Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibility Study

Transcription

Final Report for
Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation
Center Feasibility Study
Middlebury, Vermont
Prepared for:
Submitted by:
Stevens & Associates, P.C.
Addison County Regional
Planning Commission
79 Court Street
Middlebury, Vermont
October 2001
In association with;
Wallace Floyd Design Group
MWILA Monroe Whitaker Landscape Architect
Richard Watts
Resource Systems Group
Table of Contents
Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Center
Feasibility Study
Final Report
I
Executive Summary .. ...... .... '" .... .... .............. .. ..... . ... ... ........ ... .. .. .
A.
General ..................... ........ ........ .. ............... .. .. .. ...... .. ... ..
B.
Purpose & Needs Statement .. ...... . .. . ...... .. . .. ... ......... .... ... .. ... .
l.
Project Purpose ... ........ ... . ................... .. ................ ..
2.
Project Needs .... .......... .. ........... ..... .. .... . ... .. , ... . .. .. . ..
a.
Inter-modal Transportation ................. . .... ..... .. ..
b.
Passenger Amenities ..................................... ..
c.
Historic & Environmental Context ..... ... ......... . ... .
d.
Enhances Downtown Middlebury ... ..... . .. ... ... .. .. . ..
e.
Long Term Sustainability ...... ..... .... ... ........... .. ..
C.
Ridership Estimates ... ............ ........ ......... .. .. .. ....... ..... . .... ..
l.
Total Boarding & Alightings ...... ..... .. .......... ... .. ......... .
2.
Inter-modal Transfers .... ..... ........ .... .. .. .. .. ........ ...... .. ..
D.
Transit Parking ......... .. ....... .... ... .... . .......... .. ........ . ....... .. . ..
E.
Program Elements ................ ...... .. ..... . ...... ...... .. ... ... .. .. .... ..
F.
Alternatives Analysis ... ........................ ... ....... ... ......... ..... ..
l.
Initial Site Evaluations ........ . ................. .. .......... .. ... ..
2.
Alternative Remote Parking Sites ................. ... ............ .
3.
Alternative Sites Evaluation .. .. ........ .. , ................. .. .. . ..
4.
Preferred Alternative Site ................ . .......... ............. ..
G.
Cost Estimating .............................. .. ................ '" .......... ..
H.
Potential Funding Sources ........... .......... ... .. ..... ........ ..... ..... ..
I.
Implementation ........ ... .... ....... .. ........ .. .. .............. . ...... ..... .
1.
Project Funding ... ............... ...... ..... ... .... .......... .... .. ..
2.
Conceptual Design .. . ........ . ... ... ..... . ...... ........ . ......... ..
3.
Environmental Documentation ...... .. ........................... .
4.
Funding Documentation ........................ ............ ... ... ..
5.
Property Appraisals & Acquisitions ............. ...... .......... .
6.
Property Acquisition .................................. ..... ....... ..
7.
Project Design & Permitting ... .. ...... . .. .... ...... ............ .. .
8.
Contractor Procurement.. ...................... ..... .. ...... .. .... .
9.
Construction & Grant Compliance ..... .... .... ....... .. .. .. .... .
E-I
E-I
E-I
E-I
E-I
E-I
E-I
E-I
E-I
E-I
E-2
E-2
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-4
E-4
E -4
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-l3
E-l3
E-l3
E-l3
E-l3
E.l3
E-14
E-14
E-14
E-14
I
Introduction. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. .... .. .. . .. . .. . ...
A.
General............ ........ . .. .. ..... ............ .... .. . ............. ....... .. .
B.
Study Area.......... .. .......... .. .... .. .... . ............. ... .... .. ......... ..
C.
Scope of Study...... ... .. ....... ... ... .. ... .... .. .. ..... ............ ...... .. .
Map of Study Area. .. ......... ..... . .. . ............ ... .. .. ..... ... ...... .....
1
1
1
1
2
II
Approach & Methodology ............... ........ ....... ..... .... .... .. ... ... '" .....
A.
Project Evaluation Process... ... ... .. . .. .. .. ..... .... .. ..... ............... .
B.
Project Initiation.. . .................. ... .... .. .. . ........ .. .......... . ... .....
C.
Public Visions & Concerns Meeting. .. ... ... ... ...... .. . ...... ... ... .... ..
D.
Purpose & Needs Development ........ .............. . .... . .... ........ . ..
E.
Legislative Project Planning Criteria... ... ...... ... ...... ... ... ... ... .....
F.
Alternative Investigation. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .... .. . .. .... . .. ..........
G.
Alternatives Presentation Meeting ... : .. ... . .. ... ...... ... ... ... ... .. . .....
H.
Preferred Alternative Selection ...... .. .. .......... ........ .................
1.
Cost Estimating...... ...... ..... .. ... ...............................
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
III
Existing Transit Conditions ... ................. .. .. .. .... ... ............ ... . .... .....
7
N
Purpose & Needs Statement .. . .. .... .. .... .. ...... . .... .. .... .... . ..... .... .........
A.
Project Purpose ........... ... .. .. ........................... '" ............ '"
B.
Project Needs.. . ..... . .. ....... ... ......... .... .......... .... ..... ............
1.
Inter-modal Transportation... ... ... ... .... .. ...... ... ... ...... ....
2.
Passenger Amenities.. . ... ... ... .. . ... ... ........ . ..... . .. ... . ..... .
3.
Historic & Environmental Context... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ..... ..
4.
Enhances Downtown Middlebury.. ..... .... ........ .. ...... .. ....
5.
Long Term Sustainability.. ... . .... ... ... .. ... ....... ..............
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
V
Ridership Estimates........ . ... ... ... ... ... .. ... . ... ... .. . .. . ... ... ...... ... ... .......
A.
Introduction.. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. ..
B.
Middlebury Transportation Center Total Boarding & Alightings .....
C.
Inter-modal Transfers ...... '" ...... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... ... . .. ... .. ...
D.
Limitations of Ridership Estimates ...... . ........ ...... .................. .
E.
Utilization of Ridership Data from the Rutland Train Station ... ......
10
10
10
10
12
12
VI
Evaluation of Legislative Criteria............. .. ... ... .......... .... ................
A.
Usage Potential ..................................... ..... ........... ..........
B.
Modal Connections............................................... ... .. .. ... .
C.
Need for Transfer Facilities ........... ... ..................... ...........
14
14
14
14
VII
Transit Parking ................. . ....................... . ............... .
16
VIII
Program Elements ............... ....................................... . ..............
18
IX
Alternative Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......... . .. . ..... . ..... . ............ ........ .. ..
A.
Potential Sites Considered. ........... ....... ................................
21
21
B.
C.
23
23
25
26
Elemental Diagrams ................. . ........ . ... . ... ... ......... .. .. .... ..
Alternative Site Analysis .......................... .. ......... . . . . . ...... .. . .
1.
No Action Alternative .................................... .. . .. .... .
2.
Site A - The Marbleworks Site .. ...................... .. ......... .
3.
Site B - The Bank ATM Site ....... . ............ . .............. ... .
4.
Site C - The Old Train Station Site ................ .... .......... .
5.
Site D - West of the Train Station Site ...................... .. .. .
6.
Site E - BeveragelRedemption Center . ..... .. .... .. . ... ... ... .. .
7.
Site F - Cross Street .. .......................... .... ........... .... ..
Alternative Remote Parking Sites ...... .. .................... . .......... .. .
1.
Site I - Beverage!Redemption Center. .. .... ... ...... .... .... .. ..
2.
Site II - County Tire ............................... .. .......... .. .
3.
Site ill - Maple Street On-street Parking ..................... .. ..
4.
Site IV - Property of Gary Baker ................................ .
39
39
x
Alternatives Evaluation ......... .. ... . .................. .. ............... ... .. . ..... .
41
XI
Preferred Alternative Site.
46
XII
Cost Estimating . ......... . .
48
XIII
Potential Funding Sources . .... . .. ............................................ .. .. . . ..
A.
Funding Sources in the State Government .................. .. . .. . ....... .
1.
Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) ...... .. .... .... .. .
a.
Agency Funds ................................ . .. ... ....... ..
b.
Transportation Enhancement Program ... . .. .. .. . ..... .. .
c.
Scenic Byways Program ....................... .... ...... .
2.
Agency of Commerce & Community Affairs .............. .. .. .
a.
Downtown Program . ....... . .................. .... ........ .
b.
Historical Preservation .................................... .
B.
Additional Funding Sources ........................... ...... . . . . .. ....... ..
l.
Local Match/Town of Middlebury ............................... .
C.
Funding Sources in the Federal Government ... ... ... .. ............... .. .
US Legislature: Legislative Earmarks (FT A & FHWA) .... . .
1.
D.
Multi-Modal Transportation Centers in Vermont ....................... .
49
49
49
49
49
Implementation ................. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .... ...... .. .... ... ....... ..... . ....... ..
A.
Project Funding .................... .. ....................................... ..
B.
Conceptual Design ................. . ... . . .. .. . ..... . ............ ... . .... . . .. ..
C.
Environmental Documentation ......... .. ... . ......... .. ............ .. .... .
D.
Funding Documentation.
. ..... ..... .... ... . .. ... . .. . ...... .. ..
E.
Property Appraisals & Acquisitions .......... .. ............ .. .... .
F.
Property Acquisition ........................ .. .. .. .... .... .... ... ...... .... .
G.
Project Design & Permitting ....... .. ...................... .. .. ....... .... ..
H.
Contractor Procurement.. ............. . .. ..... ..... ... ..... .. . ..... . .. . . .. ..
1.
Construction & Grant Compliance ..................................... ..
54
54
54
54
D.
XIV
28
30
32
34
36
38
38
38
50
50
50
51
51
51
51
51
52
55
55
55
55
55
55
APPENDICES
Appendix A
AppendixB
Appendix C
AppendixD
AppendixE
AppendixF
Appendix G
AppendixH
Minutes for Steering Committee Meetings
Minutes for Public ConcernsNisions Meetings
Minutes for Site Alternatives Public Meetings
RSG Ridership Estimates Report
Draft Program Elements
Elemental Diagrams
Cost Estimates
Potential Funding Sources Report
I.
Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. General:
The Addison County Regional Planning Commission sponsored a Feasibility Study for a
Multi-Modal Transportation Center to be located in Middlebury, Vermont. The purpose
of a transportation center is to facilitate the use of other modes of transportation by
providing a comfortable place for convenient and easy connections between the various
modes and to foster the use of public transportation.
The location for the future facility is limited to a location next to the railroad tracks for
rail service and within close proximity to the downtown area. For these reasons, the
study area was limited to include the railroad yards at the north end of Town to just south
of Cross Street.
B. Purpose and Needs Statement
The Purpose and Needs Statement identifies the problems or needs for the project, and
was used in the development of potential solutions and to evaluate the various
alternatives proposed.
1. Project Purpose:
The purpose of the project is to enhance and promote the use of public transportation
and reduce automobile dependency by providing a central location for convenient and
efficient multi-modal transfers.
2. Project Needs:
a) Inter-modal Transportation: Adequate access and circulation needs to be
provided to meet the needs of the various transportation providers, and for
pedestrian and bicycle users.
b) Passenger Amenities: Adequate passenger amenities are needed to provide a
comfortable and safe environment for the traveler.
c) Historic and Environmental Context: The siting of the facility needs to
take into consideration the historic nature and character of Middlebury and its
surround area, and not have an adverse environmental impact.
d) Enhances Downtown Middlebury: The facility needs to promote and
enhance downtown Middlebury and encourage travelers to visit the downtown
area.
e) Long Term Sustainability: The facility needs to be developed to allow for
the long-term viability or self-sustainability of the facility, so as not to have a
negative economic impact to Middlebury or the region.
E-l
Stevens & Associates, P.e.
Final Report
Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibility Studv
C. Ridership Estimates:
As part of the feasibility study, Resource System Group conducted a ridership and intermodal transfer study. The purpose of the ridership study was to evaluate the potential
need for such a facility by identifYing the number of people who might utilize the various
modes of public transportation and estimating their need to transfer between these modes.
This information was also utilized in estimating parking needs for the facility.
1. Total Boarding and Alightings:
The following Table E-I summarizes the number of boardings and alightings
estimated for a Middlebury Multi-Modal Facility for inter-regional passenger train,
commuter train and intercity bus. The average daily number of people waiting for
inter-modal connections ranges from 75 to 83 travelers.
Table E-l: Total Daily Boarding and Aligltlings at Middlebury Jor All Modes Servin the Transportation Cent er
2000
50
2015
53
Commuter rail
70
Intercity Bus
31
77
34
Daily Total BlA at a Middlebury Transportation Center
151
164
Inter-Regional Train (Aibany/Benningron/RudandIBurlington
Passenger Rail) - full-build option
2. Inter-modal Transfers:
Transit riders will access the station using a variety of ways: passenger vehicle,
carpool, drop-off, walk, bike, and bus. People alighting in Middlebury will need to
move from the Transportation Center to points beyond using these modes as well. The
breakdown of how Middlebury boarders and alighters will access and egress the
Middlebury Transportation center is estimated in the following Tables E-2, E-3 and
EA.
r:ableE - 2:
Total Daily ABRlJ Hoardings and AUghlings bv Access Mode at a Middlebury Transponalion Center
Percent of aU boardings and alightings assumed for InterRegional Train - access/egress
Parked after driving alone
50"10
2000
25
Carpooled and parked
5%
3
3
Inter-modal Transfer Type
2015
27
Dropped ofllPicked up
20%
10
11
Local Bus
5%
Rental Car
5%
3
3
3
3
WaJk/Bike
15%
7
7
-------- - - - - - - - - - - Stevens & Associates, P.c.
E-2
Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibilitv Study
Final Report
Table E-3: Total Daily Commuter Rail Boardings and Alightings by Access Mode at a Middlebury Transportation Center
Percent of aU boardings and aUghtings assumed for
commuter rail access/egress
2000
2015
50
4
Parked, after driving alone
Dropped of:t7Picked up
65%
5%
10%
46
Local Bus
5%
15%
3
8
4
II
12
WalklBike
3
7
Table £-4: Total Daily Intercity Bus Boardings and Alightings by Access Mode at a Middlebury Transportation Center
Percent of aU boardings and aUghtings assumed for intercity
bus aCCessi"l!res5
15%
50/0
Dropped of:t7Picked up
50%
5%
10%
15%
Local Bus
Taxi
Walk!Bike
2000
2015
5
2
16
2
5
2
17
2
3
3
5
5
D. Transit Parking:
To facilitate the use of a multi-modal transportation center, adequate parking needs to be
provided for the passengers to make the experience as convenient and efficient as
possible. Utilizing the information provided in the report from Resource Systems Group,
long-term parking needs were estimated as shown in Table E-S . Although preliminary
estimates indicate 90 to 100 long-term parking spaces would be required, fewer parking
spaces may be constructed due to cost constraints, availability of land and the preliminary
nature of the estimates. Fewer spaces could be constructed initially with additional
remote parking being provided in the future as the need arises.
Table £-5: Estimated Long Term Parking Needs/or Intercity Train, Commuter Train alld Bus at a Middlebury
Tramportatioll Center
Inter-modal1)j>e
2000
13
3
2015
14
3
16
17
69
73
Total Require Parking Spaces for Commuter Train
23
25
Total Parking Needs for Inter-regional Train, Commuter
Train and Inter-City Bus
92
98
Intercity Train
Intercity Bus
Subtotal per Day
Total Required Parking Spaces (4.3 times daily need)
I.
I
The average overnight length of intercity trip from Vermont in excess of 100 miles is approximately
4.3 days of parking per the American Travel Survey.
E-3
Middleburv Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibilitv Study
Final Report
E. Program Elements
In order to evaluative various site alternatives, preliminary building and site elements
were developed to estimate a building square footage and the required size of a potential
site. The building program included such elements as passenger waiting area, ticket
office, restrooms, visitor information and displays, concession areas, and a potential
1,300 square foot second floor for co-locating or partnering with another enterprise. The
building program identified the need for a building with a footprint of approximately
3,000 square feet. The site program included such elements as paved driveway access,
green space, pedestrian connections, five taxi and kiss and ride spaces, two bus berms,
10-15 short term parking spaces and space for bicycle parking.
F. Alternatives Analysis
1. Initial Site Evaluations:
Initially, II sites were considered as potential sites for the multi-modal transportation
center. Refer to the attached Potential Site Alternatives Map. Based upon an initial
review of these sites, four of these sites were originally eliminated from further
consideration. The remaining seven sites were given preliminary reviews through the
development of elemental diagrams for each site. These elemental diagrams allowed
for a preliminary evaluation of each site 's ability to meet basic program requirements
and critically examine potential functional relationships between the building
location, parking area, and transit circulation.
Based on the results of the review and analysis of the elemental diagrams, four sites
were chosen by the Steering Committee for more detailed schematic site plans. These
included Site A - the Marbleworks site; Site B - the Bank ATM; Site C - the Old
Train Station site; and Site D - West of the Old Train Station site. Refer to the
attached Alternatives Site Map. Based on community input during the initial
alternatives public meeting, the Steering Committee authorized development of
conceptual designs for two sites originally eliminated. These included Site E Beverage/Redemption Center; and Site F - Cross Street.
2. Alternative Remote Parking Sites:
In order to provide a multi-modal facility within close proximity to the downtown
area, not all of the sites evaluated contained adequate space to provide some or all of
the long-term transit parking needs . To accommodate this, potential remote parking
areas were identified. Although it has been assumed that the ACTR bus would
provide bus transportation to the remote parking areas for arrivals/departures,
attempts were made to locate the remote parking within walking distance of the
alternative sites. Sites for which concept plans were developed fo r long-term parking
include Site I - BeveragelRedemption Center, Site II - County Tire, Site ill - Maple
Street On-Street Parking, and Site IV - Property of Gary Baker, off Maple Street.
Refer to the attached Alternatives Site Map.
E-4
Stevens & Associates, P. C.
0'-----r;r:-,QLfu.J
IT'E
'____
)
I
!
STEVENS
& AsSOCIATES,
DATE:
5/2001
SCALE:
1 "=400'
PROJ. NO.: 2047
P.C.
MULTI-MODAL
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MIDDLEBURY. VERMONT
POTENTIAL SITE
ALTERNATIVES MAP
(/
D ALT.
REMOTE PARKING AREAS
STEVENS
&AsSOCIATES,
DATE:
5/2001
SCALE:
1 "=4 00'
PROJ. NO .: 2047
P.C.
o
ALT. SITES FOR THE MULTI-MODAL FACIUTY
MULTI-MODAL
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MIDDLEBURY. VERMONT
ALTERNATNES SITE
MAP
Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibilitv Studv
Final Report
3. Alternative Sites Evaluation:
Advantages and disadvantages for each alternative were outlined in the report. Also,
a formal Evaluative Matrix was developed to compare the alternative project sites,
including the no action alternative. The attached Evaluative Matrix provides a
summary evaluation of each alternative's ability to satisfy the purpose and need
criteria. The visual format of the matrix provides an easy method for ranking the
alternatives against one another. The more color shown for each option, the higher
the site ranks in the evaluative criteria.
4. Preferred Alternative Site:
Using the information obtained from the public and the Evaluative Matrix, the
Steering Committee chose Site C, the old train station as the preferred site for the
multi-modal transportation facility. Long-term parking would be provided by new,
on-street parallel parking on Seymour Street and Maple Street, with additional longterm parking at the beverage/redemption center site. A pedestrian bridge over Elm
Street, adjacent to the railroad tracks, should be shown to improve pedestrian access
and safety. Refer to the attached schematic plan of the preferred project alternative.
G. Cost Estimating
Estimated project costs for the preferred alternative were developed using the conceptual
plan. These project costs include soft costs, hard costs and project contingencies. Soft
costs include such items as land acquisition, engineering services, environmental
investigation, documentation and report preparation to meet funding requirements,
permitting, and project funding development and administration. Hard costs include
actual construction costs for the project, including construction contingencies.
Project costs for the entire project are estimated at $3.7 million for a 2003 construction
season. However, the project does have the opportunity to be developed in phases. The
first phase would be the rehabilitation of the old train station and surrounding site
improvements, including limited long-term parking provided on Seymour Street and
Maple Street. Estimated project costs for this phase of the project are approximately $2.6
million for a 2003 construction season. As use of the facility expands, additional longterm remote parking could be provided. Project costs for providing additional long-term
parking at the beverage/redemption center, including the pedestrian bridge and
improvements to the Seymour Street and Elm Street intersection, is estimated at $1. 1
million for a 2003 construction season.
H. Potential Funding Sources :
Potential fu nding sources fo r a Middlebury Multi- Modal Transportation Center (MMTC)
were developed by Richard Watts. The funding sources that are most applicable to
Middlebury are summarized in the body of the report. The full list of potential funding
sources is included in Appendix G.
- - - - - - -. E-7
Stevens & Associates. P.c.
Evaluative Matrix
Middlebury Transportation Center
Middlebury, Vermont
Marbleworks
No-Action
Complex
Bank Site
Old Train
W.ofStation
Bel"emge.Red.
Station
Maple Sf.
Center
Cross St. )
l. Safety related to site selection incorporates the following factors:
natural surveillance
access control
visible open space & footpaths
controllable gathering areas
clear territorial identity
2. Relative cost information is based on a comparison of the multi-modal transportation center plus approximately 75 long-term parking spaces.
3. Ranking of Site F assumes the construction of the Cross Street Bridge or a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Otter Creek.
Criteria and Values for Elements of the Evaluative Matrix
Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Facility
LONG TERM SELF-SUSTAINABILITY
Site flexibility for expansion
No adjacent property possibly available
Some adjacent property possibly available
Extensive adjacent property possibly available
Viability for partnering facility
Few opportunities fo r partnering
Some opportunities for partnering
Several opportunities for partnering
Independently viable
Dependent upon the completion of other projects
Enhanced by the completion of ether projects
Not dependent upon the completion of other proj ects
Utilities and infrastructure
Requires extensive municipal extensions
Requires limited muOicipal extensions
Requires no municipal extensions, only connections
Size
Building, Circulation & ShOIlAenn Parking.
Building, Circulation, Short-term Parking & some Long-term parking
Building, Circulation, Shon-term and Long-term Parking
Topography
Significant Slope Constraint > 15%
Moderate Slope Constraint 5% - 15%
Relatively Flat <5%
Soils
Significant GrndingtExcavation Problems Anticipated
Moderate GrndingtExcavation Problems Anticipated
Minimal GradinglExcavation Problems Anticipated
OTHER CRITERIA
Relative costs
1"" low cost
7 - high cost
Acquisition of propeJ1ies
Several acquisitions andfor reluctant owners
Several acquisitions andlor willing sellers
Limited acquisitions andlor willing sellers
Availability of properties
Extensive development on site
Limited development on the site
No development on the site or restoration is feasible/desired
Tax Implications (removal from grand list)
High assessed value
Moderate value
Low value
Criteria and Values for Elements orthe Evaluative Matrix
Middlebury Multi-Modal Trausportation Facility
Wetlands
Significant Wetland constraints (>1 ac.)
Moderate Wetland Constraint (3000 sf - 1 ac.)
Minimum Wetland Constraint «3000 sf)
Streams
Requires Stream <J.lteration
Requires Stream crossing or discharge
No Streams
Floodplain
Floodplain with significant mitigation constraints
Floodplain with minimal impact on development
No Floodplain
Permitting feasibility
Significant potential issues
Some potential issues
Few potential issue~
ENHANCES DOWNTOWN MIDDLEBURY
Physical and visual connections to Downtown
Not visually or physically connected to Downtown
Limited visual and physical connection to Downtown
Extensive visual and physical connection to Downtown
Pedestrian Safety
Significant vehicular conflicts, contro!led speeds, limited drop off
Some vehicular conflicts, controlled speeds, adequate drop off
Few vehicular conflicts, controlled speeds, adequate drop off
Emphasize facility as civic structure
Minimal presence within the town as a civic structure of importance
Limited presence within the town as a civic structure of importance
Extensive presence within the town as a civic structure of importance
Proximity to Downtown and Campus
Remote
Within 112 to 113 mile
Within 1I4 mile
Compatibility with other proposed projects
Incompatable with other proposed projects in town
Not related to other proposed projects in town
Compatible with several other proposed projects in town
Compatibility with surrounding land uses
Adjacent Uses Residential
Adjacent Uses Residential/Commercial
Adjacent Uses Commercial
Consistency with Town Plans
Many conflicting goals
Some conflicting goals
No conflicting goals
Consistency with Regional Plans
Many conflicting goals
Some conflicting goals
No coni1icring goals
Criteria and Values for Elements of the Evaluative Matrix
Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Facility
INTER-MODAL TRANSPORTATION
Location ctose 10 rai lroad tracks
Adjacent to hacks with an at-grade platfonn and/or short plalform length
Adj . 10 tracks, minor grading to obtain raised platform elev. and/o r limited platform length
Adjacent to tracks, with elevations for raised platfonn and/or fun platform length
Safe and adequate site access
Significant encumbrances to access
Limited encumbrances to access
No encumbrances to access
Safe and adequate site circulation
Significant encumbrances for vehicle/pedestrian circulation on the site
Limited encumbrances for vehicle/pedestrian circulation on the site
No encumbrances for vehicle/pedestrian circulation on the site
Pedestrian and bicycle linknges
No pedestrianlbicycle links adjacent to site
Pedestrianfbicycle links in close proximity to the site
Adequate pedestrianlbicylce links exist from the site
PASSENGER AMENITIES
Welcoming, high visibility location
No direct visibility tolfrom Downtown
Limited or restricted visiblity toIfrom Downtown
Desirable location with high visibility to/from Downtown
Safety
Incorporates most safety factors with some problems anticipated
Incorporates most safety factors
lncol"]Xlrates all safety factors
Security
Remote & Hidden Location
Remote & Visible from a Public Road
Visible from Streets & Residences
Access to shan-term and long-term parking
Limited shoil-term parking, long-term remote
ShOil-term parking on-site. long-term proximate
Shoil-term parking on-site. some or aliiong-tenn parking on-site
IDSTORJCIENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
Respect historic character of Middlebury
Adverse impact to historic structures or sites
No impact to historic structures or sites
Enhances historic structures or sites
Enhances connections 10 narural resources
Not adjacent to a natural resource
Limited views or access to a natural resource
Enhances views of or access to a natural resource
,~.
- "'
-
/
(
/
-
Q
I
I
----
/
I
_.,
---'-
-
o
7
---
/
,~.
?
(
/
Middleburv Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibility Study
I.
Final Report
Implementation:
Upon completion of this feasibility study, additional project development will be
necessary to bring this project to construction. The following is an outline of items for
implementing this project. As in this feasibility study, the next step may be an overview,
or "thin slice" across several items.
l. Project Funding: Development of project funding is a continuous process that
can be done concurrent with other efforts and refined as more accurate and definitive
detail becomes available. A project Sources and Uses pro-forma should be developed
to plan the project' s construction and cash flow statement produced to account for
operational costs and any debt. Details should be finalized on who would own and
operate the facility and how the facility would generate operational funds to be selfsufficient. Finally, funding applications or legislative appropriation requests need to
be submitted and nurtured.
2. Conceptual Design: To obtain more accurate cost models and to fully assess
environmental impacts, the preferred alternative should be conceptually designed.
This would include more accurate base plans, programs, conceptual architectural
plans, and site plans. As the preferred alternative would involve the restoration of an
existing historic building, conceptual architectural plans and a sttuctural assessment
of the building is necessary and were not completed as part of this feasibility study.
With more deVeloped designs, cost estimates can be updated and proj ect graphics can
be prepared to more effectively communicate the plan.
3. Environmental Documentation: In the early stages, the project can be reviewed
by regulators, and environmental issues and concerns can be identified and potential
critical flaws can be preliminarily assessed. Ultimately, with projects funded through
federal sources, NEP A documentation must be developed. This generally involves a
multi-disciplined team conducting a detailed assessment of environmental impacts in
the form of a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental
impact statement. This may include Section 106, Historic Assessment; Section 4(f)
public lands; traffic analysis; air and noise analysis; hazardous materials; natural
resources; and public hearings.
4. Funding Documentation: If federal sources are used for the project, documents
will need to be prepared to address civil rights and DBE requirements. Depending
upon the source of funds , these documents may be prepared at the state level.
5. Property Appraisals and Acquisitions: Any property required for the facility
will need to be appraised in preparation for acquisition. For federal funds, specific
protocol for appraisals and review of appraisals are required.
- - E-13
Middleburv Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibility Studv
Final Report
6. Property Acquisition: Upon completion of the appraisals and the environmental
documentation, formal acquisition negotiations for the properties involved can begin.
Funding from federal sources also requires compliance with the Urban Relocation
Act.
7. Project Design and Permitting: With formal approval from funding sources,
project design and permitting can be completed.
8. Contractor Procurement: Procuring a contractor to construct the project is
typically done through a competitive bidding process.
9. Constructiou and Grant Compliance: Monitoring of the construction process
in necessary to ensure the project is constructed as designed and to ensure a high
quality project. In addition, ensuring compliance with the various grant funding
programs and associated eligible costs is necessary throughout construction.
The purpose of the next step in this proj ect should be to reduce the risk of unknowns in
order for the Town to commit to the project and apply for funding. The conceptual
design should be completed, with estimates updated. The early stages of environmental
documentation should be completed with a preliminary assessment of historic issues and
Phase I hazardous conditions conducted to review for critical flaws. The next steps
should also include the development of project funding items to the point of submitting
applications.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - E-14
I.
Final Report
INTRODUCTION
A. General
The Addison County Regional Planning Commission has engaged Stevens & Associates,
PC to conduct a Feasibility Study for a Multi-Modal Transportation Center to be located
in Middlebury, Vermont. Both the Middlebury Town Plan and the Addison County
Regional Plan have identified the need to promote alternative forms of public
transportation for the region. Due to its central location, the presence of Middlebury
College, and the convergence of major highway networks, Middlebury was deemed a
good location to serve as a central hub for a public transportation network.
The purpose of a transportation center is to facilitate the use of other modes of
transportation by providing a place for easy connections between the modes and
providing more opportunities to use different types of transportation.
B. Study Area
The location for the future facility is limited to a location next to the railroad tracks for
rail service and within close proximity to the downtown area. For these reasons, the
study area was limited to include the railroad yards at the north end of Town to just south
of Cross Street. Refer to the attached Figure 1 - Study Area Map.
C. Scope of the Study
The feasibility study has been broken down into two phases. The purpose of Phase I of
the study was to identify the needs and potential usage of the facility and briefly includes
the following work items:
•
•
•
•
Conduct a public concerns and project visions meeting to solicit public
comments on the project.
Develop a Purpose and Needs Statement for the project.
Estimate the number of riders who might use the various types of
transportation. This work was completed by Resource Systems Group, a
transportation firm from White River Junction.
Summarize the results of the above endeavors into a Phase I report.
Phase II of our study addresses the alternatives analysis to choose a preferred site for the
facility and develop conceptual designs for the building and site layout and includes the
following:
•
Develop a building and site program for the proposed facility to define what
amenities are to be included in the facility and develop a prototype building.
Wallace Floyd Design Group, an architectural and landscape architectural firm
from Boston assisted with the building program and prototype.
1
....... . .
':.'
['
STEVENS
& AsSOCIATES,
DATE:
5/2001
SCALE:
1 "=400'
PROJ. NO.: 2047
P.C.
'-':.'.
\
MULTI-MODAL
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT
FIGURE 1
STUDY AREA MAP
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Final Report
Develop a list of siting criteria and develop elemental diagrams for all viable
sites for the purpose of eliminating sites that cannot meet the project's needs.
Prepare schematic design alternatives for the site alternatives. The schematic
designs will address project goals as developed in the Purpose and Need
Statement and the building and site program. MWILA, Monroe Whitaker
Landscape Architect, assisted in the development of the schematic plans.
Develop an evaluation matrix to be used to evaluate the different sites and
identify the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative site.
Hold a public meeting to present the alternatives and solicit public input.
Based on input from the public meeting, the Steering Committee will select a
preferred alternative for further refinement.
Develop a budget-level cost estimate for the preferred site alternative.
Identify potential funding sources for the proposed improvements.
Once the above referenced work items have been completed, a draft report
will be developed which includes the-results of both Phase I and Phase II of
the study.
Based on comments received from the Steering Committee, revise and issue
the final report.
3
II.
Final Report
APPROACH AND METHODOLGY
The methodology employed for this feasibility study has been and will continue to be
similar, but not identical, to the Project Definition Process employed by the Vermont
Agency of Transportation. This process provides a context for community-based
decision-making and for local development and selection of a preferred design approach.
The following approach was taken during the project.
A. Project Evaluation Process
Oversight for the feasibility study was provided by a Steering Committee appointed by
the Addison County Regional Planning Commission, which has served as the primary
decision-making body throughout the process. The Steering Committee was comprised
of the following individuals:
Neb Kehoe
John Tenny
Allan Cremer
Amy Jestes Llewellyn/Greg Riley
Kevin BehrnlGarrett Dague
Fred Dunnington
Gail Frieden
Amy Sei£'Connie Bisson
Natalie Peters
Susan DeWind
Robert Bergesen
David WulfsonlPaul Craven
ACTR
Middlebury Selectboard, Chairman
TAC
VTrans
ACRPC
Middlebury Town Planner
Middlebury Business Association
Middlebury College
Middlebury Planning Commission
Middlebury Planning Commission
Vermont Transit
Vermont Rail
During the project, the Steering Committee met on an average of once a month to
examine data and draft reports, synthesize public input, and review and evaluate concepts
and criteria developed by the Consultant Team. The Steering Committee meeting
minutes are included in Appendix A.
B. Project Initiation
A project initiation or kick-off meeting was held on August 7, 2000 with the Steering
Committee to become acquainted with those on the committee, to obtain background
information and to gain an understanding of issues and concerns that may shape or
influence the project.
C. Public Visions and Concerns Meeting
The initial Public Concerns and Visions Meeting was held on September 14, 2000 and
was geared to soliciting ideas and thoughts from both public officials and the general
public prior to defining the desired nature and scope of the project. Input from this
meeting was used to develop the Purpose and Needs Statement and to set the general
direction for the project.
4
Final Report
At the meeting, all the ideas, comments or questions expressed were written down and the
participants were allowed to mark their three most important comments to get a general
idea of the intensity of each comment. Briefly, the comments most often marked
included: utilize the old train station as a potential site; provide easy to find information;
have the center open during normal business hours; fill in the gaps in the existing
sidewalk system; provide transit linkages to the transit center; need downtown parking;
provide public restrooms; provide bike racks on ACTR buses; make the facility attractive;
locate a facility on Main Street over the rails; provide bicycle lockers close to the front
door; provide handicap accessibility; identify satellite areas around Town for remote
parking with bus and pedestrianlbicycle linkages; utilize rail yards for long-term parking;
and need to provide another way across Otter Creek.
For more information on the comments received at the Public Meeting, refer to Appendix
B for the meeting minutes for the Public ConcemsNisions Meeting.
D. Purpose and Needs Development
Based upon input received from the initial public meeting, the Purpose and Needs
Statement was drafted by the Steering Committee to clearly state, define and justify the
need for the proj ect. The needs will be used to form the basis for the evaluation of each
alternative selected for more detailed development.
E. Legislative Project Planning Criteria
In order to develop an orderly methodology for reviewing multi-modal feasibility studies
and to ensure the need for such a facility, the legislature passed Project Planning Criteria
for Inter-modal and Multi-modal Transportation Facilities. The legislation requires the
adoption of a policy identifying the basic information to be provided in any application.
This policy is currently being developed. As this information will not be available during
the development of this feasibility study, the wording in the legislation shall be utilized.
Specifically, the feasibility study will attempt to address the following criteria:
1. Usage potential (i.e. how many people will be boarding and alighting at this
location.).
2. Modal connections (i.e. do modes actually connect at this location, what are the
frequencies and how many people will be making the connection).
3. Need for transfer facilities (i.e. how many will be transferring between vehicles or
modes, and need to wait for connections).
4. Opportunities for savings resulting from combining facilities (e.g., ifrailroad and
bus stations are in the same building, does that save capital or operating dollar).
5
Final Report
F. Alternative Investigation
The alternative investigation was not as in depth as required by VTrans as a complete
evaluation of resource impacts, permit needs and in-depth cost estimates were not
developed. However, the various alternatives were investigated based on their ability to
meet the needs outlined in the Purpose and Needs Statement.
G. Alternatives Presentation Meeting
The Site Alternatives Public Meeting was held on January 11 ,2001 to present the results
of the alternatives analysis and to solicit public input and comments of the four
conceptual designs. Based on public comments obtained during this meeting, conceptual
designs were developed for two additional sites. These sites were presented to the public
at a May 3, 2001 public meeting. Refer to Appendix C for the meeting minutes for the
Site Alternatives Public Meetings.
H. Preferred Alternative Selection
The Steering Committee chose a preferred site alternative based on input from the public
meetings, and through the development and completion of an Evaluative Matrix. This
matrix provides a summary evaluation of each alternative's ability to satisfY identified
purpose and need criteria.
I. Cost Estimating
Budgetary project cost information was developed for the preferred site alternative.
6
Stevens & Associates, P.c.
III.
Final Report
EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS
Middlebury is currently served with bus, train, regional bus, taxi, bike and pedestrian
transportation systems. Deficiencies in this system include: lack of a centrally located
facility to provide for efficient, safe and convenient transfers between differing modes of
transportation; minimal amount of heated, weather protected waiting areas and other
passenger amenities; and lack of transit related parking.
Daily passenger trains or commuter train service to Middlebury does not currently exist.
However, there have been recent discussions of extending the Charlotte to Burlington
commuter train, the Champlain Flyer, to Middlebury within the next two years. To
facilitate and encourage the use of the future commuter rail, transit parking and passenger
amenities should be provided to make the use of public transportation as convenient and
comfortable as possible. A centrally located Multimodal Transit Facility would address
existing deficiencies and substantially enhance pUblic transportation in the area.
IV.
PURPOSE AND NEEDS STATEMENT
The following is the Purpose and Needs Statement developed for the project based on
public input from the Public Concerns and Visions Meeting and input from the Steering
Committee. The Purpose and Needs Statement identifies the problems or needs for the
project and will be used in the development of potential solutions. The Purpose and
Needs Statement will also be used to evaluate the various alternatives to determine how
well each one meets the needs of the project.
A. Project Purpose:
The purpose of the project is to enhance and promote the use of public transportation and
reduce automobile dependency by providing a central location for convenient and
efficient multi-modal transfers; providing for passenger amenities; being respectful of the
historic and environmental context of the area; enhancing Downtown Middlebury; and
providing for the long term sustainability of the facility.
B. Project Needs:
Inter-modal Transportation:
The facility needs to incorporate adequate access and circulation to connect several
modes of transit, including the rail system, inter-city bus system, ACTR bus system, taxis,
vanpools, car rentals, electric cars and passenger drop offs to link together the community
and the region. The facility should provide for pedestrian and bicycle linkages with the
Middlebury community.
•
•
Location close to railroad tracks.
Meet the needs of the rail provider.
7
•
•
Final Report
Provide safe and adequate site access, loading and circulation for buses,
.
taxis and drop offs.
Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities and linkages.
Passenger Amenities:
The passenger amenities to be provided by the facility need to enhance the overall travel
experience and provide a comfortable, safe environment for the traveler. High quality
construction, ease of use and pleasant facilities will foster long-term community support
and use of transit.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create a welcoming environment.
Provide basic passenger amenities.
Provide general information, schedules and way finding.
Provide weather-protected waiting areas, inside and outside.
Provide a safe and secure location.
Provide easy, safe access to short and long-term parking.
Historic and Environmental Context:
The historic nature of Downtown Middlebury and its surrounding area needs to be
considered in the siting and design of the multi-modal transportation center. The facility
should not adversely impact the historic character of the Town. Existing natural and
historic resources need to be protected and, where possible, enhanced by the facility.
•
•
•
Respect the historic character of existing buildings and Downtown
Middlebury.
Minimize impacts to the environment and natural and historic resources.
Enhance connections to natural and historic resources, where possible.
Enhances Downtown Middlebury:
The transportation center offers an opportunity to promote and enhance Downtown
Middlebury by increasing visitors to downtown while reducing vehicle trips.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide the physical and visual connections to Downtown.
Encourage image of facility as a civic building.
Locate within comfortable walking distance to the Downtown area and
reasonable walking distance to Middlebury College.
Incorporation and/or coordination with other proposed projects that would
enhance the vitality of Downtown Middlebury.
Be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Be consistent with Town and Regional Plans.
Be designed to human scale.
Adequately site the facility considering such issues as parcel size,
topography, soils, and availability of and/or level of current development
on the site.
8
Middleburv Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibilitv Studv
Final Report
Long Tenn Sustainability:
The facility needs to be developed to allow for the long-tenn viability or selfsustainability of the facility so as not to have a negative economic impact to Middlebury
or the region. The facility needs to be designed to handle current usage demands while
providing opportunities for expansion in the future, as demand warrants. Operational
viability will be enhanced if other users can share the facility.
•
•
•
•
•
Develop a facility in-scale with the Town and project needs.
Provide for future expansion and/or easy access to remote parking.
Provide for the long-tenn operational viability of the facility, including the
opportunity for partnering with the private and/or public sector.
Provide a fac ility with adequate site characteristics and infrastructure.
Provide regular, set hours of operation.
9
Final Report
V.
RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES
A. Introduction
As part of the Middlebury Transportation Center Feasibility Study, Resource Systems
Group estimated ridership on all modes that would be serving the Middlebury
Transportation Center, as well as to estimate the different inter-modal transfers that may
occur at the transportation facility. To accomplish these tasks, Resource Systems Group
conducted four analyses:
1. An estimation of intercity rail boardings and alightings at a Middlebury station for
three alternative rail services in the AlbanylBenningtoni Rutland/Burlington
(ABRB) corridor;
2. A preliminary estimation of the demand for commuter rail service to/from
Middlebury, in the Rutland to Burlington corridor;
3. An estimate of intercity bus ridership, based on limited data for Middlebury; and
4. An estimation of the number and type of inter-modal transfers at the facility.
The following is a summary of the analysis with the full report and methodology being
contained in Appendix D.
B. Middlebury Transportation Center Total Boarding and Alightings
Based on the analyses for the current base year 2000, it is estimated that Middlebury
Transportation Center would have 151 daily boardings and alightings (Table 1). This
equates to an average of roughly 75 passengers a day. These numbers assume that there is
a Middlebury Transportation Center, tbat the full build ABRB intercity rail service has
been implemented, and that there is a commuter rail service between Rutland and
Burlington.
Table 1: Total Daily Boarding and Alightings at Middlebury for All Modes Serving the Transportation Center
ABRB, fuU build
Commuter rail
lntercity Bus
Daily Total BfA at a Middlebury Transportation Center
2000
50
70
31
151
2015
53
77
34
164
C. Inter-modal Transfers
As Table 1 above indicates, there will be between roughly 150 and 164 boardings and
alightings estimated at the future Middlebury Transportation Center. Middlebury-area
riders will access the station using a variety of ways: passenger vehicle, carpool, drop-off,
walk, bike, and bus. People alighting in Middlebury will need to move from the
Transportation Center to points beyond using these modes as well. The breakdown of
how Middlebury boarders and alighters will access and egress the Middlebury
-------------------------- 10
Afiddlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibilitv Study
Final Report
Transportation center is based on professional judgment, the location of Middlebury
Transportation Center, and data from other transit operators.
Since the original RSG report was completed, some additional information has become
available regarding estimations of inter-modal transfers. RSG has recently conducted a
short user survey in Brattleboro, Vermont, a similar sized community in the southeastern
end of the state, which currently has VT Transit and Amtrak passenger service. One of
the purposes of the survey was to understand how VT Transit and Amtrak customers
access/ egress the transit facilities. Utilizing this additional information, revisions have been
made to the estimated inter-modal transfers. The revised information is shown in the
following Tables 2, 3 and 4 (originally Tables 7, 8, and 9 in the RSG report in Appendix D
and the Draft Phase I Report).
Table 2: Total Daily AlJRB Boardings and Alightings by Access Mode at a Middlebury Transportation Center
Percent of aU boardings and afightings assumed for ABRB
access/egress
2000
2015
50%
25
27
Dropped oWicked up
5%
3
3
20%
10
II
Local Bus
5%
3
3
Rental Car
5%
3
Wa1klBike
15%
7
3
7
Table 3: Total Daily Commuter Rail Boardings and Alightings by Access Mode at a Middlebury Transportation Center
Percent of aU boardings and afightings assumed for
commuter rail access/egress
2000
2015
65%
46
50
5%
3
4
Dropped oWicked up
10%
7
8
Local Bus
5%
3
4
Wa1klBike
15%
I1
12
Table 4: Total Daily Intercity Bus Boardings and A/ightings by Access Mode at a Middlebury Transportation Center
Percent of aU boardings and afightings assumed for intercity
bus access/egress
2000
2015
Parked. after driving alone
15%
5
5
5%
2
2
Dropped oWicked up
50%
16
17
Local Bus
Taxi
WalkIBike
5%
2
2
10%
3
3
15%
5
5
---------------------------------------------------------- 11
Stevens & Associates. P.C.
Final Report
D. Limitations of Ridership Estimates
The ridership estimates contained in the Resource Systems Group report above were
based on the best data currently available. Due to the limited available funding for the
study, no additional data or surveys specific to Middlebury were taken to develop the
ridership estimates or the inter-modal transfer estimates. The study did benefit greatly
from the fact that a train ridership model already existed for the ABRB corridor. This
model was developed by RSG and was updated specifically for this study. However, the
collection of additional infolmation such as the following may be beneficial:
Intercity bus estimates. The data available on bus ridership is very limited. An
independent survey may be beneficial to obtain better existing ridership
numbers, peak usages and to obtain origin and destination data.
Inter-modal transfer share allocation. The percentages of the inter-modal
transfers outlined in Tables 2, 3 and 4 were based on professional judgment
and limited survey data from a different Town. However, it would be helpful
to obtain data from other analogous train stations, such as Rutland or White
River Junction. This may be best accomplished by conducting a stated
preference survey among existing and potential Vermont rail customers.
Although obtaining the above referenced data may provide additional information to
more accurately estimate ridership and inter-modal connections, it should be noted that
due to the small numbers involved, the ridership results may not vary significantly.
Therefore, the expense to conduct these additional surveys must be compared to the
benefits that can be obtained. Of the two studies, the inter-modal transfer share allocation
survey would be the most beneficial as this information more strongly influences the
estimated parking needs and the site program for the facility.
E. Utilization of Ridership Data from the Rutland Train Station
The Ethan Allen Express to Rutland has experienced steady increases in ridership since
starting in 1997. The boardings and alightings in Rutland are shown below in Table 5.
Nationally, Amtrak ridership has increased with the Ethan Allen Express being among the
trains with the greatest increase in ridership.
Table 5: Annual Boardings and AUglrtingsfrom the Ethan Allell Express in Rutland, Vermont
Fiscal Year
1997
Annual Boardings and Alightings (ave. monthly)
16,447 ( 1,37 1)
1998
20,492 (1,708)
1999
21.741 ( l.812)
2000
Estimated at 24.000 (2.000)
Percent Increase
25%
6%
10%
-------------------------------- 12
Final Report
A gradual increase or build up of market share as shown in the Rutland ridership numbers
is common until the market place is fully diffused . The train ridership model used in the
RSG report assumed a diffused or penetrated market place. This means that full ridership
potential was assumed in the 2000 estimates, not the gradual increase which will likely
occur. The 2000 Middlebury Station ridership estimates were created utilizing the
available data from the Rutland Train Station.
-------------------------------------- 13
VI.
Final Report
EVALUATION OF LEGISLATIVE CRITERIA
A. Usage Potential
Based on the infonnation provided in the report from Resource Systems Group, the
number of boardings and alightings at a potential Transportation Center will vary
depending on the type of rail service provided (intercity and/or commuter rail), and the
extent of the alternative rail services provided for the ABRB corridor (phased or full
build). Due to the small variation in ridership estimates between the phased and full
build ABRB options, the full build ridership estimates will be used. Table I above shows
the estimated number of boardings and alightings at a Middlebury Transportation Station
due to intercity train, commuter train and intercity bus. The estimated range for the
average daily boarding and alightings for the inter-regional train, commuter train and
intercity bus is lSI to 164 (year 2000 to 2015).
B. Modal Connections
The various modes of transportation, which are anticipated to connect at a Middlebury
Transportation Center at some point in the future, include intercity train, commuter train,
intercity bus service, local bus service, taxis, cars, carpools, vehicle drop-offs, walkers,
and bikers. Inter-modal connections will be necessary to get travelers to and from the
various modes of transportation.
The actual frequency of inter-modal connections is unknown at this time and will
ultimately be a function of market demand. For the purposes of this study, the intercity
bus was estimated to stop in Middlebury three times per day, the commuter train was
estimated as running every 45 minutes throughout the day and the intercity train was
assumed to have two stops per day heading north and two stops per day heading south.
The estimated number of boardings and alightings by the various modes are shown in
Tables 2, 3 and 4 above.
C. Need for Transfer Facilities
The number of boardings and alightings for the intercity train, commuter train and
intercity bus were estimated above in Table 1. The number of people needing to wait for
connections was estimated based on this data and are shown below in Table 6.
Table 6- Total Daily Number of People Waiting/or Inter.-modal Connections
ABRB, full build
Commuter rail
Intercity Bus
Dailv Total at a Middleburv funscortation Center
2000
25
35
15
75
2015
27
39
17
83
------------------------------------------------------- 14
Final Report
In should be noted that the need for a transfer facility goes beyond the number of people
transferring between the various modes. To encourage the use of public transportation,
the alternative modes need to be made as user friendly and convenient as possible.
Having a welcoming, inviting facility from which to use public transportation will
ultimately encourage its use, and support and promote future growth.
---------------------·--------·--------------------------- 15
Final Report
VII.
TRANSIT PARKING
The site program needs to provide for adequate space for parking facilities and to allow
for safe and convenient transfers between the various modes oftransportation. Utilizing
the infOlmation provided in the report from Resource Systems Group, various site
facilities were identified and their sizes or needs estimated.
For the purposes of this study, short-term parking is used to designate spaces used by
those waiting for travelers, longer goodbyes or drop offs, and for employees of the
facility. Long-term parking needs include all parking for the intercity train, commuter
train, and intercity bus. In estimating long term parking needs for intercity travel modes,
the average length of the trip plays an important role. The American Travel Survey
indicates that the average intercity trip with origins in Vermont and destinations in or
outside of Vermont for trips longer that 100 miles is 4.3 nights at destination. Table 7
summarizes the long term parking needs for intercity train and intercity bus. Table 8
indicates the required number of parking spaces due to a commuter train.
Table 7: Estimated Long Term Parking Needs fo r Intercity Traill and Bus at a Middlebury Transportation Center
Inter-modal Type
2000
13
3
2015
14
3
Subtotal per Day
16
17
Total Required ParlGng Spaces (4.3 times daily need)
69
73
Intercity Train
Intercity Bus
Notes for Table 7:
1. Estimated parking needs for each inter-modal type were based on the boarding and alighting estimates
in Table 2 and Table 4. For parking estimates, only those estimated to drive alone or car pool were
included in the parking needs estimates. Car pools were estimated at 2.2 people per car and would
account for up to 4.4 boardings and alightings. Therefore,5 boardings and alightings would equal
approximately one parking space.
2. The average overnight length of intercity trip from Venn ant in excess of 100 miles is approximately
4 .3 days of parking per the American Travel Survey.
Table 7 indicates a large number of parking spaces, based primarily on the estimated
percentages of people driving their own vehicles. As stated previously, the estimates
used for the inter-modal transfer share allocation in Tables 2, 3 and 4 were based on
professional j udgment and a small survey conducted for another Town. The collection of
additional data in this area may be beneficial. If, due to space considerations, fewer
parking spaces were provide, this would encourage more car-pooling, use of the ACTR
bus, walking/biking or drop off/pick ups at the facility.
------------------------------------------------------16
Final Report
Table 8: Estimated Long Term Parking Needs for a Commuter Train at a Middlebury Transportation Center
Inter-modal Tvne
Total Require Parking Spaces for Commuter Train
2000
2015
23
25
Notes for Table 8:
I. Estimated parking needs for the Commuter Train were based on the boarding and alighting estimates in
Table 3. For parking estimates only those estimated to drive alone or car pool were included in the
parking needs estimates. For those driving a lone, parking needs are half of the number of boarding
and alighting. Car pools were estimated at 2.2 people per car and would account for up to 4.4
boardings and alightings. Therefore, 5 boardings and alightings would equal approximately one
parking space.
It should be noted that although the preliminary analysis indicated that 90 to 100 long
term parking spaces would be required to meet the full program, fewer parking spaces
may be constructed due to cost constraints, avaitability of land and the preliminary nature
of the estimates. Fewer spaces could be constructed initially with additional remote
parking being provided in the future as the need arises.
------------------------------------------------------- 17
Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibilitv Studv
Final Report
VIII. PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Draft program elements for the Middlebury transportation center, including site,
transportation and building programs, were developed and are included in Appendix E.
The program elements have been summarized on the attached Tables 9 and 10. A
conceptual building floor plan based on Table 9 was also developed and is shown in
Appendix E.
The building program and prototype building were used to estimate a building square
footage for use in the site alternatives analysis. The layout ofthe building and some of
the program elements are expected to change as the project develops and due to
limitations on specific alternative sites.
- - - - - 18
-
-
-
-
-- - - - - - - - - -
-
150
170
I male
I female
2/2
2
10 Pair
1
20
Subtotal for Passenger Amenities:
-
40
-
25
40
1
60
iTrash & Receiving
1
120
Mechanical Room & Electricalffelephone Room
Interior circulation
Subtotal for Building Support Services:
IV. Supplemental Program:
2
90
Space for newsstand, colfee calt, or od,er small retail business
Subtotal for Supplemental Program:
SUBTOTAL INTERIOR FIRST FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE:
APPROXIMATE GROSS BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE:
1
1,3 00
Space for Co-locating or Partnering _
Ill. Building Support Services:
Janitor closet/sink
"'elephones/drinking fountains
Vending machines
Ski stand/lockers
II. Passenger Amenities:
Interior waitin)! incluuing seating for X passengers
Visitor illfonnation and displays; schedule displays and other transit
infomlation; Express Ticket Machine
"'wo lie accessible toilets
1,300
180
2,745
3,000
180
450
60
120
25 0
20
1,525
,
Second fl oor office space
Adjacent to waiting area.
Hallways
!Adjacent to public restrooms to share
Iplumbing.
19
!Adjacent to waiting and baggage storage.
!Adjacent 10 ti cket counter and agent's office.
Adjacent to ticket counter and agent's office.
!Adjacent to wa iting area and ticketing office,
access to train olatform .
Comments
1,000
Included in [Adjacent to waiting arealticket counter.
waiting area
320
Adjacent to waiting. Adj acent to j anitor
loset to share plumbing.
Adjacent to waiting area.
55
Adjacent to waiting area .
80
70
!Adjacent to waiting area.
590
60
260
60
260
Total (sf)
110
- - -- - -
110
--
160
-
160
- -- - -
1
1
I
I
--
sf per nnit
-
Fina l Report
Units
- -- - -
Subtotal for Transit Related Services:
Description of Building Fnnction
r. Transit Services:
tricketing Office (one window)
AgellI/SIHIfOftice/Storage of Supplies
Employee balhroom
Baggage anu equipment storage: (for wheelchair lift ifno raised platfonn
- - -
Middlehury Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibility StudJl
-
•
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_____
_
_
_
_
__ •
4
__________
•••
,
___ ••• _
_.
_ . _ _ .~
•
•
__ •
•
•
_.
600
10 short term,S long term
weather protected
10-15 spaces (3 handicap)
30,000-35,000
12,000-15 ,000
69 - 73 spaces
23-25 spaces
10,000 '
30,000 - 35 ,000
1,200
2 spaces (45' bus length)
Tertiary Proximity
Tertiary Proximity
Secondary Prox imity
Stevens & Associates, P .C.
20
Primary Prox imity
Primary Proximity, Para-transit
drop-o ff by entrance
Primary Proximity
(shared use)
Primary Proximity
Confirm length o/train with
Amtrak
First priority for safety,
convenience and comfort
Comments
Notes for Table:
I . In this initi al form, the Transportation Space Program will be used to so licit input from the Steering Committee and other
Stakeholders. Refinement will continue as this program is combined with the other programmatic elements and the
alternatives analysis proceeds. During design, physical constraints and trade-offs of benefits begin to influence the program,
and this documentation will be updated as time passes to reflect these refinements .
2. Short-term parking is for people waiting for travelers, long good byes or drop offs and facility employees.
3. Long-term parking is to be used by passengers.
Shorl Tenn Parking (see note #2)
MINfMUM TOTAL ON-SITE AREA
REQUlRED:
Long Tenn Parking (without commuter train,
see note #3)
Long Tenn Parking for conU11Uter train
Bus Drop Off(ACTR, tow' bus, & VT
Transit)
Bicycle Parking
1,000-10,000
6,000
400
600
3,520
_
16' x 170 ' w/out baggage care
16'x220' w/baggage car
I
1
2 spaces
3 spaces
_
150
_
I
_
I
As required
_
Building Footplint
Pedestlian environment and connection to
Downtown, with ADA Access
Covered pedestrian waiting area, bus, and kiss
and lide area
Covered pedesoian waiting area, train
)ial"iolms
Enoy PlazaiGarden/Greenspace
Paved dliveway access
Iraxi Stand
Kiss and Ride Drop Off
_
Approx. Estimated Size
(s.f.)
3,000
1,000
_
Quantities
--- ----
Final Report
Description of Site Function
-
Mit/II/eblin ' Mlliti-Modal Transportation Center Feasibility Stlldy
IX.
Final Report
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
A. Potential Sites Considered
Part of the Feasibility Study included an evaluation of various site alternatives for the
multi-modal transportation facility. The following is the list of prospective sites that were
considered " potentially viable" for review and consideration. The sites are numbered to
correspond to the attached Figure 2 - Potential Site Alternatives Map.
I. Rail Yards
2. Old Wastewater Treatment Facility
3. Old Train Station (auto part store parcel only)
4. Old Train Station and Adjacent Parcel
5. Private Parcels West of Old Train Station
6. Bank ATM Parcel
7. Marbleworks
8. Main Street Over RR Tracks
9. Village Green
10. Battell Parking Lot
11 . Private Parcels south of Cross Street
Based upon an initial review of each site, a number of sites were originally eliminated.
These sites and the reasons for their exclusion are as follows:
1. Rail Yards: This site was seen as being too far from the Downtown area and
Middlebury College, not visually connected to Downtown, not compatible with
the surrounding land uses (mainly fuel companies), located in an isolated area
potentially posing security and safety concerns, and not being in an aesthetically
pleasing envirorunent.
Although this site was not initially seen as being applicable for the multi-modal
transportation facility, it was considered viable for some remote long-term
parking, with site improvements to the area.
2. Old Wastewater Treatment Facility: Although this site is Town owned and large
enough, the facility is not close to the railroad tracks, not visually connected to
Downtown, is located in an isolated area posing potential security and safety
concerns, and is not in an aesthetically pleasing envirorunent.
10. Battell Parking Lot: Although thi s site is in the downtown area, it has limited
available land, may result in negative impacts to existing uses (parking for
building), has steep access topography, and vehicle access and circulation issues
(parking and drop offs would all need to be on Merchant Street and would impact
parking).
Stevens & Associates. P. C.
--------------------------------------21
"
........ .
,:::.' :..>.....
STEVENS
& AsSOCIATES,
DATE:
5/2007
SCALE:
7 "=400'
PROJ. NO.: 2047
P.C.
MULTI-MODAL
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT
FIGURE 2
POTENTIAL SITE
ALTERNATIVES MAP
Middlebury Mulli-Modal Transportation Center Feasibilitv Studv
Final Report
11. Private Parcels south of Cross Street: This site was initial seen as being too far
from the Downtown area, not visually connected to Downtown, located in an
isolated area, not compatible with surround land uses (mostly residential),
dependent upon the comp letion of the Cross Street bridge for connection to the
Downtown area, floodplain and potential natural resource issues, would require
improvements to currently open space, storrnwater and drainage issues and
possible impacts to historic buildings.
B. Elemental Diagrams
Potential sites that were deemed to have merit for further evaluation included the
following:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Old Train Station (auto part store parcel only)
Old Train Station and Adjacent Parcel
Private Parcels West of Old Train Station
Bank ATM Parcel
Marbleworks (two locations 7A and 7B)
Main Street Over RR Tracks
Village Green.
In order to assess the general suitability of these sites, elemental diagrams were developed
for each of the seven sites (two diagrams for the Marbleworks site). These diagrams are
shown in Appendix F. These elemental diagrams allow for a preliminary evaluation of
each site's ability to meet basic program requirements and critically examine potential
functional relationships between the building location, parking area, and transit
circulation.
c. Alternative Site Analysis
Based on the results of the review and analysis of the elemental diagrams, four sites were
chosen by the Steering Committee for more detailed schematic site plans. These included
Site A - the Marbleworks site; Site B - the Bank ATM; Site C - the Old Train Station
site; and Site D - West of the Old Train Station site. Based on community input during
the initial alternatives public meeting, the Steering Committee authorized development of
conceptual designs for two sites originally eliminated. These included Site E Beverage/Redemption Center (originally identified as Site 1); and Site F - Cross Street
(originally identified as Site II). Refer to Figure 3 - Alternative Site Map for the
location of all the alternative sites. Each alternative site, and the no action alternative, are
outlined below:
----------·-------------------------------------23
.. .... ...
"::.,
/
'
:' -'::".
/
(
I
STEVENS
& AsSOCIATES,
DATE:
5/2001
SCALE:
1 "= 4 00 '
P ROJ. NO.: 2047
P.C .
o
ALT. SITES FOR THE MULll-MODAL FACIUTY
MULTI-MODAL
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MIDDLEBURY. VERMONT
FIGURE 3
ALTERNATNES SITE
MAP
Middlebury Mulii-Modal Transportation Center Feasibility Study
Final Report
1. No Action Alternative
The existing public transportation facilities in Middlebury include the VT Transit bus
station located as part of the Exxon Station on Court Street; the train platform, located
within the northern part of the rail yards; various bicycle and pedestrian pathways;
and the regional bus stops throughout Town. The rail platform lacks adequate
weather protected waiting space, passenger amenities; communication facilities; and
is located in an isolated, unappealing area. Both the VT Transit site and the railroad
platform, lack nearby long term parking areas.
The no action alternative would maintain the current public transit operations. Transit
facilities, functions and access between transportation systems would remain limited.
Advantages :
•
•
No capital or additional operation and maintenance expenditures,
No acquisition issues.
Disadvantages:
•
•
•
•
•
No centralized location to access public transportation,
No improvement to passenger amenities,
No transit parking,
No welcoming, high visibility location,
Would not promote or enhance the use of public transportation or Downtown
Middlebury.
------------------------------------------------------- 25
Middleburv Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibility Studv
Final Report
2. Site A - MarbIeworks Site
Alternative A would locate the multi-modal transportation center in the Marbleworks
complex. Refer to the attached schematic plan.
The Marbleworks is a privately owned complex comprised of various commercial,
retail and office space, located adjacent to Downtown Middlebury. This option calls
for the removal of an existing wooden building to accommodate the new multi-modal
transportation facility. The stone building currently attached to this wooden building
would remain. To gain adequate access to the site, another building, the Lazarus
Building, would need to be acquired and removed. Bus access would be
accommodated off Elm Street with the bus looping through the Marbleworks
complex. This site is large enough to provide some long-term parking spaces on the
site, requiring fewer remote parking spaces.
Advantages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Good visual and physical connection to Downtown,
Good connection and proximity to Middlebury College,
The site can accommodate the full Building and Site Program, with the exception
oflong-term parking. The site plan provides on-site parking for approximately 45
long-term parking spaces, requiring remote parking for approximately 55 parking
spaces,
Improves the access to the entire Marbleworks complex,
Provides strong bicycle and pedestrian linkages,
High safety/security level due to location and adjacent activities.
Within walking distance to potential remote long term parking areas.
Disadvantages:
• Utilizes community green space,
• Displaces existing businesses.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use of the site for transit parking limits future parking expansion for commercial
enterprises,
Significant site acquisition issues to provide adequate site access,
Potential high cost of acquisition (requires propertylbuilding in the Marbleworks
complex and the Lazarus Building).
Vehicle egress directly onto Main Street may be difficult during peak travel times,
Potential air quality concerns with the train and buses idling so close to
downtown,
Facility is not adjacent to the railroad tracks, requiring pedestrians to cross a travel
lane to access the railroad platform, resulting in potential conflicts,
Proposed lowering of the tracks to accommodate double-decker trains under the
Main Street Bridge may impact grades along the platform.
-----------------------------------------26
Final Report
3. Site B - Bank ATM Site,
Site B locates the multi-modal transportation center on the west side of Seymour
Street, currently the location of the Middlebury Bank branch office. Refer to the
attached schematic plan.
This option would call for the relocation of the bank branch and the removal of the
existing building to allow for the construction of a new multi-modal transportation
facility . Vehicle and bus circulation and access to the site would be off existing town
roads. Due to the size of the site, remote long-term parking would be necessary.
Advantages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Good visual and physical connection to Qowntown,
Good connection and proximity to Middlebury College,
Provides good bicycle and pedestrian linkages,
Clear separation of uses, minimizing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts,
Good safety/security level due to location and adjacent activities,
Integrates the use of public roads in the facility, minimizing the on-site
improvements needed.
of long-term parking.
Good proximity to potential remote long term parking areas.
Disadvantages:
•
•
•
Current property owner has stated that they are not interested in selling the
property at !hi s time,
Displaces an existing business,
Requires remote parking for approximately 100 long-term parking spaces.
Stevens & Associates, P.c.
------------------------------28
A.orus U n l8iSVJJ
NOll'fHIOdSNVW.
l'IQOI'I-1l1m'l
-
El 3US
3115 >lNY8
NVld :>U.1i1'i3H::lS
":rd 'SlJ,'I:!OSSY :y SNlIhUS
s
o
(
\
,, \
(
~
,(
,\
\,,
I
i
"H O
o
C8
•
I
\
I
I
_
S
--...:::::: _
\
- -.;;:;:
~,----------
,
~
--. ,
\1 ~
\C '
I~C
r'C--
r~r
"Ho
\t,I,,\
. "
~rl
---
I {"-,
1,1H
o
\
------
o
_
,.
0
~
C
~
~
5
,
Final Report
4. Site C - Old Train Station Site
This site alternative utilizes the historic train station in town as the new multi-modal
transportation facility. The building is currently being utilized as retail space. Refer
to the attached schematic plan.
This option would require the renovation of the historic building and limited on-site
improvements. Vehicle and bus circulation and access to the site would be off
existing town roads. To meet the minimum site and building programs, five on-street
parking spaces along Seymour Street would need to be dedicated to short-term transit
parking. In addition, a bus berth would need to be located in front of the at-grade
railroad crossing, currently gated and unused except in emergency situations. Site
improvements would need to accommodate adequate access and parking for the
adjacent County Tire business. Due to the size of the site, remote long-term parking
would be necessary. However, it may be possible to create some new on-street
parking spaces along Seymour Street and Maple Street.
Advantages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Historic train station in Town.
Easily identifiable as a transit center,
Good visual. and physical corroection to Downtown,
Good corroection and proximity to Middlebury College,
Provides good bicycle and pedestrian linkages,
Good safety/security level due to location and adjacent activities,
Integrates the use of public roads in the facility, minimizing the improvements
needed.
oflong-term parking (if five on-street parking spaces are designated for transit.)
Close proximity to potential remote long term parking areas .
Disadvantages:
•
•
•
•
Small site, limited space for expansion without additional acquisitions,
Need to provide parking, and access to County Tire, limiting some site layout
options,
Displaces an existing business.
Provides no on-site long term parking spaces (requires remote parking for
approximately 100 long term parking spaces.)
-- _. - -_.>-Stevens & Associates, P.C.
30
AOIUS ,unI8ISYJ..:I
NOll YHlOclSNY(il.
lYOOYJ-UlnYJ
~
I
'"\f; l<-<
'j
"-
3,
r
-,
)
I,
r
0
I
I
1
I
r'
"':z
'SUY/::lOSSY If SNU3J.S
~
<1
\:l
NOIlY1S NIYHL 010
Nlfld Jil 1f1'i3H:>S
I
,I
I
•
!
1
i
,;
"
:; I
0
,,
~I
/
.,, 11<' I:' II
I
,,
J ,
'
I • ,~'
I,
\,,
"\
o
,,
-- --\
,,
, I
--
"
)/
,
"
'I
,' I, '
'rl l,
I f,l
/
'
M!
o
'
i
Final Report
5. Site D - West of the Old Train Station Site
Site D would locate the multi-modal facility on the westerly side of the tracks from
the old train station. Refer to the attached schematic plan.
This option would require the acquisition of a portion of two residential properties,
and relocation of a section of Maple Street. Significant on-site improvements would
need to be made to accommodate bus access and circulation. Due to the size of the
site, remote long-term parking would be necessary.
Advantages:
• The site can accommodate the full Building and Site Program, with the exception
•
of long-term parking.
Good proximity to potential remote long .term parking areas.
Disadvantages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Current property owners have stated that they not interested in selling the property
at this time,
Potential zoning issues,
Impacts to a residential area,
Limited visual and physical connection to Downtown,
Requires a pedestrian crossing of the railroad tracks,
Limited safety/security level due to isolated area,
Requires significant on-site improvements to accommodate bus circulation,
Develops a currently undeveloped area,
Potential storm water permitting issues,
Provides limited on-site long term parking spaces (requires remote parking for
approximately 100 long term parking spaces.)
-----------------------------------32
_.-..
...... """"
HOlSSlrIl'IO:)
l¥NOIO:ltI
AGfUS Altl181S'I3J
3.1IS
NOl1'1HIOdSNV~l
~NI"IN'd
"",..noo I'IOSIOOY
1'1001'1-11101'1
'j 'd 'SlJ.YllOSSV "SN:tw.S
~
~~
\
\
\
\ \
~
r-
~
~I
~
f
I
~
,
0
-I~I
.t.
I
I
\
', :'1,
Ii,
~
,..-"'
1/
1
I
~
•
,
I
I
[
w'
mO
,
j
• "
d
A
~- -
•
I
,
I ,,i
II
I
,,
,
/
,,
,,,I
l __ (
... r '
/
,,
" ,I
,
~
0
m
) '
I
0
0
I
--....
')--1. ,
T
,
,/
,,
a
,,
~
--~ t """'" "... -.,
-=
.I
I,
/i,
/I!,
I
!
Final Report
6. Site E - BeveragefRedemption Center (originally identified as Site 1)
Site Alternative E would locate the multi-modal transportation center at the current
location of the BeveragelRedemption Center off Elm Street. Refer to the attached
schematic plan.
This option would call for the acquisition or relocation of the beveragelredemption
center building and the removal of the existing building to allow for the construction
of a new multi-modal transportation facility. All vehicle and bus circulation and
access issues would need to be addressed on-site. In addition, access and parking for
local businesses, including access for large trucks for deliveries, would need to be
accommodated. Access to the rail yards would also need to be maintained.
Long term parking for this option is shown just north of the site, in the current
location of a storage warehouse, which would need to be removed. Much of the
parking is located over existing railroad spurs, which would need to be abandoned.
Further discussions with the railroad and the State of Vermont would be necessary to
determine if this would be an allowed use.
This option also shows pedestrian/bicycle access being provided with a bridge and
sidewalk located parallel to the railroad tracks. Again, further discussions with the
railroad and the State would be necessary to determine if this would be a feasible
option.
Advantages:
• The site can accommodate the full Building and Site Program, and possibly the
full long term parking requirements (75 spaces are currently shown as long-term
parking, but additional parking could be provide by extending the parking further
north),
• Provides for redevelopment of an unattractive area,
• Provides better parking/safety for those using Greg's market,
• Safety/security level may be adequate due to traffic associated with Greg's
Market.
Disadvantages:
• Limited visual and physical connection to Downtown,
• Site furthest away from Middlebury College,
• Displaces an existing business and may impact adjacent businesses,
• Requires a pedestrian crossing of busy Elm Street, or a pedestrian bridge at the
railroad overpass,
• May impact traffic patterns at the Elm Street/Seymour Street/Exchange Street
intersections.
• Requires improvements on railroad property, resulting in the need to negotiate
with the State and the railroad for use of the property and issues associated with
the existing spur lines.
----.-----------------------Stevens & Associates, P. C.
----------------- 34
- -
t<Y'N
-
. .
'-
~ -~.
,
--,'
-Q
1,1
l..
'
J:
.
".-
'
T TO
"mOE
AND
-
--
j
'0I IP""OR.
I
~
11/
@~::~~~;~/ :';,'
.'~
._ ." ".:
..•..
, " . , .. ',
~t
-
\
.
,-
--r-c
1\
r
'Ii
S
..
~
-~
_ _ _ ~•
,0 _4d
":"
PARKING
REMOVE BUILDING)
~O~R~T
1/
· _. . W
0"
U
~n
Er.tPLOYEE .
/
20
QRAPMC SCALt:
ARKINC A'"OR GREG'S :!"
A CESS fO
WOR~
...
ARK i7 AND POOL
_
--~__ ~
,
!.Q,.
::J
"
II
i
~
~
w
~
lS
<II
.:d
~
00
~s:
I'i
:tHi
j Ii.
~
..:
u
u;>
VI!!!
~~
F=
~
0( ~
li!1
L_.l.'
p
~- .~ .~"
~. '~ "'",.,
' .
,,,0.,,...... '.
....
~
....
r-- - - -
I
--I
W~EHOUSE ,
----::~~O"--A.,C"'C'[lSS""fyOR~~~__L
.,.-c-,
I
7 --- --
_).,
..............
,.
:r:=;~
L---J
~ _ •.- ,."----TT--:T~~l'===--'
"",. "_ ,
- PEDESTRIAN
1/11/
r
30 P"'OOlKINGWORSPt
AS
FOR
P
_
"":'~~-
POOL
WAREHOUse:
-
BUILDING SUPPL'( &:
DELIVERY
ACCESS FOR
'------- -
-';~,
GREG 'S MARKET
-
'~"- ..~ "-'
1.- .""""
~~L~'~'~~;LO
IDM
ARKF_ __~_
...:.
IFlI '
.
- e
' -.. '
"
-, ""- ,::." ~"- , ..
~".~ - - .~
_. .----~,-~-
'
-I .
'. .
.
CREG'S MARKET
/1
/,", .
'1>. , <~...
J;.;~-I~-J,%~·:/J;<~·'··~
: :,i ~
st
.
'
~I
. /CfifII- ,o <
:0. ~:"
-I ~··
j
-'~
I
/
~~,.y
v
~'~
~
----o
..... .....
-----
Final Report
7. Site F - Cross Street (originally identified as Site 11).
Site Alternative F would locate the multi-modal transportation center in an open area,
behind existing residential buildings, south of Cross Street and west of Water Street.
Refer to the attached schematic plan.
To provide adequate and safe access to the site, this option would call for the
acquisition and removal of a residential building off Water Street, as well as land
acquisition. Long-term parking for 75 vehicles is shown on-site for this option.
This site alternative would be enhanced with the construction of the Cross Street
Bridge. If this bridge is not constructed, a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Otter Creek
may be warranted to facilitate access to the Downtown area and to Middlebury
College.
Advantages:
•
•
•
The site can accommodate the full Building and Site Program, and most of the
long term parking requirements (75 out of 100 spaces),
Could provide access/parking for a future park and bicycle/pedestrian pathway
along Otter Brook.
Good connection and proximity to Downtown and Middlebury College, if the
Cross Street Bridge or a pedestrian bridge is constructed.
Disadvantages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Somewhat reliant on the development of the Cross Street Bridge, may require a
pedestrian bridge,
Develops a currently undeveloped area, possible storm water permitting issues,
Limited visual connection to Downtown,
Not compatible with surround land uses (mostly residential),
Multiple land and property acquisitions required,
Potential zoning issues,
Isolated location and grade changes may cause safety/security issues.
---~------- ----- 36
)
I
1/
I
CROSS
I
~
<
0
0
>r
Ih
;: 5~
U
I
hJ::l
Z
o MH
::i .!:
;.
I
I
1
i
/
,
~
I
I
~o
1<
.
~~
~
• h~
w~w
Z ZU
~«
.... 1!",5;
I
0
Final Report
D. Alternative Remote Parking Sites
In order to provide a multi-modal facility within close proximity to the downtown area,
not all of the sites evaluated contained adequate space to provide some or all of the longterm transit parking needs. To accommodate this, potential remote parking areas were
identified. Although it has been assumed that the ACTR bus would provide bus
transportation to the remote parking areas for arriVals/departures, attempts were made to
locate the remote parking within walking distance of the alternative sites.
Sites for which concept plans were developed for long-term parking are shown on the
attached Parking Options plan and outlined below.
1. Site I - Beverage/Redemption Center
This option would require the acquisition or relocation of the beverage/redemption
center and the removal of the building. This site is in the most remote area with
respect to the potential sites for the multi-modal facility.
Pedestrian safety may be an issue with the crossing of Elm Street. A pedestrian
bridge and sidewalk parallel to the railroad would help to eliminate this issue, but
would require the approval of the State of Vermont and the railroad, Vermont
Railway.
This option provides approximately 50 long-term parking spaces. Additional spaces
may be possible if use of some of the railroad right-of-way is allowed. The ROW is
wider in this area and the allocation of some property for parking may be possible, but
would require further discussions with the State of Vermont and the railroad.
2. Site II - County Tire
This option would require the acquisition or relocation of County Tire and the
removal of numerous buildings. This site could provide approximately 50 long-term
parking spaces.
The site is located adjacent to the old train station and does not require pedestrians to
cross a busy street to reach the downtown area.
The current property owners have stated that they not interested in selling the property
at this time.
----------------------·------------------------------------------ 38
Final Report
3. Site ill - Maple Street On-street Parking
This site would call for perpendicular on-street parking along Maple Street. This
would result in the parking being on the west side of the railroad tracks and may
warrant a signalized pedestrian crossing. The railroads typically do not support the
installation of pedestrian crossings for safety and liability issues. If a railroad
pedestrian crossing is not possible, a less direct pedestrian connection could be made
from Maple Street to Elm Street to Seymour Street by using the railroad separated
crossing.
Assuming some encroachment on the railroad property is allowed, it may be possible
to provide up to 30 long-term parking spaces in this area.
4. Site IV - Property of Gary Baker (approximately 40 spaces)
This option would locate approximately 40 long-term parking spaces on the eastern
comer of Gary Baker's property off Maple Street. Again, the parking would be on the
west side of the railroad tracks and may warrant a signalized pedestrian crossing.
The current property owner has stated that they not interested in selling the property at
this time.
Based on comments received from property owners, the Steering Committee decided to
eliminate Site ll- County Tire and Site IV - Gary Baker's property from further
consideration at this time. These leaves Option 1 - BeveragelKedemption Center and
Option III - Maple Street as the remaining remote parking sites evaluated. Both of these
parking options would be required to come close to meeting the program for long-term
parking needs.
- - - - - - - - - - ---Stevens & Associates, P. C.
--------------
39
7. Commercial and Private Development
At least one of the proposed MMTCs in Vermont, Burlington is looking at substantial private
investment to provide part of the funds. The developer (or self-styled re-developer) of
Burlington's Union Station who has expressed interest in the MMTC is Melinda Moulton and
her partner Lisa Steele. It might be worth talking to Melinda to understand what she thinks is
involved and what the payback is for a private, for-profit involvement in MMTCs.
Melinda Moulton
864-7999
-32-

Middlebury Multi-Modal Transportation Center Feasibility Study

Transcription

Similar documents

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

A little pony - Joseph Redmon

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Directions to UCSD Extension K-12 Facility Located at: 6256

2001 4118 Dawson Street, Burnaby

Schottenstein Center

Parking Lot Striping - Parking Control Unit

Lyndale Farmstead Park - SouthSide Operations Center Parking Lot

Pencader Corporate Center

parkpoint health club - Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce