Draft for Public Review: 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan

The Metropolitan Transportation Plan not only addresses current problems of congestion, accessibility and mobility but lays out the framework for the transportation system of the future. The MTP acknowledges today's fiscal, political and social realities while extending beyond the status quo to better integrate the disciplines of transportation and land use planning through regional collaboration.

DRAFT for Public Review 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan Date: December 17, 2004 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization Communities working together to meet Chittenden County's transportation needs Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 4 1.0 BACKGROUND TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN ( MTP)............. 6 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 OVERVIEW OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS............................................... 6 1.3 CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION.................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION............................................................................... 8 1.4.1 Municipal Responsibilities........................................................................................... 8 1.4.2 The CCMPO/ VTrans/ CCTA/ Vermont Transportation Authority Relationship............ 8 1.5 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF MTP ......................................................................................... 9 1.6 FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR MTP DEVELOPMENT & CONTENT............................................ 9 1.6.1 Air Quality.................................................................................................................. 10 1.6.2 Congestion Management.......................................................................................... 10 1.6.3 Environmental Justice............................................................................................... 10 1.6.4 Economic Development and Smart Growth ............................................................. 11 1.7 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.................................................................... 11 1.8 THE MTP STEERING COMMITTEE & ITS ROLE ................................................................. 11 1.9 CCMPO APPROVAL/ ADOPTION PROCESS...................................................................... 12 1.10 MTP AS PART OF THE CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLAN ........................................ 12 2.0 THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS AND REGIONAL DESIRES AND ASPIRATIONS.................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 13 2.2 VISION & GOALS............................................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Transportation Vision ................................................................................................ 13 2.2.2 Regional Transportation Goals ................................................................................. 13 2.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS..................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Themes Emerging from Public Meetings ................................................................. 14 2.3.2 Year 2000 Public Opinion Survey......................................................................... 16 3.0 POPULATION, ECONOMICS & TRANSPORTATION: CHARACTERISTICS, BEHAVIORS & TRENDS.................................................................................................. 19 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 19 3.2 POPULATION AND ECONOMIC FORECASTS FOR CHITTENDEN COUNTY ............................ 19 3.2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Background............................................................................................................... 20 3.2.3 Population ................................................................................................................. 20 3.2.4 Employment.............................................................................................................. 21 3.2.5 Housing..................................................................................................................... 21 3.3 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 21 3.3.1 Arterial Roadways and Existing Congestion ............................................................ 22 3.3.2 High Accident Locations ........................................................................................... 22 3.3.3 Public Transit ............................................................................................................ 24 3.3.4 Passenger Rail.......................................................................................................... 24 3.3.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................. 24 3.3.6 Intermodal Facilities .................................................................................................. 25 3.3.7 Air Service Facilities.................................................................................................. 25 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 2 3.3.8 Rail and Freight- Supportive Facilities ....................................................................... 25 3.3.9 Relocation of Vermont Railways Freight Operations ............................................... 26 3.3.10 Bridges ...................................................................................................................... 26 3.4 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSES ......................................................................................... 26 3.4.1 The Chittenden County Transportation Model ......................................................... 26 3.4.2 Travel Patterns.......................................................................................................... 27 3.5 FORECAST OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS .................................................. 28 3.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 29 4.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS..................................................................................................... 31 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 31 4.2 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS IN MTP.......................................... 31 4.3 FUNDING SOURCES........................................................................................................ 31 4.3.1 Federal Funding ........................................................................................................ 31 4.3.2 State Funding ............................................................................................................ 32 4.3.3 Local Sources of Funding ......................................................................................... 32 4.3.4 Private Sources......................................................................................................... 32 4.4 DETERMINATION OF FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT................................................................... 33 4.5 MPO JURISDICTION OVER FUNDING SOURCES................................................................ 34 4.6 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 35 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 36 5.1 LAND USE SCENARIOS.................................................................................................... 36 5.2 BASELINE SCENARIOS: 2000 AND 2025.......................................................................... 36 5.3 PERFORMANCE MEASURES............................................................................................. 37 5.4 COST CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................. 39 5.5 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................ 39 5.5.1 Initial Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 39 5.5.2 Hybrid Alternatives.................................................................................................... 40 5.5.3 Refined Alternatives .................................................................................................. 41 5.6 RECOMMENDED MTP ALTERNATIVE................................................................................ 45 5.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 46 6.0 2025 MTP.......................................................................................................................... 48 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 48 6.2 OVERVIEW OF THE CORRIDOR- ORIENTED MTP CONCEPT............................................... 49 6.3 MTP CORRIDORS........................................................................................................... 49 6.3.1 Regional Core ........................................................................................................... 49 6.3.2 Northern Corridor ...................................................................................................... 53 6.3.3 Northeastern Corridor ............................................................................................... 57 6.3.4 Route 15 West Corridor............................................................................................ 59 6.3.5 Southeastern Corridor............................................................................................... 62 6.3.6 Vermont Route 116 Corridor..................................................................................... 63 6.3.7 Eastern Corridor........................................................................................................ 65 6.3.8 Southern Corridor ..................................................................................................... 69 6.3.9 Cross County Corridor .............................................................................................. 72 6.4 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 74 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................................... 76 7.1 FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................................................................. 76 7.1.1 Review of Financial Resources ................................................................................ 76 7.1.2 System Preservation Costs ...................................................................................... 77 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 3 7.1.3 Funds allocated to key priorities ............................................................................... 78 7.1.4 Key Projects and Programs...................................................................................... 79 7.1.5 Projects Beyond Financial Constraint ...................................................................... 79 7.1.6 The Dilemma of Transit Operations Funding ........................................................... 80 7.1.7 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................ 80 7.2 OTHER KEY ISSUES ........................................................................................................ 81 7.2.1 The Critical Role of Land Use in Transportation Planning ....................................... 81 7.2.2 The MTP/ Act 250 Relationship................................................................................. 82 7.2.3 Land Use - Transportation Decision Support System ( DSS).................................. 82 7.2.4 Air Quality and the MTP............................................................................................ 83 7.2.5 MTP Impacts on Adjoining Regions ......................................................................... 84 7.2.6 Implications of an Expanded MPO Region............................................................... 85 7.2.7 Developing a Project Prioritization Process ............................................................. 87 7.3 PERFORMANCE MONITORING: MEASURING MTP SUCCESS - THE REGIONAL INDICATORS REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 88 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Metropolitan Transportation Plan ( MTP) is the CCMPO's 2025 long range plan, one of the organization's chief responsibilities. This document - nearly four years in development - has been prepared under the detailed guidance specified in federal regulations governing its content and development process, including extensive public involvement and outreach. Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the context within which the MTP was created, including: ? a description of MPOs in general and the CCMPO in particular, ? the role of the region's towns and cities, and other organizations in the transportation planning process, ? the federal guidelines on MTP content and development, ? a description of the transportation system over which the MTP has jurisdiction, ? the special role of the MTP Steering Committee, and ? the MTP's relationship to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission's regional plan. Chapter 2 describes: ? the MTP vision statement and goals which were distilled from public input and vetted through MTP Steering Committee discussions, ? the key themes from public meetings, and ? the results from the early public outreach efforts including the region- wide public opinion survey. Chapter 3 provides the necessary background information for making long- range transportation recommendations, including: ? data on existing and forecast population, employment and housing, ? a description of the current transportation system with travel patterns and system condition, ? a projection of future transportation system condition, and ? a discussion of the analytical method focusing on the CCMPO's travel demand computer model. Chapter 4 identifies the long term transportation funding expectations , including: ? discussions of funding sources, ? the method calculating the expected total fiscal resources, and ? the proportion of funding over which the CCMPO has control. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 5 Chapter 5 describes the analytical process of evaluating transportation alternatives, including: ? details on how land use factored into the analysis, baseline and transportation scenario development, ? the evolution of the transportation alternatives, ? the performance measures used to evaluate the alternatives, and ? the elements of the preferred alternative - the projects and strategies that form the MTP's recommendations. Chapter 6 identifies and describes for each of nine transportation corridors: ? primary travel movements, ? land use characteristics, ? major mobility and accessibility issues, ? projects and strategies targeted to that corridor, and ? any additionally foreseen planning concerns. Chapter 7 addresses ways to advance the MTP to implementation, including: ? the MTP role in Act 250, ? uses for the Decision Support System ( the CCMPO and CCRPC's land use/ transportation model), ? a reiteration of the important role land use plays in transportation, ? air quality issues, ? the MTP impacts on adjoining counties, ? the possibility of future CCMPO area expansion, development of a project prioritization system, and ? a recommended method of evaluating MTP implementation progress. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 6 1.0 BACKGROUND TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN ( MTP) 1.1 Introduction The Metropolitan Transportation Plan ( MTP) is the long- range transportation plan for the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization ( CCMPO). The MTP not only addresses current problems of congestion, accessibility and mobility but lays out the framework for the transportation system of the future. The MTP acknowledges today's fiscal, political and social realities while extending beyond the status quo to better integrate the disciplines of transportation and land use planning through regional collaboration. This MTP started out as a wholly new project, designed to be a fresh approach to regional long range transportation planning and a break from past efforts. Our previous MTP, adopted in 1997, was not, at first, considered the model we intended to follow this time. As we approach the conclusion of this MTP round, however, the continuity with that previous plan has become very apparent. The reader comparing the two documents will see a familiar format, presentation, and chapter sequence. Many of the same relevant issues, project recommendations, and implementation techniques continue in this version. Just as the 1997 Plan did, this MTP again stresses the all important role land use plays in transportation decision-making. In essence this MTP has come full circle, starting by taking a new and different path and ending, unexpectedly, close to where we concluded our 1997 efforts. This opening chapter is intended to provide the reader with background and context for MTP development. It contains an introduction to the federally- mandated role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPO) and the federal requirements for MTP preparation and contents, as well as an overview of the CCMPO, its composition and operating environment. 1.2 Overview of Metropolitan Planning Organizations A Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO) is a transportation policy and decision- making organization made up of representatives from local government and transportation agencies. MPOs are required for any urbanized area greater than 50,000 people. Congress created MPOs in the 1960s to ensure that existing and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs were based on a " continuing, cooperative and comprehensive" ( 3- C) planning process. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. MPOs have five core functions: 1. Establish and maintain a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision- making in the metropolitan area; 2. Evaluate transportation alternatives; 3. Develop and maintain a Metropolitan Transportation Plan ( MTP) for the metropolitan area covering a planning horizon of at least twenty years that fosters ( 1) mobility and access for people and goods, ( 2) efficient system performance and preservation, and ( 3) quality of life; 4. Develop a Transportation Improvement Program ( TIP) that is based on the MTP and designed to serve the area's goals; and Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 7 5. Involve the public, including the general public and all the significantly affected sub- groups, in the four essential functions listed above. The metropolitan planning process is structured to include active outreach strategies that give people opportunities to provide input. Opportunities for the public to be involved should occur throughout the process, especia lly during plan and program development. Federal guidelines also encourage MPOs to give special attention to those groups who have been underrepresented or underserved in the past in terms of the expenditure of transportation dollars. One of the MPO's most important responsibilities is to make decisions about funding. Funding for transportation plans and projects comes from a variety of sources including the federal government, state governments, special authorities, assessment districts, local government contributions, impact fees and tolls or other user fees. Federal funds are made available to the State and in consultation with the MPO, project funding priorities are identified. All of the Federal Highway Administration funds ( FHWA) and part of the Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) funds are administered by the state transportation agencies. A portion of the FTA funds are provided directly to transit operators through direct grant agreements. MPOs, therefore, do not have direct control over funding. However, MPOs do set priorities for regional transportation projects and do identify funding sources for each of the proposed projects through the MTP development process and transportation improvement program ( TIP) development process, conducted in consultation with the State and local transit authority. In this way, MPOs are responsible for the allocation of federal transportation funds. 1.3 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization: Organization and Operation Formally established in 1982, the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization ( CCMPO) is the MPO for the Chittenden County region's 19 municipalities ( including Buels Gore). Chittenden County has Vermont's only U. S. Census- designated urbanized area with a population over 50,000, which makes CCMPO Vermont's only MPO. The Chittenden County region includes some 149,000 people, representing nearly 25 percent of the State's population. In its role as the MPO, the CCMPO administers approximately $ 30 to $ 40 million annually in federal transportation projects in consultation with the State and local transit authority; evaluates and approves proposed transportation improvement projects; provides a forum for interagency cooperation and public input into funding decisions; sponsors and conducts studies, assists the region's municipalities with planning activities, and develops and updates the MTP and other transportation planning documents. The CCMPO is governed by a Board of Directors, which consists of a representative appointed by each of the 18 participating munic ipalities and one representative from the Vermont Agency of Transportation ( VTrans). The Board also includes as ex- officio ( non- voting) members, representatives from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission ( CCRPC), the Chittenden County Transportation Authority ( CCTA), Burlington International Airport, Vermont Transportation Authority ( VTA) and the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA). Representatives of the rail, freight movement, land use planning, and special needs communities also participate directly in the CCMPO process through various committees. All of these municipalities, agencies and interests work together in a comprehensive, continuing, and cooperative process to meet the region's critical transportation needs. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 8 One standing committee -- the Technical Advisory Committee, ( TAC) -- makes recommendations on action items to be considered by the Board of Directors. The TAC is comprised of planners and engineers from member municipalities and agencies, as well as appointed representatives of the region's public interest groups. As warranted, the TAC will appoint special subcommittees to focus on specific topics or projects. The Board and TAC are supported by a professional staff, located in South Burlington. The CCMPO prepares and updates a number of documents that detail the investments and planning activities that will address regional transportation. The major planning documents include : ? Metropolitan Transportation Plan ( MTP): Updated every five years, the MTP sets out a vision for the development of the region's transportation infrastructure over the next 20 years. It includes goals and objectives, analyses of regional trends, and planned improvement projects throughout the county in all modes of transportation. ? Transportation Improvement Program ( TIP): Updated annually, the TIP is a three- year prioritization program of improvement projects and activities. To be eligible for federal funding, proposed projects must be approved by the CCMPO Board for inclusion in the TIP. ? Unified Planning Work Program ( UPWP): Updated annually, the UPWP describes the transportation planning activities of the CCMPO staff, its member agencies and other transportation and planning agencies conducting work in the region and budgets the CCMPO's planning funds from all sources. All scheduled Board of Directors, TAC and subcommittee meetings are open to the public, and the CCMPO welcomes and encourages public participation in and input to the metropolitan transportation planning process. The Board of Directors meets in public session on the third Wednesday of each month. The TAC also meets monthly, usually on the first Tuesday. All regular CCMPO meetings include an opportunity for public comments on pertinent issues. In addition, public hearings on specific items, such as amendments to the TIP, are held as needed throughout the year. 1.4 Intergovernmental Cooperation 1.4.1 Municipal Responsibilities The CCMPO is comprised of local municipalities that, in conjunction with state and local transit authority, are responsible for all CCMPO activities and products. In Vermont, municipalities typically provide half of the funds to meet federal matching requirements. Thus, the CCMPO planning budget is generally comprised of 80 percent federal funds, 10 percent state funds and 10 percent municipal funds. 1.4.2 The CCMPO/ VTrans/ CCTA/ Vermont Transportation Authority Relationship In accordance with federal regulations, the CCMPO is required to carry out metropolitan transportation planning in cooperation with the State ( i. e., VTrans) and with operators of public owned transit services ( i. e., CCTA and the Vermont Transportation Authority). The process, therefore, is designed to be cooperative such that no single agency or organization is given complete responsibility for the planning, construction, operation or maintenance of the region's transportation system. All parties function under MOU agreements between them. The CCMPO Board of Directors includes one representative each from VTrans and CCTA. The CCMPO is also responsible for actively seeking the participation of all relevant agencies and stakeholders in the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 9 transportation planning and prioritization process. The CCMPO approves the MTP and both the governor and the CCMPO approve the TIP. 1.5 Required Elements of MTP The MTP is the region's principal transportation planning document and sets regional transportation priorities. It should, therefore, also be the central mechanism for structuring effective investments to enhance transportation system efficiency. It should consist of short- and long- range strategies to address transportation needs and lead to development of an integrated, inter- modal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods. As mandated by the federal government, the MTP must both articulate and work towards the region's comprehensive long- range land use plans, development objectives, and the region's overall social, economic, environmental, system performance and energy conservation goals and objectives. It should also be consistent with the statewide transportation plan and the MPO should make special efforts to engage all interested parties in the development of the Plan. Federal law requires the MTP to be updated every five years. This schedule was established to ensure that the Plan remains valid and consistent with developing trends in the transportation system use and conditions. The federal government also mandates that the MTP: ? Identify transportation policies, strategies and projects for the future; ? Determine demand for transportation services for a 20- year period; ? Identify congestion management strategies to address future demand; ? Maintain a multi- modal focus; ? Concentrate on the systems level, including roadways, transit, bike, pedestrian and inter- modal connections; ? Estimate costs and identify reasonably available financial sources for operation, maintenance and capital investments; and ? Determine ways to preserve existing roads and facilities and make efficient use of the existing system. The MTP also must incorporate a financial section that estimates how much funding over the life of the plan will be needed for transportation investments and the maintenance and operation of the existing system. The financial section must outline how the MPO can reasonably expect to fund all included projects, and programs within a fiscally constrained environment, drawing on all anticipated revenues from the federal and state governments, regional or local sources, the private sector and user charges. 1.6 Federal Guidelines for MTP Development & Content In the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century ( TEA- 21), the federal government set out seven broad areas to be considered in the transportation planning process. These areas recognize that the growing importance of operating and managing the transportation system is the focal point for transportation plannin g. The seven areas are: Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 10 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency; 2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non- motorized users; 3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight; 4. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life; 5. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; 6. Promote efficient system management and operation; and 7. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. The federal government also sets broad planning considerations for the planning process and establishes guidelines that relate to other issues, such as air quality, congestion management, environmental justice and smart growth/ economic development, as discussed below. 