The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - City Council - 03/29/2021 - SMAGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT IMPORTANT: This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and members of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone. There will be no physical site at which to attend the meeting. Participation Options: Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/city-council-special-meeting-1-03-29-2021 You can also dial in using your phone. By Telephone (audio only): +1 (312) 757-3121, Access Code: 675-634-413 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO PARTICIPATE BY THE INTERACTIVE ONLINE MEETING TOOL ARE ASKED TO MUTE YOUR MICROPHONES WHEN NOT SPEAKING AND TURN OFF YOUR CAMERAS. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL ON A PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, TURN YOUR CAMERA ON TO BE RECOGNIZED AT THAT TIME. Special Session 6:30 P.M. Monday, March 29, 2021 1.Welcome & Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items.(6:30 – 6:32 PM) 2.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. (6:32 – 6:37 PM) 3.Consent Agenda: (6:37 – 6:40 PM) A.*** Consider and Sign Disbursements 4.Interview Applicants (2) for DRB (6:40 – 7:00 PM) 5.***Council Work Session- Continued discussion with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission regarding the Interstate-89 Corridor Study – Charlie Baker, Exec. Director, CCRPC(7:00 – 8:20 PM) 6.Council discussion and possible recommendation on requests for Community Projects for FederalFunding (8:20 – 8:50 PM) 7.Council discussion on goals for Interim Zoning, and establishing potential time line (8:50 – 9:20PM) 8.Other Business (9:20 – 9:25 PM) 9.Possible Executive Session to discuss committee appointment (9:25 -9:40 PM) 10.Possible appointment of applicant to the DRB (9:40 – 9:45 PM) 11. Adjourn (9:45 PM) Respectfully Submitted: Kevin Dorn Kevin Dorn, City Manager *** Attachments Included Issues raised by Councilors or the public that have not been on a prior meeting agenda: 1.Cost of development/cost of open space. Issues that have been discussed by the Council where further action is pending: 1.Street light policy.2.Airport noise survey.3.Evaluate water billing and rate structure. South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines City Council meetings are the only time we have to discuss and decide on City matters. We want to be as open and informal as possible; but Council meetings are not town meetings. In an effort to conduct orderly and efficient meetings, we kindly request your cooperation and compliance with the following guidelines. 1.Please be respectful of each other (Council members, staff, and the public). 2.Please raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. Once recognized please state your name and address. 3.Please address the Chair and not other members of the public, staff, or presenters. 4.Please abide by any time limits that have been set. Time limits will be used to insure everyone is heard and there is sufficienttime for the Council to conduct all the business on the agenda. 5.The Chair will make a reasonable effort to allow everyone to speak once before speakers address the Council a second time. 6.The Chair may ask that discussion be limited to the Councilors once the public input has been heard. 7.Please do not interrupt when others are speaking. 8.Please do not repeat the points made by others, except to briefly say whether you agree or disagree with others views. 9.Please use the outside hallway for side conversations. It is difficult to hear speaker remarks when there are otherconversations occurring. \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 Place: Zoom Meeting Date: March 10, 2021 Project #: 58179.00 Re: I-89 South Burlington All Committees Meeting Break-out Group Notes South Burlington All Committee Meeting Following a presentation of the I-89 2050 Study, which focused on the interchange concepts and evaluation, the group divided into break out rooms for each respective committee. The committee breakout rooms included: ➢City Council ➢Economic Development Committee ➢Natural Resources Committee ➢Affordable Housing Committee ➢Bike-Ped Committee ➢Energy Committee ➢Planning Commission In the breakout rooms, participants were asked to discuss the following questions: •Are there any additional metrics that should be evaluated at this stage? o Should any of the metrics be changed? •Should some of the metrics be scored on a different basis (rather than just compared to each other)? •Should the goals be weighted equally? o If not, which goals should be weighted more or less than others and why? Each committee breakout room was assigned a project team member to help facilitate the conversation, answer clarifying questions, and help to record the discussion. The committee membership present for the discussion and the notetaker for each group is noted for each breakout session below. Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 2 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 CITY COUNCIL Attendees: Helen Riehle, Meaghan Emery, Tim Barritt Note taker: Charlie Baker • Noise should be a metric. Particularly its impact on residents close to 89 and 189. • Access to the airport should be a metric. • Stormwater run-off should be a metric. • The partial interchange at 13 isn’t great and might provide some opportunities for improvement that make better use of Kennedy Drive. • There is some concern about the proposed Exit 13 SPDI traffic light and whether it is too close to the Dorset St signal. Could a roundabout (or two) work here instead since there is so much right of way already? • The safety goal should get more and the cost/preservation goal should get less weight. Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 3 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Attendees: John Burton, John Wilking Note taker: Dave Saladino • Metrics Comments o Potential new metric that looks at type of new jobs potentially created by each interchange alternative ▪ Potential for new high wage jobs should be scored higher o Potential new metric that looks at the impacts to South Burlington’s tax base resulting from each interchange alternative o Suggested metric that looks at total “throughput” of the transportation network under each scenario • Scoring/Weighting Comments o Would prefer to see updated scoring approach applied to two jobs metrics – i.e. setting minimum quintile value at 0 • General Comments o Strong support for Exit 12B to grow South Burlington’s tax base; strongly support Exit 12B over Exit 13 upgrades; would prefer upgrades at all three interchanges. o Felt that undeveloped, commercial and industrial zoned land around Exit 12B presented the best opportunity to meaningfully grow South Burlington grand list. o Don’t see much additional opportunity for growth around Exits 13 & 14 o Important to construct Exit 12B before Exit 14 o Improvements at Exit 12B and Exit 13 both improve access to airport, but felt that 12B was preferable due to development opportunities around Exit 12B o Felt that the tax rate in South Burlington is getting too high for some residents; important to grow tax base Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 4 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Attendees: Jean-Sebastien Chaulot, Lisa Yankowski, Ray Gonda, Andrew Shatzer, Larry Kupferman Note takers: Karen Sentoff, Larry Kupferman • Metrics Comments o Metric on wildlife passage or connectivity ▪ both as safety for vehicle traffic and connected habitat for wildlife ▪ criteria should help to evaluate whether we are providing connected wildlife habitat with each option ▪ channelization (i.e. fencing) and passage with appropriate culverts vs. open crossings of roadway with no protected path ▪ particularly important as development continues and habitat gets squeezed, those connections become more critical o Metric on stormwater ▪ Impervious surface calculation is one proxy ▪ The capacity or potential for prevention of runoff or treatment with each option would be better o Metric on noise pollution ▪ Understand how noise from each option might impact both people (residential areas) and nature (habitat areas) o Metric on disturbed area ▪ Newly disturbed area vs. already disturbed area being repurposed ▪ Discussed in the context of what amount of natural area is being affected, not necessarily overlapping with sensitive areas like RTE but rather other currently open spaces being altered • Scoring/Weighting Comments o Safety goal should be weighted more heavily than the others o Other goals besides safety should be weighted evenly • General Questions/Comments/Discussion o Do the plans include up to date proposals for surrounding areas (i.e. Champlain Parkway, Eastview, Poor Farm Road, vacant lands proximate to the airport)? o What are the criteria for environmental stewardship leading to resilience? Best to create structures that are robust and resilient in major weather events (i.e. flooding). Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 5 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE Attendees: Chris Trombly, Sandy Dooley Note taker: Aaron Guyette • General Comments o Consider impacts to City Center resulting from interchange construction. o For major study such as this one, for the outcoming actions including interchange construction or reconfiguration, the general public would anticipate travel time to be reduced. The data shows that travel times are not reduced. ▪ APG thought - Travel times are quantified system wide. While we may not want to change the metric, could we present data on localized changes associated with each interchange? o The metrics seem to score bike/ped safety only at each specific interchange study area. We should consider how interchange construction and reconfiguration will impact bike/ped safety outside of the project area as well - for example, if 12B is constructed, additional traffic on Hinesburg Road could have a negative impact on bike/ped safety. o We should have a stronger emphasis on bike/ped connectivity (first) and related safety (second). o Discussed potential impacts on Patchen Rd related to construction/reconfiguration of interchanges. ▪ APG thought - traffic congestion metrics are calculated system wide. While we may not want to change the metric, could we present data on localized changed to traffic congestion associated with each interchange? o We discussed the need for system wide bike/ped facilities. For example, there is no good connection down Spear St to the South Burlington Rec Path. A multi-use recreation path would be a good start, however the grade to go down under the interstate is also somewhat limiting. We also discussed the potential connection of Spear St to I-189 with an Exit 13 SPDI, which may help with this connectivity. o The southeast quadrant seems disconnected from the rest of South Burlington. An Exit 12B may increase the development in the southeast quadrant and may actually increase the disconnect. A new exit at this location would promote commercial growth for Gas Stations, etc and will also benefit commercial growth for Technology Park, but will not help to community connection. Should we have a metric to evaluate community connectivity or community cohesion? o The current mix of market rate housing doesn’t meet the demand. o The planning exercises have forecast more jobs in South Burlington, however there is concern that there may not be enough space for the housing needed for the jobs. With job growth and high housing costs, it will potentially make community to the jobs from outside the area for attractive. Everyone commutes into work, then commutes back home after work (perhaps even outside the county). This scenario would be viewed as a negative due to increased vehicle emissions, more time spent commuting leads to a decreased quality of life (time away from family, life events, etc), and the further people live outside of the metropolitan areas the more access to transit is reduced. o Potentially add a transit metric to evaluate access to or use of public transit services related to interchange construction or reconfiguration. Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 6 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 BIKE-PED COMMITTEE Attendees: Bob Britt, Nic Anderson, Cathy Frank, Amanda Holland, Donna Leban, Havaleh Gagne, Dana Farr, Jonathan Weber - Local Motion, Bryan Davis - CCRPC Facilitator Note Takers: Nic Anderson and Bryan Davis, organized by Cathy Frank • Metrics Comments • Metric: Timeline for potential change to be accomplished o Bob - Missing timing. Need to know when things would need to be replaced. If timing is important, that could be weighted into the numbers. • Metric: Availability of federal money for maintenance and for construction o Another challenge - Do we know if there is support federally for maintenance/upgrading existing vs new construction? o One metric we used for a different project was “Ability to get it done”. This could come into play with federal funding. Is it easier to do brand new than changing an existing exit. • Metric: What would be the effect of providing better, safer facilities for pedestrians and bikers to the projected increase in vehicular traffic. o Cathy - When calculating changes, does the increase in bike ped use change the metrics for vehicles. Metric: o Nic - Timing is difficult. They are triggers. • Metric: What would be the effect of new or improved interchanges on the surrounding area/roads, not just the interchanges themselves. o Donna - 12B is ok now and don't see that it could be more improved. Will have much more traffic etc. The additional metric that needs to be added for 12B “environmental impact of the new extenuating roads to be built”. There are two significant wetlands that would be damaged by the extra roads. 12B metric needs to include effect of extenuating roads to be built in an area with two significant wetlands. o Amanda asked if that metric would be for all interchanges. o Donna - Yes, but more important at 12B. Could be impact at 13 to a small degree. • Metric: Improve the current Wetland Impact Metric and apply it to all interchange areas. o There is a wetland impact metric. Wetland impact metric for all interchanges should include the extra roads and new development that will be built, not just the interchange. Part of Tilley Drive has Significant wetlands o Donna - Should be based on the extra roads not the interchange o Amanda - That part of Tilley is one of the wildlife corridors and where the new City streets could be are more wetland. The city roads tying in would have an environmental impact. • Metric: for the effect each proposed interchange (14, 13 and 12B) would have on the other 2 in regard to vehicular traffic, and bike-pedestrian traffic Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 7 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 o Cathy – Doesn’t seem to have a metric for how changes in 13 and 14 would impact Dorset St. Adding 13 would probably decrease traffic on Dorset St north and increase traffic on Kennedy Dr. south and east to the airport. o Havaleh - impact on city center needs to be included. What about the changes that the dying mall would have? Assess traffic flow through Dorset street. o Donna - Just doing something at 13 would change dorset st by taking away traffic o Bob - There are maps that show that already. o New metric could be impact to residents and neighborhood (i.e., changes in traffic to local roads, change in “livability”) • Metric: Which combination best connects the city of South Burlington o The Shelburne Road area is disconnected from the Dorset St area. Need to connect our city better. o Amanda - Could frame it in connecting South Burlington on a regional connectivity way. • Metric: Economic Impact o Bob - Surprised economic metrics seems like they are waiting. Seemed interesting that 12 and 13 had no positive weighting in economic. Didn't calculate or make sense to him. Seems like it's a good thing jobs are created close to city centers. The 0 for creating new jobs/job access should be different, maybe there should be more weighting than other metrics. 12B seemed to be creating the most jobs and the most housing. Maybe it's just too close to show the difference. o Bryan - Should there be more distinction between those. o Bob - Should yes. • New Metric: Directness of route for walkers and bikers, not just cars and commercial vehicles. o Nic - Missing the metric of “directness”. Current metric is connectivity but just having a path from Dorset to Spear is very different from a direct path from Dorset to Spear. The keys to a good bike network are safety, directness, comfort and cohesion. Safety and cohesion (connectivity) are covered but not direct. Metric needed to measure directness of proposed new car, AND bike-ped routes. Example – proposal for shared use plan for 13 is not in anyway direct. • Metric: Impact of noise on the residential houses o Jonathon - Noise impacts aren't covered and should be. Should have that in there with regard to the impact on residents. Same with air quality. o Nic - of the additional vehicles on Hinesburg Rd if 12B is done. Need to cover the impact on the residential nature or amenity of those streets. o Metric on Noise impact Jonathon - That’s not squishy. Noise impacts aren't covered and should be. Should have that in there with regard to the impact on residents. o Donna - Maybe it's not the interchange that makes the noise but it's the traffic on local streets. The noise impact there is a frightening scenario at 12B. Changing smaller roads into major thoroughfares could impact neighborhoods badly. Impact to Wheeler Nature park could be impacted by other roads such as the Swift St extension that may follow an interchange. Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 8 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 • Metric: How much effect would altered or new interchanges have on adding or reducing commercial traffic of neighborhood streets? (Havaleh) • Metric: Analyze a new interchange versus updated one. (Amanda) o Cathy - Much easier to improve exit 13 and steer non-residential traffic to Kennedy Drive and have less impact on Dorset St. • Metric: Which improvements are most needed first? o Donna - The “Ability to get it done” should be more important. o Cathy - Add to that the ones that are “most needed”. The most important improvement the quickest. There was no weight put on the three options against each other. Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 9 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 ENERGY COMMITTEE Attendees: Marcy Murray, Ethan Goldman, Andrew Chalnick Note Taker: Jason Charest Major Points: 1. It is not clear that the differences in the metrics are significant and ranking those differences with the current scale amplifies differences that may not exist. Suggestion: For each metric, the min/max of the output values should NOT be used. Rather, either: (a) The range used to determine the quintile of the particular metric should be such that each quintile in the range is larger than the “uncertainty” in the inputs that produced the related metric, or (b) The range should be developed by reference to measured improvements of similar projects 2. To produce more reliable metrics, the goals and each of the items under the goals, need to be carefully weighted to avoid distortion. Ultimately, though, this will not eliminate subjectivity because the weightings will themselves be subjective. A better way to approach this would be “dollarize” each item, so the comparison of each item is on an “apples to apples” basis. • For example, determine the dollar value of saving an acre of wetland, a life, reducing noise, cost of incremental carbon, etc… 3. Getting the “fuel consumption” metric correct is really important. The current metric seems to be a snapshot at a point in time, even though EV usage will change dramatically during the relevant period. We would think the metric should take into account that changing use based on the anticipated timing of the infrastructure changes. Other Points: • VMT/VHT/Fuel Consumption and other metrics have differences that are too small to score. o Are the differences statistically significant? o Conduct a sensitivity analysis instead? o Are the raw VMT/VHT/Fuel Consumption data as accurate as possible for each local scenario (despite having used county-wide data)? • Additional Metrics o Climate Change could be its own goal with respective metrics underneath it Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 10 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 o Weighting Environmental Stewardship more heavily could be an alternate way of getting at this • Tough to set the boundary at Chittenden County for energy impacts. o Don't know where the new residents are coming from outside the region and what the new homes’ energy footprints would look like. o Focus on metrics that provide a meaningful difference between alternatives • Environmental Stewardship o Four out of Seven are related to water. o Sort of builds in weighting within the goal that may not make sense • Consider a metric around which design would help further increase more sustainable ways of transport e.g. walking, biking, transit • Noise metric should be added o Change in noise levels o Context matters, cars driving by commercial areas are better than cars driving by residential areas o Home value depreciation due to noise. • Not obvious that the VMT numbers are a daily value. While percentages are small due to the numbers being so large, a reduction of 5,000+ miles per day is a big deal especially when you think of that added up over an entire year. • When monetizing things, need to think about what the appropriate time frame is: daily, monthly, yearly etc. Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 11 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 PLANNING COMMISSION Attendees: Eleni Churchill, Paul Conner, Jessica Louisos, Duncan Macdonald, Michael Mittag, Monica Ostby, Charlie Baker Notetaker: Monica Ostby • Mittag stated concern regarding impact to wetlands, particularly at the 12B location. Requested wetland impact metrics be included. Churchill stated that we have a wetland metric and an updated 12B concept seemed to address wetland issues but will review. • Louisos requests economic access impact as the interchanges connect to areas of growth. She would like to see a sub set metric of how each exchange contributes and/or detracts from supporting SB City Center. Churchill indicated that she will discuss this with the consultant team. • Mittag suggested underlying assumptions might expect more working from home thus taken into account. Also a lack of transit for rural residents. Churchill explain due to the uncertainty of how people will travel in a post-pandemic world, the study will recommend monitoring travel patterns and develop triggers to identify when major roadway capacity improvements are needed so they can move forward. • Ostby stated disappointment that a version of exit 14 with the inclusion or assumption of a separate bike/ped bridge to its south was not presented. Churchill explained that the isolated bike/ped bridge is being reviewed as part of the I-89 corridor "bundle" and evaluated separately (in the next phase of the study). That it might be a mid-way project that is constructed prior to an exit 14 reconstruction. And that any exit 14 option should include safest bike/ped facilities even if a separate bridge is constructed. • Ostby also asked if truck/commercial traffic impact not only on each exit but the surrounding city roads be considered. Are there areas of SB that would see a rise in commercial traffic? Churchill indicated that the regional model provides data on overall vehicle traffic but not necessarily on commercial traffic. The project team already developed maps indicating change in volumes for each of the five interchange concepts. Note: The maps are available on the project website (Envision89) and were shared with the City Council (Feb 16th meeting). • Regarding exit 13, Ostby stated safety concerns of heavy truck/commercial on a 4 land boulevard design connecting I-89 to Shelburne Road. She also asked if the land connected to the southern portion of the current 189 might be converted to bike/ped use. Churchill explained that since it is Federal land it would have to be invested. They will review how to identify commercial traffic safety impact. • Conner suggested that all exits review what Federal lands would be no longer needed with the new designs and what might happen to that land. That even if the land ownership continued to be Federal and was left alone, what impact would it have on a potential quality of life improvement. He suggested adding a metric of "Return of Valuable Land." Churchill stated that such questions will be directed to VTRANS and FHWA. • Mittag asked about the cost impact of creating 12B, how many acres would have to be purchased as is this part of the cost estimate. Churchill confirmed the construction estimates do not include ROW or land acquisition expense. Place: Zoom Meeting Ref: 58179.00 March 10, 2021 Page 12 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 • Mittag supported exit 13 given its direct access to the airport, reducing traffic load to exit 14, and asked that this be considered in a weighted evaluation. • Macdonald asked for clarification of the process. Churchill explained that while the final decisions on which interchange concepts to move forward for further evaluation are made by the I-89 Advisory Committee, they will give preference to the direction received by the City Council. That as part of the process the committee will look at midway options such as bike/ped bridge before final interchange work. That major interchange improvements (permitting, design and construction could take 15 to 20 years. Macdonald suggested that timing to completion is an important metric that should be included. • Macdonald asked for clarification regarding the two future roads shown on the 12B draft. Conner confirmed both roads are currently on the Official Map, and one, connecting to Community Drive, will be under construction with a pending development. • Louisos reminded that there was a suggestion to consider how the scoring might be weighted. This is a topic the full PC will discuss in an upcoming meeting. Further, should any goals be weighted? Churchill also ask the committee to review the scoring methodology and offer any comments. • Mittag asked how to best engage the community. Churchill reviewed the public sessions already held, and future sessions planned including 3/18 and mid-April. • Ostby stated that while reviewing exits 14 and 13 can be clear and constructive, evaluating whether to support a new 12B will be highly political, making it more challenging to be objective. Macdonald stated that reviewing a new construction at 12B vs a partial reconstruction (such as 14 and 13) would be a much heavier lift. • Ostby asked if a metric considering the benefit of each interchange to the surrounding cities can be useful. Baker stated that earlier research confirms that 12B is not more helpful to Hinesburg residents' access to 89 than using the current exit 12. Considering the fuller option for exit 13 might review benefits to supporting Burlington. • Baker asked that the PC further contemplate if something more can be weighted, and if any considerations are missing. He also mentioned as an example that in the City Council sub-group this evening safety was seen as a higher concern than cost. See attached supplemental notes from the Planning Commission South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sbvt.gov Chittenden County I-89 2050 Interchange Study Input on Screening Criteria Compiled based on March 16, 2021 Commission Discussion The City of South Burlington is host to all considered options for changes to I-89 interchanges included in the study. The impact is the most significant to our community. Although at this stage we are weighing in on only the evaluation criteria, we believe that direct input from South Burlington on the specific alternatives should be considered prior to final study recommendations being formulate. We would recommend including specific criteria that reflect changes to the quality of life to the host community of South Burlington with the following suggestions: • Include a metric on how City Center supported and/or detracted from. • Include a metric on how access to the airport is affected. • Better define which option is safest for bike and pedestrians. The current qualitative criteria make this element unclear. It appears that none of the options address this well. • Include a metric on how traffic locations or type of vehicles be changed in proximity to existing neighborhoods. For example, will commercial truck traffic be close to homes? Other criteria to consider: • Make sure the values or differences in the values is significant when using them to stratify results between options. For example, are “Connectivity to Areas Planned for Growth” values of 87% or 90% different enough to justify choosing one option over another? • Add a metric that considers the timeline of the implemented changes. This could include the complexity of the project, where a partial upgrade may be quicker to complete than a full new interchange. This could include the likelihood of appeals that would take significant time. • Add a metric that quantifies benefits due to the reduction in footprint from existing. Examples are if areas currently used by the interchange could be reverted to natural space or additional buffers to neighborhoods. • Across the analysis consider future users and how they may be different than today’s users. Changes could include less car centric mobility, autonomous vehicles, more shorter trips, more home workers. The implementation and subsequent life span of these changes is far into the future. • Add an additional safety parameter considering the usability. Unfamiliar designs can cause confusion leading to crashes. Familiar designs may be more friendly to new users. Make sure that the wetland near Tilley Drive has been properly included in the evaluation matrix. We believe there is a more extensive wetland in that area that may not be accounted for in the wetland impacts. South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – March 18, 2021 - Page 1 Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – Meeting Notes Presentation and Meeting Video are available at: https://envision89.com/public-process DATE: March 18, 2021 TIME: 7:00-9:00 PM PLACE: Via Zoom PRESENT: Please See Attached 1. Welcome & Introductions Charlie Baker of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) opened