Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared By:
Prepared For:
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 1.1 Project History 1.2 Current Study History 1.3 Study Purpose and Need Statement Existing and No-Build Future Conditions 2.1 Study Area 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 2.3 Safety History 2.4 Park and Ride Facilities 2.5 ATRC Travel Demand Model 2.6 Future Traffic Volume Growth 2.7 Maine Sensible Transportation Policy Act Analysis Description and Evaluation of Interchange Strategies 3.1 Overview of Interchange Strategy Selection Process 3.2 No-Build Strategy 3.3 Strategy 1 River Road Interchange (Lewiston) 3.4 Strategy 2 Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) 3.5 Strategy 3 South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) 3.6 Strategy 4 Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) 3.7 Strategy 5 River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) 3.8 Strategy 1A River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge 3.9 Strategy 2A Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge 3.10 Strategy 5A River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge 3.11 Strategies Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis Coordination and Consultation 4.1 Interagency Coordination Public Involvement 5.1 Study Advisory Committee (SAC) 5.2 Study Steering Committee ES-1 6.0 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 11 11 15 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 41 41 42 42 42
Public Information Meetings Auburn and Lewiston City Councils Coordination ATRC Website
43 43 43 44
Recommendations
2.0
Appendices A1 Safety Assessment A2 Congestion Assessment A3 Project Cost Summary A4 Benefit Cost Analysis A5 Study Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting Notes A6 Public Informational Meeting Notes and Other Public Comments A7 Detailed Evaluation Matrix A8 Resolutions from the Joint Council Workshop A9 Maine DOT/ MTA Model Acceptance Letter
45 46 47 49 50 65 74 86 88
3.0
4.0 5.0
List of Figures
Proposed Improvement Strategies Study Area Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes 1999-2001 High Crash Location History Forecasted Daily Traffic Change: 2000 to 2025 Generalized Land Use Historic/Cultural Resources Natural Environment Strategy 1 River Road Interchange (Lewiston) Strategy 1 Origin Destination Data Strategy 1- River Road Interchange (Lewiston): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 2 Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 2 Origin Destination Data Strategy 2 Route 136 Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 3 South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 3 Origin Destination Data Strategy 3 South Main Street Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 4 Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 4 Origin Destination Data Strategy 4 Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 5 River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 5 Origin Destination Data Strategy 5 River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 1A River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 1A Origin Destination Data Strategy 1A River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 2A Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 2A Origin Destination Data Strategy 2A Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 5A River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 5A Origin Destination Data Strategy 5A River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes ES-3 6 7 8 10 13 14 14 16 16 18 19 19 21 22 22 24 25 25 27 28 28 30 31 31 33 34 34 36 37 37 39 II
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ATRC Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center B/C Benefit Cost Ratio CRF Critical Rate Factor GIS Geographic Information Systems HCL High Crash Location ITD Integrated Transportation Decision-making LF Linear Feet MaineDOT Maine Department of Transportation MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTA Maine Turnpike Authority NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NWI National Wetlands Inventory SAC Study Advisory Committee SF Square Feet STPA (Maines) Sensible Transportation Policy Act TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TDM Travel Demand Management TSM Transportation System Management USGS United States Geological Survey VHT Vehicle-Hours Traveled VMT Vehicle-Miles Traveled WSA Wilbur Smith Associates
Standard Terms
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) The total yearly traffic volume on a given highway segment divided by the number of days in the year. AADT is expressed in vehicles per day (vpd). Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C) The ratio of user benefits in dollar to capital and operating cost of a proposed facility. Critical Rate Factor (CRF) The ratio of Accident Crash Rate to Critical Crash Rate. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Average Daily Traffic is the number of vehicles that use a given roadway over a 24-hour period in both directions.
III
delays caused by events that interrupt traffic flow impeded access to homes, institutions and businesses within the study area future growth in congestion due to increasing travel, property ownership, and business development improve regional road system linkage improve local bicycling, pedestrian, and recreational linkage improve access to alternative modes transit, park & ride, etc. Public Safety traffic accidents caused by congested stop-and-go operation, inadequate gaps in traffic, and driver frustration hazardous locations in the highway network reduce accidents within the study area slow response times for emergency vehicles Quality of Community Life deterioration of neighborhoods due to spillover traffic on local roads and streets limit negative impacts on communities, farmland and neighborhoods impacts of potential transit routes and methods reduced access to local attractions consistent with and supports the goals of Auburn and Lewiston Comprehensive Plans encourage bicycling, pedestrian, and recreational opportunities and reduce impediments to these opportunities enhance truck routing while limiting truck traffic in neighborhoods Regional and Local Economic Health difficulty in attracting customers to businesses in the region because of congestion improve economic opportunities for businesses opportunities to revitalize core communities connectivity to downtown business areas improve the current and future flow of traffic and shipment of goods to the Maine Turnpike Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Impacts No-Build This strategy consists of the transportation network for the base year of analysis (2000) plus those projects or services already constructed, permitted or funded in the region before year 2025 (the future analysis year). These future base improvements include the Veterans Bridge Flyovers in both Auburn and Lewiston and the construction of the Maine Turnpike Route 9 interchange (Exit 86) in Sabattus. These base improvements are also included in each of the interchange strategies.
ES- 1
Strategy 1 River Road Interchange (Lewiston) This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange at River Road in Lewiston. This strategy may reduce traffic congestion in Lewiston, may avoid park and recreation land impacts, and may have a good benefit-cost conclusion. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts. Strategy 2 Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange on Route 136 in Auburn. This strategy may improve regional connectivity, adheres to design standards, may enhance bicycle/pedestrian opportunities, may have economic development benefits in Auburn, and may have a good benefit-cost conclusion. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts. Strategy 3 South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange at South Main Street in Auburn. This strategy improves emergency access and adheres to design standards. This strategy has the potential for neighborhood impacts on South Main Street. Strategy 4 Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange between Route 136 and South Main Street and the construction of a new road connecting the interchange with South Main Street and Route 136 in Auburn. This strategy improves emergency access and adheres to design standards. This strategy has the potential for neighborhood impacts on South Main Street. The adverse effects are expected to be less than those for Strategy 3. Strategy 5 River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a new half interchange in Lewiston with access to and from the south on the Maine Turnpike and construction of a new full interchange in Auburn at Route 136. This strategy results in high interchange usage, improves access to both Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns, enhances bicycle/pedestrian opportunities, improves emergency access, improves local and regional connectivity, may have positive economic benefits in both Lewiston and Auburn, may reduce congestion in Lewiston, and may have a good benefit-cost conclusion. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts. Strategy 1A River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange at River Road in Lewiston and the construction of a proposed River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge. This strategy may reduce traffic congestion in Lewiston and Auburn, may avoid park and recreation land impacts and may have positive economic development benefits in both Lewiston and Auburn. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts other than a high project cost estimate.
Strategy 2A Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange on Route 136 in Auburn and the construction of a proposed River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge. This strategy improves local and regional connectivity, improves bicycle/pedestrian opportunities, adheres to design standards, may improve economic development outside of downtown Auburn, improves emergency access, and may reduce congestion in Lewiston. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts other than a high project cost estimate. Strategy 5A River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge This strategy consists of the construction of a new half interchange in Lewiston at River Road with access to and from the south on the Maine Turnpike, the construction of a new full interchange in Auburn at Route 136 and the construction of a proposed River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge. This strategy results in high interchange usage, improves access to both Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns, enhances bicycle/pedestrian opportunities, improves emergency access, improves local and regional connectivity, may have positive economic benefits in both Lewiston and Auburn, may reduce congestion in Lewiston, may improve high crash locations, improves truck circulation, and may have a good benefit-cost conclusion. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts other than a high project cost estimate.
Recommendation Following a detailed strategy evaluation of Transportation, Land Use, Socio-Economic, Natural Environment, and Cost and with input from a public outreach process and the two city councils, it was recommended by the Study Advisory Committee that Strategies 1, 2, 5, 1A, 2A, and 5A be considered for future study by the MaineDOT and MTA. It was further recommended that Strategies 3 and 4 be dismissed from further analysis due to these interchange concepts failing to substantially meet the study Purpose and Need Statement. Strategies 3 and 4 are recommended to be dismissed primarily due to their high negative impacts to the South Main Street neighborhood and low transportation benefits, including low traffic volume usage at the proposed interchanges. Strategies 3 and 4 were the lowest performing strategies of the eight Build Alternatives. Additionally, the Auburn City Council and citizen comments at the four public meetings expressed opposition to further consideration of Strategies 3 and 4. The next phase in the process is for MaineDOT and the MTA to take this study and information and begin more detailed evaluations. MaineDOT has a formal ten-step Integrated Transportation Decision-making Process. This study represents the completion of step one in that process.
ES- 2
ES-3
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 1.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
1.1. Project History In 1988 the Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA) and the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) conducted a study, the Northern Corridor Study, of the northern portion of the Maine Turnpike. This study looked at traffic, tolls and access to the Maine Turnpike in a study area from Cumberland north to Augusta. This study was the first step in investigating a new interchange on the Maine Turnpike in the Lewiston-Auburn area. It was recommended that a study be conducted to determine if an interchange(s) was viable in the area. It included looking at interchange locations at South Main Street and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn, the Grove Street and Crowley Road area in Lewiston, and Route 9 in Sabattus. In 1991, taking the information from that study, the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (at that time LACTS) in coordination with the MaineDOT and the MTA began a study to see where new interchanges could be located in the metropolitan area. The study team included the consultant, MTA, MaineDOT, and LACTS. After extensive investigation and research, the Route 9 location in Sabattus was able to move more efficiently through the environmental permitting processes as well as garnering tremendous public support. However, strong public support could not be achieved for either location in Auburn or the Lewiston site. While City officials were still interested in access to the Maine Turnpike, there was no consensus on where an interchange could be built or which alternative was best. In October of 2002 the Maine Turnpike Authority broke ground on a new interchange at Route 9 in Sabattus and it was completed in November of 2004. Lacking a definitive community preference for constructing individual interchanges, the cities returned to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to review how a combined interchange location might serve the transportation and access needs of both communities. This study is the result of these discussions. 1.2. Current Study History In August 2002, ATRC issued a Request For Proposal to perform a feasibility study. This action reflected the Cities desire to revisit interchange viability. The ATRC Policy Committee reviewed submitted proposals and authorized the staff to engage Wilbur Smith Associates to perform the study. On October 31, 2002, the ATRC chair and staff met with the MaineDOT, MTA, and Wilbur Smith Associates to kick-off the study. A Study Advisory Committee (SAC) and a Study Steering Committee were formed. The first Study Advisory Committee meeting was held on December 12, 2002. During that time frame, ATRC contracted with the Louis Berger Group, Inc. to develop and calibrate the TransCAD Travel Demand Model for use in the study. Throughout the study effort, the Study Steering and Advisory Committees have met numerous times, reviewed extensive transportation data, suggested strategies, developed a planning-level Purpose and Need Statement, reviewed maps and drawings, discussed traffic volumes, learned about travel demand models and their calibration, reviewed traffic forecasts, heard comments from four public meetings, held city council workshops, and examined recommendations. Based upon these efforts, the committees March 2005 Final Report have concluded that it is feasible to make better connections to the Maine Turnpike from the downtowns of Lewiston and Auburn, and the six strategies recommended to go forward are the best options for further study. A long-standing goal of the MPO is to better integrate the Maine Turnpike within the urban transportation system of Lewiston and Auburn. Because downtown access to the Maine Turnpike is limited to two interchanges separated by approximately 5 miles, the full benefits of the interstate highway facility to the region have yet to be realized. It is envisioned that a new interchange between Exits 75 and 80 will create improved accessibility between the communities of Lewiston and Auburn to the developing areas of each citys downtown and to the mid-coast region. It is also believed that a new interchange will reduce in-town traffic congestion and provide new opportunities for park and ride facilities and intermodal connectivity. Some of the most substantial plans for development and redevelopment in the metropolitan area are contained within each citys downtown. Improving access to the downtowns should enhance developments planned for those areas. With the exception of roadways located within the downtown areas, none of the roadways in the study area are generally experiencing poor Levels of Service. However, an additional interchange with any required roadway improvements could dramatically affect access to the downtowns by highway and transit and improve downtown congestion levels. The purpose of this study is to address the feasibility for providing improved access from the Maine Turnpike to the Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns. Specifically, this study: Reviewed current and future transportation information in the general study area; Obtained meaningful input from public officials and members of the general public through a total of nine Study Advisory Committee meetings and four public meetings; Coordinated with the Lewiston and Auburn City Councils on the strategies to carry forward for further study; Developed a planning level Purpose and Need Statement for use in future phases of the project development process; and Recommends six strategies to be considered during the next project development phase 1.3. Study Purpose and Need Statement The Purpose and Need Statement is a guiding set of statements developed for a project to substantiate the specific objectives a project is designed to meet as well as the deficiencies the project is geared to address. If done well, the Statement helps narrow the range of practicable alternatives that can reasonably meet the objectives and address the deficiencies. The Purpose and Need Statement is intended to be useful in the decision-making portion of a study process. Proposed transportation strategies that are documented to not meet Purpose and Need can be dropped from further consideration. Those that do meet the Purpose and Need Statement are subject to further study to find the best practicable strategy with the least environmental impacts.
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2.0 Existing and No-Build Future Conditions
2.1 Study Area The selection of roadways and intersections to be included in the study area was based upon a review of those likely to be impacted by the construction of a possible interchange between Exits 75 (Auburn) and 80 (Lewiston) on the Maine Turnpike. The study area primarily includes: 1.) Route 202 (Washington Street and Minot Avenue) in Auburn; 2.) South Main Street in Auburn; 3.) Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn; 4.) Court Street (Route 202) in Auburn; 5.) Main Street (Route 136) in Auburn; 6.) Route 196 (Lisbon Street) in Lewiston; 7.) Lincoln Street in Lewiston; 8.) Main Street (Route 202) in Lewiston; 9.) Sabattus Street (Route 126) in Lewiston;10.) Canal Street (Route 196) in Lewiston; and 11.) the Maine Turnpike between Exits 75 (Auburn) and 80 (Lewiston). The final study area was reviewed, modified, and approved by the Study Advisory Committee (SAC). Figure 2-1 illustrates the study area. 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes were obtained for selected streets within the study area from the MaineDOT and the MTA. The specific years for this data vary by location, from 1999 to 2002. AADT volumes on the primary study area roads include: 1.) 21,000 vehicles per day on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) north of Exit 75 of the Maine Turnpike; 2.) 4,020 vehicles per day on South Main Street in Auburn; 3.) 4,400 vehicles per day on Route 136 (Riverside Drive) north of the Maine Turnpike in Auburn; 4.) 19,180 vehicles per day on Court Street in Auburn; 5.) 20,680 vehicles per day on Main Street (Route 136) in Auburn; 6.) 20,000 vehicles per day on Route 196 (Lisbon Street) west of Alfred A. Plourde Parkway in Lewiston; 7.) 7,410 vehicles per day on Lincoln Street in Lewiston; 8.) 31,340 vehicles per day on Main Street (Route 202) in Lewiston; 9.) 26,830 vehicles per day on Sabattus Street (Route 126) in Lewiston; 10.) 6,340 vehicles per day on Canal Street (Route 196) in Lewiston; and 11.) 17,050 vehicles per day on the Maine Turnpike between Exits 75 (Auburn) and 80 (Lewiston). Figure 2-2 presents the Existing AADT volumes and the year the data is from in the study area. 2.3 Safety History Existing traffic safety conditions in Auburn and Lewiston were summarized according to reported crash experience from the most recent available three-year period at the study inception. Crash statistics were obtained for the study area from the MaineDOT for the period 1999-2001. MaineDOT considers both a Critical Rate Factor (CRF) of 1.0 or greater and the occurrence of eight crashes or more over a three-year period as a general guideline for identifying High Crash Locations (HCL). Figure 2-3 and Table 2-1 summarize the HCLs. Detailed tables and statistics for the High Crash Location intersections and roadway segments can be also found on Figure 2-3 and Table 2-1. 2.4 Park and Ride Facilities Three formal park and ride lots exist in the study area: one Auburn lot at Exit 75 with 137 spaces, and two Lewiston lots at Exit 80 with a combination of 92 spaces,. Usage of the park and ride lots in Auburn and Lewiston was determined from two sources: 1.) The MTA conducts annual utilization surveys at all park and ride lots. The surveys are conducted during the mid-day time period where the number of vehicles parked in a lot is recorded. In 2002, 81 vehicles were parked in the Auburn lot, representing 59% of the capacity and 61 vehicles were parked in Lewiston, representing 61% of capacity. This data is a snapshot of usage at the particular time the survey was conducted. 2.) WSA conducted occupancy surveys at the area park and ride lots in 2003 during both the morning and afternoon time periods. Results indicate that during the mid-morning period, 83 vehicles were parked at the Auburn lot, and 67 vehicles were parked at the Lewiston lot. During the mid-afternoon period, 68 vehicles were parked at the Auburn lot, and 61 vehicles were parked at the Lewiston lot. Again, these numbers are a snapshot of usage at the particular time the survey was conducted. Both surveys confirm that usage of the park and ride lots is moderate and that excess capacity exists. Park and ride opportunities should continue to be evaluated for the interchange strategies considered. 2.5 ATRC Travel Demand Model The ATRC Travel Demand Model was developed to assist the ATRC in forecasting the changes in traffic between the base year 2000 and the future forecast year 2025 for the No-Build and Build Alternatives. The ATRC model was created by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. using TransCad as the software platform. The model includes all cities and towns in Androscoggin County and the following cities/towns: Brunswick, Cumberland, Freeport, Gray, New Gloucester, North Yarmouth, Pownal, Yarmouth, Chesterville, Jay, Fayette, Litchfield, Monmouth, Wayne, Buckfield, Canton, Hebron, Oxford, Paris, Bath, Bowdoinham, Bowdoin, and Richmond. The model uses Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) to generate traffic. These zones contain information from the US Census Bureau such as population, number of households and number of autos, and employment information from the US Department of Labor (e.g., the number of retail and non-retail employees per TAZ). The road network was created to represent the existing road network used by the MaineDOT in its statewide travel demand model and uses the same roadway classification structure. The model contains all federal functionally classified roads and also includes some local roads. The model base year is 2000 and reflects the road structure at that time and includes the Annual Average Daily Traffic counts that were taken in 2000. This information is used to assist in the calibration of the model. The model is designed to project traffic to a future forecast year. It does that by using the TAZ data from 2000 and then forecasting growth rates to 2025. The growth rate is determined from various data sources that include the University of Southern Maines Center 3
2.7.2. Transportation System Management (TSM) Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives are measures that do not require large capital costs or large infrastructure expansions. The goal of successful TSM alternatives is to manage the existing and future traffic more efficiently and safely within the current roadway facility. TSM alternatives may include: New signal controller phasing/timing/interconnection Intersection improvements Addition of intersection turning lanes Intelligent Transportation Systems (such as dynamic message signs). These measures currently are not nor are forecasted to provide, by themselves, the level of improvement necessary to address the safety and capacity issues in the Lewiston and Auburn area and alone would not meet the Purpose and Need. TSM measures are recommended to be incorporated with a Build strategy. 2.7.3 Additional Strategies to be Considered for Further Analysis Strategies from the ATRC 20-Year Transportation Plan that are recommended for further consideration as part of the study include: Area-wide Travel Demand Management Measures Transportation System Management Measures (intersection improvements) Other modal strategies o Alternative Modes (bus, rail, non-motorized alternatives) o Carpooling and Vanpooling o Park and Ride Lots/Multi-modal Terminals Employer TDM programs (flexible work hours, staggered work shifts, transit subsidies) Pricing strategies.
ue
15
Key Number 1
City Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston
Intersection Minot Avenue (Route 202/4/11/100) @ High Street Minot Avenue (Route 202/4/11/100) @ Elm Street Minot Avenue (Route 202/4/11/100) @ Court Street Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) @ Exit 75 Main Street (Route 136) @ Court Street (Route 202/11/100) Main Street (Route 136) @ Academy Street South Main Street (Route 136) @ Mill Street Mill Street (Route 136) @ Broad Street Lincoln Street (Route 196) @ Cedar Street (Route 196) Main Street (Route 202/11/100) @ Lisbon Street / Canal Street (Route 196) Lisbon Street (Route 196) @ East Avenue Main Street (Route 202/11/100) @ Lincoln Street (Route 196) Main Street (Route 202/11/100) @ Sabattus Street (Route 126) Sabattus Street (Route 126) @ East Avenue Sabattus Street (Route 126) @ Russell Street Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy. @ Exit 80 SB Ramps Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy. @ Exit 80 NB Ramps Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy. @ Lisbon Street (Route 196) EB Ramps
Ea st
Av
en
AUBURN
LEWISTON
2 3 4
11
Minot Ave. ) (Route 11/121
Lis (R b o n ou St t e re e 19 t 6)
Exit 80 Detail
Lis (R b o n ou St t e re e 19 t 6)
5 6
c Lin oln St
e re t
18 16
7 8 9 10 11
W (R ashi ou n g te ton 20 S 2 /4 tr e / 1 0 et 0)
reet
South Main St
EXIT 80
River Road
17
Alfred A Plourd . e Pkwy.
INSET A
p urn eT i ke
n Tur
t. (R t. 00) S 1 / ain 1 M 2/1 0 2 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
in Ma
13
er S
2 Elm St.
1
. ve ) t A 21 ino 11/1 M te ou (R
W (R ashi t. 2 n g 02 ton / 4/ S 1 0 t. 0)
Academy St. 6 h ig . H t S
t.
nics
12
t. rS e da 9 C
S ill
t.
So u Bri th d ge
) 196 ) u te 96 Ro e1 et ( out Stre St. (R on l Lisb Cana t tree n S 96) col Lin ute 1 (Ro
Ri v (R ersi ou de te D 13 riv 6) e
7
et
8
South Ma in Street
St re
Lis (R bon o u St te re 19 et 6)
LEGEND:
#
Study Area Intersection Location with Key Number (referenced above) Study Area Road Segments
Br oa
02
/1
1/
31,3402
St .( R t. 2
10 0
26,8302 13,8702
Sabattus Stree t (Rt. 126)
00)
6,9101
na Ca
rS
12,9302
17,2502
t.
Lewiston
M ai
l St 9 t. 1 . (R 6)
Br oa d
Auburn
16,9401 6,9204
ive Dr i de 36) ers e 1 Riv Rout (
St .
tre
et
(R ou
te 19 6
c Lin o ln et re St
20,0001 16,2001
9,2401 4,0202
9,5701
2,0001
River Road
EXIT 80
9,2501
Ma
ine
Tu
rn
e pik
River Road
2,000
19,8501 EXIT 75
17,0501
12,350 9,250
16,200
10,5001
21,0001
28,300
Wildwood Dr.
SEE INSET A
Pi n eS t.
Ru ss
21
Perley St.
ell
Fa ir
St
law nS
6)
LEGEND
37 25
d Ran d. all R
Po
8 10 11 20 21 30 31+
# #
8 10 11 - 20 21+
E as t A v
e.
nd
Ro
ad
Mi St ll .
Ca ss e ll
St .
26 40 L (R i s b o ou n S te 19 t. 39 6)
Ol ive
34 35
Key Number of a Roadway Segment near an Intersection Location. Color equals Number of Crashes on Road Segment (within 3 year period). Note: Key Numbers are referenced in Table 2-1.
c Lin oln
St .
W (R ashi ou n g te ton 20 S 2 /4 tr e / 1 0 et 0)
17
reet
ee t
River
47
S tr
South Main St
ad
Bro
ad
e Court Stre t
Un io n
Ro
St .
W ith
am
16
Railroad St.
Sprin g
H ar
ds cr ab
bl e
in Ma
r np Tu
i ke
8
St.
et ) re 00 20 St 1 / 1 n ai / 1 M 20 2 t. (R
Ash e Stre Pin t
Oa k
Stre et
dm Ro an a Ro d
St
e re t
13
EXIT 80 36
INSET A
Road
b Lis
33
eS
t tree
on St .
na Ca
oa
l St
d
W es
Elm S t.
EXIT 75
gh S
12
Hi
Academy St.
st Che
t. ut S
32
46
. 19 (Rt
6) . 19 (Rt
s St.
Hutch in
st St .
er yS
t.
W (R ashi t. 2 n g 02 ton / 4/ S 1 0 t. 0)
St re
Dr i ve
et
oa
Es se
36
Br
Su m Av mit e.
xS Vi t. ne St .
(R t. 1
43
Ea st
28
42
27 41
Av en
. ve t A 1) no 1/12 Mi . 1 t (R
ue
10
44
Ga
S ill
Ri ve rs id e
An dr os co g
rne
t.
Bl ea
tA
gin
Lo
ch
ve .
Av e.
cu
Ki tty
te
ha wk Av e.
rn e Av nu e
6)
18
14
ur wb Ne St.
19
Ced
er S Ri v
ar S
t.
31
11
30
t tree
ple Ma
et S t re
29
Lis (R b o n t. 1 9 St . 6) 45
15 6
ry er wb ra St
e ac Pl
Auburn
Lewiston
+9,950 +34%
Ru ss
+200 + 1%
Ma 2 0 in S 2/ 1 t . 1/1 (Rt 00 . )
el l
St
Exit 86 Interchange
S ab
s attu
+4,100 +19%
AUBURN
+1,050 +56%
urn eT p ik e
Centre Rd. (Route 9)
Sabattus Stre
+6,250 +24%
-1,000 - 3%
Lis (R b o n ou St t e re e 19 t 6)
+1,150 + 7%
LEWISTON
+1,700 +10%
Wa (R shin ou gto te 2 0 n St 2 /1 r e e 00 t )
+3,150 +18%
South Main St
+1,300 +31%
reet
EXIT 80
p urn eT
i ke
+10,050 +52%
-300 - 2%
EXIT 75
+7,000 +79%
Lew i s t on
+11,700 +118%
Tow n L in
10
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 3.0 Description and Evaluation of Interchange Strategies
3.1 Overview of Interchange Strategy Evaluation Process Each of the proposed interchange strategies was evaluated based upon several criteria in five categories: Transportation, Land Use, Socio-Economic, Natural Environment and Project Cost. These criteria and the results of the evaluation are provided in Appendix A7. These criteria are listed and described below. The ratings for a strategy for each of the criteria are relative to the ratings of each of the other strategies. Transportation. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to various Transportation measures. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Total New Interchange Usage This presents the total daily traffic volume projected to use the proposed interchange(s) in the year 2025. Improves Access to Downtown Lewiston or Auburn to/from the Maine Turnpike This evaluates how each proposed interchange strategy increases traffic usage at each interchange and to/from the downtowns. Reduces Traffic Congestion in Lewiston or Auburn This evaluates the anticipated improvement or worsening of congestion at select intersections in the study area. Potential to Improve Safety at High Crash Locations This evaluates the anticipated improvement or worsening of crash history at existing High Crash Locations in the study area. It was based upon the projected change in entering traffic volumes at each of the High Crash Location. Improves Truck Traffic Flow/Circulation This evaluates how each strategy reduces truck traffic in neighborhoods and improves truck routings. Compatibility with New/Enhanced Bridge Crossings This evaluates the level of roadway connectivity from proposed interchange strategies and traffic levels on a proposed Androscoggin River bridge. Level of Potential Upgrade Needs This reviews the need to upgrade existing roadway facilities as a result of constructing a new interchange. Compatibility with Bicycle-Pedestrian Plans and Opportunities This evaluates how each strategy improves bicycle-pedestrian connectivity and their relationship with existing regional bicycle routes. Improves Emergency Access to the Maine Turnpike This evaluates each strategy with respect to existing public safety facilities and improved access to the Maine Turnpike. Improves Local Traffic Connectivity This evaluates improved local connections between Lewiston and Auburn and within each of those communities. Improves Regional Traffic Connectivity This evaluates how each strategy enhances regional connectivity. Improves Access to/Enhances Opportunities for Alternative Modes This evaluates the opportunity for park and ride enhancements and the quality of destinations for transit service. Construction Issues This reviews issues such as site conditions and likelihood of permitting. March 2005 Final Report Land Use. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Land Use. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Figure 3-1 shows generalized land use in the vicinity of the interchange strategies. Compatibility with Lewiston or Auburn Comprehensive Plans This evaluates how compatible the strategy is with goals and objectives as stated in adopted municipal comprehensive plans. Both Lewiston and Auburn Comprehensive Plans were reviewed. Potential for Farmland Impacts This evaluates the potential impacts of the strategies in terms of soil suitability (are there prime or significant farmland soils in the vicinity), agricultural zoning (is land in the vicinity zoned for agricultural uses), and proximity to active farmland (are there active farms in the vicinity and what are the principal current land uses). Information is derived from a windshield survey of the area and county level digital soil data from the Soil Conservation Service. Potential for Parks and Recreation Land Impacts This evaluates the potential for impacts to public or private park or recreation lands in the vicinity of the interchange strategies. Information is derived from review of Comprehensive Plans, digital data of conservation lands and review of USGS maps. Potential for Direct Residential Impacts This evaluates the potential for direct impacts to residences in the immediate vicinity of where an interchange may be located. Information is derived from review of aerial photographs and windshield survey of the study area. Potential for Direct Business Impacts This evaluates the potential for direct impacts to businesses in the immediate vicinity of where an interchange may be located. Information is derived from review of aerial photographs and windshield survey of the study area. Refer to Appendix A7 for the detailed matrix. Socio-Economic. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Socio-Economic Development. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Figure 3-2 shows the location of identified historic/cultural resources in the vicinity of the interchange strategies. One National Register property, the Penley Corner Baptist Church, is shown. The location of numerous cemeteries within the study area are identified on the USGS map base. Enhances Economic Development in Downtown Lewiston or Auburn, or in areas Outside of the Downtowns in each Community near the Interchange Locations This is based upon two criteria: the level of traffic that uses the proposed interchange that is destined to or originates from the downtowns or districts outside the downtowns; and, the relative improvement in connectivity to the district and the desirability of the route (desirability is rated by how direct the route is and how compatible the roadway and adjacent land uses are for an increase in automobile and truck traffic). Minimizes Potential for Historic/Cultural Impacts This evaluates the proximity of historic and cultural resources (cemeteries, historic buildings, churches, etc) to the general vicinity of the interchange strategies. Information is derived from the windshield survey of the study Adherence to Design Issues This evaluates interchange spacing and weaving criteria. Refer to Appendix A7 for the detailed matrix.
11
12
Auburn
Lewiston
New Auburn
Legend
Exit 80 Downtown Commercial Mixed Use Industrial
pik u rn e
in e Ma
Exit 75
13
14
15
17
2,900
4,900
Auburn
7, 20
South Bridge
18,900
1,600
23,000
4, 20 0
18,750
3, 85
22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15
30,050
25,900
Lewiston
20,600
15,600
4, 80
7, 85
Auburn
2, 45
5, 00 0
0 -1 ,6 5
6, 50 0
40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges
16,700
4, 30
18,750
1, 55
11,900
3, 50
31,350
Lewiston
19,100
7,
+7
-4
Auburn
50
,8 5
,7 5
3, 50 0 , -1 50 0
15,600
2,
70 0
30 0
47,350
Total Volume, All Interchanges
-2,050
+4 5
+18,750
55
-10,150
-6 50
+1300
Lewiston
-6,800
+1 ,
+7 ,7 00
-4 ,2 00
+6,550
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build
Note: The numbers represented are Travel Demand Model numbers and as such are only projections of what might happen. The numbers should be used to represent a level of magnitude of growth or reduction not an actual count of vehicles.
Figure 3-6: Strategy 1- River Road Interchange (Lewiston): Daily Traffic Volumes
18
20
2,900
4,900
Auburn
7, 20
South Bridge
18,900
1,600
23,000
4, 20 0
18,750
3, 85
22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15
30,050
25,900
Lewiston
20,600
15,600
5, 20
2, 70
Auburn
6, 90
5, 00 0
0 ,2 5 -1
6, 50 0
40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges
15,500
3, 50
8,200
1, 65
22,300
4, 05
Lewiston
30,200
28,250
26,850
,7 0
+2
-3 0
Auburn
3, 50 0 -1 ,5 00
River Road
2, 10 0
7, 20 0
46,000
Total Volume, All Interchanges
South Bridge
+100
-900
-5 0
-3,250
50
+8,200
65
+250
-1
Lewiston
-3
+1 ,
00
+150
+2,350
+950
+300
Maine Turnpike
+2 ,1 00
+7 00
River Road
+5,200
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build
Note: The numbers represented are Travel Demand Model numbers and as such are only projections of what might happen. The numbers should be used to represent a level of magnitude of growth or reduction not an actual count of vehicles.
Figure 3-9: Strategy 2- Route 136 Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes
21
22
23
2,900
4,900
Auburn
7, 20
South Bridge
18,900
1,600
23,000
4, 20 0
18,750
3, 85
22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15
30,050
25,900
Lewiston
20,600
15,600
5, 60
1, 90
Auburn
6, 90
5, 00 0
0 -8 5
6, 50 0
40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges
4,800
South Bridge
18,900
1,700
15,850
3, 50
6,500
1, 35
22,500
4, 30
29,600
26,900
,9 0
+1
-3 0
Auburn
3, 65 0
Lewiston
15,800
River Road
6,
1, 60 0
85 0
44,850
Total Volume, All Interchanges
+1,300 +1 ,6 50 +400
0
-100
South Bridge
+100
+6,500
35
+1 ,
River Road
+1 5
-450
+1,000
-3
Lewiston
+700
Note: The numbers represented are Travel Demand Model numbers and as such are only projections of what might happen. The numbers should be used to represent a level of magnitude of growth or reduction not an actual count of vehicles.
, -1 35 0
Figure 3-12: Strategy 3- South Main Street Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes
+1 ,6 00
+3 50
+4,050
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build
24
25
26
2,900
4,900
Auburn
7, 20
South Bridge
18,900
1,600
23,000
4, 20 0
18,750
3, 85
22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15
30,050
25,900
Lewiston
20,600
15,600
5, 60
2, 05
6, 90
Auburn
5, 00 0
0 -8 5
6, 50 0
40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges
3,100
1, 10 0
5,700
South Bridge
19,900
1,200
22,700 4, 35 0 22,150
4, 15
5,550
80
30,750
27,850
26,150
Lewiston
21,000
Maine Turnpike
River Road
6,
,0 5
+2
-3 0
Auburn
4, 25 0 -7 50
1, 60 0
75 0
44,450
Total Volume, All Interchanges
+200
+1
+800
,1 00
South Bridge
+1,000
-400
-300
+1 50
+5,550
+8 0
+100
0
+700
+1,950
+250 +600
-2
Lewiston
+400
Maine Turnpike
+1
+2
Note: The numbers represented are Travel Demand Model numbers and as such are only projections of what might happen. The numbers should be used to represent a level of magnitude of growth or reduction not an actual count of vehicles.
Figure 3-15: Strategy 4- Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes
,6 00
50
+3,650
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build
27
Project Cost Estimate $18,900,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)
2,900
4,900
Auburn
7, 20
South Bridge
18,900
1,600
23,000
4, 20 0
18,750
3, 85
22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15
30,050
25,900
Lewiston
20,600
15,600
4, 60
1, 95
8, 55
Auburn
1, 60
5, 00 0
0 -1 ,8 5
6, 50 0
40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges
South Bridge
15,900
14,500
19,700 3, 95 0 11,900
3, 95
14,800
4, 15
31,150
17,400 31,300
Lewiston
32,250
17,200
,9 5
,5 5
+8
-5 ,6 0
+1
Auburn
2, 25 0 -2 ,7 50
8,
1, 75 0
2,
85 0
40 0
53,900
Total Volume, All Interchanges
South Bridge
-3,000
+12,900
-3,950
0
+9,800
00
+3 0
+3 ,
-2
00
+1100
+17,400 +5,400
Lewiston
+6,350
Note: The numbers represented are Travel Demand Model numbers and as such are only projections of what might happen. The numbers should be used to represent a level of magnitude of growth or reduction not an actual count of vehicles.
Figure 3-18: Strategy 5- River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes
+1 ,7 50
+8 ,8 50
+13,100
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build
30
31
32
2,900
4,900
Auburn
7, 20
South Bridge
18,900
1,600
23,000
4, 20 0
18,750
3, 85
22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15
30,050
25,900
Lewiston
20,600
15,600
4, 85
Auburn
7, 10
3, 00
5,400 31,100 5,400 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)
5, 00 0
0 ,6 0 -1
6, 50 0
40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges
12,400 5,750
z
1,
16,200
80 0
16,300
4, 30
18,300
1, 80
Lewiston
11,750
3, 05
31,100
20,050
+7
-4
Auburn
00
,1 0
,2 0
3, 30 0 , -1 70 0
7, 60 0
2, 35 0
15,900
46,350
Total Volume, All Interchanges
-6,500 +5,750
z
-800
+500
+1
+14,600
,8
-2,450
+4 5
+18,300
80
-10,300
,1 0
+1,050
+1 ,
-1
Lewiston
-5,850
+550
+7
, -4
Note: The numbers represented are Travel Demand Model numbers and as such are only projections of what might happen. The numbers should be used to represent a level of magnitude of growth or reduction not an actual count of vehicles.
Figure 3-21: Strategy 1A- River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes
,6 00
15 0
+5,550
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build
33
Historic/Cultural Resources. No negative direct impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources are anticipated. Cemeteries are located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. The Penley Corner Baptist Church, on the National Historic Register, is in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy (0.8 miles from the Maine Turnpike at Route 136). A cemetery is also located there. (Figure 3-2) Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. The interchange strategy adds additional traffic to the Route 136 corridor, directing traffic to New Auburn so it would have some potential negative traffic impacts to this commercial and residential center. Natural Environment Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with moderate functionality (as defined in the Beginning with Habitat methodology) in the general vicinity of the interchange portion of the strategy. There is one pond in the general vicinity. (Figure 3-3). A perennial stream is in close proximity to the interchange strategy location. This strategy has the closest proximity to the Androscoggin River. The impacts of a new bridge are not known at this time. Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations and no deer wintering areas in the general vicinity of the interchange portion of the strategy. The impacts of a new bridge are not known at this time. Project Cost Estimate $23,300,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)
35
2,900
4,900
Auburn
7, 20
South Bridge
18,900
1,600
23,000
4, 20 0
18,750
3, 85
22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15
30,050
25,900
Lewiston
20,600
15,600
5, 20
3, 10
Auburn
6, 25
5, 00 0
0 ,2 5 -1
6, 50 0
40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges
14,400 6,500
z
1,
35 0
2,400
15,350
3, 35
8,550
1, 40
21,350
4, 10
Lewiston
30,750
25,400
River Road
2,
6,
,1 0
+3
Auburn
-9 5
3, 65 0 -1 ,3 50
-1,900 -3 00 -3,400
00
+3,700
z
70 0
60 0
42,250
Total Volume, All Interchanges
-4,500 +6,500
z
,3
+800 -700
50
+8,550
+1 ,
40
-5
-5
+700
+2,550
Lewiston
-500
+2 ,7 00
+1 00
+400
River Road
+4,450
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build
Note: The numbers represented are Travel Demand Model numbers and as such are only projections of what might happen. The numbers should be used to represent a level of magnitude of growth or reduction not an actual count of vehicles.
Figure 3-24: Strategy 2A - Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes
36
Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with low functionality (as defined by the Beginning with Habitat methodology) in the immediate vicinity of each interchange location. In Lewiston, there is a perennial stream in the immediate proximity (Figure 3-3) to the potential interchange location. In Auburn, there is one pond in the general vicinity. The potential impacts of a new bridge on waterbodies are not known at this time. Habitat. In Lewiston and Auburn, there are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity of either of the new interchanges and there are no deer wintering areas in the general vicinity. The potential impacts of a new bridge on habitat are not known at this time. Project Cost Estimate $29,400,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)
2,900
4,900
Auburn
7, 20
South Bridge
18,900
1,600
23,000
4, 20 0
18,750
3, 85
22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15
30,050
25,900
Lewiston
20,600
15,600
1, 85
8, 45
4, 70
1, 65
Auburn
5, 00 0
0 -1 ,7 5
6, 50 0
40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges
13,300 3,650
z
2,300
2,
14,700
85 0
14,900
4, 30
16,950 34,050
Lewiston
11,750
4, 00
30,600
17,100
16,400
2,
8,
-5 ,5 5
+1
+8
50
,8 5
,4 5
Auburn
1, 90 0 , -3 10 0
2,
35 0
50 0
25 0
53,750
Total Volume, All Interchanges
South Bridge
+2
-5,600 +3,650
z
+13,100
-600
,8
+10,150
10 +3 ,
+16,950 +8,150
Lewiston
-10,300
-1 50
+550
+6,450
-8,800
+8
+2
-4
,5
Note: The numbers represented are Travel Demand Model numbers and as such are only projections of what might happen. The numbers should be used to represent a level of magnitude of growth or reduction not an actual count of vehicles.
Figure 3-27: Strategy 5A- River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes
,3 50
,2
00
50
+12,950
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build
39
40
41
Copies of the meeting notes are attached in the Appendix A5. 5.2 Study Steering Committee The Study Steering Committee met on a frequent basis to help guide the study process and included the following members: Mark Adams - Assistant City Manager, City of Auburn; Ray Faucher MaineDOT; Greg Mitchell Assistant City Manager, City of Lewiston; Duane Scott MaineDOT; Conrad Welzel - Maine Turnpike
42
6.0 Recommendations
Following a detailed strategy evaluation of Transportation, Land Use, Socio-Economic, Natural Environment, Cost and an extensive public outreach process including endorsements by the two City Councils, it was recommended by the Study Advisory Committee that Strategies 1, 2, 5, 1A, 2A, and 5A be considered for future study by the MaineDOT and MTA. It was further recommended that Strategies 3 and 4 be dismissed from further analysis, due to the lack of these interchange concepts to meet the studys Purpose and Need Statement. The specific reasons for dismissal include: Strategies 3 and 4 fail to meet the study purpose and need including: Fail to reduce traffic congestion for local and through travelers in the study area; Fail to improve regional road system linkages; Contribute to the deterioration of neighborhoods; Do not enhance truck routings; Do not improve connectivity to downtown business areas; Strategies 3 and 4 have the lowest interchange traffic volume usage projections; Strategy 4 does not improve safety in the study area; Strategies 3 and 4 do not significantly reduce traffic congestion in the study area; Strategies 3 and 4 will have a negative traffic impact to the South Main Street neighborhood; Strategy 3 does not improve local connectivity; Strategies 3 and 4 conflict with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and the goal of protecting residential neighborhoods from inappropriate traffic; Project costs and benefits for Strategy 4 result in a negative cost benefit ratio; and At the January 2003 Public Meeting, Pat Finnigan, Auburn City Manager, noted that the Auburn City Council could not support an interchange strategy that impacts South Main Street.
44
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix A1 Safety Assessment
The evaluation of an improvement strategy as it relates to safety impacts was based upon a qualitative assessment of traffic volume impacts at intersections determined to be High Crash Locations (HCLs) according to MaineDOT data. For each of the eight interchange strategies and the No-Build alternative, daily traffic volumes changes were developed for twenty-two intersections in Lewiston and Auburn that are High Crash Locations as defined by MaineDOT. For locations that decreased by 1,000 vehicles or more per day, a corresponding improvement in crash rates was assumed. For locations that increased by 1,000 vehicles or more per day, crash rates were assumed to increase. Table A1 summarizes the qualitative safety impact of each of the interchange strategies. Table A1 Safety Assessment Summary No-Build Strategy 1 River Road Interchange (Lewiston) Strategy 2 Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 3 South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 4 Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 5 - River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange Strategy 1A River Road (Lewiston) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 2A Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 5A River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge No Change 6 HCL Improve and 5 HCL Worsen 7 HCL Improve and 5 HCL Worsen 4 HCL Improve and 2 Worsen 1 HCL Improves and 1 Worsen 7 HCL Improve and 4 HCL Worsen 7 HCL Improve and 4 HCL Worsen 5 HCL Improve and 3 HCL Worsen 8 HCL Improve and 3 HCL Worsen
As noted in the above table, all interchange strategies will likely have a positive impact on safety in the study area, with the exception of Strategy 4 and the No-Build alternative where no change is projected.
45
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix A2 Congestion Assessment
A qualitative assessment of traffic congestion was conducted within the study area. The assessment included the review of traffic volume changes for eight locations in Auburn and ten locations in Lewiston. The change was based upon a comparison between the overall entering PM peak hour volume in the 2025 No-Build and the Build strategy. Table A2 presents the results. Table A2 Study Area Intersection Volume Change Strategy Strategy 1 River Road Interchange (Lewiston) Strategy 2 Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 3 South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 4 Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 5 - River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange Strategy 1A River Road (Lewiston) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 2A Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 5A River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Auburn Intersections 6 intersections improve 2 intersections worsen 5 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen 3 intersections improve 5 intersections worsen 6 intersections improve 2 intersections worsen 6 intersections improve 2 intersections worsen 7 intersections improve 1 intersections worsens 4 intersections improve 4 intersections worsen Lewiston Intersections 7 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen 6 intersections improve 4 intersections worsen 5 intersections improve 5 intersections worsen 5 intersections improve 5 intersections worsen 7 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen 7 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen 7 intersections improve 2 intersections worsen 1 no change 7 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen As noted in the Table A2 all interchange strategies will have a positive influence on traffic congestion with the exception of Strategy 3, where congestion is expected to degrade in Auburn. Strategies 3 and 4 are neutral in their impact on congestion in Lewiston, while Strategy 2A is neutral in its impact on congestion in Auburn. The No-Build alternative provides no improvement.
46
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix A3 Project Cost Summary
An Engineers cost estimate has been prepared for each of the interchange strategies. The costs are based on approximate 2004 construction costs. Typical unit costs for ramps and bridges have been provided by the MaineDOT and HNTB, the engineers for the Maine Turnpike Authority. Engineering costs have been added as a 25% increase to the cost. An estimate for anticipated right-of-way costs, 10%, has also been added to the total cost. The typical costs do not reflect special conditions or unusual design elements encountered during the design process due to unknown site conditions. During the preliminary and final design of the improvements, a detailed engineers estimate will be performed to better determine the anticipated project costs. The following cost estimates are generic in nature and intended to provide a magnitude of cost for comparison. Strategy 1 River Road Interchange (Lewiston)- Proposed full diamond interchange. 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 6,000,000 Widening of existing bridge for left turn lanes = $ 1,500,000 One-mile frontage road, both sides = $ 2,000,000 New bridge over River Road for each frontage road (100x 32 x = $ 1,280,000 $200/SF) x 2 ____________ Subtotal = $10,780,000 Engineering, 25% = 2,695,000 Right-of-way, 10% = 1,078,000 TOTAL =$ 14,553,000
Strategy 3 South Main Street Interchange (Auburn)-A modified half cloverleaf design. 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 6,000,000 Widening of existing bridge for acceleration lanes = $ 1,500,000 Subtotal = $ 7,500,000 Engineering, 25% = 1,875,000 Right-of-way, 10% = 750,000 TOTAL = $ 10,125,000
Strategy 4 Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn)- A diamond type interchange with a new structure over the turnpike for a connector road. 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 6,000,000 New bridge over the Turnpike = $ 2,500,000 Connector road for ramps, 6,250 LF = $ 2,367,000 Subtotal = $ 10,867,000 Engineering, 25% = 2,717,000 Right-of-way, 10% = 1,087,000 TOTAL = $ 14,671,000
Strategy 2 Route 136 Interchange (Auburn)- Proposed interchange (a trumpet configuration) is about 1.8 miles from Exit 13. 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each New bridge over the Turnpike Connector road for ramps, 2600 LF Subtotal Engineering, 25% Right-of-way, 10% TOTAL = $ 6,000,000 = $ 2,500,000 = $ 985,000 = $ 9,485,000 = 2,371,000 = 949,000 = $12,805,000
Strategy 5 - River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange- Full interchange at Route 136 and half a diamond at River Road. Route 136 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 6,000,000 New bridge over the Turnpike = $ 2,500,000 Connector road for ramps, 2600 LF = $ 985,000 River Road 2 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 3,000,000 Widening of existing bridge for left turn lanes = $ 1,500,000 Subtotal = $ 13,985,000 Engineering, 25% = 3,496,000 Right-of-way, 10% = 1,399,000 TOTAL = $ 18,880,000
47
For Options with a New River Bridge - This option would include a new bridge over the Androscoggin River between the Turnpike and downtown. The option would also include a new connection to the Turnpike and approaches to the bridge. Assuming a 650-foot long bridge at 60 feet wide (39,000 SF) at a unit cost of $200 per SF including some approach work, riprap, mobilization, etc. Total cost for this option includes the cost for the new interchange selected above and a new bridge over the Androscoggin River. The estimated cost of the new bridge over the river is: New River Bridge = $ 7,800,000 Engineering, 25% = $ 1,950,000 Right-of-way, 10% =$ 780,000 TOTAL = $ 10,530,000
Strategy 1A River Road (Lewiston) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge = $ 25,083,000 Strategy 2A Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge = $ 23,335,000 Strategy 5A River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge = $ 29,410,000
48
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix A4 Benefit Cost Analysis
A preliminary benefit cost analysis was conducted for each of the interchange strategies to determine the cost merit of implementation when considering the cost of travel and operating costs, as compared to project cost. The following assumptions provided by MaineDOT (as obtained from the publication, User Benefit Analysis For Highways, AASHTO) were used in the analysis: Value of Vehicle Running Costs to the Motorist Vehicle running costs include only the operating cost of the vehicle which includes the cost of fuel, oil, maintenance and repairs. It excludes the ownership costs of the vehicle and Federal and State taxes. o Passenger Vehicles -- $0.12 (Cost per vehicle/mile) o Heavy Trucks -- $0.70 (Cost per vehicle/mile) Value of Travel Time Savings to the Motorist o Passenger Vehicles -- $10.00 (Cost per vehicle/hour) o Heavy Trucks -- $39.00 (Cost per vehicle/hour) A discount rate of 6% Annual benefit dollars between 2006 and 2025. Based on VMT and VHT as estimated by the ATRC Travel Demand Model. Table A3 summarizes the results of the analysis. Table A3 Benefit Cost Analysis Summary Strategy 2025 VMT 2025 VMT Difference From NoBuild N/a -17,768 -16,521 -13,912 +5,545 -21,761 -25,105 -11,028 -28,513 2025 VHT 2025 VHT Difference From NoBuild N/a -1,251 -967 -896 -55 -1,372 -1,383 -946 -1,347 Project Cost Benefit BenefitCost Ratio N/a 4.5 3.8 3.4 -0.06 3.7 2.8 2.1 2.8 For any strategy that produces a benefit-cost ratio that exceeds +1.0, it is concluded that its value exceeds its costs and therefore should be considered a financially feasible project. As noted above, all of the interchange strategies produce positive results with the exception of Strategy 4 where negative benefits were computed. The negative benefit is a result of increased vehicle miles traveled in the study area from the construction of a new connector road between South Main Street and Route 136 (Riverside Drive).
49
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix A5 Study Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting Notes
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Notes Thursday, December 12, 2002 7:00 PM to 9:00PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Members Present: Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance), Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce) Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Beckie Conrad (Bates College), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), John White (Town of Durham), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Wesley Bennett, Jr. (Durham Selectman), Judy Marden (Greene), Les Griswold (Auburn), Kurt Youland (K&K Excavation), Belinda Gerry (Auburn) Participants Present: Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Pam Wichroski (Bates College), Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager) ATRC Policy Committee: Robert Thompson (AVCOG), Chris Branch (Lewiston Public Works) ATRC Technical Committee: Bob Belz (Auburn Public Works), James Lysen (Lewiston Planning Director) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Robert Jurasin (Wilbur Smith Associates), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates).
1. Introductions and History Robert Thompson After an introduction of all attendees Bob noted that ATRC has met with MaineDOT to discuss the steps in the study process. He further noted that community commitment was key, and the broad public input for the study process would ultimately be forwarded to the ATRC Policy Committee. He concluded with the emphasis that the first steps are critical to the success of the study and public participation is very important 2. Public Process and Communications Robert Jurasin Bob gave an overview of the study public outreach process. He highlighted that the study Team would be communicating at Study Advisory Committee meetings, Public meetings, City Council meetings, and with special interest, business, and neighborhood groups. He noted that the study would be consensus built. 3. On-Going City Activities Mark Adams Mark gave a brief overview of some of the on-going development activities that are currently taking place in both Auburn and Lewiston. The overview noted projects that either have recently been constructed or will be in the near future. He noted that this represents a short-term or two-year log of activities. The presentation will be posted on AVCOGs website (www.avcog.org) in the near future for further detail.
50
51
Bob Thompson asked whether the time and day (1st Tuesday of the Month at Lunch) of the Study Advisory Committee meetings were acceptable. Everyone agreed that the day and time was acceptable. Kelly Matzen did note that the L&A City Councils joint workshop on May 21st would conflict with budget approval discussions and revision to the date should be considered. Don Craig noted that a draft agenda for the next Study Advisory Committee meeting on March 4th would be transmitted with the minutes from this meeting ASAP. Ray Faucher emphasized that the level of public participation would help this project compete for funding versus other projects. The more public participation the better. Andrea Quaid from Congressman Michauds office, who resides on the House Transportation Committee, offers any assistance to help this project. 4. Present January 15, 2003 Public Meeting Summary Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized the methods that were used to advertise for the January 15th Public Meeting. Kelly Matzen asked if the study website was linked to the Lewiston and Auburn municipal websites. Bob Thompson replied that they are not but that they would try to incorporate a link. Andrea Quaid asked for the website address. Don Craig noted that it is www.atrcmpo.org. Bruce summarized the comments and issues from the public meeting as noted in the copy of the minutes provided. 5. Review Draft Purpose and Need Bob Jurasin Bob began with discussions on the purpose of the Purpose and Need statement. It needs to include intermodal/multi-modal transportation and investigate impacts as it relates to socio-economic, environmental and cost. He further noted that it must be consensus built. Bob presented all items in the draft Purpose and Need statement (copies were distributed to members). Bob Thompson noted that MaineDOT indicated that all future strategies in the area would be measured against the Purpose and Need statement. Kelly Matzen was concerned that the current Purpose and Need statement did not specifically include bicycle and pedestrian components. Bob Jurasin replied that work would include bicycle/pedestrian modes from a linkage standpoint. Kelly indicated that Auburn is looking at improving connections to bicycle/pedestrians.
1. Introductions and History Robert Thompson 2. Approve December 12, 2002 Study Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Don Craig Don distributed copies of the minutes to those members who did not have copies. Upon review the minutes were approved unanimously. 3. Future Meeting Topics and Schedule Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized the meeting schedule (handout) over the next six months. Bruce noted that the Interagency meeting has been postponed to March 11th. Mark Adams noted that April 21st was not a good date for the Public Meeting because of school vacation. Bob Thompson noted that the Study Advisory Committee should help in the outreach process effort. Study information material is available from ATRC for distribution. Bruce noted that there would also be Neighborhood Outreach, which was not identified on the schedule. March 2005 Final Report
52
53
Bob Thompson requested appropriate language regarding access to the Turnpike by emergency vehicles to respond to emergencies on the facility. 4. Presentation of Existing Transportation Data Tom Errico Tom presented the on-going efforts on existing transportation including, traffic volumes, traffic volume growth, crash history, level of service, travel time and delay, truck deficiencies, truck percentages, transit routes, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. A handout was provided. Mark Adams requested that we add Court Street data downtown to Figure 1. Lee Feldman requested that we add traffic data on South Bridge in New Auburn on Figure 3. Ray Faucher noted that South Bridge was out of service for a period of time and that should be noted on Figure 5 Mark Adams inquired as to whether information on Figure 15 would be expanded upon. Mentioned deficiencies on Court Street, Main Street at Elm Street, Main Street between Elm and Court Streets, and Academy Street. Mentioned the Downtown Traffic and Parking Study, which identify more issues. Mark Adams mentioned the BIW shuttle at Exit 13. Users may be getting dropped off or carpooling to lot so use of lot may be higher than indicated by the numbers given. Bob Thompson noted that we consider, as appropriate, the Passenger Intermodal Facility that will be located at the airport in Auburn. Look at potential shifts in traffic that may be using Exit 13 now. Also consider informal park and ride lot usage (shopping center parking lots, for instance) in the analysis. Joan Walton may have useful data on locations and use. 5. Presentation of Existing Social, Economic, and Community Development Issues Chuck Lawton. Chuck presented information on Population, Socio-Economic, Employment, and Commuting patterns for the Lewiston-Auburn metropolitan statistical area. A handout was provided. Mark Adams asked why the Town of Minot was not in the statistics. Chuck replied because it is in the Oxford area. Mark asked to have Minot added to the area. Mike Grimmer asked do the large employers generate the most traffic? Answer, yes. He requested a map of the largest 20 or so employers in the region to correlate with roads and congestion problems.
1. Introductions Robert Thompson 2. Approve February 4, 2003 Study Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Don Craig Rebecca Swanson Conrad (LA Excels) noted that her name was listed as both present and absent. Upon review the minutes were approved unanimously with the change noted. 3. Review Revised Draft Purpose and Need Statement Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized what a Purpose and Need Statement is, that the Need is the problem statement and the Purpose is the objective. Bruce summarized the changes incorporated into the Purpose and Need Statement as highlighted in the handout. Mark Adams requested appropriate language regarding the issue of truck routing in Lewiston and Auburn. He further noted the importance of limiting truck traffic through neighborhoods and including current efforts by Auburn and Lewiston on the development of truck routes.
54
Tom presented graphics comparing the 2002 Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes to the projected 2025 Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes. Chip Morrison noted that it was difficult to see the graphics on the screen. It was noted that the graphics would be posted on ATRCs website for review. 5. Review Previous Study Improvement Strategies and Findings Robert Jurasin Bob reviewed the prior study history and emphasized the difference in the Purpose and Need statements. He further summarized the previously evaluated interchange locations, elimination process (initial and detailed), and reviewed study scope at each interchange location. He concluded by noting that this study will also consider bridge-crossing options. Lucien Gosselin asked when would an evaluation of topography be considered for those options to be studied. Bob replied that we would begin our evaluation process soon. Rebecca Grover asked if a No-Build evaluation will be included and noted experiences where the term nobuild was confusing. Bob replied that it would be included. Bob noted that we will begin development of the screening of alternatives and presented a draft evaluation matrix. Chip Morrison noted that cost should be included in the matrix. Not just construction cost but also annual operation costs. 6. Preview Content of Next Meeting Agenda Robert Jurasin Bob briefly presented the topics for discussion at the next meeting. 7. April 30th Public Meeting Agenda Bruce Hyman Bruce presented the agenda for the Public Meeting.
1. Approve March 4, 2003 Study Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Don Craig Upon review the minutes were approved unanimously. 2. Review Revised Draft Purpose and Need Statement Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized the change incorporated into the Purpose and Need Statement as highlighted in the handout (enhance truck routing while limiting truck traffic in neighborhoods). The change was accepted. Bob Jurasin noted that the Purpose and Need statement is dynamic and a living document and will be flexible. Suggestions can be provided at any time. 3. Review Updated Existing Transportation Data and Connection to Purpose and Need Tom Errico
Chris Branch noted that most people would not be interested about the agenda items. We want to be careful not to bore them. Bruce noted that its not the quantity of the comments we receive but the quality.
Tom explained how the existing transportation data (level of service, crash history, traffic volumes, traveltime delay) would be used to assess the projects ability to meet the objectives in the Purpose and Need Statement. March 2005 Final Report
56
Action Items Post future traffic volume graphics on ATRC website Revise evaluation matrix to include capital and operating costs Consider open forum type meeting format for the April 30th Public Meeting Action Items From March 4, 2003 meeting Edit February 4, 2003 Meeting Minutes to correct Rebecca Swanson Conrads attendance. (Done) Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for truck routing. (Done) Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for Emergency Access to the Turnpike. (Done) Add Main Street traffic volume data to Figure 1. (Done) Add traffic data on South Bridge in Figure 3. (Done) Note closure of South Bridge on Figure 5. (Done) Add deficiencies on Court Street at Mechanic and Main Street to Figure 15. (Done) Add the Town of Minot into the Socio-Economic data. (Done) Provide information on the largest employers in the region. (Pending) Action Items From February 4, 2003 Meeting ATRC will schedule the April Public Meeting date to account for school vacation. (Done) ATRC will schedule the May City Councils workshop date to avoid the budget review time period. (Pending) ATRC will transmit a draft agenda for the next AC meeting with Meeting Minutes. (Done) ATRC to provide a link between the Study website and the Lewiston and Auburn websites. (Lewiston Done/Auburn Pending) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to include Bicycle and Pedestrian issues. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to indicate the possibility of more than one interchange. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to note both Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to include Farmland Impacts. (Done) ATRC will add MaineDOTs ITD Timeline to the Study website. (Done) Action Items From December 12, 2002 Meeting The City of Auburn to provide ATRC/WSA with the development slide presentation. (Done)
1. Approve April 8, 2003 Study Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Don Craig Upon review the minutes were approved unanimously. 2. Revised Project Status Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized the project schedule using the project timeline graphic. The project is on schedule with completion at the end of summer. 3. Review of April 30th Public Meeting Bruce Hyman Bruce noted that it was a well attended meeting that generated a lot of constructive comments and input regarding the land use-transportation issues and the preliminary interchange strategies that were presented. He summarized the results of the public meeting and breakout group discussion (a handout was distributed). 4. Review Draft Purpose and Need Statement Bruce Hyman
57
6. Present Revised Traffic Data Tom Errico. Tom presented a graphic summarizing revised traffic growth between the 2002 Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes to the projected 2025 Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes. 7. Present Traffic Results of Preliminary Interchange Strategy Evaluation Tom Errico. Several members requested that additional traffic data be added to the figures including: a. Traffic volume/usage data at the existing interchanges and potential interchanges b. Traffic data for Vickery Road, Pleasant Street and Webster Street, as appropriate. 8. Set Next Meeting and Preview Content of Next Meeting Agenda Don Craig The next Study Advisory Committee meeting will be on June 23, 2003 at 11:30AM. Action Items From May 20, 2003 meeting Revise Purpose and Need to included improving access to medical facilities. Action Items From April 8, 2003 meeting Post future traffic volume graphics on ATRC website (Pending) Revise evaluation matrix to include capital and operating costs (Done) Consider open forum type meeting format for the April 30th Public Meeting (Done) Action Items From March 4, 2003 meeting Edit February 4, 2003 Meeting Minutes to correct Rebecca Swanson Conrads attendance. (Done) Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for truck routing. (Done) Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for Emergency Access to the Turnpike. (Done) Add Main Street traffic volume data to Figure 1. (Done) Add traffic data on South Bridge in Figure 3. (Done) Note closure of South Bridge on Figure 5. (Done) Add deficiencies on Court Street at Mechanic and Main Street to Figure 15. (Done) Add the Town of Minot into the Socio-Economic data. (Done) Provide information on the largest employers in the region. (Pending) Action Items From February 4, 2003 Meeting ATRC will schedule the April Public Meeting date to account for school vacation. (Done) ATRC will schedule the May City Councils workshop date to avoid the budget review time period. (Pending) ATRC will transmit a draft agenda for the next AC meeting with Meeting Minutes. (Done) ATRC to provide a link between the Study website and the Lewiston and Auburn websites. (Lewiston Done/Auburn Pending) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to include Bicycle and Pedestrian issues. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to indicate the possibility of more than one interchange. (Done) 58
1. Welcome and Introductions Don Craig 2. Project Update Don Craig Don noted that the project has been idle while refinement and improvement to the ATRC travel demand model was being performed. Two model updates have been incorporated. 3. Proposed Schedule Tom Errico Tom reviewed the current project schedule (a handout was provided) and noted that completion of the Final Report is expected in late May. He noted the schedule is aggressive and noted that it will move quickly. 4. Revised Downtown Development Forecasts Don Craig Don reviewed information presented in a handout that summarizes projects/growth that are already in place and financially committed in both Lewiston and Auburn.
59
60
Tom presented several graphics that summarized Area-wide Traffic Growth between 2000 and 2025, Traffic Volume Network changes with implementation of strategies, and key origin and destination data from the Turnpike to/from Lewiston and Auburn. It was asked if the future traffic volumes take into account the traffic growth in the Augusta area and expansion of the Turnpike to three lanes. Tom noted that the ATRC Travel Demand Model accounts for variables outside the immediate area of Lewiston and Auburn including those noted. It was asked if the volume forecasts take into account employment and economic growth. Tom noted that both were accounted in the forecast. A question was asked about the Origin/Destination data and whether we looked at zones west of the South Bridge. Tom noted that yes that was included in the zone designated New Auburn. A question was asked about traffic volumes on Route 136 and how Route 136 provides a good connection to I-95 (I-295). Tom noted that the ATRC Model did not forecast high traffic volumes on Route 136 south of the Turnpike, primarily because very little development exists or is expected in that area of Auburn. Tom further noted that a greater level of traffic activity is expected because of the regional connectivity expected with a new interchange at Route 136. It was noted that the population in Lewiston and Auburn is the same as it was in 1975, and does the forecast account for this. Tom noted that the model reflects population forecasts projected by the State and accounts for historical trends in Lewiston and Auburn. 6. Review of Preliminary Phase I Evaluation Matrix Bruce Hyman Bruce presented the Phase I matrix and the methods used to rate each of the purpose/objectives. Duane asked what was the definition of Density and Intensity for Level of Local Activity. Bruce noted that Intensity was related to commercial development while density was related to residential development. Duane asked that for future refinements of the matrix, specific reasons on ratings should be clearly defined. Ray noted for Strategies 3 and 4 only a 50-trip difference exists for Economic Development, yet the rating is different (Low for #3 and Moderate for #4). Bruce noted that Strategy #4 provides a better connection to Downtown via Route 136, which resulted in the higher rating. Duane noted that the distinction between low and moderate for Bicycle/Pedestrian should be included in the matrix. Mark Adams suggested that a map be provided that illustrates the Bicycle/Pedestrian Routes. It was also noted that graphics for other issues might be appropriate.
1. Welcome and Introductions Don Craig 2. Project Update Don Craig Don noted that the project will not identify one single improvement strategy and specific design configurations will not be determined at this time. 3. Review Project Schedule Bruce Hyman Bruce reviewed the current project schedule and proposed meetings. No comments were provided. 4. Review of Purpose and Need Bruce Hyman Bruce Hyman presented the current version of the Purpose and Need and again noted that it is not final and can be revised as appropriate. No comments were provided
Chris Branch noted that a benefit of decreasing traffic on Lisbon Street might be a diversion of traffic from residential streets to Lisbon Street, thereby reducing cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods. 61
7.
Don noted that discussion on Committee Action on Strategies 3 and 4 has been postponed due to the extensive data presented. 8. Next Steps/Next Meeting Don Craig The minutes from the January 13, 2004 meeting was approved. The next Study Advisory Committee meeting will be on February 24, 2004 at 11:30AM
1. Introductions Bob Thompson 2. Project Update Don Craig 3. Review of Interchange Strategies Under Consideration Tom Errico Tom reviewed all eight strategies that are under consideration. 4. Presentation of Evaluation Matrix Bruce Hyman Bruce reviewed each strategy and the associated pros and cons. It was asked what possible benefit Strategy 1 has on traffic in the region. Tom Errico noted that there are reductions in traffic on Route 202.
62
1. Welcome and Introductions Bob Thompson Lucien Gosselin asked for an assurance of the availability of funds to continue the process, now that it will move to MDOT and MTA. Mike Grimmer followed up by asking if there are any other projects competing for these funds. The response from Conrad Welzel and Ray Faucher was that the money is available to continue the study, with those results ultimately dictating the construction money that will be required. Greg Mitchell then asked for a confirmation of the time frame for completion. Ray Faucher indicated that we should plan on about 18 months from the start of the next phase. 2. Overview of Study Don Craig 3. Report on Presentation to City Councils Bob Thompson 4. Final Draft Report Q&A Robert Parent stated that he seems to be hearing that a new interchange will happen, it is just a question of where. Bob Thompson replied that this study only shows that a new interchange is feasible; the next phase March 2005 Final Report 63
64
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix A6 Public Informational Meeting Notes and Other Public Comments
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC MEETING Meeting Notes Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:00 PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Study Advisory Committee Members Present: Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council) Participants Present: Conrad Welzel (Maine Turnpike Authority), Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Pat Finnigan (Auburn City Manager) ATRC Policy Committee: Robert Thompson (AVCOG), Chris Branch (Lewiston Public Works) ATRC Technical Committee: Bob Belz (Auburn Public Works), Dennis Emidy (MaineDOT) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), Dale Spaulding (Louis Berger Group) Public Present: James Williams (58 Olive St., Auburn), Alfred Libby (386 S. Witham Rd., Auburn), Roger Gauthier, Jr. (226 Penley Corner Rd., Auburn), Don Martill (Sun Journal)
1. Introductions and History Robert Thompson After an introduction of all attendees Bob gave an overview of the project, particularly noting that with continued growth within Auburn and Lewiston, transportation improvements will be likely. Bob noted that the project was at the early planning stage and improvement strategies have not been identified, contrary to the recent newspaper article. He further noted the importance of improving access to the Maine Turnpike in an effort to allow motorists to use the underutilized Turnpike for local travel. 2. Public Process and Communications Bruce Hyman Bruce gave an overview of the study public outreach process. He highlighted that the study Team would be communicating at Study Advisory Committee meetings, Public meetings, City Council meetings. He noted that there would be many opportunities for the public to provide meaningful input.
65
The meeting began shortly after 7 pm. Project staff from ATRC and Wilbur Smith Associates made short presentations regarding: Status of the Project Schedule for the Project Brief Overview of Existing Transportation Issues (traffic, bicycle/pedestrian, transit) Brief Overview of Socio-Economic/Land Use Issues. The members of the public were then divided into two groups to participate in 40 minute facilitated discussions regarding: Transportation Issues Preliminary Interchange Strategies Other Ideas for Strategies Other Issues. Study Advisory and Steering Committee members observed and were resources for the discussions. Responses to questions/comments by Project Staff and Study Advisory/Steering Committee members are in brackets and in italics. Lewiston-Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study DRAFT Public Meeting #2 Notes: April 30, 2003 Breakout Group Summary General Safety Issues Exit 12 area is dangerous (Group #1) Exit 13/Plourde Parkway ramp to Lisbon St (westbound) combination of poor sight distance and grade change (Group #1) Main St (Auburn) near Florians Market conflicts with pedestrians, on-street parking, many turning movements (Group #1) Drivers are untrainable, aggressive and have bad habits (Group #2) Pedestrian Issues Florians Market, Auburn (as described above) (Group #1) Intersection of Lisbon St & Main St (Lewiston) difficulty crossing Main St due to right turning; March 2005 Final Report
conflicts between pedestrians and on-street parking (Group #1) Main St (Auburn) from Florians Market to Court St in general, very difficult for pedestrians (Group #1) What is the expected impact of the new hotel on pedestrian traffic crossing Court St? (Group #1) Longley Bridge underpass will help the issue of crossing Court St (Group #1) Transit Issues The local bus system is grossly underused most likely due to peoples connection to their vehicles (Group #1) Is there the potential for a smaller shuttle type bus between the downtowns? [The Downtown Circulator should be starting this fall.] (Group #1) The city could save money by paying for a new car for everyone that rides the bus, no one uses it. (Group #2) Local bus system is a sham (Group #2) Do not expand the transit system unless we get more money from the federal government! (Group #2) Truck Issues in general, trucks are an issue throughout the study area speed, noise, volume -- all issues. (Group #1) General Questions/Comments has the type of traffic expected to use the new interchange been analyzed/forecast? [Not yet, but that is part of the next phases of the study.] (Group #1) Is there a plan for a new bridge between the South Bridge and the turnpike bridge? (Group #1) Concerns regarding increased traffic on the South Bridge..Can it handle a large increase? (Group #1) A new bridge is really needed to help ease congestion in New Auburn and Little Canada areas. (Group #1) Why are we doing this study? Is this new interchange really necessary? Are there real congestion problems now or forecasted for either existing interchange that warrant an additional interchange? Would a new interchange really provide any better travel time, balancing speeds and distance? Based on data provided, the majority of the safety and congestion problems appear to be in the Downtowns. Will increasing better access only exacerbate the existing problems? [Any Lewiston-Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study DRAFT Public Meeting #2 Notes: April 30, 2003 recommendations from this study will involve a host of strategies/improvements to address the safety and congestion issues.] (Group #1) There is a general concern that any solution will only make a bad situation even worse (Main St, Auburn; downtowns in general) (Group #1) It seems that the decision to construct this interchange has already been made, and that we will just have to deal with the outcome? [No decision has been made. This study will be looking at TSM strategies and a No-Build strategy also.] (Group #1) MTA wants to serve both Lewiston and Auburn, where would that be? Paper said they want access to downtowns [The municipalities are asking for this interchange and that the purpose of tonights meeting is to get input on possible locations] (Group #2) Are there any specific designs for these interchanges? It is hard to react to something when we dont know what it will be. (Group #2) The Golf Course has 200 acres on South Main Street. No matter if its on South Main or Riverside Drive it will add to the congestion in the downtowns (Group #2) Is the purpose of this to get people from Auburn to Lewiston or vice versa? [The strategies will take many things into account, residents, commercial and industrial travel] (Group #2) What is the projected traffic growth attributed to? [It is a combination of projected employment and housing. Background growth is important; there are only 3 places to cross the river and it requires people to go through the downtowns.] Comments on Preliminary Strategies
67
69
The South Bridge will not last. It needs to be replaced. It is overcrowded as it is; funneling more traffic to it will only worsen the situation. Something needs to be done to South Bridge and Cedar Street. A new bridge is a must for a new interchange to really work. The River Road location provides easy truck access. There is also minimal impact to residential properties. A River Road interchange will ease congestion at Exit 80. A River Road interchange will open up more land for commercial and/or industrial development. The addition of a new bridge, along with a River Road interchange will open up the Route 136 corridor, maybe easing the congestion along Route 196, especially through Lisbon. We pretty much have the North-South movements covered; we need to improve the East-West movement. Strategy 1A seems to make the most sense. Based on the model numbers, it gets the most use and seems to yield the best results for probably the lowest cost of any of the other strategies. (The bridge would cost the same for any strategy, but this interchange would probably be the cheapest/easiest to construct.) Strategy 1A would serve the most people for the least amount of money. The model output clearly demonstrates the demand/need for this new interchange. Strategy 1A would be the best, but is a new bridge realistic? It will be expensive. Should we be considering phasing for this project? Build the interchange first, then a new bridge. This way, the bridge can be located to ultimately replace the South Bridge (which should need replacement within the next 25 years). Should a new bridge actually be built south of the Turnpike Bridge, instead of between South Bridge and the Turnpike? There is a lot of traffic that is not destined for the downtowns, but rather just passing through. Would a more southerly bridge help to remove that pass-through traffic from the downtowns completely, since they do not want to be there? That way there is more room for downtown traffic that actually does want to be downtown.
70
I believe more people currently live in and or around the South Main Street area. I also believe that area has the most likelihood of growth, which would make it the best location as well. More homes built, more promoting LA as a Great Live-in community within easy commute to Portland and Augusta. Now a plan, that takes longer, and in fact, gets the Turnpike within seeing distance of the Auburn Mall area, would be the best of both worlds. Another exchange, and one near the center of development. I guess it could be the in-town exchange. The ONLY real benefit is to get folks closer to the Malls without having to drive through town. Of course some won't like that, as this will take away some customers. Now is that area built up enough for this type of exchange no. Might it get bigger if there was an exchange there yes. Is this what we need can't answer that. If an exchange can't be built that brings traffic around or by the Auburn Mall area, then the South Main Street exit seems to make the most sense to me. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Karl Lalemand Home address. 49 Fulton Street Auburn, Maine 04210
1. Introductions and Status of Project Don Craig 2. Study Objectives/Evaluation Matrix Bruce Hyman Bruce reviewed the information contained in the evaluation matrix. Generally, he discussed the content and expectation. He also presented the condensed version (+/-). Bruce reviewed each strategy and noted that maps are available on ATRCs website. 3. Public Questions and Comment It was asked whether upgrades to the downtowns from the new interchange will be necessary. Bruce noted that upgrades will be required and determined in future studies. It was suggested that a strategy with only a new river bridge should be considered. Someone noted that the local newspaper indicated that the South Main Street Strategy has been eliminated. It was clarified that it has not been eliminated. Someone noted that in their opinion Strategies 1 and 5 are the best. Someone expressed concern about the impact to Lincoln Street. It was noted that these impacts would be evaluated in future studies.
72
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix A7 Detailed Evaluation Matrix
Detailed Evaluation Matrix: Introduction & Purpose The Matrix is formatted to present the nine interchange strategies under consideration by the study at this time and they are arrayed across the top row (No Build, Strategy #1, Strategy #2, etc). The Objectives and Criteria against which the strategies are being evaluated are in the leftmost column in five major groupings: 1) Transportation, 2) Land Use, 3) Socio-Economic Development, 4) Natural Environment, and 5) Cost. Transportation. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Transportation. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Total New Interchange Usage This presents the total daily traffic volume projected to use the proposed interchange strategies in the year 2025. Improves Access to Downtown Lewiston or Auburn From the Maine Turnpike This evaluates how each proposed interchange strategy increases traffic usage at each interchange and into the downtowns. Reduces Traffic Congestion in Lewiston or Auburn This evaluates the anticipated improvement or worsening of congestion at a select number of intersections in the study area. Potential to Improve Safety at High Crash Locations This evaluates the anticipated improvement or worsening of accident history at existing High Crash Locations in the study area. Improves Truck Traffic Flow/Circulation This evaluates how each strategy reduces truck traffic in neighborhoods and improves truck routings. Compatibility with New/Enhanced Bridge Crossings This evaluates the level of roadway connectivity from proposed interchange strategies and traffic levels on a proposed bridge. Level of Potential Upgrade Needs This reviews the need to upgrade existing roadway facilities as a result of constructing a new interchange. Compatibility with Bicycle-Pedestrian Plans and Opportunities This evaluates how each strategy improves bicycle-pedestrian connectivity and their relationship with existing regional bicycle routes. Improves Emergency Access to the Maine Turnpike This evaluates each strategy with respect to existing public safety facilities and improved access to the Maine Turnpike. Improves Local Traffic Connectivity This evaluates improved local connections between Lewiston and Auburn and within each of those communities. Improves Regional Traffic Connectivity This evaluates how each strategy enhances regional connectivity. Improves Access to/Enhances Opportunities for Alternative Modes This evaluates the opportunity for park and ride enhancements and the quality of destinations for transit service. Construction Issues This reviewed issues like site conditions and likelihood of permitting. Adherence to Design Issues This evaluates interchange spacing and weaving criteria. Land Use. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Land Use. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Compatibility with Lewiston or Auburn Comprehensive Plans This evaluates how compatible the strategy is with goals and objectives as stated in adopted municipal comprehensive plans. The Lewiston and Auburn Comprehensive Plans were reviewed. Potential for Farmland Impacts This evaluates the potential impacts of the strategies in terms of soil suitability (are there prime or significant farmland soils in the vicinity), agricultural zoning (is land in the vicinity zoned for agricultural uses), and proximity to active farmland (are there active farms in the vicinity and what are the principal current land uses). Information is derived from a windshield survey of the area and county level digital soil data from the Soil Conservation Service. Potential for Parks and Recreation Land Impacts This evaluates the potential for impacts to public or private park or recreation lands in the vicinity of the interchange strategies. Information is derived from review of Comprehensive Plans, digital data of conservation lands and review of USGS maps. Potential for Direct Residential Impacts This evaluates the potential for direct impacts to residences in the immediate vicinity of where an interchange may be located. Information is derived from review of aerial photographs and windshield survey of the study area. Potential for Direct Business Impacts This evaluates the potential for direct impacts to businesses in the immediate vicinity of where an interchange may be located. Information is derived from review of aerial photographs and windshield survey of the study area. Socio-Economic. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Socio-Economic Development. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Enhances Economic Development in Downtown Lewiston or Auburn, or in areas Outside of the Downtowns in each Community near the Interchange Locations This is based upon two criteria: the level of traffic that uses the proposed interchange that is destined to or originates from the downtowns or districts outside the downtowns; and, the relative improvement in connectivity to the district and the desirability of the route (desirability is rated by how direct the route is and how compatible the roadway and adjacent land uses are for an increase in automobile and truck traffic). Minimizes Potential for Historic/Cultural Impacts This evaluates the proximity of historic and cultural resources (cemeteries, historic buildings, churches, etc) to the general vicinity of the interchange strategies. Information is derived from the windshield survey of the study area, review of USGS maps, and review of National Register listings from the National Park Service. Potential for Neighborhood Impacts/Benefits This evaluates the potential indirect impacts or benefits to a neighborhood. If additional traffic will be directed to a neighborhood area or an already congested area, this was deemed a negative impact. If a strategy removed traffic from a congested area, it was deemed more positive. The information is derived from a windshield survey of the area.
74
75
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build
Table A4
3. So. Main Street 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo. 5. Route 136 / Half River Road 1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
March 2005 2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge 5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
1. River Road
2. Route 136
TRANSPORTATION
Total New Interchange Usage
Total Interchange Daily Usage
n/a n/a
+3
18,750 veh./day
+1
8200 veh./day
+1
6500 veh./day
+1
5550 veh./day
+5
27,200 veh./day
+3
18,300 veh./day
+1
8550 veh./day
+5
27,100 veh./day
No
n/a
+3
3200 veh./day 17% of new I/C usage
+3
3100 veh./day 38% of new I/C usage
+1
2200 veh./day 34% of new I/C usage
+1
2275 veh./day 41% of new I/C usage
+5
4080 veh./day 15% of new I/C usage
+3
3100 veh./day 17% of new I/C usage
+3
2575 veh./day 30% of new I/C usage
+5
4060 veh./day 15% of new I/C usage
No
n/a
0
<200 veh./day 1% of new I/C usage
+1
575 veh./day 7% of new I/C usage
+1
390 veh./day 6% of new I/C usage
+1
390 veh./day 7% of new I/C usage
+5
820 veh./day 3% of new I/C usage
+3
730 veh./day 4% of new I/C usage
+1
430 veh./day 5% of new I/C usage
+5
815 veh./day 3% of new I/C usage
No
(worsens) n/a
+3
6 locations improve 2 locations worsen
+1
5 locations improve 3 locations worsen
-1
3 locations improve 5 locations worsen
+3
6 locations improve 2 locations worsen
+3
6 locations improve 2 locations worsen
+5
7 locations improve 1 locations worsen
0
4 locations improve 4 locations worsen
+1
5 locations improve 3 locations worsen
No
(worsens) n/a
+5
7 locations improve 3 locations worsen
+3
6 locations improve 4 locations worsen
0
5 locations improve 5 locations worsen
0
5 locations improve 5 locations worsen
+5
7 locations improve 3 locations worsen
+5
7 locations improve 3 locations worsen
+5
7 locations improve 2 locations worsen 1 no change
+5
7 locations improve 3 locations worsen
No
(worsens) n/a
+3
6 HCL improve 5 HCL worsen
+3
7 HCL improve 5 HCL worsen
+1
4 HCL improve 2 HCL worsen
0
1 HCL improves 1 HCL worsens
+3
7 HCL improve 4 HCL worsen
+3
7 HCL improve 4 HCL worsen
+1
5 HCL improve 3 HCL worsen
+5
8 HCL improve 3 HCL worsen
No
n/a
+3
Trucks may use Lincoln Street to downtown rather than Lisbon Street
+3
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 connection to Turnpike
-3
Directs new Interchange truck traffic into/thru So. Main Street/New Auburn neighborhood
+1
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 Possible trucks thru neighborhood
+3
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 connection to Turnpike
+3
Trucks may use Lincoln Street to downtown rather than Lisbon Street Little additional benefit due to bridge
+3
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 Little additional benefit due to bridge
+5
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 Little additional benefit due to bridge
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
76
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Provides Improved Truck n/a
Routing
Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Geometric issues with So. Main Street
1. River Road
Possible alternate route to Exit 80 to access Lisbon Street
2. Route 136
Trucks can avoid So. Bridge/Longley Bridge to access Lewiston and Turnpike
+3
5750 veh./day Direct connection to bridge via Lincoln Street Moderate connectivity
+3
6500 veh./day Higher connectivity to new bridge Direct connection Creates new bridge crossing with Exit 80 via Turnpike
+1
3650 veh./day See Strategy 1A and 2A descriptions Lower new bridge use due to access provided via Rt 136 & River Rd/Turnpike
n/a
+1
Potential intersection issues at Goddard/ River and Lincoln/ South Ave
+3
Potential roadway issues at Route 136/ Vickery Rd (on-street parking)
-3
Horizontal and vertical curves On-street parking Reconstruction
-1
Assumes less intensive improvements needed at So. Main ( so easier)
+1
Potential roadway issues at Route 136/ Vickery Rd (on-street parking) Potential intersection issues at Goddard/ River and Lincoln/ South Ave
+1
Potential intersection issues at Goddard/ River and Lincoln/ South Ave
+3
Potential roadway issues at Route 136/ Vickery Rd (on-street parking)
+1
Potential roadway issues at Route 136/ Vickery Rd (on-street parking) Potential intersection issues at Goddard/ River and Lincoln/ South Ave
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
+3
Lincoln St regional routes No improved connectivity Accompanying improvements likely enhance Lincoln St
+3
Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136
+1
Not on regional routes No improved connectivity Accompanying improvements likely enhance So. Main St
+3
Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136
+5
Lincoln St &Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136 and Lincoln St
+3
Route 136 on regional bike route New bridge provides regional and local connectivity Accompanying improvements likely enhance Lincoln St
+5
Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136 New bridge provides regional and local connectivity
+5
Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136 and Lincoln St New bridge provides regional and local connectivity
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
77
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Improves Emergency Access to Maine No Turnpike Proximity to Public Safety n/a
Facilities
Table A4
3. So. Main Street 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo. 5. Route 136 / Half River Road 1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
March 2005 2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge 5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
1. River Road
2. Route 136
+1
Marginal improvement via Lisbon Street facility Adds to existing Turnpike access options(+)
+3
Improved access via So. Main Street facility Interchange provides emergency response connection/ redundancy via Route 136 Creates fourth bridge
+5
Improved, direct access via So. Main Street facility Moderate level of quality connections provided (less accessible fourth bridge)
+5
Improved, direct access via So. Main Street facility Interchange provides emergency response connection/ redundancy
+5
Improved access via So. Main Street facility Lisbon Street Interchanges provide emergency response connection/ redundancy
+3
Lisbon Street closest
+5
Improved access via So. Main Street facility Bridge provides emergency response connection
+5
Improved access via So. Main Street facility Lisbon Street Bridge provides emergency response connection Interchange provides emergency response connection/ redundancy
n/a
No
n/a
+3
Moderate intensity industrial/commercial
+3
Low intensity residential/farm
+1
Low intensity residential/golf
+3
Low intensity residential/farm/golf
+5
Moderate intensity industrial/commercial (Lewiston) Low intensity residential/farm (Auburn) High connectivity with Route 136-River Rd
+3
Moderate intensity industrial/commercial
+5
Low intensity residential/farm (Auburn) Moderate intensity industrial/commercial (Lewiston) Moderate connectivity with Route 136-Exit 80 Moderate connectivity via new bridge
+5
Low intensity residential/farm (Auburn) Moderate intensity industrial/commercial (Lewiston) Moderate connectivity with Route 136-Exit 80 Moderate via new bridge Moderate relief/ connectivity with Exit 80-River Rd
n/a
Moderate connectivity via new bridge Moderate relief/ connectivity with Exit 80-River Rd
No
n/a
+1
Marginal improvement only due to Exit 80 proximity
+5
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Turnpike (+) Allows regional movements to Lewiston (+)
+1
Low connectivity to State Highway Network (-) Connection to Maine Turnpike (+)
+3
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Turnpike (+) Possibly less direct (-) Allows regional movements to Lewiston via Turnpike (+)
+5
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Turnpike (+) Allows multiple regional movements to Lewiston (+)
+3
Marginal improvement only due to Exit 80 proximity Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Lewiston via new bridge (+)
+5
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Lewiston via Turnpike and new bridge (+) Allows multiple regional movements to Lewiston (+)
+5
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Lewiston via Turnpike and new bridge (+) Allows multiple regional movements to Lewiston (+)
No
+1
(all fairly weak)
+1
(all fairly weak)
+1
(all fairly weak)
+1
(all fairly weak)
+1
(all fairly weak)
+1
(all fairly weak)
+1
(all fairly weak)
+1
(all fairly weak)
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
78
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Opportunity for Park and n/a
Ride; Quality of Destination for Transit Service
Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Good opportunity for Park and Ride(+) More of a destination for Transit (+)
1. River Road
Less opportunity for Park and Ride (-) More of a destination for Transit (+)
2. Route 136
Good opportunity for Park and Ride(+) Less of a destination for Transit (-)
Construction Issues **
Site Conditions
**Numerical rating not made due to feasibility level screening focus of this study. Gravel pit Poor topography Generally good site Generally good site n/a
Stream Topography issues Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to River Rd interchange location Moderate level of permitting anticipated Potential site distance issues on Route 136 Some residences in close proximity conditions Some residences in close proximity
n/a
conditions Bridge over Turnpike needed Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to interchange location Lower level of permitting anticipated
Poor topography at Route 136 Potential site distance issues on Route 136 Half interchange at River Rd reduces site issues Moderate level of permitting anticipated
Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to River Rd interchange location and new bridge
New bridge likely to require higher permitting effort Potential wetland/ waterbody impact with new bridge
