         ‐          ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐           ‐          800            Funding Sources:General Fund‐            Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 215          250         465            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 25            160          150         335            Anticipated Bond‐            Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐            Recreation Impact Fee‐            Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐            Other TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          25            375         400         ‐          ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐          800            STATUS:  Was scoped as part of FY'18 UPWP project; twice submitted and rejected as a grant applicationDESCRIPTION:  Construct a new paved 10 ft. shared use path along Dorset Street from Old Cross Rd. south to link with the existing path at the Hoehn Property (north of Autumn Hill Road).OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  JUSTIFICATION: The lack of a connection as it presently exists places pedestrians and bicyclists on the road, creating an unsafe situation. This project will improve the safety and comfort of alternative modes of transportation, increasing the attractiveness of these modes for risk adverse. AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Eligible for funding through Vtrans and impact fees.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Shelburne Road Ped/Bike FacilitiesN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal58             58           116            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐            Construction231          231         462            Furniture & Equipment‐            TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          58            289         231         ‐          578            Funding Sources:General Fund‐            Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution181          101         282            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund)50            130         180            Anticipated Bond‐            Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐            Recreation Impact Fee58             58           116            Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐            Other‐            TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          58            289         231         ‐          578            STATUS:DESCRIPTION:  Widen and replace the non‐ADA compliant, deteriorated sidewalk with a new paved shared use path on the east and west side of Shelburne Rd. from Imperial Dr. north to McIntosh Ave.  Design & construction would run on a calendar year, falling out over two fiscal years, with bidding in the winter of 2019/20, construction summer 2019.  OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: noneJUSTIFICATION: This project allows bicyclists and pedestrians to access and use Shelburne Road as a transportation route; facilitates access to transit from adjoining neighborhoods along Shelburne Road.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT:  Options outlined by the committee include funding through Rec. Impact Fees for City match and as this is a state highway; state funding/grant for remainder.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURESHARED USE PATHSPROJECT:Hinesburg Rd Bike FacilitiesN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 50            50           100            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition150          250         400            Construction‐             Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:50            ‐          ‐          50            150         250         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          500            Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 100          150         250            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 50            50            50           150            Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee ‐           ‐           50            50           100            Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:50            ‐          ‐          50            150         250         ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          500            STATUS:  In scoping by CCRPC as part of UPWP grantDESCRIPTION:  Construct bike facilities along Hinesburge Road between Kennedy Drive and Williston Road.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  noneJUSTIFICATION: This project will improve bicycle access and safety along this segment of Hinesburg RoadAVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURESHARED USE PATHSPROJECT:Airport Drive/Parkway Shared Use Path to Lime Kiln RoadN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 40            100           50190            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition50           50              Construction186          300         300          786            Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          40            186         ‐          ‐            ‐           100          100         300         300         1,026        Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution 100          ‐           ‐           100           100          300          300          900            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 40            48           88              Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee 38           38              Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          40            186         ‐          ‐            ‐           100          100         300         300         1,026        STATUS:  Conceptual.  Airport is expected to be generating a Master Plan which has not be released.DESCRIPTION:  Connect the path at Kennedy Drive to the exising path along Airport Drive around the airport and along Airport Parkway to existing path on Lime Kiln Road.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: noneJUSTIFICATION: AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT:  AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURESHARED USE PATHSPROJECT:Vale to Spear/Swift Streets  PathN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐             Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐             Construction558          558            Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐           558          ‐          ‐          ‐          558            Funding Sources:General Fund‐             Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution558          558            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund)‐             Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee‐             Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐          ‐           558          ‐          ‐          ‐          558            STATUS:   To be built by Swift Meadows developer as part of their project, which is currently in the appeal process in Env. CourtDESCRIPTION:  This path will connect Vale and Spear/Swift Streets. It will be connected to the approved Spear Meadows Development.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: noneJUSTIFICATION: AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT:  This path may be constructed by private property owners as they develop their properties in lieu of Recreation Impact Fees.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker GENERAL FUND ‐ BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURESHARED USE PATHSPROJECT:Sidewalk on north side of White St: Patchen to Airport DrN/AN/ADEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 20FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal 50              25             75              Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition15             15              Construction200           250          450            Furniture & Equipment‐             TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐            50              40              200          250          ‐           ‐          540            Funding Sources:General Fund50            50              Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution40              150           150          340            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects Fund) 50              50             50            150            Anticipated Bond‐             Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐             Recreation Impact Fee‐             Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐             Other‐             TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐          ‐          ‐          ‐            50              40              200          250          ‐           ‐          540            STATUS: Conceptual design completed in 2013 with a SR2S grantDESCRIPTION:  Construct a sidewalk on the north side of White Street to improve pedestrian safety/access to Chamberlin School and within the larger neighborhoodOPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  none ‐ connects existing maintained pathsJUSTIFICATION: The lack of a connection places pedestrians and bicyclists on the road.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Eligible for VTrans grants and SR2S grants.  Options also include Impact Fees.AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Ashley Parker Header w/meeting information - Unchanged 1. Welcome & Emergency Info (5:30 p.m. - 5min) 2. Changes or additions to the agenda (5:35 p.m. - 5min) 3. Comments from the public (5:40 p.m. - 5min) Opening Committee business - Unchanged 4. Consideration of minutes - see Link to draft minutes (5:45 p.m - 5min) a. Objective: Motion to adopt final draft of July minutes -Add objective 5. Updates from the City - Liaison (Start Time - Nmin) a. Topics itemized with objectives if necessary -Itemize topics -Objectives as appropriate 6. Major - Major Topics - Primary Owner (Start Time - ~15-30min) a. Objective: Explicit objective for this discussion -Classify topic as Major/Minor. -Major topics require ~15-30m -Require an objective. -Docs part of meeting package -Target a maximum of 3 7. Minor - Minor Topic 1 - Primary Owner (Start Time - ~5-10min) a. Objective: Explicit objective for this discussion -Minor topics require ~5-10m -Require an objective -Docs part of meeting package -Target a maximum of 5 8. Informational Updates - Primary Owner -No update -> item not listed -Links to documents with updates sufficient -Verbal updates (if necessary) limited to 1-2min maximum -No objective (if objective required, topic = minor) -THIS SECTION IS OPTIONAL 9. Review: Homework for next meeting - Liaison 10. Confirmation: Next meeting Date 11. Adjourn Closing Committee business - Essentially unchanged. Note: We will adjourn no later than 8pm. ● Agenda due by Thursday before meeting - required for warning. ● Proposed agenda topics must be submitted to chair no later than prior Sunday (i.e. 10 days ahead of meeting). Earlier is better. ● Agenda topic owners define which documents should be included the meeting packet ● Documents associated with Major/Minor topics must be completed & in folder by Friday morning before the meeting if they are to be included in the meeting packet. ● Eliminate Talking Points - Major/Minor topics each have a folder with all documents & link in agenda. Informational updates also linked in agenda to a document or folder (if >1 doc) 19016A-01.dwg Layout1 8/8/2019 14:43:58 19016A-02.dwg Layout1 8/8/2019 14:44:32 19016A-03.dwg Layout1 8/8/2019 14:45:01 19016A-04.dwg Layout1 8/8/2019 14:49:04 19016A-05.dwg Layout1 8/8/2019 09:15:43 19016A-06.dwg Layout1 8/8/2019 09:17:06 19016A-07.dwg Layout1 8/8/2019 09:37:20