the meeting at 7:05PM. 2. Project Background Charlie reviewed the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). This document is the region’s principal long-range (2050) transportation plan that evaluates system performance, identifies future needs, and sets regional transportation priorities. The document makes the following land use and demographic projections through 2050: • Population: Projected to grow by over 20,000 people (14% increase) • Employment: Projected to grow by nearly 50,000 jobs (35% increase) • Households: Projected to grow by of almost 15,000 (25% increase) The Plan tries to balance all modes, address safety and congestion issues, and improve livability. The MTP priorities are to: 1) allocate 70 percent of funding to system preservation; 2) concentrate growth in villages and downtowns with a goal of 90 percent of all household growth in areas planned for growth; 3) pursue safety improvements at high crash locations; 4) invest in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS); 5) promote Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs; 6) increase walking and biking; 7) make capacity expansions when necessary; 8) make significant transit enhancements; and 9) study the future of I-89 from Exits 12 to 16 and focus on the congestion between Exits 14 and 15. Charlie also reviewed the following outcomes resulting from all MTP investments for meeting state and regional energy goals: • 2.4% decrease in vehicles miles traveled (VMT) • 4.6% decrease in Vehicle hours traveled (VHT) • Increase non-automotive mode-share from about 12% to 16% • 90% electrification of the vehicle fleet • 77% reduction in fuel consumption compared to 2015 South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – March 18, 2021 - Page 2 In terms of roadway capacity, even with all of the transit, bike/ped, ITS, and TDM investments in the MTP, Interstate 89 between Exits 14 and 15 is expected to be over capacity by 2050 during peak and near-peak hours. The CCRPC analyzed various transportation scenarios during the MTP planning process, including widening the Interstate between Exits 14 and 15 and adding a new interchange at Exit 12B. Although adding a third lane on the interstate between Exits 14 and 15 alleviated congestion in this segment, the section between Exits 15 and 16 became congested. Results from the MTP transportation scenarios indicated that Interstate 89 improvements required further study which resulted in the decision to conduct the I-89 2050 Study. The project study area includes 37 miles and 7 interchanges of I-89 and roads adjacent to those interchanges. There are three likely sets of recommendations from this study: 1) Minor capital investments; 2) Operational investments; and 3) Major capital investments. Based on the results from the first round of interchange evaluation, the I-89 Advisory Committee voted to advance the South Burlington interchanges (Exit 12B, Exit 13, and Exit 14) to the second round of evaluation. This is the basis for tonight’s discussion. The I-89 Study Goals include: Safety, Livable, Sustainable, & Healthy Communities, Mobility & Efficiency, Environmental Stewardship, Economic Access, and System Preservation. 3. Interchange Alternatives Dave Saladino, VHB consultant team, explained that the Study Team is seeking input on the interchange evaluation metrics & scoring methodology. He presented five conceptual interchange designs at Exit 12B, Exit 13 (two alternatives: Hybrid and Single Point Diamond Interchange-SPDI), and Exit 14 (two alternatives: Diverging Diamond Interchange and an Enhanced Cloverleaf). Interchange concept plans and the presentation video are available on the website. Q: Was the Exit 14 Intercept Study (at the current Doubletree Hotel) considered? Dave: Yes, it was considered but not included in the two Exit 14 concept plans. Justin Rabidoux (South Burlington): The land needed for the intercept facility is subject to long-term (25-year) parking leases. We can revisit it if those leases change. Q: If we implement the Exit 13 SPDI, what does the decommissioning of I-189 mean? Dave: The federal government is now looking for opportunities to decommission interstates. We could take advantage of this program and no funds would have to be paid back to federal government. Q: Do the Exit 13 SPDI ramp volumes warrant a bike/pedestrian overpass? Dave: It will be considered, although there will be signals to allow safe bike/pedestrian crossing. Q: Will there be an Exit 14 bike/pedestrian bridge over 89 considered? Dave: If we are unable to include bicycle accommodations within the selected Exit 14 interchange alternative, a separated bicycle overpass will be evaluated in the next phase of the project. South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – March 18, 2021 - Page 3 4. Interchange Metrics & Scoring Dave reviewed the twenty-six Interchange Evaluation Metrics which are aligned with the study goals. The draft scoring process identified metrics for each goal. He asked participants if there are metrics that are missing or should be changed. Each metric was assigned a numerical value between 0 and 4, and Dave asked the participants if the scoring should be allocated or ranked differently. Q: Why do the Exit 14 changes result in the most new jobs? Aren’t vehicle volumes reduced? Karen Sentoff (VHB): There is a high concentration of activity near Exit 14, so changes encourage even more growth there. Significant employers are concentrated within the 1-mile radius – UVM, UVMMC, and South Burlington City Center. Karen summarized the themes from the “Chat” feature: • Safety for bike/pedestrians • Add a quality-of-life metric for those who live in the 116 corridor (volume/speed of vehicles) • Metrics for noise, impervious service, access to the airport • Impact on existing roads – traffic volumes on Kennedy Drive, Williston Road, etc. • Exit 13 would address Kennedy Drive and airport access. Exit 12B may not be needed with Exit 13 improvements. • Who provided the budget estimates? Dave: VHB in collaboration with VTrans. • Is Exit 14 growth not included in number of new jobs in the no build scenario? Dave: There’s no area to draw a circle around the interchange, but future job growth is included in the no build scenario. • Why the traffic volume changes? Dave: Shifting interchange traffic has different impacts on the street network – some increases and some decreases. • Does the DDI reduce capacity? Dave: It has 5-10% less through-put capacity than the existing full cloverleaf due to two additional signals. • What about snow management? Dave: We tried to design the alternatives to alleviate snow plowing and storage issues. There is a representative from the VTrans Maintenance District on the Technical Committee and we’ve talked about the need to accommodate snow storage. There will be more detailed designs in the future. • Will there be flashing lights at all pedestrian crossings that don’t have signals? Yes, they will be considered. • What about wildlife corridors? Most wildlife issues occur between interchanges, and we’ll be looking there next. • SPDI should be built at Exit 13 as soon as possible. It will solve all the problems. I support the DDI. A new Exit 12B assumes a Tilly Drive expansion over a wildlife corridor. Charlie reiterated the input the Study Team is seeking for the metrics and scoring. Comments are due Monday, March 22, 2021 and should be emailed to Diane Meyerhoff. South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – March 18, 2021 - Page 4 5. Next Steps Second Round Interchange Evaluation • South Burlington Committee Comment Deadline: March 22nd • South Burlington City Council Workshop: March 29th • Technical Committee Meeting #8: April 7th • South Burlington City Council: April 19th • Virtual Public Meeting: Late April/Early May • Advisory Committee Meeting #5: May Corridor Evaluation & Public/Stakeholder Involvement • Develop & Evaluate Interchange Bundles: Spring/Summer/Fall 2021 Draft & Final Report: Winter 2022 The meeting was adjourned at 8:30PM. Participants (Zoom User Names) Joanne Necrason Tom Chittenden Loretta Marriott Karen Yacos* Pamela Swift Dale Azaria* Matt Cota (Matt Cota) Johnny Illick Kathy & Bruce Boozan Chris LaMothe (Lopez# Nelly K) leo nadeau Rick Hubbard Mike's iPhone Beverly David Boedy gerrysilverstein Christopher Jolly** Jonathon Weber Chris Shaw Don Catalano Havaleh Gagne Austin Betsy Bahrenburg Marcia Dunham Kevin Marvin Jody Prescott Shawn Goddard Barry Cathy Chamberlain BobBritt wayne Justin Rabidoux** Adam Froehlig Tim McKenzie Kevin Marshia** Jessie Baker Claire Jessie Smith# Jennifer J Donna Leban Tim Barritt David's iPad Roland Groeneveld Mary A Putnam Meaghan Emery Terry Jessie Betsy Bahrenburg susandaily CCRPC Staff: Charlie Baker, Jason Charest, Eleni Churchill, Christine Forde, Sai Sarepalli Consultant Team: Aaron Guyette (VHB), David Saladino (VHB), Diane Meyerhoff (TSA), Karen Sentoff (VHB) *I-89 Advisory Committee; ** I-89 Technical Committee I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 1 I-89 2050 Study Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting From: I-89 2050 Study Project Team Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 6:54 PM Subject: New feedback on Your Feedback You have received new feedback on the Guestbook on project Your Feedback on your site, As a South Burlington resident who lives near Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive and who has family who lives near Dorset and Swift Streets, I think we need to lessen and slow down traffic in and around this area, not add to traffic, speed, noise and congestion where are homes and places of outdoor recreation are and could be. We need to consider the wellbeing of our community and our environment. We need to make South Burlington a more walkable community, safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Adding more sidewalks, crosswalks, extending public transit options, and slowing down traffic are needed to make South Burlington a more livable and viable place to live, work and play. What we don't need more highways, exits and speeding cars. Added by Jen Click here to view the feedback From: Eleni Churchill <echurchill@ccrpcvt.