Vermont Corridor Management Handbook€¦ · • Define corridors of statewide significance, such as the 16 origin-destination pairs identified in the Vermont Highway System Policy

Vermont Corridor Management Handbook

prepared for

Vermont Agency of Transportation

prepared by

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140

July 2005

i

The Vermont Corridor Management Handbook ..... 1 Purpose of the Handbook .......................................................................... 1 Best Practices for Corridor Planning ........................................................... 2 Definitions ................................................................................................. 3 Relationship to Other Planning Activities..................................................... 4 Process, Products, and Outcomes of a Corridor Management Study ........... 6 Resources................................................................................................. 6

Getting Organized................................................... 1-1 Overview................................................................................................ 1-1 Form Advisory Group.............................................................................. 1-1 Establish Study Goals ............................................................................ 1-3 Define Corridor Boundaries.................................................................... 1-4 Develop Work Plan ................................................................................ 1-5 Hold Public Meeting ............................................................................... 1-8 Line Up Resources................................................................................. 1-8

Analyze Existing and Future Conditions.............. 2-1 Overview................................................................................................ 2-1 Collect Information on Existing Conditions ............................................... 2-1 Analyze Future Conditions and Performance ........................................... 2-4 Present Findings to Stakeholders............................................................ 2-5

Develop Vision and Strategies .............................. 3-1 Overview................................................................................................ 3-1 Establish a Vision and Goals for the Corridor ........................................... 3-1 Develop Objectives and Performance Measures...................................... 3-3 Identify Strategies................................................................................... 3-4 Develop Screening Criteria ..................................................................... 3-8 Define and Analyze Strategies in More Detail .......................................... 3-9 Select and Prioritize Strategies.............................................................. 3-10

Develop Implementation Plan................................ 4-1 Overview................................................................................................ 4-1 Identify Thresholds/Triggers to Undertake Specific Strategies................... 4-1 Identify Implementation Tools, Next Steps, and Responsibilities ............... 4-2 Identify Relationships or Agreements to Implement and Monitor Plan ....... 4-5 Establish Incentives and Contingencies................................................... 4-5 Identify Monitoring Activities.................................................................... 4-6

Finalize Corridor Plan Document .......................... 5-1 Overview................................................................................................ 5-1 Assemble Materials into a Corridor Plan Document.................................. 5-1 Obtain Plan Endorsements ..................................................................... 5-1 Distribute Plan and Make it Available to the Public ................................... 5-2

Implement and Monitor Corridor Plan .................. 6-1 Overview................................................................................................ 6-1 Establish Institutional Relationships and Agreements............................... 6-1 Undertake Implementation Steps............................................................. 6-1 Monitor Corridor Conditions and Status of Actions.................................... 6-1 Periodically Update Plan......................................................................... 6-1

Background

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Table of Contents

The Vermont Corridor Management Handbook

ii

Appendix A Data Sources Inventory

Appendix B Analysis Methods

Appendix C Funding Sources

Appendix D Municipal Planning Tools

Appendix E Land Use Strategies for Transportation Corridors: Examples from Other States

Appendix F Additional Resources

Appendix G Glossary

Vermont Corridor Management Handbook

prepared for


prepared by

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140

July 2005


Vermont Corridor Management Handbook 1

This Corridor Management Handbook (CMH) was developed to provide a technical resource for state and regional agency planners and their consult-ants who are undertaking development of a transportation corridor man-agement plan. The handbook also may be helpful to a broader set of people who are involved in corridor planning efforts – local officials; planning, zoning, and public works staff; transit service providers; corridor residents and businesspeople; and other interests.

Purpose of the Handbook The idea for this handbook grew out of the recognition that many of Vermont’s transportation needs can be most effectively addressed at the corridor level rather than on a piecemeal basis. Limited resources for transportation improvements at all levels of government are dictating more creative and collaborative approaches to solving – and preventing transpor-tation problems. A corridor approach offers the opportunity for communities to collectively plot a future strategy which makes the best possible use of available resources, takes advantage of synergies to produce the best outcomes, and has a greater chance of becoming a reality – than would otherwise be the case if each community acted on its own.

Vermont Corridor Management Handbook – What’s Included?

OBJECTIVES Purpose, scope, and intended outcomes of a corridor plan.

PROCESS Steps involved in developing a corridor plan.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Data sources and analysis methods.

PARTICIPATION Methods for involving stakeholders and the public.

SOLUTIONS Approaches to selecting appropriate corridor management strategies, including both transportation and land use strategies.

IMPLEMENTATION Mechanisms for implementation of corridor study recommen-dations and monitoring performance of the corridor over time.

Background

Transportation needs are most effectively addressed at the corridor level rather than

on a piecemeal basis.



Best Practices for Corridor Planning This handbook lays out a set of best practices for corridor planning. Agen-cies embarking on a corridor planning effort are encouraged to follow these best practices and produce corridor management plans that are:

• Comprehensive, based on a full understanding of the dynamics of transportation and all interacting influences within the corridor;

• Proactive, seeking to identify and address transportation-related problems before they arise, rather than after they have grown to the point of being intolerable;

• Visionary in nature, meaning that the recommended strategies for the corridor arise from a shared vision for the corridor established by local communities and state agencies with jurisdiction over the corridor; and

• Collaborative, meaning that transportation agencies, local govern-ments, stakeholders and the public at large all participate in the development, implementation and monitoring of the corridor plan.

A successful corridor management plan is one that state and regional planning agencies, municipalities, and other stakeholders in the corridor use as a blueprint for future action. The plan should be a living document that is updated periodically in response to changing conditions and needs. An effective corridor management plan is not a wish list of projects that may never be funded, but rather a balanced set of realistic transportation and land use strategies. Some of these strategies may be pursued immedi-ately; others may need to wait for an appropriate or opportune time. The critical ingredient for success is a shared commitment to take responsibility for seeing that the strategies in the plan are implemented.

The Benefits of Corridor Management

Why undertake a corridor management plan effort?

• To identify and address transportation deficiencies before they turn into critical problems that can affect quality of life and limit economic development;

• To allow for development of coordinated transportation and land use solutions along a corridor – a far more effective approach than individual piecemeal initiatives that may act at cross-purposes;

• To bring diverse stakeholders together (local, regional, and state agencies, property owners, and others) and agree on mutually beneficial strategies as well as ongoing mechanisms for cooperatively pursuing these strategies;

• To save money by implementing non-capital intensive strategies (such as operational improvements, access management, or land use policies) as an alternative to expensive transportation capital investments;

• To develop creative strategies for supporting sustainable economic development in corridor communities; and

• To ensure that transportation needs are addressed in a manner that preserves and enhances Vermont’s natural environment and the unique character of its communities.

Corridor Planning is:

Comprehensive Proactive Visionary

Collaborative

A successful corridor management plan is a living

document that provides a blueprint for action.



RoadwayCapacity

EconomicDevelopment

RoadwayOperations

NaturalResources

AccessManagement

Zoning/Land Use

PublicTransportation

Pedestrian/Bicycle

Rail

AirportAccess

Definitions A corridor is defined as:

“A broad geographic band …

connecting population and employment centers…

served by various transportation modes…

within which passenger and freight travel, land use, topography, environment and other characteristics are evaluated for transportation purposes.”

A corridor can vary in length from one mile to over 100 miles. In Vermont, most corridor studies will be defined to include a stretch of roadway, its right-of-way (including utilities, drainage, traffic control devices, and parallel sidewalks or pathways), adjacent land use development, and elements that compose the scenic view. In many cases, it will be appropriate to also include one or more parallel roadways and/or rail lines.

The definition of a corridor study area includes the corridor itself as well as nearby land areas and transportation facilities (e.g., airports, freight ter-minals) that influence travel demand in the corridor. The geographic boundaries of the study area typically coincide with geographic units used for reporting population, employment and travel demand data, such as cities, towns, or census tracts. This allows for use of readily available infor-mation on likely future growth patterns and transportation needs. However, the study area definition should be based on an understanding of travel patterns and needs rather than on data availability considerations.

The term corridor management refers to the practice of identifying and implementing a mutually supportive set of strategies to maintain and

enhance access, mobility, safety, economic develop-ment, and environmental quality along the transportation corridor. A corridor management study or corridor study is a comprehensive assessment of issues, needs, and potential solutions to address these objectives. A corridor study should consider all modes, including tran-sit, bicycling, and walking, as well as automobile and commercial vehicle travel along the corridor. It should consider operational improvements and maintenance as lower-cost, lower-impact alternatives to capital invest-ment strategies. It also should consider land use strategies that address the impacts of growth patterns and local land use decisions on traffic conditions and travel demand.

A corridor management study has a long-term focus, addressing land use and transportation strategies to be undertaken over a 20-year or greater time horizon. It is conceptual and strategic in nature, and will typically not focus on development of specific projects. However, one possible outcome is that one or more capital improvements may be recommended for more detailed planning and design work. A corridor management study does not involve the development of detailed engineering designs, or produce formal environmental documentation of project impacts.

What is a Corridor?

What is Corridor Management?



The corridor management study should result in a corridor management plan that includes a package of recommended land use and transportation strategies that comprehensively address present and future transportation needs. Types of strategies included in the plan may include:

• Transportation improvements;

• Land use strategies such as zoning, land conservation, or access management;

• Landscaping, and preservation of right-of-way;

• Management tools and processes such as development guidelines, design guidelines, and plan oversight and monitoring; and

• Mechanisms for interjurisdictional cooperation.

A corridor management plan will ideally provide a mix of these strategies that are mutually reinforcing and consistent with an agreed-upon vision for the corridor. It also will provide a set of well-defined, prioritized actions, and define clear responsibilities to carry the strategies forward into implementation.

Must a Corridor Management Study be Comprehensive?

Studies are often performed that focus more narrowly on a specific topic within a corridor, such as access management or short-term solutions to traffic problems. These types of studies can be appropriate in many situations: to implement specific recommendations from a corridor management study, when funding is not available for a more comprehensive study, or when immediate, short-term needs and opportunities exist. This handbook can be used as a resource for these more narrowly focused studies. However, many of the intended benefits of a comprehensive corridor management study process – a synergistic approach that avoids conflicting, piecemeal actions, and an emphasis on broad participation, buy-in, and ongoing implementation – may not be realized with a more limited effort.

Relationship to Other Planning Activities VTrans, the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO), the regional planning commissions (RPC), and local governments engage in a variety of other transportation and land use planning activities. The purpose of a corridor study is to support and complement these activities, rather than to duplicate them. Some of these other activities, and their relationship to corridor planning, are described in the following table.

What is a Corridor Management Plan?



Relationship between Corridor Planning and Other Planning Activities VTrans Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Modal Policy Plans [VTrans Policy and Planning Division]

• Define goals, objectives, and strategies for consideration in corridor studies – covering highways rail, public transit, and airports.

• Define corridors of statewide significance, such as the 16 origin-destination pairs identified in the Vermont Highway System Policy Plan (HSPP).

Regional Plans and Regional Transportation Plans (RTP) [CCMPO and Regional Planning Commissions]

• Define goals, objectives, and strategies for consideration in corridor studies. • Recommendations of corridor management plans should be consistent with

the Regional Plan and the RTP. • Regional Plan and RTP updates should incorporate findings and

recommendations of completed corridor studies. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) [VTrans Policy and Planning Division]

• Official list of state-programmed transportation projects to be initiated over the next three years, identifying costs, funding sources and schedules.

• A corridor study may result in specific project recommendations, which may be included in the STIP after going through the project development process.

Project Development Process [VTrans Program Development Division]

• A corridor study may recommend project concepts that then proceed through the project development process.

• The corridor study can provide the basis for alternatives analysis and pro-ject definition, and also can be the process for establishing a Purpose and Need Statement.

• The corridor study can provide inputs to the project development process (e.g., existing conditions, analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts), and should be scoped to minimize redundancy with planning analysis required for project development.

Design Standards [VTrans Program Development Division]

• State design standards for roadways and pedestrian/bicycle design should be used as a reference for developing corridor study recommendations.

• The Level of Improvement (LOI) policy suggests the scope of improvements that may be considered in the corridor study.

Access Management Policies and Plans [VTrans, CCMPO and RPCs, see also: http://www.vtaccessmanagement. info/AM_Vermont.htm]

• Corridor plans should include consideration of access management strategies. • Strategies developed through corridor studies should be consistent with

VTrans’ classification of roadway segments by access management cate-gory, and with existing access management plans for the corridor.

Asset Management Policies and Programs [VTrans Policy and Planning Division]

• VTrans’ asset management systems can help to identify the condition and deficiencies of pavement, bridges, and other roadway elements along a corridor. Asset management systems also can assist in estimating the costs of ongoing maintenance and preservation work.

• A corridor study may result in recommendations regarding prioritization and coordination of projects in corridor.

Local Comprehensive Planning, Zoning Bylaws, and Capital Improvement Programs [Individual Jurisdictions]

• The corridor study should address relevant corridor land use issues, including impacts of transportation improvements on development, and impacts of future land use changes on transportation needs.

• Local governments should incorporate recommendations emerging from corridor studies into comprehensive plan updates, bylaws (zoning and subdivision regulations) that implement these plans, and municipal capital improvement programs.

State Land Use Policies [Vermont Statutes and State Agencies]

• The scope, procedures, and recommendations of corridor studies should be compatible with statewide land use and development policies, including: the Vermont Land Use and Development Law (Act 250); Growth Management Act (Act 200, Title 24 VSA Chapter 117); Interstate Executive Order, Development Cabinet Law (Act 112); and Downtown Development Act.



Process, Products, and Outcomes of a Corridor Management Study The corridor management study process involves six basic steps, which are described in the remaining sections of this handbook:

• Step 1 – Get Organized;

• Step 2 – Analyze Existing and Future Conditions;

• Step 3 – Develop Vision and Strategies;

• Step 4 – Develop Implementation Plan;

• Step 5 – Finalize Document; and

• Step 6 – Monitor Progress.

The outcome of the corridor management study process is the corridor management plan. The plan should be developed through consultation with corridor stakeholders and should have the support of VTrans, the RPCs and/or MPO, local jurisdictions, residents, and other key stakeholders with interests in the corridor.

While each corridor planning effort must be adapted to study area needs and available resources, a comprehensive corridor management plan should include the following elements:

• An assessment of existing and future transportation, land use, and environmental conditions and operations in the corridor;

• A package of recommended strategies and actions that comprehensively address future transportation needs;

• A list of implementation steps and responsibilities, including a rec-ommended timeline for implementation, and any threshold condi-tions that should trigger particular improvements; and

• Documentation of the process by which the corridor plan was developed and recommendations selected.

Resources The appendices to this handbook provide additional resources that may be helpful for corridor planning, including:

• Appendix A – Data Resources Inventory;

• Appendix B – Analysis Methods;

• Appendix C – Funding Sources;

• Appendix D – Municipal Planning Tools;

• Appendix E – Land Use Strategies for Transportation Corridors: Examples from Other States;

• Appendix F – Additional Resources (example plans, other useful reference documents); and

• Appendix G – Glossary of terms and acronyms.

Get Organized

Existing and Future Conditions

Implementation Plan

Vision and Strategies

Corridor Plan Document

Monitoring

Vermont Corridor Management Handbook 1-1

Overview Getting organized to begin a corridor management study involves forming an Advisory Group to direct the effort, identifying key concerns to be addressed, drafting a set of goals to provide a common understanding of the purpose of the study, defining the corridor boundaries, developing a work plan, and lining up resources to carry out the work program. A single individual or a small group can be designated to lead these startup activi-ties. Under some circumstances, it may be desirable to obtain consultant support for front-end planning activities as well.

Getting Organized – Major Activities Form Advisory Group • Identify key stakeholders

• Recruit Advisory Group members

Establish Study Goals • Review previous studies

• Identify issues and concerns

• Identify goals of corridor management study

Define Corridor Boundaries • Identify transportation facilities included

• Identify corridor endpoints

• Identify area of influence

Develop Work Plan • Develop public involvement plan

• Develop work plan

Hold Public Meeting • Review study goals, corridor boundaries, and work plan

Line Up Resources • Define roles and responsibilities

• Hire consultant(s) as needed

• Obtain staff resource commitments

Form Advisory Group The initial step in pursuing a corridor management study is to form an Advisory Group. This group will provide both policy and technical direction throughout the study, and ideally will play a key role in building and maintaining support for implementation of the resulting corridor management plan.

The corridor management study typically will be initiated by VTrans, Regional Planning Commissions (RPC) and/or the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) in order to address one or more issues of concern. The study initiator (or lead agency) should make a list of important corridor stakeholders and then identify from these stake-holders a set of candidates for the Advisory Group. At a minimum, the Advisory Group should include representatives of the local jurisdictions in the corridor study area, the RPCs and/or CCMPO, Transportation Advisory Committee(s), and VTrans. Inclusion of at least one citizen representative is strongly encouraged.

Step 1 Getting Organized

The Advisory Group provides study

oversight and will also ideally play a key role

in implementation.

Getting Organized


It is not necessary to include representation of the full set of stakeholders in the Advisory Group – the public involvement component of the study can be designed to provide broad opportunities for input. However, it is impor-tant that the agencies and organizations who will likely have responsibility for implementing study recommendations are represented on the commit-tee, and are actively involved in the decision-making process.

Advisory Group members should be able to effectively and fairly represent the viewpoints within their agency or the concerns of their constituents, and should be expected to discuss study issues and communicate findings with others in their agency or jurisdiction.

The size of the Advisory Group can vary depending on the scale of the study, but it is best to keep the group to a manageable size (e.g., 10 to 20 people). Large scale corridor management studies can consider forming two advisory bodies – one which focuses on high-level policy direction and another that focuses on technical review and comment. The activities of these bodies should be closely coordinated.

Key Stakeholders for Corridor Studies Federal and State Agencies • Vermont Agency of Transportation – District Transportation

Administrator, Policy and Planning Division, Program Development Division

• Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

• Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development (Departments of Economic Development, Tourism and Marketing, Housing and Community Affairs)

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Division Office

Transportation Providers • Railroad Owners and Operators

• Trucking Interests

• Transit Service Providers

Regional Planning Agencies and Advisory Bodies

• Regional Planning Commissions (RPC) and/or the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

• Regional Transportation Advisory Committees (TAC)

• Local and Regional Economic Development Agencies

Local Jurisdictions • Elected Officials (Select Board Members, City Council Members, Trustees, Planning Commissioners)

• Planning, Community Development, Zoning, and Public Works Staff

Nonprofit Agencies • Economic Development Organizations

• Environmental/Smart Growth Advocacy Groups

• Transportation Advocacy Groups

Businesses and Residents • Abutting Property and Business Owners

• Chambers of Commerce

• Developers and Builders

• Industries Relying on the Corridor for Goods Movement

• Tourism Industry Representatives

• Community and Neighborhood Groups

Getting Organized


Establish Study Goals Once the Advisory Group is formed, its first order of business is to develop a statement of goals for the corridor management study. This statement should describe what the existing or expected concerns are for the corridor, and how the corridor management plan is expected to help address these concerns.

This statement can be used as the basis for defining the corridor bounda-ries and developing the work plan.

Example Issues and Concerns

Typical issues and concerns that have been identified in other Vermont corridor studies include:

• Intersections or segments with unacceptable levels of congestion/delay;

• Intersections or segments with actual or perceived safety hazards (for motor vehicles, pedestrians, or other road users);

• Geometric deficiencies that create problems for trucks;

• Inadequate lane or shoulder widths for bicyclists;

• Areas with high existing or potential pedestrian usage that lack pedestrian facilities or crossings;

• Areas with unacceptable traffic noise or vibration impacts;

• Village areas with high levels of truck traffic;

• Substandard pavement or bridge conditions;

• Inadequate access to specific properties or establishments;

• Inconsistencies between access management classification guidelines and current design;

• Land use and growth patterns that exacerbate transportation deficiencies; and

• Lack of alternative transportation choices.

Development of the study goals should reflect the issues motivating the study and the perspectives of the Advisory Group members. Lead agency staff and the Advisory Group should review relevant existing studies and plans relating to the corridor. Such studies and plans may include previous corridor studies; town plans and local economic development plans; regional plans, including the regional transportation plan, TIP, and economic development plans; statewide transportation plans, including modal policy plans, the long-range transportation plan, and the STIP; Act 250 documents; and other plans such as watershed plans and wildlife corridor plans.

Early review of past efforts can help to define an appropriate focus for the cur-rent corridor study, by identifying issues and needs as well as solutions already recommended (or rejected). The goals and scope of the current corridor man-agement study can be crafted with the benefit of this experience.

Advisory Group members also should be encouraged to discuss issues of concern with others in their organizations and other key stakeholders in their communities. This will help them to ensure the study is scoped with the full benefit of existing information and that its stated objectives reflect a wide range of perspectives.

Getting Organized


It is quite possible that there will be conflicting objectives – for example, encouraging economic development and preserving scenic views. The challenge to be undertaken in the corridor management study is to acknowledge each objective and work out a balanced set of strategies that achieves the best possible compromise across them.

Sample Corridor Management Study Goals

• Ensure that future land use decisions across multiple jurisdictions are compatible with the likely future capacity of the roadway(s) in the corridor

• Address congestion problems during tourist seasons

• Reduce noise and safety concerns associated with heavy truck traffic in village areas

• Support continued development while managing impacts of additional truck traffic

• Address deterioration of bridge before load posting is required

• Address safety “hotspots”

• Minimize environmental impacts and support resource restoration

• Improve intermodal connections

The identified issues and concerns, as well as the established goals, should be revisited in Step 2 to determine if any revisions should be made based on what was learned from the data collection, analysis, and public outreach activities. They can be used as a reference point at each stage of the study to make sure that technical analysis, strategy development, and implementation planning activities are addressing the primary concerns that motivated the study. They also can be used to bring activities back into focus when and if “scope creep” starts to occur.

Define Corridor Boundaries The initiation of a corridor study assumes a general geographic scope for the study. One of the first tasks of the Advisory Group, though, should be to more clearly define the corridor’s boundaries – including the transporta-tion facilities included, the endpoints, and the broader study area to be covered.

Defining the transportation facilities to be included will limit the scope of transportation data collection and strategy analysis. It is likely that the cor-ridor study has been initiated in response to particular transportation-related needs and concerns. Therefore, the primary facility of concern (e.g., a roadway and its associated facilities such as pedestrian and bicycle paths) as well as intersecting and parallel transportation facilities (e.g., road, railroad, or non-motorized trail) should be included if they could make a significant contribution to reducing transportation problems in the corridor. Similarly, impacts from airports, transit hubs, and intermodal terminals should be addressed if they are either significant sources of corridor traffic, or influence the utilization of the primary facility.

The corridor endpoints should be set broadly enough to include the identified locations of primary transportation-related need or concern, corri-dor transportation facilities as identified above, and any adjacent areas with a significant influence on transportation conditions in the corridor. For

Learn from past experience.

Getting Organized


example, if the study was initiated to address high levels of congestion in a series of towns along a particular state highway route, the endpoints should be set to include the towns of concern. In the towns at each end of the cor-ridor, the endpoint should be established far enough outside the town cen-ter to encompass all problems and potential solutions for that particular town (e.g., access management, land use, alternate routes). If a neighboring community includes traffic generators that make a significant contribution to traffic in the corridor (such as a ski resort), it should be included as well.

The corridor study area defines the scope of land use-related data collec-tion (e.g., population and employment trends, major trip generators) and strategies, as well as municipal participation in the corridor study. It should be established to include the geographic area with the most significant influence on transportation conditions in the corridor. The corridor study area commonly includes the cities and towns that are traversed by the transportation facility or facilities being studied. It also may include adja-cent towns that significantly contribute to corridor traffic (e.g., the corridor “travelshed”). Additional considerations may include viewsheds as well as environmental resources (e.g., watersheds, wetlands, wildlife habitat) impacted by the transportation facilities and related development. The boundaries should not be set so broadly that the study becomes unman-ageable in scope, and should not include areas with only a minor and indi-rect influence on corridor conditions.

Once the exact corridor boundaries are established, the composition of the Advisory Group should be adjusted to ensure representation from all included communities.

Develop Work Plan A work plan for the corridor study should include the following:

• Study goals;

• Map showing the definition of the corridor and study area boundaries;

• Study tasks, including data collection, future conditions analysis, analysis of options, and public involvement;

• Definition of major products; and

• Tentative schedule of milestones and key decision points, including who should be involved at each point.

The work plan should be in line with available resources. The major factors affecting the cost and duration of a corridor study are:

• Size of the corridor and complexity of issues;

• Data availability and additional data collection needs (see Step 2 and Appendix A for recommended corridor planning data and resources);

Source: Resource Systems Group, Inc.

Getting Organized


• Transportation model availability and extent of future conditions analysis needs (see Step 2 and Appendix B for analysis require-ments and options); and

• Extent of public involvement activities (see below for a discussion of developing a public involvement plan).

A straightforward and noncontroversial plan will average 12 to 18 months from start to finish. More controversial or complex corridor management plans are likely to take longer.

It is important to set a realistic time schedule but also to keep the study process moving forward, in order to sustain the interest and active involve-ment of stakeholders. At the same time, if unexpected issues arise during the study process, it is important to maintain flexibility in order to ensure that these issues can be adequately addressed. For example, the study partners may discover sensitive community issues in a particular location that may require more extensive public outreach than originally anticipated. If doing so will have a significant impact on the study budget, either addi-tional resources must be found, or more detailed planning should be deferred as a recommended follow-on activity to the current corridor study.

The Advisory Group should be relied upon to provide input into develop-ment of the work plan and detailed review of drafts. This ensures that their concerns are reflected early on in the process, and that they have the opportunity to weigh in on how to best focus the limited resources that are available. The members also can help to identify existing data sources or other resources that are available to help with the study.

Innovative Approaches to Public Involvement – Community Workshop in Suffield, Connecticut

The Town of Suffield, population 12,000, is located about 25 miles north of Hartford, Connecticut. As part of a regional growth visioning project, the town initiated a public planning process to develop a vision for future growth and transportation in the community. A key component of this process was a community visioning workshop, at which participants reviewed the results of a Visual Preference Survey taken by town staff and citizens; reviewed existing land use, zoning, and transportation patterns; mapped desired land uses; and identified transportation concerns and potential improvements.