1.6.1 Air Quality A metropolitan area's designation as an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area creates additional requirements in the transportation planning process. In areas with air quality problems, for example, transportation plans, programs and projects must conform to state air quality plans. Because Chittenden County currently is classified as an " attainment area" for all transportation- related pollutants, it is not subject to air quality conformity requirements. This designation is anticipated for the time period encompassed in the 25- year planning horizon. 1.6.2 Congestion Management Areas with populations over 200,000 or that have been designated as a nonattainment for air quality purposes are called " transportation management areas" ( TMAs) 1. TMAs must have a congestion management system ( CMS) that identifies actions and strategies to reduce congestion and increase mobility. Because the population of Chittenden County currently is less than 200,000, a TMA is not required. However, before the end of the planning period, the population is forecasted to reach 200,000 and the region may be deemed a TMA, thus triggering the CMS requirement. Chapter 7 discusses the implications of this, including a potential future larger MPO. 1.6.3 Environmental Justice The goal of Environmental Justice is to ensure that services and benefits are distributed fairly to all people, regardless of race, national origin, or income and that they have access to meaningful participation. The legal foundation for environmental justice is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in any program receiving federal assistance. 1 Different from ‘ Transportation Management Associations' discussed in a later chapter. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 11 As the agency responsible for coordinating the MTP, the MPO must ensure that all segments of the population have been involved with the planning process. The MPO should also ensure that the impact of proposed transportation investments on the underserved and underrepresented population is part of the Plan's evaluation process. 1.6.4 Economic Development and Smart Growth Although not a specific requirement, the federal government recognizes the role that transportation plays in economic development and, therefore, encourages agencies to take advantage of opportunities to use transportation to have a positive influence on development ( i. e., smart growth). As the lead organization that drafts and adopts the MTP, the CCMPO is in a unique position to influence transportation investments toward improving the quality of life in the region and tailor some transportation activities to improve both specific economic development projects and regional mobility in general. Federal guidelines, therefore, encourage the CCMPO to leverage its influence to promote smart growth. 1.7 Metropolitan Transportation System The primary focus of the MTP is the Metropolitan Transportation System ( MTS). It is the multimodal network of highways, arterial and collector roadways, transit services, rail lines, bike paths, Burlington International Airport, and other inter- modal facilities critical to the movement of people and goods in the region. Figure 1- 1 depicts the existing Chittenden County MTS. The MTS is also a planning tool used to identify metropolitan transportation problems, develop system-level solutions and serve as a focus for performance monitoring. The MTS distinguishes the locally important transportation facilities from those that are strategically significant at the regional, state and even federal levels. These facilities and services form the regionally significant modal components critical to Chittenden County's mobility needs. As this system evolves and grows over time based on the recommendations in chapter 6, the MTS system will change to accommodate those new facilities and services. The MTS is not stagnant but a dynamic system requiring regular updates. For example, the MTS concept recognizes that planners must consider an urban bus transit system runs on local streets and arterials, and therefore they cannot analyze transit operations independently of arterial congestion. Similarly, an MTP that addresses arterial access management must also provide for appropriate pedestrian facilities and operations within that same arterial corridor. Resulting problems may be diffic ult to resolve, as a single facility is expected to provide for conflicting roles. However, by addressing the transportation system as a single entity of interrelated elements, planners become more aware of potential conflicts in the planning stage, rather than finding unexpected consequences when a given project is under design or construction. 1.8 The MTP Steering Committee & Its Role To guide development of the MTP and ensure broad- based representation in its development, the CCMPO established an MTP Steering Committee. This Steering Committee included representatives from the CCMPO Board of Directors, local planners, business groups, the Vermont Forum on Sprawl, bicycle and pedestrian advocates, senior citizens, transit service providers, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, the Vermont Agency of Transportation, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and the Federal Highway Administration. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 12 The MTP Steering Committee met periodically to review progress, comment on reports, and provide direction to the CCMPO staff and consultants. The MTP Steering Committee was also responsible for final review and comment on the MTP drafts to the CCMPO Board of Directors. 1.9 CCMPO Approval/ Adoption Process Following federal requirements, the CCMPO developed this MTP according to an intensive and inclusive public involvement process that addressed the elements required under law and regulation. Following input from the MTP Steering Committee, a multi- level review and comment process will be carried out, including final review by the CCMPO Board, the CCMPO member jurisdictions, and the public. The final draft of the MTP will be distributed as part of this process and then presented at a public hearing. Once a final version of the MTP has been agreed upon, the CCMPO Board will approve the plan. 1.10 MTP as Part of the Chittenden County Regional Plan The MTP, after adoption by the CCRPC Board, will serve as the transportation element of the Chittenden County Regional Plan. During MTP development, the CCMPO made efforts to ensure that the MTP is consistent with and supports the goals , objectives, and assumptions of the Chittenden County Regional Plan. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 13 Chittenden County MTP Vision for Transportation in 2025 Our transportation system enhances and connects healthy, vibrant communities. It is safe, efficient, multi- modal and accessible to all. It supports economic vitality and is designed and operated to complement and respect our cherished natural resources and cultural heritage. 2.0 THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS AND REGIONAL DESIRES AND ASPIRATIONS 2.1 Introduction Public participation is an integral element of MTP development. For purposes of developing the MTP, the public includes anyone who resides, has an interest, or does business in the area potentially affected by transportation decisions related to the MTP. Thus, the public includes individuals, organized groups, providers of transportation services ( including both public and private entities), and those traditionally underserved by the existing system ( such as the elderly, low- income, and minority groups). This chapter both describes the process undertaken to involve the public and reports on some of the key opinions, ideas and suggestions that resulted from public involvement. The first section presents the transportation vision as developed during the public involvement process and the goals prepared by the MTP Steering Committee to support and articulate that vision. The second section outlines the overall public involvement process ( including the results of the Chittenden County Transportation Survey conducted in 2000), and highlights key themes which emerged. 2.2 Vision & Goals 2.2.1 Transportation Vision Early in the MTP update process, the CCMPO and MTP Steering Committee crafted the following Vision statement and vetted it during the public involvement process. The Vision articulates how people in the region envision their transportation system to work in the year 2025. The Vision is intended to clearly and concisely describe the overall purpose of the transportation system, how that system should perform and the system's role relative to the overarching themes of community, environment, economic vitality, equity, and cultural heritage. 2.2.2 Regional Transportation Goals The MTP Steering Committee prepared 12 supporting goals to articulate and expand on the Vision. These goals state regional desires and aspirations for the transportation system as well as for the people and communities served by the transportation system. Goal 1: Preserve and improve the physical condition and operational performance of the existing transportation system. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 14 Goal 2: Reinforce sustainable land use patterns, such as growth centers, as set forth in local and regional plans. Goal 3: Create a transportation system that offers constantly improving safety, accessibility, flexibility, and comfort for everyone. Goal 4: Establish a transportation system that minimizes the time and total cost of moving people and goods, allowing the Region's economy to thrive. Goal 5: Protect or enhance the region's built and natural environments. Goal 6: Create a transportation system that builds community, enhances neighborhood vitality, and minimizes noise, glare, and vibration. Goal 7: Provide levels of access and mobility that insure people and goods can travel when and where they need to go. Goal 8: Consider ways to improve transportation system efficiency before increasing transportation capacity. Goal 9: Establish a transportation system that uses diverse sources of power and maximizes energy efficiency and conservation. Goal 10: Develop a transportation system that features a variety of travel modes and encourages the reduction of single occupant vehicle use. Goal 11: Educate the public -- from children to seniors-- about the implications of different development patterns and mode choice decisions. Goal 12: Provide improvements to transportation facilities and services expeditiously through an inclusive and cost effective process. 2.3 Public Involvement Process The public outreach and involvement effort for MTP development included a wide range of techniques. Some techniques involved interaction with residents and elected officials ( such as surveys, advisory groups, and public meetings), while other techniques focused on the dissemination of information about the planning process ( such as newsletters, progress updates, and web- based publications). The public also was invited to comment on the initial draft of the MTP. The objective of all these efforts was to ensure that the MTP responded to the needs of Chittenden County residents. The cornerstone of the MTP public involvement process was public meetings. The CCMPO convened 10 public meetings across the County to provide a forum to evaluate transportation- related wants and needs, and to identify the full range of issues that needed to be addressed in the Plan. Four meetings were held on specific transportation topics, and six meetings were held with groups or organizations that had an interest in transportation or represented a unique perspective. 2.3.1 Themes Emerging from Public Meetings Although members of the public who took part in the MTP public involvement process may have disagreed on many things, most tended to agree on the following themes. Transportation Priorities ? Transportation is an important aspect of modern life and has a significant role in the quality of life for everyone. Transportation infrastructure and services, therefore, are valued and people Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 15 stress that these resources should be well- maintained with a focus on providing safe and reliable travel opportunities. ? Transportation should focus on mobility and accessibility, so that places are easy to get to for all segments of the population including those that can't or don't travel by automobile. ? Change is a given - while there are disagreements about the pace of change, it is generally accepted that things will change. ? Unsafe conditions cannot be tolerated. ? Connectivity and mobility are desirable; that is, it should be easy and inexpensive for people to get where they want to go; places should be connected, and there should not be gaps in the transportation system. ? The needs of disadvantaged populations ( poor, elderly, disabled, etc.) are especially important. Everything is Connected ? One cannot talk about transportation without talking about development patterns, the economy, the environment, education, and quality of life- and vice versa. ? Within the transportation system, it is recognized that modes are interdependent and related. Even if a person drives to a shopping center, for example, they still walk from the parking lot to the shops. Transportation and Land Use ? Since most members of the public work outside the home, the transportation system influences where and how they live and work. Transportation also influences where and how employers access the labor force, markets, and suppliers. ? The transportation system, along with other factors, contributes to changes in land use, by making areas more accessible; likewise changes in land use have an impact on how the transportation system functions. ? The physical separation of different land use types - especially residential and small- scale commercial/ service types - is no longer assumed to be desirable. Transportation is Political ? Everyone is affected by transportation. ? There is a wide variety of stakeholders and political interests surrounding transportation infrastructure and services. Any decision or policy about transportation has the potential to affect many different people and impact them in a wide variety of ways. For example, the impact of a change in transportation services, for example, will have different impacts ( real or perceived) on residents, business owners, political leaders, institutions, environmentalists, local governments, chambers of commerce, and emergency responders. Consequently, the opinions these different groups have about such a project will vary. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 16 ? The public and groups view the world differently. Transportation issues, therefore, are often contentious ones and may need to be resolved through the political process. Congestion is a Major Issue ? Increasing traffic and delays are undesirable. Some want to divert traffic away from village centers by creating alternate routes for trucks and through travelers, but others oppose rerouting or the construction of new roads. ? The public is increasingly looking to mitigate congestion through the use of alternative means ( such as traffic calming and Intelligent Transportation Systems). Existing Facilities should be Well- Maintained ? Existing facilities should be well- maintained. Unfortunately , maintenance is sometimes deferred or does not take place at all. ? Poor maintenance has significant negative long- term financial impacts. It also has adverse short term effects ( such as people not being able to get where they must go due to the lack of maintenance during or following foul weather). The Project Development Process is Cumbersome ? Project development takes too long. ? Opinions vary about whether delays are due to a) too little money for implementation and construction, b) onerous permitting requirements, or c) public opposition ( the " Not in My Backyard" effect). ? The process length can be reduced through local control ( i. e., if local governments, as opposed to the State, take responsibility for managing the project). Information Technology will Improve Transportation ? Computers and information technology will improve transportation over time by providing tools to make the transportation system more efficient and by helping planners make better decisions. ? Information technology will never totally replace the basic need to move materials and people. Small " Low- Tech" Solutions bring Benefits ? Small, low- tech, or limited scale solutions to transportation problems can have significant benefits. Although modest solutions might not provide all the benefits of more extensive ones, they can be implemented much more readily. 2.3.2 Year 2000 Public Opinion Survey In the year 2000, the CCMPO commissioned a survey of people who live and work in Chittenden County to measure satisfaction with the County's transportation system. The survey aimed to quantitatively assess opinions on how future transportation dollars should be spent in the region. Several topics within the broad objectives were evaluated, ranging from highway efficiency to transit development to bike/ walk Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 17 facilities. The results of this analysis formed a quantitative framework for understanding public opinion and gauging regional priorities. One of the main functions of the survey was to broadly indicate regional priorities for the transportation system. The survey asked the public to assess seven transportation strategies. " Preserving existing structures" was identified as the most important strategy, while " improving ridesharing incentives" received the lowest rating. Table 2- 1 shows the ranking of the seven strategies tested together with the highest rated issue in each of these seven categories. Table 2- 1 Publicly Preferred Transportation Strategies Ranking Transportation Strategy Highest Rated Issues in Category * 1 Preserving Existing Structures Fixing poor bridges ( 87%) Repaving existing roads ( 75%) Upgrading existing sidewalks ( 75%) Repainting road lines ( 75%) 2 Improved Safety Providing sidewalks & bike paths ( 86%) Fix dangerous intersections ( 85%) 3 Bike/ Walk Facilities Repairing existing, poor condition sidewalks ( 88%) Providing bike lanes, along existing roads ( 79%) Providing separated bike lanes ( 78%) 4 Transit Service Expanding transit to/ between all suburban towns ( 68%) Providing express transit services to rural towns and park & ride lots ( 66%) 5 Minor Highway Efficiency Projects Improving traffic signal timing & coordination ( 89%) Adding turning lanes at intersections ( 80%) 6 Major Road Projects Adding more travel lanes to congested roads ( 69%) Building more local arterial roads to provide more travel options ( 52%) 7 Ridesharing Encouraging employers to subsidize bus passes ( 61%) Providing guaranteed ride home programs for carpoolers ( 59%) * The table includes the two issues within each strategy with the highest scores and any additional issue that was within two percentage points of either of the two highest scoring issues The survey tested several different elements of the transportation system using a variety of questioning formats. Generally- speaking, responses were consistent across types of questions posed. Several themes emerged which had stronger support than others: ? Preserving the existing structures in the transportation system is the highest priority. ? Having a safe transportation system is also a high priority. ? Bike and walk facilities are important and there is a general perception that these facilities are insufficient. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 18 ? Congestion is a concern and something most respondents consider when they plan and make trips. ? Respondents said they depend on their car to get around, but they also expressed a willingness to walk, take transit or work from home. ? Responses to questions about transportation and quality of life ( such as traffic and pollution) were varied, suggesting that some neighborhoods and areas are more severely impacted than others. ? Although many respondents are positive about transit and consider it important, there also was a lack of awareness of the system services and routes. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 19 3.0 POPULATION, ECONOMICS & TRANSPORTATION: CHARACTERISTICS, BEHAVIORS & TRENDS 3.1 Introduction Evaluation of future transportation systems is based on understanding the relationship between economic activity, demographic trends, land use patterns, and travel behavior. This Chapter provides an overview of this analytical process. The first section outlines historical and forecasted economic and demographic data, as well as corresponding land use patterns. The next section provides an overview of the CCMPO travel model ( the primary transportation forecasting tool) and an analysis of current travel patterns. The final sections describe the existing transportation system and outline implications of forecasted economic and demographic data for the future transportation network. 3.2 Population and Economic Forecasts for Chittenden County 3.2.1 Overview To help lay a foundation for their long- range planning efforts, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission ( CCRPC) and the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization ( CCMPO) jointly contracted with Economic and Policy Resources ( EPR) of Williston, Vermont to develop long- term demographic forecasts for the County and its region. EPR's forecasts, prepared in August 2000 ( the population forecasts were updated in June 2001 and were reaffirmed in April 2003) cover the period from 2000 to 2035 and have been adopted by both the CCMPO and CCRPC. The MTP Update focuses on a 25- year planning horizon from 2000 and 2025. The MTP employs EPR's June 2001 updated population forecasts for 2025 and EPR's August 2000 housing demand and employment forecasts for 2025 ( see Table 3- 1). Table 3- 1 Chittenden County Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts Population Housing Demand Employment 2000 146,571 58,955 124,203 2005 158,998 65,015 139,205 2010 169,760 71,609 151,112 2015 182,176 78,613 163,466 2020 197,324 86,386 176,676 2025 212,884 94,629 190,583 Total Increase 66,313 35,674 66,380 Percent Change 45% 61% ( 1) 53% Source: Economic and Demographic Forecasts, EPR, August 2000 and June 2001 ( 1) The forecasted rate of growth in housing demand is greater than those of both population and employment due to historical developments in the housing market. See Section 3.2.5 for more detailed explanation. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 20 3.2.2 Background Transportation systems are intended to provide facilities to move people and goods. Requirements for the movement of people and goods are influenced by a myriad of interrelated socio- economic factors such as population, housing, employment, land use patterns and economic growth. The preparation of long- range transportation plans such as the MTP, therefore, must make assumptions with regards to the future of these socio- economic elements. The economic and population forecasts prepared for Chittenden County are based on forecasts for the metropolitan region encompassing the six counties of Northwest Vermont ( Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Chittenden, Addison, and Washington). Northwest Vermont is an economic region with a central core ( the urbanized area of Chittenden County) and a socially and economically interconnected periphery. The development pattern of this economic region is characterized by ( 1) a central core with relatively dense existing development and relatively higher land costs, and ( 2) a periphery with relatively lower land costs that attracts housing and other types of land- intensive activities ( especially in areas where the periphery is accessible to the core via transportation investments). Over time, the increased development of land in the periphery causes land prices there to increase so that areas formerly regarded as the periphery become part of the urban core. This creates pressures for development to seek lower land costs in even more outlying communities. Both this pattern and these pressures are evident both within Chittenden County and the wider Northwest Vermont region. Forecasted growth for Chittenden County will have a variety of implications for the region, in addition to the transportation system. The actual amount and rate of growth experienced in the region will be influenced and ultimately determined by public policies and community decisions. For example, a policy decision that impacts development densities across the fringe towns may alter the pattern of future population change. Likewise, changes in the regional economy could also change the forecasts dramatically. This metropolitan development pattern has been observed in many other parts of the United States. It also forms one of the underlying assumptions for the long- term forecasts incorporated into MTP development. Accordingly, while the MTP assumes that the urban core will continue to contain the majority of population and development, the MTP also assumes that future growth rates will be greater in the urban fringe and rural periphery. 3.2.3 Population In 2002, as reported by the U. S. Census Bureau, the population of Chittenden County was 148, 916. Chittenden County is the most urbanized and most densely populated county in the State and comprises about 25 percent of Vermont's population. Chittenden County also has been one of the fastest growing counties in Vermont, especially since 1960. In the period between 1960 and 2000, the population in Chittenden County almost doubled from an estimated 74,425 to 146,571. This represents a net gain of 72,146 persons or an average annual growth rate of about 1.7 percent. During the same period, the non- Chittenden County portion of Vermont's population increased from 317,735 to 462,256, representing a net gain of 144,521 or an average annual growth rate of only about 1.0 percent. In the 25- year planning period between 2000 and 2025, Chittenden County's population is forecast to increase by approximately 66,313 persons, an overall increase of about 45 percent an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. This growth is anticipated to occur more slowly in the near- term ( between Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 21 2000 and 2010) with an average annual rate of 1.4 percent as compared with the longer term ( 2010 to 2025) when a slightly faster annual rate of growth is forecast at 1.6 percent. The County's population is not only growing, it is also changing. Demographic trends observed over the past several decades are forecasted to become more pronounced. The strongest of these trends is an increase in the number of persons over age 65. Other notable trends include fewer persons of school age and smaller household sizes. These trends will affect the local economy, the housing market and the provision of transportation infrastructure and services. 3.2.4 Employment Total employment in Chittenden County increased 20 percent between 1990 and 2000, for a net gain of some 24,527 jobs ( EPR, 2000). Full and part- time employment in Chittenden County is estimated to increase by 75 percent or approximately 39,263 jobs between 2000 and 2025. Employment is expected to grow an average of 2.0 percent per year from 2000 to 2010 and then slow to an average of 1.6 percent per year from 2010 to 2035. This is nearly half of the rate of growth seen between 1980 and 1990, which was about 4.0 percent per year. Forecasts suggest a continuation of the trend where service sector employment increases from 35 percent of total employment in 2000 to 44 percent by the year 2025. Concurrently, employment in manufacturing will comprise an increasingly smaller proportion of the economy. By the end of the planning horizon, 2025, there will be an estimated 25,000 manufacturing jobs in Chittenden County, representing about 13 percent of all jobs in the County. In 1980, manufacturing jobs comprised 22 percent of total jobs in the County. 3.2.5 Housing Housing demand in Chittenden County has been robust over the past 20 years, with an increase of more than 20,000 units ( 52 percent) between 1980 and 2000 to nearly 59,000 units. Demographic changes are also likely to affect the housing market. These trends include an aging population, the children of the baby boom generation entering adulthood and starting their own households, and people generally staying in their housing longer as they tend to both live and work longer than the previous generation. Another factor affecting housing in the County is the lagged response of housing production to housing demand. Demand for housing in Chittenden County created in the 1990s has not to date been totally satisfied. Requirements for more housing are expected to continue as the population ages and people stay in their housing longer. Strong demand for housing, therefore, will continue to be high in the near- term ( i. e., 2000 to 2010) period. Over the 25- year planning horizon, the demand for housing is expected to be for an addition of approximately 35,700 units, a net increase from 2000 levels of some 61 percent. The average annual rate of increase is forecast as 2.0 percent in the near term ( i. e., 2000- 2010), and slowing slightly to 1.8 percent in the longer term ( i. e., 2010- 2025). 3.3 Current Transportation Conditions The current status of the region's transportation system was assessed in the Existing Conditions Report ( 2001) prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates. The focus of the Existing Conditions Report is the Metropolitan Transportation System ( MTS). The MTS is described in greater detail in Section 1.7. The Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 22 Existing Condition Report provides strong evidence of the need for maintenance and improvement of the MTS. This section highlights the major issues described in greater detail in the Existing Conditions Report. 3.3.1 Arterial Roadways and Existing Congestion The road network in the region consists of highways classified as Interstate Highways, Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, and Collectors. The classification system is organized as a hierarchy of facilities based on the degree to which the roadway facility serves mobility and access to adjacent land uses. Arterials are only 17 percent of County road mileage, yet carry two thirds ( 67 percent) of all Vehicle Miles Traveled. Additionally, 65 percent of arterials have " fair" or worse sufficiency ratings. Highway sufficiency ratings describe the safety, service, and level of maintenance found at specific locations along a transportation network. The system does not account for the region's challenging climate, although some have suggested that such systems should do so. Ratings include " bad", " poor", " fair", and " good". According to data reported through 1996, a number of the state highway segments with the lowest reported sufficiency ratings are found along long- established arteria l routes ( US 7, US 2) in outlying portions of the region. Arterial congestion is growing faster than population or employment. As a result, travelers are increasingly seeking cut- through and bypass routes on neighborhood and residential streets. Using the congestion measure of volume to capacity ratio ( V/ C) the CCMPO's Transportation Model ( see discussion in section 3.4.1 below) projects 2025 congestion problems in the afternoon peak hour on those road segments identified in Table 3- 2 below. The locations of these areas are identified on Figure 5- 6 and Table 7- 5 identifies future roadway projects related to these segments. Not shown in Table 3- 2 are other congested roads in Burlington and Winooski. These areas are the most densely populated and most urbanized parts of the region and congestion levels are perceived differently. This is further discussed in Chapter 6 under Regional Core, Major Mobility and Accessibility Issues, followed by a list of urban area congestion management strategies. 3.3.2 High Accident Locations High Accident Locations ( HALs) are road segments and intersections where the rate of crashes exceeds a threshold known as the critical rate. According to the VTrans High Accident Location Report for 1990 through 1994, there are six HAL road segments in the Chittenden County Region, as well as 24 HAL intersections. HAL segments are located along both relatively low volume routes such as VT 128 in Essex ( at Osgood Hill, Bixby Hill, and Thomas Lane), as well as higher volume routes such as VT 2A, and VT 15 in Essex Junction ( at Five Corners), and US 2 in Burlington and South Burlington ( at City boundary). The worst rated HAL intersections- with accident rates two times the critical rate- are US 2 in Richmond ( at VT 117) and VT 15 in Winooski ( at I- 89 Ramp). Other intersections with a high crash rate identified using the VTrans data include US 2 in South Burlington ( at Airport Drive), US 7 in Burlington ( at US 2 and Main Street), VT 15 in Winooski ( Dion Street), VT 116 in Hinesburg ( Shelburne Road/ CVU Road), and US 7 in Colchester ( VT 2A and US 2 intersections). New crash data ( 1998 to 2002) were released by VTrans as this draft was nearing completion. The new report noted that the late 1990' s volume of crash records dropped nearly in half compared with earlier in the decade then dramatically increased threefold in 2002. VTrans feels the 2002 data are a better reflection of actual crash activity. Due to the underreporting of crash data from 1998 to 2001, however, there were no intersections that met High Crash Location criteria. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 23 Table 3- 2 2025 Roadway Congestion Municipality( ies) Road Name Location Projected 2025 Average V/ C ( Percent) Colchester Heineberg Drive Heineberg Bridge to just north of Porters Point 157 Williston VT 2A I- 89 Exit 12 to Old Creamery Road 153 Richmond US 2 I- 89 Exit 11 through Village 146 Milton US 7 W. Milton Rd to Bomb ardier 142 So. Burlington/ Williston US 2 Shunpike Dr. to Industrial Ave. 141 Williston Industrial Ave. US 2 to VT 2A 135 Jericho VT 15 Lee River Rd. to Underhill Flats 132 Essex Town VT 15 Sand Hill Rd. to Circ Highway 128 So. Burlington VT 116 Cheesefactory Rd to I- 89 127 Williston US 2 Maple Tree Place to No. Williston Rd. 126 Essex Town VT 117 Sand Hill Rd. to Circ Highway 126 Williston US 2 Maple Tree Place to Brownell 126 Milton/ Colchester US 7 Catamount Industrial Park to US 2 124 Winooski/ Colchester US 7 Tigan St. to Severance Corners 123 Milton/ Colchester US 2 I- 89 Exit 17 to County Line 123 Hinesburg/ Shelburne/ St. George VT 116 Shelburne Falls Rd to So. Brownell 123 Williston Mountain View Redmond Road to VT 2A 121 Williston/ Essex Junction VT 2A Industrial Ave. to Five Corners 119 Jericho/ Essex Town VT 117 Barber Farm to No. Williston Rd. 108 Richmond US 2 Richmond Village to Jonesville 103 Hinesburg Silver St, VT 116 to Monkton T/ L 102 Essex Town VT 128 VT 15 to Westford T/ L 101 So. Burlington Williston Rd. I- 89 Exit 14 to VT 116 97 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 24 The latest data reveal 86 HAL road segments in the County. The CCMPO will work with VTrans, utilizing their Highway Safety Improvement Program, to identify proper HAL countermeasures. This will be addressed more fully in the next MTP update. 3.3.3 Public Transit The Chittenden County Transportation Authority ( CCTA) has been providing transit services in parts of Chittenden County since 1974. CCTA operates 12 scheduled transit routes in the Greater Burlington area plus the Link Express a commuter service between Burlington and Montpelier. CCTA also provides ADA paratransit ( door- to- door) services for the disabled in Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski, Williston, Essex Junction, Shelburne and Colchester through a contract operator ( Special Services Transportation Agency - SSTA). CCTA is working to ensure that previous capital investments in transit are maintained. CCTA currently provides over 2 million trips per year. The public transit service area and frequencies, though adequate for some non- driving segments of the population ( low income, seniors and children) are not yet adequately expanded to effectively encourage most people to get out of their cars. The new inter-regional commuter services are, however, beginning to capture some of this market. Complimenting CCTA service is SSTA, the public paratransit operator primarily providing door to door services to the elderly and disabled through a variety of contracts with social service agencies. SSTA's service area is slightly larger than CCTA's reaching the County's rural, as well as, urban areas. 3.3.4 Passenger Rail Intercity rail service available in Chittenden County consists of Amtrak's Vermonter Train, with Vermont stops in Essex Junction, Brattleboro, White River Jct., Montpelier, Waterbury, and St Albans. This service was established in April 1995 as a reconfiguration of the discontinued Montrealer train from Montreal to Washington, D. C. Amtrak now makes the connection between St. Albans and Montreal by bus. The Vermonter provides one inbound and one outbound trip daily. Southbound service to New York and Washington, D. C. originates at St. Albans in the morning, returning later in the evening. The Champlain Flyer was reportedly the smallest commuter rail service in the United States. The Flyer was initiated in December 2000, but was suspended indefinitely by the State of Vermont in early 2003. The service initially provided multiple inbound and multiple outbound trips each morning and afternoon/ evening. Originally conceived to provide alternative means of transportation during the reconstruction of US 7/ Shelburne Road, the 15- mile service had stops in Charlotte, Shelburne Village ( Shelburne Station), South Burlington ( Bartlett Bay Road), and downtown Burlington ( Union Station). There is currently no formal plan for resuming this service. The State of Vermont is also pursuing a project known as the " Albany- Bennington- Rutland- Burlington," or " ABRB" passenger rail project. As of September 2003, VTrans is studying needed improvements to the Vermont Railway System track and rail facilities between Rutland and Burlington and plans to begin prioritizing those improvements for capital programming before the end of 2003. However, no timetable for implementing actual Amtrak service to Burlington has been set. 3.3.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Chittenden County has a range of dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as other facilities that may be used for bicycle and pedestrian purposes. Facilities dedicated to non- motorized uses ( such as sidewalks and off- road, multi- use paths) are concentrated in and around the metropolitan core. Non- Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 25 dedicated facilities that bicyclists and pedestrians share with motor ized users are located throughout the region. According to data compiled by the CCMPO in 1999, Chittenden County had 435 miles of sidewalk and 42 miles of multi- use paths/ bike lanes. Most paths are recently built and currently in good condition; however, some sidewalks need significant repair/ reconstruction. Community support for non-motorized facilities is substantial, as the 2000 survey revealed. An important amenity in making these facilities attractive to older users are frequently spaced seating/ resting areas. 3.3.6 Intermodal Facilities Chittenden County has pursued and continues to pursue development of various intermodal transportation facilities. Intermodal centers have most recently been proposed for Burlington, Essex Junction, Winooski and Milton to serve various local and intercity bus and passenger rail services. As of September 2003, none of these facilities had yet progressed past the planning stage. 3.3.7 Air Service Facilities The Region's air travel and shipping needs are served primarily by the Burlington International Airport ( BIA). BIA is owned by the City of Burlington and governed by an Airport Commission and is located in the City of South Burlington, about three miles east of Burlington's downtown and one mile east of Exit 14 of Interstate Route 89. The Airport is accessed primarily from Route 2 ( Williston Road). The airport is a vital link to the National Air Transportation System for the residents and businesses of the County, Northwest Vermont and northern New York State. Currently, seven commercial airlines and several air cargo carriers provide service at BIA. BIA serves as a base for general aviation services and home to a unit of the Air National Guard. 3.3.8 Rail and Freight- Supportive Facilities Chittenden County has a well- developed freight distribution system. About six million tons of freight flow into, out of, or within the region each year, far more than in any other region of Vermont. According to the 2001 CCMPO Regional Freight Study and Plan, more than 91 percent of the freight tonnage moved in the County moves by truck, with rail moving another 5.7 percent. Rail has historically been used to carry large volumes of bulk materials, such as fuel, stone, wood chips, and salt. Nearly 60 percent of the region's freight flows go to or come from nearby - other parts of Vermont, New Hampshire, or New York. In recent years, the County's freight system has had to adapt to a changing and more competitive marketplace. With the advent of new information technologies, truck containers, rail cars and airplanes are increasingly viewed as mobile warehouses that feed goods into the production process or on to market shelves in " time definite" service. The Regional Freight Study noted that the freight infrastructure in Vermont does not meet national industry standards for motor carriers and railroads and this affects the access to Chittenden County. For example, US 7 and VT 22A are insufficient as a north/ south highway in western Vermont. Further, the rail system serving Chittenden County has weight and clearance limits that affect its ability to function effectively in the regional, national and North American rail systems. As a result of the railroads' downsizing in the last few decades, Chittenden County has a reduced number of direct rail sidings and limited transload facilities. Consequently, as the Regional Freight Study notes, Chittenden County has a demand today for a number of transload facilities for the transfer of bulk commodities between truck and rail. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 26 3.3.9 Relocation of Vermont Railways Freight Operations An issue of continuing interest to the region is the potential for relocating the Vermont Railway's freight operations away from the existing rail yard along the Burlington waterfront to a more suitable site. The Vermont Agency of Transportation ( VTrans) undertook a study of relocation site options in the late 1990s, but no further major actions have occurred on this issue. There is significant interest among representatives of the City of Burlington, the business community, the CCMPO, and CCRPC in determining how best to pursue the development of new Burlington area rail yard and reclaim the waterfront site for more desirable recreational, residential, and commercial purposes. At this time, however, no funding has been identified to undertake the relocation process, nor a suitable alternative site selected. 3.3.10 Bridges There are a total of 179 bridge structures greater than or equal to 20 feet in length in Chittenden County. Of these, 86 are owned by the State and the remaining 93 by local governments. Nearly all ( 78 of 86) of the State owned bridges over 20 feet long are located on major highways, i. e. principal arterials and major collectors. The majority of municipally owned bridges ( 61 of 93) over 20 feet long are located on less heavily traveled highways, i. e. minor collectors and local roads. Note that many bridges and other structures less than 20 feet long are also maintained by both the State and municipalities. The condition of local and State bridges is evaluated every two years by VTrans. Using a sufficiency rating system developed by the U. S. Department of Transportation, bridges are assigned a value between 0 and 100. Ratings are based on evaluations in three areas - structural adequacy and safety, essentiality for public use, and serviceability and functional obsolescence - with special reductions allowed for extreme safety problems and lack of alternative routes. Sufficiency ratings on bridges are used to determine the eligibility for funding for improvements. A sufficiency rating between 80 and 100 indicates that the bridge is not eligible for rehabilitation funding. A rating between 50 and 80 indicates eligibility for rehabilitation money. A score of less than 50 indicates that the bridge is eligible for replacement funding. Based on this system, 16 percent ( 29 of 179) of all bridges are eligible for replacement - 23 locally owned and 6 State owned. Nearly half of the total number are eligible for rehabilitation as well - 86 of 179; 49 owned by the State and 37 by the municipalities. 3.4 Transportation Analyses This section builds on the previous analysis to explain how transportation planners incorporated socio-economic forecasts and anticipated land use trends into analytical tools to evaluate the future transportation system. This analysis of the future transportation system forms the framework for evaluating alternatives considered in the MTP. 3.4.1 The Chittenden County Transportation Model The CCMPO conducted much of the analysis of existing transportation conditions and forecasts of future transportation conditions using a tool known as the Chittenden County Transportation Model ( the " model"). The model simulates the interaction between housing, employment and a multi- modal transportation system. System- wide transportation models have been used in Chittenden County since the mid 1980' s. The current model was developed in 1994 and updated in 1998. The current model uses custom designed computer software and incorporates several advanced features including the ability to Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 27 estimate bus, commuter rail, walk/ bike and shared and single occupancy vehicle trips, and sensitivity to the effect transportation projects have on where trips are made. The model is able to analyze morning ( AM) and afternoon ( PM) peak hour conditions. The peak hour was adopted for analysis of transportation alternatives because the PM peak represents the most congested conditions and therefore highlights any problem areas in the transportation system. The model follows a five- step process as shown in Figure 3- 1. This process is built first to replicate existing travel conditions and then adapted to simulate future scenarios. The five model steps break- down the relationship between the land use, economic activity and travel behavior. Trip generation, for example, estimates the total number of trips to be taken and trip distribution estimates where these trips will go. Both of these steps are based on economic activity and land use patterns. The mode choice model evaluates how people will travel ( i. e. automobile, bike, walk, etc.) and trip assignment estimates which route or path travelers will use. The Chittenden County Transportation Model is a powerful and important analytical tool, but it is just that - a tool for helping us to better understand transportation issues. The model does not make decisions, but is one of numerous resources the CCMPO calls upon to help make more informed choices about how to invest limited resources in the region's transportation system. 3.4.2 Travel Patterns Residents of Chittenden County make thousands of trips every day ( for example, people driving to work, children walking to school, shoppers taking the bus to the market and students cycling to a friend's house). Transportation planners typically classify travel as peak and off- peak trips. Traditionally, peak-period trips focus on commuter traffic in the early morning ( AM peak) and late afternoon ( PM peak) periods, while off- peak trips refer to shopping and leisure trips taken throughout the day and in the evening. Peak and off- peak trips typically make different demands on the transportation network. As previously mentioned, peak period travel is the most congested whilst adding the greatest amount of stress to the transportation system. In Chittenden County, most peak period trips ( as measured in person- trips) are internal, meaning they do not cross sub- regional boundaries ( e. g. urban, suburban and rural boundaries). Figure 3- 2 highlights these trip- making patterns by showing the number of trips originating and ending in each of the three sub-regions, urban, suburban and rural. The largest share ( 40 percent) of peak- hour person trips begins and ends in the region's urban communities ( Burlington, South Burlington, and Winooski). A smaller share ( 16 percent) takes place within suburbs ( or from suburb to suburb). Peak suburban trips are about equal to the peak trips between suburban areas and urban areas. Base Year Land Use Trip Generation Trip Distribution Mode Choice Assignment Future Year Land Use Figure 3- 1 Travel Model Process Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 28 Fewer trips take place within rural communities or between rural communities. Roughly the same amount of travel occurs within rural areas as takes place between rural areas and other areas of the County. Accordingly, these travel patterns reflect lower levels of economic activity in rural areas resulting in rural residents traveling to the suburbs or urban core for employment and shopping. These trip patterns reflect the metropolitan land use patterns described previously that show employment and economic development moving to the periphery. The amount of travel originating from outside Chittenden County into the County is relatively small compared to the total amount of travel in the region. This travel totals about 2,800 trips in the morning ( AM) peak and about 3,300 trips in the evening ( PM) peak. During both peak periods, about three percent of all trips in the region are between external areas and the urban core, while about two percent are between external areas and the region's suburban communities. Less than ½ of one percent of all trips in the region during the morning and late day peak periods are " through trips" ( i. e., trips that begin and end outside the region). 3.5 Forecast of Future Transportation Conditions The tools described in Section 3.4 were used to inventory the existing transportation network in Chittenden County. These tools also were used to prepare a set of baseline conditions reflecting the forecasted future socio- economic, land use and travel pattern data impact on the County's transportation system. This analysis consisted primarily of compiling a series of indicators of travel and speed on the network and did not assume any major changes to the infrastructure. Effectively, the forecast conditions, Figure 3- 2: Travel Flows ( PM Peak) Between Communities: Urban, Suburban and Rural 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 From Urban From Suburban From Rural Trips To Rural To Suburban To Urban Source: Chittenden County Travel Model Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 29 illustrated by selected performance measures from the model and described in the following section, represent a " do- nothing" scenario - a baseline for the formation of alternatives and plans for the future network. Future Vehicle Miles of Travel ( VMT) - Vehicle Miles of Travel ( VMT) is a measure of the total demand placed on a transportation system during the evening peak hour. One vehicle traveling one mile contributes one vehicle mile of travel. Modeling suggests that peak hour VMT is likely to increase by about 50 or 60 percent between 2000 and 2025. To put this in historical perspective, VTrans data show that statewide VMT rose 96 percent over the 1975 to 2000 period. The projected future growth equates to an average annual increase of 1.6 to 1.9 percent, compared with population growth of about 1.5 percent per year. Future Vehicle Hours of Travel ( VHT) - Vehicle Hours of Travel ( VHT) measures the amount of time vehicles travel during the evening peak hour. When considered along with VMT, VHT gives an indication of the system demand as well as system efficiency. Modeling suggests that peak hour VHT is likely to increase on the order of 100 percent between 2000 and 2025 ( i. e., it would double from current levels). This equates to average annual growth of about 2.8 percent. The large gap between VMT growth and VHT growth means that the region's transportation infrastructure will not be capable of sustaining current levels of service without additional investment. Future Average Speed in Peak Hour - The measure " Average Speed Traveled in the Peak Hour" also provides an indication of system efficiency. Modeling suggests that average vehicle speed in the peak hour will fall by roughly one- fifth, from approximately 33 miles per hour to around 26 miles per hour. A reduction in travel speed along a highway segment is sometimes associated with increased levels of " alternative path seeking", ( i. e., using local streets rather than regional arterials as short cuts to a final destination). Future Percent VMT over Capacity - Highway segments and intersections have limited capacities. When the number of vehicles attempting to use a highway segment or intersection exceeds its capacity, congestion results. The Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand model was used to forecast the percentage of regional VMT taking place on highways with volumes that exceed highway capacity referred to as congested VMT. This modeling indicates that the increase in VMT over capacity in the evening peak hour could approach 400 percent between 2000 and 2025. This equates to average annual growth in the area of about 5.7 percent, compared with VMT growth of between 1.6 and 1.9 percent. Percent of Trips Possible by More than One Mode - The transportation system is intended to be multi- modal and provide opportunities for people to travel on a variety of modes, including transit, walk/ bike and shared vehicle person trips. Percent of Trips Possible by More than One Mode, therefore, measures the amount of multi- modal choices available. Modeling suggests that with no changes in land use patterns and assuming the committed transportation network only, the proportion of trips possible by more than one mode will decrease over the next 25 years such that nearly 10% fewer trips will be possible by non- drive alone modes. Thus, without any changes, the transportation system will become increasingly reliant on single occupancy vehicle trips. 3.6 Chapter Summary This Chapter provided an overview of the demographic, economic and travel trends and patterns shaping Chittenden County's transportation system performance and needs for the 25- year planning horizon. Future transportation conditions were forecast against the base case or " do- nothing" scenario. The objective of the analysis was to highlight base conditions against which alternatives may be evaluated. Key points of the Chapter included the following: Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 30 ? Population, employment and housing are forecast to increase in Chittenden County. The net increase in population is forecasted to be slightly more than 66,000 persons over the 25 year period ( 45 percent). Over the same period, employment is forecasted to increase by just over 66,000 jobs ( 53 percent) and housing demand is forecasted to increase by nearly 36,000 units ( 61 percent). ? The forecasted land use patterns for Chittenden County are characterized by an urban core that will continue to host the majority of employment and population, but will experience lower rates of growth than employment and population in the suburban and rural areas. New economic activity will be attracted to the periphery as land prices and densities in the urban core increase. Employment and population in both suburban and rural areas will grow at higher rates than in the urban core. Overall, rural areas are forecast to add the most population - both in absolute terms and in terms of percentage increase. This is in keeping with the trends of services and employment moving to periphery locations ? Changes to the composition of the population that will have significant impacts on the use of the transportation network and demand for services include an aging population, fewer school- aged children and smaller average household sizes. ? Travel patterns reflect economic activity and land use trends. The majority of peak period person- trips are entirely within either the urban core or suburban areas. Trips originating in rural areas are more likely to be to urban or suburban areas. ? There is strong evidence of the need to maintain and improve the region's existing transportation system. Sixty- five percent of arterial roads in Chittenden County have a " fair" or worse sufficiency rating. Arterial congestion is growing at a rate faster than population or employment. Travelers increasingly are seeking cut- through and bypass routes on neighborhood and residential streets. ? Indicators of future system performance show that significant improvements to the existing transportation system will be necessary to accommodate forecasted growth in population, employment and housing. Vehicle Miles of Travel ( VMT), for example, is forecast to increase at a faster rate than population growth. Without a corresponding improvement in system management and/ or capacity, Vehicle Hours of Travel will increase and Average Speeds will decrease significantly. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 31 4.0 Financial Analysis 4.1 Introduction Financial analysis and planning is an important element of the MTP. The following Chapter outlines federal regulations for financial analysis in the MTP, provides an overview of possible funding sources for transportation projects in Chittenden County, and estimates transportation resources for Chittenden County over the 25- year planning horizon. 4.2 Federal Requirements for Financial Analysis in MTP MPOs are required by federal law to consider funding needs in conjunction with long range transportation planning. The MTP must include a financial section that estimates how much funding will be needed over the life of the planand identify funding sources for each project in the plan, including resources needed for the maintenance and operation of the existing transportation system. 4.3 Funding Sources Funding for transportation projects and programs are available from three primary sources: federal, state and local governments. Private sources also may be available for a limited amount of funding. Most large transportation projects, such as highway improvements and enhancements, will rely on federal funds. For these federally funded projects, the federal government usually supplies 80 percent of the funding with local and state sources typically paying the remaining 20 percent. 3 4.3.1 Federal Funding Federal funds for transportation are authorized by Congress for the U. S. Department of Transportation (" USDOT"). The USDOT allocates its resources into various programs, primarily through the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration ( FTA). Most FHWA funds are sent to and administered by the state DOT ( e. g., VTrans). VTrans, in turn, allocates federal money to projects and programs based on local priorities and needs. Most FTA funds for urban areas are sent directly from the FTA to the transit operators. FTA funds for rural areas are administered by VTrans. FHWA's largest source of revenue is the Highway Trust Fund ( HTF). The HTF is supported primarily by user- fees on motor fuels, tires and heavy trucks with revenues distributed back to states in the following three major program areas: 1. Funding for Roadways that Serve Long- Distance & Interstate Travel - The Interstate Maintenance ( IM) and National Highway System ( NHS) programs ; 2. Funding for Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement - The Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation program ; 3. Flexible Funding that may be Used on any Federal Aid Eligible Project - The Surface Transportation Program ( STP) . ( including Enhancement and safety funds) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (" CMAQ") funds. 3 The actual ratio of federal to non- federal funds may vary from project to project, depending on the specific program from which federal funds are obtained. For the purposes of establishing of reasonable fiscal constraint level for this 25- year Plan, the CCMPO has assumed an average ratio of 80 percent federal/ 20 percent non- federal funds for all projects. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 32 FTA programs receive revenue from the mass transit account of the HTF ( a proportion of the motor fuel tax), the general fund, and interest. The FTA programs that provide funding for transit services with the most relevance to the State of Vermont are 1. Urbanized Formula program - funding to transit agencies in urbanized areas allocated through a formula ( CCTA is eligible for funding under this program); 2. Non- urban and Rural Transit Assistance program - funding for transit operators in rural area and urban areas with a population of less than 50,000; 3. Elderly and Persons with Disabilities program - funding to private and non- profit organizations meeting the transportation needs of senior citizens and persons with disabilities; and 4. Other funding is occasionally provided through special programs , such as Access to Job Grants or transfers from the Surface Transportation Program ( STP). The State of Vermont and the CCMPO also receive federal transportation funds from Congressional " earmarks;" ( i. e., money set aside by members of the Vermont Congressional delegation for a specific project). Because these funds are allocated outside of the normal process and typically are associated with a particular project, they are difficult to anticipate and cannot be relied upon as a continuing funding source. 4.3.2 State Funding The State of Vermont maintains a State Transportation Fund to pay for transportation programs and projects. The Fund is primarily supported by revenues collected from the Motor Fuel Tax ($ 0.19/ gallon on gasoline and $ 0.17/ gallon on diesel) and the purchase and registration of motor vehicles. Miscellaneous taxes and fees provide additional revenues for the Fund. State transportation resources are allocated through the State Legislature's annual capital and budgetary process and are identified in the Transportation Capital Program. State transportation funding allocated to projects and programs in Chittenden County is determined through this process, in consultation with the CCMPO. 4.3.3 Local Sources of Funding Local funding sources vary by jurisdiction. In some cases, such as where a tax increment financing ( TIF) district has been created, sources can also vary within a jurisdiction. The local funding sources for transportation in Chittenden County are property tax revenues, special financing ( such as Tax Increment Financing), local user fees collected on a project- specific basis ( such as impact fees), and miscellaneous other sources. Of these, the property tax provides the majority of local transportation funding. 4.3.4 Private Sources In some cases, private funds are available for transportation projects. These funds usually are associated with project development. In other cases, a private developer may directly make or pay for transportation improvements in order to mitigate the transportation impacts of their developments. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 33 4.4 Determination of Financial Constraint The total transportation funding expected to be available for Chittenden County over the 25- year MTP planning period between 2001 and 2025 is $ 2.05 billion. This estimate includes federal, state and local funding sources; it does not include private funds. Figure 4- 1 provides a breakdown of the total resources by funding source. Table 4- 2 additionally shows projected transportation resources by source in five- year increments, a format consistent with the State Long Range Transportation Plan. The five- year breakdown reveals a modest decline in federal, local, and total fiscal resources during the 2006- 2010 period, expected due to the assumed full funding of several major " pipeline" projects during the 2001- 2005 period. 4 After 2010, modest revenue growth is expected in line with both forecasted growth in population and economic activity and the forecasted availability of transportation funds. From 2006 to 2025, the 25- year estimates are based on the following assumptions: ? Adopted " current law" revenue sources and levels only are used. ? All figures are in current dollars ( no adjustment for inflation). 4 Among the major projects assumed to be fully funded during the initial five- year period are the Chittenden County Circumferential Highway ( Segments A and B); Shelburne Road Reconstruction; Champlain Parkway; and Kennedy Drive Expansion. Figure 4- 1: Breakout of Projected Transportation Resources in Chittenden County, FY 2001- 2025 Federal $ 837.5 M 41% State $ 273.8 M 13% Local $ 935.3 M 46% Projected 25- year Total: $ 2.05 Billion Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 34 Table 4- 2 Projected Transportation Funding Resources for Chittenden County - FY2001- FY2025 ( in millions) 2001- 2005 2006- 2010 2011- 2015 2016- 2020 2021- 2025 Total Federal 156.9 145.8 160.9 177.7 196.2 837.5 State 47.8 50.9 54.5 58.3 62.3 273.8 Local 169.7 163.0 181.4 200.2 221.1 935.3 Total 374.4 359.7 396.8 436.2 479.7 2,046.8 ? No distinction is drawn between capital and operation and maintenance ( O& M) funds. Vermont's transportation spending is typically on a " pay as you go" basis, with little incidence of bonding for transportation capital investments. Consequently , this blending of capital and O & M funds should not be of much significance for the 25- year analysis. ? Federal funds were estimated using an average amount of actual TIP funding for the previous five years ( FY98- 02) and assuming an average annual growth rate of two percent. This assumption is consistent with the State Long Range Transportation Program ( LRTP). ? State funds were estimated in a manner similar to federal funds. The first year is based on a three- year average of State resources allocated to projects in Chittenden County. These resources include State matching funds, VTrans appropriations to District 5 operations and town highway grants. Future years were grown at an assumed average annual rate of 1.35%. Sources for these assumptions include the Joint Fiscal Office of the Vermont Assembly and the Vermont State LRTP. ? For local funds, FYs 2001- 2002 represent actual budget figures as reported by municipalities; FYs 2003- 2010 are based on averaged annual growth rates from FY2000 through FY2002; and FYs2011- 2025 assume 2% annual growth. Sources for these estimates include municipalities, VLCT, VTrans and the State LRTP. ? No attempt has been made to account for the effect of specific future Congressional " earmarking," as it is difficult to predict their frequency, value or specific purpose. However, earmarks were a part of the 5 years of TIPs used to estimate the availability of future federal funds. Past earmarks were included as a factor in determining anticipated future federal funding levels. Vermont typically has been a beneficiary of the earmarking process for transportation projects. ? No private funds were explicitly included in the analysis. However, it is reasonable to assume that a significant amount of local funds identified as transportation funds include funds from private sources. 4.5 MPO Jurisdiction over Funding Sources In Vermont, the MPO's jurisdiction pertaining to planning, programming and prioritization of transportation projects is primarily limited to those projects receiving federal funds. Accordingly, any project within the MPO boundaries that seeks federal funds must be included in the CCMPO TIP. Therefore, it is reasonable that the " fiscal constraint" level associated with the MTP reflects the estimated Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 35 25- year amount of federal transportation funds plus required non- federal matching funds. An averaged 80%/ 20% ratio was applied for forecasting purposes. On this basis, as shown in Table 4- 3, an estimated total of $ 1,047 million ($ 1.047 billion) is forecast to be available for CCMPO programming purposes during the 25- year planning period of the MTP. Table 4- 3 Projected Funds Under CCMPO Jurisdiction - FY2001- FY2025 ( in millions) 2001- 2005 2006- 2010 2011- 2015 2016- 2020 2021- 2025 Total Federal 156.9 145.8 160.9 177.7 196.2 837.5 Match 39.2 36.5 40.2 44.4 49.0 209.4 Total 196.1 182.3 201.1 222.1 245.2 1046.9 4.6 Summary This Chapter presented and discussed financial planning associated with the MTP with a focus on the transportation funding anticipated to be available over the 25- year MTP planning horizon. The highlights of this Chapter include ? The MTP is required by federal law to include financial planning; ? Transportation funding is available from federal, state and local governments plus private sources; ? A total of $ 2.05 billion in transportation funding is forecasted to be available for Chittenden County over the 25- year MTP horizon; ? The sources for these funds are divided among the federal ( 41%), state ( 13%) and local ( 46%) governments. Two other potential sources of funding, Congressional earmarks and private sources, were not included in the estimates because they are made available on a project- specific bases and therefore difficult to forecast; and ? Of the total resources forecast over the MTP planning horizon, an estimated $ 1.046 billion are within CCMPO jurisdiction. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 36 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This Chapter describes the development and evaluation of the transportation alternatives prepared by the CCMPO in conjunction with possible future land use patterns. These were used to determine the relative effectiveness in realizing the overall vision for transportation in Chittenden County. Each alternative consists of different combinations of land use scenarios, transportation strategies, services, and projects ( including all committed projects as identified in the Transportation Improvement Program - TIP) that reflect the transportation goals identified in the public involvement process. The CCMPO conducted the evaluation process as an iterative effort that first looked at " Initial Alternatives," then prepared successively more focused and refined " Hybrid Alternatives" and " Refined Alternatives to achieve the " Preferred Alternative" recommended by the 2025 MTP. 5.1 Land Use Scenarios The CCMPO used input from its public outreach efforts, in conjunction with the transportation vision and goals to define and refine ideas under consideration for the future transportation network. The process started with a set of very broad, mode- specific initiatives which were tested in combination with two scenarios for future land use development. For the purpose of the alternatives analysis, the CCMPO developed two future land use patterns; " trend" and " concentrated" scenarios. As explained below , a third was developed later. All the land use development scenarios assumed equal numbers of households and jobs, but had markedly different assumptions with regards to where in Chittenden County these households and jobs would locate. ? The trend scenario assumed decentralized land use patterns , following existing patterns of new housing locating throughout the County and most new jobs locating in the urban and suburban core. ? The concentrated scenario assumed that a significant share of new housing and jobs would locate within designated growth centers. These growth centers typically were confined to a small geographic area and included a mix of housing and jobs. ? A third land use scenario was based on the CCRPC's Regional Plan. This scenario was developed later in the process and used to analyze the preferred alternative. Figure 5- 1 shows a map of the CCRPC's 2001 Regional Plan Planning Areas. Table 5- 1 shows the allocations of 2025 housing and employment assumed in the different planning areas that were used in the Regional Plan land use scenario. 5.2 Baseline Scenarios: 2000 and 2025 The CCMPO prepared two baseline scenarios to represent the existing transportation network given no significant changes in current planning, patterns and policy ( but including all committed projects as identified in the TIP). The baseline scenarios were prepared for the years 2000 and 2025 and were intended to serve as benchmarks against which changes to the transportation network ( i. e., alternatives) could be compared and evaluated. ? 2000 Baseline Scenario - The CCMPO used the existing transportation system and development patterns together with Year 2000 demographic data to create this scenario. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 37 Table 5- 1 Assumptions for Allocation of Housing and Employment by Planning Area Planning Area* Housing Employment Metropolitan 45% 45% Transition 25% 20% Village 15% 15% Rural 15% 5% Special Use 0% 15% TOTAL 100% 100% ? 2025 Baseline Scenario - A " committed network" and trend scenario of land use were assumed for this. The committed network was comprised of the existing transportation system plus new projects that have funds committed in the CCMPO TIP. The most significant committed projects include Segments A and B of the Circumferential Highway between I- 89 in Williston and VT 117 in Essex, the Champlain Parkway, widening of Shelburne Road, widening of Kennedy Drive, and commuter rail between Essex and Burlington. 5.3 Performance Measures The CCMPO's Chittenden County Regional Transportation Model ( the model) was used to evaluate the various combinations of transportation and land use scenarios and generated data for the performance measures ( over 40 individual measurements were examined). For more information on the model see page 27. Modeled data used for this analysis concentrated on performance during the PM peak hour ( afternoon rush hour). The PM peak was adopted as the benchmark because it represents maximum use of transportation services and facilities and therefore best highlights system successes and failures. The evaluation process employed specific performance measures to gauge how well the transportation system functions in different ways and to measure progress towards achieving regional transportation goals. Comparisons of the ‘ scores' for different performance measures among the alternatives and baseline scenarios cla rifies the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking different combinations of transportation strategies, services, and projects. The CCMPO grouped the performance measures used during the MTP process into four categories: ? Multi- Modal Measures - Include changes in the number of trips made by modes other than driving alone in an automobile ( i. e. transit, walk, bike and carpool trips) and measure changes in the number of trips with multi- modal possibilities; ? System Efficiency Measures - Include changes in time and cost of trip making ( for person trips, measures changes in the hours traveled, total cost of the trip and external costs per trip; for automobile trips, changes in hours traveled); ? Highway System Performance Measures - Include total miles traveled, including total miles traveled on local streets, congestion levels, and vehicle crashes; and ? Air Quality Measures - Include changes in vehicle - related emissions. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 38 In addition to these four categories of quantitative measures, qualitative techniques also were discussed in the evaluation process, primarily during presentation of the alternatives at MTP Steering Committee Meetings. Combined with the quantitative performance measures, these techniques supported the transportation goals identified in Chapter 3. Table 5- 2 illustrates how performance measures in the various categories are used to help gauge conformance with MTP goals. Table 5- 2 Performance Measures and the MTP Goals Performance Measure Category - Relevance to Transportation Plan Goal MTP System Performance Goal Multi- Modal System- Efficiency Highway System Air Quality Qualitative Preserve and improve the physical condition and operational performance of the existing transportation system. ? ? Reinforce sustainable land use patterns, such as growth centers, as set forth in local and regional plans. ? ? Create a transportation system that offers constantly improving safety, accessibility, flexibility, and comfort for everyone. ? ? ? Establish a transportation system that minimizes the time and total cost of moving people and goods, allowing the Region's economy to thrive. ? ? Protect or enhance the region's built and natural environments. ? ? Create a transportation system that builds community, enhances neighborhood vitality, and minimizes noise, glare, and vibration. ? ? ? ? ? Provide levels of access and mobility that insure people and goods can travel when and where they need to go. ? ? ? Develop a transportation system that features a variety of travel modes and encourages the reduction of single occupant vehicle use. ? Note: " ? " indicates that the performance measures within that category support that MTP System Performance Goal. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 39 5.4 Cost Considerations The CCMPO estimated and included " order of magnitude" capital costs for each alternative and considered these costs in the evaluation process so that a total cost of each alternative could be identified and compared. Where available, capital costs for projects and services were based on estimates prepared in other studies. For projects with no existing cost estimate available, unit cost data was estimated using national data and experience with other similar types of projects. 5.5 Alternatives Development The CCMPO conducted the evaluation process as an iterative effort that looked at broad " initial alternatives" and successively focused the alternatives through " hybrids" and " refined" alternatives with the ultimate goal to identify projects and strategies of a " preferred" alternative. Table 5- 3 illustrates the evolutionary process of transportation alternatives development. Table 5- 3 Sequence of Alternatives Development 5.5.1 Initial Alternatives The Initial Alternatives examined the effectiveness of five mode- specific programs in conjunction with either 1) the Trend land use scenario or 2) the " Concentrated land use scenario resulting in a total of 10 transportation system/ land use combinations. Each alternative also included all committed projects as identified in the TIP. The five mode- specific initial alternatives were: 1. Transportation System Management ( TSM) and Transportation Demand Management ( TDM): TSM refers to minor operational changes to the transportation system to improve travel efficiency, such as adding turn lanes at intersections, improving traffic signal timing and minor adjustments to transit services. TSM also includes intelligent transportation systems ( ITS) projects that primarily consist of technology- based tools to manage traffic volumes and flows. TDM refers to programs to reduce commute trips such as promoting ridesharing, telecommuting and employer subsidized transit passes. Park and ride lots are also a key component of the TDM strategy tested for this alternative. 10 Initial Alternatives - 5 mode- specific, combined with 2 distinct land use scenarios 5 Hybrid Alternatives - a set core of transportation strategies then combinations of road improvements added. Assumes concentrated land use scenario. 2 Refined Alternatives - common strategies and projects but different Circ. completion scenarios. Assumes concentrated land use scenario. 1 Preferred Alternative - a distillation of projects and strategies from previous analytical steps. CCRPC Regional Plan land use assumed. Initial Hybrid Refined Preferred Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 40 2. Transit 1: Urban/ Suburban Transit Service Improvements: This alternative includes expanding the CCTA service area to Colchester, Williston and Milton, increasing service frequencies within the existing and expanding service area, developing commuter rail services between Charlotte - Burlington - Essex and developing a bus- way along College Street connecting with the University Mall. 3. Transit 2: Urban/ Suburban Improvements Plus Express Service to Rural Areas: Transit 2 includes all of the service expansions as described in Transit 1 plus express bus service to Underhill, Westford, Jericho, Richmond and Hinesburg. Frequencies within the urban/ suburban area are reduced relative to Transit 1, but are higher than those in existing CCTA service. 4. Arterial Improvements : Includes highway capacity improvements along most of the major arterials of the County such as US7, US2, VT 116, VT 2A, VT 117 and VT 15. Capacity improvements include building additional lanes, shoulder widening and intersection modifications. 5. Freeway Expansion: This alternative includes new interchanges at VT 116/ I- 89 and West Milton Road/ I- 89; a full interchange at Exit 15; a full interchange at Exit 13/ Dorset Street; a completed Circumferential Highway from Williston to Colchester at 4 lanes, 3 lanes each direction in I- 189 and I- 89 from Exit 12 to Exit 17. The 10 transportation/ land use alternatives were evaluated using the performance measures. The key finding from this analysis is that a concentrated land use development pattern is the single most effective strategy at producing improvements in transportation system performance. However, concentrating land use alone, does not increase the multi- modal choices available and does not adequately address congestion. However, the concentrated land use scenario was used for all subsequent alternatives analyses up to identification of the Preferred Alternative, due to its clear advantages over the trend land use. The Preferred Alternative used a land use scenario consistent with the CCRPC Regional Plan. Table 5- 4 provides a summary of the evaluation of the mode specific alternatives with the concentrated land use patterns. 5.5.2 Hybrid Alternatives The next step in the evaluation process combined elements of the 10 single - mode Initial Alternatives into five multi- modal Hybrid Alternatives ( see Table 5- 5). The CCMPO developed these Hybrid Alternatives following an iterative process starting with Hybrid 1. In each case, analysts tried to balance the goals of minimizing building and construction costs with effectively addressing all shortcomings in the system. All five Hybrid Alternatives also assume the Concentrated Land Use Scenario. Hybrid 1 is a low- build, low- cost model and relies primarily on transportation system management and bike/ walk strategies. After evaluating Hybrid 1 for system- wide performance, its shortcomings became apparent: the alternative did not adequately address congestion. Consequently, additional projects were added to Hybrid 1 to create Hybrids 2, 3, 4, and 5. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 41 Table 5- 4 Summary Evaluation of Initial Alternatives ( Concentrated Land Use) Mode - Performance Measure Category Specific Alternative Multi- Modal Systems Efficiency Highway System Air Quality Cost ( millions) TDM/ TSM ? ? $ 16.5 Transit 1 ? ? ? $ 128.6 Transit 2 ? ? ? $ 131.4 Arterials ? $ 107.0 Freeways ? ? $ 122.6 Note: " ? " indicates that the alternative meets or surpasses the performance measures established for the respective category. Hybrid 4, the most comprehensive of the hybrid alternatives, was more expensive than the MTP Financial Constraint ( compare discussion in Section 4.4 with Table 5- 6). Hybrid 5 represents a scaled- back version of Hybrid 4 that is within the MTP Financial Constraint. Hybrid 5 was designed specifically to determine if building the Circumferential Highway would help reduce congestion on the Interstate and eliminate the need to add additional highway capacity to I- 89 ( thus saving costs). The results of this evaluation indicated that additional Interstate improvements would still be needed. Table 5- 6 summarizes the evaluation process and shows the strengths, weaknesses, and costs of each of the five Hybrid Alternatives. 5.5.3 Refined Alternatives The evaluation of the Hybrid Alternatives led to creation of two Refined Alternatives. As detailed in Table 5- 7, both Refined Alternatives are composed of transportation strategies, services and projects that are most like those found in Hybrid 3 and Hybrid 4. Hybrid 3 was within the MTP Financial Constraint, but was less effective than Hybrid 4 at reducing congestion. Hybrid 4 was the most effective Hybrid Alternative at addressing problems, but exceeded the MTP Financial Constraint. As with the Hybrid Alternatives, these were also based on the Concentrated Land Use scenario. Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 42 Table 5- 5 Overview of Hybrid Alternatives Alternative Basic Features Hybrid 1 ? Concentrated Development ? Committed Projects ? TDM/ TSM ? Intensified Transit Service ? Regional Bike Ped network Hybrid 2 ? Hybrid 1 plus: ? Capacity improvements along arterials and at intersections where volume exceeds capacity ? Additional local connector roads as identified in the Arterial Improvement Alternative; ? A full Interchange at Exit 15 ? A new interchange at West Milton Road Hybrid 3 ? Hybrid 2 plus: ? Three lanes each direction on I- 89 from Exit 12 to Exit 17 ? Three lanes each direction on I- 189 Hybrid 4 ? Hybrid 1 plus: ? Full Circ Highway at 4 lanes ? Three lanes each direction on I- 89 from Exit 12 to New Milton Interchange ? Three lanes each direction on I- 189 ? A full Interchange at Exit 15 ? A new interchange at West Milton Road ? A new interchange at VT 116 ? A full interchange at Exit 13 ? Capacity expansion to arterials and intersections as necessary ? Airport Drive Connector Road Hybrid 5 ? Hybrid 1 plus: ? Full Circ Highway at 4 lanes ? A full Interchange at Exit 15 ? A new interchange at West Milton Road ? Capacity expansion to arterials and intersections as necessary ? Airport Drive Connector Road Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 43 Table 5- 6 Evaluation of Hybrid Alternatives with Concentrated Land Use Costs ($ m) Alte rnative Strengths Weaknesses Capital Operations/ Maintenance Hybrid 1 ? Increases use of non- auto modes ? Increases travel mode choices available ? Lowest cost ? Does not produce benefits to overall system efficiency ? Does little to address congestion $ 161 $ 1.26 Hybrid 2 ? All benefits of Hybrid 1 ? Starts to address congestion ? Congestion remains a problem on Interstate $ 300 $ 2.04 Hybrid 3 ? All benefits of Hybrid 2 ? Begins to address congestion on Interstate ? Further reduces overall congested VMT ? Miles of congested roadway remain similar to Hybrid 2 $ 353 $ 2.61 Hybrid 4 ? All benefits of Hybrid 3 ? Reduces miles of congested roadway and congested VMT ? Greatest impact on system-wide efficiency, and transportation costs ? Most expensive $ 452 $ 4.07 Hybrid 5 ? Benefits of Hybrid 3 ? Less expensive than Hybrid 4 ? No reduction in Interstate congestion ? Benefits similar with to Hybrid 3 but more expensive $ 364 $ 3.20 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Draft for Public Review, 12/ 15/ 04 Page 44 Table 5- 7 Overview of Refined Alternatives Refined Alternative Basic Features Both Refined Alternatives ? Projects committed in CCMPO TIP ? Concentrated Development ? TDM/ TSM ? A new interchange at West Milton Road ? Expanding I- 89 Exit 15 in Winooski to a full interchange ? Expanding I- 89 Exit 13 in South Burlington to a full interchange that allows direct access to Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive ? Expanding I- 89 from