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:13 AM To: Erik Brotz <erik@burlingtontelecom.net>; Subject: RE: Burlington outreach on I89 project Hello Erik, Thanks for reaching out to ask for a Burlington focused public meeting on the I-89 Study. I just want to let you know that we are planning to have another public meeting (in addition to the South Burlington focused one we just had last week) sometime late April or early May (date TBD) in which everyone will be invited to provide their comments on the I-89 Interchanges under review. We are planning to advertise this meeting widely but we will also send you the meeting announcement so you can forward to Burlington Walk-Bike Council members. In the meantime, please check the project website (https://envision89.com/) for updates on the study. Best, Eleni ******************************************** Eleni Churchill Transportation Program Manager, CCRPC Office Direct Line: 802.861.0117 www.ccrpcvt.org **CCRPC employees are working remotely and the office is closed to visitors. Please call or email and will respond as soon as possible. Thank you.** I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 2 -----Original Message----- From: Erik Brotz <erik@burlingtontelecom.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:13 AM Subject: Burlington outreach on I89 project Hi Eleni and Jason, I am writing to strongly encourage you to schedule and promote a public meeting for Burlington regarding the I89 2050 Study currently underway. Although I89 does not go through Burlington, it and its interchanges affect many Burlington residents. Even as someone active in transportation issues, I had not heard of this project until recently. Outreach should include UVM students as well as permanent residents; we've heard some students say that they have cars on campus at least in part because they want to be able to get to the Dorset St. grocery stores. Thanks very much for your attention to this issue. I look forward to hearing from you on your outreach plans. Erik Brown Brotz, Chair, Burlington Walk-Bike Council ***** From: Leo Nadeau <firstcall211@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:48 PM Subject: Suggestions for the Swift/Spear St intersection Diane, I’m sending the attached picture relating to my suggestions for the intersection of Swift Street and Spear Street. The main focus that I’m bringing forth is that they would be designated right turn lanes at every roadway leading into the intersection. Also recommending the smart traffic light system to facilitate the movement of vehicles and pedestrians through the intersection more efficiently and hopefully more safely. Leo Nadeau, Retired Essex Chief of Police Home Phone: 863-6699 I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 3 ***** From: Bob Britt <brittvtbiz@msn.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:33 PM Subject: I-89 2050 Corridor Study Input Hello. Please see my attached list of the pros and cons for an Exit 12B. I have concluded that when comparing the decision metrics between and Exit 12B and the Exit 13 Single Diamond option that the later carries more benefits and should be selected. I do not have the time to document my pros and cons in such detail for the Exit 13 Single Diamond option as I believe comments are due by today. Please note that no bicyclist or pedestrian is going to go out of their way to take the proposed bicycle bridge as outlined on the Exit 13 Hybrid option as it is not direct. Bob Britt 802-338-6334 (cell) Pros and Cons of a New Exit 12B: I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 4 Conclusion: Although this alternative may have some favorable potential economic development aspects, the Exit 13 Single Diamond alternative clearly has more overall benefits when matched up against the totality of the metrics that have been established to make this decision. Exit 13B would help to directly join the west and east sides of South Burlington. Exit 13 provides a direct link for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians and links smoothly with existing infrastructure. Exit 12B would serve to divide the Southeast Quadrant from the rest of the City and would weaken the safety, livability and environment of the Hinesburg Road neighborhoods both north and south of the proposed exit. As an economic benefit of the Exit 13 Single Diamond option, it should carry the assumption that the State of Vermont/Federal DOT be responsible for all the ongoing maintenance of the expanded Kennedy Drive “boulevard” from Shelburne Road to Williston Road as it serves the region's international airport. These entities are already paying for I-189 that would be replaced and this should not become a cost for the City of South Burlington. Pros: • This exit may support the growth of industrial and commercial businesses in this area that may help to rebalance the commercial/residential tax base within South Burlington that has steadily been shifting to add more burdens on residential taxpayers • This exit may encourage more industrial and commercial business growth in an area where this type of development is preferred and zoned to be located • Having this exit may encourage additional airlines to provide service at Burlington International Airport because there is a more direct route to the airport (alleged Southwest Airlines example) • It could be assumed that a new Exit 12B could be built much earlier in years than the reconstruction of Exit 13 whose bridge may not need to be replaced for another 15 or more years. This may or may not be a good assumption. • It could be assumed that this new exit will significantly reduce the commuter vehicle traffic on Williston Road, Dorset Street, Market Street and Kennedy Drive since people working in the Technology Park and vicinity businesses will use this exit as well as vehicles heading to Burlington International Airport. This also may or may not be a good assumption. • The above pros assume that the Exit 12B “bundle” would include the following: o The concurrent building of the “Commercial/Industrial” road connecting the end of the exit ramp directly to Kimball Avenue at the intersection with Tilley Drive and the road to Technology Park. This will help minimize the traffic the heads to Hinesburg Road. o The building of a separated bicycle and pedestrian facility on the I-89 bridge over the highway on Hinesburg Road I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 5 o The building of a shared use path the length of Hinesburg Road from Cheese Factory Road to Kennedy Drive o The concurrent building of the U-turn ramp on I-189 to allow vehicles coming southbound on I-89 to access eastbound Kennedy Drive and for vehicles heading westbound on Kennedy Road to access northbound I-89 Cons: • Without the concurrent building of the proposed “Industrial/Commercial” road to Kimball Avenue and the road to Technology Park (preferably paid for by this project), the traffic jam this Exit 12B would cause at the intersections of Tilley Drive and Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road would be overwhelming. Dumping the Exit 12B midway down Tilley drive would be foolish without this added infrastructure. • This exit would further isolate and disconnect residents that live south of I-89 along Hinesburg Road from the rest of South Burlington especially if a recreation path and other separated bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is not included in the bundle for Exit 12 B. • The traffic on Hinesburg Road south to I-89 would increase markedly as vehicles from Shelburne, St. George, Hinesburg and beyond that would typically access I-89 via Exit 12 would instead head to Exit 12B to head south. • Likewise, cars heading to Shelburne, St. George, Hinesburg and beyond may choose to use Exit 12B rather than Exit 12 or Exit 13. • The noise levels for residents north and south of I-89 will also increase with ramp and road traffic including trucks using engine brakes, etc. and increased traffic Supplemental Comments by Natural Resources Committee Received via Email - 3/24/21 TO: Karen Sentoff, CCRPC/VHB representative to the Natural Resource Committee breakout meeting on 3/10/21 as part of the I-89 2050 Study – Review of Draft Second Round Interchange Evaluation Metrics and Scoring Re: statement in response to the discussion of proposed RT I-89 interchanges located within So. Burlington From: So. Burlington Natural Resource and Conservation Committee (NRCC) Thank you for your notes which captured the discussion members of the So. Burlington NRCC had with you on 3/10/21 in a breakout zoom meeting. The Committee further discussed the matter at a special committee meeting on 3/15/21. Your minutes reflect the Committee’s concern that metrics and evaluation of the 3 interchanges proposed include the following: Wildlife passage and connectivity by providing adequate channels, fencing and culverts for their safe passage under the highway Identify rare, endangered and local flora and fauna to be disturbed by construction and highway location Calculate the amount of impervious surfaces to be added or removed per each site/proposal Design culverts and stormwater retention to be resilient in major weather events Include a metric and evaluation of the noise implications for each site particularly proximate to housing located near the highway. The committee supports re-construction of I-89 interchanges at their current locations #s 13 and 14. Minimizing the amount of impermeable surface and creating the smallest footprint is important both of which favors the boulevard approach at interchange 13 and with modified diamond design at both interchanges 13 and 14. We do not favor a new exit at 12B/Hinesburg Rd. Building one there will put development pressure in South Burlington’s South East Quadrant (SEQ) which the city comprehensive plan deems should maintain its rural characteristics. The committee will continue to be involved and informed as to the decision- making process evolves and final choices of I-89 interchange selection are made in order to represent these aspects of the decision matrix. Submitted for the Committee by Larry Kupferman Suggested MetricInclude in Matrix?CommentsSAFETYBetter define which option is safest for bike and pedestrians. The current qualitative criteria make this unclear.NoDifficult metric to