About 40 elected officials, town staff, and citizens attended the three-hour workshop, held in summer 2001. Participants were then divided into small groups to undertake a series of visioning exercises. In these groups, participants were given base maps of the Suffield region and the town center, along with tracing paper and markers, and asked to draw on the maps and make recommendations.

After hearing final comments from participants, the project consultants synthesized the results of the workshops into a set of recommendations for the town, which were provided to town staff, elected offi-cials, and workshop participants. As an outcome of the workshop and associated activities, the town undertook specific implementation steps, including zoning changes, land preservation, and streetscape improvements.

Public involvement is a critical component of the corridor planning process, serving two fundamental purposes. First, it ensures that the issues and needs of residents, businesses, travelers, and other interests in the corridor are adequately addressed through the study process and recommenda-tions. Second, it helps ensure that people are aware of the study and understand the justification for its recommendations, which should lead to broader support for implementation activities. The public should be given

Public Involvement Plan

Getting Organized


opportunities for input at all stages of the process, beginning with the establishment of goals for the study corridor.

A Vermont Public Participation Success Story: The Danville Project

The preliminary design process used for the Vermont Danville project showcases techniques for com-munity participation and consensus building that also can be applied within the context of a corridor planning effort. This project includes the reconstruction of U.S. Route 2 through the village of Danville, reconstruction of town roads around the Danville town green, new underground utilities in the area of the green, a new traffic signal, lighting, landscaping, and artistic enhancements.

The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) entered into a unique partnership with the Vermont Arts Council (VAC) to ensure that the project would enhance the historic section of the village it traverses. In April of 2000, a Local Review Committee (LRC) was formed and consisted of a group of interested resi-dents. Members include a school teacher, a local business owner, the town administrator, and others. In June of 2000, under the guidance of the LRC, VTrans and VAC hired an artist and a landscape architect to assist with the design and facilitate community involvement with the proposed aesthetic treatments on the project. The public was involved over a two-year process, through the LRC. Public involvement activities included a series of public meetings, workshops, school events, property owner visits, site walks and focus groups.

The resulting design was widely accepted within the community, because people saw that their ideas and concerns were being heard. At the same time, the public process provided an opportunity for peo-ple to better understand the function of the roadway, design issues, and other concerns of agency engi-neers. This allowed for development of a consensus on design tradeoffs that would have been much more difficult if this process had not occurred. The two-year consensus-building process allowed the project to move forward without public opposition, and produced a design that addresses important safety concerns while enhancing the historic character of the community.

The appropriate extent and type of public involvement activities will depend upon the nature of issues being addressed as well as the resources avail-able for the corridor study. At a minimum, public involvement should include communication of corridor study issues through newsletters and media coverage, as well as opportunities for public comment at public meetings and through telephone, e-mail, or written channels. More in-depth public involvement may be conducted using methods such as sur-veys, focus groups, and interactive workshops. Advisory Group members (particularly elected officials) represent the public by the nature of their position and should be selected with the goal of representing the range of interests in the corridor.

Innovative Approaches to Public Involvement – Community Fair

The Rutland Regional Planning Commission, in association with town planners in Castleton, Vermont held a community fair to involve the public in the 2002 updates of the Castleton Town Plan. The fair provided a mechanism to share progress on the plan update and to learn about residents’ views on topics of concern for the future of the town. The fair venue has allowed people to participate who might not otherwise have the time or interest to attend a standard public meeting, or who might have con-straints such as child care. It also allows planners to establish an informal yet productive dialogue with residents.

The public involvement plan should specify the number, format, and timing of meetings to be held. It also should describe other communication and outreach activities (e.g., number of newsletters produced, extent of mailing list, groups to target in survey). While the study budget will constrain the extent of public involvement, the public involvement process should not be shortchanged. Failing to identify and address issues of community concern could limit support for the study’s recommendations, and jeopardize the

Getting Organized


success of implementation efforts. Input should be solicited from the early stages of the process – overlooking key issues until late in the study proc-ess may potentially require additional planning work to address these issues. In the long run, a good public involvement plan can actually save the stakeholder agencies money and lead to more feasible and beneficial study recommendations.

Hold Public Meeting A public meeting should be held during the initial stages of the corridor planning study. The purpose of the meeting is to introduce people to the goals, scope, and timeline of the study, and to obtain feedback on these top-ics before they are finalized. The public should be asked to review the list of issues and concerns generated by the Advisory Group and confirm the goals that were established. Any additional issues that need to be considered can then be identified, and the study goals may be revised or expanded to encompass these issues, if necessary. Public input also can confirm the appropriate geographic scope of the corridor.

Line Up Resources A mixture of agency staff and consultants is typically used for corridor stud-ies. If resources for consultants are limited, a corridor study can be conducted using pooled agency staff resources, supplemented with consultants as needed for specialized tasks such as data collection and modeling.

Once the scope, timeline, funding and public agency roles and responsibili-ties have been defined, a consultant or consultant team can be recruited through a Request for Proposals (RFP). The lead agency for the Corridor Management Study (with input from the Advisory Group) should write an RFP that clearly defines the scope of services expected and establishes the study’s timeframe and budget.

The involvement of agency technical staff experienced in the types of ser-vices expected will help ensure that expectations are consistent with avail-able resources. Even when consultants are used, it is necessary to plan for and secure commitments of internal agency resources to work closely with the consultants and provide the necessary direction and oversight. Staff should be identified and managers contacted to ensure that the proposed staff will have adequate availability during the proposed timeframe of the study. Where staff from multiple agencies is involved, it may be helpful to draft a memorandum of understanding to document each agency’s agreed-upon roles, responsibilities, and commitments of resources.

Hire consultants as needed.

Document agency responsibilities and

commitments in a memorandum of

understanding.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

JERIC

HO

UNDERHILL

WESTFORD

CAMBRIDGE

JOHNSON

HYDE PARK

MORRISTOWN

WOLCOTT

HARDWIC

K

OtherHomeTransitBikeWalkCar-PoolSOV

Overview The second step in undertaking a corridor management study is to research, document and analyze existing and expected future conditions, issues, and needs in the corridor. This step will provide a foundation for identifying, evaluating, and selecting corridor management and improve-ment strategies.

Research and Document Existing and Future Conditions – Major Activities

• Collect information on existing conditions;

• Analyze future conditions and performance; and

• Present findings to stakeholders.

Collect Information on Existing Conditions Data collection can be one of the most costly elements of a corridor study. It is important to tailor the data collection activities to the concerns expressed by stakeholders, and to those identified in the statement of study goals. Wherever possible, already existing data should be used. Some new data collection may be required, but the costs of obtaining this data should be carefully weighed against the value that this information will provide.

The data gathering effort should answer the following questions:

• What types of travel is the corridor now serving?

- Travel composition: local, regional, interregional, or a mixture?

- Trip purposes: commuter, recreational, other?

- Traffic volumes, including both passenger and truck/freight movement.

• What transportation facilities and options now exist, what roles are they playing in the corridor and how are they performing?

- Highways/roadways: functionality, capacity, safety, speed, access management category (if designated), and current spacing of access points;

- Intersections/interchanges: capacity, traffic control in place;

- Bicycle and pedestrian facilities;

- Transit service (fixed route and paratransit);

- Airports; and

- Parallel rail facilities.

Step 2 Analyze Existing and Future Conditions

Weigh the costs of collecting data against its value.




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Jeric

ho

Under

hill

Westfo

rd

Cambri

dge

John

son

Hyde P

ark

Morris

town

Wolcot

t

Hardw

ick

Workers Place of Residence

Perc

ent o

f Wor

k Pl

ace

Des

tinat

ion

Internal Trips Chittenden County Washington County Caledonia County Lamoille County

Analyze Existing and Future Conditions


• Where and when are transportation problems occurring?

- Congestion/bottlenecks (data collection may need to be targeted to certain times of the day or seasons);

- Operational issues (e.g., signal timing);

- Traffic safety (accident rates, enforcement issues, identified hazards);

- Railroad crossings; and

- Vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.

• What characteristics of the corridor influence the range of solutions that could be considered?

- Natural environment (e.g., topography, wetlands);

- Built environment (e.g., location of buildings in relation to the right-of-way);

- Land use and ownership; and

- Environmental justice issues.

• What are possible and likely future development patterns that will affect transportation demand in the corridor?

- Current, and allowable land uses in the corridor study area;

- Permitted developments; and

- Growth trends.

Recommended specific types of information to be considered for any corri-dor study are presented below. Information on state highway characteris-tics can be obtained from the VTrans route log system. Appendix A provides information about this and a variety of other data sources. While the primary data collection focus should be on the roadway corridor being studied, it also may be desirable to collect and map data such as functional classification, ownership, and traffic volumes for other major roads in the study area, especially those that serve as parallel or relief routes.

While much of the information will be quantitative (e.g., traffic volumes, crash rates), some information will be qualitative or descriptive in nature. Examples of qualitative information include roadside aesthetics and the historic character of communities served by the corridor. Information will typically include or be presented as a combination of maps, narrative text, tables, and graphs. Aerial photographs also can be a very effective way to present information on the corridor. Information should include relevant historical information (e.g., 10-year population or traffic trends) in addition to a “current year” snapshot.

The information assembled and collected should be used to describe the primary roles and functions of the transportation corridor (e.g., local travel, interregional travel, truck travel, tourism, bicycle touring route). The roles and functions of the corridor also can be determined based on discussions with stakeholders and public input. Key issues should continue to be addressed in the study process, even if quantitative data are not available to document these issues (e.g., pedestrian and bicycle travel).

Describe the roles and functions of the

transportation corridor.



Minimum Data Requirements Transportation Supply, Demand, and Performance

• Maps showing location of transportation facilities in the corridor, including major intersections or crossings;

• Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on roadway segments of the corridor being studied, including historical (trend) data from the past 10 years if available;

• Volume and percentage of truck traffic;

• Characterization of freight movements in the corridor (e.g., types of commodities, tonnage if available);

• Turning movement volumes at major intersections (if available);

• Crash data – Locations of crashes, total number of crashes by severity (fatality, injury, property damage), and information on crash causes (to the extent available);

• Posted speed limits by roadway segment;

• Roadway functional class, ownership, and route designations (e.g., National Highway System, truck route, scenic byway);

• Roadway access control and existing access management classifications by segment;

• Roadway geometry by segment (number and width of lanes, shoulder widths);

• State Highway System sufficiency ratings;

• Type of intersection controls at major intersections (signalized, four-way stop, two-way stop, roundabout) and presence of turning lanes;

• Locations where sidewalks or parallel pathways exist;

• Locations of marked or signalized pedestrian crossings;

• Locations of railroads and railroad crossings;

• Public transportation services provided; and

• Locations of intermodal facilities (park-and-ride lots, rail terminals, airports, bus and train stations, ports) and description of size and/or services provided.

Additional Data from Analysis

Based on the above primary data items, analysis is required to produce the following measures of transportation system function and performance:

• Level of service*, volume-to-capacity ratios, and/or delay at major intersections;

• Level of service* and/or volume-to-capacity ratio along corridor roadway segments; and

• Crash rates (number of crashes per 100 million VMT) for intersections and roadway segments, and comparison to “critical” crash rates to identify high-accident locations.

*Level of service is a qualitative measure of traffic flow conditions, and is measured on a scale from A to F. Level of Service “A” represents free-flow traffic, “F” represents highly congested, stop-and-go conditions.



Minimum Data Requirements Land Use, Socioeconomic, and Environmental

• Jurisdictional boundaries;

• Existing land use in the corridor study area (e.g., land use and zoning maps as available; allowable uses and densities; locations of buildings, orthophotographs);

• Existing policies regarding development and inventory of town plans, zoning, and subdivision regulations;

• Most recently available population, household, and employment estimates by town (including 10- or 20-year history/trends);

• Land use policy areas (designated growth centers, downtowns, historic districts);

• Key environmental features (rivers and streams, wetlands, farmland, conservation lands);

• Locations of major trip generators (e.g., ski resort, industrial park or plant), along with a description of size and demand characteristics;

• Identification of existing development patterns along the roadway corridor (rural, urban/village, transition);

• Description of the character of development along the roadway corridor (patterns; visual and aesthetic qualities; historic, cultural, and natural qualities); and

• Description of roadway terrain (flat, rolling, mountainous).

Analyze Future Conditions and Performance The purpose of this task is to assess how land use and transportation condi-tions might be expected to change in the future, if additional corridor man-agement or improvement strategies are not implemented. This work will help to develop a vision for the corridor (as discussed below in Step 3). To meet the long-term objectives of corridor planning, conditions should be evaluated over a 20-year time horizon. Key factors influencing these changes include the amount and nature of growth in population, employment, and special generators within the corridor; the characteristics of trips generated by this development; growth in background traffic levels (i.e., through traffic passing through the corridor); and any currently programmed transportation man-agement or improvement projects.

Given the considerable uncertainty inherent in forecasting both future land use changes and traffic growth, it is recommended that “high” and “low” growth forecasts be developed and evaluated, rather than simply relying on a single forecast of future conditions. Evaluating a range of potential future conditions will be very helpful for development of strategies. For example, some strategies like signal retiming might be beneficial under both the “high” and “low” forecasts and therefore should be pursued regardless of conditions. On the other hand, other strategies like intersection redesign may become warranted only if “high” growth forecasts are realized. In such cases, the corridor study should define performance thresholds that trigger more detailed evaluation and/or implementation of the strategy. (See Step 4 for a discussion of thresholds and triggers.)

Recognize uncertainty in future conditions.



Appendix B provides a list of some available methods for forecasting future conditions, along with their applicability, advantages, disadvantages, and examples of their application in Vermont and other areas. Appendix A lists data sources that can be used in conjunction with these forecasting methods.

Present Findings to Stakeholders This final task of Step 2 pulls together all of the information gathered so far, providing a resource base for identification of strategies.

The existing and future conditions and needs analysis should be documented in an interim report, including issues identified, methods used, and findings. Once the analysis and documentation of existing and future conditions is completed, the findings should be presented to corridor stake-holders and to the public for comment and validation. This second round of outreach will help ensure that key issues are not overlooked, and also will inform people on the findings of the existing and future conditions analysis.

After obtaining feedback from stakeholders and the public, the technical committee may consider revisions to the report as needed.

Future Conditions Data

At a minimum, the following data on future conditions should be evaluated:

• Twenty-year growth in corridor study area population, households, and employment;

• Land use and development patterns along the roadway in particular, as well as throughout the corridor study area;

• Future traffic volumes;

• Performance (level of service, volume-to-capacity ratios, delay, and/or queuing) at major intersections; and

• Performance (level of service, volume-to-capacity ratios, and/or travel speeds) along corridor road-way segments or for the corridor as a whole.

Supplemental data items that may be helpful include:

• Projected future truck volumes, especially if a truck route;

• Projected corridor travel times;

• Projected growth in visitor trip generation; and

• Projected changes in crash rates and total crashes.

Have stakeholders and the public validate

findings.



Overview The third step in undertaking the corridor study is to develop a common vision for the corridor and a set of corridor management and improvement strategies. These strategies should be specifically designed to address the issues and needs identified. The outcome of this step will be a limited set of prioritized strategies for the corridor that will move forward to implemen-tation planning.

Develop Vision and Strategies – Major Activities

• Establish vision and goals for the corridor;

• Develop objectives and performance measures;

• Identify and screen potential strategies;

• Define and analyze strategies in more detail; and

• Select and prioritize strategies.

Establish a Vision and Goals for the Corridor Before developing strategies for the corridor, stakeholders should work to identify a common vision and goals for the corridor.

The vision is a concise statement that paints a picture of the desired future for the corridor – from both a land use and a transportation perspective.

The goals support the vision, and lay out desired long-range outcomes to be achieved by the corridor plan.

The initial set of goals for the corridor management study that were established by the Advisory Group prior to the study scoping (in Step 1) should serve as the starting point for this activity, which will involve developing a consensus across a broader set of stakeholders.

The process of establishing a vision and goals creates an opportunity for stakeholders to discuss the core function(s) of the corridor. For example, should the primary roadway in the corridor serve as a high-speed facility providing efficient access between different regions of the State? Or is it a “main street” of historic communities where speed for through traffic is traded off against creating a quality pedestrian environment? What type of development should occur along the corridor, and how should access be provided?

In many cases, corridors serve multiple functions. The vision and goals may acknowledge the need to balance competing desires, and that differ-ent strategies may be appropriate according to the roadway context (e.g., rural versus urban/village).

Step 3 Develop Vision and Strategies

The vision identifies the key values in an ideal corridor.

Develop Vision and Strategies


The corridor vision and goals should:

• Establish a unified vision across jurisdictional boundaries, even while recognizing different corridor development contexts (e.g., urban versus rural);

• Consider the range of social, economic, and environmental issues;

• Reflect existing roadway designations (e.g., functional class, access management category, NHS, truck route, scenic byway);

• Reflect existing policy documents such as local comprehensive plans and statewide and regional transportation plans;

• Incorporate and reflect current public input about how local resi-dents view their communities and the transportation corridor; and

• Recognize the needs of those who may not be well-represented within the corridor planning process, such as through travelers from outside the study corridor or visitors from other states.

If possible, the vision and goals statements should be supplemented by graphics such as maps showing the roadway context (urban, transitional, rural) and growth policy areas (e.g., village conservation areas, designated growth centers, rural conservation areas), as well as by illustrations of typical development patterns and roadway cross-sections specific to these areas.

Example of Corridor Vision Statements and Goals

Vision Statement

The U.S. Route 7 transportation corridor between Burlington and Georgia Exit 18 provides an increas-ingly important link in the economic and social lives of the communities it serves. The parts of the trans-portation system within this corridor are closely interwoven with each other and with the economic and social life of the communities. This system should be enhanced to effectively serve person travel and goods movement within and through the study corridor, support municipal and regional land use visions and plans, preserve or enhance the quality of life for those living within the corridor, and should resolve the numerous identified site-specific problems. Although alternatives to private motor vehicle transpor-tation should be fostered within the corridor, private autos and trucks using public roads and highways will remain the principal means of transport over the 20-year planning horizon of this study.

Goals

• Provide a safe highway and transport environment for highway users and abutters;

• Provide meaningful alternative means of transportation;

• Use transportation service and facilities to support, further, and enhance community land use and development strategies;

• Balance growth and economic development with environmental protection and community preservation;

• Design transportation facilities to complement the areas in which they are located; and

• Provide for sound and effective long-term fiscal management of necessary improvements within the corridor.

(Adopted from the U.S. Route 7 Winooski – Georgia Corridor Study.)



Develop Objectives and Performance Measures For some small-scale corridor planning efforts, having a statement of vision and goals will be sufficient to move ahead with defining strategies. For larger efforts, it may be helpful to develop a set of more specific objectives and quantitative performance measures that back up the vision and goals. This will provide a useful framework for identifying strategies. It also will provide a framework for future monitoring to see if the actions taken were effective, and

if additional actions are needed to achieve the desired outcomes.

For example, the goal of a safer road might be backed up with specific objectives for improving pedestrian safety at three key intersections. A performance measure could be defined based on the number of crashes involving pedestrians at the intersec-tions. Strategies to achieve the objectives might include inter-section redesign, stepped-up enforcement, or improved signage. The performance measure could be used in the future to determine how effective these strategies were, and if additional strategies are needed.

The following table lists some of the key impacts for considera-tion in corridor studies. It can be used as a resource for developing corridor goals and objectives.

Impacts to Consider in Corridor Studies

Mobility and Accessibility • Travel time and delay for roadway corridor users; • Access to jobs, services, other activities for transportation-disadvantaged; and • Access for recreation and tourism uses.

Safety • Motor vehicle safety; and • Bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Economic Development • Impacts on local property values and business sales; • Local and regional business attraction and expansion; and • Local, regional, and statewide freight mobility.

Environment • Loss of productive agricultural and forest land; • Loss of important habitats (wetlands, forests, prime wildlife habitat, endangered species habitat); • Habitat connectivity and wildlife movement (land and water); • Stream alteration and water quality; and • Watershed impacts – runoff and Total Maximum Discharge Limits (TMDL).

Quality of Life • Noise and vibration; • Air pollution; • Aesthetic and visual impacts; • Impacts on recreational areas and open space; and • Historic and archeological resources.

Secondary and Cumulative Impacts • Transportation-induced growth patterns and related secondary impacts; and • Cumulative impacts of past, present, and future transportation, land use, and other actions.

Performance measures can be used to clearly

define specific desired outcomes to be achieved.

Goal

Safer Road

Objectives

Improve Pedestrian Safetyat Intersections

Performance Measures

Number of CrashesInvolving Pedestrians

Strategies

• Audible Walk Signal• Restriping• Enforcement



Some examples of commonly used quantitative measures of performance are shown below. These may be helpful for those corridor management efforts wishing to pursue a quantitative approach to analyzing strategies and monitoring future performance.

Examples of Performance Measures and Targets Objective Performance Measure Target

• Number of major crashes per year • Five percent reduction from 1998 to 2008

• Number of high-crash locations • Eliminate all those with identified cost-effective fix

• Number of crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists

• Reduce

Safety

• Percent of corridor with adequate shoul-ders for bicyclists

• 100%

• Average travel time between major cities • No decline in average travel time from current levels

• Intersection delay • < 5% increase over 10 years

• Maximum volume-to-capacity ratio • 0.7

• Number of geometric roadway deficien-cies for large trucks

• Eliminate all those with cost-effective fix

Mobility

• Modal diversion (truck to rail) • Increase in rail traffic on parallel facility

• Passengers per hour on established route

• 100% at acceptable levels (locally defined)

Transit Performance

• Cost per passenger on established route • 100% at acceptable levels (locally defined)

• Loss of critical environmental habitat • No net loss

• Percent of growth occurring in designated growth centers

• 90%

Resource Protection

• Resident perception of community impact

• No target

For corridor plans that involve state highways, the performance measures established in the Vermont Highway System Policy Plan and subsequently adopted or updated in the VTrans Performance Measures Report (February 2005) should be considered. The Performance Measures Report also establishes measures that should be taken into consideration for other transportation modes, programs and facilities (e.g., bicycle and pedestrian, public transit, aviation, park-and-ride facilities).

Identify Strategies The first step in identifying strategies is to compile a list of transportation improvement projects that currently are underway, or which are programmed and have a high probability of moving forward. The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) can be a good source of information for this. This set of projects should serve as a baseline for the development of additional transportation strategies. In addition, other planned programs or initiatives impacting the corridor that are not capital in

Identify transportation improvements already in

the works.



nature should be identified. These might include pending modifications to zoning codes, or bus service changes.

After identifying what is likely to happen, the next step is to see what other strategies already have been recommended in existing planning docu-ments. The statewide Capital Program and Project Development Plan (CPPDP) should be reviewed to identify projects affecting the corridor that have not yet been programmed in the STIP. All of these projects should be evaluated within the corridor management study for consistency with the established vision and goals for the corridor. A valuable result of the study will be a determination as to whether these projects should be eliminated from the CPPDP, move forward as is, or move forward with modification.

In addition to the Capital Program and Project Development Plan, other documents that may have recommended strategies for the corridor include previous corridor studies, local comprehensive plans, and statewide and regional transportation plans. The corridor management plan development process is a valuable opportunity to bring all of these proposed strategies together, rationalize them, and build consensus on what the priorities for the corridor should be over the next 20 years – given realistic funding scenarios.

Ideas also should be gathered from stakeholder and public input collected during the assessment of current conditions, issues, and needs. Initially, a full range of potential strategy types should be considered. Individual strategies (e.g., improve intersection at Main and Elm Streets) should be listed according to strategy type in order to facilitate further screening and analysis. At this stage, strategies may be conceptual in nature (e.g., initiate bus service between Cityland and Villageville) without specifying details (e.g., service frequencies, specific routing, and hours of operation).

Types of Corridor Management and Improvement Strategies Strategy Type Examples

Minor Roadway and Operational Improvements

• Improved signage and markings; • Signals and other intersection controls; • Bulbouts and pedestrian signals; • Off-road safety improvements (e.g., guardrails, vegetation clearance); • Drainage systems and maintenance practices to reduce environ-

mental impacts, improve water quality, etc.; • On-street parking restrictions; • Designated truck routes; • Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) strategies such as traveler

information and incident response; and • Seasonal and special event controls (e.g., traffic officer).

Major Roadway Improvements

• Lane additions at intersections; • Roundabouts; • Medians and channelization; • Shoulder widening; • Horizontal and vertical curve realignment; • Climbing lanes; • Passing lanes; and • New general-purpose lanes.

Review existing plans to see what has already been recommended.

Gather ideas from the stakeholder community.



Types of Corridor Management and Improvement Strategies (continued) Strategy Type Examples

Zoning and Land Use • Land use and zoning provisions to encourage concentrated development;

• Designation of specific planning areas within town plans with guide-lines for development, resource protection, and access management;

• Designation of scenic view corridor; • Site plan review requirements for developments along the corridor; • Subdivision regulations that encourage pedestrian connectivity and

internal street connections to reduce traffic volumes on main roads; • Provisions to allow for shared parking among adjacent uses; • Growth management tools, such as development phasing and infra-

structure concurrency requirements; • Overlay districts to protect critical resources; and • Performance standards for new developments.

Access Management • Driveway consolidation; • Turn restrictions and medians; • Intersection spacing; and • Local street infrastructure.

New Facilities • New/expanded interchanges; • Bypasses; and • Intermodal facilities.

Alternative Mode Improvements and Travel Demand Management

• Signs and markings (pedestrian crossings, bicycle lanes); • Sidewalk improvements; • Off-road bicycle/pedestrian paths; • Transit service improvements; • Travel demand management programs, such as rideshare programs

and employer transit subsidies; • Rail capacity and service improvements; and • Intermodal facility and access improvements (passenger, freight).

Modal Connectivity Improvements

• Park-and-ride lots; • Bike racks on buses; and • Shuttle services.

Some corridor planning efforts may find it useful to develop separate “packages” of strategies. Packages can be used for a variety of purposes:

• To group together synergistic or complementary strategies with a common purpose (e.g., alternative modes including new park-and-ride lot and transit service changes; land use strategies including zoning to promote infill, incentives for rehabilitation of existing buildings, and driveway consolidation for access management).

