Public Works Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2025-03-19
Time: 18:30

Public Works Commission



 Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main
 Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM

6:30 pm, Main Conference Room, 645 Pine St OR Remotely via ZOOM:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83495330508
Or Telephone: Dial US: 301-715-8592 Webinar ID: 834 9533 0508
Channel 17 also often livestreams this on their YouTube channel and airs it over the air at a later date.
Note that comments on YouTube are not monitored.



1. Call to Order

2. Agenda - 5 Minutes
 2.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

3. Public Forum - 3 Minutes per Person Time Limit - 10 Minutes

4. Consent Agenda - 5 Minutes
 4.1. Approval of Draft Minutes of 2-19-25
 4.2. Hungerford Terrace Parking Chicane
 4.3. No Turn on Red at Shelburne St & Home Ave
 Subject 4.4. Approval of Consent Agenda
 Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 4. Consent Agenda - 5 Minutes

 Department Public Works Department


 Type Action (Consent)


 Recommended Action Approval of Consent Agenda

5. Battery Street Preferred Alternative Approval - 30 Minutes
 Subject 5.1. Communication, P. Peterson & J. Ursaski
  Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Battery Street Preferred Alternative Approval - 30 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Action


  Recommended Action Motion to Approve

6. 2025 Paving Update - 15 Minutes
  Subject 6.1. Information - C. Manna
  Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 6. 2025 Paving Update - 15 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Information


  Recommended Action None

7. Director's Report - 10 Minutes
  Subject 7.1. Communication, C. Spencer
  Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 7. Director's Report - 10 Minutes
  Department Public Works Department


  Type Information



8. Commissioner Items

9. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date - April 16, 2025
  Subject 9.1. Motion to adjourn
  Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 9. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date - April 16, 2025

  Department Council and Board


  Type Action


  Recommended Action Motion to Adjourn

Public Works Commission



 Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main
 Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM

6:30 pm, Main Conference Room, 645 Pine St OR Remotely via ZOOM:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83495330508
Or Telephone: Dial US: 301-715-8592 Webinar ID: 834 9533 0508
Channel 17 also often livestreams this on their YouTube channel and airs it over the air at a later date.
Note that comments on YouTube are not monitored.



1. Call to Order

2. Agenda - 5 Minutes
 2.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

3. Public Forum - 3 Minutes per Person Time Limit - 10 Minutes

4. Consent Agenda - 5 Minutes
 4.1. Approval of Draft Minutes of 2-19-25
 4.2. Hungerford Terrace Parking Chicane
 4.3. No Turn on Red at Shelburne St & Home Ave
 Subject 4.4. Approval of Consent Agenda
 Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 4. Consent Agenda - 5 Minutes

 Department Public Works Department


 Type Action (Consent)


 Recommended Action Approval of Consent Agenda

5. Battery Street Preferred Alternative Approval - 30 Minutes
 Subject 5.1. Communication, P. Peterson & J. Ursaski


 Page 1 of 91
  Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Battery Street Preferred Alternative Approval - 30 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Action


  Recommended Action Motion to Approve

6. 2025 Paving Update - 15 Minutes
  Subject 6.1. Information - C. Manna
  Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 6. 2025 Paving Update - 15 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Information


  Recommended Action None

7. Director's Report - 10 Minutes
  Subject 7.1. Communication, C. Spencer
  Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 7. Director's Report - 10 Minutes
  Department Public Works Department


  Type Information



8. Commissioner Items

9. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date - April 16, 2025
  Subject 9.1. Motion to adjourn
  Meeting March 19, 2025 - DPW Public Works Commission - Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 9. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date - April 16, 2025

  Department Council and Board


  Type Action


  Recommended Action Motion to Adjourn




 Page 2 of 91
 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
 645 PINE STREET
 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
 COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2025
 DRAFT MINUTES
 For video of the meeting, please visit Town Meeting TV’s YouTube Channel:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLAyRGweCwE&list=PLljLFn4BZd2PwCge7lNoKug676jIf_iUA
 &index=4

Commissioners Present: Commissioner Barr, Vice Chair Fox, Commissioner Davis,
Commissioner Munteanu, Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco, Chair Damiani
Commissioner Absent: Commissioner Sears
ITEM 1 – CALL TO ORDER
 Chair Damiani called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
ITEM 2 – AGENDA
 Commissioner Barr made a motion to approve the agenda
 Commissioner Munteanu seconded.
 Unanimous Approval.

ITEM 3 – PUBLIC FORUM
 There was no one present for public forum

ITEM 4 – CONSENT AGENNDA

 4.1 Approval of Draft Minutes 1-15-25
 4.2 North Street Corridor Stop Signs

 Commissioner Munteanu made a motion to accept the consent agenda
 Commissioner Barr seconded
 Unanimous Approval

ITEM 5 – FINAL BOND Q & A BEFORE THE 2025 TOWN MEETING DAY ELECTION

 Director Chapin Spencer reviewed the Capital needs in the aging City.
 Water/Wastewater Division Director Megan Moir reviewed the background on the
 proposed Water Resources Bond Request. Very happy to receive City Council Approval.
 City should be highly eligible for Pollution Control Grant funding. Continuing
 conversations about affordability programs. Ashley Parker, Capital Program Director
 reviewed the need for the 20 Million General Obligation Bond. Bond is really important
 to make our infrastructure sustainable and resilient. Tax impact is about 12.00 a month
 on a 500,000.00 home or about 140.00 a year.
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco asked what if this doesn’t pass. What impacts will the
 City Face?
 AP -Worst case we have to divvy it up and will limit what we can do.




 Page 3 of 91
 Commissioner Munteanu asked how the money is allocated to Specific projects
 especially Street/Sidewalks. What is DPW requesting funding for and how will sidewalk
 and street needs be prioritized?
 AP – Nothing is guaranteed funding – see chart in presentation.
 Director Spencer stated that it would be very limiting trying to operate on the 2 million
 dollars authorized.
 Chair Damiani thinks the items on the Capital Plan that Commission looks at would love
 to see the input and provide comments.
 Commissioner Davis asking why this amount? Is there a reason we don’t aim for a
 percentage rather than a fixed dollar amount? Impact Fees – does the Commission
 determine them? Prioritization of sidewalk repair?
 AP – we share debt with School. Annual Authorizations are 2 million a year, looking to
 change the limit to 10 million to fit the needs of the City. 2013 borrowing limit changed
 from 1 million to 2 million. Impact fees will require changes to existing ordinance.
 Division Director Moir we have had conversations about having and authorized annual
 limit.
 Commissioner Barr – What is the actual impact on constituents tax bills? Great job
 showing what it would be.
 Vice Chair Fox – Future charter changes for Water Resources to be able to borrow
 consistently -Size of bonds is because maintenance has been deferred so long, super
 important and is one of the parts of the affordability problem.
 Chair Damiani – Affordability program – Income sensitized, is there an easy way to show
 how that may change what they will be paying. Voting 10 days away, any last outreach?
 Division Director Moir -Mayor’s office running tax fairness committee
 Public Information Manager Rob Goulding - Late last week postcards were sent to let
 everyone know what was going to be on the ballot. Waiting for ads from BCA that will
 be going out on social media.

 Commissioner Barr made a motion to support all three Bonds. Commissioner O’Neill-
 Vivanco seconded. All in favor – Supported by Commission

ITEM 6 – FY’26 UPWP CITY APPLICATION

 Senior Transportation Planner, Phillip Peterson presented proposed projects for
 inclusion in the FY’26 Unified Planning Work Program. This is Federal funding that
 covers planning only. 10 ongoing projects. Requesting support on two ongoing projects.
 Technical assistance on the Battery Street project and the City wide transportation plan
 which hasn’t been updated since 2011. See packet for more detail.

 Commissioner Munteanu asked how do you anticipate this program might change in
 the future and how is the City aiming to insure that the projects that have already
 started are coming to completion regardless of the different bodies of government?
 Chair Fox positive comment when Public Works took over parking lots, great
 colorization.
 Commissioner Barr – Great plan. Great stuff.
 Chair Damiani - Planning documents are great.

 Commissioner Barr made a motion to approve/support staffs proposed projects under
 the FY’26 Unified Planning Work Program

 Page 4 of 91
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco seconded
 Vice Chair Fox – abstained
 Commissioners Munteanu, Barr, O’Neill-Vivanco & Davis and Chair Damiani - Aye


ITEM 7 – DIRECTOR’S REPORT
 - Commissioner Sears is stepping down.
 - Shout out to teams who battled storm. Did a remarkably good job!
 - Wastewater plants upgrades are underway.
 - Battery Street next meeting.
 - Bikeshare - Bird not returning.
 - Next steps for bond outreach – videos coming out on social media
 - Resolution of 201 Flynn Ave – City purchased the property.
ITEM 8 - COMMISSIONER ITEMS

 Commissioner Davis appreciates snow ban alert efforts. Email link to parking
 information is broken. Post on Front Porch that Garages Full – what should one do if
 that happens? GPS on trucks to show when plowed. Snow Maintenance on Bike Path?
 Traffic Light on Lakeside issues with right turn only. Possibly cancel trash pickup during
 snow.
 RG – Park early and other garages offer different prices.
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco – Email about stop signs on Foster taken care of? Great
 job on snow clean up. Noticing potholes. Looking forward to Battery Street discussion.
 Commissioner Munteanu - Status of the quality of streets data portal - is it available to
 the public?
 Commissioner Barr - Echo’s on great clean up with everybody working together.
 Vice Chair Fox – Echo on snow clean up. Communication was excellent. Relates to the
 General Obligation Bond – helps us buy equipment. Flynn Ave & Champlain Parkway –
 red light seems to lead to confusion when train is going by. Bike Lane across from BPD –
 Sherman St striped poorly. Flag for restriping.
 Chair Damiani – Kudos to Phillip & Julia for coming to Rose St project. Kudos to storm
 clean up and notification. Felt bad that sidewalk plow operator had to keep stopping to
 move trash containers. Communication needed. BPD Academy public safety –
 encourage folks to learn about it.

ITEM 9 – ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING MARCH 19, 2025

 Commissioner Barr made a motion to adjourn
 Commissioner Munteanu seconded.
 Unanimous approval

 Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.




 Page 5 of 91
 City of Burlington
 Department of Public Works

 Technical Services Engineering Division
 645 Pine Street, Suite A
 Burlington, VT 05402
 P 802-863-9094 / F 802-863-0466 / TTY 802-863-0450
 www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPW




 Memo
Date: March 19, 2025

To: Public Works Commission

From: Jack Keller, PE, Public Works Engineer
 Phillip Peterson, PE, Senior Transportation Planner

CC: Chapin Spencer, Director of Public Works
 Laura Wheelock, PE, City Engineer/Division Director – Technical Services

Subject: Hungerford Terrace Parking Chicane

For your consideration, a draft motion to amend Appendix C is below:

 To adopt the following proposed amendments to Appendix C, Rules and Regulations of the
 Traffic Commission, Sections 7 (No-parking areas) and 7A (Accessible spaces designated), of the
 Code of Ordinances of the City of Burlington, in relation to installing the Hungerford Terrace
 parking chicane. The Traffic Regulation is included in Attachment-1.

  Section 7 No-parking areas.
 No person shall park any vehicle at any time in the following locations:

 (1-21) As written.

 (22) Reserved. On the west side of Hungerford Terrace beginning at Pearl Street and extending
 south two hundred seventy-two (272) feet.

 (23-57) As written.

 (58) On the east side of Hungerford Terrace between Pearl and College Streets beginning at
 Buell Street and extending north two hundred fifty-three (253) feet.

 (59-134) As written.

 (135) Reserved. On the west side of Hungerford Terrace between Buell Street and Bradley Street.



 Page 6 of 91
 (136-312) As written.

 (313) Reserved. On the west side of Hungerford Terrace beginning at College Street and
 extending north one hundred eighty-seven (187) feet.

 (314) Reserved. On the east side of Hungerford Terrace beginning at Bradley Street and
 extending south one hundred sixty-two (162) feet.

 (315-591) As written.


  Section 7A Accessible spaces designated.
 No person shall park a vehicle at any time in the following locations, except automobiles
 displaying special handicapped license plates issued pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 1325, or any
 amendment or renumbering thereof:

 (1-47) As written.

 (48) Two (2) spaces designated on the west side of Hungerford Terrace in front of 61
 Hungerford Terrace and 65 Hungerford Terrace and extending forty (40) feet north.
 Reserved.

 (49-173) As written.


Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed parking chicane is to dynamically manage curbside parking on
Hungerford Terrace to address safety issues and reduce vehicle speeds on Hungerford Terrace. Based
on existing speeds and crash data, this street qualifies for traffic calming treatments, per the criteria
listed in the 2020 Traffic Calming Manual.

Project Checklist
 N/A Yes No Reference
 Aligns with MUTCD X Complies with MUTCD Standards
 standards and/or
 established City Policy?
 Aligns with City Plans? X 2020 Traffic Calming Manual
 Followed Public X This Traffic Regulation change is defined as
 Engagement Plan? an INVOLVE project in the Public
 Engagement Plan (PEP).




 Page 7 of 91
Background
The Department of Public Works (DPW) received a request from a resident concerning excessive vehicle
speeds on Hungerford Terrace. The narrow geometry of this roadway combined with high-density on-
street parking and a shared bicycle and vehicle travel lane, all make for heightened safety concerns
when speeding occurs. After reviewing speed data, crash data, and City plans, DPW developed traffic
calming plans to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety for all users on Hungerford Terrace.

Currently, parking exists only on the west side of Hungerford Terrace. Moving parking to the east
side of the street in three strategic, alternating locations creates lateral shifts or “chicanes” in the
travel lane which in turn can produce a traffic calming effect. DPW installed a parking chicane on
Bright Street in 2022, and traffic data showed that it reduced the 85th percentile traffic speed from 24
to 18 miles per hour. DPW has also recently implemented another parking chicane on Chase Street
and a conventional chicane on East Avenue, which have both reduced 85th percentile traffic speeds by
at least 5 miles per hour.
Given the locations of driveways on Hungerford Terrace, these parking changes will increase the
number of parking spaces available on Hungerford Terrace by four total spaces. Additionally, with the
reallocation of two underutilized ADA spaces on this street, there will also be two regular unrestricted
parking spaces made available. These changes will thus help address concerns related to parking
availability for residents in and around the Downtown area.

Observations
Hungerford Terrace is a single-vehicle travel lane, one-way street with existing on-street parking on the
west side of the street. The Hungerford Terrace corridor is primarily mixed-use commercial and
residential. The travel lane is shared by vehicles and bicyclists.

Hungerford Terrace currently has 27 total parking spaces between College St and Pearl St. The
proposed design would provide 4 additional spaces for a total of 31 parking spaces.

Within the 27 total parking spaces, there are currently 2 designated ADA parking spaces in front of 61
Hungerford Terrace and 65 Hungerford Terrace. DPW has documented utilization of these ADA spaces
over the last several weeks and has counted only one occasion where one of the spaces was filled. DPW
has communicated with residents of adjacent properties, who reiterated the low utilization of these
spaces. DPW staff also followed up with the residents who had requested these spaces and has received
no response, implying that these two ADA spaces are no longer needed. We therefore propose to
reallocate these spaces to regular unrestricted parking.

Public Engagement

Flyers containing an overview of the proposed parking chicane and contact information for DPW staff
were delivered to residents and businesses on Hungerford Terrace and mailed to all affected property
owners. DPW staff also reached out to the residents who initially requested the ADA spaces via email
but received no response. DPW staff received three emails and two phone calls from the public with
input on the proposed changes (see Attachment-3); three of the responses expressed their support




 Page 8 of 91
for the project, and one questioned the need for a parking chicane. The remaining response
expressed concerns with the ability of trash removal services to enter their driveway; these concerns
were addressed by DPW staff.

Conclusion

Based on current speed data and crash data, there is a need for traffic calming on Hungerford
Terrace to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety for all users. We recommend moving parking
from the west side to the east side of Hungerford Terrace in three locations (between Pearl Street
and 21 Hungerford Terrace, between Buell Street and Bradley Street, and between 83 Hungerford
Terrace and College Street), thus creating a parking chicane. In addition to reducing speeds, this
parking change will also increase total parking capacity for this high-density residential street. We
also recommend reallocating two underutilized ADA designated parking spaces to regular
unrestricted parking, further increasing parking availability for other residents. This parking chicane is
a tactical solution that will improve safety and can be installed rapidly and within the capacity of the
City’s current staff and funding resources.

Implementation Approach and Timeline

If the parking chicane is approved by the Public Works Commission, our traffic team would install the
change in the coming weeks as seasonal conditions allow, and once the regulation is posted for the
requisite period.

Attachments

 1. Traffic Regulation Amendment.
 2. Parking Chicane Layout.
 3. Public input




 Page 9 of 91
Attachment 1: Traffic Regulation Amendment.
 CITY OF BURLINGTON


In the Year Two Thousand Twenty-five Sponsor(s): Department of Public Works
 Action: ______________
A Regulation in Relation to Date: _3/19/2025 ____________
 Attestation of Adoption:
 Rules and Regulations of the Traffic
 __________________________________
 Commission— Phillip Peterson, PE
 Section 7 No parking areas., 7A Public Works Engineer, Technical
 Accessible spaces designated. Services
 Published: ________________________
 Effective: _________________________


It is hereby Ordained by the Public Works Commission of the City of Burlington as
follows:

That Appendix C, Rule and Regulations of the Traffic Commission, Section 7, No-parking areas. and
Section 7A, Accessible spaces designated., of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Burlington is
hereby amended as follows:


Section 7 No-parking areas.
No person shall park any vehicle at any time in the following locations:

 (1-21) As written.

 (22) Reserved. On the west side of Hungerford Terrace beginning at Pearl Street and extending
 south two hundred seventy-two (272) feet.

 (23-57) As written.

 (58) On the east side of Hungerford Terrace between Pearl and College Streets beginning at
 Buell Street and extending north two hundred fifty-three (253) feet.

 (59-134) As written.

 (135) Reserved. On the west side of Hungerford Terrace between Buell Street and Bradley
 Street.

 (136-312) As written.




 Page 10 of 91
 (313) Reserved. On the west side of Hungerford Terrace beginning at College Street and
 extending north one hundred eighty-seven (187) feet.

 (314) Reserved. On the east side of Hungerford Terrace beginning at Bradley Street and
 extending south one hundred sixty-two (162) feet.

 (315-591) As written.



Section 7A Accessible spaces designated.
No person shall park a vehicle at any time in the following locations, except automobiles displaying
special handicapped license plates issued pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 1325, or any amendment or
renumbering thereof:

 (1-47) As written.

 (48) Two (2) spaces designated on the west side of Hungerford Terrace in front of 61
 Hungerford Terrace and 65 Hungerford Terrace and extending forty (40) feet north.
 Reserved.

 (49-173) As written.


** Material stricken out deleted.
*** Material underlined added.
TD: BCO Appx.C, Section 7 & 7A
03/19/2025




 Page 11 of 91
Attachment 2: Parking Chicane Layout.




 Page 12 of 91
Attachment 3: Public Input.

Resident Email #1: Jordan Mitchell

Good afternoon DPW staff and Public Works Commission,

I am writing in response to a paper flier left in my door about the proposed parking changes on Hungerford
Terrace. Thank you for the note, as I was unaware of the project proposal otherwise.

My name is Jordan and I have been a resident at 99 Buell Street (intersection of Buell and Hungerford Terrace)
for four years. I am in support of the proposed changes with no comments or questions. 1) Adding the parking
chicane would assist with the slowing of traffic speed, which is a general concern. 2) I see the two ADA parking
spaces outside my living room window and cannot recall a time when both spots were being utilized, and rarely
see one of the spots used. Of course, if someone in the area needs those parking spaces, I am glad they are
available, but I do not see them being used. 3) The addition of five parking spaces would be greatly appreciated.
As a resident who relies on street parking, it can be difficult to find parking certain times of day, such as when
the Y (College Street) is busy. Also, City Market employees are not allowed to park in the business lot, and are
instructed to park on Buell or Hungerford for non-metered parking, which also adds parking congestion to the
area.

I do have one question: why is the section of Hungerford between Bradley and College resident permit-only
parking (certain times of day)? Is there the possibly that would be removed with this new parking plan?

Thank you for the work that you do! Please reach out if you have any questions.


Resident Email #2: Frank Donath

The blocks are not very long and have a stop sign at each intersection - not conducive to speeding. I
can't imagine the need for a chicane and as I see the one on East Avenue, it's a waste of money. My
property is on the corner of Buell & Hungerford - my tenants don't see any sp[eedinmg or
reckless driving
Any additional parking would be welcomed by the residence


Resident Phone Call #1: Maddy Pozick
I spoke on the phone on 3/12/2025 with a resident of Hungerford Terrace between College St and
Bradley St. They expressed an opinion that traffic calming isn’t needed in the area and concerns about
the following topics: how parking will be controlled at locations in locations where the parking is
switched to the other side of the street mid-block; backing out of their driveway with new parking
configurations; and whether the new parking configuration would obstruct plowing on the street. Ms.
Pozick was supportive of increased street parking on Hungerford Terrace.




 Page 13 of 91
Resident Phone Call #2: Mark Farrell
I spoke on the phone with Mark Farrell, property owner on Hungerford Terrace, on 3/7/2025. Mr. Farrell
had questions about the layout of the proposed changes which were answered by DPW staff. He did not
have any major concerns and was supportive of increased street parking on Hungerford Terrace.



Resident Email Correspondence #3: Hinsdale Properties

From: Hinsdale Properties

Good Morning,

 I'm following up on a message I left your office this morning regarding the proposed changes to
street parking on Hungerford Terrace.

 Shifting the spots from the west to the east side on the north end of Hungerford Terrace will
dramatically reduce the accessibility of the parking lot we have at 10 Hungerford Terrace. This 42 spot
lot must also be accessible by Casella trucks that currently have to drive over the curb to access our lot
as the curb cut is inadequately sized.

 If parking was placed on the east side of the street, a parked vehicle close to our curb cut would make it
impossible for our trash/recycling/compost to be serviced at the property. Additionally, even one
illegally parked car on the street block our driveway could deny access for 42 cars in our lot.

 Please let me know if someone from your office would like to make a site visit so we can discuss in
person.

From: Jack C. Keller
Good Afternoon,

Thank you for reaching out regarding the proposed parking changes on Hungerford Terrace.

 The installation of parking chicanes is a proven traffic calming measure that reduces vehicle speeds by
requiring drivers to navigate around strategically placed parked cars. We have successfully
implemented similar projects on other streets in Burlington, improving safety for all road users while
maintaining on-street parking availability.

 Regarding your concerns about driveway access, we looked into it and have run some turning
movement models on your driveway onto Hungerford Terrace. It does seem that your driveway width is
inadequate for commercial use and, according to what we found, doesn’t accommodate a garbage truck
turning radius in either parking configuration. We don’t normally do this but in this case we would be
willing to give you a commercial grade 24 foot curb cut at that driveway entrance to increase
accessibility there.




 Page 14 of 91
 That said, if a vehicle is ever blocking your driveway, it is subject to towing. Any vehicle parked within
two feet of the straight-line edge of a driveway entrance is subject to a $150 fine. Although this should
be less of a concern if the driveway width is increased.

 We appreciate your input and will take your concerns into account. Please get back to me if you would
like us to move forward with increasing your driveway width to 24 ft and we will update you about
further steps.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:51 AM Jack C. Keller <jckeller@burlingtonvt.gov> wrote:

I’m sorry, to clarify: we would permit widening your driveway to a 24 ft curb cut. The City would not
be doing this work.

Thank you,

Jack Keller, P.E.

From: Hinsdale Properties <hinsdaleproperties@gmail.com>
Hi Jack,
We would like to move forward with widening the curb cut to 24 feet. Please let me know what the next
steps are.
From: Phillip Peterson, DPW
Hi Jacob,
I've included Alice Schwencke, DPW Excavation Inspector, in this conversation. She can assist you
with your curb cut permit.
Thanks for your flexibility!
Best,
Phillip Peterson P.E.
Senior Transportation Planner




 Page 15 of 91
Resident Email Correspondence #4: DPW Outreach to Robert Neale about ADA Spaces
(No response received)
From: Phillip Peterson
Hi Robert,

I wanted to follow up on our previous conversation regarding the ADA parking spaces on Hungerford
Terrace. Over the past month, we have been collecting data on the use of these spaces, and with the
exception of one morning, we have not observed any vehicles parked in them. On that one occasion, the
vehicle did not appear to have an ADA placard or plate, indicating it may have been parked
illegally. This data is important as we continue to assess the balance of parking needs in the
neighborhood.

In addition, we are evaluating a potential change in parking to the opposite side of the street to create a
parking chicane—a strategy that has been successfully implemented in other areas of the city. A
chicane involves staggered parking to create a natural traffic-calming effect, encouraging lower speeds
while maintaining parking availability. Speed data from other locations where we have introduced this
treatment shows measurable reductions in vehicle speeds, which improves safety for all road users,
including pedestrians and cyclists. This is important because parking along this one block section would
be switched to the other side of the street.

We will most likely bring this proposal—including the parking chicane and the removal of both ADA
spaces—to the Public Works Commission in March for consideration. Here is a link with details on the
upcoming meeting and more information about the Commission:
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/598/Public-Works-Commission.

I recognize that parking is a critical issue for you and appreciate your ongoing engagement. We will
continue to monitor the demand for ADA parking and the overall parking dynamics on Hungerford
Terrace to ensure equitable access for all residents.

Please feel free to reach out if you’d like to discuss this further.

Regards,

Phillip Peterson P.E.
Senior Transportation Planner




 Page 16 of 91
 City of Burlington
 Department of Public Work

 Technical Services Engineering Division
 645 Pine Street, Suite A
 Burlington, VT 05402
 P 802-863-9094 / F 802-863-0466 / TTY 802-863-0450
 www.burlingtonvt.gov?DPW




  Memo

Date: March 19, 2025

To: Public Works Commission

From: Julia Ursaki, PE, Public Works Engineer

CC: Chapin Spencer, Director of Public Works
 Laura Wheelock, PE, City Engineer/Division Director of Technical Services
 Phillip Peterson, PE, Public Works Engineer

Subject: No Turn on Red at Shelburne Street/Home Ave


Staff Recommendation:

Following the City Council’s adoption of the Shelburne Street, Home Avenue, and Farrell Street
Intersection Scoping Study, the Department of Public Works (DPW) recommends implementing
no turn on red at all times for Home Avenue and Farrell Street at Shelburne Street.

Staff recommend the DPW Commission pass the below motion amending Appendix C as
follows:

 “To adopt the below proposed amendments to Appendix C, Rules and Regulations of the
 Traffic Commission, Section 20 (Prohibition of turns on red signal), of the Code of
 Ordinances of the City of Burlington, in relation to implementing a no turn on red on
 Home Avenue and Farrell Street at Shelburne Street.

  Section 20 Prohibition of turns on red signal.
 Notwithstanding any general authorization otherwise contained in the statutes of
 the State of Vermont, the ordinances of the City of Burlington or the regulations
 of the board of traffic commissioners, it shall be unlawful at the following
 intersections within the City of Burlington for an operator of a motor vehicle to
 make a right-hand turn against a traffic signal which is indicating red:




 Page 17 of 91
 (b) At times when an illuminated sign indicating "No Turn On Red" is displayed
 to drivers at the following locations:

 (1-21) As written.

 (22) Home Avenue and Shelburne Street, eastbound.

 (23) Farrell Street and Shelburne Street, westbound.

Purpose & Need:

The purpose of this request is to prohibit right turns on red for vehicles on Home Ave and Farrell
Street turning onto Shelburne Street during the pedestrian phase. The need for this change is to
reduce the number of conflicts between right-turning vehicles and pedestrians crossing the
street, especially when DPW implements the exclusive pedestrian phase at this intersection, as
recommended in the Shelburne Street, Home Ave, and Farrell Street Intersection Scoping Study.



Project Checklist:

 N/A Yes No Reference
 Aligns with MUTCD X MUTCD Section 2B.60
 standards and/or
 established City Policy?
 Aligns with City Plans? X Shelburne/Home/Farrell
 Intersection Scoping Study
 Followed Public X This change is defined as an
 Engagement Plan? INFORM project in the Public
 Engagement Plan (PEP).


Background:

The right turn restriction and exclusive pedestrian phase are recommendations from the
Shelburne St, Home Ave, and Farrell St Intersection Scoping Study, which was adopted by the
City Council on December 9, 2024. This study was a collaboration between Burlington DPW,
the CCRPC, the City of South Burlington, and our engineering consultant Stantec, and was
funded through the CCRPC’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).

Purpose: The purpose the project was to develop concepts to improve intersection safety and
operations to meet the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit users at the
intersection of Shelburne Street, Home Avenue, and Farrell Street.




 Page 18 of 91
Need: Recognizing the importance of this intersection in the transportation system for the
Cities of Burlington and South Burlington, the following needs for the project were identified:

 1. There is a need to improve pedestrian safety in crosswalks: This intersection is listed as
 one of the Top 20 priority intersections for safety upgrades in planBTV Walk Bike
 (2017). The key problem listed is turning motorists not yielding to pedestrians in
 crosswalks.
 2. There is a need to improve pedestrian connectivity through and around the intersection
 and bike connectivity between Home Avenue and Farrell Street: Home Avenue is
 identified in planBTV Walk Bike (2017) as a significant walk-bike route in the southern
 part of the city, giving access from Shelburne Street to Pine Street and recreation
 areas like Oakledge Park. The intersection is also the western terminus of the South
 Burlington Recreation Path network. Public webmap feedback from the 2022 CCRPC
 Active Transportation Plan identified this intersection as an existing barrier to active
 transportation.
 3. There is a need to address existing congestion at the intersection during peak travel
 periods: Intersection capacity analysis results indicate traffic backs up significantly on
 the Shelburne Street approaches, extending past the signalized intersection to the
 south and past the next two minor street approaches to the north with Bacon Street
 and Scarff Avenue.
 4. There is a need to mitigate factors that contribute to a high number of crashes: This
 intersection is located within a High Crash Section between the I-189 off ramp and
 Hadley Road with 128 crashes during the 2012-2016 period. There was a fatal crash at
 this intersection in 2018.
 5. There is a need to enhance transit facilities: The intersection is located adjacent to busy
 commercial centers and dense residential neighborhoods and is on a primary transit
 line connecting Burlington to South Burlington and Shelburne. Both northbound and
 southbound bus stops have limited bicycle parking and need improved pedestrian
 facilities connecting to the nearby destinations.

Preferred Alternative Recommendation

The preferred alternative is to implement an exclusive pedestrian phase with no turn on red at
the Shelburne/Home intersection along with other short- and medium- term improvements
to the intersection. The preferred alternative prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle safety while
maintaining acceptable levels of traffic congestion in the area. Traffic models analyzed by the
project team show that this change in pedestrian phasing will not have an undue traffic
impact to this corridor, with the average vehicle delay increasing from 32.6 seconds to 34.9
seconds. Vehicle queueing is also not expected to change significantly throughout the
corridor with this change.

The additional short- and medium- term changes include:




 Page 19 of 91
  Removing and building new sidewalk segments to improve pedestrian circulation
 around the intersection
  Re-striping Shelburne Street to add more lane storage for northbound left turns from
 Shelburne Street to Home Avenue
  Re-striping the Home Avenue approach with an eastbound bike lane and westbound
 sharrows (complimenting a separate DPW initiative to add painted bike lanes on
 Home Avenue)
  Testing adjustments to the curb radii to shorten pedestrian crossings and reduce
 vehicle speeds (in collaboration with South Burlington)
  For South Burlington, closing two of the entrances to Walgreens and re-aligning Farrell
 Street

The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission also reviewed the signal timing and
phasing throughout the Shelburne Street corridor in Burlington. With our additional
capabilities from hardware installed this year, DPW will also implement signal coordination for
the study intersection and the two nearby signals (Shelburne Street/Gateway Plaza and
Shelburne Street/I-189 Ramp C) that operate very closely together.

The traffic signal equipment at this intersection was recently upgraded as part of the Class 1
paving project in 2023. This gives us more capabilities with the signal timing to implement
these recommendations. We are also coordinating with the Champlain Parkway construction
conditions, which have added traffic onto Home Avenue with the closure of Pine Street before
the Champlain Parkway connects to I-189.

Longer term, DPW expects traffic patterns to change on this portion of Shelburne Street when
the Champlain Parkway is fully open, so this project is only recommending short term
changes to the intersection that DPW can implement quickly. DPW expects to pursue a more
comprehensive study of this intersection that evaluates long-term options as part of a
corridor study for Shelburne Street after the Champlain Parkway is open and traffic patterns
normalize.



Next Steps:

If approved by the Public Works Commission, DPW Traffic will install the no turn on red signs in
the coming months. The exclusive pedestrian phase will also be implemented at this signal in
spring or summer of this year.

Attachments:

1. Traffic Regulation




 Page 20 of 91
 1 CITY OF BURLINGTON
 2
 3
 4 In the Year Two Thousand Twenty-four Sponsor(s): Public Works Commission
 5 Action: __________________
 6 A Regulation in Relation to Date: ____________________
 Attestation of Adoption: 7
 Rules and Regulations of the Traffic 8
 Commission— __________________________________9
 20 Prohibition of turns on red signal. Phillip Peterson, PE 10
 11
 Senior Transportation Planner, Technical Services
 Published: ________________________12
13 It is hereby Ordained by the Effective: _________________________
14 Public Works Commission of the
15 City of Burlington as follows:
16
17 That Appendix C, Rule and Regulations of the Traffic Commission, 20 Prohibition of turns on
18 red signal of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Burlington is hereby amended as follows:
19
20 20 Prohibition of turns on red signal.
21 Notwithstanding any general authorization otherwise contained in the statutes of the State of
22 Vermont, the ordinances of the City of Burlington or the regulations of the board of traffic
23 commissioners, it shall be unlawful at the following intersections within the City of Burlington
24 for an operator of a motor vehicle to make a right-hand turn against a traffic signal which is
25 indicating red:
26
27 (b) At times when an illuminated sign indicating "No Turn On Red" is displayed to
28 drivers at the following locations:
29
30 (1)-(21) As written.
31 (22) Home Avenue and Shelburne Street, eastbound.
32 (23) Farrell Street and Shelburne Street, westbound.
33
34 ** Material stricken out deleted.
35 *** Material underlined added.
36
37 BCO Appx.C, Section 20
38 3/19/25




 Page 21 of 91
 City of Burlington
 Department of Public Works

 Technical Services Engineering Division
 645 Pine Street, Suite A
 Burlington, VT 05402
 P 802-863-9094 / F 802-863-0466 / TTY 802-863-0450
 www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPW




 Memo
Date: March 19, 2025

To: Public Works Commission (PWC)

From: Julia Ursaki, PE, Public Works Engineer
 Phillip Peterson, PE, Senior Transportation Planner

CC: Chapin Spencer, Director of Public Works
 Laura Wheelock, PE, City Engineer/Division Director – Technical Services

Subject: Battery Street Scoping Study Preferred Alternative Approval



Request:
We are respectfully requesting that the PWC approve the following motion:

 The Public Works Commission approves and recommends that the City Council approve the
 Battery Street Scoping Study Project Advisory Committee’s selection of revised Alternative 2 as the
 preferred alternative for this study.

Preferred Alternative Recommendation

The Project Advisory Committee and Project Team recommend a two-way separated bike lanes along
the west-side of Battery Street as the preferred alternative. It also includes a lane reconfiguration that
reduces the number of lanes from four to three, shortened pedestrian crossings, traffic signal
improvements, and space for additional Great Streets design elements like green stormwater
infrastructure, healthy street trees, benches, and public art. Attachment 1 is an executive summary of
the report and includes a graphic of the preferred alternative.

The two-way separated bike lanes are recommended after an extensive evaluation process
incorporating public input, technical analysis, and stakeholder collaboration. This design provides
enhanced connectivity to critical destinations, including Battery Park and the Waterfront, while
minimizing conflicts and improving safety for all users. Key advantages of Alternative 2 include:




 Page 22 of 91
  Safety and Accessibility: The two-way separated bike lane provides a low-stress environment
 for cyclists while maintaining consistent pedestrian accommodations and enhancing crossing
 safety with extended leading pedestrian intervals (advanced walk time for pedestrians).
  Traffic Operations: The design balances multimodal improvements with efficient traffic flow,
 resulting in lower congestion levels and shorter travel times compared to other alternatives.
  Parking Preservation: Alternative 2 retains more on-street parking than Alternative 1, reducing
 impacts to residents, businesses, and visitors by maintaining 27 of 42 spaces in the southern
 segment.

Alternative 2 represents a balanced solution that addresses the corridor’s safety, accessibility, and
connectivity challenges while aligning with Burlington’s long-term vision for sustainable
transportation.
Important to note, survey results indicated a preference for Alternative 2, with 64% of respondents
favoring the two-way separated bike lanes or liked both alternatives equally. Public meeting attendees
consistently emphasized the need for improved pedestrian safety at intersections, which influenced the
inclusion of extended leading pedestrian intervals and shorter crossing distances at all intersections.



Purpose & Need

Project Purpose

The purpose of the Battery Street Scoping Study is to identify and prioritize short- and long-term
improvements that provide equitable, safe, low-stress, and accessible transportation for all along and
across Battery Street, regardless of age, ability, or mode of travel.

Project Needs

The needs for this project are driven by deficiencies in Battery Street’s current transportation
infrastructure and by a need for comprehensive corridor planning. These requirements are further
articulated below:

  Improve corridor and intersection safety for all users: Over the five-year period from 2018
 to 2022, there were 216 crashes along the Battery Street corridor, with over 80% of these
 crashes occurring at intersections. Along Battery Street’s four-lane section, the most common
 crash type was rear-ending incidents. There were nine injury-related crashes involving
 vulnerable users, with five involving pedestrians and four involving bicyclists. Among several
 factors, Battery Street’s wide cross-section leads to high speeds, and its variable lane
 configurations lead to driver confusion at the areas of highest consequence – intersections.
  Enhance comfort and accessibility for pedestrians along Battery Street: Battery Street
 represents the downtown core’s western boundary and functions as a barrier between the
 waterfront and downtown for pedestrians traveling between these popular destinations. The
 street's four-lane cross-section creates lengthy crossings for people on foot and/or using
 mobility-aid devices. Published in 2016, Burlington’s Great Streets Standards establish a




 Page 23 of 91
 Modal Hierarchy to guide the design of downtown’s streets, with pedestrian travel taking
 priority over all other modes.
  Provide end-to-end bicycle facilities and connections: Currently, Battery Street contains
 one two-block-long striped bike lane between Pearl Street and Sherman Street northbound
 only. In Burlington’s Walk Bike Master Plan, “planBTV Walk Bike”, Battery Street was identified
 by City residents as a top 5 “worst” street for walking and biking. In addition, in its Long-Term
 Plan, PlanBTV Walk Bike identified Battery Street as a corridor in need of protected
 (separated) bike lanes. Moreover, there are several designs ongoing or completed designs
 that include bicycle facilities that will connect into or across Battery Street. These efforts
 include a shared-use path proposed by the Railyard Enterprise Project and separated bike
 lanes designed for Main Street and North Champlain Street.
  Integrate street ecology into Battery Street’s overall design: Battery Street’s proximity to
 Lake Champlain and steep topography emphasize the need for critical street ecology
 improvements. Additionally, like most of the downtown core, Battery Street is in Burlington’s
 Combined Sewer Area. In its current condition, Battery Street lacks any stormwater
 management practices. Additionally, it has large areas of impervious surfaces within the right-
 of-way, but outside of the motor vehicle travel way, like the wide sidewalks that abut building
 fronts. In line with the City’s goals of easing the burden on the combined system, and to be in
 line with Burlington’s Great Streets standards, Battery Street needs to better integrate
 sustainable street ecology and stormwater management practices.
  Provide acceptable mobility for all modes of transportation along Battery Street: While
 Battery Street represents a critical north-south commuter route for motorists, the use of its
 transportation right-of-way disproportionately favors the driving population. Along the full
 length of the project corridor, over one-half of this right-of-way – and in some cases more
 than two-thirds – is occupied by paved surfaces that exclusively serve drivers and motor
 vehicle use. While the existing sidewalks stretch the full length of the corridor, they are, for
 the most part, designed to the minimum standard, and in some locations share lengths of
 spaces with motor vehicles. Additionally, there is only one short stretch of striped bike lane
 along the full corridor. There is a need to provide a more equitable use of space for walkers
 and bikers, while not significantly compromising Battery Street as a commuter route.



Public Engagement

A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) served as a key stakeholder group throughout the project,
offering input at every stage of the study. Comprising representatives from city agencies, green
mountain transit, advocacy groups, the Burlington business association, and NPA representatives, the
committee provided valuable insights to be sure the study reflected community priorities. The PAC
met four times throughout the study to provide input on the vision for the Battery Street corridor,
alternatives development, alternative refinement, and selecting a preferred alternative. Alternative 2
was ultimately selected as the preferred alternative by the PAC.




 Page 24 of 91
The broader public engagement process was robust, inclusive, and designed to ensure diverse
community representation. Engagement activities included public meetings, surveys, tabling events,
and targeted outreach. The feedback gathered informed every stage of the study, from identifying
challenges to selecting the Preferred Alternative.

  Local Concerns Meeting (May 2023): this meeting introduced the project to the public and
 solicited input on existing conditions and desired improvements. Key themes included the
 need for safer pedestrian crossings, particularly at College and Main Streets, a desire for
 protected bike lanes along the entire corridor, and concerns about maintaining parking for
 businesses and residents.
  Draft Alternatives Meeting (March 2024): the Draft Alternatives Presentation showcased two
 initial design concepts (Alternatives 1 and 2). Key feedback included strong support for
 separated bike lanes, with mixed opinions on one-way versus two-way configurations,
 concerns about the loss of parking spaces, particularly between Maple and Main Streets, and
 general support for traffic calming measures, including the proposed road diet.
  Public Surveys (April 2023 and March 2024): the first survey gathered general feedback on the
 corridor and asked participants where they observed issues or opportunities for improvement
 along Battery Street. The second survey asked participants to determine which alternative
 they prefer. The survey indicated a preference for Alternative 2.



Alternative Analysis

This study evaluated three alternatives, including:

  Alternative 1: One-way separated bike lanes (on either side of the street)
  Alternative 2: Two-way separated bike lanes (on the west side of the street)
  Alternative 3: Hybrid of 1 & 2, with a two-way separated bike lane between Maple Street and
 Main Street, and one-way separated bike lanes between Main Street and Sherman Street.

All alternatives include a lane reconfiguration on Battery Street, however, the traffic signal timing
differs among the alternatives based on the need to provide different types of phasing for bicyclists
to safely cross intersections. Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need of this project to the greatest
extent of all options considered.



Implementation Approach and Timeline

Short Term (within 5 years)

  Implement the road diet and bike lanes with signing, pavement markings and signal
 modifications between Main Street and Pearl Street.
  Initiate preliminary engineering & design




 Page 25 of 91
Long Term (within 10 years)

  Secure construction funding
  Begin construction

The preliminary cost estimate for Alternative 2 is approximately $31.4 million, covering design,
engineering, and construction. Potential funding sources include federal transportation grants, local
bond measures, and partnerships with state agencies. Developing a detailed funding strategy will be
a priority during the preliminary engineering phase.



Next Steps

  The Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee (TEUC) of the City Council approved the
 preferred alternative at their meeting on February 24, 2025.
  DPW staff will bring the preferred alternative to City Council for approval on March 24, 2025.
  DPW applied for UPWP funding review the existing signals and changes needed to implement
 the road diet in the near term. This effort will be underway during fiscal year 2026.



Attachments

 1. Executive Summary
 2. Scoping Report




 Page 26 of 91
Battery Street Scoping Study




Battery Street Scoping Study
Executive Summary
Burlington, Vermont

PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY




110 West Canal Street 40 IDX Drive
Suite 202 Building 100, Suite 200
Winooski, VT 05404 South Burlington, Vermont 05403
802.846.4494 802.497.6100

FEBRUARY 2025




 Page 27 of 91
 Executive Summary
 The Battery Street Scoping Study examined the Battery Street corridor from Maple Street to
 Sherman Street to identify and prioritize a suite of short- and long-term transportation
 improvements that provide equitable, safe, low-stress, accessible transportation for all road users
 along this important north-south route that doubles as a gateway between the downtown and
 waterfront districts. Recognized in planBTV’s Walk Bike Master Plan as a priority location for
 transportation improvements, Battery Street was previously reported as one of the top five
 streets in the city that survey respondents felt the least safe to walk or bike on. The
 recommendations identified in this study were arrived at through an extensive public and
 stakeholder engagement process, combined with an in-depth evaluation of relevant planning
 and design considerations of Battery Street.


 Project Purpose
 The purpose of the Battery Street Scoping Study is to identify and prioritize short- and long-term
 improvements that provide equitable, safe, low-stress, and accessible transportation for all along
 and across Battery Street, regardless of age, ability, or mode of travel.


 Project Needs
 The needs for this project are driven by deficiencies in Battery Street’s current transportation
 infrastructure and by a need for comprehensive corridor planning. These requirements are
 further articulated below:

 › Improve corridor and intersection safety for all users: Over the five-year period from
 2018 to 2022, there were 216 crashes along the Battery Street corridor, with over 80% of
 these crashes occurring at intersections. Along Battery Street’s four-lane section, the most
 common crash type was rear-ending incidents. There were nine injury-related crashes
 involving vulnerable users, with five involving pedestrians and four involving bicyclists.
 Among several factors, Battery Street’s wide cross-section leads to high speeds, and its
 variable lane configurations lead to driver confusion at the areas of highest consequence –
 intersections.
 › Enhance comfort and accessibility for pedestrians along Battery Street: Battery Street
 represents the downtown core’s western boundary and functions as a barrier between the
 waterfront and downtown for pedestrians traveling between these popular destinations. The
 street's four-lane cross-section creates lengthy crossings for people on foot and/or using
 mobility-aid devices. Published in 2016, Burlington’s Great Streets Standards establish a
 Modal Hierarchy to guide the design of downtown’s streets, with pedestrian travel taking
 priority over all other modes.
 › Provide end-to-end bicycle facilities and connections: Currently, Battery Street contains
 one two-block-long striped bike lane between Pearl Street and Sherman Street northbound
 only. In Burlington’s Walk Bike Master Plan, “planBTV Walk Bike”, Battery Street was
 identified by City residents as a top 5 “worst” street for walking and biking. In addition,
 planBTV Walk Bike identified Battery Street as a corridor in need of protected (separated)
 bike lanes. Moreover, there are several designs ongoing or completed designs that include
 bicycle facilities that will connect into or across Battery Street. These efforts include a shared-




2 Executive Summary
 Page 28 of 91
 use path proposed by the Railyard Enterprise Project and separated bike lanes designed for
 Main Street and North Champlain Street.
 › Integrate street ecology into Battery Street’s overall design: Battery Street’s proximity to
 Lake Champlain and steep topography emphasize the need for critical street ecology
 improvements. Additionally, like most of the downtown core, Battery Street is in Burlington’s
 Combined Sewer Area. In its current condition, Battery Street lacks any stormwater
 management practices. Additionally, it has large areas of impervious surfaces within the
 right-of-way, but outside of the motor vehicle travel way, like the wide sidewalks that abut
 building fronts. In line with the City’s goals of easing the burden on the combined system,
 and to be in line with Burlington’s Great Streets standards, Battery Street needs to better
 integrate sustainable street ecology and stormwater management practices.
 › Provide acceptable mobility for all modes of transportation along Battery Street: While
 Battery Street represents a critical north-south commuter route for motorists, the use of its
 transportation right-of-way disproportionately favors the driving population. Along the full
 length of the project corridor, over one-half of this right-of-way – and in some cases more
 than two-thirds – is occupied by paved surfaces that exclusively serve drivers and motor
 vehicle use. While the existing sidewalks stretch the full length of the corridor, they are, for
 the most part, designed to the minimum standard, and in some locations share lengths of
 spaces with motor vehicles. Additionally, there is only one short stretch of striped bike lane
 along the full corridor. There is a need to provide a more equitable use of space for walkers
 and bikers, while not significantly compromising Battery Street as a commuter route.



 Stakeholder and Public Engagement
 Project Advisory Committee
 The Project Advisory Committee served as a key stakeholder group throughout the project,
 offering input at every stage of the study. Comprising representatives from city departments
 (Public Works; Parks, Recreation & Waterfront; City Planning; Racial Equity, Inclusion &
 Belonging), Burlington City Council, Green Mountain Transit, the Burlington Walk Bike Council,
 the Burlington Business Association, DPW Commission, and NPA representatives, the committee
 provided valuable insights to be sure the study reflected community priorities.

 Visioning and Needs Identification
 Early meetings focused on identifying challenges along Battery Street and establishing the
 Purpose and Need Statement. Discussions emphasized speeding, safety concerns at
 intersections, and the lack of multimodal infrastructure. Committee members highlighted the
 corridor’s potential to become a safer, more vibrant public space.

 Alternatives Development
 The committee played an active role in reviewing and refining the alternatives. Members
 provided feedback on the design and layout of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking
 configurations, and connections to adjacent projects like the Railyard Enterprise Project.




3 Executive Summary
 Page 29 of 91
 Consensus Building
 During later meetings, the committee reviewed the detailed alternatives analysis, which included
 metrics such as safety, connectivity, and traffic operations. Although opinions were initially
 divided, the committee eventually supported Alternative 2 as their recommended preferred
 alternative, citing its balance of multimodal benefits, reduced parking impacts, and improved
 traffic flow.

 The committee’s iterative feedback was instrumental in shaping the study’s final
 recommendations, ensuring that the project aligned with Burlington’s transportation and
 community goals.

 Recommended Preferred Alternative Presentation
 The fourth Advisory Committee meeting in September 2024 presented Alternative 3 (a hybrid
 option) alongside refinements to Alternatives 1 and 2. Committee input emphasized the
 importance of connectivity to adjacent projects, such as the Railyard Enterprise Project, and
 maintaining parking availability.


 Public Engagement
 The public engagement process was robust, inclusive, and designed to ensure diverse
 community representation. Engagement activities included public meetings, surveys, tabling
 events, and targeted outreach. The feedback gathered informed every stage of the study, from
 identifying challenges to recommending the preferred alternative.

 Local Concerns Meeting
 Held in May 2023, this meeting introduced the project to the public and solicited input on
 existing conditions and desired improvements. Attendees participated in an open house, where
 they reviewed corridor data and provided feedback on challenges such as unsafe crossings,
 speeding, and the lack of bicycle facilities. Key themes included:

 › The need for safer pedestrian crossings, particularly at College and Main Streets.
 › A desire for protected bike lanes along the entire corridor.
 › Concerns about maintaining parking for businesses and residents.

 Draft Alternatives Meeting
 In March 2024, the Draft Alternatives Presentation showcased two initial design concepts
 (Alternatives 1 and 2) and gathered public input through interactive sessions. Attendees placed
 comments on large maps of the alternatives, highlighting preferences and concerns. Key
 feedback included:

 › Strong support for separated bike lanes, with mixed opinions on one-way versus two-way
 configurations.
 › Concerns about the loss of parking spaces, particularly between Maple and Main Streets.
 › General support for traffic calming measures, including the proposed road diet.
 › Via a straw poll of those in attendance, Alternative 2 received the most support, particularly
 for its balance of multimodal benefits and reduced parking impacts.




4 Executive Summary
 Page 30 of 91
 Targeted Outreach
 In the interest of being as equitable as possible during community outreach, the project team
 conducted targeted outreach to traditionally underserved groups and stakeholders unable to
 attend public meetings. Efforts included tabling events at local businesses, a radio interview,
 engagement with students, meetings with the CCRPC Equity Advisory Committee, Burlington’s
 Trusted Community Voices, and presentations to community organizations. This outreach
 reinforced the importance of safety, accessibility, and connectivity in the corridor’s redesign.

 Public Surveys
 In April 2023, a public survey was shared to gather input on potential improvements to the
 Battery Street corridor. Participants identified specific locations along the corridor where they
 observed issues or opportunities for improvement and their related mode of travel.

 Feedback from this survey, along with input from the Local Concerns Meeting, was reviewed and
 synthesized into common themes. Respondents frequently emphasized the need for safety and
 accessibility improvements along the corridor. The distribution of comments by travel mode was
 as follows: 33% related to walking, 31% to biking, 19% to driving, 10% to other modes, and 8%
 to crossing points,.

 Following the Draft Alternatives presentation in March 2024, the city shared a survey to poll the
 general public on their preference for an alternative. The survey asked respondents to determine
 if they prefer Alternative 1, Alternative 2, both equally, or neither. 166 people responded and the
 results are listed below.

 › Alternative 1: 50
 › Alternative 2: 75
 › Both Equally: 31
 › Neither: 10

 Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee (TEUC) Presentation
 The project team presented the findings of the scoping study as well as the recommended
 preferred alternative to the TEUC on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. The report was updated based
 on input from the TEUC. These revisions included updates to the Targeted Outreach and
 Alternatives Analysis sections. The recommended preferred alternative was also updated based
 on TEUC and public input; these updates are summarized below under, “Preferred Alternative”.



 Alternatives Analysis
 Following the preliminary public engagement process and existing conditions analysis,
 conceptual alternatives were developed for Battery Street. Each alternative was developed to
 meet the project’s needs: enhancing safety, accessibility, and connectivity for all users, while
 supporting a vibrant and cohesive urban corridor linking Burlington’s downtown with its
 waterfront. The alternatives consider various approaches to address the needs identified in the
 study, including improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, adjustments to traffic flow, and
 integration of green stormwater practices.




5 Executive Summary
 Page 31 of 91
 The alternatives were compared based on several key metrics, including safety improvements,
 impacts on mobility, environmental considerations, and alignment with the project’s Purpose &
 Need(s) statement. This analysis aimed to recommend a preferred alternative that balances user
 needs, aligns with city planning objectives, and ensures long-term viability of the Battery Street
 corridor as a multimodal transportation route.


 Corridor Alternatives: Considerations
 The development of conceptual alternatives for the Battery Street corridor centered on five key
 considerations to address the project’s Purpose and Need:

 › Road Diet: Public input and technical analysis highlighted the feasibility of reducing the
 corridor’s lane configuration to calm traffic and create space for multimodal infrastructure.
 › Bicycle Facilities: The study determined that separated bike lanes are essential for user
 safety and meeting needs. The selected designs align with national guidance, including the
 FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide.
 › Pedestrian Accommodations: Alternatives incorporated measures such as curb extensions,
 consistent curb radii, and extended leading pedestrian intervals (advanced walk time for
 pedestrians) to improve crossing safety and reduce pedestrian wait times.
 › Parking: Maintaining on-street parking, particularly between Maple and Main Streets, was a
 critical priority identified through public and stakeholder input.

 › Traffic: Each alternative was evaluated using traffic simulations to balance multimodal safety
 with acceptable levels of service for vehicles.

 These considerations shaped the three alternatives described below that reflect distinct
 approaches to achieving the project’s goals.

 Alternative 1: One-Way Separated Bike Lanes
 Alternative 1 includes one-way separated bike lanes on both sides of Battery Street, offering high
 levels of safety and comfort for cyclists by physically separating them from vehicular traffic. This
 design aligns with the road diet and incorporates pedestrian-focused improvements to
 intersections. However, this alternative results in significant tradeoffs, including the loss of 29
 parking spaces between Maple and Main Streets and the highest levels of traffic congestion
 among the alternatives. End-to-end there is a 98% increase in travel time delay for northbound
 and a 94% increase for southbound traffic.

 While Alternative 1 increases cyclist safety, its impacts on parking and traffic delay generated
 mixed reactions from the public and stakeholders. The design requires careful consideration to
 balance the needs of all users while ensuring community support for the corridor’s
 transformation.

 Alternative 2: Two-Way Separated Bike Lanes
 Alternative 2 proposes two-way separated bike lanes along the west side of Battery Street,
 enhancing connectivity to key destinations such as Battery Park and the Waterfront. This design
 minimizes crossing conflicts for cyclists and reduces parking impacts compared to Alternative 1,
 preserving 27 of 42 spaces in the southern segment (with the ability to maintain 39 of the spaces,
 similar to Alternative 3, discussed in the next section).



6 Executive Summary
 Page 32 of 91
 Traffic operations under Alternative 2 are more favorable, with lower congestion levels and
 shorter travel times than Alternative 1. End-to-end there is a 19% increase in travel time delay for
 northbound and a 40% increase for southbound traffic. The west-side alignment simplifies signal
 phasing, allowing more efficient traffic flow while maintaining safety. As a result, Alternative 2
 offers a balanced approach that prioritizes multimodal connectivity while addressing parking and
 traffic concerns.

 Alternative 3: Hybrid of Alternatives 1 & 2
 Alternative 3 was developed at the request of the AC and combines elements of the first two
 alternatives, featuring two-way separated bike lanes south of Main Street and one-way bike lanes
 north of Main Street. This design aligns the southern segment with the proposed shared-use
 path from the Railyard Enterprise Project while preserving up to 39 parking spaces in the
 southern segment through width reductions and the removal of green space.

 Although Alternative 3 maintains greater parking than Alternative 1 and improved connectivity in
 the southern blocks, it introduces complexity at intersections and requires additional signal
 adjustments to manage turning conflicts effectively. End-to-end there is a 61% increase in travel
 time delay for northbound and a 15% increase for southbound traffic. This hybrid solution offers
 a flexible approach, addressing multiple priorities while balancing tradeoffs in connectivity,
 parking, and traffic performance.


 Preferred Alternative
 Alternative 2 was recommended as the preferred alternative for the Battery Street corridor after
 an extensive evaluation process incorporating public input, technical analysis, and stakeholder
 collaboration. This design provides enhanced connectivity to critical destinations, including
 Battery Park and the Waterfront, while minimizing conflicts and improving safety for all users.

 Key advantages of Alternative 2 include:

 › Safety and Accessibility: The two-way separated bike lane provides a low-stress
 environment for cyclists while maintaining consistent pedestrian accommodations and
 enhancing crossing safety with extended leading pedestrian intervals (advanced walk time
 for pedestrians).
 › Traffic Operations: The design balances multimodal improvements with efficient traffic flow,
 resulting in lower congestion levels and shorter travel times compared to other alternatives.
 › Parking Preservation: Alternative 2 (formerly retaining 27 spaces, now retaining 39) retains
 more on-street parking than Alternative 1 (13 spaces). Please see further updates below in
 the summary of the January 28, 2025 TEUC meeting regarding additional revisions made to
 on-street parking layout.

 The recommended preferred alternative was refined based on Advisory Committee and public
 feedback, including adjustments to bike lane buffers, intersection configurations, and green
 space to further enhance safety and functionality. Specific refinements included:

 › Adding more separation between the two-way bike lanes near Battery Park to address
 concerns about varying cyclist speeds on steeper grades.
 › Removing the southbound right-turn lane at College Street to shorten pedestrian crossing
 distances.



7 Executive Summary
 Page 33 of 91
 › Modifying the cross-section near businesses, such as the April Cornell building, to increase
 frontage while maintaining minimum bike lane requirements.

 Lastly, following the presentation to the TEUC on January 28, 2025, the recommended preferred
 alternative was further refined based on TEUC input, and additional public feedback. Specific
 refinements included:
 › Parking is now maintained on both sides of Battery Street between Maple Street and Main
 Street, retaining 39 of the existing 42 parking spaces. This revision is feasible by reducing the
 amount of green space and removing several trees on the east side of Battery Street. This
 modification creates a narrower cross-section for all users and results in more “friction” but
 does maintain on-street parking to the greatest extent possible.
 › Just south of Cherry Street, left-turn pockets in the southbound direction have been added
 for improved access to the hotels.

 › The loading zone in front of the Courtyard Marriott has been restored.

 The refined Alternative 2 represents a balanced solution that addresses the corridor’s safety,
 accessibility, and connectivity challenges while aligning with Burlington’s long-term vision for
 sustainable transportation.

 The following page includes a layout plan of the recommended preferred alternative.



 Implementation
 The recommended improvements for Battery Street could be implemented in phases, depending
 on the availability of funding and progress on adjacent projects. The following represents a
 potential short-term and long-term implementation plan for the corridor.


 Short-Term Recommendations – Within 5-Years:
 › Initiate preliminary design
 • Develop the engineering design to anticipate grade differentials between the roadway,
 sidewalk, and separated bike lanes and their implications on construction phasing.
 › Implement the road diet and two-way separated bike lanes with signing, pavement
 markings and signal modifications between Main Street and Pearl Street
 • Incorporate the road diet and separated bike lanes into planned updates to pavement
 markings or repaving, providing an opportunity to initiate improvements while design
 work continues.
 • Leverage the City’s Quick Build Design + Materials Standard Guide
 › Finalize engineering design


 Long-Term Recommendations – Within 10-Years:
 › Secure funding & begin construction

 This phased approach provides a framework for advancing the Battery Street improvements in a
 way that aligns with funding availability, minimizes community disruption, and ensures a
 cohesive connection to broader transportation initiatives.




8 Executive Summary
 Page 34 of 91
9
 6' 12' 8' 11' 10' 11' 20' 8' 6'
 .




 .
 3'
 R
 I
 FE
 N
 A
 LE



 R
 I
 FE Maple Street
 N
 A
 LE
Exective Summary




 6'4'7.5' 11' 11' 7.5'
 3'10' 4'6'




 Cherry Street King Street




 4.5' 3'




 11' 10.5' 8' 11' 11' 8' 6' 6' 5'
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 5' 12' 11' 11' 12' 11' 16' 8'3'6'




 Main Street
 Pearl Street
 Preferred Alternative (Refined Alternative 2)




 10' 14' 11' 11' 11' 8' 8' 16'



 3' 2'




 5' 11' 11' 11' 11' 10' 6'


 4' 4'




 Monroe Street
 College Street




 5' 13' 11' 11' 11' 10' 6'



 4' 4'



 8' 20' 11' 11' 11' 18' 10' 6'




 0




 50
 Sherman Street
 Feet




Page 35 of 91
Battery Street Scoping Study




Battery Street Scoping Study
Burlington, Vermont

PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY




110 West Canal Street 40 IDX Drive
Suite 202 Building 100, Suite 200
Winooski, VT 05404 South Burlington, Vermont 05403
802.846.4494 802.497.6100



FEBRUARY 2025




 Page 36 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




 Table of Contents

 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

 1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 2
 1.2 Project Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................................. 3
 1.2.1 Project Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 3
 1.2.2 Project Needs ...................................................................................................................................... 3

 2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 5

 2.1 Study Corridor Description ............................................................................................................................. 6
 2.2 Land Use & Zoning Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 7
 2.3 Transportation System Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 8
 2.4 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 12
 2.5 Crash Data Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 13
 2.6 Key Destinations ................................................................................................................................................ 14
 2.6.1 Destinations........................................................................................................................................ 14
 2.7 Review of Previous Studies ........................................................................................................................... 15
 2.7.1 2024 Northern Waterfront Connections ................................................................................. 15
 2.7.2 2023 Amtrak Connections ............................................................................................................ 15
 2.7.3 2022 Chittenden County Active Transportation Plan Update ........................................ 15
 2.7.4 2020 Railyard Enterprise Project (REP) Supplemental Scoping ..................................... 16
 2.7.5 2017 planBTV Walk Bike Master Plan ....................................................................................... 16
 2.7.6 2016 Great Streets Initiative ......................................................................................................... 16
 2.7.7 2013 planBTV Downtown and Waterfront Plan ................................................................... 16
 2.7.8 2011 Transportation Plan for the City of Burlington .......................................................... 17
 2.8 Review of Ongoing Projects and Studies ................................................................................................ 17
 2.8.1 Railyard Enterprise Project (REP) ................................................................................................ 17
 2.8.2 Main Street Great Streets Project .............................................................................................. 17
 2.8.3 CityPlace Burlington ........................................................................................................................ 18
 2.8.4 Champlain Parkway ......................................................................................................................... 18
 2.8.5 Great Streets Project - Bank and Cherry Street .................................................................... 18

 3 Public Outreach ...........................................................................................................................19

 3.1 Public Involvement Plan ................................................................................................................................. 20
 3.2 Project Advisory Committee ......................................................................................................................... 20
 3.2.1 Advisory Committee Meeting #1............................................................................................... 21
 3.2.2 Advisory Committee Meeting #2............................................................................................... 21
 3.2.3 Advisory Committee Meeting #3............................................................................................... 22
 3.2.4 Advisory Committee Meeting #4............................................................................................... 22
 3.3 Local Concerns Meeting ................................................................................................................................ 23
 3.4 Draft Alternatives Meeting ............................................................................................................................ 24
 3.5 Burlington Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee (TEUC) ............................................. 24
 3.6 ArcGIS StoryMap and Public Surveys ........................................................................................................ 25



i Table of Contents
 Page 37 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 3.7 Targeted Outreach ............................................................................................................................................ 27
 3.7.1 One-on-One Meeting with April Cornell – January 23, 2024 ......................................... 27
 3.7.2 One-on-One Meeting with Burlington Bay – January 26, 2024..................................... 28

 4 Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................................................29

 4.1 Conceptual Alternatives: Considerations ................................................................................................ 30
 4.1.1 Road Diet ............................................................................................................................................. 30
 4.1.2 Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 30
 4.1.3 Pedestrian Accommodations at Intersections ...................................................................... 31
 4.1.4 On-Street Parking............................................................................................................................. 32
 4.1.5 Traffic ..................................................................................................................................................... 33
 4.1.6 Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 33
 4.1.7 Streetscape & Stormwater Management ............................................................................... 33
 4.2 Alternative 1: One-Way Separated Bike Lanes ...................................................................................... 34
 4.2.1 Active Transportation & Parking ................................................................................................ 34
 4.2.2 Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 34
 4.2.3 Alternative 1 Summary................................................................................................................... 35
 4.3 Alternative 2: Two-Way Separated Bike Lanes ...................................................................................... 37
 4.3.1 Active Transportation & Parking ................................................................................................ 37
 4.3.2 Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 37
 4.3.3 Alternative 2 Summary................................................................................................................... 38
 4.4 Alternative 3: A Hybrid Option – Two-Way Separated Bike Lanes (Maple Street to Main
 Street) and One-Way Separated Bike Lanes (Main Street to Sherman Street) ......................... 40
 4.4.1 Active Transportation & Parking ................................................................................................ 40
 4.4.2 Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 40
 4.4.1 Alternative 3 Summary................................................................................................................... 41
 4.5 Conceptual Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 43
 4.6 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix ..................................................................................................................... 43

 5 Recommended Preferred Alternative & Implementation Plan ...............................................44

 5.1 Recommended Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................................... 45
 5.1.1  Presentation to the Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee (TEUC) and
 Subsequent Revisions ..................................................................................................................... 46
 5.1.2  Additional Considerations ............................................................................................................ 46
 5.2 Implementation Plan & Funding Opportunities ................................................................................... 48
 5.2.1  Proposed Implementation Timeline ......................................................................................... 48
 5.2.2  Funding Opportunities ................................................................................................................... 49




ii Table of Contents
 Page 38 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




 List of Tables

 Table No. Description Page

 Table 1 Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................. 12

 Table 2 Alternative 1 Traffic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 35

 Table 3 Alternative 2 Traffic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 38

 Table 4 Alternative 3 Traffic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 41

 Table 5 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix ........................................................................................................... 43




 List of Figures

 Figure No. Description Page

 Figure 1 Battery Street Looking North Toward the College Street Intersection ............................... 2

 Figure 2 Project Study Area.................................................................................................................................... 6

 Figure 3 Zoning Surrounding Project Extents ................................................................................................. 7

 Figure 4 Two-Lane Configuration between Maple and King Street .................................................... 11

 Figure 5 Eastern and Northern Crosswalks at the College Street Intersection ................................ 11

 Figure 6 Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................................... 11

 Figure 7 Bike Lane between Pearl and Sherman Street ............................................................................ 11

 Figure 8 Reported Crash Location Heat Map (2018 -2022 Crash Data) ............................................. 13

 Figure 9 Battery Park Paved Path ....................................................................................................................... 14

 Figure 10 Sidewalk by April Cornell..................................................................................................................... 14

 Figure 11 Public Involvement Plan....................................................................................................................... 20

 Figure 12 Engagement at the Local Concerns Meeting .............................................................................. 23

 Figure 13 Engagement at the Draft Alternatives Meeting ......................................................................... 24

 Figure 14 StoryMap Cover Page ........................................................................................................................... 25

 Figure 15 Tabling Pop Up at Western side of Cherry Street Intersection ............................................ 27

 Figure 16 Four-Lane Cross-Section between College and Cherry Street ............................................. 30

 Figure 17 FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide ....................................................................................................... 31

 Figure 18 Two-Way Separated Bike Lane ......................................................................................................... 31



iii Table of Contents
 Page 39 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 Figure 19 Maple Street Intersection .................................................................................................................... 32

 Figure 20 College Street Intersection ................................................................................................................. 32

 Figure 21 Number of Existing On-Street Parking Spaces between Maple and Main Street ........ 32

 Figure 22 50-Scale Layout Plan of Alternative 1 ............................................................................................ 36

 Figure 23 50-Scale Layout Plan of Alternative 2 ............................................................................................ 39

 Figure 24 50-Scale Layout Plan of Alternative 3 ............................................................................................ 42

 Figure 25 50-Scale Layout Plan of the Recommended Preferred Alternative .................................... 47




 Appendices

 A. Traffic Volume Data

 B. Crash Data

 C. Public Meeting Materials

 D. Traffic Analysis

 E. Supplementary Conceptual Alternatives

 F. Supplementary Cost Estimates

 G. Preferred Alternative Conceptual Plan




iv Table of Contents
 Page 40 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




1
 Introduction
 The Battery Street Scoping Study examined the Battery Street corridor
 from Maple Street to Sherman Street to identify and prioritize a suite of
 short- and long-term transportation improvements that provide equitable,
 safe, low-stress, accessible transportation for all road users along this
 important north-south route that doubles as a gateway between the
 downtown and waterfront districts. Recognized in planBTV’s Walk Bike
 Master Plan as a priority location for transportation improvements, Battery
 Street was previously reported as one of the top five streets in the city that
 survey respondents felt the least safe to walk or bike on. The
 recommendations identified in this study were arrived at through an
 extensive public and stakeholder engagement process, combined with an
 in-depth evaluation of relevant planning and design considerations of
 Battery Street.




1 Introduction
 Page 41 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



1.1 Project Overview
 The Battery Street Scoping Study was conducted by VHB and the Chittenden County Regional
 Planning Commission (CCRPC) in coordination with the City of Burlington Department of Public
 Works (City). The primary objective of the study was to identify and prioritize improvements
 along the Battery Street corridor to better and more safely accommodate all roadway users. Key
 goals included, improving safety and accessibility for all users and strengthening connections to
 adjacent parks and businesses. To achieve these goals, the project team conducted a thorough
 review of existing conditions, solicited and incorporated public and stakeholder input, performed
 a comprehensive alternatives analysis, and ultimately developed a preferred concept plan.

 The study area runs approximately 3,100 feet (0.58 miles) along Battery Street from Maple Street
 to Sherman Street. If brought forward into preliminary engineering design and eventual
 construction, the outcomes of this study are anticipated to significantly enhance the corridor’s
 functionality and aesthetic appeal, transforming it into a truly multimodal corridor.


 Figure 1 Battery Street Looking North Toward the College Street Intersection




 Source: VHB




 2 Introduction
 Page 42 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



1.2 Project Purpose and Need
 In line with the scope of work, the project team developed the following Purpose and Need
 Statement. This statement functions as the guiding principle for the work completed in the study.


1.2.1 Project Purpose
 The purpose of the Battery Street Scoping Study is to identify and prioritize short- and long-term
 improvements that provide equitable, safe, low-stress, and accessible transportation for all along
 and across Battery Street, regardless of age, ability, or mode of travel.


1.2.2 Project Needs
 The needs for this project are driven by deficiencies in Battery Street’s current transportation
 infrastructure and by a need for comprehensive corridor planning. These requirements are
 further articulated below:

 › Improve corridor and intersection safety for all users: Over the five-year period from
 2018 to 2022, there were 216 crashes along the Battery Street corridor, with over 80% of
 these crashes occurring at intersections. Along Battery Street’s four-lane section, the most
 common crash type was rear-ending incidents. There were nine injury-related crashes
 involving vulnerable users, with five involving pedestrians and four involving bicyclists.
 Among several factors, Battery Street’s wide cross-section leads to high speeds, and its
 variable lane configurations lead to driver confusion at the areas of highest consequence –
 intersections.
 › Enhance comfort and accessibility for pedestrians along Battery Street: Battery Street
 represents the downtown core’s western boundary and functions as a barrier between the
 waterfront and downtown for pedestrians traveling between these popular destinations. The
 street's four-lane cross-section creates lengthy crossings for people on foot and/or using
 mobility-aid devices. Published in 2016, Burlington’s Great Streets Standards establish a
 Modal Hierarchy to guide the design of downtown’s streets, with pedestrian travel taking
 priority over all other modes.
 › Provide end-to-end bicycle facilities and connections: Currently, Battery Street contains
 one two-block-long striped bike lane between Pearl Street and Sherman Street northbound
 only. In Burlington’s Walk Bike Master Plan, “planBTV Walk Bike”, Battery Street was
 identified by City residents as a top 5 “worst” street for walking and biking. In addition,
 planBTV Walk Bike identified Battery Street as a corridor in need of protected (separated)
 bike lanes. Moreover, there are several designs ongoing or completed designs that include
 bicycle facilities that will connect into or across Battery Street. These efforts include a shared-
 use path proposed by the Railyard Enterprise Project and separated bike lanes designed for
 Main Street and North Champlain Street.
 › Integrate street ecology into Battery Street’s overall design: Battery Street’s proximity to
 Lake Champlain and steep topography emphasize the need for critical street ecology
 improvements. Additionally, like most of the downtown core, Battery Street is in Burlington’s
 Combined Sewer Area. In its current condition, Battery Street lacks any stormwater
 management practices. Additionally, it has large areas of impervious surfaces within the
 right-of-way, but outside of the motor vehicle travel way, like the wide sidewalks that abut



 3 Introduction
 Page 43 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 building fronts. In line with the City’s goals of easing the burden on the combined system,
 and to be in line with Burlington’s Great Streets standards, Battery Street needs to better
 integrate sustainable street ecology and stormwater management practices.
 › Provide acceptable mobility for all modes of transportation along Battery Street: While
 Battery Street represents a critical north-south commuter route for motorists, the use of its
 transportation right-of-way disproportionately favors the driving population. Along the full
 length of the project corridor, over one-half of this right-of-way – and in some cases more
 than two-thirds – is occupied by paved surfaces that exclusively serve drivers and motor
 vehicle use. While the existing sidewalks stretch the full length of the corridor, they are, for
 the most part, designed to the minimum standard, and in some locations share lengths of
 spaces with motor vehicles. Additionally, there is only one short stretch of striped bike lane
 along the full corridor. There is a need to provide a more equitable use of space for walkers
 and bikers, while not significantly compromising Battery Street as a commuter route.




4 Introduction
 Page 44 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




2
 Existing Conditions
 The first step of the Battery Street Scoping Study was to identify the
 existing transportation and land use conditions along the project corridor
 to identify issues and opportunities to be addressed through the Study.
 This section includes an evaluation of the corridor’s existing and future
 land use characteristics, existing transportation infrastructure, existing and
 projected traffic flows, historic safety data, and a review of relevant
 studies and projects within or proximate to the study area.




5 Existing Conditions
 Page 45 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 2.1 Study Corridor Description
 The 0.58-mile study corridor is located along Battery Street with a northern terminus at Sherman
 Street and a southern terminus at Maple Street. Battery Street is classified as a Principal Arterial
 and serves as a key north-south route connecting Burlington’s residents to destinations and
 neighborhoods within the city while also transporting commuters into and out of the city. The
 corridor is used by approximately 15,500 vehicles per day and is a major corridor for Tri-Valley
 Transit, Vermont Translines, and four Green Mountain Transit (GMT) routes: the City Loop,
 Shelburne, Pine Street, and Williston.

 The full project study corridor is shown in Figure 2 below.


Figure 2 Project Study Area




Source: VHB.




 6 Existing Conditions
 Page 46 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



2.2 Land Use & Zoning Characteristics
 The land use along the corridor varies significantly from north to south. To the north,
 development density is lower with a prevalence of single-family homes and duplex-style
 apartment buildings. Moving south, the terrain slopes downward and development transitions to
 5 to 7-story mixed-use residential and office buildings lining the east side of the corridor. On the
 west side, there is ample public space, notably Battery Park. The southern segment features 3-
 story residential buildings.

 The northern terminus of the corridor is in a medium or high-density residential zoning district.
 Further south, the east side of the corridor is in a FD5 Downtown Center, transitioning into the
 FD6 Downtown Core, before reverting back to FD5 Downtown Center near the southern
 terminus. The west side of the corridor is public space, and then transitions into FD5 Downtown
 Center.

 Future growth and developments along Battery Street are dictated by Burlington’s
 Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO), administered by the Zoning Division of the
 Department of Permitting & Inspections, ensuring that changes align with the city’s planning
 framework.


 Figure 3 Zoning Surrounding Project Extents




 Source: CCRPC.




  7 Existing Conditions
 Page 47 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



2.3 Transportation System Characteristics
 The following section summarizes the relevant transportation system characteristics of Battery
 Street through the project area. Existing conditions identified as part of this study include daily
 traffic volumes, roadway geometry, multimodal facilities, and other roadway elements.

 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial

 Right of Way (ROW): 6-ROD (100 feet)

 2022 Annual Average Daily Traffic 15,500 vehicles per day
 (AADT):

 Study Intersection Geometry:

 Park Street & Sherman Street
 Four-way signalized intersection with Park Street having
 two southbound travel lanes and Sherman Street having
 one westbound travel lane on the east leg of the
 intersection and one lane in each direction on its west
 leg. Park Street has one northbound travel lane that is
 left-only onto Sherman Street that shortly thereafter
 melds into North Avenue. An eastbound slip lane allows
 for vehicles turning right onto Battery Street from
 Sherman Street. There are signalized pedestrian
 crosswalks across Park Street to the north and the west
 leg of Sherman Street. There is also a short crosswalk
 across the east leg of Sherman Street that is currently
 lacking a pedestrian signal head.

 Park Street/Battery Street & Pearl Street
 Three-way signalized intersection with Park Street’s
 southbound approach having one left turn lane and one
 through lane, while Battery Street’s northbound
 approach has one through lane and one right turn lane.
 Pearl Street has one left and one right turn lane
 approaching Battery & Park Streets. There are signalized
 pedestrian crosswalks across all three sides of the
 intersection.




  8 Existing Conditions
 Page 48 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 Battery Street & Cherry Street
 Three-way signalized intersection with Battery Street’s
 southbound approach having one shared left and
 through lane and one through lane, while its
 northbound approach has one shared through and right
 lane and one through lane. Cherry Street has one lane in
 each direction. Each leg of the intersection has signalized
 pedestrian crosswalks.




 Battery Street & College Street
 Four-way signalized intersection with Battery Street’s
 southbound approach having one shared left and
 through lane and one shared through right lane, while
 its northbound approach has one shared through and
 right lane and one shared through and left lane. College
 Street’s westbound approach has one lane in each
 direction, while its eastbound approach has an exclusive
 left turn lane and one shared lane for through and right
 turning traffic. Each leg of the intersection has signalized
 pedestrian crosswalks.


 Battery Street & Main Street
 Four-way signalized intersection with Battery Street’s
 southbound approach having an exclusive left lane and
 one shared through and right lane, while its northbound
 approach has two lanes, one for through and left turning
 traffic and another for through and right turning traffic.
 Main Street’s eastbound and westbound approaches
 have one lane for through and left traffic and another for
 right turning traffic. All legs of the intersection have
 signalized pedestrian crosswalks.



 Battery Street & King Street
 Four-way signalized intersection with the eastbound
 King Street approach having a shared left and through
 lane and exclusive right turn lane. All remaining legs
 have one lane in each direction. All sides of the
 intersection have signalized pedestrian crosswalks.




9 Existing Conditions
 Page 49 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 Battery Street & Maple Street
 Four-way signalized intersection with all legs having one
 lane in each direction except Maple Street’s westbound
 approach which has one lane for right turning traffic and
 one lane for through and left turning traffic. All legs of
 the intersection have signalized pedestrian crosswalks.




 Pedestrian Facilities: › Five-foot concrete sidewalks on both sides of the
 street from Sherman Street to Pearl Street.
 Continues on east side on from Pearl Street to
 Maple Street. Street trees are placed on road edges
 separating the sidewalks from roadway
 › Eight-foot concrete shared use path on the west side
 of Battery Street along Battery Park from Pearl Street
 to College Street.
 › Five-foot concrete sidewalks continue from College
 Street to Maple Street (Figure 6).
 › Crosswalks exist at all legs of every signalized
 intersection. Additionally, there is a marked
 crosswalk at the Park Street & Monroe Street
 intersection.

 Bicycle Facilities: › Northbound bike lane from Pearl Street to Sherman
 Street (Figure 7), which then continues down
 Sherman Street to North Avenue.
 › It is also worth noting that during reconstruction of
 the Burlington Greenway, two-way separated bike
 lanes were installed in a temporary condition between
 Maple Street and Main Street in place of on-street
 parking. Feedback from nearby businesses indicated
 that this configuration was challenging, especially for
 customers with ADA needs.




10 Existing Conditions
 Page 50 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




Figure 4 Two-Lane Configuration between Maple and Figure 5 Eastern and Northern Crosswalks at the
 King Street College Street Intersection




Source: VHB Source: VHB



Figure 6 Pedestrian Facilities Figure 7 Bike Lane between Pearl and Sherman Street




Source: VHB Source: VHB




 11 Existing Conditions
 Page 51 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



2.4 Existing Traffic Conditions
 Traffic was simulated using existing lane counts and types, traffic signal timing and phasing, and
 pedestrian handling to determine existing operations. At Design Hour Volumes, all intersections
 currently operate at LOS B or C. The average network speed, which includes time waiting at red
 lights, is 15 mph.

 Table 1 Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis

 Average Delay (s) per Entering Vehicle
 Park St & North Ave & Sherman St.…... 15.3
 Battery St & Pearl St……….………………….. 23.0
 Battery St & Cherry St………..………………. 11.2
 Battery St & College St……….……………… 22.9
 Battery St & Main St……………..……………. 17.5
 Battery St & King St……………….…………... 12.4
 Battery St & Maple St…………….…………... 15.2
 Corridor End to End
 Network Delay (s) 67.3
 Average Network Speed (mph) 15
 End-to-End Travel Time, NB (mins, s) 2:52
 End-to-End Travel Time, SB (mins, s) 2:24




  12 Existing Conditions
 Page 52 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 2.5 Crash Data Inventory
 A review of reported crashes along the study corridor was conducted for the most recent five-
 year period that data was available (2018-2022). During this time, there were 216 reported
 crashes, with five of them involving pedestrians and four of them involving cyclists. 80% of the
 crashes along this corridor are concentrated at intersections. The intersections with the most
 frequent crashes are at College Street and at Main Street. Among several factors, Battery Street’s
 wide cross-section leads to high speeds, and its variable lane configurations lead to driver
 confusion at the areas of highest consequence – intersections.

 The distribution of reported crashes along the corridor is shown in Figure 8 below in a heat map
 that displays the density of the crashes. Additionally, the crashes involving a pedestrian or cyclist
 are shown in red and orange symbols.


Figure 8 Reported Crash Location Heat Map (2018 -2022 Crash Data)




Source: VHB.




 13 Existing Conditions
 Page 53 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 2.6 Key Destinations
 2.6.1 Destinations
 The Battery Street corridor includes a variety of destinations that serve residents and visitors:

 › Sherman Street to Cherry Street: The east side of Battery Street in this segment is primarily
 residential, aside from Simon’s Gas Station and the Cathedral Church of St. Paul. On the west,
 Battery Park is a sizeable public park with placemaking features across from Pearl Street. The
 Battery Park Extension provides a tree-lined linear park with a wide sidewalk running south
 from Battery Park along the corridor, offering a viewpoint of Lake Champlain across from
 Cherry Street.
 › Cherry Street to College Street: This segment includes hotels such as Courtyard Marriott,
 Hotel Champlain, and Hotel Vermont. There is also an access drive to the Downtown Parking
 Garage on the east side of Battery Street. Battery Park Extension continues along the west
 side, and an informal trail across from Hotel Champlain connects down to the southeast
 corner of the 112 Lake Street parking lot.
 › South of College Street: This area hosts a range of businesses, including Burlington Bay,
 April Cornell and Shanty on the Shore. The College Street and Main Street intersections with
 Battery Street provide the primary pedestrian access to the Burlington Waterfront, a key
 destination featuring Waterfront Park, the ECHO Museum, the Moran Frame, A_Dog
 Skatepark, Foam Brewers, Skinny Pancake, and other attractions.

Figure 9 Battery Park Paved Path Figure 10 Sidewalk by April Cornell




Source: VHB. Source: VHB.




 14 Existing Conditions
 Page 54 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



2.7 Review of Previous Studies
2.7.1 2024 Northern Waterfront Connections
 In 2024, the CCRPC, the City of Burlington Community & Economic Development Office (CEDO),
 Office of Planning, and DPW conducted the Northern Waterfront Connections Study (NWCS): An
 alternatives analysis for a new pedestrian route to better connect the downtown core and to the
 northern waterfront. The study emphasized that Battery Street would greatly benefit from
 enhanced pedestrian connections between the downtown core and the waterfront. The proposal
 included a direct staircase, which would significantly shorten the current 2,200-foot route from
 Battery Street to Waterfront Park.


2.7.2 2023 Amtrak Connections
 In 2023, a review of Amtrak’s Connections to and from Union Station was performed culminating
 in a series of recommendations to help create more seamless multimodal connections for the
 Amtrak users it serves. The following improvements were identified in the report which are
 relevant to the Battery Street Scoping Study:

 › Pedestrian level lighting enhancements along Battery Street, and specifically at bus shelters.
 › A parking wayfinding sign at the Battery Street entrance to the Downtown Garage.
 › Audible/vibrotactile push buttons and detectable warning surfaces at all crossings/corners of
 Battery Street.
 › Dedicated bike infrastructure and improved pedestrian facilities, connecting Union Station to
 other destinations in the city.
 › The shortening of crossing distances along and across Battery Street.


2.7.3 2022 Chittenden County Active Transportation Plan Update
 In 2022, the Chittenden County Active Transportation Plan was updated to provide a region-wide
 plan for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs which served as the
 active transportation element of the CCRPC’s long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan
 (MTP). As a higher-level review of active transportation, Battery Street was not explicitly
 mentioned though the City of Burlington was largely shown as a hot spot for active
 transportation. The update culminated in the following program and policy recommendations:

 › Equity: Increase equitable access to transportation networks.
 › Encouragement: Promote a culture of walking and bicycling.
 › Connectivity and Economic Development: Provide safe and comfortable active
 transportation routes to support access to jobs, training, education, and childcare.
 › Mode Shift: Make it easier for people to choose low-carbon transportation modes.
 › Maintenance: Maintain a safe active transportation network throughout the winter by
 proactively managing walking and bicycling facilities before, during, and after winter
 precipitation.




 15 Existing Conditions
 Page 55 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



2.7.4 2020 Railyard Enterprise Project (REP) Supplemental Scoping
 In 2020, the Railyard Enterprise Project was developed to address multimodal safety, mobility,
 and operational transportation issues and also to advance economic development opportunities
 in the Southern Waterfront area of Burlington by improving access and mobility through new
 urban streets. The study focused on connecting Pine Street and Battery Street. The Burlington
 City Council voted to accept the REP Supplemental Scoping report, and to direct the Department
 of Public Works to seek State and Federal funds to advance the preliminary engineering for the
 REP Phase 2 Alternatives 1B, 2, and 5B on June 29 th, 2020.


2.7.5 2017 planBTV Walk Bike Master Plan
 In 2017, planBTV’s Walk Bike Master Plan was developed to provide background on the planning
 process, examine existing conditions, and make recommendations for ways Burlington can
 improve its pedestrian and bicycle conditions. In the report, Battery Street is identified as a
 priority location after it was reported to be one of the five streets that feel most unsafe for
 walking and biking by a pool of 500 residents of all ages. In another survey distributed by Local
 Motion, Battery Street was identified as one of the five priority locations for the addition of
 protected bike lanes. The report suggested Battery Street Complete Streets upgrades be
 considered for federal funding to improve its pedestrian and bicycle conditions.


2.7.6 2016 Great Streets Initiative
 The Great Streets initiative was developed in 2016 to support the City’s “great streets” goals. The
 initiative states that to have a great streets system, the City’s transportation infrastructure will
 strive to merge seamlessly with public parks, plazas, the built environment, pathways, and open
 spaces. As a primary street running north to south in Burlington, Battery Street received its own
 set of design considerations including studying the potential expansion of Battery Street south
 through the rail yard to Pine Street and supported the addition of important bike and pedestrian
 connections from the terminus of Main Street at Union Station to the Waterfront. Any
 reconstruction of Battery Street will use the Great Street Standards to provide a cohesive
 character to Burlington’s Downtown.


2.7.7 2013 planBTV Downtown and Waterfront Plan
 The 2013 planBTV Downtown and Waterfront Plan provided a summary of the studies done to
 inventory and assess existing conditions and identify primary needs in Burlington. The following
 improvements were identified in the report which are relevant to the Battery Street Scoping
 Study:

 › Explore possibility of constructing parking garage below Battery Street.
 › Improved facilities along Battery Street to support transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
 › Planned conversion of Battery Street into a shared street where pedestrians and cyclists have
 legal priority over motorists.
 › Improved stormwater management to capture runoff from Battery Street prior to traveling
 over the slope to Lake Champlain.
 › To sink the Pearl Street Overlook to open views to the lake and mountains beyond.




 16 Existing Conditions
 Page 56 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



2.7.8 2011 Transportation Plan for the City of Burlington
 The 2011 Transportation Plan for the City of Burlington conveyed Burlington’s long-term
 transportation vision and described intermediate-term strategies for attaining its vision. The plan
 mentions Battery Street briefly to advise that improvements on this street be done consistently
 with the Complete Streets model and that a waterfront parking pricing pilot project help provide
 matching funds for the improvements.



2.8 Review of Ongoing Projects and Studies
2.8.1 Railyard Enterprise Project (REP)
 The REP as discussed in the REP Supplemental Scoping review has proposed a new railway
 connecting Pine Street and Battery Street in support of the Complete Streets principles to:

 › Support economic development in the area.
 › Improve the livability of the surrounding neighborhoods
 › Enhance the multimodal travel connectivity between the Pine Street corridor and Battery
 Street in the Burlington Waterfront South area
 › Improve the intermodal connections to the Burlington Railyard, a National Highway System
 (NHS) designated intermodal facility.

 Since the Supplemental Scoping study, the City Council has approved the selection of Alternative
 1B as the Preferred Alternative for the REP. The Federal Highway Administration approved the
 project’s Environmental Assessment (EA) and Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation on February 2nd,
 2024. Construction is expected to start in late 2027 or 2028, depending on the amount of time
 needed for right-of-way acquisition, and the project’s ability to gain funding.


2.8.2 Main Street Great Streets Project
 The Main Street Great Streets Project is an ongoing project designed to balance all the road uses
 for long-term sustainability, ensuring that renovations and improvements can be responsibly
 maintained for decades to come.

 The project includes the following elements on Main Street:

 › Improved sidewalks and implementation of bike facilities: Separate sidewalks from road
 with 8-foot tree belt, and protected bike lanes.
 › Re-allocation of City ROW: Change 50-75% of space between buildings from vehicular
 access to 60% for non-vehicular purposes.
 › Converting diagonal pull-in parking to parallel: Convert parking to parallel.
 › Increased and flexible frontage zones: For bike parking, outdoor café seating, public art.
 › Green infrastructure / low impact development design: Stormwater improvements.
 › Road Diet and intersection safety improvements: Roadway space and lane configurations
 were reduced in the interest of designing the roadway to encourage slower driver speeds.
 Consistent pedestrian phasing was designed at the signalized intersections.




 17 Existing Conditions
 Page 57 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



2.8.3 CityPlace Burlington
 CityPlace is a development project in Burlington designed to provide new apartments and hotel
 rooms contained in two hotel buildings in the city. The development will replace the Burlington
 Town Center Mall and re-establish Pine and St. Paul Street as north-south streets. In addition to
 restoring the city gird, the development has promised to add wider sidewalks, and advanced
 stormwater management.


2.8.4 Champlain Parkway
 The Champlain Parkway project is the creation of a two-lane, 25 mph road for pedestrians,
 cyclists, visitors, and residents. It is designed to connect the South End with downtown to
 alleviate traffic on neighborhood streets. The streetscape will feature stormwater improvements,
 buried utility lines, and pedestrian actuated signalization. Construction is currently ongoing and
 expected to be completed by 2026.


2.8.5 Great Streets Project - Bank and Cherry Street
 Rebuilding Bank Street and Cherry Street to the Great Streets Standards, including improved
 sidewalks and crosswalks, incorporating street ecology principles and providing more streetscape
 amenities. This project will reconstruct he Battery and Cherry Street intersection. Construction is
 anticipated to start in 2027.




 18 Existing Conditions
 Page 58 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




3
 Public Outreach
 A robust public outreach process was conducted by engaging a diverse
 group of stakeholders on the project Advisory Committee and providing
 ample opportunities for public input over the course of the study’s
 development. A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was created prior to
 engagement to guide the project through outreach and ensure the
 project stayed on track. Three public meetings were held for this project,
 including an initial Local Concerns Meeting, the Draft Alternatives
 Presentation, and a Final Public Meeting. Before bringing materials to the
 public, the Advisory Committee was convened to ensure all necessary
 components were considered and that the Purpose and Needs of the
 project were being met. In addition to the public and Advisory Committee
 meetings, the project team solicited input through a survey and at tabling
 events




19 Public Outreach
 Page 59 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



3.1 Public Involvement Plan
 The Public Involvement Plan (PIP) for the Battery
 Figure 11 Public Involvement Plan
 Street project prioritized an open, inclusive, and
 interactive approach to public participation and
 stakeholder engagement. It emphasized
 providing multiple opportunities and platforms
 for community involvement, aligning with the
 guidelines of the CCRPC and the City of
 Burlington's Department of Public Works. The
 PIP was a dynamic document that adapted to
 the needs of the project and provided an
 overview of what the project outreach would
 include. Key aspects included frequent
 engagement with transportation stakeholders
 and the broader public, using various tools such
 as online surveys, pop-up events, and targeted
 outreach to traditionally underserved groups.
 Public meetings were scheduled at critical
 project milestones to gather and incorporate
 community feedback, fostering a sense of
 ownership and inclusiveness. Advisory
 Source: VHB.
 Committee meetings corresponded to major
 project phases, ensuring continuous collaboration and input from diverse community
 representatives. The plan aimed to reach a wide range of residents, including newcomers,
 immigrants, seniors, young people, and business owners, ensuring that public concerns and
 aspirations were consistently understood and considered throughout the project's development.



3.2 Project Advisory Committee
 The Project Advisory Committee was composed of a diverse group of stakeholders, including
 representatives from the following organizations and groups:

 › Burlington Department of Public Works (DPW) | Laura Wheelock, Norm Baldwin
 › Burlington Parks, Recreation & Waterfront | Sophie Sauvé
 › Burlington City Councilor Ward 2 | Gene Bergman
 › Burlington City Councilor Ward 6 | Karen Paul
 › Burlington Office of Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging | Phet Keomanyvanh
 › Burlington Office of City Planning | Charles Dillard
 › Burlington Walk Bike Council | Jonathon Weber
 › Burlington Ward 3 NPA | Barbara Alsop and Ali Hamedani
 › Burlington Ward 5 NPA | Terry Rivers
 › Burlington Business Association | Kelly Devine
 › Green Mountain Transit | Chris Damiani, Jamie Smith
 › Burlington DPW Commission | Brendan Hogan


 20 Public Outreach
 Page 60 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 This committee served as an advisory body throughout the project, responsible for reviewing
 materials and concepts prior to their presentation to the public for review and comment. The
 Advisory Committee provided input and ultimately finalized the Purpose and Need statement,
 which formed the basis for all alternative concepts and evaluations. Additionally, the Advisory
 Committee contributed to the creation of a new alternative and recommended a preferred
 alternative for the corridor.

 All meeting materials for the Advisory Committee meetings is provided in Appendix C.


3.2.1 Advisory Committee Meeting #1
 The first Advisory Committee meeting was held on March 8, 2023. This meeting focused on
 introducing the project to the committee, explaining the role and responsibilities of the
 committee, providing an overview of the project scope, and offering an opportunity for a
 visioning exercise.

 During the vision and goals portion of the meeting, participants discussed aspirations and
 challenges for the Battery Street corridor. The key concerns included speeding and unsafe
 conditions for pedestrians, particularly at the Main Street intersection, and the need for a more
 pedestrian and bike-friendly environment. Interest was expressed in rebalancing traffic space
 with pedestrians and bicyclists and enhancing public transit interfaces. There was also a vision of
 transforming the corridor into a boulevard-like street with safe green spaces and addressing
 neighborhood impacts, environmental justice, and connectivity to future developments. The goal
 was to create a safer, more inviting corridor that integrates various community uses and
 accommodates future growth.


3.2.2 Advisory Committee Meeting #2
 The second Advisory Committee meeting was held on July 27, 2023. This meeting focused on an
 update of the Public Involvement Plan, an overview of the project StoryMap, a review of the draft
 Purpose and Need Statement, a discussion about the public input received, and a design
 charrette.

 The team reviewed the public input received through various platforms, identifying key themes
 such as improved safety, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and better community
 connectivity. These insights are shaping the project's direction, emphasizing the need for diverse
 user-friendly streetscape and transit accommodations.

 A discussion on the draft Purpose and Need Statement involved making sure the statement
 supports safe, equitable, and accessible transportation, enhancing resilience and connectivity
 between downtown Burlington and the waterfront. This statement guides the development of
 alternatives for corridor improvements.

 The meeting concluded with a mini design charrette where attendees brainstormed and
 conceptualized potential designs for the corridor. Key considerations included the incorporation
 of separated bike lanes, pedestrian-focused elements like median islands and diagonal crossings,
 and addressing accessibility features. The meeting underscored the importance of balancing
 transportation modes and integrating user-friendly, sustainable infrastructure while maintaining
 engagement with the community through ongoing public meetings and feedback sessions.




 21 Public Outreach
 Page 61 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



3.2.3 Advisory Committee Meeting #3
 The third Advisory Committee meeting was held on April 24th, 2024. This meeting focused on
 draft alternatives and an overview of the public input received to date. It provided the
 opportunity to present the two alternatives to the committee to understand which would be
 more desirable to the community and meet the project's purpose and needs.

 Following an overview of the alternatives, several refinements to each alternative were discussed.
 The committee shared their opinions on favorable and unfavorable elements of each alternative.
 The project team noted these items and shared that each alternative was open for refinement in
 pursuit of consensus around a preferred alternative.

 At the conclusion of the meeting, the Advisory Committee was polled on which alternative they
 preferred. The poll resulted in a split vote and no clear consensus on a preferred alternative.

 Through discussion, it was determined that a third alternative should be considered, which
 combines elements of both previous alternatives and transitions south of Main Street. The
 intention of the development of a third alternative was to explore whether a hybrid of the two
 developed alternatives would result in consensus around a single alternative.


3.2.4 Advisory Committee Meeting #4
 The fourth and final Advisory Committee meeting was held on September 26 th, 2024. This was an
 additional meeting to present the new alternative option and expand upon the refinements
 made to alternatives 1 and 2. The meeting sentiments reflected a mix of concerns mainly around
 bike facilities, safety, and parking options. Discussions leaned toward maintaining parallel
 parking on both sides of the street (Alternatives 2 and 3), with safety and traffic flow
 considerations. Safety enhancements at intersections, especially for bikers and pedestrians
 turning, were emphasized. Pedestrian-exclusive phases and their impact on congestion were
 discussed, with support for no right turn on red at signals noted. Speed limit enforcement and
 future growth capacity favored Alternative 2 over Alternative 1.

 Following an overview of the newly developed Alternative 3 and the refinements made the
 Alternatives 1 and 2, the Advisory Committee voted in support of Alternative 2, with one vote
 being cast for Alternative 1. Overall, the Committee favored prioritizing safety, connectivity, and
 future-proofing the designs.

 All Alternatives (also referred to as “Options”) can be found on the project website, linked here:
 https://www.ccrpcvt.org/our-work/transportation/current-projects/corridors-circulation/battery-
 street-corridor-scoping-study/




 22 Public Outreach
 Page 62 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



3.3 Local Concerns Meeting
 A Local Concerns Meeting was held on May 2nd, 2023, to engage with the public at the onset of
 the project, introduce the project's objectives, and understand the corridor from the perspective
 of all users. The meeting began with a two-hour open house, during which members of the
 project team were available to answer questions and collect input from the community. Several
 informational boards displayed data and posed questions about the Battery Street corridor.
 Following the open house, the project team gave a brief presentation that provided an overview
 of the existing conditions along the corridor and concluded with questions aimed at gathering
 input from the community on desired improvements and how they would like to use the
 corridor. The meeting concluded with an hour-long public input session, during which attendees
 had the opportunity to ask the project team questions and provide feedback on the boards.

 This input included:

 › Desire for reduced traffic speeds
 › Desire for the reduction of travel lanes
 › Retaining existing parking to the best degree possible
 › Feeling unsafe crossing Battery Street (as a pedestrian)
 › Desire for protected bike facilities

 The meeting agenda, presentations, and minutes can be found in Appendix C.

 Figure 12 Engagement at the Local Concerns Meeting




 Source: VHB.




 23 Public Outreach
 Page 63 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



3.4 Draft Alternatives Meeting
 The Draft Alternatives Presentation was held on
 Figure 13 Engagement at the Draft
 March 13, 2024. This meeting reviewed the Alternatives Meeting
 project's progress to date, the project Purpose
 and Need statement, and provided an overview
 of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. The attendees
 were provided with a brief presentation and the
 opportunity to engage with the project team and
 discuss the two different alternatives. Large prints
 of the two alternatives were placed on tables,
 allowing attendees to place post-it notes
 detailing what they liked or disliked about each
 alternative.

 This input included:

 › General: Concerns about loss of parking
 › General: Concerns about lane reduction
 › General: Questions about bus stops and
 turning radii
 › Alternative 1: Concerns of bicyclists going in
 Source: VHB.
 the wrong direction
 › Alternative 2: Concerns of the difference in speeds of bicyclists traveling downhill

 The meeting agenda, presentations, and minutes can be found in Appendix C.



3.5 Burlington Transportation, Energy and Utilities
 Committee (TEUC)
 The project team presented the study findings and recommended preferred alternative to the
 TEUC on January 28, 2025. Several comments were made by members of the public and TEUC
 members. Where necessary, the project team followed up with commenters after the meeting to
 discuss their concerns or requested revisions.

 Any revisions made to the recommended preferred alternative based on comments made and
 subsequent discussions have been summarized in Section 5.1.2.




 24 Public Outreach
 Page 64 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 3.6 ArcGIS StoryMap and Public Surveys
 In addition to in person engagement, a StoryMap was created to aid this study as public-facing
 tool to enhance community engagement and transparency throughout the planning process. The
 StoryMap provided a platform for stakeholders to explore project objectives and scope, review
 mapped data, including traffic, crash statistics, and zoning information. It also featured an
 interactive dashboard that provided users the opportunity to explore the results from the survey
 and input from the local concerns meeting summarizing public input and highlighting key
 takeaways.

 The primary purpose of this tool was to inform and engage the public during the initial stages of
 project development, fostering early awareness and input before the release of this public-facing
 report.


Figure 14 StoryMap Cover Page




Source: VHB


 In April 2023, a public survey was shared to gather input on potential improvements to the
 Battery Street corridor. Participants identified specific locations along the corridor where they
 observed issues or opportunities for improvement and their related mode of travel.

 Feedback from this survey, along with input from the Local Concerns Meeting, was reviewed and
 synthesized into common themes. Respondents frequently emphasized the need for safety and
 accessibility improvements along the corridor. The distribution of comments by travel mode was
 as follows: 33% related to walking, 8% to crossing points, 31% to biking, 19% to driving, and 10%
 to other modes.

 Key recurring themes included:

 › Improved safety throughout the corridor and intersections
 › Enhanced pedestrian accommodations
 › Dedicated bicycle facilities




 25 Public Outreach
 Page 65 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 Additional survey data was provided by the City of Burlington, which included 125 responses to
 three open-ended questions on the topic of Battery Street issues and opportunities, echoed
 similar sentiments. These responses aligned with input gathered through the other engagement
 efforts.

 The identified themes, combined with a detailed review of individual responses, informed the
 development of study recommendations.

 Following the Draft Alternatives presentation, the City of Burlington published a survey to poll
 the general public on their preference for an alternative. The survey asked respondents to
 determine if they prefer Alternative 1, Alternative 2, both equally, or neither. 166 people
 responded and the results are listed below.

 › Alternative 1: 50
 › Alternative 2: 75
 › Both Equally: 31
 › Neither: 10

 Additionally, there was a section to provide a short response to explain the reasoning behind
 their answer. Many respondents favored the two-way separated bike lanes on the west side of
 Battery Street for its safety and predictability for both cyclists and motorists, integration with the
 existing bike path, and simpler traffic flow. Cyclists preferred a straightforward route that avoids
 frequent stops and intersections, while drivers would appreciate knowing where to expect
 cyclists. This option was seen as a more efficient use of space and would potentially preserve
 green areas and on-street parking. However, some respondents favored bike lanes on both sides
 for better access to businesses, easier right turns, and this alternative being more “typical” (in
 terms of bike lane placement). Despite differing opinions, the consensus of the project team
 leaned toward Alternative 2 for increased safety and better traffic management.

 It should be noted that this survey was released prior to the addition of Alternative 3.




26 Public Outreach
 Page 66 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



3.7 Targeted Outreach Figure 15 Tabling at Cherry Street
 To ensure an inclusive and comprehensive approach to
 community engagement, the project team implemented
 targeted outreach strategies specifically designed to
 engage people who did not attend the public meetings
 and/or groups that may not typically participate in public
 meetings or complete surveys. In addition, there was
 outreach to particularly affected parcels. The events below
 detail the additional efforts made to connect with a diverse
 range of stakeholders. These outreach activities were aimed
 at maximizing community involvement and fostering an
 equitable engagement process:

 › King Street Laundry Tabling – May 21, 2023
 › Battery Street & Cherry Street Tabling – May 26, 2023
 › Burlington Business Association – May 31, 2023
 › WVMT Radio Interview – June 8, 2023 Source: VHB.

 › Trusted Voices Community Group – July 25, 2023
 › Study Options Review with April Cornell – January 23, 2024 (expanded upon below)
 › Study Options Review with Burlington Bay – January 26, 2024 (expanded upon below)
 › Burlington City & Lake Semester Students – February 20, 2024
 › Burlington Business Association’s Waterfront Action Group – March 14, 2024
 › CCRPC Equity Advisory Committee presentation of alternatives – March 27, 2024
 The input from community members during the tabling events reflected similar sentiments as the
 public meetings. There was a desire for separated bicycle facilities and reduction of vehicular
 lanes. The Burlington Business Association shared concerns around the loss of parking along the
 corridor which was heard during the public meetings as well as during the advisory committee
 meetings.


3.7.1 One-on-One Meeting with April Cornell – January 23, 2024
 Members of the project team met with the owners of April Cornell at their store on January 23,
 2024. Both Alternative 1 and 2 were reviewed in detail as they relate to April Cornell’s storefront
 along Battery Street.

 April Cornell expressed concerns over the loss of the angled parking in front of the store and the
 layout of Alternative 2, which had the two-way separated bike lanes close to their front door with
 little storefront activation space. The project team shared that as part of the originally drafted
 alternatives, space was included for on-street parallel parking in front of April Cornell in both
 alternatives. Additionally, as a result of this meeting, the project team revised Alternative 2 to
 include more sidewalk and frontage space for storefront activation in this block.

 The current angled parking configuration is within the City right-of-way but has been maintained
 and stewarded by April Cornell since at least 2010. It has nine (9) striped angled parking spaces
 for customer parking and an additional four (4) unmarked spaces in the northern section. The
 unmarked spaces are typically used by staff for parking their vehicles parallel to Battery Street,


  27 Public Outreach
 Page 67 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 and bumper-to-bumper. The proposed parking in Alternatives 1 and 2 both have 8 on-street
 parallel parking spaces.


3.7.2 One-on-One Meeting with Burlington Bay – January 26, 2024
 The project team also met with the owner of Burlington Bay at their restaurant on January 26,
 2024 to review the alternatives. Their major concern with both alternatives was that only one
 curb cut was shown on Battery Street for their parking lot. The project team discussed the safety
 benefits of reducing the number of curb cuts, especially for people walking and biking and also
 possible reconfigurations of their parking lot to either gain additional parking spaces with one
 curb cut closed, or to increase the pedestrian realm near the ice cream windows as lines often
 extend into the parking lot.

 Burlington Bay feels very strongly about keeping both curb cuts in the future regardless of the
 alternative chosen. This is reflected in the revised Alternative 2.




 28 Public Outreach
 Page 68 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




4
 Alternatives Analysis
 Following the preliminary public engagement process and existing
 conditions analysis, Conceptual Alternatives were developed for Battery
 Street. Each alternative was developed to meet the project’s goals:
 enhancing safety, accessibility, and connectivity for all users, while
 supporting a vibrant and cohesive urban corridor linking Burlington’s
 downtown with its waterfront. The alternatives considered various
 approaches to address the needs identified in the study, including
 improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, adjustments to traffic
 flow, and integration of green stormwater practices.

 The alternatives were compared based on several key metrics, including
 safety improvements, impacts on mobility, environmental considerations,
 and alignment with the project’s Purpose & Need statement. This
 analysis aimed to identify a recommended preferred alternative that
 balances user needs, aligns with city planning objectives, and ensures
 long-term viability of the Battery Street corridor as a multimodal
 transportation route.




29 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 69 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 4.1 Conceptual Alternatives: Considerations
 The following planning and design considerations were consistent throughout all the conceptual
 alternatives and are reflected in the Project Purpose and Need (please see Section 1.2.2 for more
 detail). The desire for a road diet (lane reduction), the need for bicycle facilities, safely
 accommodating pedestrians at intersections, on-street parking, and increasing green space all
 required consideration.


4.1.1 Road Diet
 At the kickoff of the project – and extensively emphasized throughout early public engagement –
 it was clear that a road diet, i.e. reduction in motor vehicle lanes, was desired along Battery
 Street. While the southern end of the corridor, between Maple Street and Main Street, has a two-
 lane cross-section, the remainder includes a minimum of three-lanes, with four lanes from Main
 Street north to Pearl Street.


 Figure 16 Four-Lane Cross-Section between College and Cherry Street




 Source: VHB


 The project team completed a phased analysis of traffic conditions along the project corridor,
 beginning with the existing conditions (summarized in Chapter 2.4), followed by evaluating the
 road diet inclusive of other corridor improvements proposed within each alternative, summarized
 in further detail in the following sections.


4.1.2 Bicycle Facilities
 In its current state, Battery Street has one two-block segment of a conventional bike lane
 northbound between Pearl Street and Sherman Street. The corridor otherwise lacks bicycle
 facilities even though it functions as a key north-south route for daily users and visitors alike. In
 line with the goal of evolving Battery Street into a more complete and multimodal street, it was
 determined early on that end-to-end bicycle facilities were needed.




 30 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 70 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 The project team reviewed the existing traffic conditions of the corridor and utilized the FHWA
 Bikeway Selection Guide (2020) to determine the appropriate bicycle facility type. Referencing
 Figure 9 of the Guide (included below), Battery Street meets the criteria for “Separated Bike Lanes
 or Shared Use Path” as the appropriate facility type given it’s AADT is well in excess of 6,000, and
 speeds are at or above 30mph, on average.


Figure 17 FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide Figure 18 Two-Way Separated Bike Lane




Figure 17 is from the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide, providing facility type The two-way separated bike lanes that were installed temporarily along
selection guidance. Battery Street between Maple and Main to serve as a detour route.


 In addition to the team’s review of existing conditions and guidance, there was overwhelming
 support from the general public and Advisory Committee for a separated bicycle facility along
 Battery Street. For this reason, this was the bicycle facility type considered across all conceptual
 alternatives.


 4.1.3 Pedestrian Accommodations at Intersections
 While there are end-to-end pedestrian facilities along Battery Street, the street’s existing lane
 configuration, intersection geometries, and inconsistent signalization all pose challenges for
 pedestrians navigating its intersections.

 The project team sought to evaluate and analyze mitigations to these challenges across all
 considered alternatives, while referencing guidance provide in the Great Streets standards, the
 Stop and Signalized Intersection Design Vehicle Guide, and national best practices.




 31 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 71 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 Figure 19 Maple Street Intersection Figure 20 College Street Intersection




 Long wait times for pedestrians at intersections was a commonly Crossing length, traffic volumes, and approach grade all create
 shared issue by the public uncomfortable conditions for pedestrians crossing at Battery &
 College

 Lane reductions (in terms of both number and width), consistent curb radii (while being sensitive
 to the design vehicle), curb extensions that daylighted pedestrians where on-street parking was
 present, and a consistent approach to signalization for pedestrians (inclusive of an extended
 leading pedestrian interval) were all considered and evaluated.


  4.1.4 On-Street Parking
 On-Street parking is present along Battery Street in the two southernmost blocks; between
 Maple Street and Main Street. Additionally, there is off-street parking within the public ROW
 along the west side of Battery Street between Main Street and College Street in front of April
 Cornell.

Figure 21 Number of Existing On-Street Parking Spaces between Maple and Main Street




 Given the presence of businesses and private residences along the street in these blocks,
 reducing impacts to this parking was a key element of the conceptual alternatives. The need for
 this parking was emphasized during the public engagement process, as well as by the Burlington
 Business Association (BBA) via their position on the Advisory Committee. As a result, each
 alternative was sensitive to any impacts on parking while considering the other critical elements
 of design.




 32 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 72 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



4.1.5 Traffic
 Traffic operations were evaluated for each alternative using a simulation method. For each
 alternative, the average delay for each intersection, the average delay across the whole network,
 and the end-to-end travel times between Sherman Street and Maple Street were determined.

 Traffic volumes were based on counts collected on April 13, 2023, and were adjust to Design
 Hour Volume (DHV). DHV is defined as the 30th-highest hour in a year. Averaging the three
 nearest VTrans count stations, the DHV for 2023 was 8% higher than the peak hour on the count
 date. As a result, traffic volumes, including vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian crossings, were
 increased 8% to establish volumes for simulation.

 The study area overlaps with the Main Street Great Streets project at Battery and Main Streets.
 Traffic projections for Great Streets included detailed adjustments for new development,
 infrastructure projects, and background growth. At Battery and Main Streets, Great Streets
 projected a design hour entering volume of 1,961 in 2037. For comparison, the recently collected
 and adjusted volumes came out to 1,911 entering vehicles. After reviewing the assumptions and
 adjustments made, it was determined the 8% increase in 2023 count volumes for this study was
 conservative (overestimating traffic impacts). Therefore, a future analysis year for this study was
 not analyzed. As a result, no additional adjustments were made to the Battery Street volumes.


4.1.6 Traffic Analysis
 The existing lane configuration (“No Build”) has more lane capacity than any other alternative,
 and as a result has the best Level of Service (LOS). The remaining alternatives all have the same
 reduced lane configuration for motor vehicles; however, the differing bicycle facilities, and
 resulting traffic signal operations, result in varying traffic performance.

 In Alternatives 1-3, the pedestrian cycles were adjusted to concurrent phasing, with a leading
 pedestrian interval (LPI) of 7+ seconds. This sets consistent pedestrian expectations and allows
 the cycle time to be used more efficiently. Pedestrian phases would operate on recall, meaning
 that the walk sign appears whether the pedestrian button is used or not.

 Bicycle signals are proposed as part of each alternative wherever motor vehicle turning
 movements across the separated bike lane exceed these thresholds:

 › One-Way Separated Bike Lanes*
 • 100 conflicting left turns across one lane; 50 left turns across two lanes
 • 150 conflicting right turns
 › Two-Way Separated Bike Lanes*
 • 50 conflicting left turns across one lane; Any left turns across two lanes
 • 100 conflicting right turns
 * These thresholds are provided by the AASHTO Bike Guide, 5th Edition (2024)


4.1.7 Streetscape & Stormwater Management
 Battery Street should be reconstructed as a gateway street in compliance with Great Street
 standards within the downtown area. This would include transition and/or gateway treatments
 entering downtown at the intersection with Pearl Street.



 33 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 73 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 The project team was also tasked with considering opportunities to improve stormwater
 management along Battery Street in the interest of improving treatment adjacent to Lake
 Champlain and lessening the burden on the City’s combined storm/sewer system. The road diet –
 described above and a crucial element of all alternatives – provides a significant reduction of
 impervious surface along Battery Street, replacing paved surfaces with green space. This
 significant expansion of green space provides ample opportunities for proven green
 infrastructure stormwater treatment practices, i.e. stormwater curb extensions, green gutters, rain
 gardens, tree pit stormwater planters, etc.



4.2 Alternative 1: One-Way Separated Bike Lanes
4.2.1 Active Transportation & Parking
 Alternative 1 for the Battery Street corridor incorporates several key elements aimed at
 enhancing safety, accessibility, and connectivity. This alternative includes the road diet described
 in Section 4.1.1, pedestrian-focused intersection improvements outlined in Section 4.1.3, and the
 on-street parking considerations detailed in Section 4.1.4. The defining feature of Alternative 1 is
 the incorporation of a pair of one-way separated bike lanes on each side of Battery Street,
 traveling parallel to the flow of motor vehicle traffic. These bike lanes are designed to provide
 dedicated and protected space for cyclists, significantly improving safety and comfort for
 bicyclists of all ages and abilities.

 Separated bike lanes offer substantial safety benefits compared to standard bike lanes. By
 physically separating cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, these facilities minimize conflicts
 between modes. Research consistently shows that separated bike lanes reduce the likelihood of
 crashes involving cyclists by creating a more predictable and controlled environment.
 Additionally, this design enhances user comfort and encourages more people to choose
 bicycling as a viable mode of transportation, supporting Burlington's goals for active
 transportation and sustainability.

 While Alternative 1 maximizes safety and accessibility benefits, it does so with notable impacts to
 on-street parking. Between Maple Street and Main Street, this alternative would result in
 reducing the number of parking spaces from 42 to 13. These changes reflect a tradeoff necessary
 to accommodate the separated bike lanes while maintaining green space and mature trees to the
 highest degree possible. Public feedback during the engagement process underscored mixed
 opinions on this impact, with some residents and stakeholders expressing concerns about
 parking availability for businesses and visitors. Mitigation strategies, such as enhancing
 wayfinding for nearby parking options or reallocating parking in adjacent areas, could help
 address these concerns.


4.2.2 Traffic Analysis
 In Alternative 1, bicycle signals are used at all intersections except Sherman Street and Cherry
 Street, stopping motor vehicle traffic during an exclusive bicycle phase and increasing delay for
 all modes. As a result, Alternative 1 has the highest delay and end-to-end travel times of any
 alternative. Compared to existing conditions, the average end-to-end travel time nearly doubles,
 adding an additional 135 seconds (southbound) and 168 seconds (northbound). This is a 98%
 increase in travel time delay for northbound and a 94% increase for southbound end-to-end.



 34 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 74 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 Congestion is the worst in the southern half of the corridor, with two intersections (College Street
 and Main Street) at LOS E and King Street at LOS F.

 Like all the alternatives, LPIs are proposed at all intersections except Sherman Street (where
 pedestrians have a conflict-free concurrent crossing). Except at Sherman Street and Cherry Street,
 the volume of right turn conflicts is high enough to demand separating bike and vehicle
 movements. Bike phasing overlaps with the north/south LPIs, which are extended to 15 seconds
 to allow bicycles to clear the intersection. Bikes may make left turns during their phase (yielding
 to oncoming bikes and pedestrians in crosswalk).

 As a result of the above proposed changes, less cycle time is available for vehicle movements
 and Alternative 1 generates the most congestion of any alternative. With less lane capacity,
 storage length becomes an issue at peak times, with queues occasionally spilling back to the
 next block. In part, this is mitigated by new protected left-turns at Maple Street (for eastbound
 vehicles) and College Street (southbound and eastbound). For compatibility with LPIs, the
 protected left-turns must be lagging.

 Signal coordination favors the northbound direction, which has higher traffic in the PM peak
 hour. On shorter blocks – such as between Pearl and Cherry – stopped vehicles can block
 upstream traffic from advancing on their green. This effect creates long queues on side streets
 including Pearl Street, Main Street, and King Street.

 Table 2 Alternative 1 Traffic Analysis

 Average Delay (s) per Entering Vehicle
 Park St & North Ave & Sherman St…….. 27.8
 Battery St & Pearl St……………………………. 41.7
 Battery St & Cherry St…………………………. 54.2
 Battery St & College St…………………..…… 66.2
 Battery St & Main St……………………………. 78.3
 Battery St & King St…………………………….. 89.3
 Battery St & Maple St…………………..……... 27.8
 Corridor End to End
 Network Delay (min, s) 3 min,
 15.6 s
 Average Network Speed (mph) 7
 End-to-End Travel Time, NB (min:s) 5:40
 End-to-End Travel Time, SB (min:s) 4:39


4.2.3 Alternative 1 Summary
 A full, 50-scale layout plan of Alternative 1 is provided on the next page.

 In summary, Alternative 1 prioritizes safety and multimodal accessibility by introducing separated
 bike lanes and pedestrian enhancements, consistent with the project’s Purpose and Need
 Statement. However, its significant impact on acceptable motor vehicle traffic operations and
 parking requires careful consideration to balance the needs of all corridor users and ensure
 community support.




 35 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 75 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




 Figure 22 50-Scale Layout Plan of Alternative 1




36 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 76 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




4.3 Alternative 2: Two-Way Separated Bike Lanes
4.3.1 Active Transportation & Parking
 Alternative 2 for the Battery Street corridor proposes a two-way separated bike lane along the
 west side of the corridor, creating a dedicated space for cyclists traveling in both directions. This
 approach consolidates bicycle activity on one side of the corridor, aligning with the road diet
 described in Section 4.1.1, pedestrian improvements outlined in Section 4.1.3, and on-street
 parking considerations detailed in Section 4.1.4.

 The two-way separated bike lane enhances connectivity by aligning directly with destinations on
 the west side of Battery Street, such as Battery Park and the Waterfront. North of College Street,
 the design benefits from reduced motor vehicle conflicts, as Cherry Street, Pearl Street, and
 Monroe Street terminate at Battery Street from the east. This configuration offers a more
 comfortable and low-stress travel route for cyclists without impacting traffic operations.
 However, at intersections where the two-way bike lane crosses through traffic, careful design will
 be essential to address potential conflicts, particularly where cyclists traveling against the flow of
 adjacent motor vehicles may be unexpected.

 Parking impacts are a key differentiator between Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 2’s design
 retains sufficient width between King Street and Main Street to preserve parking on both sides of
 Battery Street within that segment. As a result, the space reallocation between Maple Street and
 Main Street ends up reducing the number of parking spaces from 42 to 27, a reduction of 15
 spaces. This represents a smaller reduction than in Alternative 1 (which would reduce parking by
 29 spaces). Maintaining more on-street parking aligns with feedback received during public
 outreach, particularly from residents and businesses concerned about parking availability in the
 area.


4.3.2 Traffic Analysis
 In Alternative 2, two-way separated bike lanes run along the west side of Battery Street for the
 full corridor length. Because the two-way separated bike lanes run along the west side, turning
 conflicts are minimized and a dedicated bicycle phase is needed only at the College Street
 intersection. Alternative 2 has a LOS D at College Street, but a LOS C or better at all other
 intersections. Compared to existing conditions, the end-to-end travel time increases by less than
 a minute in each direction – only 57 seconds (southbound) and 32 seconds (northbound). This is
 a 19% increase in travel time delay for northbound and a 40% increase for southbound end-to-
 end.

 Alternative 2 places bicycles on the west side of the corridor, where turning conflicts only reach
 the threshold for separated movements at College Street. With fewer phases to divide cycle time
 between, the signals operate more efficiently at the other intersections. Even at College Street,
 with all bicycle traffic on the west side of Battery Street, northbound traffic can advance during
 the bike phase. This special phasing would require new signal equipment to be installed.
 Northbound left-turns would be controlled by a red arrow (during the bike phase) and
 permissive flashing yellow arrow (after the bike phase is complete). The bike phase would begin




 37 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 77 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 with the LPI (7 seconds) and extend an additional 8 seconds to allow for the 15 second exclusive
 bike phase. Southbound traffic would be held (red) during the bike phase.

 Were the design to include a southbound right turn lane at College Street, that lane alone could
 be held while thru traffic advances. However, with those movements consolidated to a single
 lane, the entire southbound approach must be held. Along the corridor, thru bicyclists would
 experience less delay than in Alternative 1, with the disadvantage that bicycle turns across
 Battery St (northbound right or southbound left) would become two-stage movements. Overall,
 Alternative 2 is a moderate increase in delay over existing conditions of 5 to 13 seconds, with
 slightly more delay at College Street.

 Simulation results are shown in Table 3.

 Table 3 Alternative 2 Traffic Analysis

 Average Delay (s) per Entering Vehicle
 Park St & North Ave & Sherman St..…... 17.1
 Battery St & Pearl St…………...………………. 20.1
 Battery St & Cherry St…………...……………. 25.0
 Battery St & College St…………..…………… 54.9
 Battery St & Main St………………..…………. 27.0
 Battery St & King St…………………..………... 17.4
 Battery St & Maple St………………….……... 11.8

 Corridor End to End
 Network Delay (s) 99.7
 Average Network Speed (mph) 12
 End-to-End Travel Time, NB (min:s) 3:24
 End-to-End Travel Time, SB (min:s) 3:21


4.3.3 Alternative 2 Summary
 A full, 50-scale layout plan of Alternative 2 is provided on the next page.

 In summary, Alternative 2 represents a balanced approach to enhancing safety, connectivity, and
 multimodal accessibility while minimizing impacts to on-street parking and providing more
 favorable traffic operations when compared to Alternative 1. Its design addresses critical gaps in
 the cycling network and strengthens links to key community destinations, advancing Burlington’s
 vision for an equitable, multimodal, and sustainable transportation system.




 38 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 78 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 Figure 23 50-Scale Layout Plan of Alternative 2




39 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 79 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




4.4 Alternative 3: A Hybrid Option – Two-Way
 Separated Bike Lanes (Maple Street to Main Street)
 and One-Way Separated Bike Lanes (Main Street to
 Sherman Street)
4.4.1 Active Transportation & Parking
 Summarized in Section 3.2.3, the Advisory Committee was not able to reach consensus on a
 Preferred Alternative during AC Meeting #3. As a result, the request was made to refine each
 alternative and create a third, hybrid alternative that sought to combine desirable elements of
 Alternatives 1 and 2. The project team developed and analyzed Alternative 3.

 Alternative 3 includes two-way separated bike lanes for the two southernmost blocks of the
 corridor – Maple Street to Main Street – and then transitions to the one-way separated bike
 lanes cross-section north from Main Street to Sherman Street. For the most part, the
 considerations for Alternative 3 represents a balance of those explained for Alternatives 1 and 2
 with a few nuanced differences.

 The connectivity considerations for Alternative 3 are largely the same as the first two alternatives,
 however, the project team saw the creation of a new alternative as an opportunity to evaluate a
 few revisions to the original designs, particularly in the southern, two-way separated bike lanes
 section. For Alternative 3, the project team shifted the two-way separated bike lanes from the
 west side of the street to the east. The primary rationale here is to visualize the future connection
 to the Railyard Enterprise Project given the current concept plan for that effort includes a shared-
 use path along the east side of the roadway up to Maple Street. Consideration of the two-way
 separated bike lanes along the east side of Battery Street would allow for a seamless connection
 to that facility. The two-way separated bike lanes transition to the one-way paired separated bike
 lanes at Main Street so the side of the street they are on at the Main Street intersection does not
 have a measurable impact on the evaluation of the alternative.

 In addition to the connectivity considerations, the project team used the development of
 Alternative 3 as an opportunity to evaluate maintaining more on-street parking between Maple
 Street and Main Street. To maintain as many on-street parking spaces as possible, the two-way
 separated bike lanes and its buffers would need to be design to absolute minimums.
 Additionally, all green space would need to be removed from the street scape to accommodate
 the necessary width. With these changes in place, Alternative 3 would maintain as many as 39 of
 the existing 42 on-street parking spaces in this segment. It’s important to note that if the above
 modifications were considered for Alternative 2, that alternative could also maintain 39 spaces.


4.4.2 Traffic Analysis
 As expanded upon above, Alternative 3 represents a hybrid alternative, inclusive of two-way
 separated bike lanes along the east side from Maple Street to Main Street, and one-way
 separated bike lanes on both sides of Battery Street north of Main Street to Sherman Street. At
 Main, southbound bicyclists make a two-stage crossing along the west and south legs to reach
 the two-way separated bike lanes. Special phasing – overlapping with the southbound left and



 40 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 80 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 westbound right while other movements, including southbound thru, are held – allows this
 crossing to be completed at once. Alternative 3 has one intersection at LOS E (King), two at LOS
 D (College, Main), and the remainder at LOS C or better. Compared to existing conditions, the
 end-to-end travel time increases by 21 seconds (southbound) and 105 seconds (northbound).
 This is a 61% increase in travel time delay for northbound and a 15% increase for southbound
 end-to-end.

 As a hybrid option, Alternative 3 has performance in between Alternatives 1 and 2. Congestion is
 greatest on the southern end of the corridor, particularly in the northbound direction. Cyclists
 experience more delay at the southern intersections due to the separation of bicycle and vehicle
 movements. Placing the cycle track on the east side means significant turning conflicts at King
 and at Maple. The bicycle phase must be brief to accommodate all necessary phases, meaning
 cyclists will usually arrive on red. Generally speaking, through bicycle movements that are
 compatible with concurrent motor vehicle movements (i.e. are at or below the thresholds
 identified in Section 4.1.6) allow for longer green times.

 Table 4 Alternative 3 Traffic Analysis

 Average Delay (s) per Entering Vehicle
 Park St & North Ave & Sherman St..…... 17.0
 Battery St & Pearl St…………...………………. 14.7
 Battery St & Cherry St…………...……………. 15.6
 Battery St & College St…………..…………… 36.6
 Battery St & Main St………………..…………. 45.4
 Battery St & King St…………………..………... 66.9
 Battery St & Maple St………………….……... 16.8

 Corridor End to End
 Network Delay (s) 106.2
 Average Network Speed (mph) 11
 End-to-End Travel Time, NB (min:s) 4:37
 End-to-End Travel Time, SB (min:s) 2:45


4.4.1 Alternative 3 Summary
 A full, 50-scale layout plan of Alternative 3 is provided on the next page.

 Alternative 3 combines elements of Alternatives 1 and 2 to create a hybrid approach aimed at
 balancing connectivity, safety, and accessibility with minimal impacts to parking and traffic
 operations. This alternative features two-way separated bike lanes along the east side of Battery
 Street between Maple Street and Main Street, transitioning to one-way separated bike lanes on
 both sides of the corridor north of Main Street. The east-side alignment of the two-way bike
 lanes is intended to create a seamless connection to the planned shared-use path associated
 with the Railyard Enterprise Project. While maintaining most of the existing parking spaces (up to
 39 of 42 between Maple and Main Streets), the design requires reducing green space and
 configuring bike lane buffers to minimum widths. Overall, Alternative 3 offers a balanced solution
 that preserves more parking than Alternative 1 while providing greater connectivity than
 Alternative 2, though it introduces additional complexity at intersections requiring thoughtful
 design to manage turning conflicts and delays effectively.



 41 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 81 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 Figure 24 50-Scale Layout Plan of Alternative 3




42 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 82 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




4.5 Conceptual Cost Estimates
 Conceptual Cost Estimates were developed for each alternative using bid history unit pricing,
 research of similar project, and order of magnitude quantity takeoffs. The conceptual cost
 estimates were then projected for a construction year of 2030 but taking the order of magnitude
 current year costs and compounding a 5% estimated annual increase in pricing. The provided
 cost estimates are inclusive of engineering and design, permitting, and construction.

 The conceptual cost estimate for each alternative is as follows:

 › Alternative 1: $31,700,000
 › Alternative 2: $31,400,000
 › Alternative 3: $31,000,000

 The detailed cost estimate spreadsheets are provided in Appendix G.



4.6 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix
 Table 5 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix

 Corridor Alternatives**
 No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
 Projected 2030 Cost $0 $31.7M $31.4M $31.0M
 Constructability Very Very
 Challenging
 Challenging Challenging

 Purpose & Need
 Improve corridor &
 intersection safety for all No Yes Yes Yes
 users
 Enhance comfort and
 accessibility for No Yes Yes Yes
 pedestrians
 Provide end-to-end
 bicycle facilities and No Yes Yes Yes
 connections
 Integrate street ecology
 into Battery Street’s No Yes Yes Yes
 overall design
 Provide acceptable
 mobility for all modes of No Yes/No* Yes Yes
 transportation

 * While Alternative 1 dramatically improves mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians, the overall
 increased delay for motorists is not considered to meet this particular need.
 ** For a better understanding of the differences between each alternative, please review Section
 4.2 (Alternative 1), Section 4.3 (Alternative 2) and Section 4.4 (Alternative 3).




 43 Alternatives Analysis
 Page 83 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




5
 Recommended Preferred Alternative &
 Implementation Plan
 The selection of the Preferred Alternative for Battery Street integrated
 findings from extensive public engagement, input from the Project
 Advisory Committee, and a detailed alternatives analysis, all described in
 detail in the previous sections. Public engagement provided critical
 insights into community priorities, including safety, connectivity, and
 minimizing impacts to parking. Advisory group meetings allowed
 stakeholders to review and refine the alternatives, confirming they aligned
 with the project’s Purpose and Need(s). Finally, the alternatives analysis
 evaluated each option based on metrics such as overall safety, traffic
 operations, multimodal accessibility, and parking impacts, enabling an
 objective comparison of tradeoffs. This collaborative and data-driven
 process led to the recommendation of an alternative that balances safety,
 mobility, and community priorities while addressing the long-term
 functionality of the corridor.




44 Recommended Preferred Alternative & Implementation Plan
 Page 84 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



5.1 Recommended Preferred Alternative
 At the conclusion of public engagement, stakeholder / advisory committee engagement, and the
 finalization of the alternatives analysis, Alternative 2 was recommended as the preferred
 alternative for the Battery Street corridor. Alternative 2 garnered the most support from the
 public, as well as the advisory committee and project team. Moreover, it best met the needs of
 the project defined in the project’s purpose and need(s) statement.

 Following feedback provided by the Advisory Committee at their third meeting, the team refined
 Alternative 2 to improve the overall concept for Battery Street. These refinements included:

 › More separation for the two-way bike travel along the “Battery Park Extension” section of
 Battery Street – This refinement was included based on a request to re-evaluate the safety of
 bike travel in opposite directions along a segment with significant grade that would result in
 measurably different bicyclist speeds.
 The project team also further considered the overall safety implications of each alternative
 relative to bicyclist safety. In addition to the above safety concern, the project team
 evaluated two other considerations, 1) the potential for the most common crash types
 involving bicyclists, i.e. “right hook” and “left cross” crashes for each alternative, and 2) the
 potential for non-compliance from bicyclists given long wait times for separate phases.
 Overall, the potential for the crash types between alternatives is fairly similar, but the concern
 over non-compliance given bicyclist wait times is greater for Alternative 1.
 › On-street parking in the south end of the corridor – As described previously, the project
 team evaluated the feasibility of maintaining more parking between Maple Street and Main
 Street and determined that this is feasible if width reductions are made to several elements
 of the originally proposed cross-section.
 › Removal of the southbound right-turn lane at College Street – In the original version of
 Alternative 2, a southbound right-turn lane was included at the College Street intersection.
 This was due to the high right-turn and left-turn volumes at this location and the need to
 phase-separate those movements from the two-way separated bike lanes. The advisory
 committee expressed concern over the fact that with the inclusion of the southbound right-
 turn lane, the pedestrian crossing – which is known to have some of the highest pedestrian
 volumes in the area – is not shortened from its existing length. Acknowledging this
 consideration, the project team revised the cross-section and signal operations at the
 intersection. While this resulted in poorer overall traffic operations, the results were well
 within the acceptable range, while enabling a shorter pedestrian crossing.
 › Reducing impacts to Battery Park – This was another request made by the advisory
 committee. To accommodate this, the project team modified the cross-section of the two-
 way separated bike lanes and shifted it closer to Battery Street.
 › The final refinement made to Battery Street was in the block between Main Street and
 College Street, along the west side. There was a request to increase the frontage space in
 front of the April Cornell building. Similar to other refinements, to accommodate this
 request, the project team revised the cross-section along the west side of the street to
 include a narrower two-way separated bike facility and narrower buffers. The refined widths
 still meet minimum requirements, while also accommodating the request to increase
 business frontage space.




 45 Recommended Preferred Alternative & Implementation Plan
 Page 85 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



5.1.1 Presentation to the Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee
 (TEUC) and Subsequent Revisions
 On January 28, 2025, the project team presented the study and the recommended preferred
 alternative to the TEUC. Based on comments heard and follow-up discussions with the necessary
 parties, the following revisions have been made to the recommended preferred alternative:

 › Maintaining parking on both sides of Battery Street between Maple Street and Main Street.
 The original recommended preferred alternative maintained parking on one side of the
 street between Maple Street and King Street, while maintaining parking on both sides of the
 street between King Street and Main Street.
 This modification retains parking on both sides of the street, resulting in 39 parking spaces
 (compared to the existing 42 spaces). This revision is feasible by reducing the amount of
 green space and removing several trees on the east side of Battery Street between Maple
 Street and King Street. This modification creates a narrower cross-section for all users and
 results in more “friction” but does maintain on-street parking to the greatest extent possible.

 › Left-turn pockets for hotel access. Based on comments from City Councilors, left-turn
 pockets have been added to the preferred alternative to provide improved access for
 southbound traveling motorists to Hotel Champlain.

 › Maintaining the loading zone in front of the Courtyard Marriott (Burlington Harbor). This was
 a correction to the layout plan to maintain the on-street loading zone for the Courtyard
 Marriot (Burlington Harbor) hotel.

 A 50-scale layout plan of the Recommended Preferred Alternative is provided on Page 46.


5.1.2 Additional Considerations
 The following comments were received from two Advisory Committee members following the
 committee’s vote on a recommended preferred alternative:

 › Traffic Analysis of Park Street/Sherman Street: To examine the feasibility of reducing the
 number of southbound lanes between Pearl Street and Sherman Street, conduct a traffic
 study to evaluate the impact of a lane reduction on Park Street north of the Sherman Street
 intersection.
 › Midblock crossing at Monroe Street: Consider installing a raised crosswalk at Monroe Street
 across Park Street. While this location already features a crosswalk and RRFB, a raised
 crosswalk could be evaluated as an additional measure to enhance pedestrian safety.
 Please note that these recommended additional considerations were not reviewed by the entire
 Advisory Committee.




  46 Recommended Preferred Alternative & Implementation Plan
 Page 86 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study



 Figure 25 50-Scale Layout Plan of the Recommended Preferred Alternative




47 Recommended Preferred Alternative & Implementation Plan
 Page 87 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study




5.2 Implementation Plan & Funding Opportunities
 The recommended improvements for the Battery Street corridor could be implemented in
 phases, depending on the availability of funding. The following section provides a potential
 implementation plan for the corridor, along with details about potential funding options.

 Although there is potential to secure separate grants for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,
 the significant grade changes between the sidewalk and travel lanes pose challenges for
 separating these improvements from the broader vehicular roadway construction. While much of
 the planned bicycle infrastructure will be constructed outside the current travel lanes, these
 grade differentials could complicate phasing and require careful coordination.

 In considering an opportunity for nearer term implementation of the recommended preferred
 alternative, the proposed road diet (i.e. reduction in travel lanes) between Main Street and Pearl
 Street could be implemented leveraging the City’s Quick Build Design + Materials Standards.
 Through utilizing this guide, along with pavement markings, signing, and modifications to the
 traffic signals, the road diet could be implemented while other steps in the project development
 process are being taken to move the project toward engineering design.

 Additionally, given the existing curb-to-curb width from Main Street to Pearl Street is
 approximately 48-feet, the recommended bicycle facility type – two-way separated bike lanes
 along the west side – could also be implemented using pavement markings and quick build
 materials. If a standard 11-foot width is used for the motor vehicle travel lanes, approximately
 15-feet of width would be available to implement the two-way separated bike lanes.

 Lastly, in the longer term, for the southern segment of the project – Maple Street to Main Street
 – the City should seek out opportunities for a joint implementation between these blocks and
 the construction of the Railyard Enterprise Project (REP), and eventual construction of the
 westernmost blocks of the Great Streets Main Street project. Pending the timing of these
 ongoing projects, it could be worth considering a phased approach to implementing the
 preferred alternative with improvements beginning at Main Street and moving north prior to
 implementing improvements from Main Street to the south.


5.2.1 Proposed Implementation Timeline
 Short-Term Recommendations – Within 5-Years:
 › Initiate preliminary design
 • Develop the engineering design to anticipate grade differentials between the roadway,
 sidewalk, and separated bike lanes and their implications on construction phasing.
 › Implement the road diet and two-way separated bike lanes with signing, pavement
 markings and signal modifications between Main Street and Pearl Street
 • Incorporate the road diet and separated bike lanes into planned updates to pavement
 markings or repaving, providing an opportunity to initiate improvements while design
 work continues.
 • Leverage the City’s Quick Build Design + Materials Standard Guide
 › Finalize engineering design
 Long-Term Recommendations – Within 10-Years:


  48 Recommended Preferred Alternative & Implementation Plan
 Page 88 of 91
 Battery Street Scoping Study


 › Secure funding & begin construction

 This phased approach provides a framework for advancing the Battery Street improvements in a
 way that aligns with funding availability, minimizes community disruption, and ensures a
 cohesive connection to broader transportation initiatives.


5.2.2 Funding Opportunities
 The next step to realizing the infrastructure improvements outlined above is securing funding to
 support project design and construction. Given the opportunity to incrementally implement
 smaller scale projects through the recommended phasing outlined above, applying for funding
 opportunities through competitive grant programs is recommended.

 State or Local Grants
 The VTrans Bicycle and Pedestrian Program is a grant program to provide funding for projects
 that implement safe and convenient facilities for Vermonters who desire alternative
 transportation opportunities. It is available for the scoping, design, and construction of bike and
 pedestrian facilities, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, crosswalks, and shared use paths. This is a
 competitive grant that requires a 50% local match for state-funded small-scale construction and
 a 20% match for construction that is federally funded.

 The VTrans Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) provides a maximum grant award of
 $300,000 with a 20% match for construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail
 facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized forms of transportation. This
 includes sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming, lighting,
 and other safety-related infrastructure.

 Lastly, the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD) provides the
 Downtown Transportation Fund that provides up to $200,000 for projects that improve multi-
 modal and resilient transportation in designated downtown areas.

 Federal Grants
 A potential funding source for implementing improvements is to apply for FHWA's Safe Streets
 for All (SS4A) Implementation Grants. If Battery Street is identified as part of the High-Injury
 Network in the planBTV Walk Bike Safety Action Plan, it would qualify for project-level design
 and development activities. By redesigning the High-Injury Network into a "Complete Street"
 that enhances safety, separates users, and manages speed, Battery Street would become eligible
 for these grants.

 Additionally, FHWA’s Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
 Grant program would be another recommended grant to pursue. The City of Burlington was
 successfully awarded $22.3 million from the RAISE Grant to rebuild St. Paul and Pine Streets
 through the site of the former mall, and to revitalize eight existing City blocks on Cherry Street
 and Bank Street between the Church Street Marketplace and the Waterfront. Based on previous
 projects that have been awarded RAISE grants, Battery Street would be a strong candidate due to
 the significant local impact it would have.

 It should be noted that both federal grants mentioned are currently only eligible until 2026 and it
 is uncertain if these grants will be available in the future.



 49 Recommended Preferred Alternative & Implementation Plan
 Page 89 of 91
Page 90 of 91
Page 91 of 91

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
 645 PINE STREET
 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
 COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 19, 2025
 DRAFT MINUTES
 For video of the meeting, please visit Town Meeting TV’s YouTube Channel:

 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83495330508

Commissioners Present: Commissioner Barr, Vice Chair Fox, Commissioner Davis,
Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco
Commissioner Absent: Chair Damiani, Commissioner Munteanu
ITEM 1 – CALL TO ORDER
 Vice Chair Fox called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
ITEM 2 – AGENDA
 Commissioner Barr made a motion to approve the agenda
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco seconded.
 Unanimous Approval.

ITEM 3 – PUBLIC FORUM

 Sharon Bushor called to inquire about the removal of parking on North Winooski
 Avenue creates tension. There has been a lot of conversation on metered parking in
 residential parking only area. Pedestrians are the weakest link in the bike/walk
 proposal.

 Linda Risi and Maddy Posk are residents of Hungerford Terrace and are questioning why
 there is going to be a chicane in their neighborhood, there is not a lot of traffic and not a
 lot of speeding.

ITEM 4 – CONSENT AGENNDA

 Director Spencer stated the consent agenda included the Hungerford Terrace parking
 chicane you can pull that off if you would like.

 4.1 Approval of Draft Minutes 2-19-25
 4.2 Hungerford Terrace Parking Chicane
 4.3 No Turn on Red at Shelburne St. and Home Ave

 Commissioner Barr made a motion to accept the consent agenda with removing the
 Hungerford Terrace issue
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco seconded
 Unanimous Approval

ITEM 4.5 – HUNGERFORD TERRACE PARKING CHICANE
 City Engineer Jack Keller stated that there was a request from a resident for traffic
 calming on this street. Putting in a chicane is a solution that is not too expensive and
 has shown to be effective. This also increases parking on the street for residents.
 Senior Transportation Planner Philip Peterson stated that driving have parking adjacent.
 We did meet public engagement. The public feedback was positive.
 Commissioner Barr stated that chicanes had been installed on Chase Street and they do
 work. I am in support of this.
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco stated this was an informal bike corridor and appreciates
 the traffic calming. She is concerned about the clearance of the driveways for the
 rubbish trucks. She also had a concern for parking when visitors go where they cars
 park. Commissioner O’Neill Vivanco also had questions about when this was going to
 roll out.
 Information Officer Rob Goulding stated that he had a good working relationship with
 the UVM Life Office and he will speak with their office and ask if they could help with
 getting this information out to the students.
 Commissioner Davis inquired about the speed component.
 City Transportation Engineer Julia Ursaki stated that the speed limit is 24 mph. We
 installed this on Buell Street to reduce speed on a low volume street. This is a less low
 cost solution.
 Commissioner Davis stated that he was an advocate for the chicanes for the pedestrian
 crash but Hungerford had only one crash.
 City Engineer Julia Ursaki stated that the crashes on Hungerford Terrace are mostly
 property damage and there has been only one pedestrian crash.
 Commissioner Fox supports this. It is inexpensive, nimble and can be ￼changed back.

 Commissioner Barr made a motion to accept staff’s recommendation
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco seconded
 Unanimous approval

ITEM 5 – BATTERY STREET PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE APPROVAL

 The Project Advisory Committee and Project Team recommend a two way separated
 bike lanes along the west side of Battery Street as the preferred alternative. This will
 include lane reconfiguration that reduces the number of lanes, shortens the pedestrian
 crossings, traffic signal improvements and space for additional Great Streets designs
 elements like green storm water infrastructure, trees, benches and public art.

 The purpose of this is to improve corridor and intersection safety for all users.
 Enhance comfort and accessibility for pedestrians along Battery Street
 Provide end-to-end bicycle facilities and connections
 Integrate street ecology into Battery Street’s overall design
 Provide acceptable mobility for all modes of transportation along Battery Street

 Transportation Engineer Julia Ursaki stated that this item would be going before City
 Council for approval on April 14th.
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco has questions about signaling for the cyclist to cross from
 west side of Battery. Engineer Ursaki stated that there will be a box for bikes coming
 southbound to que up.
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco asked if there was any plans to advocate for bike parking
 at the businesses on Battery Street. Engineer Ursaki stated they will add this to the list.
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco asked about the maintenance and was informed that the
 two lanes will make it easier to plow.
 Commissioner Davis stated that Alternative 2 is great the turns and interaction which
 will help people know what to expect. Is there a scoping study on construction effects
 on people traveling on Battery Street.
 Commissioner Fox is excited about the project. She did inquire about signage and bike
 parking.

 Commissioner Bar made a motion to approve
 Commissioner O’Neil-Vivanco seconded
 Unanimous approval

ITEM 6 – 2025 PAVING UPDATE

 Associate Engineer Caleb Manna stated that there was extra money left over from last
 year’s contract and we will be paving the Beltline from Manhattan Drive just before the
 North Avenue exit.

 The paving contract went out to bid and SD Ireland won the bid as they were in line with
 previous year’s budget. I have included that areas of paving that we will be doing this
 year. The sidewalks are in bad shape and when we do a sidewalk we will fix the ADA
 crossing to become compliant.

 Commissioner Fox asked of the managing contractor will communicate as much in
 advance as possible.
 Senior Engineer Cory Mims stated that SD Ireland is managing the Main Street and
 Pearl Street and will also include this.
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco asked if there has been contact with the Burlington
 School District
 Senior Transportation Planner Philip Peterson stated there is a bi weekly with the
 Burlington School District.
 Commissioner Davis about speed tables. Senior Transportation Planner Philip Peterson
 stated that funding for calming is out of the transportation budget. Senior Engineer
 Mims stated that funding for both points is in the contact.


ITEM 7 – DIRECTOR’S REPORT
 - 2025 TMD Capital bond requests all passed on Town Meeting Day
 - Battery Street Corridor study preferred alternative has made good progress and has a
 proposed preferred alternative to improve the safety and accessibility for all users.
 - FY’26 Budget and the future of municipal recycling collections. We will come to the
 commission in April to discuss strategies to close the gap. This will likely include how
 recycling will be collected in the Queen City.
 - Traffic Calming advancing a permanent traffic calming installations on Ethan Allen
 Parkway and Archibald Street.
 - Route 127 improvements DPW installed 2 radar speed feedback signs on the high speed
 portion of 127. We are reviewing the crash reports along with the history of prior
 fatalities. We will be exploring potential automated traffic enforcement.
ITEM 8 - COMMISSIONER ITEMS

 Commissioner Davis stated the Pine Street cutoff communication is awesome. The
 Champlain Parkway right turn green arrow signal does exist works. Someone south on
 Parkway Briggs Street went in drainage cut off area. Appreciate the thought that went
 into Home Avenue and Home Avenue.

 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco inquired about the drainage fixed at Summit Ridge before
 paving. She also asked about the South Union by Edmunds signal coming soon. Director
 Spencer state he will check in for an installation time

 Commissioner Barr asked if the sweeper broke as it left dirt in th bike lane along
 Colchester Avenue by Nash Place.

 Commissioner Fox inquired if Clean Sweep was going to happen this year. Information
 Officer Rob Goulding stated that there is a meeting coming up to plan for it.

ITEM 9 – ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING MARCH 19, 2025

 Commissioner Barr made a motion to adjourn
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco seconded.
 Unanimous approval

 Meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.