score objectivelyAlternative usability - Unfamiliar designs can cause confusion leading to crashesNoDifficult metric to score objectivelyLIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE & HEALTHY COMMUNITIESHow each interchange supports or detracts from City CenterYesTravel time change (all origins to City Center TAZ destination).Community connectivity or community cohesionNoDifficult metric to score objectivelyImpacts to neighborhoods resulting from % change in traffic, trucks, or interchange expansionNoAlready evaluating change in traffic under Mobility goalUpdate Consistency with Regional Plan goal to more heavily weight growth in urban, metro, enterpriseNoCCRPC has not been differentiating growth focus within the "non-rural" zonesMOBILITY & EFFICIENCYEffect of new/improved interchanges on the surrounding area/roadsYesVolume changes on selected roadwaysImpacts to Exit 12 trafficYesEstimated change in Exit 12 volumees in 2050Bike/Ped DirectnessNoInfluenced scoring for Exit 13 Hybrid; Will consider further in Bundle evaluationHow interchange construction and reconfiguration will impact bike/ped safety outside of the project areaNoWill consider in Bundle evaluationOpportunities for park & ridesNoWill consider in Bundle evaluationAccess to or use of public transit services related to interchange construction or reconfigurationNoWill consider in Bundle evaluationImpact of interchanges on commercial traffic on neighborhood streets. NoFuture truck volumes not projected in regional modelENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIPChange in impervious areaYesChange in interchange impervious area in each alternativeNoise impactsYesHigh-level assessment of potential noise impactsHistoric & Archeological resource impactsNoWill consider in Bundle evaluationWildlife passage or connectivityNoWill consider in Bundle evaluationMetric on disturbed areaNoWill consider in Bundle evaluationWetland impact metric should include the extra roads and new development that will be builtNoWill consider in Bundle evaluationDoes alternative increase or decrease the move towards a more sustainable means of transportationNoWill consider in Bundle evaluationIdentify resource restoration opportunities with each alternativeNoInsufficient environmental resource data at this stage; not clear whether VTrans/FHWA will relinquish ROWLook at cumulative fuel consumption (2020-2050) vs. snapshot in timeNoAssumed fleet shift the same under all scenarios; revised metric to look at annual fuel reduction in 2050ECONOMIC ACCESSImpacts to South Burlington’s employment opportunities resulting from each interchange alternativeYesMean wage opportunity within 1 mile of the interchangeAccess to the airportYesTravel time change from I-89 north & south and I-189 west to airportCapture land value of reclaimed ROW resulting from interchange reconfigurationNoDifficult to estimate land value; not clear whether VTrans/FHWA will relinquish ROWSYSTEM PRESERVATIONAvailability of federal money for maintenance and constructionNoDifficult metric to score objectivelyOTHERTimeline for potential change to be accomplished (implementability)NoDifficult to determine speed at which different projects would advanceSuggested Interchange Evaluation Metrics from South Burlington City Council, Committees, and Public South Burlington City Council Workshop March 29th, 2021 Meeting Goals ▪Review Updates to the Evaluation Criteria, Scoring Methodology, and Matrix Format ▪Review Revised Interchange Evaluation Matrix ▪Identify any outstanding questions prior to April 19th City Council meeting Evaluation Matrix Updates Updates to the Evaluation Criteria, Scoring Methodology, and Matrix Format -Based on Feedback from Council, Committees & the Public ▪New Metrics Added –Access to City Center –Access to Airport –Impacts to Exit 12 Trips –Volume Changes on Select Arterials –Change in Impervious Area –Noise Impacts (Qualitative) –New employment weighted by average wage rates ▪Matrix Formatting Updates –Combined metric values and scoring in same table –Broke out Exits 12B/13 and Exit 14 alternatives into separate tables ▪Scoring Updates –Exits 12B/13 Alternatives: 0-2 scoring based on metric’s value in relation to mean & one standard deviation –Exit 14 Alternatives: 0-1 score based on maximum value ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: Establish a resilient I-89 Corridor that minimizes environmental impacts associated with the transportation system. Wetland Impacts Approximate area of wetland/wetland buffer impacts based on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange improvements Acres of Impact to Wetlands & Buffers 0 0.1 1 1.4 0 0.5 1 River Corridors Approximate area of river corridor, floodway, and 100-year flood zone impacts based on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange improvements Acres of Impact to River Corridors 0 0 2 1.1 1 1.8 0 Impervious Area Change in Impervious Area at Interchange Acres of Change to Impervious Area 0 3.4 0 2.0 1 1.4 1 Indicates New Metric 0 Points 2 Points1 Point /2 /2 Suggested Metric Include in Matrix?Comments SAFETY Better define which option is safest for bike and pedestrians. The current qualitative criteria make this unclear.No Difficult metric to score objectively Alternative usability - Unfamiliar designs can cause confusion leading to crashes No Difficult metric to score objectively LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE & HEALTHY COMMUNITIES How each interchange supports or detracts from City Center Yes Travel time change (all origins to City Center TAZ destination). Community connectivity or community cohesion No Difficult metric to score objectively Impacts to neighborhoods resulting from % change in traffic, trucks, or interchange expansion No Already evaluating change in traffic under Mobility goal Update Consistency with Regional Plan goal to more heavily weight growth in urban, metro, enterprise No CCRPC has not been differentiating growth focus within the "non-rural" zones MOBILITY & EFFICIENCY Effect of new/improved interchanges on the surrounding area/roads Yes Volume changes on selected roadways Impacts to Exit 12 traffic Yes Estimated change in Exit 12 volumees in 2050 Bike/Ped Directness No Influenced scoring for Exit 13 Hybrid; Will consider further in Bundle evaluation How interchange construction and reconfiguration will impact bike/ped safety outside of the project area No Will consider in Bundle evaluation Opportunities for park & rides No Will consider in Bundle evaluation Access to or use of public transit services related to interchange construction or reconfiguration No Will consider in Bundle evaluation Impact of interchanges on commercial traffic on neighborhood streets. No Future truck volumes not projected in regional model ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP Change in impervious area Yes Change in interchange impervious area in each alternative Noise impacts Yes High-level assessment of potential noise impacts Historic & Archeological resource impacts No Will consider in Bundle evaluation Wildlife passage or connectivity No Will consider in Bundle evaluation Metric on disturbed area No Will consider in Bundle evaluation Wetland impact metric should include the extra roads and new development that will be built No Will consider in Bundle evaluation Does alternative increase or decrease the move towards a more sustainable means of transportation No Will consider in Bundle evaluation Identify resource restoration opportunities with each alternative No Insufficient environmental resource data at this stage; not clear whether VTrans/FHWA will relinquish ROW Look at cumulative fuel consumption (2020-2050) vs. snapshot in time No Assumed fleet shift the same under all scenarios; revised metric to look at annual fuel reduction in 2050 ECONOMIC ACCESS Impacts to South Burlington’s employment opportunities resulting from each interchange alternative Yes Mean wage opportunity within 1 mile of the interchange Access to the airport Yes Travel time change from I-89 north & south and I-189 west to airport Capture land value of reclaimed ROW resulting from interchange reconfiguration No Difficult to estimate land value; not clear whether VTrans/FHWA will relinquish ROW SYSTEM PRESERVATION Availability of federal money for maintenance and construction No Difficult metric to score objectively OTHER Timeline for potential change to be accomplished (implementability)No Difficult to determine speed at which different projects would advance Suggested Interchange Evaluation Metrics from South Burlington City Council, Committees, and Public Revised Evaluation Matrix: Exits 12B & 13 Goal: Safety SAFETY: Enhance safety along the I-89 Study Corridor and Adjacent Interchanges for all users Ramp Spacing Meets AASHTO Standard for Ramp Spacing to Next Closest Interchange Yes / No N/A Yes 2 Yes1 1 Yes 2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) Change in Total Crashes across the Network % Change in Total Estimated Crashes Compared to 2050 Base Scenario N/A -3.2%2 -1.3%1 0.4%0 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) Change in Fatal and Injury Crashes across the Network % Change in Estimated Injury / Fatal Crashes Compared to 2050 Base Scenario N/A -1.1%0 -1.9%1 -3.1%2 Bike/Ped Safety Safety Improvements for Bicyclists and Pedestrians based on Proposed Accommodations, Number of Conflicts Points, and Type of Conflict Point Relative Level of Safety Improvement for Bicyclists and Pedestrians N/A Improved 1 Significantly Improved 2 Significantly Improved 2 Safety / Operational Commentary 1Left Off-Ramp and Left On- Ramp Not Advised Declassify I-189 from Interstate to Limited Access State Highway Exit 12B New Interchange Exit 13 Hybrid + Bike Overpass Exit 13 Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13 SPDI 2050 Base Scenario Safety Impact Metric Metric Description Units Goal: Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE, & HEALTHY COMMUNITIES: Promote compact growth that supports livable, affordable, vibrant, and healthy communities. Total Secondary Growth Households 0 593 203 203 Proportion of 2020 to 2050 Household Growth Located in Growth Zones Inclusive of Secondary Growth*90.2%90.4%1 90.3%1 90.3%1 ROW Impacts Approximate area of ROW impacts based on limit