MEMORANDUM - Studies and Reports Database

MEMORANDUM

To:

From: Dan Bradley R. Chamberlin M. McCrory

Subject: Burlington Waterfront Study Update 16 June 2000 Date:

INTRODUCTION

As part of Resource Systems Group's study of future vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows at the Burlington Waterfront, we have completed analyses of existing parking demands in the Waterfront area. In this technical memorandum, we will summarize our findings and provide an outline for the next steps that we will take to complete this study.

PARKING STUDY DESCRIPTION

The purpose of the parking study was to assess the key characteristics of parking demand at the Waterfront so that we can accurately estimate future conditions. Overall, we inventoried parking conditions at eleven distinct parking areas (fable 1). We conducted a license plate survey of each parking area during a day. By recording license plates each hour, we could accurately record the number of vehicles, and how long each was parked. We recorded this information using personal digital assistant (PDA) handheld computers, tagged the information with the time of day, and downloaded the information into MS Excel after the count.

Table 1: Locations included in Parking Survey PARKING LOCATION Pease Public Parking Lot Union Station Surface Parking Lot 102 Lake Private Parking Lot Corner Stone Building Parking Structure Lake Champlain Basin Science Center On-Street: Union Station, Main to College On-Street: Lake St., College to Depot On-Street: College St., Lake to Battery On-Street: Battery St., Main to King (5-20 Survey Only) Lake & College Parking Lot Moran Plant Public Parking Lot

# SPACES 84 87 112 47 75 34 30 10 28 55 20

We conducted these surveys 10 AM to 6 PM on Wednesday, 17 May 2000, and 10 AM to 4 PM on Saturday, 20 May 2000. The weather on Wednesday was sunny and warm. Although the survey days

331 Olcott Drive, White River Junction, Vermont 05001

TEL 802.295.4999 • FAX 802.295.1006 • www.rsginc.com

........ Burlington Waterfront Study BSf. 16 June 2000

2'S Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 2

were too early in the year to be considered summertime, the good weather on Wednesday helped provide for summer-like recreation activities. On Saturday, the weather began with partly sunny skies, but became cloudy, cool, and rainy. While the Saturday conditions were less summer-like, this information will help us understand the way the parking areas are used on a Saturday.

PARKING ANALYSIS

We analyzed data from the parking survey, focusing on hourly parking area utilization, percent occupancy, and the residence time, or the length of time each vehicle stayed in a space. The following discussion will address parking conditions we observed.

Pease Public Parking Lot

The Pease Parking Lot was free parking during the study periods. Typically, this lot becomes fee parking during the summer months. Based on the surrounding land uses and the public activities the overall parking characteristics for this particular lot would not differ between pay and metered operations. According to survey data, the Pease Parking Lot was being used near capacity for long periods on both days (Figure 1). The drop in occupied spaces on Saturday corresponds to a change in weather from partly sunny to cool and rainy.

Figure 1: Occupancy, Pease Parking Lot (spaces occupied)

Pease Public Parking Lot 100

Parkina Lot II.: .

90 84

80 --,.--~ T

II) 70 CD /"' '" u C'CI 60 Q. /' ~ tJ)

50 ..l C) / ...........--c ~ 40 ...-- .... ...

C'CI Q. 30

20

10

0 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

1-+-17 -May-OO -.-20-May-OO - Estimated Max Spaces 1

IIIIIIIIIII""tIBlII Burlington Waterfront Study Nil 16June2000 -Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 3

Approximately 75 percent of vehicles surveyed stayed at this lot for less than two hours (Figure 2). Parking residence time was consistent for the weekday and Saturday studies. Peak demand occurred at 4 PM on Wednesday and at 1 PM on Saturday.

Figure 2: Proportional Distribution of Residence Time, Pease Parking Lot

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% < 1 hr

Distribution of Parking Residence Time Pease Public Parking Lot

1 to 2 hr 2t03hr 3 to 4 hr 4 to 5 hr 5 to 6 hr

1m 17-May-00 .20-May-00 I

Union Station Surface Parking Lot

6 to 7 hr

The Union Station Surface Lot is reserved for those who patronize or work in the Union Station office building (fable 2). Parking restrictions were not enforced for this area during the study days. Saturday occupancy was half that of the weekday (Figure 3).

Table 2: Summary of Land Uses Served by Union Station Surface Lot

LAND USE

Commercial/Office

Train Station

APPROXIMATE AREA (Sq Ft)

7,340

10,000

.. ."._ Burlington Waterfront Study M 16 June 2000

2&i Resource Systems Group, Inc .

page 4

Figure 3: Occupancy, Union Station Lot (spaces occupied)

Union Station Surface Lot

100 Parking Lot Utilization

90 87

80

II) 70 -Q) ..-- -Co) .,... 'V

ctI 60 c. en 50 en

c :52 40 ...

~ ~ ctI 30 c.. ~

20

10

0 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

1-$-17 -May-OO --.- 20-May-OO - Estimated Max Spaces I

The residence times for the parked cars were well distributed in the weekday study period (Figure 4), suggesting higher use by commuters. The short-term parking on Saturday increased by approximately 20 percent. The peak demands for this parking lot were around 12 PM on \V'ednesday and between 1 PM and 2 PM on Saturday.

...... III Burlington Waterfront Study eli 16 June 2000

R Resource Systems Group, Inc.

pageS

Figure 4: Proportional Distribution of Residence Time, Union Station Lot

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% < 1 hr

Distribution of Parking Residence Time Union Station Surface Lot

1 to 2 hr 2t03hr 3 to 4 hr 4t05hr 5 to 6 hr

la17-May-00 .20-May-00 I

102 Lake Private Parking Lot

6 to 7 hr

The 102 Lake Street Parking Lot is reserved for those who are visiting the various offices or services in the 102 Lake Street area. The land uses this parking area serves are a restaurant, offices, day care, and other services (fable 3). Similar to the Union Station Parking Lot, the parking demand is higher during the weekday (Figure 5).

Table 3: Summary of Land Uses Served by 102 Lake Parking Lot

LAND USE

Commercial/Office

Restaurant

APPROXIMATE AREA (Sq Ft)

21,500

2,500

Note: A portion of the land use areas were calculated using orthographic photos

Burlington Waterfront Study

~ 16June2000

H Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 6

Figure 5: Occupancy, 102 Lake Parking Lot (spaces occupied)

102 Lake Building Complex Parking Lot 120 Parkina Lot Utilization

112

100

III 80 -.-4'..... G)

~ .~ U III A.. Co (/) ..,...-- v

Ol 60

'" c

:so: --' ..

III 40 Q. ,./

~ ~ ---... 20 .....

0 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

1-+-17 -May-DO -.-20-May-OO --Estimated Max Spaces I

The peak hours of parking demand occurred at 3 PM on Wednesday and 2 PM on Tuesday. The majority of vehicles were recorded as parked for less than one hour (Figure 6). There was an even distribution of vehicles staying between 1 and 5 hours.

Figure 6: Proportional Distribution of Residence Time, 102 Lake Parking Lot

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

< 1 hr

Distribution of Parking Residence Time 102 Lake Building Complex Parking Lot

1 t02 hr 2 t03 hr 3 to 4 hr 4 to 5 hr 5 to 6 hr

1m 17-May-OO .20-May-OO I 6 to 7 hr

... .,... Burlington Waterfront Study M 16June2000

rs; Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 7

Corner Stone Bui/ding Parking Structure

The Comer Stone Building is adjacent to the Union Station, situated at the comer of Lake Street and Battery Street. The Comer Stone Building consists of mosdy offices, some retail space, a restaurant, and residences. The parking structure likely serves this building and the Wing Building, adjacent to the Comer Stone Building that also contains office, retail, and residential space (fable 4). This parking structure occupies the lower floors of the Comer Stone Building and consists of a metered parking area and a permit parking area. The metered parking lot was barely used (Figure 7) and the permit area moderately used (Figure 8).

Table 4: Summary of Land Uses Served by 102 Lake Parking Lot

BUILDING LAND USE APPROXIMATE AREA (Sq Ft)

Cornerstone Building Commercial/Office 21,500

2,500 Restaurant

Residential 2 Housing Units

Wing Building Commercial/Office 7,000

Residential 4 Housing Units

Figure 7: Occupancy, Corner Stone Bui/ding Metered Parking Lot (spaces occupied)

Corner Stone Building Short-Term Parking 100 Parkina Lot Utilization

90

80

1/1 70 G) u

60 ItS c.. (J)

50 Cl c 42 :i: ... 40 ItS Q. 30

20

10

0 10:00 10:00 11:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

!-+-17-May-00 --'-20-May-00 -Estimated Max Spaces!


.. 1III"'tI1IIIlIII. 16 June 2000

M 2&ii

Resource Systems Group, Inc .

pageS

Figure 8: Occupancy, Corner Stone Building Permitted Parking Lot (spaces occupied)

Corner Stone Building Permit Parking 100 Parkina Lot l'"" ~,

90

80

III 70 G) (.) co 60 Co (J)

50 C) c 45

:s2 40 ... co 0- 30 .. .40.

20 -- :;,... ~ 10 .. • '" '" '" '" ... -v

0 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

1-+-17 -May-OO --*- 20-May-OO - Estimated Max Spaces 1

These two parking areas have distinctly different characteristics related to vehicle residence time (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The metered parking residence time is similar to other lots, even with for the low occupancy numbers. Residence time at the permit parking lot seems to have a high percentage of vehicles staying for up to five hours. These vehicles likely belong to residents and restaurant workers, and the residence time distribution was exaggerated because of the low occupancy numbers.

1IIl!II1III"'I1IIIIII1III Burlington Waterfront Study Bii 16 June 2000 2& . Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 9

Figure 9: Proportional Distribution of Residence Time, Corner Stone Building Metered Parking Lot

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

< 1 hr

Distribution of Parking Residence Time Corner Stone Building Short-Term Parking

1 to 2 hr 2 to 3 hr 3 to 4 hr 4to 5 hr 5 to 6 hr

, 1 m 17 -May-OO 1120-May-OO I

6t07hr

Figure 10: Proportional Distribution of Residence Time, Corner Stone Building Permitted Parking Lot

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% < 1 hr

Distribution of Parking Residence Time Corner Stone Building Permit Parking

1 to 2 hr 2 to 3 hr 3t04hr 4 to 5 hr 5 to 6 hr

1£liI17-May-OO 1i20-May-OO I 6 to 7 hr

____ Burlington Waterfront Study R4i 16June2000

r6S Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 10

Lake Champlain Science Center Parking Lot

To the south of the Lake Champlain Science Center, there are paved and gravel parking spaces.

During the count periods, the gravel parking was restricted to those using a nearby marina. This area

is significantly under-utilized (Figure 11), largely due to the lack of marina activity on the count days.

Figure 11: Occupancy, Lake Champlain Science Center Parking Lot (spaces occupied)

Lake Champlain Science Center Lot Parking Lot Utilization

100

90

80 75

11170 CI) U [60

(J) 50 C) c :.5240 ... It! 0..30

20 .....

10 ~

0 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

1-+-17 -May-OO -'-20-May-OO - Estimated Max Spaces 1

On-Street Parking Areas

In order to simplify the information, we combined the on-street parking areas within the core

Waterfront area. For the Saturday survey, we counted a parking area not addressed in the Wednesday

survey. The on-street parking areas were along Lake Street, from Main Street to the north, College

Street west of Battery Street, and an additional Saturday count along Battery Street between Main and

King Streets. To compare the two days, we analyzed the percent occupancy, by total number of

spaces.

liliiiil1""liIIIIIIII Burlington Waterfront Study M 16 June 2000

211 Resource Systems Group, Inc . .

page 11

Figure 12: Occupancy, 102 Lake Parking Lot (spaces occupied)

Percent Occupancy, On-Street Parking

100%

90%

80% .A. }k..

...... 70% r- ~ / ---.. tf!. / A ~ / ......

60% >- L / ~ ..

u c 50% co ---4' ~ ~ Co ::J 40%

... u

~ '" U 0 30%

~ ~ 20%

10%

0% 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00

I--+-'- 17 -May-OO -..... 20-May-OO I

Approximately 80 to 85 percent of vehicles were parked for less than one hour (Figure 13). Less than five percent remained for more than 2 hours. On both Wednesday and Saturday, peak parking demand occurred at 1 PM.

___ Burlington Waterfront Study fjji 16 June 2000

IS Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 12

Figure 13: Proportional Distribution of Residence Time, 102 Lake Parking Lot

85%

75%

65%

55%

45%

35%

25%

15%

5%

-5% < 1 hr

Distribution of Parking Residence Time Waterfront Area On-Street Parking

1 to 2 hr 2 to 3 hr 3 to 4 hr 4 to 5 hr

Iii 17 -May-OO Ii 20-May-OO I

Moran Plant and Lake & College Surface Parking Lots

5 to 6 hr

Both parking lots at the Moran Plant and at the northeast comer of the Lake Street/College Street intersection are considered public parking. Although not enforced at the time of the study, parking at the Lake & College Parking Lot is restricted. Parking at the Moran Plant indicates steady demand throughout the day on both days, while the Lake & College Parking Lot remained mostly empty on both days.

Overall Parking Utilization

We combined the overall parking space counts into one chart showing utilization for the Waterfront parking areas for Wednesday (Figure 14) and Saturday (Figure 15), respectively. These summary figures indicate underutilization of parking spaces in the Burlington Waterfront core area. The peaking also suggests peaking of demand at 1 PM and 4 PM.

Burlington Waterfront Study BJi 16 June 2000

rIB Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 13

Figure 14: Occupancy, Overall Parking Summary, Wednesday, 17 May 2000 (spaces occupied)

700

600

III 500 8 co 9i 400

til .E 300 .:.::

~ 200

100

o

.-

10:00 11:00

Burilington Waterfront Total Parking Lot Utilization

--12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00

.. ---

16:00 17:00

I-+-Occupied Spaces - Estimated Max Spaces I

594

-...

18:00

Figure 15: Occupancy, Overall Parking Summary, Saturday, 20 May 2000 (spaces occupied)

700

600

III 500 CIl () co Co 400 en til .5 300 .:.:: "-co

Do 200

100

o 10:00

Burilington Waterfront Total Parking Lot Utilization

.... - ---- -

11 :00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00

I ...... Occupied Spaces - Estimated Max Spaces I

622

..

16:00

Burlington Waterfront Study 16 June 2000

CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS

Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 14

Resource Systems Group conducted parking lot surveys for the Burlington Waterfront core area on Wednesday, 17 May 2000, and Saturday, 20 May 2000. These surveys recorded the vehicle license plate numbers to assess the number of vehicles present in a parking area, and the length of stay for those vehicles. This survey data provides information to understand the characteristics of the local parking demand.

The next step in this study is to associate parking demand with the uses at each site. These will enable the estimation of parking demand coefficients that can be used to more accurately model temporal parking demand for mixed uses on the Burlington Waterfront. This will be a direct input to the following stage of analysis, where we will estimate time of day parking demand associated with the build-out of the Waterfront. These estimates will be compared with parking requirements that are part of the Burlington Zoning Ordinance.

_RESOURCE ~ I ~;~;o~~~ GROUP

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

Date: June 17,2000

To: Dan Bradley

Project: Burlington Waterfront Pedestrian Safety and Circulation Study

We are sending you:

[8J enclosed

Copies Date

1 6/16/00

These are transmitted:

0 for approval

[8J for your use

0 as requested

Copy to: None

o under separate cover

0 0 0

Description

Burlington Waterfront Study Update

for review and comment

for distribution

for other

331 Olcott Drive, White River Junction, Vermont 05001

TEL802.295.4999 • FAX802.295.1006 • www.rsginc.com

MEMORANDUM

To: From:

Dan Bradley R. Chamberlin

Subject: Date:

Burlington Waterfront Study Update 24 August 2000

This memorandum is a follow up to the memorandum of 16 June 2000 that dealt with the analyses of the existing parking demands and vehicular flow in the Waterfront area. In this technical

memorandum, we will summarize our analyses and ftndings for the build out conditions and provide recommendations to mitigate anticipated constraints.

PURPOSE

The focus of this project is to understand the traffic, pedestrian, and circulation issues arising from the cumulative development proposals for the Burlington Waterfront. The future build out conditions includes the Multi-Modal Trarisporfation Center (MMTC), take Champlain Science Center expansion, and other planned commercial and recreational developments. The study assessed .

the parking and circulation needs arising from these cumulative developments. The study also developed a series of recommendations for managing vehicular circulation and parking within the

Waterfront area.

APPROACH TO ANALYSIS

Resource Systems Group inventoried parking conditions at eleven distinct parking areas (fable 1) on

two survey days; 10 AM to 6 PM on Wednesday, 17 May 2000, and 10 AM to 4 PM on Saturday, 20 May 2000. We conducted a license plate survey of each parking area. The weather on Wednesday

was sunny and warm. Although the survey days were too early in the year to be cOll:sidered summertime, the good weather on Wednesday helped provide for summer-like recreation activities.

On Saturday, the weather began with partly sunny skies, but became cloudy, cool, and rainy. While

the Saturday conditions were less summer-like, this information will help us understand the way the

parking areas are used on a Saturday.

Since the majority of the parking spaces in the study area are multi-use, we classified the parking

supply in two geographical zones. Zone 1 includes the on- and off-street parking spaces from (including) Lake and College Street development to the south, with 435 parking spaces. Zone 2 is

made up of a portion of the Lake Street on-street parking plus off-street parking spaces at 102 Lake Street development an the parking at Moran Plant. This totals to 147 parking spaces.

331 Olcott Drive. White River Junction. Vermont 05001

TEL 802.295.4999 • FAX 802.295.1006 • www.rsginc.com


24 August 2000

T bl 1 L r , I d d' P k' S a e : oca Ions me u e m ar mg urvey PARKING LOCATION Pease Public Parking Lot Union Station Surface Parking Lot 102 Lake Private Parking Lot Corner Stone Building Parking Structure Lake Champlain Basin Science Center On-Street: Union Station, Main to College On-Street: Lake St., College to Depot On-Street: College St., Lake to Battery On-Street: Battery St., Main to King (5-20 Survey Only) Lake & College Parking Lot Moran Plant Public Parking Lot Total

# SPACES 84 87 112 47 75 34 30 10 28 55 20 582

Resource Systems Group, Inc,

page 2

Zone 1 1 2 1 1 1

1,2 1 1 1 2

Based on our analysis of the data, we used the Wednesday data for the 2000 design day conditions1,

LAND USE

To establish the build out conditions, we collected information concerning the planned and permitted developments within the study area, Figure 1 shows the planned developments in the study .. area. The Main Street Landing Phase I Development is to be included in e~sti1lg cOl1clitiops, Other developments are assumed to be in the build out conditions. To establish the magnitude of the ,future developments, we contacted the developers and the planners in charge of these projects (fable 2).

1 Design Day for this analysis represents an average summer day.

Burlington Waterfront Study 24 August 2000

Figure 1: Waterfront Developments

N

A

102Lake SI. Main Street Landing Phase III Residential 122.4 KSF Retail 27 KSF Office 35 KSF

Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 3

Lake & College Redevelopment Project ~~-+--.. Main Street Landing Phase II r---=::,..--t-:...:+1t+-,--,......-I--F=~--L----, Inn 30 rooms Cinema 240 seats Restaurant 80 seats Sports Bar 100 seats Retail 14.4 KSF Office 8 KSF

Union Station Parking Lot Main Street Landing phaseVI Residential 34 KSF Retail 15 KSF Office 35 KSF

Lake Champlain Basin Science Center

,---1--- Multimodal Transportation Center

Union Station Train Station 6 KSF

Main Street Landing Phase I Fitness Club 4 KSF Residential 4 units Restaurant 7 KSF Office 34.3 KSF



T bl 2 P a e : ropose dW rf ate ront D eve opment an ar Ing d P k' Z ones ailcirgSite Exisitrg Pa1dng Pa1dng fI1LIIl Pmlg Pmlg Anticipated addticml Tota

lJIlduse UIltS re<Jired regs. • proo.1ded lJIlduse UIlIts req.ired regs. • exiSilirg p;r1<irg Pa1dng U1ion Station TrainStatioo 6,000 100

FrtnessOub 4,000 40 U1ion Station CXfices 7,340 24 \\kQ8ti1di1'(j CXfices 7,000 23 WI'(j8ti1di1'(j Residential 4uri1s 6 Cornernlooe Restaurant 7,000 25 Cornernlooe CXfices 20,000 67

185 100 100 Lm<e & Cdlege ~oprrent 1m 3Oroorrs 30

Onerra 240 seals 80 Thlaler so seals 17 Restaurant 80 seals 20 SpOOsBar 100 seals 25 CXfices 8,000 27 Re1ai1 14,400 96

294 55 57 112 Lm<e Ct\anllIain sse 92 loo%iraease in~. 92 92

LIlionStaIon ~A 55

MJffilOOdal Transpatalon Cenler 134

U1ion Station PaJ1<i1'(j Lot Residential 34,000 20 Retail 1~000 - --~

100 .. .. arw;e 35,000 117

, ... zrT .. ···87· - 10 100 102 Lm<e &reet Residential 122,400 73

Retail 6,000 40 Retail 27,000 100 00ce 22100 74

327 112 ,., 207 FJenjnq MJseum FJoalvea 33,000 47 3i5 35

Parl<ing required by Burlington ZOlling CXdinance or other parking strndaids

DESIGN DAYS

We analyzed the parking survey data, focusing on hourly parking utilization, percent occupancy, and the residence time, or the length of time each vehicle stayed in a space. The results indicated underutilization of parking spaces in the Burlington Waterfront core area. The data also suggests peaking of demand at 1 PM and 4 PM. The results of this survey were discussed in the previous

memorandum (16 June 2000).

We determined that the design days should consider the variation in summer demand for the recreational land uses in the study area. Therefore, using the 1999 Red Book2, we used the average Group V roads summer recreational factor of 1.37 s to apply to the survey data. Figures 2 and 3 show the parking utilization for the 2000 design day.

2 Continuous Traffic Counter Grouping Study & Regression Analysis Based on 1999 Traffic Data, VTrans.


24 August 2000

Resource Systems Group, Inc.

pageS

Figure 2: Zone 1 Parking Utilization, 2000 Design Day

450

400 '+.:>;)

350

m 300 0 ctI <%250

-~ g>200 :i: -- ~ .... -& 150 -...........

100 -50

0

10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00

1 ...... 2000 Design Day -Estimated Max spacesi

. ~;

Figure 3: Zone 2 Parking Utilization, 2000-0eslgn Day

200

180

160

Ul140 OJ 147 16120 Co

(f) 1 00 Cl C :g 80

-~ ctI 0.. 60

40 - -----.. ~ 20

0 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00

1 ...... 2000 Design Day--Estimated Max spacesi

The results also showed that under the existing conditions, there is no overall shortage of parking

spaces and plenty of surplus parking spaces available. Nevertheless, shortfalls do occur at the specific

popular lots (e.g. Pease), and during the special events.


2005 BUILD OUT CONDITIONS

Resource Systems Group, Inc. pageS

Several assumptions were made to estimate the Build out design day conditions. The year 2005 parking demand consists of the following components;

• Year 2000 design day,

• Planned development (recreational, others)

• Projected daily and peak hour commuter rail boarding,

• Fleming Museum, and

• Lake Champlain Basin Science Center.

The parking demand in the previous section was used as the year 2000 design day demand. Based on shared parking algorithms3, we determined the parking demand for the future developments. To account for the recreational demand variation we applied the recreational factor (1.37) to the land uses that are affected by this variation. We assumed all the land uses except for the residential and office will be affected.

For the Union Station parking demand, fltst, we determined the future commuter service frc;>m the . pervious studies. Burlington/Essex Passenger Rail Feasibility Study and Corrid~rAnalysis4 e~timates two scenarios for the year 2009 services. The scenarios are all-day service at Union Station (high and

low growth) and morning-afternoon service (high and low growth). For the purpose this study, morning-afternoon service with high growth was selected as the most likely scenario. Using the boarding estimates from this report and data from Parkin;, parking accumulation at Union Station was determined (Figure 4).

3 Shared Parkillg, The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 1983.

4 Bur/illgtolll Essex Passmger Rail Feasibility Sturfy alld ConirWr Allafysis, R.L. Banks & Associate, Washington, D.C., 1999.

5 Parkillg, Eno Foundation For Transportation, West Port, CT, 1989.



Figure 4: Build Out Year Parking Accumulation Due to Train Boardings

60

50

40 en 8 '" 0-

~ 30 c

~ 0...

20

10

0 ::;: ::;: ::;: « « «

::;: ::;: ::;: « « «

c: ::;: ::;: ::;: ::;: 8 a. a. a. a.

~ ";- "i' It) CD ..... ~ ~ ~ co cJ, ~

Z ~ '1' :z "t ~ c:

(")

0 ::;:- 0 ,.~.~ .-z «

~ :: Time of Day

The parking demand for the Fleming Museum that will be located at the site of the Moran Plant has two components, office and visitors. The Fleming Museum will have a total square footage of 33,000, of which it was assumed that 10,000 square feet will be used as the office space. For this component of the parking demand, we used the shared parking algorithms, referenced previously. For the visitor component, it was also assumed that during an average peak hour, there will be 50 visitors of which 75% need parking spaces, the peak demand will be achieved at 4:00 PM. We also applied the recreational factor to the visitor demand.

To estimate the parking demand from the expansion Lake Champlain Basin Science Center, we talked to the people in charge of the expansion. It became apparent that the expansion will approximately double the activities at the center, therefore, it was assumed that the existing parking demand (from the year 2000 design day) will increase by 1000#.

Since Lake Street does not carry any external traffic (from other origins to other destinations), we assumed that the only growth in parking demand would result from developments in the study area.

The build out parking supply was determined by adding on street and existing parking to the additional parking spaces provided by the developments. Figure 5 and 6 illustrate the hourly parking demand versus inventories in Zone 1 and Zone 2, respectively.

6 Conversation with Mr. Ray Lavigne, Director of Lake Champlain Basin Science Center, July 2000.


Resource Systems Group. Inc. pageS

Figure 5: Zone 1 Parking Utilization, Build Out Design Day

700

629 600 --.-Jr'

~ (/)500 ~ Q) / ~ ()

~.400 00 I Cl

~300 .... I (\I 0..

200

J 100 Jr"""

0 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00

I -.-Build Out Design Day - Estimated Max Spaces. I

Figure 6: Zone 2 Parking Utilization, Build Out Design Day

500

450

400

(/)350 Q) ~ ~300 c..

~. ..... 00 250 /" ......... Cl / " c :g200

/. ~ (\I

0..150

/ ~ 100

./ 50 ~

0 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

\

-.-Build Out Design Day

\ - Estimated Max Spaces

The analysis shows that the parking demand in Zone 1 for the build out design day is very likely to be met for most hours of the Build out design day. Conversely, Zone 2 parking demand is not met during the afternoon peak period. The analysis shows a year 2005 design day shortfall of approximately 100 parking spaces.



We also estimated the number of parking required by the Burlington Zoning Ordinance and by Parking (when Zoning Ordinance did include the land use). These estimates show that Zone 1 and Zone 2

will require approximately 678 and 374 parking spaces, respectively (fable 2).

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

To estimate the number of trips generated by the future developments in the study area, the trip

generation rates where obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation7.

Trip Generation did not contain trip generation rates that were applicable to the visitors at Fleming

Museum and Lake Champlain Basin Science Center. Therefore, it was assumed that every three

visitors will generate one vehicle trip with 50% entering and 50% exiting. Nevertheless, to

compensate for any shortcomings, it was assumed that each site would generate 150 visitors per peak

hour.

Table 3 illustrates the build out vehicle trips generated by each land use in each zone.

Table 3: Build Out Trip Generations

Zone 1 Rates Trips 1TE, LU PM IN OJT PM IN OJT AM-Total IN OJT

310 Inn 3J rocxrs 0.67 0.53 0.47 0.71 0.49 0.51 20 11 . 9·

444 Onerra 240 seats 0.14 0.53 0.47 444 Theater 50 seats 0.14 0.53 0.47 831 Restaurant 80 seats 0.19 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.59 0.41 15 11 5 832 Spats Bar 100 seats 0.47 0.52 0.48 0.42 0.58 0.42 47 24 23 710 CXfices 81000SF 1.56 0.88 0.12 1.49 0.17 0.83 12 11 1 710 CXfices 35 1000 SF 1.56 0.88 0.12 1.49 0.17 0.83 55 48 7 814 Retail 141000SF 6.41 0.48 0.52 4.93 0.57 0.43 92 44 48 814 Retail 151000SF 6.41 0.48 0.52 4.93 0.57 0.43 96 46 50 230 ResiOOntiai 20 units 0.44 0.17 0.83 0.54 0.67 0.33 9 1 7 710 LCSC 4 full tirre errp 0.48 0.88 0.12 0.46 0.17 0.83 2 2 0

150 visitors 0.33 0.5 0.5 0.63 0.5 0.5 50 25 25 000 tvMrC 140 spa::es 0.78 0.8 0.2 0.63 0.22 0.78 109 fJ7 22

24 bJses 2 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 0.5 48 24 24 TarAL 507 311 197 Zone 2

710 CXfices 22 1000 SF 1.56 0.88 0.12 1.49 0.17 0.83 34 3J 4 814 Retail 27 1000 SF 6.41 0.48 0.52 4.93 0.57 0.43 173 83 90

230 ResiOOntiai 72. 1000 SF 0.44 0.17 0.83 0.54 0.67 0.33 32 5 26 710 RenirgM 15 ErvP 0.48 0.88 0.12 0.46 0.17 0.83 7 6 1

150 visitors 0.33 0.5 0.5 0.63 0.5 0.5 50 25 25 TarAL 296 150 146

7 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Gel/oration, Washington DC, October 1998

PM-Total IN OJT .

21 10 11 34 18 16 7 4 3 24 14 10 42 24 18 12 2 10 52 9 43 71 40 31 74 42 32 11 7 4 2 0 2 95 47 47 88 19 69 48 24 24 444 219 225

33 6 27 133 76 57 39 26 13 7 1 6 95 47 47

3J6 156 150


Resource Systems Group. Inc. page 10

The percentage of non-automobile trips within downtown Burlington is very high compared to suburban areas. The Chittenden County Regional Transportation Demand Model shows that the non-automobile share of person trips in the Burlington Central Business District is approximately 25%. Resource Systems Group performed a survey in 19938, which determined that non-automobile trips in the Burlington Central Business District (CBD) make up 25.2% of the total trips. Additionally, Resource Systems Group conducted an intensive pedestrian intercept survey at Burlington Square Mall as part of the traffic permitting for the Filene's Department Store9• Of 350 downtown pedestrians surveyed during a weekday afternoon in Januaryl0, 35% stated that they traveled to downtown Burlington in a bus, by walking, or by other non-automobile means. Therefore, for this study, we assumed that 25% of the trips generated by these developments are non-automobile trips.

