Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
To: Eleni Churchill, CCRPC Date:
April 8, 2019
Project #: 58179.00
From: David Saladino, P.E., AICP Re: Final Project Scope of Work
I-89 2050 Study
Chittenden County, Vermont
This document outlines the Scope of Work to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Interstate 89 corridor
through Chittenden County out to a design horizon year of 2050 and develop a suite of policy, planning, and
infrastructure recommendations that align with stakeholder-identified Vision, Goals, and Objectives for the corridor.
Scope of Work
Task 0 – Project Management & Coordination
Ongoing project management, budget and schedule tracking, and team communication and coordination are
critical elements to ensure this project proceeds in an orderly and efficient manner. This task includes general
project management and coordination tasks, including the following services:
› Refine project scope of work and schedule;
› Correspond and communicate with project team, committees, and stakeholders;
› Coordinate personnel and workload to adhere to project schedule and milestones;
› Manage overall Quality Assurance process and oversee Quality Control reviews;
› Review project financials, including actual vs. budget by task on a monthly basis; and,
› Review monthly project invoices and prepare project summary narrative to accompany invoices.
Task 1 – Project Initiation and Kickoff Meetings
Task 1.1: Project Initiation and Internal Kick-off
As part of this initial task, the VHB Team will hold an internal team kick-off meeting to orient the team to the
project and to review key project details including the project Scope of Work, schedule, milestones, and key
deliverables. VHB will develop a detailed project base map and key corridor information for use in the initial
Technical and Advisory Committee meetings. VHB will also formalize the Process Roadmap and prepare draft
study goals in preparation for meetings with the Technical and Advisory Committees.
Task 1.2: Technical Committee Meeting #1
The Technical Committee (TC) will convene for a kick-off meeting to discuss the Scope of Work (SOW), roles
and responsibilities of the TC, and the upcoming first meeting of the Advisory Committee.
Task 1.3: Advisory Committee Meeting #1
The first Advisory Committee meeting will focus on the following major topics: 1) Review of the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP) and the need to conduct the I-89 2050 Study; 2) Provide an overview of the I-89
Study Scope of Work; 3) Review the study’s Public Participation Plan; and, 4) Review other relevant projects
and processes that will influence this study such as the CIRC Alternatives process and projects.
Deliverables: Study Process Map; Final SOW; Technical Committee and Advisory Committee meeting
agendas, materials and notes.
Task 2 – Analyze Current and Future Base Conditions and Performance
Task 2.1: Gather Data and Information
The data gathering effort will begin during Task 1 and will include a review of relevant studies and reports
provided by the CCRPC and VTrans, including statewide, regional, and local planning efforts, like the ECOS
Plan and MTP, as well as scoping and improvement studies along the corridor, to document previous metrics,
targets, evaluation methods, and recommendations. Beyond previous studies, data and information regarding
existing study area land use, transportation infrastructure, travel patterns, safety, utilities, natural and cultural
resources, and other relevant data will be gathered from a multitude of resources. The team will take
advantage of local knowledge, data resource familiarity, coordination with resource agencies, as well as
innovation in data collection and information access to generate an organized inventory of measurable
condition and performance metrics for the corridor segments, interchanges, and adjacent arterials.
This initial data gathering effort will include the following items:
› Land Use and Socio-Economic Data
• Existing zoning
• Existing land cover and buildings
• Population, employment, and household forecasts
› Transportation Infrastructure (including the entire I-89 corridor plus arterials and intersections ¼ to ½
mile from the interchanges)
• Lane and shoulder geometry
• Presence and length of guardrail and rumble strips
• Traffic control, signage, and signal timing
• Transit routes and stops
• Park and Ride lots and capacity
• Bridge, overpasses and culvert conditions
• I-89 pavement conditions
• Planned and permitted development projects
• Existing and planned Intelligent Transportation Systems
• Other relevant infrastructure
› Travel Patterns
• Traffic volumes and turning movement counts
• Travel times
• Public transit ridership and routes
• Park and ride utilization
• Origins/Destinations of corridor and interchange users
› Safety
• Crash Data (2014-2018)
• High Crash Locations (2014-2018)
› Utilities
• Fiber optics
• Gas
• Electric
• Water/Sewer
› Natural & Cultural Resources
• Water features and river corridors
• Wetlands
• Wildlife crossings and conflicts
• Rare, threatened, and endangered species
• FEMA floodways
› “Big Data”
• Innovative, big data mining approaches may be employed to query other pertinent data resources
available either through federal channels or private enterprises that may be relevant and provide
additional insights. For instance, travel times from the National Performance Management Research
Data Set (NPMRDS), business data from InfoGroup, and demographics from American Community
Survey may provide additional detail that is advantageous to the study.