of disturbance around the interchange Acres of ROW Disturbance N/A 4.0 0 0.2 2 0.0 2 Average Trip Length in the Model Average Trip Length in minutes 15.69 15.61 15.66 15.68 Additional Travel Time for Traffic Analysis Zones Identified as EJ communities Minutes of Additional Travel Time in 2050 N/A 0.019 0.022 0.011 Additional Travel Time for EJ TAZs as a Percent of Average Trip Length % Additional Travel Time per Average Trip in 2050*N/A 0.12%1 0.14%1 0.07%1 Travel Time from Points North, South, and West (minutes)18.8 18.0 18.4 18.5 Percent Change in Total Travel Time compared to Future Base Scenario N/A -4%2 -2%1 -1%0 Exit 12B New Interchange Exit 13 Hybrid + Bike Overpass Exit 13 Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13 SPDI 2050 Base Scenario Consistent with Regional Plan Proportion of 2020 to 2050 Household Growth Located in Growth Zones Inclusive of Secondary Growth (includes Center, Enterprise, Metro, Village and Suburban Designations) Metric Metric Description Units Access to South Burlington City Center Average travel time change for access to City Center from points north on I-89, south on I-89, and west on I-189 Environmental Justice / Underserved Populations *Scored the same. Not enough difference between raw values. **Used full standard deviation. Only two different raw values. Goal: Mobility & Efficiency MOBILITY & EFFICIENCY: Improve the efficiency and reliability of the I-89 Corridor and Adjacent Interchanges for all users. # of Daily Trips Using Exit 14 51,929 47,226 46,654 45,319 Percent Change in # of Daily Trips Using Exit 14 N/A -9.1%0 -10.2%1 -12.7%2 # of Daily Trips Using Exit 12 31,834 27,238 31,301 30,632 Percent Change in # of Daily Trips Using Exit 12 N/A -14.4%2 -1.7%0 -3.8%1 Total VMT 5,207,449 5,219,058 5,206,473 5,201,707 Average Trip Length in miles 8.103 8.087 8.097 8.090 % Change in average trip length in 2050 *N/A -0.2%1 -0.1%1 -0.2%1 Total Daily VHT 147,758 147,394 147,452 147,636 % Change in Daily VHT in 2050 N/A -0.25%2 -0.21%1 -0.08%0 I-89 Corridor V/C Mainline corridor congestion as indicated by the number of miles with v/c of greater than or equal to 0.9 Miles of Mainline with v/c > 0.9 1.34 2.18 0 1.34 2 1.34 2 Average Delay Change in 2050 PM Peak Hour Delay at Exit 14 Change in Average Delay per Trip (seconds) N/A -40 2 -34 0 -37 1 Bike/Ped Connectivity Bicyclist and Pedestrian Connectivity Improvements Across I- 89 Based on Existing and Proposed Accomodations Level of Bike/Ped Connectivity Improvements N/A Improved 1 Improved 1 Significantly Improved 2 Williston Road (at Windjammer)25,900 -15%2 -2%0 -4%1 Dorset Street (at UMall)19,800 -9%0 -15%1 -17%2 Dorset Street (south of I-89)14,400 5%2 23%1 33%0 Hinesburg Road (south of I-89)17,700 39%0 1%2 2%2 Hinesburg Road (north of I-89)14,200 -2%2 0%1 2%0 I-189 (west of I-89)57,900 -1%0 -5%1 -10%2 Exit 12B New Interchange Exit 13 Hybrid + Bike Overpass Exit 13 SPDI Networkwide change in Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per vehicle trip with interchange improvement and projected growth compared to the Future Base Model VMT VHT Networkwide change in Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) with interchange improvement and projected growth compared to the Future Base Model Perent Change in Daily Volume with Interchange Compared to 2050 Base Volume Change in Daily Traffic Volumes 2050 Base Scenario Interchange Trips Metric Metric Description Units Number of daily trips using the Exit 14 Interchange. (Note: For scoring purposes, larger reductions at Exit 12B and 13 were scored higher, while at Exit 14, lower reductions were scored higher) Number of daily trips using the Exit 12 Interchange. Goal: Environmental Stewardship ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: Establish a resilient I-89 Corridor that minimizes environmental impacts associated with the transportation system. Wetland Impacts Approximate area of wetland/wetland buffer impacts based on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange improvements Acres of Impact to Wetlands & Buffers 0 0.1 1 1.4 0 0.5 1 River Corridors Approximate area of river corridor, floodway, and 100-year flood zone impacts based on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange improvements Acres of Impact to River Corridors 0 0 2 1.1 1 1.8 0 Impervious Area Change in Impervious Area at Interchange Acres of Change to Impervious Area 0 3.4 0 2.0 1 1.4 1 Natural Habitats Approximate area of rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species impacts based on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange improvements Acres of RTE Impacts 0 7 0 0 2 0 2 Resilience Percent Change Network Trip Robustness (NTR)Percent change in robustness N/A -0.38%0 0.81%1 0.93%2 Total Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Year in 2050 14,871,507 14,904,660 14,868,720 14,855,109 Change in Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Year in 2050 N/A 33,153 0 -2,787 1 -16,398 2 Estimated Level of Noise Impacts from Alternative N/A High 0 High 0 Medium 1 Description of Potential Noise Impact or Reduction N/A Potential impact to sensitive properties in northwest quadrant Potential impact to sensitive properties in southeast quadrant Potential reduction at sensitive properties in northeast quadrant, potential impact in southeast quadrant Exit 12B New Interchange Exit 13 Hybrid + Bike Overpass Exit 13 Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13 SPDI Fuel Consumption Qualitative Assessment of Noise Impacts Qualitative assessment of potential noise impacts resulting from alternative Total Annual Fuel Consumption Across Model Network (based on 2050 projection assuming MTP Investments and 90% electric vehicle fleet) 2050 Base ScenarioMetricMetric Description Units Goal: Economic Access ECONOMIC ACCESS: Improve economic access and vitality in Chittenden County. Connectivity to Areas Planned for Growth Percentage of land area within 1 mile of interchange that is classified as an ECOS Growth Zone (includes Center, Enterprise, Metro, Village and Suburban Designations) Percentage of area within 1 mile of interchange in ECOS Growth Zone**N/A 87%0 90%1 90%1 Total number of projected new jobs in 2050 compared to 2020 within 1 radial mile of the interchange including adopted job projections and secondary growth Total number of New Jobs within 1 Radial Mile of the Interchange**N/A 3,054 2 2,461 1 2,461 1 Total number of projected 2050 jobs within 1 radial mile of the new interchange infrastructure including adopted job projections and secondary growth Total Number of Jobs Within 1 Radial Mile of Interchange**N/A 11,416 2 9,592 1 9,592 1 Mean wage opportunity within 1 mile of the interchange Average Annual New Wage Opportunity (2020 dollars)N/A $57,300 $50,000 $50,000 Number of new jobs within 1 mile of the interchange weigted by average job class wage Total Annual New Wage Opportunity (millions of 2020 dollars)**N/A $175 2 $123 1 $123 1 Travel Time from Points North, South, and West (minutes)26.7 23.6 26.8 26.9 Percent Change in Total Travel Time compared to Future Base Scenario N/A -11%2 0%0 1%0 Exit 12B New Interchange Exit 13 Hybrid + Bike Overpass Exit 13 Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13 SPDI Job Access Airport Access Travel time change for access to Burlington International Airport from points north on I-89, south on I-89, and west on I-189 Employment Opportunities 2050 Base ScenarioMetricMetric Description Units *Scored the same. Not enough difference between raw values. **Used full standard deviation. Only two different raw values. Goal: System Preservation SYSTEM PRESERVATION: Preserve and improve the condition and performance of the I-89 corridor. Construction Cost Estimated cost for the interchange improvements Planning-Level Cost Estimate (millions of 2020 dollars) (Includes PE, CON, and contingency) $0 $29,000,000 1 $15,000,000 2 $61,000,000 0 Asset Maintenance Cost Estimated 30-year asset maintenance costs at Exits 12B, 13 & 14 combined Asset Maintenance Cost (Bridges & Culverts) for Exits 12B, 13, & 14 combined (excluding assets replaced with construction) $94,151,074 $88,516,699 0 $90,832,324 0 $48,464,064 2 Total 2050 Cost (inclusive of asset maintenance and new construction costs)$94,151,074 $117,516,699 0 $105,832,324 2 $109,464,064 1 Incremental Additional Cost $0 $23,365,625 $11,681,250 $15,312,990 Exit 12B New Interchange Exit 13 Hybrid + Bike Overpass Exit 13 Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13 SPDI Maintenance & Construction Cost Estimated cost for the interchange improvements plus 30- year asset maintenance costs at Exits 12B, 13 & 14 combined (excluding assets replaced with construction) 2050 Base ScenarioMetricMetric Description Units Total Scores: Exits 12B & 13 SUBTOTALS Weighting Safety 1 Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities 1 Mobility & Efficiency 1 Environmental Stewardship 1 Economic Access 1 System Preservation 1 TOTAL SCORE NORMALIZED Number of Metrics SUBTOTALS Weighting 4 Safety 3.25 4 Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities 3.25 13 Mobility & Efficiency 1.00 7 Environmental Stewardship 1.86 5 Economic Access 2.60 3 System Preservation 4.33 TOTAL SCORE Exit 12B Exit 13 Hybrid+Exit 13 SPDI 83 89 20 13 16 17 10 13 16 13 14 6 21 4 74 16 16 12 11 10 17 Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13 9 4 3 42 Exit 12B Exit 13 Hybrid+Exit 13 Single Point Diamond Interchange 5 4 14 3 8 1 35 5 5 12 6 4 4 36 6 4 16 Revised Evaluation Matrix: Exit 14 Goal: Safety SAFETY: Enhance safety along the I-89 Study Corridor and Adjacent Interchanges for all users Ramp Spacing Meets AASHTO Standard for Ramp Spacing to Next Closest Interchange Yes / No N/A Yes 1 Yes 1 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) Change in Total Crashes across the Network % Change in Total Estimated Crashes Compared to 2050 Base Scenario N/A -5.0%1 -2.8%0 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) Change in Fatal and Injury Crashes across the Network % Change in Estimated Injury / Fatal Crashes Compared to 2050 Base Scenario N/A -4.5%1 -2.3%0 Bike/Ped Safety Safety Improvements for Bicyclists and Pedestrians based on Proposed Accommodations, Number of Conflicts Points, and Type of Conflict Point Relative Level of Safety Improvement for Bicyclists and Pedestrians N/A Improved 0 Significantly Improved 1 Safety / Operational Commentary C-D Road Advised at Current/Future Volumes for Loop Ramps Removes Merge on Mainline Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf Exit 14 DDI Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14 Metric Metric Description Units 2050 Base Scenario Safety Impact Goal: Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE, & HEALTHY COMMUNITIES: Promote compact growth that supports livable, affordable, vibrant, and healthy communities. Total Secondary Growth Households Proportion of 2020 to 2050 Household Growth Located in Growth Zones Inclusive of Secondary Growth*90.24%90.24%1 90.24%1 ROW Impacts Approximate area of ROW impacts based on limit of disturbance around the interchange Acres of ROW Disturbance N/A 0.4 0 0.1 1 Average Trip Length in the Model Average Trip Length in minutes 15.69 15.69 15.72 Additional Travel Time for Traffic Analysis Zones Identified as EJ communities Minutes of Additional Travel Time in 2050 N/A 0.018 0.023 Additional Travel Time for EJ TAZs as a Percent of Average Trip Length % Additional Travel Time per Average Trip in 2050*N/A 0.12%1 0.15%1 Travel Time from Points North, South, and West (minutes)18.8 18.8 18.6 Percent Change in Total Travel Time compared to Future Base Scenario N/A 0.3%0 -0.9%1 Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf Environmental Justice / Underserved Populations Exit 14 DDI Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14 Metric Metric Description Units 2050 Base Scenario Consistent with Regional Plan Proportion of 2020 to 2050 Household Growth Located in Growth Zones Inclusive of Secondary Growth (includes Center, Enterprise, Metro, Village and Suburban Designations) Access to South Burlington City Center Average travel time change for access to City Center from points north on I-89, south on I-89, and west on I-189 *Scored the same. Not enough difference between raw values. **Used full standard deviation. Only two different raw values. Goal: Mobility & Efficiency MOBILITY & EFFICIENCY: Improve the efficiency and reliability of the I-89 Corridor and Adjacent Interchanges for all users. # of Daily Trips Using Exit 14 51,929 49,677 46,924 Percent Change in # of Daily Trips Using Exit 14 N/A -4.3%1 -9.6%0 # of Daily Trips Using Exit 12 31,834 31,816 32,058 Percent Change in # of Daily Trips Using Exit 12 N/A -0.1%1 0.7%0 Total VMT 5,207,449 5,203,632 5,200,102 Average Trip Length in miles 8.103 8.097 8.092 % Change in average trip length in 2050*N/A -0.07%1 -0.14%1 Total Daily VHT 147,758 147,737 147,906 % Change in Daily VHT in 2050 N/A -0.01%1 0.10%0 I-89 Corridor V/C Mainline corridor congestion as indicated by the number of miles with v/c of greater than or equal to 0.9 Miles of Mainline with v/c > 0.9 1.34 1.34 0 1.34 0 Average Delay Change in 2050 PM Peak Hour Delay at Exit 14 Change in Average Delay per Trip (seconds) N/A -47 1 -41 0 Bike/Ped Connectivity Bicyclist and Pedestrian Connectivity Improvements Across I- 89 Based on Existing and Proposed Accomodations Level of Bike/Ped Connectivity Improvements N/A Improved 0 Significantly Improved 1 Williston Road (at Windjammer)25,900 -1%0 -4%1 Dorset Street (at UMall)19,800 -1%0 -5%1 Winooski Main Street bridge over Winooski River 38,500 1%1 4%0 Limekiln Road bridge over Winooski River 12,500 1%1 3%0 Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf Exit 14 DDIMetricMetric Description Units 2050 Base Scenario Interchange Trips Number of daily trips using the Exit 14 Interchange. (Note: For scoring purposes, larger reductions at Exit 12B and 13 were scored higher, while at Exit 14, lower reductions were scored higher) Number of daily trips using the Exit 12 Interchange. VHT Networkwide change in Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) with interchange improvement and projected growth compared to the Future Base Model Change in Daily Traffic Volumes VMT Networkwide change in Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per vehicle trip with interchange improvement and projected growth compared to the Future Base Model Perent Change in Daily Volume with Interchange Compared to 2050 Base Volume Goal: Environmental Stewardship ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: Establish a resilient I-89 Corridor that minimizes environmental impacts associated with the transportation system. Wetland Impacts Approximate area of wetland/wetland buffer impacts based on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange improvements Acres of Impact to Wetlands & Buffers 0 0.4 0 0.0 1 River Corridors Approximate area of river corridor, floodway, and 100-year flood zone impacts based on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange improvements Acres of Impact to River Corridors 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Impervious Area Change in Impervious Area at Interchange Acres of Change to Impervious Area 0 4.8 0 -0.5 1 Natural Habitats Approximate area of rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species impacts based on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange improvements Acres of RTE Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 Resilience Percent Change Network Trip Robustness (NTR)Percent change in robustness N/A -0.08%1 -0.14%0 Total Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Year in 2050 14,871,507 14,860,606 14,850,525 Change in Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Year in 2050 N/A -10,901 0 -20,982 1 Estimated Level of Noise Impacts from Alternative N/A Medium 0 Low 1 Description of Potential Noise Impact or Reduction N/A Not likely to change at any sensitive properties Potential reduction at sensitive properties due to ramp shift Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf Exit 14 DDI Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14 Metric Metric Description Units 2050 Base Scenario Fuel Consumption Total Annual Fuel Consumption Across Model Network (based on 2050 projection assuming MTP Investments and 90% electric vehicle fleet) Qualitative Assessment of Noise Impacts Qualitative assessment of potential noise impacts resulting from alternative Goal: Economic Access ECONOMIC ACCESS: Improve economic access and vitality in Chittenden County. Connectivity to Areas Planned for Growth Percentage of land area within 1 mile of interchange that is classified as an ECOS Growth Zone (includes Center, Enterprise, Metro, Village and Suburban Designations) Percentage of area within 1 mile of interchange in ECOS Growth Zone**N/A 100%0 100%0 Total number of projected new jobs in 2050 compared to 2020 within 1 radial mile of the interchange including adopted job projections and secondary growth Total number of New Jobs within 1 Radial Mile of the Interchange**N/A 4,133 0 4,133 0 Total number of projected 2050 jobs within 1 radial mile of the new interchange infrastructure including adopted job projections and secondary growth Total Number of Jobs Within 1 Radial Mile of Interchange**N/A 27,220 0 27,220 0 Mean wage opportunity within 1 mile of the interchange Average Annual New Wage Opportunity (2020 dollars)N/A $53,700 $53,700 Number of new jobs within 1 mile of the interchange weigted by average job class wage Total Annual New Wage Opportunity (millions of 2020 dollars)**N/A $222 0 $222 0 Travel Time from Points North, South, and West (minutes)26.7 26.7 26.4 Percent Change in Total Travel Time compared to Future Base Scenario N/A 0.2%0 -0.9%1 Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf Exit 14 DDI Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14 Metric Metric Description Units 2050 Base Scenario Job Access Employment Opportunities Airport Access Travel time change for access to Burlington International Airport from points north on I-89, south on I-89, and west on I-189 *Scored the same. Not enough difference between raw values. **Used full standard deviation. Only two different raw values. Goal: System Preservation SYSTEM PRESERVATION: Preserve and improve the condition and performance of the I-89 corridor. Construction Cost Estimated cost for the interchange improvements Planning-Level Cost Estimate (millions of 2020 dollars) (Includes PE, CON, and contingency) $0 $44,000,000 0 $37,000,000 1 Asset Maintenance Cost Estimated 30-year asset maintenance costs at Exits 12B, 13 & 14 combined Asset Maintenance Cost (Bridges & Culverts) for Exits 12B, 13, & 14 combined (excluding assets replaced with construction) $94,151,074 $74,859,153 1 $84,840,338 0 Total 2050 Cost (inclusive of asset maintenance and new construction costs)$94,151,074 $118,859,153 1 $121,840,338 0 Incremental Additional Cost $0 $24,708,079 $27,689,264 Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf Exit 14 DDI Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14 Metric Metric Description Units 2050 Base Scenario Maintenance & Construction Cost Estimated cost for the interchange improvements plus 30- year asset maintenance costs at Exits 12B, 13 & 14 combined (excluding assets replaced with construction) Total Scores: Exit 14 SUBTOTALS Weighting Safety 1 Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities 1 Mobility & Efficiency 1 Environmental Stewardship 1 Economic Access 1 System Preservation 1 TOTAL SCORE NORMALIZED Number of Metrics SUBTOTALS Weighting 4 Safety 2.75 4 Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities 2.75 11 Mobility & Efficiency 1.00 7 Environmental Stewardship 1.57 5 Economic Access 2.20 3 System Preservation 3.67 TOTAL SCORE 30 33 6 11 7 4 2 6 0 2 7 4 0 1 2 1 15 16 Enhanced Cloverleaf DDI 8 6 Exit 14 Enhanced Cloverleaf Exit 14 DDI 3 2 2 4 7 4 1 4 Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study 3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14 Next Steps Next Steps ▪Second Round Interchange Evaluation –Technical Committee Meeting: April 7th –South Burlington City Council: April 19th –Virtual Public Meeting: Late April/Early May –Advisory Committee Meeting #5: May/June ▪Corridor Evaluation & Public/Stakeholder Involvement –Develop & Evaluate Bundles: Summer/Fall 2021 •Includes identifying the need for I-89 widening in Bundles 2 and/or 3 ▪Draft & Final Report: Winter 2022 Interchange Concept Plans for Reference DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT