Project Management & Coordination

To: Eleni Churchill, CCRPC Date:

April 8, 2019

Project #: 58179.00

From: David Saladino, P.E., AICP Re: Final Project Scope of Work

I-89 2050 Study

Chittenden County, Vermont

This document outlines the Scope of Work to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Interstate 89 corridor

through Chittenden County out to a design horizon year of 2050 and develop a suite of policy, planning, and

infrastructure recommendations that align with stakeholder-identified Vision, Goals, and Objectives for the corridor.

Scope of Work

Task 0 – Project Management & Coordination

Ongoing project management, budget and schedule tracking, and team communication and coordination are

critical elements to ensure this project proceeds in an orderly and efficient manner. This task includes general

project management and coordination tasks, including the following services:

› Refine project scope of work and schedule;

› Correspond and communicate with project team, committees, and stakeholders;

› Coordinate personnel and workload to adhere to project schedule and milestones;

› Manage overall Quality Assurance process and oversee Quality Control reviews;

› Review project financials, including actual vs. budget by task on a monthly basis; and,

› Review monthly project invoices and prepare project summary narrative to accompany invoices.

Task 1 – Project Initiation and Kickoff Meetings

Task 1.1: Project Initiation and Internal Kick-off

As part of this initial task, the VHB Team will hold an internal team kick-off meeting to orient the team to the

project and to review key project details including the project Scope of Work, schedule, milestones, and key

deliverables. VHB will develop a detailed project base map and key corridor information for use in the initial

Technical and Advisory Committee meetings. VHB will also formalize the Process Roadmap and prepare draft

study goals in preparation for meetings with the Technical and Advisory Committees.

Task 1.2: Technical Committee Meeting #1

The Technical Committee (TC) will convene for a kick-off meeting to discuss the Scope of Work (SOW), roles

and responsibilities of the TC, and the upcoming first meeting of the Advisory Committee.

Task 1.3: Advisory Committee Meeting #1

The first Advisory Committee meeting will focus on the following major topics: 1) Review of the Metropolitan

Transportation Plan (MTP) and the need to conduct the I-89 2050 Study; 2) Provide an overview of the I-89

Study Scope of Work; 3) Review the study’s Public Participation Plan; and, 4) Review other relevant projects

and processes that will influence this study such as the CIRC Alternatives process and projects.

Deliverables: Study Process Map; Final SOW; Technical Committee and Advisory Committee meeting

agendas, materials and notes.

Task 2 – Analyze Current and Future Base Conditions and Performance

Task 2.1: Gather Data and Information

The data gathering effort will begin during Task 1 and will include a review of relevant studies and reports

provided by the CCRPC and VTrans, including statewide, regional, and local planning efforts, like the ECOS

Plan and MTP, as well as scoping and improvement studies along the corridor, to document previous metrics,

targets, evaluation methods, and recommendations. Beyond previous studies, data and information regarding

existing study area land use, transportation infrastructure, travel patterns, safety, utilities, natural and cultural

resources, and other relevant data will be gathered from a multitude of resources. The team will take

advantage of local knowledge, data resource familiarity, coordination with resource agencies, as well as

innovation in data collection and information access to generate an organized inventory of measurable

condition and performance metrics for the corridor segments, interchanges, and adjacent arterials.

This initial data gathering effort will include the following items:

› Land Use and Socio-Economic Data

• Existing zoning

• Existing land cover and buildings

• Population, employment, and household forecasts

› Transportation Infrastructure (including the entire I-89 corridor plus arterials and intersections ¼ to ½

mile from the interchanges)

• Lane and shoulder geometry

• Presence and length of guardrail and rumble strips

• Traffic control, signage, and signal timing

• Transit routes and stops

• Park and Ride lots and capacity

• Bridge, overpasses and culvert conditions

• I-89 pavement conditions

• Planned and permitted development projects

• Existing and planned Intelligent Transportation Systems

• Other relevant infrastructure

› Travel Patterns

• Traffic volumes and turning movement counts

• Travel times

• Public transit ridership and routes

• Park and ride utilization

• Origins/Destinations of corridor and interchange users

› Safety

• Crash Data (2014-2018)

• High Crash Locations (2014-2018)

› Utilities

• Fiber optics

• Gas

• Electric

• Water/Sewer

› Natural & Cultural Resources

• Water features and river corridors

• Wetlands

• Wildlife crossings and conflicts

• Rare, threatened, and endangered species

• FEMA floodways

› “Big Data”

• Innovative, big data mining approaches may be employed to query other pertinent data resources

available either through federal channels or private enterprises that may be relevant and provide

additional insights. For instance, travel times from the National Performance Management Research

Data Set (NPMRDS), business data from InfoGroup, and demographics from American Community

Survey may provide additional detail that is advantageous to the study.

Task 2.2: Coordinate Resource Agencies and Other Data Resources

We anticipate that coordination with a multitude of agencies will be required to ensure that the most up-to-

date and relevant information regarding the corridor is inventoried. First, relevant data resources available

through online databases will be searched and documented. Then, a series of up to four meetings with agency

representatives will be conducted to review the intentions of the study and discuss other pertinent

information and/or data resources that may be available. These meetings may include coordination with

agency representatives from the following agencies/bureaus or other agencies identified at a later point:

› VTrans Asset Management: To discuss and inventory asset types that VTrans tracks through the I-89

corridor and adjacent arterials, documenting the condition of assets that are critical, high priority, and

require action in the future;

› Maintenance and Operations, TSMO, and ITS representatives: To discuss and inventory the infrastructure

and traffic operations including Intelligent Transportation System plans and projects for the corridor and

adjacent arterials;

› VEM, VTrans EM, VSP, and Highway Safety: To discuss and inventory considerations in safety, emergency

management, preparedness, and response relevant to the corridor; and,

› ANR, DEC, SHPO and Fish & Wildlife: To discuss and inventory sensitive natural and cultural resources

along the corridor.

Task 2.3: Develop Integrated Modeling Suite

The test bed for evaluating alternatives across the future scenarios will be an integrated modeling suite,

comprised of a combination of the following components:

› CCRPC Travel Demand Model

› Vermont Travel Demand Model

› I-89 Corridor Model

› Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES)

› Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) and

Enhanced Interchange Safety Analysis Tool (ISATe)

A set of preliminary analyses and model development tasks will be focused on identifying and delineating the

geographic study area, determining the degree to which the models should be utilized and/or integrated,

developing the I-89 Corridor Model in the microsimulation environment, establishing model workflows,

calibrating the models to the study corridor, validating the models against current conditions, and evaluating

the base case to establish the current conditions and performance.

Identify and Delineate Study Area

The most up-to-date versions of the CCRPC and Vermont Statewide Travel Demand Models will be acquired

and run for the base year 2015 in TransCAD to serve as the baseline models throughout the life of the study.

Preliminary analyses, including methods like select link analyses and network travel bands, will be conducted

to identify the most common origins and destinations of trips that traverse the I-89 corridor segments and

interchanges, as well as the typical travel time sheds of the most common origins and destinations. The goal

of these preliminary analyses will be to delineate the study area of the corridor, thus setting the geographic

bounds for the purposes of evaluating capacity, safety, environmental, land use and other impacts of the

proposed I-89 alternatives.

Develop the I-89 Corridor Model

A subarea analysis will be conducted in the regional model to provide the foundation for the I-89 Corridor

Model. The subarea analysis will produce the underlying geography and trip patterns for the traffic

microsimulation model. This information will be transferred from TransCAD to TransModeler where the

corridor segments, interchanges, and adjacent arterials ranging from a quarter to a half of a mile from

interchanges will be fully developed to match the existing conditions. The model will be refined to reflect the

geometric characteristics and validated through the data gathering effort. Furthermore, the travel patterns

and traffic operations, including signal timing at ramp terminals and along adjacent arterials, will be coded

into the microsimulation environment.

Establish Modeling Workflow

Once the regional and corridor models are established, the workflows for implementing various alternatives

will be established to ensure consistency across the modeling team. This will include identifying the inputs to

each model test bed that might be adjusted to produce varying outcomes and the outputs from each model

that should be carried forward.

In addition to the regional and corridor models, the most recent versions of MOVES, IHSDM, and/or ISATe will

be acquired. These models will be utilized to evaluate the environmental air quality and safety implications of

proposed strategies or projects. Appropriate workflows for processing outputs from the regional/corridor

models and/or synthesizing other data resources to generate the inputs necessary for the models will be

established. Changes to factors like vehicle speeds, miles of travel, fleet composition, and occupancy resulting

from transportation strategies or projects will be reflected in the MOVES analyses. The predictive safety

methods rely on both physical factors, like number of lanes and length of guardrail or rumble strips, as well as

operational factors, like Annual Average Daily Travel (AADT).

Calibrate Models

In general, calibration of the models will combine the data gathering effort and the development of the

integrated modeling suite. Calibration of the regional model will focus attention on the corridor and leverage

traditional methods, such as validation of the modeled regional travel patterns with observed traffic volume

counts. The corridor model will similarly be calibrated to screenline and turning movement counts. Validation

through other metrics like observed queues and delays may help to further refine the corridor model.

Guidance, like that available from FHWA, for model calibration will be followed. In addition, the MOVES and

IHSDM/ISATe models will be calibrated to Vermont-specific factors.


The major goal of this Technical Committee (TC) meeting will be to review project progress to this point;

solicit feedback on the integrated modeling suite to ensure that it has the ability to produce appropriate

operational performance metrics. TC members will also discuss and approve the performance metrics that will

be used in the evaluation of current and future no-build conditions as well as appropriate thresholds for these

measures. Information gathered during stakeholder meetings and focus group sessions will be summarized.

Task 2.5: Evaluate Current and Future Base Conditions and Performance

Evaluate Current Conditions and Performance

Once models are validated, TransCAD and TransModeler will be used to evaluate the current operational

performance. Model runs will evaluate morning and evening peak travel activity for the 2015 base year at the

regional and corridor levels through the established model workflows. Outputs from the regional and corridor

modeling will be used to evaluate capacity issues, energy consumption, emissions, and safety outcomes for

the study area. Initially, the full system will be evaluated for total delay, emissions, fuel consumption, and

number/severity of crashes; interstate corridor segments will be evaluated for volume-to-capacity ratios, levels

of service, travel times, emissions, fuel consumption, and number/severity of crashes; interchanges will be

evaluated for volume-to-capacity, level of service, average delay, queueing, emissions, fuel consumption, and

number/severity of crashes. It is expected that other measures will be included, as identified by the Technical

and Advisory Committees, such as measures of equity, changes to travel times for underserved populations,

and land use.

Analyze Future No Build Conditions

Two future base networks will be developed and analyzed using the modeling suite, including: 1) 2035 MTP

demographics with the current transportation network plus Transportation Improvement Program that are

also ”Front of the Book” Capital Program projects; and 2) 2050 MTP demographics with the current

transportation network plus Transportation Improvement Program that are also ”Front of the Book” Capital

Program projects.

Like the current condition and performance evaluations, the models will be run to evaluate the AM and PM

peak conditions at the full system, corridor segment, and interchange levels, for model years 2035 and 2050.

The results of the future base network modeling will be carried through the established modeling work flow

to measure future base operations, environmental implications, safety outcomes, and other metrics including

asset conditions and land use implications. The evaluations will be summarized in a matrix of deficiencies and

areas of concern. These inadequacies will be documented to identify the most critical issues that will help the

Technical and Advisory Committees develop the draft Vision, Goals and Objectives for the I-89 Corridor.


The focus of this meeting will be to review results of existing I-89 corridor conditions and established study

area analyses. TC members will also review results of the future base 2035 and 2050 analyses, identified

issues, and deficient areas. The team will incorporate the TC’s input and make any necessary changes before

presenting to AC.


The Advisory Committee (AC) will be presented with updated, relevant results of the I-89 Corridor existing

conditions as well as the future base 2035 and 2050 analyses. Based on the results of these evaluations and

the identification of issues and deficient areas, the AC will brainstorm on preliminary Vision, Goals and

Objectives for the I-89 Corridor.

A graphic artist, Matt Heywood, will participate in the meeting to develop a visual representation of the

group’s Vision and Goals in real-time.

Deliverables: Project briefings to the AC, TC, and CCRPC on the status of the integrated modeling suite,

including the influence area boundaries. Documentation of modeling outcomes and results from existing

(2015) and future base (2035 and 2050) evaluation of conditions and performance; and identifying deficiencies

and areas of concern along the existing corridor reported in a deficiencies matrix template. TC and AC

meeting agendas, materials, and notes. Vision and Goals graphic representation(s) from the AC meeting.

Task 3 – Corridor Vision and Goals

Task 3.1: Develop draft Vision and Goals for I-89 Corridor

Based on information gathered from the Advisory Committee during their second meeting, the consultant

team will work with the CCRPC and Technical Committee (through email exchanges) to develop the draft

Vision and Goals for the I-89 Corridor that will be presented to the public for their review.

Task 3.2: Public Meeting #1

The first round of public input will be held at up to three locations in the northern, central, and southern

portions of the study area. Each public meeting will begin with an overview of the study followed by a

presentation of existing conditions and future base conditions. Identified current and future issues and

deficiencies will be reviewed and the public will be invited to provide their feedback on I-89 issues as well as

the draft Vision and Goals of the study area. The public will also have the opportunity to review materials and

provide comment online.

A graphic artist, Matt Heywood, will participate in the meetings to develop a visual representation of the

group’s Vision and Goals in real-time. After the conclusion of the AC and public meetings, the artist will create

a composite graphic of the input.

