NASB Transportation Feasibility Study

NASB Transportation Feasibility Study

Public Informational Meeting

August 12, 2010

Mt. Ararat Middle School, Topsham, Maine

Presenters: Marty Kennedy, VHB; Chris Mann, MaineDOT.

Prepared by: Benjamin Ettelman, Morris Communications.

Meeting began at 6:05 PM

Mr. Mann thanked everyone for attending the final public meeting for this phase of the NASB Transportation Feasibility Study. Mr. Mann explained that the study began over a year ago and was guided by a Study Advisory Committee, which met approximately once a month. Mr. Mann went on to briefly describe the public participation process that has taken place throughout the study. Mr. Mann then introduced Mr. Kennedy, VHB’s project manager.

Mr. Kennedy noted that the presentation that was made to the Brunswick Town Council can be viewed on the Brunswick Town Website.

Mr. Kennedy touched on the role of the Advisory Committee and explained that they met monthly and thanked them for their participation. Mr. Kennedy described the study purpose, which is to guide future infrastructure improvements aimed at enhancing mobility and access associated with the redevelopment of the Brunswick Naval Air Station (NASB) and the Annex in Topsham.

Mr. Kennedy explained that this is a planning study and that the study’s goal is to evaluate and present options, which includes a no-build option.

Mr. Kennedy explained the study’s context sensitive planning approach, which aims to:

·  balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals

·  apply flexibility in the application of standards

·  establish a multi-modal mindset

·  Incorporate aesthetics into the decision process, and

·  Involve the public early and continuously.

Mr. Kennedy noted that there have been four public meetings, two interactive workshops, and ten study Advisory Committee meetings. In addition we provided an 8 page newspaper insert that laid out the various concepts and there was a study website: www.nasb-transportation-study.com that had various information and a location to submit questions or comments. Any questions and comments that were submitted were read and responded to directly by Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Kennedy explained that throughout the public input process, the following general themes were expressed: bicycle and pedestrian access is very important, increased use of public transportation is important, and with respect to the functional classifications of roadways the questions are where to add capacity, where to provide access management, where to introduce traffic calming, where to preserve existing character, and how to pull it all together into an effective transportation system. Mr. Kennedy explained that any solution could be separated into two general categories: The first is roadway modifications, which improve safety and/or efficiency and or add capacity to accommodate increased vehicular capacity.

The second is the concept of travel demand management (TDM), which consists of actions aimed at encouraging motorists of single occupant automobiles to use other modes of transportation. Mr. Kennedy explained that TDM includes bike connectivity, pedestrian sidewalks, bus pullout areas, and pedestrian signals. Mr. Kennedy noted that even when considering roadway improvement projects, the study would recommend aggressively implementing TDM techniques.

Mr. Kennedy explained that GOMaine is an existing program that provides car-pooling, van pooling, and park and ride matching programs. These types of programs reduce the number of vehicles on the roadway system and as a result reduce the need to continue to add roadway capacity. Mr. Kennedy discussed how local bus service is another aspect of TDM. Mr. Kennedy explained that the Brunswick Explorer is going to be expanding service. Additionally, the MaineDOT is currently conducting the Portland North Study, which is evaluating both passenger rail and regional bus service with the goal of identifying a long-term plan for accommodating regional traffic growth.

Mr. Kennedy stated that for the purpose of this study, TDM is not an either/or option, but rather a series of actions that should be implemented as aggressively as possible regardless of other actions that are moved forward.

Mr. Kennedy explained that an important element of the success of the implementation of TDM is that it has to be a collaborative process among the towns of Brunswick and Topsham, as well as the MaineDOT and the private sector - including existing employers and future developers.

Mr. Kennedy then described the roadway options that the Study Team has developed.

Mr. Kennedy first described the 5 specific strategies that the Study Team was asked to evaluate. Strategy 1 looks to provide direct access from Route 1 to the NASB or the soon-to-be Brunswick Landing; Strategy 3 looks to extend the existing rail spur across Bath Road and onto the NASB/Brunswick Landing; Strategies 2A, 2B and 2C look at improving mobility along the Coastal Connector and Route 201 from Route 1 to I-295 (Exit 31), and along Route 1 (Mill Street and Pleasant Street).

Mr. Kennedy described the three Build alternatives under Strategy 1, namely the Trumpet Loop Interchange, the Flyover Interchange, and the Frontage Road option.

Mr. Kennedy discussed how the closure of the NASB will adversely impact the economy of the region and that Strategy 1 is intended to encourage development on NASB/Brunswick Landing, which will improve the economy and make up for the impact of the loss of the base activity. Mr. Kennedy explained that the direct connection would encourage developers to consider locating at the new Brunswick Landing, which could mitigate the loss of the base.

Mr. Kennedy explained that the Study Team found that a direct connection from Route 1 and the NASB/Brunswick Landing is feasible. However, each of the alternatives has costs and impacts that must be considered. Mr. Kennedy explained that there is a cost ($30-40 million dollars) and there are environmental and property impacts, which have been documented in the draft report. Additional environmental study will be needed to more closely consider these impacts. Mr. Kennedy reiterated that for the purpose of this study, the Study Team has concluded that a direct connection is feasible, but there needs to be an additional environmental study before any plan is moved forward.

Mr. Kennedy then described the two alternatives (Western and Eastern Connections) that were evaluated for Strategy 3.

Mr. Kennedy explained that the idea of extending the rail is about providing multimodal opportunities. Mr. Kennedy explained that the Study Team’s analysis shows that a rail connection is feasible but as before, there are environmental impacts and costs ($3-6 million dollars). Mr. Kennedy explained that the demand for the rail is associated with the redevelopment and that the need for freight rail depends on what type of development occurs on NASB/Brunswick Landing. Mr. Kennedy explained that for the purpose of this study, the Study Team has concluded that extending the line is feasible. However, if and when to move forward with either one of the alternatives will depend on the timing and demand generated by the redevelopment program. Therefore, little needs to be done with this Strategy at this time. It can be advanced in the future once the demand from the redevelopment is established.

Mr. Kennedy explained that Strategies 2A, 2B and 2C are related in that the traffic patterns along one corridor affects the traffic patterns along another corridor. Mr. Kennedy explained that many from the public (perhaps more from Brunswick) have expressed a desire for the Coastal Connector to accommodate more of the regional through traffic while Route 1 (Mill Street and Pleasant Street) should be down-classified. Mr. Kennedy suggested that the towns of Brunswick and Topsham need to consider the desired long-term function of these corridors. Once an agreement on the function of these corridors is reached, it will be easier to agree on the type and timing of improvements to each corridor.

Mr. Kennedy described the Strategy associated with the Coastal Connector (Strategy 2A).

Mr. Kennedy described the option to widen the eastern section of the Coastal Connector to four lanes (Option 4) for Strategy 2A.

Mr. Kennedy noted that the Study Team heard at public meetings and workshops that it was important to process traffic along the Coastal Connector, but not to create such a massive new highway that would be a bisecting of the Town of Topsham. He said the following options aim to improve roadway efficiency while preserving the local character of Route 201 in Topsham.

Mr. Kennedy described a Roundabout alternative as well as a Grade-Separated intersection alternative for the intersection of Route 201 and Route 196 (Coastal Connector) for Strategy 2A.

Mr. Kennedy explained that there are two options to handle the new intersections of the access roads and Route 201 under the Grade-Separated alternative. One option would be to install small roundabouts and the other would be to introduce traffic signal control at the new intersections.

Mr. Kennedy described the location of a new 4-way signalized intersection on Route 201 that would serve as the primary access to the redevelopment of the Topsham Annex for Strategy 2A.

Mr. Kennedy described an alternative the Exit 31 interchange, which consisted of installing traffic signal control at the Route 196/Southbound Ramp intersection. Additionally, the improvement included the lengthening of the Route 196 westbound left-turn lane.

Mr. Kennedy described the Strategy associated with Pleasant Street (2B). Mr. Kennedy noted that what we heard at the Public Meetings and Workshops was a need for access management and a need for traffic calming. We were asked to consider an option that would introduce a gateway treatment aimed at slowing motorists as they enter Pleasant Street from I-295 at Exit 28.

Mr. Kennedy presented an option that showed a gateway roundabout at the entrance to Pleasant Street for I-295 (Exit 28) followed by options for the length of Pleasant Street including:

·  Traffic Calming Boulevard (roundabouts with raised median)

·  Urban Boulevard (signals with raised median)

·  5-Lane Section ( roundabouts or signals with center turn lane – no median)

Additionally, Mr. Kennedy described the access management elements of the plan, which include connections between properties that would provide all properties along the corridor with access to at least one of the major intersections. Mr. Kennedy noted that the connections shown on the plans are conceptual and require additional discussion with property owners. It is expected that these or other types of connections would occur over time as redevelopment occurs along the corridor.

Mr. Kennedy also discussed options for the Church Road and River Road intersections, which could operate under traffic signal control or as a roundabout. Additionally, a separate option considered the possibility of relocating the River Road to the west side of the auto dealership.

Mr. Kennedy showed an option for improving the Pleasant Street/Mill Street intersection, which shows an improved alignment where the Pleasant Street to Mill Street traffic flow operates as through traffic as opposed to the existing left-or right-turn configuration. This option would be under traffic signal control.

Mr. Kennedy proceeded to discuss options for Mill Street (Strategy 2C). Mr. Kennedy stressed the importance of the Androscoggin Riverwalk and the need to consider pedestrian connectivity between the river and the nearby neighborhood on the opposite side of Mill Street.

Mr. Kennedy described the difficulties that pedestrians have crossing Mill Street at Cushing Street and noted that motorists aren’t expecting a crosswalk at that location and as a result it can be potentially hazardous for pedestrians. Mr. Kennedy explained that the Study Team considered several different ways to connect the neighborhood with the riverfront. Mr. Kennedy described an option to create a pedestrian bridge over Mill Street by the old truss bridge, which would work with the topography of the area.

As for Strategy 2C alternatives, Mr. Kennedy discussed the No Build (leave the roadway as it is today), a 4-lane (2 lanes per direction) section with a raised median, and a 3-lane section (2 lanes northbound and 1 lane southbound) with a raised median.

Mr. Kennedy noted that the MaineDOT, has plans (next year) to reconfigure the Route 1 southbound ramp at Maine Street so that left-turns, which are currently prohibited, will be allowed. The ramp would be placed under traffic signal control. Additionally, Mr. Kennedy described other longer-term options that the MaineDOT, under a separate study effort, were evaluating for the Maine Street/Route 1 interchange. The options included a roundabout and a single point urban interchange (SPUI). The advantage of the SPUI is that it would provide for Route 1 northbound left-turn movements as well as Route 1 southbound movements. Accommodating southbound left-turns would reduce the volume of traffic that currently cuts through the Cushing Street neighborhood, while accommodating the northbound left-turn movement would reduce the volume of Topsham destined traffic that currently has to travel through downtown Brunswick.

Mr. Kennedy presented a slide with the cost estimates of the various options. Mr. Kennedy explained that the three options for Strategy 1 are estimated to be in the $30-$40 million dollar range; the two options for a rail spur for Strategy 3 are in the $3-$6 million dollar range; the widening of the eastern section of the Coastal Connector is estimated at between $7-$9 million dollars; the Grade Separated Option for the intersection of Route 201 and 196 for Strategy 2A is estimated at between $25 and $35 million dollars; the Roundabout Option for Strategy 2A is estimated at $2-$3 million dollars; all of the options for Strategy 2B associated with Pleasant Street are estimated at between $15-$20 million dollars; and that the widening options and pedestrian bridge for Strategy 2C associated with Mill Street are estimated at between $4-$6 million dollars.

Prior to opening the floor to questions, Mr. Kennedy noted that a draft report will be available on the study website within a week and there will also be copies of that report in the town offices of Topsham and Brunswick.

Mr. Kennedy spoke briefly about the how the communities will need to consider the evaluation presented in the draft report and think about how best to proceed. For example, it may be advantageous to advance the Strategy 1 alternatives to the more detailed environmental study that will be needed. Mr. Kennedy went on to explain that the implementation of Strategy 3 (extending the rail spur) will depend on the type and timing of redevelopment at NASB/Brunswick Landing and for that reason can be put aside until the need is driven by the development demand. Mr. Kennedy explained that Strategy 2A, 2B and 2C have some options that can be done relatively quickly, with limited impacts and at relatively low costs. Mr. Kennedy went on to say that other options are tied to the decision that the towns need to make as to how the Coastal Connector functions relative to the functions of Mill Street and Pleasant Street.