The analysis indicates that under build out conditions in 2005, an estimated 603 AM peak hour vehicle trips, and an estimated 638 PM peak hour vehicle trips will be generated by the developments.

BACKGROUND TRAFFIC

Background traffic was estimated for 2005. Raw traffic count data were adjusted 2 ways. First, traffic volumes were adjusted to reflect design hour conditions. The design hour is the thirtieth highest hour of traffic recorded over a year. This represents a highly congested traffic situation, which will occur less than 1% of the hours of the year (30 th hour/8760 hours per year = 0.3%).

The second count adjustment escalates all data to year 2005 conditions. For this adjustment, we have assumed an average annual growth rate of 1 % per year. The combined effect of both adjustments is to increase the raw traffic count volumes by 21.9% for 2005.

Table 4 shows the estimated 2005 design hour traffic volumes at the study intersections.

8 IVIS Stated Preference Survey, Burlington, VI, 1993.

9 Traffic Impact Study for Burlington Square Mall Expansion, 1997.

lOrhe Day of the pedestrian intercept survey was January 1997.


24 August 2000 Resource Systems Group, Inc.

page 11

Table 4: Estimated 2005 Background Traffic Volumes for Study Area, PM Peak Hour

EB WB NB SB Lake & College Left 0 20 2 81 Burlington, VT Through 55 55 28 46

Right 2 37 22 0 348 Enter 57 111 53 127 348

Exit 158 57 65 68 348

EB WB NB SB College/Battery Left 85 34 16 124 Burlington, VT Through 52 52 988 703

Right 11 309 85 43 2,501 Enter 148 394 1,089 870 2,501

Exit 261 110 1,382 749 2,501

EB WB NB SB· Main/Battery Left 17 38 39 249 Burlington, VT Through 45 42 678 483

Right 51 255 29 11 1,938 Enter 114 335 746 743 1,938

Exit 323 92 951 573 1,938

We used the background traffic to determine the development trip distribution within the local road network (Figure 7).

..


Figure 7: Build Out Traffic, PM Peak Hour


College Streey Main Street

~ i( L~8-8 -------Ib rc ~ t24--+ .-- t025

728--' r 46

120T

iti Battery Street 202 123 26

225 55 28

+~ L 34

.-- 190

272

132 --.

iti o 55 2

Lake S1.

~14

40 30

MMTC

Union Station Development

Drawing Not to Scale

259--+

503--'

1ST

i t 19 73 8

.-- 714

r187

In order to evaluate the effects of a one-way road system, assumed that Lake Street from College to

Main will one way southbound. The background traffic and the traffic generated from the

development were reassigned to a one-way system.


Resource Systems Group. Inc. page 13

Figure 8: Build Out Traffic, One-way Road Network, PM Peak Hour

124J 728~

135T

Battery Street

481 55 63

+l.

405 ~

~ 1238

r 302

o 55 2

Lake SI. Drawing Not to Scale

RECDOMMENDATIONS

.14

70

MMTC

Union Station Development

233 196 11

L 45

~901

r

As it detennined, Zone 2 is likely to experience a shortage of parking during most of hours of the build out design day. To remedy the parking shortage, we recommend encouraging the use of the surplus parking that exists at the Filene's Department Store during the time that Zone 2 experiences parking shortage. The Filene's Department Store is a short walking distance from the Waterfront, therefore, it is not an unappealing walk for visitors. Second, the Filene's Department Store to the Waterfront provides a suitable corridor to create a pedestrian mall that links the downtown area to the Waterfront on Cherry Street. This pedestrian mall would further reduce the vehicular trips, improve the pedestrian flow and provide access to the Waterfront. To make this practical, a major pedestrian walkway scaling the slope from Battery Street is a critical infrastructure element for the Waterfront.

The intersections in the study area should be further monitored and studied to detennine the feasibility of a one-way street network.

MEMORANDUM - Studies and Reports Database

Documents

Transcript of MEMORANDUM - Studies and Reports Database