• To define different sets of strategies to be pursued under varying future funding scenarios (e.g., one package with a major capacity improvement and an alternative package with a set of lower-cost

Consider organizing strategies into packages.



traffic management strategies). This can help to ensure that a realistic set of strategies is produced.

• To define different sets of strategies to be pursued under varying future growth patterns. If future growth patterns in the corridor are highly uncertain, developing packages of strategies for “high” and “low” growth scenarios can contribute to a better understanding among stakeholders of the interplay between transportation needs and land use in the corridor.

Strategies for Main Streets

In many Vermont communities, Main Street also is a state highway, serving significant volumes of both car and truck traffic. While this traffic often benefits the community by generating sales for local busi-nesses, it also may adversely affect quality of life in the community because of noise, aesthetic, conges-tion, and safety impacts. Balancing the needs of through traffic with the needs of Vermont’s urban and village communities is a common challenge in developing a corridor management plan.

One traditional solution to this problem has been the construction of a bypass to route traffic around the town. Yet this solution has become increasingly unacceptable in Vermont due to concerns that bypasses promote suburban “sprawl” development while draining vitality from the historic community centers, as well as to environmental and cost constraints. Communities in Vermont as well as other states are increasingly looking to less capital-intensive alternative strategies to improve community liv-ability while still accommodating through traffic. Examples of these strategies include:

• The use of “gateway” treatments, such as splitter islands, neck-downs, signage, and other physi-cal strategies, to slow traffic as it enters the town or village.

• Traffic calming treatments within the town or village to slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety, such as reduced lane and/or shoulder widths, marked or textured crosswalks, curb extensions, and median refuges.

• Driveway consolidation, signalization, turn restrictions, and other access management techniques to improve traffic flow and reduce crashes in congested areas.

• Low-cost intersection improvements, such as removing or relocating parking to create space for a turn lane.

• Signage and improvement of existing alternate routes that bypass the town center.

• Completion and/or improvement of sidewalks to make pedestrian travel easier for short trips.

• Pavement strategies, including maintenance and the use of low-noise pavements, to reduce noise and vibration from truck traffic.

• Building and site design guidelines to ensure that development in village centers supports pedestrian travel and is consistent with aesthetic and historic character.

Source: Dufresne-Henry and Vermont Agency of Transportation.

Computer simulation of proposed U.S. 2 redesign in Danville.



Develop Screening Criteria Study partners should then work to develop a set of screening criteria that can be used to select a smaller number of strategies from the initial brain-stormed list for more detailed definition and analysis. Criteria should con-sider feasibility; likely effectiveness in achieving the desired outcomes for the corridor; and consistency with established policy, plans and programs. Financial feasibility will be a key consideration in most corridor studies, both at the screening stage and later when strategies are prioritized and when implementation steps are defined. At each of these points, it is advisable to be aware of the full range of potential funding sources – including conven-tional Federal and state transportation resources, as well as potential innovative sources of funding such as Federal grant programs or local self-assessment (e.g., through a business improvement district). Some potential funding sources are described in Appendix C.

Study partners should use the screening criteria to eliminate those strate-gies that are not worth investing additional effort in analyzing. To a large extent, the screening process at this stage will be qualitative and will rely upon the judgment of study partners. It also may include simple quantita-tive measures, such as number of problem intersections addressed. A “checklist” approach may be taken, whereby the strategy is assigned a pass/fail assessment for each criterion.

Sample Screening Criteria Criterion Considerations

Feasibility

• Cost (initial capital and ongoing maintenance) is in line with likely

availability of funding from Federal, state, local, and private sources. Necessary legal authority established and implementa-tion mechanism exists or could be established.

• Precedent exists for similar strategies. • Strategy would be likely to obtain needed degree of public and

political support. • Strategy would not face insurmountable opposition.

Effectiveness • Strategy would likely be an effective way to address goals and objectives (use these criteria to screen out clearly inferior options for achieving the same goal).

Consistency with Vision, Established Policies, Plans and Programs

• Corridor Vision and Goals; • State Transportation Plan and Modal Policy Plans; • Regional Plans; • State and Regional Growth Management Policies; • Local Comprehensive Plans; and

• State Transportation Improvement Program.

The results of the initial screening will be a systematic analysis that can be communicated to the public, documenting the strategies that were considered, and the rationale for selecting strategies for further analysis.

Use a screening process to identify strategies for

detailed evaluation.



Define and Analyze Strategies in More Detail Strategies that have passed the initial screening may need to be defined in greater detail so that they can be evaluated in a meaningful way. For example, if the strategy “intersection improvements” was suggested, more specific options for intersection improvements (install traffic signals, add turning lanes, construct roundabouts) should be identified. It is not neces-sary to produce detailed designs or operating plans during the corridor study process. This kind of work can be left to the implementation process for strategies that are recommended.

Each strategy or package of strategies should be evaluated in order to pro-vide the basis for setting priorities and making recommendations. The evaluation can involve quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis based on expert judgment or a mixture of the two – depending on the scale of the corridor study, the nature of the identified strategies and the level of resources available. Regardless of the level of sophistication, the evalua-tion should seek to answer the following questions:

• How well would these strategies address the goals established for the corridor?

• What other impacts would they have – both positive and negative?

• If resources are limited, which strategies should be undertaken first?

Use of quantitative methods for strategy evaluation can be of great value in helping stakeholders to understand likely impacts of alternative strategies. If used skillfully and appropriately, they can lend considerable credibility to the corridor study results.

Appendix B provides a list of some available analysis tools and methods, along with their applicability, advantages, disadvantages, and examples of their application in Vermont and other areas. In general, as the sophistica-tion of the tool increases, so do the data requirements. Prior to selecting a tool or method, it is always helpful to talk with others who have used it to get a solid understanding of what value it brings, what is required to use it (data, assumptions, skills) and what pitfalls to avoid. Analysis methods that are selected should be clearly explained and acceptable to stakeholders.

Qualitative evaluation will suffice for many types of strategies, and also can be used to provide a valuable supplement to quantitative analysis. For example, the evaluation of community impacts may involve interviews and meetings culminating in a statement of the positive and negative impacts of each strategy on corridor communities.

The results of the strategy analysis may be presented in different formats, including:

• A text description of findings (both quantitative and qualitative) of how each strategy performs on each of the evaluation criteria;

• Tables or matrices summarizing quantitative findings (e.g., travel time savings, crash reductions); and

• Graphics conveying impacts in visual terms (e.g., maps showing the degree of congestion by road segment/intersection, build-out development locations).

Use Appendix B as a resource for

investigating alternative analysis approaches.

Present the results of the strategy

analysis in an easily digestible format.

Strategies should be sufficiently well-defined to

permit meaningful evaluation; detailed

design is not needed.



An evaluation matrix is commonly used to summarize all of the findings on a single page and to provide a clearly displayed comparison between strategies and their relative impacts. Columns of the impact matrix correspond to each strategy or strategy package. Rows correspond to each evaluation criterion or performance measure. A symbol is used to show how strongly (positively or negatively) each strategy rates on the specific criterion. In the example below, different packages of strategies for improving a corridor are compared based on six criteria. For each criterion, an assessment is shown as to whether the alternative would be better or worse than the existing conditions. An all-white circle indicates that the alternative would be the same as the existing condition; all green means “much better”; all red means “much worse.” Partially filled-in circles represent points in between. Note that these strategy packages are not necessarily mutually exclusive; for example, spot improvements (traffic signalization, pedestrian crossings, etc.) could be combined with land use and access management strategies.

Sample Evaluation Matrix

Select and Prioritize Strategies The qualitative and quantitative information provided through the analysis process should be used to place strategies into priority categories. Strate-gies should be prioritized as “high,” “medium,” “low,” or “not recommended,” based on considerations such as:

• Magnitude of problem/need to be addressed (major, moderate, minor);

• Certainty of need (existing/immediate, forecast and likely to occur, forecast but speculative);

• Cost-effectiveness of proposed solutions (high, medium, low);

• Level of support for strategy (widespread, mixed, weak);

• Potential availability of adequate funding (likely, uncertain, unlikely); and

• Negative impacts associated with strategy (minimal/none, moderate, high).

Environmental Impacts

Cost

Travel Time and Delay

Safety

Aesthetic Character

= Much Better than Existing = Much Worse than Existing

Transitand TDM Bypass

Bike/Pedestrian Access

SpotImprovements

Road Reconstruction/

Realignment

Land Use/Access

Management



If separate strategy packages were developed for different funding scenar-ios or growth scenarios, prioritization should be performed within each sce-nario. If this is done, there also should be a clear definition of which is considered to be the most likely scenario, and what future conditions would trigger moving to an alternative set of strategies.

Strategies may be classified as “not recommended” after either an initial screening or a more detailed evaluation. Strategies should receive a “not recommended” rating if they do not effectively or cost-effectively address corridor needs; are inconsistent with the corridor vision or other policies; or if funding or other supporting actions are unlikely to be achieved in any rea-sonable timeframe.

A consideration related to strategy priority is the potential implementation timeframe for each strategy. Strategies may be classified into “short-term” (less than five years), “medium-term” (five to 10 years), or “long-term” (more than 10 years) categories depending upon considerations such as:

• Priority level;

• Timeframe over which need is likely to occur;

• Expected availability of funding;

• Length of study process required to design and implement the strategy;

• Coordination with other relevant processes (e.g., local comprehen-sive plan updates, statewide transportation planning process); and

• Other considerations, such as expected time required to gather adequate support for the project.

While short-term strategies also may tend to be high-priority strategies, timeframe and priority level are not directly correlated. For example, some high-priority strategies may be classified as “long-term” because they require more funding than is likely to be available in the immediate future, or because they require a lengthy planning and development process.

The criteria and process for selecting strategies, as well as the results of analysis conducted, should be documented. Documentation should address the rationale behind the prioritization of strategies and any thresh-olds or triggers established. Documentation also should address the reasons why other strategies were rejected or eliminated from considera-tion. This will provide an important record to inform future updates of the corridor plan and help to keep people from “reinventing the wheel.”


Overview The fourth step in undertaking the corridor study is to develop an imple-mentation plan for the prioritized strategies. The implementation plan will serve as a guide for the corridor study lead agency and for other corridor study stakeholders in carrying out the recommendations of the plan. This step involves the following tasks:

• Identify thresholds/triggers to undertake specific strategies, if they are not immediate priorities;

• Identify implementation steps and responsibilities for each recommended strategy;

• Identify interagency/intergovernmental relationships or agreements necessary to implement and monitor plan (e.g., monitoring com-mittee, permit review procedures);

• Establish incentives and contingencies (e.g., state actions contin-gent upon local agency actions); and

• Identify monitoring activities and data sources.

Identify Thresholds/Triggers to Undertake Specific Strategies Mid- and long-term strategies may include those that address an immediate need, but for which funding and/or supporting actions are not realistically achievable in the short term. Alternatively, they may address needs that are projected to exist in the future, but which currently do not warrant action. For these strategies, the implementation plan should specify threshold conditions that should trigger further action. Examples of thresholds may include:

• Intersection delay exceeds X seconds per vehicle;

• Traffic volumes exceed Y vehicles per day; and

• Truck traffic exceeds Z percent of total traffic volume.

Thresholds should be set to encourage proactive rather than reactive action – so that a problem can be addressed before it becomes critical.

VTrans Performance Targets Criterion Performance Threshold – Policy Level Source

LOS to maintain for design period of roadway improvements

LOS C (normally) LOS D or E (allowed in built-up/urban areas or on case-by-case basis)

Traffic Impact Evaluation: Study and Review Guide, January 2003.

Maximum volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio on state highways

0.9: Urban area downtowns 0.7: Rural corridors 0.8: Other (small towns/villages, suburban corridors, growth areas)

Vermont Highway System Policy Plan, 2004.

Minimum crash rate to define High-Crash Location

More than five crashes in a five-year period and crash rate (number of crashes per 100 million VMT) significantly greater than the average for that class of roadway


Step 4 Develop Implementation Plan

Develop Implementation Plan


Identify Implementation Tools, Next Steps, and Responsibilities All the steps necessary to implement the plan should be identified. Some of these steps may pertain to the plan as a whole (e.g., communication); others will be specific to each recommended strategy. Examples of imple-mentation steps may include:

• Communicate the plan’s findings and recommendations to a broad audience to build public awareness and support.

• Encourage each jurisdiction to pass a formal resolution endorsing the corridor plan.

• Revise municipal comprehensive plans and/or bylaws consistent with corridor plan.

• Pursue development of specific projects consistent with the plan’s strategies: Conduct more detailed project development and envi-ronmental documentation; or initiate addition to municipal capital improvement program.

• Pursue changes to the state Capital Program and Project Development Plan – to ensure that this document is updated based on the prioritized strategies for the corridor.

• Review recommendations through the Transportation Planning Initiative (TPI) process, and consider specific projects for inclusion in the regional and statewide transportation plan and state trans-portation improvement program (STIP).

• Pursue funding from existing programs such as Transportation Enhancements, Bicycle and Pedestrian, Highway Safety Improvement, Vermont Downtown Program, etc.

• Adopt other municipal implementation tools, such as transfer of development rights mechanism, zoning incentives, or expedited permitting for development consistent with corridor plan.

• Conduct outreach to property owners along the roadway corridor regarding access management benefits and techniques.

• Establish infrastructure impact fees or negotiate commitments from developers (e.g., to fund sidewalks, signals, transit improvements).

• Establish other private funding mechanisms (such as a business improvement district) or public-private partnerships to fund trans-portation improvements that support business expansion or otherwise enhance a community’s economic climate.

• Study strategy in more detail once implementation threshold criteria have been met.

For each implementation step, the responsible agency and department(s) should be identified, as well as any implementation partners (e.g., state working with local government). An approximate time horizon should be identified that is consistent with implementation of the overall strategy within its defined category. The approximate funding required also should be listed, along with the proposed funding source (if known) or potential sources.

Appendix C lists some funding mechanisms that can be applied to imple-ment recommendations from the corridor study. Appendix D contains a list



and description of municipal regulatory and non-regulatory tools for implementing development policies.1

Appendix E provides examples of land use implementation strategies in the context of transportation corridor studies, as applied in other states.

Sample Implementation Recommendations (from VT 15 Corridor Management Plan)

Area Purpose Need Recommendations Comments/Next Steps

Jericho Village Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, connect village residential and commercial origins and destina-tions, enhance community character.

Traffic volumes expected to increase from 10,900 to between 15,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day; will have negative impact on pedes-trian travel and quality of life.

Short-Term • New sidewalk in front of

Keith Agency and Village Cup, extending from new VT 15 crosswalk from bridge.

Medium-Term • Traffic calming devices

along VT 15; • Signage indicating historic

district; • Extension of historic light

polices; • Bury utility lines; and • Improved access

management. Long-Term

• Sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of VT 15; and

• Additional crosswalks.

• Endorsed by Jericho Transportation Subcommittee;

• Evaluate possibility of reducing posted speed to 25 mph when meas-ures implemented; and

• Conduct feasibility study of extending sidewalks; identify appropriate crosswalk locations.

Jericho, intersection VT 5/Lee River Road

Improve intersection safety and efficiency for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.

LOS F currently exists on Lee River Road; will worsen as traffic on VT 15 increases. Future conditions satisfy warrants for left- and right-turn lane on VT 15 and traffic signal.

Short-Term • Reconfigure intersection to

include one-way exit along north side of Flat Iron with a simple T intersection on south side.

Medium-Term • Evaluate right and left turns

on VT and/or traffic signal. Incorporate proposed streetscape designs.

• Conduct scoping study to evaluate long-term intersection design alternatives.

Jericho, rural- suburban road segment (Cilley Hill to River Road)

Maintain a reason-able level of mobility for through traffic and improve local circulation options.

Projected traffic volumes will approach 11,500-15,000 vpd. Exiting from side streets and driveways will become more diffi-cult. Vehicles turning from VT 15 will reduce speeds on VT 15.

Short-Term • Manage access for parcels

directly adjacent to VT 15 by following VTrans guidelines.

Medium-Term • Provide new street connec-

tions between adjacent subdivisions to create a local network accommodating vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

• Include access man-agement guidelines in Jericho zoning and subdivision regulations consistent with VTrans Access Management Category 6; and

• Town of Jericho should map easements to explore possible con-nections. Evaluate traffic impacts of providing connections.

1 Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs. Vermont Interstate Interchange Planning and Development Design Guidelines. June 2004. Internet: http://www.dhca.state. vt.us/Planning/InterstateInterchange.htm.





Sample Land Use Recommendations (from Draft VT 15 Corridor Management Plan) Town Recommendations Jericho • Consider site plan review as a requirement for all development along

VT 15 corridor; and • Include provisions for shared access and driveways in subdivision regulations.

Westford • Consider establishing an overlay district along VT 15 to establish zoning guidelines to implement existing town plan objectives of protecting scenic, historic, and natural resources.

Johnson Town/Village

• Adopt regulatory documents (such as zoning) to implement and enforce town/village Master Plan goals, or delineate VT 15 as a specific planning area and include development guidelines in the Master Plan.

Morristown/ Morrisville

• Establish minimum distance between curb cuts, consistent with VTrans Access Management Standards; and

• Establish design guidelines and/or a landscape plan for the commercial district.

Wolcott • Delineate areas of compact, mixed-use development at major intersections, and minimize development between these areas;

• Establish other zoning districts (e.g., residential, agricultural, conservation) and lot requirements/densities;

• Encourage sharing of access and parking for commercial developments; and • Allow Planned Residential Developments to promote concentrated development.




Identify Relationships or Agreements to Implement and Monitor Plan Implementation of many of the recommended strategies may involve part-nerships or working relationships among different government agencies – e.g., between VTrans and local jurisdictions, or among local jurisdictions in the corridor. For example, implementation of an access management strategy may involve local zoning and subdivision changes, state and local permitting decisions, and state and local capital improvements. Specific processes or institutional relationships may need to be established. Some examples of interagency review and coordination include:

• Local jurisdictions and VTrans may establish Intergovernmental Agreements, inviting VTrans to review locally issued development permits and comment on consistency with established access management policies.

• VTrans, the RPC, and adjacent local jurisdictions may agree to review each jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan, design guidelines, and/or zoning, to comment on consistency with the corridor plan and on potential impacts to corridor transportation conditions. Interagency review is not necessary for every plan or zoning change in corridor communities, but should be conducted for plan updates that could significantly affect development patterns in the community, or for land directly fronting on the corridor roadway.

• Local jurisdictions involved in regional and statewide transportation planning through the TPI initiative may comment on the inclusion of recommended corridor plan elements in regional and statewide plans and the statewide transportation improvement program.

Collaborative plan or permit review process is not meant to allow one agency to usurp another’s legal authority, but rather to establish a process by which agencies can comment on the actions of other agencies with respect to consistency with agreed-upon plans and policies.

An institutional structure to ensure that the plan is implemented also is needed. The lead agency in the corridor planning effort bears primary responsibility for implementation. However, it also is important to ensure that all key stakeholders are involved in the implementation and monitoring process. One example of such a structure is the establishment of a com-mittee that meets regularly (e.g., once or twice a year) to review imple-mentation activities, their status, monitoring results, and actions needed. The implementation committee may be a continuation of the corridor Advisory Group, or it may be reconstituted to include other key stake-holders with implementation responsibilities.

Establish Incentives and Contingencies The art of developing a successful and effective corridor plan involves packaging complementary strategies and spreading implementation responsibilities across multiple agencies. For example, access manage-ment can work in conjunction with intersection improvements to keep traffic moving and reduce conflict points and potential crashes. In cases where multiple parties are responsible for mutually supportive implementation actions, it may be desirable to make certain activities contingent upon other activities. For example, VTrans may specify that improvements to particular



intersections are contingent upon the local jurisdiction enforcing access management policies for new development. In this way, state funding can be used as an incentive for local jurisdictions to take ownership of their elements of the corridor plan.

Identify Monitoring Activities The final aspect of the implementation plan is an approach to monitoring corridor conditions. Monitoring has two purposes: first, to indicate to corri-dor stakeholders the effectiveness of strategies that have been implemented; and second, to indicate when further improvements or actions might be needed.

At a minimum, monitoring should be conducted using available data on cor-ridor population and employment growth, development along or near the roadway, traffic volumes, and crashes. Some data sources already may be established (e.g., traffic counts); others may need to be established (e.g., a mechanism for tracking development permits). The agency/division/section responsible for specific monitoring activities should be identified and the type, frequency of data needed, as well as analysis methods specified. Performance thresholds also should be specified that indicate the need for further action or implementation of specific strategies. If a corridor imple-mentation committee has been established, this committee should be briefed annually on monitoring results.

Delaware Route 40 Corridor Plan – Monitoring Activities

The Route 40 Corridor 20-Year Transportation Plan, adopted in June 2000, is a community-supported long-range management plan for a 10-mile segment of U.S. 40 between the Delaware-Maryland state line and suburban Wilmington. Initiated by the Delaware Department of Transportation in partnership with New Castle County and the Wilmington Area Planning Commission, the plan was prepared under the direction of a Steering Committee composed of civic leaders, elected officials, and business interests. The Plan includes an implementation strategy consisting of five components: corridor preservation, monitoring, triggering, citi-zen involvement, and project implementation.

For more information, see: http://www.deldot.net/static/projects/rt40/index.htm.

Source: Delaware Department of Transportation.

A Corridor Monitoring and Triggering Report is prepared annually by the project team, comprised of staff from the participating agencies. Citizen involvement in implementation is accomplished through a Corridor Monitoring Committee. This com-mittee meets quarterly with the pro-ject team to review conditions in the corridor and provide input into the timing and implementation of pro-jects. Committee members also serve as advocates for the imple-mentation of projects within their agencies and communities.



Delaware Route 40 Corridor Plan – Monitoring and Triggering Elements Monitoring Element Trigger Resulting Actions

Land development Major land development activity

Review transportation needs:

• Level of service implications and strategy;

• Transit service needs or opportunities; • Safety concerns; and • Pedestrian and bicycle needs.

Traffic Deteriorating level of service (“D” or worse)

Implement strategies to:

• Stabilize/reduce demand; or • Increase capacity.

Highway safety Safety improvements recommended by the Highway Safety Improvements Program review team

Evaluate the compatibility of the proposed improvements with the Plan and the need to make adjustments to the Plan.

Transit service Transit service changes proposed by Delaware Transit Corp.

Evaluate any ancillary improvements needed to complement the service changes, such as sidewalks or shelters that should be advanced in the Plan’s implementation.

Status of projects in design, implemented, or other projects in the region

Transportation improvements not part of the Plan but affect the corridor and are proposed for implementation

Evaluate the compatibility of the proposed improvements with the Plan and the need to make adjustments to the Plan.

Any of the above Assessment of potential changes may trig-ger one of the following options to best respond to the new conditions: • Continue project(s) as currently

scheduled;

• Move project(s) forward; or

• Move project(s) back.

Source: Delaware Department of Transportation.

The monitoring process needs to be sustained over an extended period of time, realizing that individual staff and even agency structures may change over this time period. Techniques need to be established to ensure conti-nuity and sustainability in implementation and monitoring efforts. One such technique is to ensure that the knowledge of the various tasks that need to be monitored is shared across multiple individuals, so that if one leaves, others can identify work gaps that need to be covered. An implementation committee that meets regularly can fulfill this role. Another technique is to include specific responsibilities in job descriptions or work assignments by managers (e.g., “monitor corridor plan implementation for Route 75”).


Overview The fifth step in undertaking the corridor study is to assemble the materials and information prepared for Steps 1 through 4 into a corridor plan docu-ment, and to obtain approval and endorsements from partner agencies.

Finalize Corridor Plan Document – Major Activities • Assemble materials into a corridor plan document;

• Obtain plan endorsements from stakeholder agencies; and

• Distribute plan and make it available to the public.

Assemble Materials into a Corridor Plan Document The corridor plan document should include the following sections:

• Description of the corridor: existing transportation, land use, and environmental conditions;

• Corridor issues and needs identified as well as study objectives and process for conducting the study;

• Summary of previous studies conducted in the corridor;

• Expected future conditions in the corridor;

• Vision and goals established for the corridor;

• Strategies evaluated, methods used, and evaluation results;

• Recommended strategies and prioritization;

• Implementation and monitoring plan; and

• Any supporting materials such as detailed data, technical documentation, public involvement activities, etc.

Obtain Plan Endorsements The corridor plan is meant to be a document that is accepted by all of the stakeholders in the planning process. In addition to the corridor Advisory Group and the sponsoring agency or agencies approving the plan docu-ment, the study partners should seek the endorsement of other agencies and jurisdictions participating in the study process. Ideally, the plan should be endorsed by the governing bodies of every local jurisdiction in the corri-dor through a formal city council or Town Select Board resolution. In addi-tion, state or Federal resource agencies that have a significant interest in the corridor should be aware of the plan and supportive of its recommendations.

Step 5 Finalize Corridor Plan Document

Implement and Monitor Corridor Plan


Local endorsement helps to ensure that local jurisdictions will “take owner-ship” of plan recommendations rather than viewing it as something that is being imposed upon them. As noted in Step 4, not just endorsing the plan, but also adopting it or incorporating its principles into existing agency and municipal policies and plans (and where relevant, zoning bylaws), is an important implementation step.

Distribute Plan and Make it Available to the Public The plan should be distributed as widely as possible, especially to those who may have an interest or role to play in implementing the plan and monitoring its implementation progress. This includes making the plan publicly available through the Internet, libraries, and town halls; and publicizing the release of the plan. Publicity of the final plan should follow naturally from a good public involvement process. The more widespread the awareness and under-standing of the plan, the more likely its recommendations are to be implemented.


Overview The final step in the corridor planning process, which continues indefinitely, is to implement and monitor the corridor plan.

Implement and Monitor Corridor Plan – Major Activities • Establish institutional relationships and agreements for implementation and monitoring;

• Undertake implementation steps;

• Monitor corridor conditions and status of actions; and

• Periodically update plan.

Establish Institutional Relationships and Agreements Institutional working relationships, implementation committee, process flow changes, and agreements as recommended in Step 4 (Develop Implementation Plan) should be established. This is critical to make the corridor management plan a living document, and ensure that the neces-sary monitoring and implementation steps are taken. See Appendix E for examples of interagency agreements for coordinated corridor transportation and land use strategies.

Undertake Implementation Steps Implementation steps should be undertaken per the corridor plan and time-line, including any steps that are triggered by performance monitoring.

Monitor Corridor Conditions and Status of Actions The implementation committee or responsible agency staff should monitor corridor conditions at regular intervals, per the monitoring plan established in Step 4. The status of implementation actions also should be monitored. If recommended actions have not been taken, the reasons should be discussed with the responsible entities. These entities should work together to identify and overcome implementation barriers (e.g., lack of funding, political will) or agree that the strategy or action should be postponed to a later date.

Periodically Update Plan The lead agency and corridor stakeholders should conduct periodic updates of the plan, every five to 10 years, to revise it in response to changing condi-tions and/or needs. Minor updates may include the addition or deletion of recommended actions. Major updates may include significant reprioritization of corridor strategies, for example, based on rapidly changing conditions in the corridor, an evolving vision of the corridor, or changes in funding avail-ability. Corridor stakeholders and the public should be informed of updates and be given opportunities to provide input to updates that will directly affect them or for which they are an implementation partner.

Step 6 Implement and Monitor Corridor Plan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Traffic Volume

Intersection Delay

Year

Strategy #1 Implemented

Strategy #2 Implemented

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

A-1

App

endi

x A

D

ata

Sour

ces

Inve

ntor

y D

ata

A

genc

y/So

urce

D

escr

iptio

n W

here

to O

btai

n

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Prog

ram

med

Pro

ject

s V

Tran

s •

Hig

hway

and

brid

ge c

onst

ruct

ion

proj

ects

sch

edul

ed

for i

mpl

emen

tatio

n V

Tran

s P

rogr

am D

evel

opm

ent

Traf

fic C

ount

s V

Tran

s •

AA

DT

by s

egm

ent w

ith R

oute

Log

info

rmat

ion

(tabl

es

or in

tera

ctiv

e m

aps)

• V

ehic

le c

lass

ifica

tion

coun

ts b

y se

gmen

t

• Tu

rnin

g m

ovem

ents

http

://w

ww

.aot

.sta

te.v

t.us/

tech

serv

ices

/Doc

umen

ts/T

rafR

esea

rch/

P

ublic

atio

ns/p

ub.h

tm

Traf

fic G

row

th F

acto

rs

VTr

ans

• G

row

th fa

ctor

s (5

and

20

year

) bas

ed o

n re

gres

sion

an

alys

is

http

://w

ww

.aot

.sta

te.v

t.us/

tech

serv

ices

/Doc

umen

ts/T

rafR

esea

rch/

P

ublic

atio

ns/p

ub.h

tm

Sea

sona

l Tra

ffic

Cou

nts

an

d A

djus

tmen

t Fac

tors

V

Tran

s •

Hig

hest

hou

rly c

ount

s at

eac

h si

te

• D

aily

and

mon

thly

adj

ustm

ent f

acto

rs fo

r sea

sona

lity

http

://w

ww

.aot

.sta

te.v

t.us/

tech

serv

ices

/Doc

umen

ts/T

rafR

esea

rch/

P

ublic

atio

ns/p

ub.h

tm

Sta

te H

ighw

ay In

vent

ory

–

Rou

te L

ogs

VTr

ans

• In

vent

ory

(wid

th, c

urve

s/gr

ades

, cla

ssific

atio

n, e

tc.)

• A

DT

and

cras

h hi

stor

y

• S

uffic

ienc

y ra

tings

• P

ast p

roje

cts

• S

truct

ures

VTr

ans

Map

ping

and

GIS

Uni

t

Trav

eler

Cha

ract

eris

tics

•

Orig

ins

and

Des

tinat

ions

• Tr

ip P

urpo

ses

Prim

ary

data

col

lect

ion

– S

ever

al te

chni

ques

ava

ilabl

e (li

cens

e pl

ate

vide

o m

atch

ing,

road

side

inte

rvie

w, p

ostc

ard,

etc

.)

Onl

ine

Map

Cen

ter

VTr

ans

• To

wn

high

way

map

s ht

tp://

ww

w.a

ot.s

tate

.vt.u

s/te

chse

rvic

es/P

lanS

uppo

rt/M

apG

IS/T

own_

Map

s1.h

tm

Sta

tew

ide

Trav

el D

eman

d M

odel

V

Tran

s •

Pro

ject

ions

of t

raffi

c vo

lum

es o

n hi

ghw

ays

of s

tate

wid

e si

gnifi

canc

e V

Tran

s P

olic

y an

d P

lann

ing

– M

odel

ing

sect

ion

Sta

tew

ide

Acc

iden

t Dat

abas

e V

Tran

s •

Acc

iden

t loc

atio

ns, s

ever

ity, a

nd c

ause

s V

Tran

s P

rogr

am D

evel

opm

ent –

Hig

hway

Res

earc

h se

ctio

n A

ccid

ent l

ocat

ions

in G

IS fo

rmat

at:

http

://w

ww

.vcg

i.org

/

Ver

mon

t Cra

sh D

ata

Res

ourc

e B

ook

VT D

ept.

of P

ublic

S

afet

y •

Sum

mar

izes

cra

shes

by

seve

rity

(fat

al, i

njur

y, to

tal)

by

tow

n ht

tp://

ww

w.v

thig

hway

safe

ty.c

om/r

esou

rces

.htm

l

Pav

emen

t Man

agem

ent S

yste

m

VTr

ans

• P

avem

ent c

ondi

tion

VTr

ans

Pro

gram

Dev

elop

men

t – P

avem

ent M

anag

emen

t sec

tion

Som

e in

form

atio

n at

http

://w

ww

.vcg

i.org

/

Brid

ge M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

V

Tran

s •

Brid

ge c

ondi

tion,

loca

tion

of p

oste

d an

d w

eigh

t-re

stric

ted

stru

ctur

es

VTr

ans

Pro

gram

Dev

elop

men

t – B

ridge

sec

tion

Bur

lingt

on A

rea

Traf

fic D

ata

(inte

ract

ive

map

s an

d da

taba

se)

CC

MP

O

• AA

DT

by lo

catio

n

• Tu

rnin

g m

ovem

ents

• B

icyc

le/p

edes

trian

cou

nts

http

://w

ww

.ccm

po.o

rg/d

ata/

coun

ts.h

tml

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

A-2

App

endi

x A

D

ata

Sour

ces

Inve

ntor

y (c

ontin

ued)

Dat

a A

genc

y/So

urce

D

escr

iptio

n W

here

to O

btai

n

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Tran

spor

tatio

n N

etw

ork

Spat

ial D

ata

Verm

ont C

ente

r fo

r Geo

grap

hic

Info

rmat

ion

GIS

dat

a fil

es a

ssem

bled

from

var

ious

prim

ary

sour

ces,

incl

udin

g:

• R

oad

cent

erlin

e fil

es

• Fu

nctio

nal c

lass

ifica

tion

of ro

ads

• R

ailro

ad c

ente

rline

file

s •

Rai

lroad

cro

ssin

gs

• Au

tom

atic

traf

fic re

cord

er lo

catio

ns

• Ai

rpor

t, pa

rk-a

nd-ri

de lo

catio

ns

• U

rban

are

as a

s de

fined

by

VTra

ns

• Pa

vem

ent t

ype

and

cond

ition

, roa

dway

bas

e m

ater

ials

•

Roa

dway

wid

ths

• D

esig

nate

d sp

eed

zone

s •

AAD

T •

Acci

dent

loca

tions

, hig

h-ac

cide

nt lo

catio

ns

http

://w

ww

.vcg

i.org

/

Dig

ital O

rthop

hoto

s

VT D

epar

tmen

t of

Tax

es –

VT

Map

ping

Pr

ogra

m

• 1:

5000

orth

opho

togr

aphi

c co

vera

ge o

f sta

te

(1/2

met

er p

ixel

s) p

rovi

des

visu

al in

form

atio

n on

ro

ad g

eom

etry

, dev

elop

men

t, ac

cess

, lan

d us

e

• 1:

1250

ava

ilabl

e fo

r urb

an a

reas

Avai

labl

e on

CD

-RO

M –

See

ht

tp://

ww

w.s

tate

.vt.u

s/ta

x/m

appi

ng.s

htm

l

Stat

ewid

e Tr

avel

Dem

and

Mod

el

VTra

ns

• St

atew

ide

proj

ectio

ns o

f hou

seho

lds

thro

ugh

2020

by

TAZ.

1 VT

rans

Pol

icy

and

Plan

ning

– M

odel

ing

sect

ion

U.S

. Cen

sus

Dat

a

U.S

. Cen

sus

Verm

ont S

tate

D

ata

Cen

ter

• Po

pula

tion

and

hous

ehol

d ch

arac

teris

tics

by

tow

n (1

990,

200

0)

• C

urre

nt p

opul

atio

n es

timat

es

• Em

ploy

men

t and

jour

ney-

to-w

ork

char

acte

ris-

tics

by to

wn

(CTP

P)

• O

rigin

s/de

stin

atio

ns o

f com

mut

ers

(CTP

P)

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov

http

://cr

s.uv

m.e

du/c

ensu

s/

1 Em

ploy

men

t pro

ject

ions

may

be

rele

ased

upo

n ex

ecut

ion

of a

non

disc

losu

re a

gree

men

t.

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

A-3

App

endi

x A

D

ata

Sour

ces

Inve

ntor

y (c

ontin

ued)

Dat

a A

genc

y/So

urce

D

escr

iptio

n W

here

to O

btai

n

Soci

oeco

nom

ic

Burli

ngto

n Ar

ea C

ensu

s D

ata

– To

wn

Prof

iles

from

C

TPP

CC

MPO

•

Hou

seho

ld s

ize,

veh

icle

ava

ilabi

lity,

and

jour

ney

to w

ork

data

ht

tp://

ww

w.c

cmpo

.org

/dat

a/ct

pp/

Cen

ter f

or P

ublic

Hea

lth

Stat

istic

s Ve

rmon

t Dep

artm

ent

of H

ealth

•

His

toric

al p

opul

atio

n da

ta b

y to

wn

http

://w

ww

.hea

lthyv

erm

onte

rs.in

fo/p

ubs.

shtm

l

Labo

r Mar

ket I

nfor

mat

ion

Verm

ont D

epar

tmen

t of

Em

ploy

men

t and

Tr

aini

ng

• H

isto

rical

em

ploy

men

t dat

a by

tow

n ht

tp://

ww

w.v

tlmi.i

nfo/

Verm

ont C

omm

unity

Pro

file

Rep

orts

Ve

rmon

t Age

ncy

of

Hum

an S

ervi

ces

• R

ecen

t dat

a an

d tre

nds

on v

ario

us s

ocia

l ind

icat

ors

(hea

lth, e

mpl

oym

ent,

crim

e, e

tc.)

http

://w

ww

.ahs

.sta

te.v

t.us/

publ

s.cf

m

Verm

ont S

praw

l Dat

abas

e U

VM –

Cen

ter f

or

Rur

al S

tudi

es

Sum

mar

y to

wn-

leve

l dat

a (p

rovi

ded

in s

prea

dshe

ets)

in

clud

ing:

• Po

pula

tion

and

soci

oeco

nom

ic fr

om c

ensu

s an

d D

OH

•

Empl

oym

ent f

rom

cen

sus

and

DET

•

Land

cov

er fr

om U

VM a

naly

sis

• Tr

ansp

orta

tion

data

(VM

T, A

ADT,

road

way

mile

age

by

clas

s, to

tal c

rash

es, e

tc.)

from

VTr

ans

• H

ouse

hold

tran

spor

tatio

n an

d jo

urne

y-to

-wor

k fro

m U

.S.

Cen

sus

• Ta

x da

ta (t

otal

par

cels

, val

uatio

n) fr

om V

T D

ept.

of

Taxe

s •

Link

s to

regi

onal

, sta

te, a

nd n

atio

nal d

ata,

incl

udin

g C

ensu

s (o

ffici

al s

tate

dat

a ce

nter

for U

.S. C

ensu

s)

http

://cr

s.uv

m.e

du/

Land

Use

and

Env

ironm

enta

l

E911

Dat

a

• St

atew

ide

GIS

add

ress

dat

abas

e fo

r 911

sys

tem

(r

esid

entia

l and

com

mer

cial

driv

eway

s)

http

://w

ww

.vcg

i.org

/

Gra

nd L

ist D

ata

•

Tow

n-le

vel l

ist o

f tax

able

and

non

taxa

ble

prop

ertie

s Fr

om in

divi

dual

tow

ns o

r citi

es

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

A-4

App

endi

x A

D

ata

Sour

ces

Inve

ntor

y (c

ontin

ued)

Dat

a A

genc

y/So

urce

D

escr

iptio

n W

here

to O

btai

n

Land

Use

and

Env

ironm

enta

l (co

ntin

ued)

Parc

el D

ata

• Si

ze, s

hape

, use

, stru

ctur

es, a

sses

sed

valu

e, o

ther

in

form

atio

n on

par

cels

• G

IS p

arce

l dat

a is

pub

licly

ava

ilabl

e fo

r abo

ut tw

o-th

irds

of V

erm

ont t

owns

and

citi

es

From

indi

vidu

al to

wns

, citi

es, o

r RPC

s

See

also

http

://w

ww

.vcg

i.org

/ (in

form

atio

n on

av

aila

bilit

y)

Verm

ont G

IS D

ata

(var

ious

) Ve

rmon

t Cen

ter f

or

Geo

grap

hic

Info

rmat

ion

GIS

dat

a fil

es a

ssem

bled

from

var

ious

prim

ary

sour

ces,

in

clud

ing:

• Po

litic

al b

ound

arie

s

• La

nd c

over

/land

use

• La

kes,

pon

ds, w

ater

shed

bou

ndar

ies

• W

etla

nds

inve

ntor

y

• R

are,

thre

aten

ed, a

nd e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s

• C

ore

habi

tats

• C

emet

erie

s

• C

onse

rved

land

s

• El

evat

ion

data

http

://w

ww

.vcg

i.org

/

Verm

ont C

onse

rved

Lan

ds

Dat

abas

e U

VM –

Cen

ter f

or

Spat

ial A

naly

sis

• G

IS d

atab

ase

of p

ublic

and

priv

ate

cons

erve

d la

nds

http

://w

ww

.uvm

.edu

/~en

vnr/s

al/v

tcon

s.ht

ml

http

://w

ww

.vcg

i.org

/

Dig

ital O

rthop

hoto

s

VT D

epar

tmen

t of

Taxe

s –V

T M

appi

ng

Prog

ram

• 1:

5000

orth

opho

togr

aphi

c co

vera

ge o

f sta

te (1

/2 m

eter

pi

xels

) pro

vide

s vi

sual

info

rmat

ion

on ro

ad g

eom

etry

, de

velo

pmen

t, ac

cess

, lan

d us

e

• 1:

1250

ava

ilabl

e fo

r urb

an a

reas

Avai

labl

e on

CD

-RO

M –

See

ht

tp://

ww

w.s

tate

.vt.u

s/ta

x/m

appi

ng.s

htm

l

Dig

ital E

leva

tion

Mod

els

VT D

epar

tmen

t of

Taxe

s –V

T M

appi

ng

Prog

ram

• Fi

les

that

allo

w g

ener

atio

n of

slo

pe, a

spec

t, pe

rspe

ctiv

e vi

ew, a

nd c

onto

ur d

ata

usin

g sp

ecifi

c so

ftwar

e Av

aila

ble

on C

D-R

OM

– S

ee

http

://w

ww

.sta

te.v

t.us/

tax/

map

ping

.sht

ml

Win

dshi

eld

Surv

ey

•

Visu

al in

form

atio

n on

road

geo

met

ry, d

evel

opm

ent,

acce

ss

Prim

ary

data

col

lect

ion

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing

(var

ious

) VT

Pla

nnin

g In

form

atio

n C

ente

r •

Varie

ty o

f com

mun

ity p

lann

ing

reso

urce

s –

GIS

dat

a,

land

dat

a, d

emog

raph

ics,

his

toric

reso

urce

s, a

ir qu

ality

ht

tp://

ww

w.v

pic.

info

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

B-1

App

endi

x B

A

naly

sis

Met

hods

Ty

pe o

f For

ecas

t A

vaila

ble

Met

hods

A

pplic

abili

ty

Key

Dat

a R

equi

rem

ents

A

dvan

tage

s D

isad

vant

ages

Futu

re y

ear p

opul

a-tio

n an

d em

ploy

men

t in

the

corri

dor s

tudy

ar

ea

Stat

ewid

e tra

vel d

eman

d m

odel

Ap

prop

riate

“ba

selin

e”

fore

cast

(E

xist

ing

data

) Ex

istin

g, c

onsi

sten

t st

atew

ide

fore

cast

of

popu

latio

n an

d em

ploy

-m

ent b

y to

wn

Assu

mpt

ions

und

erly

ing

fore

cast

s m

ay n

ot fu

lly

refle

ct lo

cal c

ondi

tions

Tr

end

anal

ysis

Ap

prop

riate

in a

bsen

ce o

f ot

her d

ata

Can

be

tem

pere

d w

ith

judg

men

t on

expe

cted

fu

ture

tren

ds

His

toric

al tr

ends

in s

tudy

ar

ea p

opul

atio

n, e

mpl

oy-

men

t, de

velo

pmen

t pe

rmits

Ref

lect

s pa

st/c

urre

nt

trend

s As

sum

es p

ast/c

urre

nt

trend

s w

ill re

mai

n co

n-si

sten

t in

the

futu

re

Bu

ild-o

ut a

naly

sis

Appr

opria

te fo

r tow

ns w

ith

rapi

d gr

owth

/app

roac

hing

bu

ild-o

ut in

ana

lysi

s pe

riod,

or

for s

tudi

es ta

king

long

-te

rm (>

20 y

ear)

pers

pect

ive

Stud

y ar

ea z

onin

g (a

llow

able

den

sitie

s,

type

s of

use

s)

Loca

tions

of e

xist

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Loca

tions

with

env

iron-

men

tal c

onst

rain

ts to

de

velo

pmen

t

Ref

lect

s cu

rrent

loca

l pl

ans

and

polic

ies

Supp

orts

a “

wor

st-c

ase”

sc

enar

io o

f gro

wth

Not

pos

sibl

e in

tow

ns

with

out z

onin

g; d

iffic

ult

with

out e

lect

roni

c zo

ning

m

ap

Fore

cast

yea

r dev

elop

-m

ent m

ay b

e m

uch

less

th

an b

uild

-out

Es

timat

e fu

ture

dev

el-

opm

ent b

ased

on

know

n pl

ans

Best

for s

hort-

term

stu

dies

, or

are

as w

ith s

low

cha

nge

Can

be

com

bine

d w

ith

long

er-te

rm e

stim

atio

n m

etho

ds

Perm

itted

or p

lann

ed

deve

lopm

ents

(ind

ustri

al

park

exp

ansi

on, s

ub-

divi

sion

app

licat

ions

)

Rea

listic

pic

ture

of n

ear-

term

futu

re d

evel

opm

ent

Like

ly to

und

eres

timat

e 20

-yea

r dev

elop

men

t

Ex

pert

judg

men

t (e.

g.,

Del

phi/e

xper

t pan

el

met

hod)

Pa

st tr

ends

Perm

itted

/pla

nned

de

velo

pmen

ts

Know

ledg

e of

cor

ridor

ec

onom

ic a

nd p

lann

ing

envi

ronm

ent

Can

com

bine

oth

er m

eth-

ods

and

data

to a

rrive

at a

co

nsen

sus

fore

cast

Subj

ectiv

e –

Diff

eren

t “e

xper

ts”

are

likel

y to

di

sagr

ee

Sc

enar

io p

lann

ing

Best

for r

egio

ns th

at w

ant

to c

ondu

ct p

roac

tive

and

long

-term

pla

nnin

g fo

r fu

ture

gro

wth

Varie

s; m

ay u

tiliz

e ot

her

plan

ning

and

fore

cast

ing

tool

s

Invo

lves

pub

lic a

nd

stak

ehol

ders

in d

iscu

ssin

g al

tern

ativ

e fu

ture

s an

d th

eir p

oten

tial i

mpa

cts

Proc

ess

invo

lvin

g si

gnifi

cant

effo

rt

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

B-2

App

endi

x B

A

naly

sis

Met

hods

(con

tinue

d)

Type

of F

orec

ast

Ava

ilabl

e M

etho

ds

App

licab

ility

K

ey D

ata

Req

uire

men

tsA

dvan

tage

s D

isad

vant

ages

Spec

ific

loca

tions

of

futu

re y

ear d

evel

opm

ent

Know

n pl

ans

met

hod

(See

abo

ve)

Bu

ild-o

ut a

naly

sis

(See

abo

ve)

G

IS-b

ased

fore

cast

ing

tool

s Ex

amin

e ch

ange

s in

de

velo

pmen

t pat

tern

s ba

sed

on m

ajor

tran

s.

inve

stm

ents

and

land

us

e po

licie

s

Prov

ides

inpu

ts to

de

taile

d tra

ns. m

odel

, G

IS-b

ased

env

iron-

men

tal a

naly

sis

Area

wid

e po

pula

tion

and

empl

oym

ent c

ontro

l fo

reca

sts

Plan

ned

land

use

/zon

ing

Dev

elop

men

tal

cons

train

ts

Tran

spor

tatio

n ac

cess

i-bi

lity

mea

sure

s

Rat

iona

l/con

sist

ent

met

hod

for a

lloca

ting

deve

lopm

ent

Dat

a an

d re

sour

ce-

inte

nsiv

e to

dev

elop

and

ap

ply

Futu

re tr

affic

vol

umes

on

stud

y ar

ea ro

adw

ays

VTra

ns s

tate

wid

e tra

vel

dem

and

mod

el

Base

line

traffi

c gr

owth

pr

ojec

tions

on

maj

or

road

s

(Exi

stin

g da

ta)

Acco

unts

for f

orec

ast

stat

ewid

e de

velo

pmen

t pa

ttern

s an

d tra

nspo

rta-

tion

netw

ork

impr

ovem

ents

Not

ava

ilabl

e fo

r roa

ds

not i

nclu

ded

in s

tate

wid

e m

odel

VT

rans

gro

wth

fact

ors

Base

line

traffi

c gr

owth

pr

ojec

tions

(E

xist

ing

data

) Ba

sed

on h

isto

ric tr

ends

on

road

way

As

sum

es h

isto

ric g

row

th

trend

s w

ill co

ntin

ue in

fu

ture

Tr

affic

impa

ct s

tudy

As

sess

impa

cts

of

grow

th p

olic

ies

rega

rdin

g sp

ecifi

c m

ajor

de

velo

pmen

ts, o

r gen

-er

al lo

catio

n of

dev

el-

opm

ent i

n co

rrido

r

Loca

tions

, typ

e, a

nd s

ize

of n

ew h

igh-

trip

gene

rato

rs

Trip

gen

erat

ion

rate

s (IT

E m

anua

l or o

ther

so

urce

)

Acco

unts

for t

raffi

c im

pact

s sp

ecifi

cally

from

st

udy

area

dev

elop

men

t C

an a

ccou

nt fo

r sea

-so

nal t

rip g

ener

atio

n,

e.g.

, fro

m re

crea

tiona

l so

urce

s

Nee

ds to

be

adde

d to

ba

ckgr

ound

traf

fic le

vels

C

autio

n re

quire

d to

av

oid

doub

le-c

ount

ing

R

ural

Tra

ffic

Shed

Mod

el2

Fore

cast

traf

fic v

olum

es

from

dev

elop

men

t in

a “t

raffi

c sh

ed”

area

ser

ved

by a

sin

gle

maj

or ro

ad

Futu

re la

nd u

se a

nd

deve

lopm

ent b

y “t

raffi

c sh

ed”

Trip

gen

erat

ion

rate

s as

soci

ated

with

var

ious

la

nd u

ses

Sim

ilar t

o an

are

awid

e tri

p ge

nera

tion

stud

y N

ot te

sted

in V

erm

ont

2 See

: Fe

dera

l Hig

hway

Adm

inis

tratio

n. T

ool K

it fo

r Int

egra

ting

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d La

nd U

se D

ecis

ion-

Mak

ing.