Task 2.2: Coordinate Resource Agencies and Other Data Resources
We anticipate that coordination with a multitude of agencies will be required to ensure that the most up-to-
date and relevant information regarding the corridor is inventoried. First, relevant data resources available
through online databases will be searched and documented. Then, a series of up to four meetings with agency
representatives will be conducted to review the intentions of the study and discuss other pertinent
information and/or data resources that may be available. These meetings may include coordination with
agency representatives from the following agencies/bureaus or other agencies identified at a later point:
› VTrans Asset Management: To discuss and inventory asset types that VTrans tracks through the I-89
corridor and adjacent arterials, documenting the condition of assets that are critical, high priority, and
require action in the future;
› Maintenance and Operations, TSMO, and ITS representatives: To discuss and inventory the infrastructure
and traffic operations including Intelligent Transportation System plans and projects for the corridor and
adjacent arterials;
› VEM, VTrans EM, VSP, and Highway Safety: To discuss and inventory considerations in safety, emergency
management, preparedness, and response relevant to the corridor; and,
› ANR, DEC, SHPO and Fish & Wildlife: To discuss and inventory sensitive natural and cultural resources
along the corridor.
Task 2.3: Develop Integrated Modeling Suite
The test bed for evaluating alternatives across the future scenarios will be an integrated modeling suite,
comprised of a combination of the following components:
› CCRPC Travel Demand Model
› Vermont Travel Demand Model
› I-89 Corridor Model
› Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES)
› Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) and
Enhanced Interchange Safety Analysis Tool (ISATe)
A set of preliminary analyses and model development tasks will be focused on identifying and delineating the
geographic study area, determining the degree to which the models should be utilized and/or integrated,
developing the I-89 Corridor Model in the microsimulation environment, establishing model workflows,
calibrating the models to the study corridor, validating the models against current conditions, and evaluating
the base case to establish the current conditions and performance.
Identify and Delineate Study Area
The most up-to-date versions of the CCRPC and Vermont Statewide Travel Demand Models will be acquired
and run for the base year 2015 in TransCAD to serve as the baseline models throughout the life of the study.
Preliminary analyses, including methods like select link analyses and network travel bands, will be conducted
to identify the most common origins and destinations of trips that traverse the I-89 corridor segments and
interchanges, as well as the typical travel time sheds of the most common origins and destinations. The goal
of these preliminary analyses will be to delineate the study area of the corridor, thus setting the geographic
bounds for the purposes of evaluating capacity, safety, environmental, land use and other impacts of the
proposed I-89 alternatives.
Develop the I-89 Corridor Model
A subarea analysis will be conducted in the regional model to provide the foundation for the I-89 Corridor
Model. The subarea analysis will produce the underlying geography and trip patterns for the traffic
microsimulation model. This information will be transferred from TransCAD to TransModeler where the
corridor segments, interchanges, and adjacent arterials ranging from a quarter to a half of a mile from
interchanges will be fully developed to match the existing conditions. The model will be refined to reflect the
geometric characteristics and validated through the data gathering effort. Furthermore, the travel patterns
and traffic operations, including signal timing at ramp terminals and along adjacent arterials, will be coded
into the microsimulation environment.
Establish Modeling Workflow
Once the regional and corridor models are established, the workflows for implementing various alternatives
will be established to ensure consistency across the modeling team. This will include identifying the inputs to
each model test bed that might be adjusted to produce varying outcomes and the outputs from each model
that should be carried forward.
In addition to the regional and corridor models, the most recent versions of MOVES, IHSDM, and/or ISATe will
be acquired. These models will be utilized to evaluate the environmental air quality and safety implications of
proposed strategies or projects. Appropriate workflows for processing outputs from the regional/corridor
models and/or synthesizing other data resources to generate the inputs necessary for the models will be
established. Changes to factors like vehicle speeds, miles of travel, fleet composition, and occupancy resulting
from transportation strategies or projects will be reflected in the MOVES analyses. The predictive safety
methods rely on both physical factors, like number of lanes and length of guardrail or rumble strips, as well as
operational factors, like Annual Average Daily Travel (AADT).
Calibrate Models
In general, calibration of the models will combine the data gathering effort and the development of the
integrated modeling suite. Calibration of the regional model will focus attention on the corridor and leverage
traditional methods, such as validation of the modeled regional travel patterns with observed traffic volume
counts. The corridor model will similarly be calibrated to screenline and turning movement counts. Validation
through other metrics like observed queues and delays may help to further refine the corridor model.
Guidance, like that available from FHWA, for model calibration will be followed. In addition, the MOVES and
IHSDM/ISATe models will be calibrated to Vermont-specific factors.
Task 2.4: Technical Committee Meeting #2
The major goal of this Technical Committee (TC) meeting will be to review project progress to this point;
solicit feedback on the integrated modeling suite to ensure that it has the ability to produce appropriate
operational performance metrics. TC members will also discuss and approve the performance metrics that will
be used in the evaluation of current and future no-build conditions as well as appropriate thresholds for these
measures. Information gathered during stakeholder meetings and focus group sessions will be summarized.
Task 2.5: Evaluate Current and Future Base Conditions and Performance
Evaluate Current Conditions and Performance
Once models are validated, TransCAD and TransModeler will be used to evaluate the current operational
performance. Model runs will evaluate morning and evening peak travel activity for the 2015 base year at the
regional and corridor levels through the established model workflows. Outputs from the regional and corridor
modeling will be used to evaluate capacity issues, energy consumption, emissions, and safety outcomes for
the study area. Initially, the full system will be evaluated for total delay, emissions, fuel consumption, and
number/severity of crashes; interstate corridor segments will be evaluated for volume-to-capacity ratios, levels
of service, travel times, emissions, fuel consumption, and number/severity of crashes; interchanges will be
evaluated for volume-to-capacity, level of service, average delay, queueing, emissions, fuel consumption, and
number/severity of crashes. It is expected that other measures will be included, as identified by the Technical
and Advisory Committees, such as measures of equity, changes to travel times for underserved populations,
and land use.
Analyze Future No Build Conditions
Two future base networks will be developed and analyzed using the modeling suite, including: 1) 2035 MTP
demographics with the current transportation network plus Transportation Improvement Program that are
also ”Front of the Book” Capital Program projects; and 2) 2050 MTP demographics with the current
transportation network plus Transportation Improvement Program that are also ”Front of the Book” Capital
Program projects.
Like the current condition and performance evaluations, the models will be run to evaluate the AM and PM
peak conditions at the full system, corridor segment, and interchange levels, for model years 2035 and 2050.
The results of the future base network modeling will be carried through the established modeling work flow
to measure future base operations, environmental implications, safety outcomes, and other metrics including
asset conditions and land use implications. The evaluations will be summarized in a matrix of deficiencies and
areas of concern. These inadequacies will be documented to identify the most critical issues that will help the
Technical and Advisory Committees develop the draft Vision, Goals and Objectives for the I-89 Corridor.
Task 2.6: Technical Committee Meeting #3
The focus of this meeting will be to review results of existing I-89 corridor conditions and established study
area analyses. TC members will also review results of the future base 2035 and 2050 analyses, identified
issues, and deficient areas. The team will incorporate the TC’s input and make any necessary changes before
presenting to AC.
Task 2.7: Advisory Committee Meeting #2
The Advisory Committee (AC) will be presented with updated, relevant results of the I-89 Corridor existing
conditions as well as the future base 2035 and 2050 analyses. Based on the results of these evaluations and
the identification of issues and deficient areas, the AC will brainstorm on preliminary Vision, Goals and
Objectives for the I-89 Corridor.
A graphic artist, Matt Heywood, will participate in the meeting to develop a visual representation of the
group’s Vision and Goals in real-time.
Deliverables: Project briefings to the AC, TC, and CCRPC on the status of the integrated modeling suite,
including the influence area boundaries. Documentation of modeling outcomes and results from existing
(2015) and future base (2035 and 2050) evaluation of conditions and performance; and identifying deficiencies
and areas of concern along the existing corridor reported in a deficiencies matrix template. TC and AC
meeting agendas, materials, and notes. Vision and Goals graphic representation(s) from the AC meeting.
Task 3 – Corridor Vision and Goals
Task 3.1: Develop draft Vision and Goals for I-89 Corridor
Based on information gathered from the Advisory Committee during their second meeting, the consultant
team will work with the CCRPC and Technical Committee (through email exchanges) to develop the draft
Vision and Goals for the I-89 Corridor that will be presented to the public for their review.
Task 3.2: Public Meeting #1
The first round of public input will be held at up to three locations in the northern, central, and southern
portions of the study area. Each public meeting will begin with an overview of the study followed by a
presentation of existing conditions and future base conditions. Identified current and future issues and
deficiencies will be reviewed and the public will be invited to provide their feedback on I-89 issues as well as
the draft Vision and Goals of the study area. The public will also have the opportunity to review materials and
provide comment online.