Poor topography near Route 136 Potential site distance issues on Route 136 Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to interchange and bridge New bridge likely to require higher permitting effort Potential wetland/ waterbody impact with new bridge
Poor topography near Route 136 Potential site distance issues on Route 136 Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to interchange and bridge New bridge likely to require higher permitting effort Potential wetland/ waterbody impact with new bridge
n/a
n/a
+1
Possible weaving issues with close proximity to Exit 80 and full interchange Difficulty improving River Rd to accommodate likely turn lanes
+5
No interchange spacing issues
+5
No interchange spacing issues
+5
No interchange spacing issues
+3
Less weaving issues due to half interchange at River Road Difficulty improving River Rd to accommodate likely turn lanes Potential interchange spacing issues between River Road and Route 136
+1
Possible weaving issues at River Rd with close proximity to Exit 80 and full interchange Difficulty improving River Rd to accommodate likely turn lanes
+5
No interchange spacing issues
+3
Less weaving issues due to half interchange at River Road Difficulty improving River Rd to accommodate likely turn lanes Potential interchange spacing issues between River Road and Route 136
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
79
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build
Table A4
3. So. Main Street 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo. 5. Route 136 / Half River Road 1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
March 2005 2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge 5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
1. River Road
2. Route 136
LAND USE
Compatibility with Auburn Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Plans
Primary relevant elements
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
+3
Future Land Use map calls for AG/RP & LDR (-) ; Likely pressure for nonAG/RP devel. (-) .. consider a new Turnpike exit.. (+) Cluster commercial growth around existing. (-) ...evaluations of potential new..exits and connectors. (+) Maintain rural nature of outlying areas (-) Avoids major natural resources (+) If a Tpk exit or connector [built], consider other areas for I/C develop. [incl.] south of the Turnpike and west of Riverside.. (+)
-1
Protect residential neighborhoods from inappropriate traffic. (-) Future Land Use Map calls for industrial development near So. Main St/Turnpike evaluations of potential new..exits and connectors. (+) Maintain rural nature of outlying areas (-) Avoids major natural resources (+)
-1
See Strategy 2 & 3
+3
See Strategy 2 Related to River Rd: Improve the downtown gateways and corridors (+) Promote the conversion of Lincoln St. as an entrance to the Downtown and especially .. the Maine Turnpike (+) Urban Enterprise and Industrial zoning (+)
+1
New Bridge: Auburn: Likely in vicinity of Medium/High Density & Commercial Area in Future Land Use Map Lewiston: Urban Enterprise Related to River Rd: Improve the downtown gateways and corridors (+) Promote the conversion of Lincoln St. as an entrance to the Downtown and especially .. the Maine Turnpike (+) Urban Enterprise and Industrial zoning (+)
+3
See Strategy 2 New Bridge: Auburn: Likely in vicinity of Medium/High Density & Commercial Area in Future Land Use Map Lewiston: Urban Enterprise
+3
See Strategy 2 New Bridge: Auburn: Likely in vicinity of Medium/High Density & Commercial Area in Future Land Use Map Lewiston: Urban Enterprise Related to River Rd: Improve the downtown gateways and corridors (+) Promote the conversion of Lincoln St. as an entrance to the Downtown and especially .. the Maine Turnpike (+) Urban Enterprise and Industrial zoning (+)
n/a
+3
n/a
n/a
n/a
+3
+3
+1
+3
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
80
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Primary relevant elements n/a
Table A4
3. So. Main Street n/a 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo. n/a 5. Route 136 / Half River Road
See Strategy 1 Related to Route 136: Future Land Use map calls for AG/RP & LDR (-) ; Likely pressure for nonAG/RP devel. (-) .. consider a new Turnpike exit.. (+) Cluster commercial growth around existing. (-) ...evaluations of potential new..exits and connectors. (+) Maintain rural nature of outlying areas (-) Avoids major natural resources (+) If a Tpk exit or connector [built], consider other areas for I/C develop. [incl.] south of the Turnpike and west of Riverside.. (+)
1. River Road
Improve the downtown gateways and corridors (+) Promote the conversion of Lincoln St. as an entrance to the Downtown and especially .. the Maine Turnpike (+) Urban Enterprise and Industrial zoning (+)
n/a n/a
+1
Prime/Significant farmland soils in immed vicinity None zoned AG in immed. vicinity
-1
Lesser amounts of Prime/Significant soils in immed. vicinity Immed. area zoned AG/RP
-3
Prime/Significant farmland soils in immed vicinity Immed. area zoned AG/RP
-3
Prime/Significant farmland soils in immed vicinity Immed. area zoned AG/RP
+1
See Strategy 1 & 2 See Strategy 1 & 2
+1
See Strategy 1
-1
See Strategy 2
-1
See Strategy 1 & 2
n/a
See Strategy 1
See Strategy 2
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
81
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Proximity to Active n/a
Farmland
Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Active farmland in immediate vicinity Principally Residential, Golf Course & Farm uses
1. River Road
No active farmland in immediate vicinity Principally Industrial & Commercial uses
2. Route 136
Active farmland in immediate vicinity Principally Residential and Farm uses
Potential for Parks and Recreation Land Impacts Potential for Direct Residential Impacts
Number of Residences in Immediate Area
n/a
+5 +3
Small subdivision near likely ramp location (noise only)
+3 +1
Few residences
0
(Potential Golf Course Impacts)
0
(Potential Golf Course Impacts)
+3 +3
Few residences at Route 136 Small subdivision near likely ramp location at River Rd (noise only)
+5 +3
Small subdivision near likely ramp location at River Rd (noise only) No impacts expected near new bridge
+3 +3
Few residences at Route 136 No impacts expected near new bridge
+3 +3
Few residences at Route 136 Small subdivision near likely ramp location at River Rd (noise only) No impacts expected near new bridge
n/a
n/a
-3
Residences near likely ramp locations
-3
Residences near likely ramp locations at So. Main St
n/a
n/a
-1
City-owned gravel pit at/near interchange
-1
Potential active farm impacts
-1
Potential business impacts
-1
Potential active farm impacts at Route 136 Potential business impacts at So. Main
-1
Potential active farm impacts at Route 136 City-owned gravel pit at/near interchange at River Rd
-1
City-owned gravel pit at/near interchange at River Rd Little/no impacts expected by bridge
-1
Potential active farm impacts at Route 136 Little/no impacts expected by bridge
-1
Potential active farm impacts at Route 136 City-owned gravel pit at/near interchange at River Rd Little/no impacts expected by bridge
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Enhances Economic Development in Downtown Auburn
Level of I/C usage to Auburn Downtown
No
n/a
+1
<200 veh./day (low usage) 1% of new I/C usage
+3
575 veh./day (moderate usage) 7% of new I/C usage
-1
390 veh./day (moderate usage) 6% of new I/C usage
+1
390 veh./day (moderate usage) 7% of new I/C usage
+5
820 veh./day (moderate usage) 3% of new I/C usage
+3
730 veh./day (high usage) 4% of new I/C usage
+3
430 veh./day (moderate usage) 5% of new I/C usage
+5
815 veh./day (high usage) 3% of new I/C usage
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
82
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Downtown Network n/a
Connectivity/ Desirability of Route to Downtown
Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Moderate connectivity to Auburn downtown Low route desirability (-)
1. River Road
Low connectivity to Auburn downtown Low route desirability (-)
2. Route 136
Alternative to Exit 75 to access downtown (+) Route 136 could be enhanced to be preferred gateway to downtown (+)
No
n/a n/a
+3
3200 veh./day (high usage) 17% of new I/C usage Moderate benefits Close to Exit 80 (-)
+3
3100 veh./day (high usage) 38% of new I/C usage Moderate new connectivity
0
2200 veh./day (moderate usage) 34% of new I/C usage Low desirability of route via So. Main St (-)
+1
2275 veh./day (moderate usage) 41% of new I/C usage Low desirability of route via So. Main St (-) Likely less direct via Route 136 than Strategy 2 (-)
+5
4080 veh./day (high usage) 15% of new I/C usage Moderate new connectivity to downtown
+5
3100 veh./day (high usage) 17% of new I/C usage Moderate new connectivity to downtown New bridge provides potential relief to existing bridges (+)
+3
2575 veh./day (moderate usage) 30% of new I/C usage Moderate new connectivity to downtown New bridge provides potential relief to existing bridges (+)
+5
4060 veh./day (high usage) 15% of new I/C usage Higher connectivity to downtown New bridge provides potential relief to existing bridges (+)
No
n/a n/a
0
< 100 veh./day (low) Low new connectivity (-) Low desirability of route to Auburn (-)
+5
900 veh./day (high) High level of connectivity to area (+) New access from Lewiston via Exit 80 and Turnpike
+1
440 veh./day (mid) Low connectivity to state highway system (-) Moderate connectivity to areas for new development
+3
675 veh./day (mid) Moderate new connectivity
+5
1100 veh./day (high) Moderate new connectivity New access from Lewiston via River Rd/Exit 80 and Turnpike (+)
+1
275 veh./day (low) Moderate new connectivity via new bridge Moderate desirability of route to Auburn from Lewiston
+5
770 veh./day (mid) High level of connectivity to area (+) New access from Lewiston via Exit 80, Turnpike and new bridge
+5
1080 veh./day (high) High level of connectivity to area (+) New access from Lewiston via Exit 80/River Rd, Turnpike and new bridge
No
n/a n/a
+3
14,400 veh./day (high) Low connectivity to state highway system Moderate connectivity to areas for new development
0
240 veh./day (negligible) Low new connectivity Low desirability of route to Lewiston outside downtown (-)
0
140 veh./day (negligible) Low new connectivity Low desirability of route to Lewiston outside downtown (-)
0
140 veh./day (negligible) Low new connectivity Low desirability of route to Lewiston outside downtown (-)
+5
14,950 veh./day (high) High level of connectivity New access from Auburn via Route 136
+5
12,810 veh./day (high) Moderate level of connectivity New access from Auburn via new bridge
+3
2200 veh./day (low) High level of connectivity New access from Auburn via Route 136 and new bridge
+5
15,200 veh./day (high) New access from Auburn via Route 136 and new bridge
n/a
+3
+1
+3
+1
+1
+3
+1
+1
83
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Impacts Known Resources & n/a
Proximity
Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Beth Abraham & Pine Street Cemeteries sw/o So. Main St/Turnpike, 0.8 mi.
1. River Road
Mt. Hope Cemetery n/o Turnpike on River Rd., 0.2 mi. Two cemeteries s/o Turnpike on River Rd, 0.6 mi & 1.2 mi.
2. Route 136
Penley Corner Baptist Church National Register, 0.8 mi. s/o Turnpike on Rt 136; cemetery on site Davis Cemetery n/o Turnpike, 0.4 mi. on Rt 136
n/a n/a
0
(neutral on balance)
Directs high volume of traffic thru Lincoln Street neighborhood (-) Traffic uses South Avenue (-) So. Bridge traffic relief of 2150 veh./day (+) Potential for relief to Lisbon Street (2300 veh./day) to reduce cut-thru neighborhood traffic (+)
+1
Directs traffic to State Highway (+) Increases traffic in New Auburn via Rt 136 (-)
-5
Directs traffic through moderate density residential neighborhood on poor roadway (-)
-3
Directs traffic to State Highway (+) Increases in New Auburn via 136 and So. Main St (-) Directs (less) traffic through moderate density residential neighborhood on poor roadway, So. Main St (-)
+1
Directs traffic to State Highway (+) Increases in New Auburn via 136 (-) Directs traffic to Lincoln Street thru urban neighborhood (-) So. Bridge traffic relief of 3000 veh./day (+) Potential for relief to Lisbon Street (3300 veh./day) to reduce cut-thru neighborhood traffic (+)
+3
Directs traffic to Lincoln Street (-) Traffic uses South Avenue (-) So. Bridge traffic relief of 6500 veh./day (+) Potential for relief to Lisbon Street (2500 veh./day) to reduce cut-thru neighborhood traffic (+)
+3
So. Bridge traffic relief of 4500 veh./day (+) Directs traffic to State Highway (+) Increases in New Auburn via 136 (-) Directs traffic to Lincoln Street (-) Traffic uses South Avenue (-)
+3
So. Bridge traffic relief of 5600 veh./day (+) Potential for relief to Lisbon Street (2800 veh./day) to reduce cut-thru neighborhood traffic (+) Directs traffic to Lincoln Street (-) Traffic uses South Avenue (-)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Minimizes Potential for Wetlands Impacts (Build Strategies)
Order of Magnitude Amount of Wetlands & Potential Functionality in Immediate Vicinity
n/a n/a
-1
One small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity with pot. low functionality
-1
One small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity with pot. mod. functionality
-1
One small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity with pot. low functionality
-1
Two small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity with pot. low & mod. functionality
-1
River Rd & Rt 136: One small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity each with pot. low functionality
-1
See Strategy 1
-1
See Strategy 2
-1
See Strategy 1 & 2
n/a
-1
-3
+1
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
84
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Streams/Rivers n/a
Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Intermittent streams in vicinity Farthest location from Androscoggin R.
1. River Road
Perennial stream in immediate vicinity River Rd 0.5 mi. from Androscoggin R.
2. Route 136
Close proximity to Androscoggin R. Perennial stream in close proximity
New Bridge:
New crossing of Androscoggin R.
New Bridge:
New crossing of Androscoggin R.
New Bridge:
New crossing of Androscoggin R.
Ponds/Lakes
n/a
n/a
n/a
+3
No ME Natural Areas Program land No Deer Wintering Area
-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Deer Wintering Area in vicinity
-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Deer Wintering Area in vicinity
-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Deer Wintering Area in vicinity
-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Auburn: Deer Wintering Area in vicinity
+3
No ME Natural Areas Program land No Deer Wintering Area
-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Deer Wintering Area in vicinity
-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Auburn: Deer Wintering Area in vicinity
COST
*** Project Costs (Order of Magnitude)
Amount ($M)
-3 $14.5 +5
-1 $12.8 +5
-1 $10.125 +3
-3 $14.7 -3
Benefit-Cost Analysis ( Time Value Savings + Operating Costs Savings: Project Cost)
Time Value Benefits ($M) n/a +$65.1 +$49.0 +$34.4 -$1.0 B:C Ratio n/a 4.5 3.8 3.4 -0.1 *** Note: Project costs do not include costs associated with potential improvement needs on roads leading to or impacted by the interchange strategies.
Notes: The Hackett Road Interchange Strategy was dismissed from further consideration in May 2003 by vote of the Study Advisory Committee due to its much lower transportation benefits than other interchange strategies, thereby not meeting the lowest threshold test for Purpose and Need. The numerical ratings (+5 to -5) should not be summed to make a total score. The matrix is a tool to inform the decision-making process regarding which interchange strategies should be advanced to the next phase of study and which should be dismissed from further consideration.
Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates
85
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix A8 Resolutions from the Joint Council Workshop
86
87
Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix A9 Maine DOT/ MTA Model Acceptance Letter
88