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

B-3

App

endi

x B

A

naly

sis

Met

hods

(con

tinue

d)

Type

of F

orec

ast

Ava

ilabl

e M

etho

ds

App

licab

ility

K

ey D

ata

Req

uire

men

tsA

dvan

tage

s D

isad

vant

ages

In

ters

ectio

n pe

rform

ance

(d

elay

, LO

S) g

iven

futu

re

traffi

c vo

lum

es

Hig

hway

Cap

acity

M

anua

l (H

CM

) C

hapt

ers

16 a

nd 1

73

Estim

ate

dela

y, L

OS,

V/

C, q

ueue

leng

ths

at

cont

rolle

d in

ters

ectio

ns

Traf

fic v

olum

es (i

nclu

ding

tu

rnin

g m

ovem

ents

), co

ntro

l typ

e, th

roug

h an

d tu

rn la

nes

Stan

dard

, wid

ely

appl

ied

met

hodo

logy

R

equi

res

deta

iled

traffi

c an

d ge

omet

ric d

ata

for

each

inte

rsec

tion

anal

yzed

R

oad

segm

ent p

erfo

rm-

ance

(spe

ed, L

OS)

giv

en

futu

re tr

affic

vol

umes

HC

M C

hapt

er 2

0 Es

timat

e sp

eeds

, LO

S fo

r ro

adw

ay s

egm

ents

Tr

affic

vol

umes

, lan

e an

d sh

ould

er w

idth

s, tr

ucks

, di

rect

iona

l spl

it, p

assi

ng

zone

s, fr

ee fl

ow s

peed

Stan

dard

, wid

ely

appl

ied

met

hodo

logy

R

equi

res

traffi

c an

d ge

omet

ric d

ata

for e

ach

road

seg

men

t ana

lyze

d LO

S is

sub

ject

ive

depe

ndin

g up

on e

xpec

-ta

tions

for r

oad

Cor

ridor

per

form

ance

an

d de

lay

HC

M C

hapt

er 2

9 C

ombi

nes

inte

rsec

tion

and

segm

ent l

evel

tech

-ni

ques

; mos

t app

licab

le

for u

rban

, mul

timod

al

corri

dors

See

abov

e C

an a

ccou

nt fo

r dem

and-

shift

ing

betw

een

mod

es

(e.g

., hi

ghw

ay a

nd tr

an-

sit)

and

para

llel f

acilit

ies

Anal

ysis

pro

cedu

res

can

be s

omew

hat c

ompl

ex

Ove

rall

corri

dor t

rave

l tim

e gi

ven

futu

re tr

affic

vo

lum

es

Ski C

orrid

or T

rave

l Tim

e M

odel

(com

bine

s in

ter-

sect

ion

and

road

seg

-m

ent m

etho

ds)4

Best

for a

naly

zing

: in

ter-

sect

ion

impr

ovem

ents

, ro

adw

ay s

egm

ent

impr

ovem

ents

, cha

nges

in

stu

dy a

rea

trip

gene

ratio

n

Sam

e da

ta re

quire

men

ts

as fo

r HC

M a

naly

sis

Req

uire

s co

rrido

r tra

vel

time

data

for v

alid

atio

n

Prov

en o

vera

ll co

rrido

r-le

vel m

easu

re o

f tra

vel

time

perfo

rman

ce

Sens

itive

to d

evel

opm

ent

traffi

c an

d m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s

Doe

s no

t pro

vide

relia

ble

estim

ate

unde

r sev

erel

y co

nges

ted

cond

ition

s

St

atew

ide

trave

l dem

and

mod

el

Prim

ary

use

is

fore

cast

ing

traffi

c vo

l-um

es s

tate

wid

e –

Not

ro

adw

ay-s

peci

fic tr

avel

tim

es

Cha

nge

in c

apac

ity fo

r ro

adw

ay c

orrid

or

Ref

lect

s st

atew

ide

trave

l pa

ttern

s N

ot s

ensi

tive

to

inte

rsec

tion

or s

mal

l-sc

ale

impr

ovem

ents

Li

mite

d ac

cura

cy o

f sp

eed

estim

atio

n M

ay re

quire

cal

ibra

tion

for c

orrid

or-s

peci

fic

appl

icat

ion

St

atew

ide

trave

l dem

and

mod

el –

Enh

ance

d fo

r co

rrido

r stu

dy a

rea

Best

for a

naly

zing

: sh

iftin

g gr

owth

with

in

stud

y ar

ea lo

catio

ns,

addi

ng li

nks

to ro

adw

ay

netw

ork,

maj

or c

apac

ity

upgr

ades

Ref

ined

leve

l of d

etai

l on

road

net

wor

k, s

tudy

are

a po

pula

tion

and

empl

oym

ent

Can

acc

ount

for s

hifti

ng

of g

row

th o

r trip

gen

era-

tion

with

in s

tudy

are

a,

traffi

c di

vers

ion

to

alte

rnat

e fa

cilit

ies

May

invo

lve

cons

ider

able

ef

fort

N

ot s

ensi

tive

to

inte

rsec

tion

or s

mal

l-sc

ale

impr

ovem

ents

3 Tra

nspo

rtatio

n R

esea

rch

Boar

d. H

ighw

ay C

apac

ity M

anua

l 200

0. N

atio

nal R

esea

rch

Cou

ncil,

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

., 20

00.

4 Dev

elop

ed fo

r the

Sou

ther

n W

inds

or C

ount

y R

egio

nal P

lann

ing

Com

mis

sion

by

Res

ourc

e Sy

stem

s G

roup

, Inc

.

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

B-4

App

endi

x B

A

naly

sis

Met

hods

(con

tinue

d)

Type

of F

orec

ast

Ava

ilabl

e M

etho

ds

App

licab

ility

K

ey D

ata

Req

uire

men

tsA

dvan

tage

s D

isad

vant

ages

Cra

sh re

duct

ions

from

sa

fety

and

ope

ratio

nal

impr

ovem

ents

NC

HR

P R

epor

t 500

5 –

Info

rmat

ion

on e

ffect

ive-

ness

of s

trate

gies

Anal

yze

pote

ntia

l saf

ety

bene

fits

of v

ario

us ro

ad-

way

and

ope

ratio

nal

impr

ovem

ents

Exis

ting

cond

ition

s

Impr

ovem

ent b

eing

pr

opos

ed

Traf

fic v

olum

es

Low

cos

t/eas

y to

app

ly

Res

ults

repo

rted

from

ot

her s

tudi

es –

Act

ual

bene

fits

may

var

y w

idel

y de

pend

ing

upon

con

text

Traf

fic re

duct

ions

from

al

tern

ativ

e m

ode

stra

tegi

es

Sket

ch-p

lan

asse

ssm

ent

of m

ode

shift

s An

alyz

e ve

hicl

e tra

ffic

redu

ctio

n or

non

mot

or-

ized

traf

fic in

crea

se fr

om

trans

it se

rvic

e, b

icyc

le/

pede

stria

n fa

cilit

ies,

TD

M

stra

tegi

es, p

edes

trian

-fri

endl

y de

velo

pmen

t

Obs

erve

d or

mod

eled

tra

vel b

ehav

ior c

hang

es

from

sim

ilar s

trate

gies

in

othe

r are

as

Can

pro

vide

qua

ntita

tive

estim

ate

for t

his

fact

or

May

be

diffi

cult

to fi

nd

rese

arch

from

com

para

-bl

e si

tuat

ions

St

ated

-pre

fere

nce

surv

eys

Ask

peop

le to

sta

te

choi

ces

for a

ltern

ativ

e m

odes

und

er d

iffer

ent

scen

ario

s

Surv

ey –

Orig

inal

dat

a co

llect

ion

Can

refle

ct s

peci

fic

faci

lity/

serv

ice

impr

ove-

men

t bei

ng p

ropo

sed

Can

be

expe

nsiv

e to

ad

min

iste

r

Surv

ey m

ust b

e ca

refu

lly

desi

gned

, oth

erw

ise

peop

le m

ay o

vers

tate

ch

oice

s

Con

gest

ion

and

safe

ty

bene

fits

of a

cces

s m

an-

agem

ent s

trate

gies

NC

HR

P R

epor

t 420

6 Pr

edic

t cha

nges

in c

rash

ra

tes

base

d on

add

ition

of

driv

eway

s, in

ters

ectio

n sp

acin

g, m

edia

n tre

atm

ents

Num

ber o

f uns

igna

lized

an

d si

gnal

ized

inte

rsec

-tio

ns p

er m

ile

Type

of m

edia

n

Estim

ates

bas

ed o

n em

piric

al d

ata

Cra

sh ra

tes

and

stra

tegy

im

pact

s lik

ely

to v

ary

depe

ndin

g up

on c

onte

xt

H

CM

Cha

pter

s 16

, 17

Anal

yze

dela

y at

ne

w/im

prov

ed c

ontro

lled

inte

rsec

tions

(See

abo

ve)

5 Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Res

earc

h Bo

ard.

Gui

danc

e fo

r Im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e AA

SHTO

Stra

tegi

c H

ighw

ay S

afet

y Pl

an T

rans

porta

tion

Res

earc

h. N

atio

nal C

oope

rativ

e H

ighw

ay R

esea

rch

Prog

ram

(NC

HR

P) R

epor

t 500

, Vol

umes

1–1

3. N

atio

nal A

cade

my

Pres

s,

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

., 20

03-2

004.

6 G

luck

, Jer

ome

S., H

erbe

rt S.

Lev

inso

n, a

nd V

ergi

l G. S

tove

r. Im

pact

s of

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent T

echn

ique

s. N

atio

nal

Coo

pera

tive

Hig

hway

Res

earc

h Pr

ogra

m (N

CH

RP)

Rep

ort 4

20, N

atio

nal A

cade

my

Pres

s, W

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.,

1999

.

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

B-5

App

endi

x B

A

naly

sis

Met

hods

(con

tinue

d)

Type

of F

orec

ast

Ava

ilabl

e M

etho

ds

App

licab

ility

K

ey D

ata

Req

uire

men

tsA

dvan

tage

s D

isad

vant

ages

Envi

ronm

enta

l and

co

mm

unity

impa

cts

of

trans

porta

tion

and

deve

l-op

men

t pat

tern

s

Qua

litat

ive

asse

ssm

ent

Con

duct

ske

tch-

leve

l as

sess

men

t of i

mpa

cts

of

corri

dor s

trate

gies

, bas

ed

on p

rofe

ssio

nal a

nd

stak

ehol

der k

now

ledg

e

Vario

us b

ackg

roun

d da

ta

on e

xist

ing

cond

ition

s

Prop

osed

tran

spor

tatio

n an

d la

nd u

se s

trate

gies

Low

cos

t/eas

y to

app

ly

Subj

ectiv

e –

Will

vary

by

pers

on; n

on-q

uant

ifiab

le

G

IS-b

ased

com

mun

ity

impa

ct a

sses

smen

t too

ls

Scen

ario

ana

lysi

s of

al

tern

ativ

e tra

nspo

rtatio

n an

d de

velo

pmen

t pat

-te

rns

prod

ucin

g in

dica

-to

rs s

uch

as la

nd

deve

lope

d, im

perm

eabl

e su

rface

are

a, tr

ansi

t ac

cess

, wal

kabi

lity,

en

ergy

con

sum

ptio

n

Exis

ting

and

futu

re la

nd

use/

deve

lopm

ent p

at-

tern

s (G

IS-b

ased

)

Tran

spor

tatio

n ne

twor

k da

ta

Oth

er la

nd u

se, e

nviro

n-m

enta

l dat

a

Can

ass

ess

a w

ide

rang

e of

com

mun

ity im

pact

s re

late

d to

futu

re d

evel

-op

men

t pat

tern

s

Dat

a an

d re

sour

ce-

inte

nsiv

e

Hav

e pr

imar

ily b

een

appl

ied

in m

etro

polit

an

area

app

licat

ions

, not

for

rura

l are

as

D

etai

led

anal

ysis

m

etho

ds

Mos

t app

ropr

iate

for

spec

ific

proj

ects

, typ

ical

ly

cond

ucte

d as

par

t of t

he

NEP

A pr

oces

s

Varie

s de

pend

ing

upon

im

pact

and

met

hod

Prov

ides

in-d

epth

in

form

atio

n on

impa

cts

Ofte

n da

ta/re

sour

ce

inte

nsiv

e

Visu

al/a

esth

etic

impa

cts

Visu

al p

refe

renc

e su

rvey

s As

sess

vis

ual/a

esth

etic

pr

efer

ence

s Im

ages

of d

iffer

ent t

ypes

of

dev

elop

men

t or r

oad-

way

des

ign

alte

rnat

ives

Low

cos

t – C

an u

se

exis

ting

imag

es/

exam

ples

from

oth

er

area

s

Doe

s no

t sho

w w

hat

actu

al p

roje

ct o

r dev

el-

opm

ent w

ould

look

like

C

ompu

ter v

isua

lizat

ion

tech

niqu

es –

Lan

d us

e D

evel

op c

ompu

teriz

ed

repr

esen

tatio

ns o

f alte

r-na

tive

deve

lopm

ent

scen

ario

s

Plan

ned

land

use

, in

clud

ing

loca

tion

of

deve

lopm

ent,

dens

ity,

othe

r phy

sica

l des

ign

para

met

ers

Pow

erfu

l too

l to

com

mu-

nica

te v

isua

l/aes

thet

ic

impa

cts

rela

ted

to

deve

lopm

ent s

cena

rios/

alte

rnat

ives

Req

uire

s de

taile

d da

ta

Build

ing

desi

gn/

arch

itect

ure

may

not

re

sem

ble

actu

al

deve

lopm

ent

C

ompu

ter v

isua

lizat

ion

tech

niqu

es –

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s

Dev

elop

com

pute

rized

re

pres

enta

tions

of a

lter-

nativ

e tra

nspo

rtatio

n fa

cilit

y de

sign

s

Land

scap

e/ba

ckgr

ound

Tran

spor

tatio

n fa

cilit

y de

sign

Pow

erfu

l too

l to

com

mu-

nica

te v

isua

l/aes

thet

ic

impa

cts

rela

ted

to d

evel

-op

men

t sce

nario

s/al

tern

ativ

es

Req

uire

s de

taile

d da

ta

Mos

t app

ropr

iate

for

deta

iled

proj

ect a

naly

sis,

no

t cor

ridor

pla

nnin

g

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

C-1

App

endi

x C

Fu

ndin

g So

urce

s

Sour

ce1

Des

crip

tion

How

to A

pply

/Obt

ain

Furt

her I

nfor

mat

ion

Surfa

ce T

rans

porta

tion

Prog

ram

Fede

ral t

rans

porta

tion

fund

ing

sour

ce

that

can

be

used

for a

var

iety

of t

rans

-po

rtatio

n pr

ojec

ts, i

nclu

ding

hig

hway

pr

eser

vatio

n an

d ca

paci

ty im

prov

e-m

ents

, tra

nsit

capi

tal i

mpr

ovem

ents

, an

d pe

dest

rian/

bicy

cle

impr

ovem

ents

.

Reg

iona

l and

sta

tew

ide

prog

ram

de

velo

pmen

t is

done

by

VTra

ns, t

he

Reg

iona

l Pla

nnin

g C

omm

issi

ons,

and

th

e C

hitte

nden

Cou

nty

MPO

und

er th

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Plan

ning

Initi

ativ

e.

VTra

ns P

olic

y an

d Pl

anni

ng D

ivis

ion

Tran

spor

tatio

n En

hanc

emen

ts (T

E)

Fede

ral t

rans

porta

tion

fund

ing

sour

ce

for t

rans

porta

tion-

rela

ted

impr

ove-

men

ts, i

nclu

ding

sid

ewal

ks, c

urbs

, tra

ils, a

nd re

stor

atio

n of

his

toric

stru

c-tu

res.

Est

imat

ed $

4 m

illion

to b

e av

aila

ble

in 2

005

for V

erm

ont.

TE g

rant

s ar

e aw

arde

d th

roug

h a

com

-pe

titiv

e pr

oces

s by

VTr

ans.

ht

tp://

ww

w.a

ot.s

tate

.vt.u

s/pr

ogde

v/

Sect

ions

/LTF

/Enh

ance

men

ts%

20

Prog

ram

/Enh

ance

men

tsH

omeP

age.

htm

Rec

reat

iona

l Tra

ils

FHW

A fu

ndin

g so

urce

for d

evel

opm

ent

and

mai

nten

ance

of r

ecre

atio

nal t

rails

an

d tra

il-re

late

d fa

cilit

ies

for b

oth

non-

mot

oriz

ed a

nd m

otor

ized

recr

eatio

nal

trail

uses

. Es

timat

ed $

300,

000

to b

e av

aila

ble

in 2

005

for V

erm

ont.

Fund

s ar

e av

aila

ble

to m

unic

ipal

ities

, sc

hool

s, n

onpr

ofit

orga

niza

tions

, and

in

term

unic

ipal

dis

trict

s th

roug

h a

com

-pe

titiv

e pr

oces

s ad

min

iste

red

by th

e Ve

rmon

t Dep

artm

ent o

f For

ests

, Par

ks,

and

Rec

reat

ion.

http

://w

ww

.vtfp

r.org

/recg

rant

/inde

x.cf

m

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d C

omm

unity

and

Sy

stem

Pre

serv

atio

n Pr

ogra

m (T

CSP

) FH

WA

fund

ing

sour

ce fo

r inn

ovat

ive

prog

ram

s to

link

tran

spor

tatio

n an

d la

nd u

se.

Fund

ing

leve

ls in

200

6 an

d su

bseq

uent

yea

rs h

ave

not b

een

dete

rmin

ed.

Det

ails

of t

he fu

ndin

g al

loca

tion

proc

e-du

re in

200

6 an

d su

bseq

uent

yea

rs

rem

ain

to b

e de

term

ined

.

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/tcsp

/

Verm

ont D

ownt

own

Prog

ram

D

ownt

own

Tran

spor

tatio

n Fu

nd p

ro-

vide

s fu

ndin

g fo

r cer

tain

tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d pr

ojec

ts, i

nclu

ding

stre

etsc

ape

and

pede

stria

n im

prov

emen

ts, i

n de

sign

ated

dow

ntow

n ar

eas.

$80

0,00

0 an

nual

ly d

esig

nate

d fo

r tra

nspo

rtatio

n im

prov

emen

ts.

Gra

nts

awar

ded

annu

ally

by

stat

e co

mm

ittee

coo

rdin

ated

by

DH

CA.

R

equi

res

50%

loca

l mat

ch.

http

://w

ww

.dhc

a.st

ate.

vt.u

s/D

HP/

pr

ogra

ms/

dow

ntow

n.ht

ml

Urb

an F

ores

try G

rant

s Pa

y fo

r pla

ntin

g of

tree

s in

tow

ns a

nd

villa

ges.

Up

to $

65,0

00 to

be

prov

ided

in

200

5.

Div

isio

n of

For

ests

, Par

ks, a

nd

Rec

reat

ion

http

://w

ww

.vtc

omm

unity

fore

stry

.org

/ an

nbro

chur

e.pd

f

Mun

icip

al C

apita

l Bud

get

Com

mon

sou

rce

of fu

ndin

g fo

r min

or

capi

tal i

mpr

ovem

ent p

roje

cts.

To

wn

mus

t ado

pt in

ann

ual b

udge

t.

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k C

-2

App

endi

x C

Fu

ndin

g So

urce

s (c

ontin

ued)

Sour

ce1

Des

crip

tion

How

to A

pply

/Obt

ain

Furt

her I

nfor

mat

ion

Tran

spor

tatio

n Im

prov

emen

t Dis

trict

Sp

ecia

l ass

essm

ent d

istri

ct w

here

a

spec

ial t

ax is

levi

ed o

n pr

oper

ty o

wne

rs

who

will

bene

fit fr

om s

peci

fic tr

ansp

or-

tatio

n im

prov

emen

ts.

Req

uire

s pe

titio

n si

gned

by

certa

in

perc

enta

ge o

f pro

perty

ow

ners

in

dist

rict.

Title

24

VSA

Cha

pter

26A

§ 2

793

Impa

ct F

ees

Rai

se m

oney

to fu

nd d

efic

its c

ause

d by

de

terio

ratio

n of

sys

tem

resu

lting

from

in

crea

sed

grow

th.

Req

uire

s ad

optio

n of

cap

ital b

udge

t an

d lo

cal i

mpa

ct fe

e or

dina

nce.

Pe

rmitt

ed b

y Ti

tle 2

4 VS

A C

hapt

er 1

31

Dev

elop

er A

gree

men

ts

Priv

ate

fund

s to

miti

gate

dev

elop

men

t im

pact

s as

det

erm

ined

thro

ugh

Act 2

50

revi

ew p

roce

dure

s or

oth

er

nego

tiatio

ns.

Req

uire

s Ac

t 250

hea

ring

or n

egot

ia-

tions

with

dev

elop

er

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent B

lock

Gra

nts

Fede

ral (

HU

D) f

unds

to s

uppo

rt co

m-

mun

ity re

deve

lopm

ent a

ctiv

ities

. M

ay

incl

ude

trans

porta

tion-

rela

ted

proj

ects

su

ch a

s st

reet

scap

ing,

ligh

ting,

si

dew

alk/

pede

stria

n am

eniti

es.

Mus

t be

appl

ied

in n

eigh

borh

oods

m

eetin

g ce

rtain

eco

nom

ic c

riter

ia.

Verm

ont C

omm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Pr

ogra

m in

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

an

d C

omm

unity

Affa

irs

http

://w

ww

.dhc

a.st

ate.

vt.u

s/VC

DP/

in

dex.

htm

Mun

icip

al P

lann

ing

Gra

nt P

rogr

am

Stat

e pr

ogra

m th

at fu

nds

tech

nica

l as

sist

ance

for t

own

plan

ning

, im

ple-

men

tatio

n of

pla

ns a

nd o

rdin

ance

s,

enco

urag

emen

t of c

itize

n pa

rtici

patio

n an

d ed

ucat

ion,

and

inno

vativ

e de

mon

-st

ratio

n pl

anni

ng p

roje

cts.

Elig

ible

app

lican

ts a

re m

unic

ipal

ities

th

at h

ave

been

con

firm

ed b

y th

eir

regi

onal

pla

nnin

g co

mm

issi

on

(incl

udin

g R

PC a

ppro

val o

f the

tow

n’s

adop

ted

plan

).

Verm

ont C

omm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Pr

ogra

m in

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

an

d C

omm

unity

Affa

irs

http

://w

ww

.dhc

a.st

ate.

vt.u

s/Pl

anni

ng/

MPG

.htm

1 The

se a

re e

xam

ples

of c

urre

nt p

rogr

ams;

oth

er s

ourc

es m

ay b

e av

aila

ble,

and

pro

gram

s m

ay c

hang

e.

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

D-1

App

endi

x D

M

unic

ipal

Pla

nnin

g To

ols

Mun

icip

al D

evel

opm

ent T

ools

(Reg

ulat

ory)

Zoni

ng B

ylaw

s

Reg

ulat

e th

e ty

pe a

nd d

ensi

ty o

f dev

elop

men

t. A

dmin

iste

red

by th

e ZA

, PC

, and

ZBA

, or D

RB.

Zoni

ng D

istri

cts

St

anda

rds

defin

ing

allo

wed

use

s an

d de

nsiti

es o

f dev

elop

men

t (lo

t, se

tbac

k, fr

onta

ge, c

over

age

requ

irem

ents

). E

xam

ples

: M

ixed

Use

, In

dust

rial/O

ffice

, Tra

vele

r Ser

vice

, Con

serv

atio

n di

stric

ts.

Ove

rlay

Dis

trict

s

Des

igna

ted

area

s in

whi

ch a

dditi

onal

sta

ndar

ds (e

.g.,

desi

gn s

tand

ards

) will

be a

pplie

d to

sup

plem

ent o

r sub

stitu

te fo

r the

sta

ndar

ds o

f th

e un

derly

ing

zoni

ng d

istri

ct.

May

ove

rlay

one

or m

ore

unde

rlyin

g zo

ning

dis

trict

s. E

xam

ples

: D

esig

n R

evie

w, S

ceni

c, G

atew

ay,

Cor

ridor

dis

trict

s.

Site

Pla

n R

evie

w

Stan

dard

s th

at m

ay a

pply

to a

ll al

low

ed u

ses

exce

pt fo

r sin

gle-

and

two-

fam

ily d

wel

lings

, inc

ludi

ng s

ite la

yout

and

des

ign,

acc

ess,

traf

fic

and

pede

stria

n ci

rcul

atio

n, la

ndsc

apin

g an

d sc

reen

ing,

and

oth

er s

tand

ards

as

spec

ified

in th

e by

law

s (e

.g.,

build

ing

orie

ntat

ion,

par

king

ar

eas,

and

ligh

ting)

. Ad

min

iste

red

by th

e PC

or D

RB;

no

war

ned

publ

ic h

earin

g is

requ

ired.

Con

ditio

nal U

se

Rev

iew

St

anda

rds

appl

ying

to li

sted

“co

nditi

onal

use

s,”

to e

valu

ate

and

avoi

d or

miti

gate

pro

ject

impa

cts

on th

e ca

paci

ty o

f exi

stin

g or

pla

nned

co

mm

unity

faci

litie

s, th

e ch

arac

ter o

f the

are

a, tr

affic

on

road

s an

d hi

ghw

ays

in th

e vi

cini

ty, o

ther

mun

icip

al re

gula

tions

, the

use

of r

enew

-ab

le e

nerg

y re

sour

ces,

and

oth

er re

sour

ces

or fa

cilit

ies

as s

peci

fied

in th

e by

law

s (e

.g.,

the

desi

gn a

nd lo

catio

n of

stru

ctur

es a

nd s

ervi

ce

area

s, s

igns

, lan

dsca

ping

). A

dmin

iste

red

by th

e ZB

A or

DR

B; a

war

ned

publ

ic h

earin

g is

requ

ired.

Des

ign

Rev

iew

St

anda

rds

appl

ying

to s

ite la

yout

and

bui

ldin

g de

sign

(typ

ical

ly w

ithin

a d

esig

n re

view

dis

trict

); pl

anni

ng s

tudy

requ

ired

to id

entif

y de

sign

is

sues

and

crit

eria

. Ad

min

iste

red

by th

e PC

or D

RB;

a d

esig

n re

view

boa

rd m

ay s

erve

in a

n ad

viso

ry c

apac

ity to

the

PC, D

RB.

and

ap

plic

ants

.

Park

ing

Stan

dard

s

Stan

dard

s fo

r the

num

ber o

f req

uire

d pa

rkin

g sp

aces

by

dist

rict a

nd/o

r use

type

; als

o m

ay in

clud

e st

anda

rds

for p

arki

ng a

rea

desi

gn,

layo

ut a

nd s

cree

ning

, loa

ding

and

ser

vice

are

as.

May

be

adm

inis

tere

d by

the

ZA, a

nd/o

r in

asso

ciat

ion

with

site

pla

n or

con

ditio

nal u

se

revi

ew.

Acce

ss

Man

agem

ent

Stan

dard

s

Stan

dard

s fo

r lim

iting

the

num

ber o

f acc

ess

poin

ts p

er lo

t, fro

ntag

e di

stan

ce o

r use

by

dist

rict o

r roa

d ty

pe; a

lso

may

incl

ude

acce

ss lo

ca-

tion

and

desi

gn s

tand

ards

, and

refe

renc

e ot

her s

tate

and

tow

n ac

cess

per

mits

.

Sign

Sta

ndar

ds

Stan

dard

s fo

r the

loca

tion,

hei

ght,

sign

are

a, d

esig

n, a

nd il

lum

inat

ion

of o

n-pr

emis

e si

gns.

Als

o m

ay b

e ad

opte

d as

a s

epar

ate

ordi

nanc

e.

Use

Sta

ndar

ds

Stan

dard

s th

at a

pply

to s

peci

fic ty

pes

of u

se, t

o m

ore

spec

ifica

lly re

gula

te th

eir s

ittin

g, la

yout

, and

des

ign

(e.g

., ga

s st

atio

ns,

indu

stria

l/offi

ce p

arks

).

Subd

ivis

ion

Byla

ws

R

egul

ate

the

patte

rn o

f dev

elop

men

t and

sup

porti

ng in

frast

ruct

ure.

Adm

inis

tere

d by

the

PC o

r DR

B; h

earin

g re

quire

d fo

r fin

al p

lat

appr

oval

.

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

D-2

App

endi

x D

M

unic

ipal

Pla

nnin

g To

ols

(con

tinue

d)

Mun

icip

al D

evel

opm

ent T

ools

(Reg

ulat

ory)

(con

tinue

d)

Res

ourc

e Pr

otec

tion

Stan

dard

s

Stan

dard

s th

at li

mit

the

subd

ivis

ion

of, o

r oth

erw

ise

prot

ect,

sign

ifica

nt n

atur

al, c

ultu

ral a

nd/o

r sce

nic

feat

ures

(e.g

., th

roug

h th

e de

sign

a-tio

n an

d si

tting

of b

uild

ing

enve

lope

s on

lots

).

Settl

emen

t Pat

tern

St

anda

rds

St

anda

rds

that

enc

oura

ge o

r req

uire

com

patib

le lo

t and

road

layo

uts.

Exa

mpl

es:

tradi

tiona

l nei

ghbo

rhoo

d, tr

ansi

t-orie

nted

, or

cons

erva

tion/

open

spa

ce s

ubdi

visi

on d

esig

ns.

Infra

stru

ctur

e St

anda

rds

St

anda

rds

for t

he p

rovi

sion

and

des

ign

of s

uppo

rting

infra

stru

ctur

e an

d ut

ilitie

s (e

.g.,

cont

ext s

ensi

tive

road

and

ped

estri

an d

esig

n,

wat

er/s

ewer

line

ext

ensi

ons)

. Sh

ould

be

cons

iste

nt w

ith o

ther

mun

icip

al in

frast

ruct

ure

stan

dard

s, o

ffici

al m

ap.

Mas

ter P

lann

ing

M

ay in

clud

e m

aste

r pla

n, p

hasi

ng re

quire

men

ts fo

r lar

ger p

roje

cts,

esp

ecia

lly in

rela

tion

to a

n ad

opte

d m

unic

ipal

cap

ital b

udge

t and

im

prov

emen

t pro

gram

.

Plan

ned

Dev

elop

men

t [PU

D,

PRD

]

Stan

dard

s fo

r pla

nned

uni

t dev

elop

men

t (PU

D) o

r pla

nned

resi

dent

ial d

evel

opm

ent (

PRD

), ad

opte

d un

der z

onin

g an

d ad

min

iste

red

in

asso

ciat

ion

with

sub

divi

sion

revi

ew, w

hich

allo

w d

ensi

ty m

odifi

catio

ns to

pro

mot

e cl

uste

red

deve

lopm

ent a

nd p

rote

ct o

pen

spac

e.

Adm

inis

tere

d by

the

PC o

r DR

B.

Key:

ZA

– Z

onin

g Ad

min

istra

tor

PC –

Pla

nnin

g C

omm

issi

on

ZB

A –

Zoni

ng B

oard

of A

djus

tmen

t D

RB

– D

evel

opm

ent R

evie

w B

oard

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

D-3

App

endi

x D

M

unic

ipal

Pla

nnin

g To

ols

(con

tinue

d)

Mun

icip

al D

evel

opm

ent T

ools

(Non

-Reg

ulat

ory)

A

mun

icip

ality

may

use

the

follo

win

g no

n-re

gula

tory

tool

s, a

lone

or i

n co

njun

ctio

n w

ith lo

cal b

ylaw

s,

with

the

purp

ose

of im

plem

entin

g a

mun

icip

al p

lan

and

the

stat

e la

nd u

se g

oals

.

Cap

ital B

udge

t and

Pr

ogra

m

A m

unic

ipal

ity m

ay a

dopt

a fi

ve-y

ear c

apita

l pro

gram

, upd

ated

ann

ually

and

div

ided

into

ann

ual c

apita

l bud

gets

, to

prov

ide

for

mai

ntai

ning

cur

rent

and

acq

uirin

g fu

ture

cap

ital i

mpr

ovem

ents

.

Tax

Incr

emen

t Fi

nanc

ing

Pu

rsua

nt to

24

VSA

53, s

ubch

apte

r 5 (§

1891

-190

0), a

mun

icip

ality

may

issu

e bo

nds

to p

ay fo

r new

infra

stru

ctur

e, s

uch

as ro

ads,

wat

er

and

sew

er li

nes,

in a

def

ined

gro

wth

cen

ter,

and

appl

y th

e in

crem

enta

l tax

reve

nues

to p

ay o

ff th

ose

bond

s fo

r up

to 1

0 ye

ars.

Dev

elop

men

t Ag

reem

ents

W

hen

it fu

rther

s th

e ob

ject

ives

of t

he m

unic

ipal

pla

n an

d is

not

pos

sibl

e un

der c

urre

nt re

gula

tions

, a m

unic

ipal

ity m

ay a

dopt

a p

roce

ss,

with

sta

ndar

ds a

nd c

riter

ia fo

r its

app

licat

ion,

to n

egot

iate

an

agre

emen

t for

revi

ew o

f a p

artic

ular

par

cel t

hat e

stab

lishe

s th

e rig

hts

and

oblig

atio

ns o

f all

parti

es.

Tran

sfer

, Pur

chas

e or

Acc

epta

nce

of

Dev

elop

men

t R

ight

s

A m

unic

ipal

ity m

ay s

peci

fy s

endi

ng a

nd re

ceiv

ing

area

s in

ord

er to

tran

sfer

, pur

chas

e, o

r acc

ept t

he d

onat

ion

of d

evel

opm

ent r

ight

s, to

fu

rther

the

cons

erva

tion

or d

evel

opm

ent o

bjec

tives

of a

pla

n.

Supp

lem

enta

l Pl

ans

to th

e to

wn

plan

, whi

ch m

ay

ultim

atel

y be

com

e in

corp

orat

ed in

to

the

tow

n pl

an m

ay

incl

ude:

Offi

cial

Map

– A

mun

icip

ality

may

ado

pt a

n of

ficia

l map

whi

ch id

entif

ies

futu

re m

unic

ipal

util

ity a

nd fa

cilit

y im

prov

emen

ts, s

uch

as ro

ad

or p

ath

right

s-of

-way

s, p

arkl

and,

util

ity ri

ghts

-of-w

ay a

nd o

ther

pub

lic im

prov

emen

ts to

pro

vide

the

oppo

rtuni

ty fo

r the

com

mun

ity to

pur

-ch

ase

land

iden

tifie

d fo

r pub

lic im

prov

emen

ts p

rior t

o de

velo

pmen

t for

oth

er u

se.

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent P

lan

– A

mun

icip

ality

may

ado

pt a

n ac

cess

man

agem

ent p

lan

to m

anag

e tra

ffic

and

acce

ss o

nto

publ

ic ro

ads

from

adj

acen

t pro

perty

.

Dow

ntow

n, V

illag

e C

ente

r, or

New

Tow

n C

ente

r Pla

n –

A m

unic

ipal

ity m

ay a

dopt

a p

lan

for t

he d

evel

opm

ent a

nd re

vita

lizat

ion

of

dow

ntow

n an

d vi

llage

cen

ters

, or t

o pl

an fo

r a n

ew to

wn

cent

er.

Ope

n Sp

ace

Plan

– A

mun

icip

ality

may

ado

pt a

pla

n to

ass

ess

criti

cal n

atur

al re

sour

ces

and

to g

uide

pub

lic a

nd p

rivat

e co

nser

vatio

n st

rate

gies

.

Con

serv

atio

n C

omm

issi

on

A m

unic

ipal

ity m

ay fo

rm a

con

serv

atio

n co

mm

issi

on to

wor

k on

con

serv

atio

n an

d na

tura

l res

ourc

e pl

anni

ng is

sues

.

Sour

ce:

Verm

ont D

epar

tmen

t of H

ousi

ng a

nd C

omm

unity

Affa

irs.

Verm

ont I

nter

stat

e In

terc

hang

e Pl

anni

ng a

nd D

evel

opm

ent

Des

ign

Gui

delin

es.

2004

.

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

E-1

App

endi

x E

Land

Use

Str

ateg

ies

for T

rans

port

atio

n C

orrid

ors:

Exa

mpl

es fr

om O

ther

Sta

tes

Col

orad

o –

Inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l Agr

eem

ents

Add

ress

Hig

hway

C

orrid

or D

evel

opm

ent

Loca

l and

sta

te g

over

nmen

t age

ncie

s in

Col

orad

o m

ake

wid

espr

ead

use

of in

terg

over

nmen

tal a

gree

men

ts (I

GA

) to

coor

dina

te la

nd u

se p

lann

ing

and

trans

porta

tion

issu

es.

For e

xam

ple,

the

Tow

ns o

f Win

dsor

and

Sev

eran

ce

ente

red

into

an

IGA

to h

arm

oniz

e pl

anni

ng a

nd g

over

n de

velo

pmen

t alo

ng H

ighw

ay 3

92 b

etw

een

the

two

tow

ns.

Thei

r goa

l was

to a

void

rapi

d an

d po

orly

pla

nned

dev

elop

men

t alo

ng th

is h

ighw

ay c

orrid

or th

at m

ight

be

exac

erba

ted

by m

unic

ipal

com

petit

ion

for t

ax re

venu

e. T

he a

gree

men

t, ad

opte

d in

200

0, d

oes

the

follo

win

g:

• S

olid

ifies

the

grow

th b

ound

arie

s fo

r bo

th W

inds

or a

nd S

ever

ance

, agr

eein

g up

on a

reas

whe

re th

e bo

unda

-rie

s of

the

two

tow

ns m

eet a

nd d

irect

ing

deve

lopm

ent t

o ar

eas

with

in th

e to

wns

’ bou

ndar

ies;

• C

reat

es a

Coo

pera

tive

Pla

nnin

g A

rea

(CP

A)

for

join

t pl

anni

ng,

in w

hich

the

tow

ns s

hare

bot

h th

e re

spon

sibi

lity

for

and

the

bene

fits

of d

evel

opm

ent

in t

his

area

with

hig

h in

dust

rial a

nd c

omm

erci

al g

row

th

pote

ntia

l alo

ng H

ighw

ay 3

92;

• R

equi

res

both

tow

ns to

dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t a C

orrid

or D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

for t

he C

PA

– c

onta

inin

g sp

e-ci

fic e

lem

ents

– w

ithin

12

mon

ths

of s

igni

ng th

e in

terg

over

nmen

tal a

gree

men

t;

• A

s de

velo

pmen

t occ

urs

in th

e C

PA

, the

inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l agr

eem

ent i

mpl

emen

ts re

venu

e sh

arin

g in

whi

ch

the

tow

ns d

ivid

e th

e ta

x re

venu

e fro

m d

evel

opm

ent i

n th

e C

PA

;

• C

oord

inat

es th

e de

velo

pmen

t of a

n ef

ficie

nt a

nd w

ell-p

lann

ed w

ater

and

sew

er s

ervi

ce fo

r the

CP

A; a

nd

• A

dopt

s a

cons

iste

nt a

nd m

anda

tory

des

ign

stan

dard

for t

he C

PA.

For m

ore

info

rmat

ion,

see

: ht

tp://

ww

w.s

praw

lact

ion.

org/

hallo

ffam

e/H

Win

dson

.htm

l.

Flor

ida

– C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Ord

inan

ce a

nd U

.S. 9

8 S

ectio

n 33

7.27

3, F

lorid

a S

tatu

tes,

pro

vide

s th

at lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts m

ay d

esig

nate

a tr

ansp

orta

tion

corri

dor f

or m

an-

agem

ent b

y in

clud

ing

the

corri

dor i

n th

e tra

nspo

rtatio

n el

emen

t of t

he lo

cal c

ompr

ehen

sive

pla

n, a

nd m

ay th

erea

fter

adop

t a c

orrid

or m

anag

emen

t ord

inan

ce to

incl

ude

crite

ria to

man

age

the

land

use

s w

ithin

and

adj

acen

t to

the

trans

porta

tion

corri

dor.

The

sta

tute

s ac

know

ledg

e th

at c

oord

inat

ing

land

use

and

tran

spor

tatio

n is

impo

rtant

to

alle

viat

ing

traffi

c co

nges

tion

and

mai

ntai

ning

an

effe

ctiv

e tra

nspo

rtatio

n sy

stem

, and

that

tran

spor

tatio

n co

rrid

or

man

agem

ent c

an b

est b

e ac

hiev

ed th

roug

h th

e in

clus

ion

of c

orrid

ors

in lo

cal g

over

nmen

t com

preh

ensi

ve p

lans

.

The

U.S

. 98

corri

dor i

n P

olk

Cou

nty

repr

esen

ts a

suc

cess

ful e

xam

ple

of c

orrid

or m

anag

emen

t. In

200

1, a

s de

vel-

opm

ent p

ress

ures

beg

an n

orth

of t

he c

ity li

mits

of B

arto

w, l

ocal

offi

cial

s sa

w th

e ne

ed to

take

act

ion

to p

reve

nt

acce

ss a

nd c

onge

stio

n pr

oble

ms

alon

g th

e pr

evio

usly

und

evel

oped

cor

ridor

. Th

e P

olk

Cou

nty

Tran

spor

tatio

n Fl

orid

a Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k E-

2

App

endi

x E

Land

Use

Stra

tegi

es fo

r Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Co

rrid

ors:

Exa

mpl

es fr

om O

ther

Sta

tes

(con

tinue

d)

Pla

nnin

g O

rgan

izat

ion,

the

MPO

for t

he re

gion

, dra

fted

an M

OU

in c

oope

ratio

n w

ith th

e Fl

orid

a D

OT,

the

Citi

es o

f B

arto

w a

nd L

akel

and,

and

Pol

k C

ount

y. T

he M

OU

est

ablis

hed

the

basi

s fo

r wid

enin

g U

.S. 9

8 to

six

lane

s w

hile

pr

ovid

ing

trans

it se

rvic

e an

d de

velo

ping

a m

ulti-

use

recr

eatio

nal t

rail.

The

MO

U a

lso

outli

ned

stat

e an

d lo

cal o

bjec

-tiv

es th

at c

an b

e m

et fo

r the

road

way

thro

ugh

land

dev

elop

men

t and

sub

divi

sion

regu

latio

ns.

Fina

lly, t

he M

OU

id

entif

ied

the

inte

ntio

n of

all

thre

e lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts to

am

end

thei

r com

preh

ensi

ve p

lans

to in

clud

e a

desi

gnat

ed

U.S

. 98

corr

idor

(pur

suan

t to

stat

e st

atut

es).

The

pla

ns a

lso

wou

ld b

e am

ende

d fo

r con

sist

ency

with

a c

orrid

or

acce

ss m

anag

emen

t pla

n (C

AM

P) d

evel

oped

by

FDO

T in

con

sulta

tion

with

the

juris

dict

ions

.

The

CA

MP

was

ulti

mat

ely

adop

ted

in 2

004

and

mun

icip

aliti

es a

re in

the

proc

ess

of u

pdat

ing

thei

r pla

ns.

A p

ropo

sed

serv

ice

road

sys

tem

, whi

ch is

beg

inni

ng to

be

deve

lope

d, w

ill p

rovi

de a

cces

s to

and

bet

wee

n bu

sine

sses

ac

com

mod

atin

g m

ore

“loc

al tr

affic

” w

hile

allo

win

g th

roug

h tra

ffic

on th

e ar

teria

l. T

he S

teer

ing

Com

mitt

ee c

harg

ed

with

dev

elop

ing

the

CA

MP

cont

inue

s to

mee

t to

ensu

re im

plem

enta

tion,

dis

cuss

ing

the

deta

ils o

f how

pro

pose

d de

velo

pmen

ts s

houl

d co

mpl

y w

ith th

e C

AM

P.

Flor

ida

– M

artin

Cou

nty

Inco

rpor

ates

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

in L

ocal

Ord

inan

ces

Mar

tin C

ount

y, F

lorid

a’s

Roa

dway

Des

ign

Ord

inan

ce (n

o. 5

61) i

nclu

des

a se

ctio

n on

acc

ess

man

agem

ent

addr

essi

ng th

e ac

cess

cla

ssifi

catio

n of

the

road

way

and

rela

ted

inte

rsec

tion

spac

ing

stan

dard

s, c

orne

r cle

aran

ce,

acce

ss a

mon

g pr

oper

ties,

driv

eway

spa

cing

and

des

ign,

and

ove

rlay

zone

s. T

he o

rdin

ance

als

o in

clud

es s

ectio

ns

on m

obili

ty a

nd c

onne

ctiv

ity, w

ith th

e in

tent

of d

isco

urag

ing

the

use

of lo

cal s

treet

s fo

r cut

-thro

ugh

traffi

c w

hile

m

aint

aini

ng th

e ov

eral

l con

nect

ivity

of t

he ro

adw

ay s

yste

m fo

r veh

icle

traf

fic, b

icyc

lists

, and

ped

estri

ans.

For m

ore

info

rmat

ion,

see

: ht

tp://

web

serv

er.m

artin

.fl.u

s/G

OV

T/de

pts/

leg/

ords

/ord

.561

.htm

l.

Indi

ana

– M

adis

on C

ount

y A

dopt

s a

Cor

ridor

Ove

rlay

Dis

tric

t Af

ter a

dopt

ing

a ne

w c

ompr

ehen

sive

pla

n in

200

1, M

adis

on C

ount

y, In

dian

a (n

orth

east

of I

ndia

napo

lis) p

asse

d a

deve

lopm

ent o

rdin

ance

that

incl

udes

new

road

des

ign

stan

dard

s, a

cces

s co

ntro

l, co

rrid

or p

rese

rvat

ion,

cor

ridor

ov

erla

y di

stric

ts, a

nd n

on-m

otor

ized

faci

lity

requ

irem

ents

. Ex

cerp

ts fr

om th

e C

orrid

or O

verla

y D

istri

ct Z

onin

g O

rdin

ance

incl

ude:

• Pu

rpos

e –

The

purp

ose

of th

is A

rticl

e is

to e

stab

lish

an o

verla

y di

stric

t to

addr

ess

the

uniq

ue c

hara

cter

istic

s of

the

prop

ertie

s ad

jace

nt t

o th

e m

ajor

tran

spor

tatio

n co

rrid

ors

in M

adis

on C

ount

y ex

cept

in P

lann

ed U

nit

Dev

elop

men

t dis

trict

s.

• B

uild

ing

Orie

ntat

ion

– A

ll pr

imar

y st

ruct

ures

sha

ll fa

ce th

e fro

nt o

f the

lot o

n w

hich

they

are

loca

ted.

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k E-

3

App

endi

x E

Land

Use

Stra

tegi

es fo

r Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Co

rrid

ors:

Exa

mpl

es fr

om O

ther

Sta

tes

(con

tinue

d)

• La

ndsc

apin

g –

Land

scap

ing

scre

enin

g sh

all b

e pr

ovid

ed a

roun

d th

e pe

rimet

er o

f al

l par

king

are

as w

hich

in

clud

e 15

or m

ore

park

ing

spac

es.

• En

tran

ce D

rives

– E

ntra

nce

driv

es a

cces

sing

lots

from

an

arte

rial o

r col

lect

or ro

ad m

ay b

e lo

cate

d no

clo

ser

than

200

feet

from

any

oth

er d

rive

on th

e sa

me

side

of t

he p

ublic

road

, or 5

00 fe

et fr

om a

ny in

ters

ectio

n of

two

publ

ic r

oad

right

s-of

-way

. I

nter

ior

driv

eway

s pa

ssin

g th

roug

h fro

nt y

ards

par

alle

l to

publ

ic r

oads

sha

ll be

de

sign

ed a

nd c

onst

ruct

ed to

stu

b in

to a

djac

ent p

rope

rties

and

incl

uded

in c

ross

acc

ess

ease

men

ts.

• Sh

ared

Par

king

– P

arki

ng a

reas

res

trict

ed to

pat

rons

of t

he b

usin

ess

loca

ted

on e

ach

spec

ific

lot s

hall

be

proh

ibite

d.

• Pa

rkin

g Lo

catio

n –

No

mor

e th

an 3

0 pe

rcen

t of

the

par

king

spa

ces

prov

ided

on

each

lot m

ay b

e pl

aced

be

twee

n th

e fro

nt fa

cade

of t

he p

rimar

y st

ruct

ure

and

the

abut

ting

publ

ic s

treet

.

• Pe

dest

rian

Wal

kway

s –

Ped

estri

an w

alkw

ays

shal

l be

prov

ided

acr

oss

the

front

age

of a

ll lo

ts, c

onne

ctin

g th

e lo

t, th

e pr

imar

y st

ruct

ure,

and

par

king

are

as to

eac

h ot

her a

nd w

ith a

djac

ent p

rope

rties

.

Sou

rce:

Mad

ison

Cou

nty

Zoni

ng O

rdin

ance

Arti

cle

Four

: C

orrid

or D

evel

opm

ent O

verla

y D

istri

ct.

http

://w

ww

.mcp

lann

ing.

net/.

Ken

tuck

y –

Zoni

ng O

verla

y D

istr

ict C

ompl

emen

ts A

rter

ial I

mpr

ovem

ents

in

Bow

ling

Gre

en

In B

owlin

g G

reen

in s

outh

wes

tern

Ken

tuck

y, th

e Ke

ntuc

ky T

rans

porta

tion

Cab

inet

and

the

com

mun

ity h

ad re

ache

d an

impa

sse

over

the

wid

enin

g of

Cem

eter

y R

oad

from

two

to fi

ve la

nes,

firs

t pro

pose

d in

the

early

198

0s to

add

ress

co

nges

tion

and

safe

ty is

sues

on

this

hea

vily

trav

eled

road

. R

esid

ents

fear

ed th

at th

e w

iden

ed ro

ad, w

hich

ser

ves

as a

n im

porta

nt g

atew

ay c

onne

ctin

g do

wnt

own

Bow

ling

Gre

en to

I-65

, wou

ld b

e ov

erw

helm

ed w

ith s

trip

deve

lop-

men

t sim

ilar t

o S

cotts

ville

Roa

d to

the

north

.

Rev

ivin

g th

e pr

ojec

t in

the

mid

-199

0s, C

abin

et d

istri

ct e

ngin

eers

wor

ked

with

loca

l sta

keho

lder

s to

sel

ect a

new

al

ignm

ent f

or a

n ar

teria

l, re

desi

gn it

as

a fo

ur-la

ne d

ivid

ed b

oule

vard

, ena

ct la

nd u

se p

rote

ctio

ns a

long

the

alig

nmen

t th

roug

h a

zoni

ng o

verla

y di

stric

t, an

d in

corp

orat

e bi

cycl

e an

d pe

dest

rian

acco

mm

odat

ions

into

the

desi

gn.

The

over

lay

dist

rict,

writ

ten

by th

e ci

ty a

nd c

ount

y pl

anni

ng c

omm

issi

on, s

peci

fies

allo

wab

le u

ses,

bui

ldin

g de

sign

and

la

ndsc

apin

g fe

atur

es, a

nd c

onne

ctio

ns to

the

road

way

and

the

shar

ed-u

se p

ath.

The

com

bina

tion

of d

esig

n ch

ange

s an

d la

nd u

se p

rote

ctio

ns a

llow

ed th

e pr

ojec

t to

mov

e fo

rwar

d, a

nd re

cons

truct

ion

of C

emet

ery

Roa

d w

as

com

plet

ed in

200

4.

Kent

ucky

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Ca

bine

t

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k E-

4

App

endi

x E

Land

Use

Stra

tegi

es fo

r Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Co

rrid

ors:

Exa

mpl

es fr

om O

ther

Sta

tes

(con

tinue

d)

New

Jer

sey

– C

orrid

or P

lann

ing

Inte

grat

es T

rans

port

atio

n an

d La

nd U

se

The

New

Jer

sey

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n (N

JDO

T) is

und

erta

king

nin

e co

rrido

r pla

nnin

g pi

lot s

tudi

es th

roug

h-ou

t the

Sta

te.

The

corri

dors

invo

lve

arte

rial r

oads

of t

wo

to 3

0 m

iles

in le

ngth

with

con

gest

ion

and/

or s

afet

y pr

ob-

lem

s. T

he c

orrid

or s

tudi

es a

re a

ddre

ssin

g no

t jus

t the

road

way

itse

lf, b

ut a

lso

loca

l stre

et n

etw

orks

that

inte

rface

w

ith th

e ar

teria

l roa

dway

as

wel

l as

adja

cent

land

use

pat

tern

s. I

n ea

ch c

ase,

the

Dep

artm

ent i

s w

orki

ng w

ith lo

cal

juris

dict

ions

to a

ddre

ss c

ircul

atio

n sy

stem

s, a

cces

s m

anag

emen

t, an

d la

nd u

se in

the

corri

dor.

A s

igni

fican

t obj

ec-

tive

of th

e co

rrido

r stu

dies

is to

find

sol

utio

ns to

tran

spor

tatio

n pr

oble

ms

that

are

less

cap

ital-i

nten

sive

than

bui

ldin

g m

ulti-

lane

and

lim

ited-

acce

ss h

ighw

ays,

as

NJD

OT

has

real

ized

that

ther

e is

no

way

it c

an fu

nd a

ll of

the

stat

ewid

e ca

pita

l im

prov

emen

ts th

at h

ave

been

stu

died

or p

lann

ed th

roug

hout

the

Stat

e.

The

Dep

artm

ent’s

pilo

t stu

dies

are

brin

ging

in s

peci

alis

ts to

hel

p co

mm

uniti

es re

shap

e th

eir l

and

use

and

stre

et

netw

ork

patte

rns.

The

Dep

artm

ent i

s on

ly fu

ndin

g st

udie

s in

com

mun

ities

, tho

ugh,

that

hav

e ex

pres

sed

a w

illin

g-ne

ss to

wor

k w

ith th

e D

epar

tmen

t to

incl

ude

land

use

stra

tegi

es a

s pa

rt of

the

solu

tion

set.

In T

rent

on, f

or e

xam

ple,

th

e S

tate

is w

orki

ng w

ith th

e ci

ty o

n th

e re

desi

gn o

f Rou

te 2

9, th

e R

iver

front

Par

kway

, cur

rent

ly a

four

-lane

free

way

w

allin

g of

f the

dow

ntow

n fro

m th

e D

elaw

are

Riv

er.

The

city

wou

ld li

ke to

con

vert

the

high

way

to a

bou

leva

rd a

nd

real

ign

it to

redu

ce im

pact

s on

the

dow

ntow

n. T

he S

tate

has

indi

cate

d its

willi

ngne

ss to

pur

sue

the

proj

ect,

but o

nly

as lo

ng a

s th

e ci

ty u

nder

take

s la

nd u

se a

nd lo

cal r

oad

netw

ork

plan

ning

in c

onju

nctio

n w

ith th

e st

ate

high

way

re

desi

gn.

Wes

t Virg

inia

– P

utna

m C

ount

y A

dopt

s a

Cor

ridor

Lan

d U

se P

lan

In ru

ral P

utna

m C

ount

y, W

est V

irgin

ia, t

he c

ount

y le

d th

e de

velo

pmen

t of a

cor

ridor

land

use

pla

n to

acc

ompa

ny th

e pl

anne

d w

iden

ing

and

real

ignm

ent o

f U.S

. 35

thro

ugh

the

coun

ty, w

hich

wou

ld a

ddre

ss s

afet

y an

d ca

paci

ty p

rob-

lem

s on

a m

ajor

truc

k ro

ute.

Cou

nty

offic

ials

exp

ecte

d th

at th

e pr

ojec

t, in

con

junc

tion

with

pla

nned

util

ity e

xpan

-si

ons,

wou

ld re

sult

in a

dditi

onal

sca

ttere

d de

velo

pmen

t tha

t wou

ld th

reat

en s

carc

e pr

ime

agric

ultu

ral l

and

in th

e riv

er

valle

y an

d ch

ange

the

exis

ting

rura

l cha

ract

er o

f dev

elop

men

t. T

hrou

gh a

pub

lic in

volv

emen

t pro

cess

, the

cou

nty

deve

lope

d a

com

mun

ity-s

uppo

rted

plan

for t

he c

orrid

or th

at w

ould

con

cent

rate

com

mer

cial

dev

elop

men

t aro

und

inte

rcha

nges

and

in s

peci

fic in

dust

rial d

evel

opm

ent a

reas

, whi

le li

miti

ng d

evel

opm

ent o

utsi

de o

f the

se a

reas

to ru

ral

dens

ities

and

use

s. T

he c

ount

y ha

s si

nce

adop

ted

zoni

ng c

onsi

sten

t with

this

pla

n. T

he p

roje

ct is

esp

ecia

lly n

ote-

wor

thy

beca

use

it re

pres

ents

the

first

app

licat

ion

of z

onin

g in

this

rura

l are

a.

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k E-

5

App

endi

x E

Land

Use

Stra

tegi

es fo

r Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Co

rrid

ors:

Exa

mpl

es fr

om O

ther

Sta

tes

(con

tinue

d)

Wis

cons

in –

Wis

DO

T Pa

rtic

ipat

es in

Loc

al C

ompr

ehen

sive

Pla

nnin

g To

pre

serv

e m

obili

ty a

nd s

afet

y, e

nsur

e en

viro

nmen

tal p

rote

ctio

n, a

nd s

uppo

rt st

ate-

led

smar

t gro

wth

effo

rts, t

he

Wis

cons

in D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

porta

tion

(Wis

DO

T) h

as b

egun

ove

r the

pas

t fiv

e to

10

year

s to

wor

k w

ith c

omm

uni-

ties

on la

nd u

se is

sues

, im

prov

ing

the

linka

ge b

etw

een

trans

porta

tion

plan

ning

, pro

ject

dev

elop

men

t, an

d la

nd u

se

deci

sion

-mak

ing.

Wis

DO

T’s

appr

oach

has

larg

ely

focu

sed

on o

utre

ach

to lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es w

ithin

the

corri

dor

plan

ning

pro

cess

as

wel

l as

with

in e

ach

com

mun

ity’s

com

preh

ensi

ve p

lann

ing

proc

ess.

The

age

ncy

does

not

hav

e fo

rmal

aut

horit

y to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e lo

cal p

lann

ing

proc

ess,

but

they

are

wor

king

to b

uild

rela

tions

hips

with

com

mu-

nitie

s in

ord

er to

be

able

to p

rovi

de in

put o

n an

info

rmal

bas

is.

Dis

trict

sta

ff ar

e pr

ovid

ed w

ith in

form

atio

n on

the

stat

us o

f loc

al c

ompr

ehen

sive

pla

n de

velo

pmen

t in

thei

r are

as a

nd

are

enco

urag

ed to

wor

k w

ith lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts to

pro

vide

inpu

t int

o th

ese

effo

rts.

(Sta

te le

gisl

atio

n pa

ssed

in 1

999

requ

ires

com

mun

ities

to a

dopt

com

preh

ensi

ve p

lans

and

est

ablis

hes

a tra

ckin

g sy

stem

to m

onito

r pla

n de

velo

p-m

ent.)

For

exa

mpl

e, a

s pa

rt of

a c

orrid

or p

lann

ing

proc

ess

for S

tate

Hig

hway

21,

an

impo

rtant

eas

t-wes

t cor

ridor

co

nnec

ting

Lake

Win

neba

go a

nd th

e Fo

x V

alle

y to

wes

tern

des

tinat

ions

, Wis

DO

T D

istri

ct 3

sta

ff ha

ve w

orke

d w

ith

com

mun

ities

alo

ng th

e hi

ghw

ay to

ens

ure

that

pro

tect

ions

are

impl

emen

ted

to c

onta

in s

trip

com

mer

cial

dev

elop

men

t an

d to

pre

serv

e rig

ht-o

f-way

for f

utur

e ex

pans

ion

or re

alig

nmen

t. In

the

Tow

n of

Om

ro, w

est o

f Osh

kosh

, Wis

DO

T st

aff a

ttend

ed lo

cal p

lann

ing

mee

tings

and

revi

ewed

and

com

men

ted

on d

rafts

of t

he to

wn’

s co

mpr

ehen

sive

pla

n.

In it

s ad

opte

d pl

an, t

he to

wn

rese

rved

righ

t-of-w

ay fo

r a li

mite

d-ac

cess

byp

ass

of th

e to

wn,

iden

tifie

d pa

ralle

l and

lo

cal s

treet

con

nect

ions

, and

reco

mm

ende

d zo

ning

aro

und

inte

rcha

nges

to s

uppo

rt co

mm

erci

al d

evel

opm

ent.

For f

urth

er in

form

atio

n, s

ee:

• W

isD

OT

– ht

tp://

ww

w.d

ot.w

isco

nsin

.gov

/loca

lgov

/land

/

• S

tate

Hig

hway

21

Cor

ridor

Stu

dy –

http

://w

ww

.dot

.wis

cons

in.g

ov/p

roje

cts/

d3/in

dex.

htm

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

F-1

App

endi

x F

Add

ition

al R

esou

rces

Exam

ples

of C

orrid

or S

tudi

es a

nd M

anag

emen

t Pla

ns

Verm

ont

Bur

lingt

on-E

ssex

Cor

ridor

. D

MJM

+Har

ris, e

t al.

Bur

lingt

on-E

ssex

Cor

ridor

Alte

rnat

ives

Ana

lysi

s. P

repa

red

for

Chi

ttend

en C

ount

y M

PO

, Bur

lingt

on, V

T, 2

001.

http

://w

ww

.ccm

po.o

rg/V

T15/

U.S

. Rou

te 7

, Win

oosk

i-Geo

rgia

. O

man

Ana

lytic

s, e

t al.

U.S

. Rou

te 7

Win

oosk

i to

Geo

rgia

Cor

ridor

Stu

dy:

Cor

ridor

Tra

nspo

rt Pl

an.

Pre

pare

d fo

r Chi

ttend

en C

ount

y M

PO, 2

001.

http

://w

ww

.ccm

po.o

rg/U

S7/

VT 1

5, J

eric

ho-H

ardw

ick.

Res

ourc

e S

yste

ms

Gro

up, I

nc.

VT 1

5 –

Jeric

ho to

Har

dwic

k C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Pl

an.

Pre

pare

d fo

r Lam

oille

Cou

nty

Pla

nnin

g C

omm

issi

on a

nd C

hitte

nden

Cou

nty

MP

O, 2

004.

ht

tp://

ww

w.c

cmpo

.org

/Lib

rary

File

s/ o

r http

://w

ww

.lcpc

vt.o

rg/

VT 1

00, W

ater

bury

-Mor

risto

wn.

Res

ourc

e S

yste

ms

Gro

up, I

nc.

VT 1

00 A

cces

s M

anag

emen

t Pla

n. P

repa

red

for

Lam

oille

Cou

nty

Plan

ning

Com

mis

sion

and

Cen

tral V

erm

ont R

egio

nal P

lann

ing

Com

mis

sion

, 200

4.

http

://w

ww

.lcpc

vt.o

rg/

VT 3

0, B

rattl

ebor

o-W

inha

ll. W

indh

am R

egio

nal P

lann

ing

Com

mis

sion

. Ve

rmon

t Rou

te 3

0 C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t St

udy,

199

9.

Oth

er S

tate

s M

ichi

gan

– U

.S. 3

1. T

he N

orth

wes

t Mic

higa

n C

ounc

il of

Gov

ernm

ents

dev

elop

ed a

Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent P

lan

for

U.S

. 31

in M

anis

tee

Cou

nty.

The

pla

n in

clud

es re

com

men

datio

ns to

man

age

grow

th, r

educ

e co

nges

tion,

enh

ance

sa

fety

, im

prov

e ro

adw

ay c

apac

ity, c

onso

lidat

e an

d el

imin

ate

driv

eway

s, im

prov

e in

ters

ectio

ns, i

mpr

ove

driv

eway

co

nfig

urat

ion

and

spac

ing,

enh

ance

non

-mot

oriz

ed tr

avel

, and

man

age

acce

ss in

the

corr

idor

. ht

tp://

ww

w.n

wm

.org

/Com

mun

ity/U

S31

Cor

ridor

/

Min

neso

ta –

Tru

nk H

ighw

ay 6

1. T

his

30-m

ile, t

wo-

lane

road

way

cor

ridor

alo

ng th

e M

issi

ssip

pi R

iver

and

Lak

e P

epin

con

nect

s to

four

-lane

seg

men

ts o

n ei

ther

end

. Th

e H

ighw

ay 6

1 C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Stu

dy, a

repo

rt id

entif

ying

tran

spor

tatio

n ne

eds

and

plan

ning

opt

ions

from

Wab

asha

to R

ed W

ing,

was

com

plet

ed in

Apr

il 20

03.

http

://w

ww

.dot

.sta

te.m

n.us

/d6/

proj

ects

/hw

y61/

Nor

th C

arol

ina.

The

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n is

und

erta

king

a s

erie

s of

stra

tegi

c hi

ghw

ay c

or-

ridor

stu

dies

that

are

add

ress

ing

trans

porta

tion

and

land

use

issu

es.

http

://w

ww

.ncd

ot.o

rg/p

lann

ing/

tpb/

SH

C/d

ocum

ents

/

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k F-

2

App

endi

x F

Add

ition

al R

esou

rces

(con

tinue

d)

Rel

ated

Ver

mon

t Pol

icie

s, G

uide

lines

, and

Res

ourc

es

VTra

ns L

ong-

Ran

ge T

rans

port

atio

n Pl

an (L

RTP

) and

Mod

al P

olic

y Pl

ans

Ver

mon

t Age

ncy

of T

rans

porta

tion.

Ver

mon

t Lon

g-R

ange

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Pl

an, 2

002.

ht

tp://

ww

w.a

ot.s

tate

.vt.u

s/pl

anni

ng/s

tudi

es.h

tm

Ver

mon

t Age

ncy

of T

rans

porta

tion.

Ver

mon

t’s H

ighw

ay S

yste

m P

olic

y Pl

an, 2

004.

Ver

mon

t Sys

tem

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n S

tudi

es, i

nclu

ding

Airp

ort S

yste

m P

olic

y Pl

an (1

998)

, Rai

l Pol

icy

Plan

(199

8), a

nd

Pub

lic T

rans

it P

olic

y P

lan

(200

0):

http

://w

ww

.aot

.sta

te.v

t.us/

plan

ning

/stu

dies

.htm

Stat

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Impr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am (S

TIP)

V

erm

ont A

genc

y of

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n. S

tate

wid

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Impr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am F

FY04

. ht

tp://

ww

w.a

ot.s

tate

.vt.u

s/N

ewsP

ub.h

tm

Cap

ital P

rogr

am a

nd P

roje

ct D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

V

erm

ont A

genc

y of

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n. C

apita

l Pro

gram

and

Pro

ject

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n F

Y 2

005.

ht

tp://

ww

w.a

ot.s

tate

.vt.u

s/N

ewsP

ub.h

tm

Proj

ect D

evel

opm

ent P

roce

ss

Ver

mon

t Age

ncy

of T

rans

porta

tion

Pro

ject

Dev

elop

men

t Pro

cess

. ht

tp://

ww

w.a

ot.s

tate

.vt.u

s/pr

ogde

v/S

ectio

ns/P

DM

anua

l/01m

anta

bl.h

tm

Des

ign

Gui

delin

es a

nd S

tand

ards

C

hitte

nden

Cou

nty

Reg

iona

l Pla

nnin

g C

omm

issi

on.

Tran

sit-O

rient

ed D

esig

n (T

OD

) for

Chi

ttend

en C

ount

y –

Gui

delin

es fo

r Pla

nner

s, P

olic

y-m

aker

s, D

evel

oper

s, a

nd R

esid

ents

. Fi

rst E

ditio

n, M

arch

200

2.

http

://w

ww

.ccr

pcvt

.org

/ (c

lick

on P

ublic

atio

ns fo

r lin

k to

this

doc

umen

t)

Ver

mon

t Age

ncy

of T

rans

porta

tion.

Pro

gram

Dev

elop

men

t Man

uals

, Gui

delin

es a

nd P

ublic

atio

ns

http

://w

ww

.aot

.sta

te.v

t.us/

prog

dev/

Pro

gdev

.htm

Ver

mon

t Age

ncy

of T

rans

porta

tion.

Sta

te D

esig

n St

anda

rds.

199

7.

http

://w

ww

.aot

.sta

te.v

t.us/

prog

dev/

stan

dard

s/st

atab

ta.h

tm

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k F-

3

App

endi

x F

Add

ition

al R

esou

rces

(con

tinue

d)

Ver

mon

t Age

ncy

of T

rans

porta

tion.

Ped

estri

an a

nd B

icyc

le F

acilit

y Pl

anni

ng a

nd D

esig

n M

anua

l. 2

002.

ht

tp://

ww

w.a

ot.s

tate

.vt.u

s/pr

ogde

v/D

ocum

ents

/LTF

/Fin

alP

edes

trian

And

Bic

ycle

Faci

lity/

Ped

Bike

TOC

.htm

l

Ver

mon

t Age

ncy

of T

rans

porta

tion.

Tra

ffic

Cal

min

g St

udy

and

Appr

oval

Pro

cess

for S

tate

Hig

hway

s. 2

003.

ht

tp://

ww

w.a

ot.s

tate

.vt.u

s/pl

anni

ng/D

ocum

ents

/Tra

fficC

alm

ing.

pdf

Ver

mon

t Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

Com

mun

ity A

ffairs

. Ve

rmon

t Int

erst

ate

Inte

rcha

nge

Plan

ning

and

D

evel

opm

ent D

esig

n G

uide

lines

. 20

04.

http

://w

ww

.dhc

a.st

ate.

vt.u

s/P

lann

ing/

Inte

rsta

teIn

terc

hang

e.ht

m

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent P

olic

ies

and

Plan

s V

erm

ont A

genc

y of

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n. V

erm

ont A

cces

s M

anag

emen

t. 2

004.

http

://w

ww

.vta

cces

sman

agem

ent.i

nfo/

Ass

et M

anag

emen

t Pol

icie

s an

d Pr

ogra

ms

C

ambr

idge

Sys

tem

atic

s, In

c. V

Tran

s As

set M

anag

emen

t Vis

ion

and

Wor

k Pl

an.

Pre

pare

d fo

r Ver

mon

t Age

ncy

of

Tran

spor

tatio

n, 2

002.

http

://w

ww

.aot

.sta

te.v

t.us/

plan

ning

/Doc

umen

ts/V

Tran

s%20

Ass

et%

20M

gmnt

%20

VW.p

df

Stat

e La

nd U

se P

olic

ies

and

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing

Ver

mon

t Age

ncy

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

. R

ipar

ian

Buffe

r Gui

danc

e. 2

005.

ht

tp://

ww

w.a

nr.s

tate

.vt.u

s/si

te/h

tml/b

uff/b

uffe

r-fin

al-2

005.

pdf

Ver

mon

t Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

Com

mun

ity A

ffairs

. Ve

rmon

t Int

erst

ate

Inte

rcha

nge

Plan

ning

and

D

evel

opm

ent D

esig

n G

uide

lines

. 20

04.

http

://w

ww

.dhc

a.st

ate.

vt.u

s/P

lann

ing/

Inte

rsta

teIn

terc

hang

e.ht

m

Act 2

50 –

Sta

te L

and

Use

and

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

ns (T

itle

10 V

SA C

hapt

er 1

51).

Ver

mon

t Env

ironm

enta

l Boa

rd,

http

://w

ww

.sta

te.v

t.us/

envb

oard

/sta

tute

.htm

Verm

ont M

unic

ipal

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent A

ct (T

itle

24 V

SA C

hapt

er 1

17).

ht

tp://

ww

w.le

g.st

ate.

vt.u

s/st

atut

es/s

ectio

ns.c

fm?T

itle=

24&

Cha

pter

=117

Ver

mon

t Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

Com

mun

ity A

ffairs

, Pla

nnin

g D

ivis

ion.

ht

tp://

ww

w.d

hca.

stat

e.vt

.us/

Plan

ning

/pub

licat

ions

.htm

Ver

mon

t Pla

nnin

g In

form

atio

n C

ente

r. h

ttp://

ww

w.v

pic.

info

/

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k F-

4

App

endi

x F

Add

ition

al R

esou

rces

(con

tinue

d)

Cor

ridor

Pla

nnin

g G

uide

book

s an

d R

efer

ence

s

Nat

iona

l Gui

danc

e Sm

ith, S

teve

n A.

Gui

debo

ok fo

r Tra

nspo

rtatio

n C

orrid

or S

tudi

es:

A Pr

oces

s fo

r Effe

ctiv

e D

ecis

ion-

Mak

ing.

N

atio

nal C

oope

rativ

e H

ighw

ay R

esea

rch

Pro

gram

(NC

HR

P) R

epor

t 435

, Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y P

ress

, Was

hing

ton,

D

.C.,

1999

.

Tran

spor

tatio

n R

esea

rch

Boa

rd.

Gui

danc

e fo

r Im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e AA

SHTO

Stra

tegi

c H

ighw

ay S

afet

y Pl

an

Tran

spor

tatio

n R

esea

rch.

Nat

iona

l Coo

pera

tive

Hig

hway

Res

earc

h P

rogr

am (N

CH

RP

) Rep

ort 5

00, V

olum

es 1

–13.

N

atio

nal A

cade

my

Pre

ss, W

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.,

2003

-200

4.

Willi

ams,

Chr

istin

e N

. C

oope

rativ

e Ag

reem

ents

for C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t. N

atio

nal C

oope

rativ

e H

ighw

ay R

esea

rch

Pro

gram

(NC

HR

P) S

ynth

esis

Rep

ort 3

37, T

rans

porta

tion

Res

earc

h B

oard

, Was

hing

ton,

D.C

., 20

04.

Idah

o Id

aho

Tran

spor

tatio

n D

epar

tmen

t. Id

aho

Cor

ridor

Pla

nnin

g G

uide

book

. B

oise

, ID

, 199

8.

http

://w

ww

.itd.

idah

o.go

v/pl

anni

ng/re

ports

/cor

rpla

n/co

orgu

id.p

df

Del

awar

e D

elaw

are

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n. C

orrid

or C

apac

ity P

rese

rvat

ion

Prog

ram

Gui

de.

http

://w

ww

.del

dot.n

et/s

tatic

/pub

s_fo

rms/

man

uals

/cor

r_ca

p/to

c.ht

ml

Del

awar

e D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

porta

tion.

Rou

te 4

0 C

orrid

or Im

prov

emen

ts:

2001

Cor

ridor

Mon

itorin

g an

d Tr

igge

ring

Prog

ram

Rep

ort,

2002

. ht

tp://

ww

w.d

eldo

t.net

/sta

tic/p

roje

cts/

rt40/

page

s/20

yrlrp

/200

1cor

ridor

repo

rt.ht

m

Flor

ida

W

illiam

s, K

ristin

e M

., an

d M

arga

ret A

. Mar

shal

l. M

anag

ing

Cor

ridor

Dev

elop

men

t: A

Mun

icip

al H

andb

ook.

Cen

ter

for U

rban

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n R

esea

rch,

199

6. h

ttp://

ww

w.c

utr.u

sf.e

du/re

sear

ch/a

cces

s_m

/ada

70/c

orrid

or.p

df

Ken

tuck

y

Blu

egra

ss T

omor

row

and

Gla

tting

Jac

kson

Ker

cher

Ang

lin L

opez

Rin

ehar

t, In

c. B

lueg

rass

Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent

Plan

ning

Han

dboo

k. P

repa

red

for K

entu

cky

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

abin

et, 2

000.

ht

tp://

ww

w.k

ytc.

stat

e.ky

.us/

Mul

timod

al/A

cces

s.as

p

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k F-

5

App

endi

x F

Add

ition

al R

esou

rces

(con

tinue

d)

Ohi

o O

hio

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n. P

roje

ct D

evel

opm

ent P

roce

ss M

anua

l. 2

004.

http

://w

ww

.dot

.sta

te.o

h.us

/pdp

/

Ore

gon

Ore

gon

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n. M

ain

Stre

et…

Whe

n a

Hig

hway

Run

s Th

roug

h It:

A H

andb

ook

for O

rego

n C

omm

uniti

es.

1999

. ht

tp://

egov

.ore

gon.

gov/

LCD

/TG

M/d

ocs/

mai

nstre

et.p

df

Land

Use

and

Gro

wth

Man

agem

ent S

trat

egie

s

Are

ndt,

Ran

dall

G.

Rur

al b

y D

esig

n. A

PA P

lann

ers

Pre

ss, C

hica

go, I

L, 1

994.

Dan

iels

, Tho

mas

L.;

John

W. K

elle

r and

Mar

k B.

Lap

ping

. Sm

all T

own

Plan

ning

Han

dboo

k. A

PA

Pla

nner

s Pr

ess,

C

hica

go, I

L, 1

995.

Kel

ly, E

ric D

. M

anag

ing

Com

mun

ity G

row

th:

Polic

ies,

Tec

hniq

ues,

and

Impa

cts.

Pra

eger

, 199

4.

Nel

son,

Arth

ur C

., an

d Ja

mes

B. D

unca

n. G

row

th M

anag

emen

t Prin

cipl

es a

nd P

ract

ices

. A

PA P

lann

ers

Pre

ss,

Chi

cago

, IL,

199

5.

Smar

t Gro

wth

Net

wor

k an

d In

tern

atio

nal C

ity/C

ount

y M

anag

emen

t Ass

ocia

tion.

Get

ting

to S

mar

t Gro

wth

: 10

0 Po

licie

s fo

r Im

plem

enta

tion,

and

Get

ting

to S

mar

t Gro

wth

II:

100

Mor

e Po

licie

s fo

r Im

plem

enta

tion.

ht

tp://

ww

w.e

pa.g

ov/s

mar

tgro

wth

/get

ting_

to_s

g2.h

tm o

r http

://w

ww

.sm

artg

row

th.o

rg/li

brar

y/

Ver

mon

t Dep

artm

ent o

f Hou

sing

and

Com

mun

ity A

ffairs

, Pla

nnin

g D

ivis

ion.

ht

tp://

ww

w.d

hca.

stat

e.vt

.us/

Plan

ning

/pub

licat

ions

.htm

Ver

mon

t Pla

nnin

g In

form

atio

n C

ente

r. h

ttp://

ww

w.v

pic.

info

/

Publ

ic In

volv

emen

t Met

hods

C

hitte

nden

Cou

nty

Met

ropo

litan

Pla

nnin

g O

rgan

izat

ion.

Pub

lic In

volv

emen

t Pla

n.

http

://w

ww

.ccm

po.o

rg/g

etin

volv

ed/p

ubin

volv

emen

t/pip

.htm

l

Fede

ral H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istra

tion.

Pub

lic In

volv

emen

t Tec

hniq

ues

for T

rans

porta

tion

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g. P

ublic

atio

n N

o. F

HW

A-P

D-9

6-03

1, 1

996.

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/repo

rts/p

ittd/

cove

r.htm

Fede

ral H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istra

tion.

Too

l Kit

for I

nteg

ratin

g Tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

Land

Use

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g.

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/pla

nnin

g/la

ndus

e/in

dex.

htm

Loca

l Gov

ernm

ent C

omm

issi

on.

Parti

cipa

tion

Tool

s fo

r Bet

ter C

omm

unity

and

Lan

d U

se P

lann

ing.

ht

tp://

ww

w.lg

c.or

g/fre

epub

/land

_use

/par

ticip

atio

n_to

ols/

inde

x.ht

ml

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k F-

6

App

endi

x F

Add

ition

al R

esou

rces

(con

tinue

d)

Nat

iona

l Par

k S

ervi

ce.

Publ

ic P

artic

ipat

ion

in H

isto

ric P

rese

rvat

ion

Plan

ning

. ht

tp://

ww

w.c

r.nps

.gov

/hps

/pad

/Pla

nCom

pan/

Pub

licP

artic

/

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ver

mon

t, C

ente

r for

Rur

al S

tudi

es.

Citi

zen

Parti

cipa

tion

Stra

tegi

es fo

r Mun

icip

al P

lann

ing

in V

erm

ont.