A graphic artist, Matt Heywood, will participate in the meetings to develop a visual representation of the
group’s Vision and Goals in real-time. After the conclusion of the AC and public meetings, the artist will create
a composite graphic of the input.
The public will be notified with adequate time prior to the meeting and the meetings will be made available
through online live streaming from the project website. It is likely that some or all of the public meetings will
have a live polling component to ensure that all attendees are provided the opportunity to share thoughts on
the project. Both general and targeted outreach (i.e. to nearby large employers, local listservs, and general
outreach like Front Porch Forum) will be conducted for each of the public meetings.
Task 3.3: Focus Group Sessions – Round #1
Up to four Focus Group sessions will be convened and facilitated to discuss corridor deficiencies and gather
information on current issues with I-89 through Chittenden County. Each group will be asked to discuss
aspects of the corridor and surrounding area as they relate to their respective fields. The groups will also
review the draft I-89 Vision and Goals. The perspectives of each assembled focus group will help to fine-tune
the evaluation categories and set the stage for developing the alternatives. Each session will include a
visioning exercise to articulate how various components of the roadway network are anticipated to operate in
2035 and 2050 and what will need to be done in order to accommodate anticipated changes to technology,
travel behavior, workplace trends, and land use.
The Focus Groups may be comprised of the following groups (to be refined based on input from TC):
• Municipal Staff
• Federal, State, and Local Elected Officials
• Freight and Logistics Providers
• Major Employers (UVM Medical Center, UVM, Global Foundries, Champlain College)
Task 3.4: Future (2035 & 2050) Build Scenario
Building on the comprehensive scenario planning work the CCRPC did for the recent 2018 ECOS/Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP), the future build scenarios will be the adopted MTP scenarios without the 3rd lane
on I-89 between Exits 14 and 15 and the Interchange at VT-116 (Exit 12B). The Future Build Scenarios will
provide the basis for this I-89 2050 Study and all proposed future strategies will be evaluated relative to this
foundational effort. The 2035 and 2050 MTP build scenarios already include robust investments in TDM,
transit and bike/ped improvements, but even with these investments there are still roadway capacity issues
with the transportation network in the county. The Future Build Scenarios will be carried through the
established modeling workflow with deficiencies and areas of concern documented in the deficiencies matrix,
like the 2035 and 2050 Future No Build analyses. These issues will be conveyed to the Technical and Advisory
Committees to further inform the final Vision and Goals of the I-89 Corridor.
Task 3.5: Technical Committee #4
The TC will review input from the first public meeting, Future Build Scenario results, and will revise/refine the
draft I-89 Vision and Goals for the Advisory Committee’s review. The TC will also review and begin to establish
measurable metrics and thresholds within distinct categories such as Mobility and Reliability, Safety, Economic
Sustainability, Equity and Land Use Accessibility, and Environmental Protection. These metrics and thresholds
will be used in the evaluation of the alternatives.
Task 3.6: Advisory Committee #3
The AC will review results from the Future Build Scenario and make any final changes to I-89 Vision and Goals;
review the draft objectives, distinct evaluation categories, metrics, and thresholds that will be used to evaluate
the various alternatives.
Deliverables: Draft and Final I-89 Vision and Goals. Focus Groups, Public Meetings, Advisory Committee, and
Technical Committee meeting agendas, materials and notes. Artist’s composite graphic of Study Vision and
Goals.
Task 4 – Evaluation of New and/or Improved I-89 Interchanges
High level operational analyses of each interchange (existing or new) will be carried out under this task to
identify whether proposed interchange improvements have a significant regional impact on vehicular mobility
in the county. At the conclusion of this task a decision will be made of which interchange improvement(s), if
any, will be carried forward into a full evaluation within one or more of the alternatives.
Task 4.1: Model New and/or Improved Interchanges
Starting with the Future Build Scenario, discrete evaluations for an upgraded Exit 14 interchange, full Exits 13
and 15, new I-89 interchanges with VT116 (Exit 12B), Patchen Road (Exit 14N), and West Milton Road (Exit
17N) will be conducted.
Task 4.2: Land Use Evaluation
Regional (including neighboring counties) land use implications of adding new or upgrading existing
interchanges will be analyzed and quantified. Methods, like select link analyses and network travel bands, will
be employed to identify the spatial implications of new or upgraded interchanges. Typical origins and
destinations of trips that traverse the I-89 corridor segments and interchanges and the typical travel time
sheds for major origins and destinations will be evaluated given the interchange additions or improvements.
It is anticipated that these typical origin/destination travel patterns and travel time sheds will expand or
contract in different geographic regions within and surrounding Chittenden County depending on the
interchange additions or improvements, providing insights on where and how broader land use and
environmental impacts will spread more regionally.
The spatial implications of different additions or changes to the interchanges along the corridor will be
discussed and evaluated by the land use and transportation modeling team. Leveraging the collective
expertise, the team will be tasked with imputing varying growth patterns correlated to the spatial changes and
identifying appropriate metrics for evaluating the land use implications relative to the Future 2050 Build
Scenario. Iterative analyses, with review by the team, will evaluate the implications of varying growth patterns
associated with each interchange addition or improvement by employing metrics like percent future growth in
targeted growth areas (and outside of targeted growth areas), average travel times for underserved or
vulnerable populations (at the Traffic Analysis Zone level), and land area of sensitive natural and cultural
resources potentially impacted by growth.
Land use impacts within Chittenden County due to Interstate or Interchange improvements will be presented
and discussed with municipal planners during a CCRPC Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting. For
scoping purposes, we have assumed that CCRPC will lead and facilitate this discussion with the CCRPC PAC
with consultant team representatives in attendance.
Task 4.3: Technical Committee Meeting #5
The Technical Committee will meet to review modeling and land use impact results with the TC and discuss
how it will be presented to the Advisory Committee at their next meeting.
Task 4.4: Advisory Committee Meeting #4
The AC will review modeling results from the evaluation of new and/or improved I-89 Interchanges. The
committee will discuss which interchange improvements, if any, will be carried forward into a full evaluation
within one or more of the alternatives/strategies bundles. A facilitator will be used to assist with the
discussion.
Deliverables: Modeling results of the different interchange options; TC and AC agenda, presentations, and
meeting notes.
Task 5 – Identify and Evaluate Alternatives
Task 5.1: Identify Preliminary Strategies
The VHB team will identify possible strategies or projects that, when grouped together, will form an
alternative to evaluate. The strategies may address future deficiencies or concerns that align with the future
vision of the corridor. Some of the possible strategies that we anticipate will be part of the discussion include:
• Infrastructure Enhancements
o Additional access points or interchanges
o Interchange improvements
o Widening/lane expansion
o Part-time shoulder use
• Interchanges – Task 4 Recommendation
o Existing interchange upgrades or a possible new interchange
• Intelligent Transportation Systems
o Traffic monitoring and message signs
o Travel time and message signs
o Dynamic Speed Limits
o Weather monitoring and message signs
o Adaptive signal control
o Ramp metering
• Transportation Demand Management Strategies
• Transit and Non-Motorized Travel Options
• Enhanced Maintenance Activities
• Environmental stewardship activities (stormwater, wildlife/AOP crossings)
• System Resilience (flooding is the major threat, but we should consider if there are other threats that
need to be considered – like cybersecurity)
• Bicyclist and Pedestrian (crossings at interstate segments and through arterial/on-off ramp
intersections)
A critical step in the process of identifying preliminary projects or strategies is to screen them for alignment
with the I-89 Vision and Goals and to narrow the strategies to those that will effect positive change. This will
assist the team and committees to start developing the alternatives that will be evaluated further in the
modeling suite.
During the identification of preliminary strategies, the VHB Team will again meet with the VTrans Asset
Management Group and TSMO to discuss how VTrans’ needs and projects can integrate and align with the
study recommendations. Guiding questions for these discussions could include “What will be the ramifications
of the strategies on existing assets or operations? How can strategies incorporate high priority or actionable
asset management and operations tasks? How will recommended new assets integrate with the existing asset
management system?”
Task 5.2: Technical Committee Meeting #6
The TC and other key project team members will convene to review and refine preliminary strategies
developed by the VHB team. Leveraging the expertise assembled for this effort, the session will aim to verify
strategies and identify an additional range of projects and strategies that will address deficiencies and fulfill
corridor vision and goals. Strategies or projects will then be bundled together to form alternatives to evaluate.
The meeting is also intended to ensure the methodologies, screening criteria and thresholds developed in
prior tasks for evaluating alternatives are still valid. Screening of possible alternatives will consider whether a
project or strategy addresses a deficiency or area of concern and aligns with corridor goals. We envision this
session will make use of the extensive knowledge of participants in highway design, traffic engineering, safety
improvements, transportation technologies, intelligent transportation systems, constructability, permitting,
transit planning, stormwater, and bridges and structures to ensure that the collection of projects and
strategies carried forward is comprehensive and that the vetting process accounts for real-world
constructability and/or implementation constraints. The outcome of this session will be up to three initial
alternatives, each including a bundle of different strategies to carry forward into a detailed analysis. The three
initial alternatives will be reviewed and verified by the Advisory Committee.
Task 5.3: Advisory Committee Meeting #5
The AC will review and finalize the preliminary alternatives proposed by the TC and consultant team.
Task 5.4: Evaluation of Alternatives
A full evaluation of the three preliminary alternatives will be carried through the established modeling
workflow, evaluating the morning and evening peak time periods for the 2050 future year.
It is envisioned that the evaluation of the three alternatives will be an iterative process with up to a maximum
of nine total iterations/model runs. The project team will be reporting to the Technical Committee, soliciting
feedback on the efficacy of the strategies and projects in addressing the deficiencies or concerns for each
model run.
Land use impacts of the three alternatives in Chittenden County and neighboring counties will be evaluated
and the results will inform possible changes to the alternatives that will be assessed using the model suite.
The three alternatives will be evaluated for the 2050 future planning year across all categories identified
previously (safety, capacity, environment, resiliency, land use accessibility, natural/cultural resource impacts,
etc.). Results will be presented in separate evaluation matrices for each alternative for the full system, corridor
segments, and interchanges. These evaluations may include sketch conceptual drawings, 3D visualizations,
general cost estimates, and further qualitative assessments that will help strengthen the evaluation matrices
for each alternative.
Task 5.5: Technical Committee Meeting #7
The TC will meet to review results of evaluation of the three alternatives, determine whether additional
changes are needed, discuss presentation of results to the AC and the format of the second public meeting.
Task 5.6: Advisory Committee Meeting #6
Following changes based on the TC’s input, the AC will be presented with results of the evaluation of the three
alternatives. The AC will also discuss the second public meeting. A facilitator will be used to assist with the
discussion.
Task 5.7: Focus Group Sessions – Round #2
Up to four Focus Group sessions will be convened and facilitated to discuss results of the three alternatives.
Each group will be asked to discuss these alternatives as they relate to their respective fields. The perspectives
of each assembled focus group will help to fine-tune the next step which is the development of the
Implementation Plan.
The Focus Groups may be comprised of the following groups (to be refined based on input from TC):
• Municipal Staff
• Federal, State, and Local Elected Officials
• Freight and Logistics Providers
• Major Employers (UVM Medical Center, UVM, Global Foundries, Champlain College)
Task 5.8: Public Meeting #2
The three alternatives will be presented to the broader public at up to three separate public meetings in the
northern, central, and southern portions of the study area. The goal of the public meetings and stakeholder
engagement will be to gather feedback to help in the narrowing of the three bundles of alternatives to one
optimized suite of treatments for the corridor out to 2050.
As with the first set of public meetings, the public will be notified with adequate time prior to the meeting and
made available through online live streaming from the project website with opportunities for live polling and
voting. Both general and targeted outreach (i.e. to nearby large employers, local listservs, and general
outreach like Front Porch Forum) will be conducted for each of the three public meetings. The public will also
have the opportunity to review materials and provide comment online.
Deliverables: Project briefings to CCRPC and stakeholders documenting the strategies selected to form three
alternatives. Evaluation matrix with results from alternative evaluations. Technical Committee, Advisory
Committee, Focus Groups, and Public Meeting agendas, materials, and notes.
Task 6 – Develop Implementation Plan & Define Areas for Further Scoping
The overarching goal of the study is to develop a living document that will be adaptable to the future
circumstances dictating the condition and performance of the I-89 corridor through Chittenden County. The
team will summarize the final implementation plan through a matrix, where each strategy in the
recommended bundle is identified with priority; condition and performance thresholds; implementation
trigger points; measurable factors to monitor; impact on study goals; risks; generalized costs; impacted
stakeholders; and potential funding sources.
Task 6.1: Develop Implementation Plan
Based on results from the three alternative evaluations and feedback from project committees, stakeholders,
and the public, the consultant team, in close collaboration with the CCRPC and VTrans, will develop a draft
final alternative for review by the TC and AC committees that will be the basis for the I-89 Implementation
Plan.
A refined version of the final alternative will be run through the modeling suite to 2050. The 2050 Final
Alternative will include the full suite of projects and strategies to be included in the Implementation Plan, built
upon the Future 2050 Build Scenario. In addition, an iterative analysis of the Final Alternative will be
conducted for the 2035 growth scenario. For each iteration of this analysis, particular projects or strategies
from the Final Alternative will be strategically added to the Future 2035 Build Scenario and evaluated in order
to identify the most critical and highest priority projects or strategies to employ. In essence, this iterative
analysis will provide guidance on a projected timeline for implementation of each strategy. The
implementation trigger point for each strategy will be a combination of the influential externalities as well as
measurable condition or performance metrics.
The prioritization, condition and performance thresholds, and implementation trigger points will be
documented in the alternative matrix. The alternatives matrix will be expanded to accommodate
recommendations on factors to monitor over time, impacts on study goals, risks associated with each strategy,
generalized costs, and potential funding sources, becoming the basis for the implementation plan. Specific I-
89 segments and interchange areas that will require further scoping will also be identified.
Recommendations will be made for each strategy on the relevant factors to monitor over time and the agency
or department responsible. “Smart corridor” elements can be part of potential alternatives, but also play a
larger role in gathering analytical corridor data to further inform implementation.
In addition to providing recommended timeframes for implementation, each strategy will be individually
analyzed by environmental, design, and construction experts to develop risk registers. Risks associated with
strategies can range from environmental permitting, to right-of-way acquisition, to construction access, to
difficult maintenance and each can have an impact on scoping and implementation of strategies. As part of
the risk analysis, asset management implications for existing and proposed corridor assets will be considered.
Implementation is a key first step but maintaining assets over time will also contribute toward meeting the
study goals. Risks can impact the timeframe and ultimately cost of implementation and maintenance and
having that understanding before scoping begins will be valuable information.
A relative scale of generalized costs associated with each strategy or project will be developed and included in
the expanded implementation matrix. If applicable, potential sources of funding for the strategy or project will
be identified.
As part of developing the implementation plan and matrix, the VHB Team will meet with the VTrans Asset
Management Group to finalize recommendations. Each asset discussed during the development of initial
strategies will be revisited and reevaluated to confirm the priority of the asset and that action is needed. Final
decisions will be documented through the implementation plan and potentially recommended for further
scoping.
Task 6.2: Technical Committee Meeting #8
The Technical Committee will reconvene to provide additional feedback on the Implementation Plan and
selected areas for further scoping before it is presented to the AC and the public. This meeting will likely be
held during the course of Task 6.1 to ensure TC concurrence on details of the final alternative. Feedback
received from the TC will be incorporated by the project team before presented to the AC. The TC will also
prepare for the final set of public meetings by agreeing on the presentation style, preferred means of
outreach, input to be solicited, and other details regarding the public meetings.
Task 6.3: Advisory Committee Meeting #7
A facilitator will be used to assist with the discussion and selection of the final draft Implementation Plan for I-
89. The AC will also discuss and approve the areas selected for further scoping. The agreed upon
Implementation Plan will be presented to the public for their feedback.
Deliverables: Implementation Plan, TC, AC and public meeting agenda, materials, and notes.
Task 7 – Draft and Final Report
Task 7.1: Draft Report
The VHB Team will compile pertinent technical information, analysis, recommendations, and stakeholder input
into a Draft Report for review and input. The Draft Report will be circulated to the AC and TC and made
available more broadly through the project website.
Task 7.2: Public Meeting #3
The Draft I-89 2050 Study will be presented at up to three public meetings along the corridor and made
available online through the project website, targeted press releases, and social media. These meetings will
include an overview of the study progress to date and present the recommendations for comment. These
meetings will be notified and streamed in a similar manner to the previous sets of public meetings. Feedback
from reviewers and the public will be incorporated into the draft report.
Task 7.3: Technical Committee Meeting #9
The Technical Committee will meet a final time to review the draft report and discuss input from the public
meeting and any potential changes to the implementation plan or report.
Task 7.4: Advisory Committee Meeting #8
The final Advisory Committee session will be held to review the Draft Report and input from the third round of
public meetings. This meeting is an opportunity to reflect on the study process, evolution and outcomes.
Feedback will be documented and incorporated into the Final Report.
This meeting is also an opportunity to discuss potential options moving forward on areas which were slated
for further scoping and analysis. Funding sources, timelines, and implementation partners can be discussed to
lay a framework for successful implementation of the recommendations made in the report.
Task 7.5: Final Report
The VHB Team will compile input received from the public, AC, and TC and prepare a Final I-89 2050 Plan.
Deliverables: Draft and Final Report, Technical Committee, Advisory Committee, and Public Meeting agendas,
materials and notes
Additional Public Participation Elements
In addition to more traditional public participation activities, the VHB team will emphasize outreach to those
who are traditionally underrepresented. As Burlington and Winooski have areas of significantly higher poverty
than other municipalities in the study corridor, we will hold one of our first round of meetings in Burlington
and one meeting in the second round in Winooski with targeted outreach to these typically underrepresented
populations. Accommodations such as child care and translator services may be provided at these meetings.