V

erm

ont P

lann

ing

Info

rmat

ion

Cen

ter,

http

://w

ww

.vpi

c.in

fo/e

dtra

inin

g/ci

tpar

t.htm

Virg

inia

Tec

h U

nive

rsity

, Dep

artm

ent o

f Urb

an A

ffairs

and

Pla

nnin

g. P

artn

ersh

ips

and

Parti

cipa

tion

in P

lann

ing.

ht

tp://

ww

w.u

ap.v

t.edu

/cdr

om/

Ver

mon

t Dan

ville

Pro

ject

web

site

: ht

tp://

ww

w.d

anvi

llepr

ojec

t.com

GIS

Too

ls

Com

mun

ity B

uild

-Out

Ana

lysi

s To

ol.

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ver

mon

t – C

ente

r for

Rur

al S

tudi

es.

http

://cr

s.uv

m.e

du/c

pdp/

build

out/;

Com

mun

ityV

iz.

http

://w

ww

.com

mun

ityvi

z.co

m/.

App

lied

to in

terc

hang

e ar

ea in

Ran

dolp

h, V

erm

ont

ww

w.c

omm

unity

viz.

com

/dow

nloa

ds/re

sour

ce%

20lib

rary

/ cas

e%20

stud

ies/

Ran

dolp

h,%

20V

T.pd

f

PLA

CE

3 S.

http

://w

ww

.ene

rgy.

ca.g

ov/p

lace

s/

Smar

t Gro

wth

Inde

x. h

ttp://

ww

w.e

pa.g

ov/s

mar

tgro

wth

/topi

cs/s

g_in

dex.

htm

Wha

t-If t

ool.

http

://w

ww

.wha

t-if-p

ss.c

om/

Ana

lytic

al M

etho

ds a

nd D

ata

Sour

ces

Cen

ter f

or R

ural

Mas

sach

uset

ts.

Man

ual o

f Bui

ld-O

ut A

naly

sis,

199

0.

http

://w

ww

.um

ass.

edu/

larp

/crm

/pas

tpub

licat

ions

.htm

l

Dow

ling,

Ric

hard

G.

Plan

ning

Tec

hniq

ues

to E

stim

ate

Spee

ds a

nd S

ervi

ce V

olum

es fo

r Pla

nnin

g Ap

plic

atio

ns.

Nat

iona

l Coo

pera

tive

Hig

hway

Res

earc

h P

rogr

am (N

CH

RP

) Rep

ort 3

87, N

atio

nal A

cade

my

Pre

ss, W

ashi

ngto

n,

D.C

., 19

97.

Fede

ral H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istra

tion.

Sce

nario

Pla

nnin

g w

eb s

ite.

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/pla

nnin

g/sc

enpl

an/

Fede

ral H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istra

tion.

Too

l Kit

for I

nteg

ratin

g Tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

Land

Use

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g.

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/pla

nnin

g/la

ndus

e/in

dex.

htm

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k F-

7

App

endi

x F

Add

ition

al R

esou

rces

(con

tinue

d)

Glu

ck, J

erom

e S.

, Her

bert

S. L

evin

son,

and

Ver

gil G

. Sto

ver.

Impa

cts

of A

cces

s M

anag

emen

t Tec

hniq

ues.

N

atio

nal C

oope

rativ

e H

ighw

ay R

esea

rch

Pro

gram

(NC

HR

P) R

epor

t 420

, Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y P

ress

, Was

hing

ton,

D

.C.,

1999

.

Inst

itute

of T

rans

porta

tion

Eng

inee

rs.

Trip

Gen

erat

ion,

7th E

ditio

n. W

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.,

2001

.

Loui

s B

erge

r & A

ssoc

iate

s, In

c. G

uida

nce

for E

stim

atin

g th

e In

dire

ct E

ffect

s of

Pro

pose

d Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Proj

ects

. N

atio

nal C

oope

rativ

e H

ighw

ay R

esea

rch

Pro

gram

(NC

HR

P) R

epor

t 403

, Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y P

ress

, Was

hing

ton,

D

.C.,

2004

.

Par

sons

Brin

cker

hoff

Qua

de a

nd D

ougl

as, I

nc.

Land

Use

Impa

cts

of T

rans

porta

tion:

A G

uide

book

. N

atio

nal

Coo

pera

tive

Hig

hway

Res

earc

h P

rogr

am (N

CH

RP

) Rep

ort 4

03, N

atio

nal A

cade

my

Pre

ss, W

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.,

1999

.

Tran

sit C

oope

rativ

e R

esea

rch

Pro

gram

. Tr

avel

er R

espo

nse

to T

rans

porta

tion

Syst

em C

hang

es:

Tran

sit

Coo

pera

tive

Res

earc

h P

rogr

am (T

CR

P) R

epor

t 95

Cha

pter

s 1-

18, N

atio

nal R

esea

rch

Cou

ncil,

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

., 20

04.

Tran

spor

tatio

n R

esea

rch

Boa

rd.

Acce

ss M

anag

emen

t Man

ual.

Com

mitt

ee o

n A

cces

s M

anag

emen

t, Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Res

earc

h B

oard

, Was

hing

ton,

D.C

., 20

04.

Tran

spor

tatio

n R

esea

rch

Boa

rd.

Hig

hway

Cap

acity

Man

ual 2

000.

Nat

iona

l Res

earc

h C

ounc

il, W

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.,

2000

.

Ve

rmon

t Cor

ridor

Man

agem

ent H

andb

ook

G-1

App

endi

x G

G

loss

ary

A

ADT

– A

nnua

l Ave

rage

Dai

ly T

raffi

c: T

he to

tal n

umbe

r of v

ehic

les

pass

ing

a fix

ed p

oint

dur

ing

a on

e-ye

ar p

erio

d,

divi

ded

by 3

65.

ADT

– Av

erag

e D

aily

Tra

ffic:

The

ave

rage

num

ber o

f veh

icle

s pa

ssin

g a

fixed

poi

nt in

a 2

4-ho

ur ti

mef

ram

e.

Acce

ss M

anag

emen

t – T

he o

ptim

izat

ion

of d

rivew

ays

and

inte

rsec

tions

to m

aint

ain

safe

ty a

t a ro

adw

ay’s

full

traffi

c-ca

rryin

g ca

paci

ty.

A ba

lanc

e be

twee

n ac

cess

to p

rope

rties

and

the

nece

ssity

to p

rese

rve

road

way

cap

acity

.

Asse

t Man

agem

ent –

A s

trate

gic

appr

oach

to m

anag

ing

trans

porta

tion

infra

stru

ctur

e –

to e

nabl

e m

ore

effe

ctiv

e re

sour

ce a

lloca

tion

and

utili

zatio

n, b

ased

upo

n qu

ality

info

rmat

ion

and

anal

yses

, to

addr

ess

faci

lity

pres

erva

tion,

op

erat

ion,

and

impr

ovem

ent.

Bui

ldou

t – T

he to

tal a

mou

nt o

f dev

elop

men

t tha

t cou

ld o

ccur

in a

n ar

ea u

nder

exi

stin

g le

gal a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal

cons

train

ts (s

uch

as a

dopt

ed z

onin

g re

gula

tions

and

topo

grap

hica

l con

stra

ints

).

Cap

acity

– T

he v

olum

e of

veh

icle

s a

road

was

des

igne

d to

car

ry in

a u

nit o

f tim

e, s

uch

as a

n ho

ur; t

his

term

als

o ca

n be

app

lied

to tr

ansi

t or b

icyc

le/p

edes

trian

pat

hs.

Cha

nnel

izat

ion

– S

epar

atio

n of

con

flict

ing

traffi

c m

ovem

ents

into

def

ined

pat

hs o

f tra

vel t

o fa

cilit

ate

the

safe

and

or

derly

mov

emen

t of v

ehic

les,

ped

estri

ans,

and

bic

ycle

s.

Cor

ridor

– A

bro

ad g

eogr

aphi

c ba

nd c

onne

ctin

g po

pula

tion

and

empl

oym

ent c

ente

rs a

nd s

erve

d by

var

ious

tran

s-po

rtatio

n m

odes

, with

in w

hich

pas

seng

er a

nd fr

eigh

t tra

vel,

land

use

, top

ogra

phy,

env

ironm

ent,

and

othe

r cha

rac-

teris

tics

are

eval

uate

d fo

r tra

nspo

rtatio

n pu

rpos

es.

Cra

sh R

ate

– Th

e nu

mbe

r of v

ehic

ular

cra

shes

on

a gi

ven

porti

on o

f a ro

adw

ay s

yste

m d

ivid

ed b

y th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of

veh

icle

mile

s of

trav

el o

n th

at p

ortio

n of

the

syst

em d

urin

g th

e sa

me

time

perio

d –

typi

cally

exp

ress

ed a

s th

e nu

mbe

r of c

rash

es p

er m

illion

veh

icle

mile

s of

trav

el.

Cum

ulat

ive

Impa

cts

– Th

e im

pact

on

the

envi

ronm

ent w

hich

resu

lts fr

om th

e in

crem

enta

l im

pact

of a

n ac

tion

(suc

h as

a tr

ansp

orta

tion

proj

ect)

whe

n ad

ded

to o

ther

pas

t, pr

esen

t, an

d re

ason

ably

fore

seea

ble

futu

re a

ctio

ns.

Envi

ronm

enta

l Jus

tice

– Th

e po

licy

goal

of i

dent

ifyin

g an

d av

oidi

ng d

ispr

opor

tiona

te a

dver

se im

pact

s on

min

ority

an

d lo

w-in

com

e in

divi

dual

s an

d co

mm

uniti

es.

FHW

A –

The

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Fe

dera

l Hig

hway

Adm

inis

tratio

n, th

e Fe

dera

l age

ncy

resp

onsi

ble

for a

dmin

istra

tion

of F

eder

al-a

id h

ighw

ay fu

nds.

Func

tiona

l Cla

ss –

The

gro

upin

g of

stre

ets

and

high

way

s in

to c

lass

es, o

r sys

tem

s, a

ccor

ding

to th

e ch

arac

ter o

f se

rvic

e th

ey a

re in

tend

ed to

pro

vide

.

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k G

-2

App

endi

x G

G

loss

ary

(con

tinue

d)

GIS

– G

eogr

aphi

c In

form

atio

n S

yste

m.

Goa

l – A

gen

eral

sta

tem

ent o

f an

outc

ome

to b

e ac

hiev

ed o

ver t

he lo

ng te

rm.

Gro

wth

Man

agem

ent –

The

fram

ewor

k us

ed b

y co

mm

uniti

es to

mak

e in

form

ed d

ecis

ions

abo

ut h

ow a

nd w

here

th

ey g

row

.

HC

M –

Hig

hway

Cap

acity

Man

ual.

IGA

– In

terg

over

nmen

tal A

gree

men

t.

Indu

ced

Gro

wth

– D

evel

opm

ent t

hat o

ccur

s in

resp

onse

to im

prov

emen

ts m

ade

to th

e tra

nspo

rtatio

n sy

stem

, typ

i-ca

lly a

s a

resu

lt of

impr

oved

acc

essi

bilit

y or

attr

activ

enes

s of

a lo

catio

n.

Inte

rmod

al –

A tr

ansp

orta

tion

syst

em c

onne

ctin

g or

incl

udin

g di

ffere

nt m

odes

of t

rans

porta

tion.

Inte

rmod

al F

acili

ties

– Tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s su

ch a

s pa

rk-a

nd-r

ide

lots

, rai

l ter

min

als,

airp

orts

, bus

and

trai

n st

a-tio

ns, a

nd w

ater

por

ts th

at c

onne

ct d

iffer

ent m

odes

of t

rans

porta

tion,

eith

er fo

r pas

seng

er o

r fre

ight

mov

emen

t.

ITE

– In

stitu

te o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n E

ngin

eers

.

LOS

– Le

vel o

f Ser

vice

: Th

e cl

assi

ficat

ion

of g

ener

al tr

affic

con

ditio

ns.

The

leve

l of s

ervi

ce ra

nges

from

“A”

(the

be

st),

to “

F.”

It is

a m

easu

re o

f how

a h

ighw

ay o

r an

inte

rsec

tion

perfo

rms

in te

rms

of s

peed

, tra

vel t

ime,

free

dom

to

man

euve

r, tra

ffic

inte

rrup

tions

, and

del

ays.

LRTP

– L

ong-

Ran

ge T

rans

porta

tion

Plan

: Th

e st

atem

ent o

f the

way

s a

regi

on p

lans

to in

vest

in it

s tra

nspo

rtatio

n sy

stem

. Fe

dera

l reg

ulat

ions

requ

ire th

at M

POs

(ser

ving

urb

aniz

ed a

reas

of a

t lea

st 5

0,00

0 po

pula

tion)

dev

elop

an

RTP

that

has

at l

east

a 2

0-ye

ar h

oriz

on a

nd is

upd

ated

at l

east

eve

ry fi

ve y

ears

(thr

ee y

ears

in a

ir qu

ality

non

atta

in-

men

t and

mai

nten

ance

are

as).

MO

U –

Mem

oran

dum

of U

nder

stan

ding

.

MPO

– M

etro

polit

an P

lann

ing

Org

aniz

atio

n: T

he o

rgan

izat

iona

l ent

ity d

esig

nate

d by

law

with

lead

resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

r de

velo

ping

tran

spor

tatio

n pl

ans

and

prog

ram

s fo

r urb

aniz

ed a

reas

of 5

0,00

0 or

mor

e in

pop

ulat

ion.

NEP

A –

Nat

iona

l Env

ironm

enta

l Pol

icy

Act

: A

Fede

ral l

aw th

at re

quire

s ag

enci

es to

eva

luat

e an

d di

sclo

se e

nviro

n-m

enta

l im

pact

s of

pro

pose

d ac

tions

. Th

e pr

oces

s be

gins

with

an

Env

ironm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent (

EA

) to

dete

rmin

e if

an

actio

n w

ill ha

ve s

igni

fican

t im

pact

s. M

ajor

tran

spor

tatio

n pr

ojec

ts w

ill ty

pica

lly re

quire

a fu

ll E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct

Sta

tem

ent (

EIS

).

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k G

-3

App

endi

x G

G

loss

ary

(con

tinue

d)

NH

S –

Nat

iona

l Hig

hway

Sys

tem

: A

sys

tem

of n

atio

nally

sig

nific

ant r

oadw

ays

desi

gnat

ed in

the

1991

Inte

rmod

al

Sur

face

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Ef

ficie

ncy

Act

. Th

e N

HS

incl

udes

the

Inte

rsta

te H

ighw

ay S

yste

m; o

ther

rout

es id

entif

ied

as

havi

ng s

trate

gic

defe

nse

char

acte

ristic

s; ro

utes

pro

vidi

ng a

cces

s to

maj

or p

orts

, airp

orts

, pub

lic tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

inte

rmod

al tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s; a

nd m

any

prin

cipa

l urb

an a

nd ru

ral a

rteria

ls w

hich

pro

vide

regi

onal

ser

vice

.

Obj

ectiv

e –

An

obje

ctiv

e is

rela

ted

to a

goa

l, an

d re

pres

ents

a m

ore

spec

ific,

mea

sura

ble

end

to b

e re

ache

d.

Orig

in-D

estin

atio

n Su

rvey

– A

sur

vey

of tr

avel

ers

to d

eter

min

e th

eir t

rip o

rigin

s an

d de

stin

atio

ns.

Orig

in-

dest

inat

ion

surv

eys

may

be

cond

ucte

d by

tele

phon

e or

mai

l with

in a

n ar

ea o

f int

eres

t, or

by

inte

rvie

w o

r pos

tcar

d at

sp

ecifi

c tra

nspo

rtatio

n fa

cilit

ies

of in

tere

st.

Ove

rlay

Dis

tric

t – A

dditi

onal

zon

ing

requ

irem

ents

that

are

sup

erim

pose

d up

on e

xist

ing

zoni

ng in

spe

cifie

d ar

eas

as

show

n on

a z

onin

g m

ap.

Peak

Hou

r – T

he 6

0-m

inut

e pe

riod

in th

e a.

m. o

r p.m

. in

whi

ch th

e la

rges

t vol

ume

of tr

avel

is e

xper

ienc

ed.

RFP

– R

eque

st fo

r Pro

posa

ls.

Rig

ht-o

f-Way

– L

and

used

gen

eral

ly fo

r stre

ets,

sid

ewal

ks, a

lleys

, or o

ther

pub

lic u

ses.

Rig

ht-o

f-way

als

o is

use

d to

re

fer t

o th

e di

stan

ce b

etw

een

lot p

rope

rty li

nes

whi

ch g

ener

ally

con

tain

s no

t onl

y th

e st

reet

pav

emen

t, bu

t als

o th

e si

dew

alks

, gra

ss a

rea,

and

und

ergr

ound

and

abo

vegr

ound

util

ities

.

Rip

aria

n B

uffe

r – A

stri

p of

gra

ss, s

hrub

s, a

nd/o

r tre

es a

long

the

bank

of a

rive

r or s

tream

that

filte

rs p

ollu

ted

runo

ff an

d pr

ovid

es a

tran

sitio

n zo

ne b

etw

een

wat

er a

nd h

uman

land

use

.

Roa

dway

– T

he p

ortio

n of

the

stre

et ri

ght-o

f-way

whi

ch c

onta

ins

the

stre

et p

avem

ent a

nd g

utte

r and

is u

sed

prim

ar-

ily a

s a

chan

nel f

or v

ehic

ular

mov

emen

t and

sec

onda

rily

as a

dra

inag

e ch

anne

l for

sto

rm w

ater

.

RPC

– R

egio

nal P

lann

ing

Com

mis

sion

.

RTP

– R

egio

nal T

rans

porta

tion

Plan

: Th

e st

atem

ent o

f the

way

s a

regi

on p

lans

to in

vest

in it

s tra

nspo

rtatio

n sy

s-te

m.

Fede

ral r

equi

rem

ents

app

ly to

RTP

dev

elop

men

t in

urba

nize

d ar

eas

of a

t lea

st 5

0,00

0 po

pula

tion

(see

LR

TP).

Scen

ario

Pla

nnin

g –

A fra

mew

ork

for d

evel

opin

g a

shar

ed v

isio

n fo

r the

futu

re b

y an

alyz

ing

vario

us fo

rces

(e.g

., he

alth

, tra

nspo

rtatio

n, e

cono

mic

, env

ironm

enta

l, la

nd u

se, e

tc.)

that

affe

ct g

row

th.

Sce

nario

pla

nnin

g is

a c

olla

bora

-tiv

e pr

oces

s th

at te

sts

vario

us fu

ture

alte

rnat

ives

for t

heir

abilit

y to

mee

t reg

iona

l and

com

mun

ity n

eeds

.

Scre

enin

g 1)

– T

he p

roce

ss o

f nar

row

ing

dow

n a

list o

f opt

ions

for c

onsi

dera

tion

base

d on

est

ablis

hed

crite

ria.

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k G

-4

App

endi

x G

G

loss

ary

(con

tinue

d)

Scre

enin

g 2)

– A

met

hod

of v

isua

lly s

hiel

ding

or o

bscu

ring

one

abut

ting

or n

earb

y st

ruct

ure

or u

se fr

om a

noth

er b

y fe

ncin

g, w

alls

, ber

ms

or m

ount

ing

or d

ense

ly p

lant

ed v

eget

atio

n.

Seco

ndar

y Im

pact

s –

Impa

cts

that

are

cau

sed

by a

n ac

tion

(suc

h as

a tr

ansp

orta

tion

proj

ect)

that

occ

ur la

ter i

n tim

e an

d fa

rther

rem

oved

in d

ista

nce,

but

are

stil

l for

esee

able

. Al

so k

now

n as

“in

dire

ct im

pact

s.”

Sket

ch-L

evel

Ana

lysi

s –

A q

uick

met

hod

for e

stim

atin

g th

e po

tent

ial i

mpa

cts

of a

tran

spor

tatio

n st

rate

gy, w

here

an

appr

oxim

ate,

ord

er-o

f-mag

nitu

de a

sses

smen

t is

suffi

cien

t.

Stak

ehol

der –

A p

erso

n or

org

aniz

atio

n th

at h

olds

an

inte

rest

in th

e ou

tcom

e of

a p

roje

ct o

r stu

dy.

STIP

– T

he S

tate

wid

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Impr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am:

A m

ulti-

year

cap

ital p

rogr

am o

f tra

nspo

rtatio

n pr

o-je

cts.

In

Ver

mon

t, th

e ST

IP in

corp

orat

es th

e TI

P fo

r the

Chi

ttend

en C

ount

y M

PO.

Stra

tegy

– A

n im

plem

enta

tion

step

take

n to

ach

ieve

a g

oal:

e.g

., “u

nder

take

saf

ety

impr

ovem

ents

at h

igh-

cras

h lo

catio

ns.”

Surf

ace

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pr

ogra

m –

A F

eder

al h

ighw

ay fu

ndin

g pr

ogra

m c

ateg

ory.

Fun

ds m

ay b

e us

ed fo

r a w

ide

varie

ty o

f pur

pose

s, in

clud

ing:

roa

dway

con

stru

ctio

n, re

cons

truct

ion,

resu

rfaci

ng, r

esto

ratio

n an

d re

habi

litat

ion;

ro

adw

ay o

pera

tiona

l im

prov

emen

ts; c

apita

l cos

ts fo

r tra

nsit

proj

ects

; hig

hway

and

tran

sit s

afet

y im

prov

emen

ts;

bicy

cle

and

pede

stria

n fa

cilit

ies;

sce

nic

and

hist

oric

al tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s; a

nd, p

rese

rvat

ion

of a

band

oned

tra

nspo

rtatio

n co

rrido

rs.

TAC

– T

echn

ical

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

.

TIP

– Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Impr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am:

A fi

nanc

ially

con

stra

ined

thre

e-ye

ar p

rogr

am li

stin

g sp

ecifi

c pr

ojec

ts

and

stra

tegi

es fr

om th

e lo

ng-r

ange

tran

spor

tatio

n pl

an th

at a

re p

riorit

ized

for f

undi

ng.

By

Fede

ral r

egul

atio

n, T

IPs

mus

t be

deve

lope

d fo

r urb

aniz

ed a

reas

of a

t lea

st 5

0,00

0 po

pula

tion.

TPI –

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Pl

anni

ng In

itiat

ive:

A S

tate

of V

erm

ont i

nitia

tive

desi

gned

to in

clud

e al

l seg

men

ts o

f the

pub

lic

in p

lann

ing

impr

ovem

ents

to V

erm

ont’s

tran

spor

tatio

n sy

stem

.

Traf

fic C

alm

ing

– A

col

lect

ion

of m

easu

res

to re

duce

the

nega

tive

effe

cts

of m

otor

veh

icle

use

, alte

r driv

er b

ehav

ior

and

impr

ove

cond

ition

s fo

r non

-mot

oriz

ed s

treet

use

rs.

Traf

fic c

alm

ing

mea

sure

s in

clud

e ro

adw

ay a

ltera

tions

suc

h as

gat

eway

s, d

ivid

ing

isla

nds,

cur

b ex

tens

ions

, tex

ture

d cr

ossw

alks

, and

man

aged

acc

ess

to in

divi

dual

pro

perti

es

thro

ugh

shar

ed o

r lim

ited

curb

cut

s. S

treet

scap

e de

sign

als

o pl

ays

an im

porta

nt ro

le in

traf

fic c

alm

ing

with

en

hanc

emen

ts s

uch

as li

ghtin

g, s

igna

ge, a

nd la

ndsc

apin

g, w

hich

rein

forc

e vi

llage

cha

ract

er a

nd a

t the

sam

e tim

e,

impr

ove

aest

hetic

s an

d hu

man

com

fort.

Verm

ont C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t Han

dboo

k G

-5

App

endi

x G

G

loss

ary

(con

tinue

d)

Trav

elsh

ed –

The

tota

l con

tribu

ting

area

that

gen

erat

es tr

ips

that

use

the

corri

dor.

Trig

ger –

The

val

ue o

f a m

easu

rabl

e in

dica

tor (

e.g.

, ave

rage

dai

ly tr

affic

, vol

ume-

to-c

apac

ity ra

tio, p

opul

atio

n de

nsity

) tha

t, w

hen

reac

hed,

will

cau

se a

set

of a

gree

d-up

on a

ctio

ns to

be

take

n (e

.g.,

cond

uct t

raffi

c st

udy)

.

Trip

Gen

erat

or –

A la

nd u

se th

at is

an

orig

in o

r des

tinat

ion

for t

rave

lers

.

Turn

ing

Mov

emen

t – A

veh

icul

ar m

ovem

ent t

hrou

gh a

n in

ters

ectio

n, d

efin

ed b

y th

e la

ne a

nd le

g fro

m w

hich

the

vehi

cle

orig

inat

es a

nd th

e la

ne a

nd le

g to

whi

ch th

e ve

hicl

e tra

vels

afte

r pas

sing

thro

ugh

the

inte

rsec

tion.

Tur

ning

m

ovem

ent c

ount

s de

term

ine

the

num

ber o

f veh

icle

s ex

ecut

ing

a gi

ven

turn

ing

mov

emen

t in

a de

fined

per

iod

of ti

me.

View

shed

– T

he a

rea

with

in v

iew

of a

def

ined

obs

erva

tion

poin

t or c

orrid

or.

VMT

– V

ehic

le M

iles

of T

rave

l: A

sta

ndar

d m

easu

re o

f tra

vel a

ctiv

ity, t

ypic

ally

cal

cula

ted

by m

ultip

lyin

g th

e av

erag

e le

ngth

of t

rip b

y th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of t

rips

(for a

n ar

ea),

or b

y m

ultip

lyin

g th

e le

ngth

of a

road

way

seg

men

t by

the

AD

T on

that

road

way

(for

a ro

adw

ay s

egm

ent).

Volu

me

– Th

e nu

mbe

r of v

ehic

les

that

pas

s th

roug

h a

give

n m

ile o

f roa

d in

a u

nit o

f tim

e su

ch a

s a

day;

this

term

al

so c

an b

e ap

plie

d to

tran

sit o

r bic

ycle

/ped

estri

an p

aths

.

VPD

– V

ehic

les

per D

ay.

V/C

– V

olum

e-ca

paci

ty ra

tio:

The

ratio

of t

he tr

affic

vol

ume

on a

road

way

to th

e ca

paci

ty o

f the

road

way

ove

r a

give

n tim

e pe

riod.

Documents

Vermont Corridor Management Handbook€¦ · • Define corridors of statewide significance, such as the 16 origin-destination pairs identified in the Vermont Highway System Policy