We will reach out to at least four community organizations that serve the underrepresented, including those
of low-income and new Americans. We will maintain contact with these organizations, understanding that
identifying a local champion and reaching out to people rather than asking them to come to us is a more
successful way to solicit meaningful input.
Project Website
A project website will serve as the landing page for all information and study materials, surveys, and event
notifications over the course of the study. This website will be hosted on an independent public engagement
platform, likely EngagementHQ. The project team will provide materials to be posted on the website,
including base maps, survey and poll language, project graphics, and committee and public meeting
materials. For scoping purposes, we have assumed that VHB will take the lead on setting up the project
website and TSA will be responsible for updating and maintaining the website over the course of the study.
The project team will continuously update the website throughout the study in order to provide the public
with as many opportunities to engage as possible.
Online Surveys, Polls, and Feedback
Surveys and polls will be conducted over the course of the study to gather input from the committees and the
public on topics including general comments, areas of concern, and preferences on alternatives. These surveys
will be hosted through the public engagement platform. To reach those who do not have reliable access to
the internet, the project team will reach out and partner with public libraries’ tech centers to encourage
participation and digital inclusion. The Burlington Fletcher Free Library has already agreed to put a short cut to
study surveys on all tech center homepages. Results from all public input efforts will be made available to the
Advisory and Technical Committees as well as the public.
Mile Marker Radio/Podcast
TSA will communicate with Vermont Public Radio (VPR) and local podcasters to create a special or series on
the history of the Interstate through Chittenden County and the purpose and need for this project. If this were
to be hosted on VPR, this would be an opportunity for broader public comment on the study. This would be a
collaborative effort with local experts and members of the project team and committees.
Schedule
Assuming a Notice to Proceed is issued by April 15, 2019, VHB anticipates the Project advancing according to the
schedule outlined below. Given the number of unknown variables that may arise during the course of this study, the
schedule will be reviewed and may need to be adjusted at key milepoints during the course of the project.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Task 0 – Project Management & Coordination
Task 1 – Project Initiation and Kickoff Meetings
Task 1.1: Project Initiation and Internal Kick-off
Task 1.2: Technical Committee Meeting #1
Task 1.3: Advisory Committee Meeting #1
Task 2 – Analyze Current & Future Base Conditions
Task 2.1: Gather Data and Information
Task 2.2: Coordinate Resource Agencies and Other Resources
Task 2.3: Develop Integrated Modeling Suite
Task 2.4: Technical Committee Meeting #2
Task 2.5: Evaluate Current & Future Base Conditions
Task 2.6: Technical Committee Meeting #3
Task 2.7: Advisory Committee Meeting #2
Task 3 – Corridor Vision and Goals
Task 3.1: Develop draft Vision, Goals, Objectives for I-89 Corridor
Task 3.2: Public Meeting #1
Task 3.3: Focus Group Sessions – Round #1
Task 3.4: Future (2050) Build Scenario
Task 3.5: Technical Committee #4
Task 3.6: Advisory Committee #3
Task 4 – Evaluate New and/or Improved I-89 Interchanges
Task 4.1: Model New and/or Improved Interchanges
Task 4.2: Land Use Evaluation
Task 4.3: Technical Committee Meeting #5
Task 4.4: Advisory Committee Meeting #4
Task 5 – Identify and Evaluate Alternatives
Task 5.1: Identify Preliminary Strategies
Task 5.2: Technical Committee Meeting #6
Task 5.3: Advisory Committee Meeting #5
Task 5.4: Evaluation of Alternatives
Task 5.5: Technical Committee Meeting #7
Task 5.6: Advisory Committee Meeting #6
Task 5.7: Focus Group Sessions - Round #2
Task 5.8: Public Meeting #2
Task 6 – Develop Implementation Plan
Task 6.1: Develop Implementation Plan
Task 6.2: Technical Committee Meeting #8
Task 6.3: Advisory Committee Meeting #7
Task 7 – Draft and Final Report
Task 7.1: Draft Report
Task 7.2: Public Meeting #3
Task 7.3: Technical Committee Meeting #9
Task 7.4: Advisory Committee Meeting #8
Task 7.5: Final Report
Additional Public Participation Elements
Project Website
Online Surveys, Polls, and Feedback
Mile Marker Radio/Podcast
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
SCHEDULE
2019 2020 2021