The public will be notified with adequate time prior to the meeting and the meetings will be made available

through online live streaming from the project website. It is likely that some or all of the public meetings will

have a live polling component to ensure that all attendees are provided the opportunity to share thoughts on

the project. Both general and targeted outreach (i.e. to nearby large employers, local listservs, and general

outreach like Front Porch Forum) will be conducted for each of the public meetings.

Task 3.3: Focus Group Sessions – Round #1

Up to four Focus Group sessions will be convened and facilitated to discuss corridor deficiencies and gather

information on current issues with I-89 through Chittenden County. Each group will be asked to discuss

aspects of the corridor and surrounding area as they relate to their respective fields. The groups will also

review the draft I-89 Vision and Goals. The perspectives of each assembled focus group will help to fine-tune

the evaluation categories and set the stage for developing the alternatives. Each session will include a

visioning exercise to articulate how various components of the roadway network are anticipated to operate in

2035 and 2050 and what will need to be done in order to accommodate anticipated changes to technology,

travel behavior, workplace trends, and land use.

The Focus Groups may be comprised of the following groups (to be refined based on input from TC):

• Municipal Staff

• Federal, State, and Local Elected Officials

• Freight and Logistics Providers

• Major Employers (UVM Medical Center, UVM, Global Foundries, Champlain College)

Task 3.4: Future (2035 & 2050) Build Scenario

Building on the comprehensive scenario planning work the CCRPC did for the recent 2018 ECOS/Metropolitan

Transportation Plan (MTP), the future build scenarios will be the adopted MTP scenarios without the 3rd lane

on I-89 between Exits 14 and 15 and the Interchange at VT-116 (Exit 12B). The Future Build Scenarios will

provide the basis for this I-89 2050 Study and all proposed future strategies will be evaluated relative to this

foundational effort. The 2035 and 2050 MTP build scenarios already include robust investments in TDM,

transit and bike/ped improvements, but even with these investments there are still roadway capacity issues

with the transportation network in the county. The Future Build Scenarios will be carried through the

established modeling workflow with deficiencies and areas of concern documented in the deficiencies matrix,

like the 2035 and 2050 Future No Build analyses. These issues will be conveyed to the Technical and Advisory

Committees to further inform the final Vision and Goals of the I-89 Corridor.

Task 3.5: Technical Committee #4

The TC will review input from the first public meeting, Future Build Scenario results, and will revise/refine the

draft I-89 Vision and Goals for the Advisory Committee’s review. The TC will also review and begin to establish

measurable metrics and thresholds within distinct categories such as Mobility and Reliability, Safety, Economic

Sustainability, Equity and Land Use Accessibility, and Environmental Protection. These metrics and thresholds

will be used in the evaluation of the alternatives.

Task 3.6: Advisory Committee #3

The AC will review results from the Future Build Scenario and make any final changes to I-89 Vision and Goals;

review the draft objectives, distinct evaluation categories, metrics, and thresholds that will be used to evaluate

the various alternatives.

Deliverables: Draft and Final I-89 Vision and Goals. Focus Groups, Public Meetings, Advisory Committee, and

Technical Committee meeting agendas, materials and notes. Artist’s composite graphic of Study Vision and

Goals.

Task 4 – Evaluation of New and/or Improved I-89 Interchanges

High level operational analyses of each interchange (existing or new) will be carried out under this task to

identify whether proposed interchange improvements have a significant regional impact on vehicular mobility

in the county. At the conclusion of this task a decision will be made of which interchange improvement(s), if

any, will be carried forward into a full evaluation within one or more of the alternatives.

Task 4.1: Model New and/or Improved Interchanges

Starting with the Future Build Scenario, discrete evaluations for an upgraded Exit 14 interchange, full Exits 13

and 15, new I-89 interchanges with VT116 (Exit 12B), Patchen Road (Exit 14N), and West Milton Road (Exit

17N) will be conducted.

Task 4.2: Land Use Evaluation

Regional (including neighboring counties) land use implications of adding new or upgrading existing

interchanges will be analyzed and quantified. Methods, like select link analyses and network travel bands, will

be employed to identify the spatial implications of new or upgraded interchanges. Typical origins and

destinations of trips that traverse the I-89 corridor segments and interchanges and the typical travel time

sheds for major origins and destinations will be evaluated given the interchange additions or improvements.

It is anticipated that these typical origin/destination travel patterns and travel time sheds will expand or

contract in different geographic regions within and surrounding Chittenden County depending on the

interchange additions or improvements, providing insights on where and how broader land use and

environmental impacts will spread more regionally.

The spatial implications of different additions or changes to the interchanges along the corridor will be

discussed and evaluated by the land use and transportation modeling team. Leveraging the collective

expertise, the team will be tasked with imputing varying growth patterns correlated to the spatial changes and

identifying appropriate metrics for evaluating the land use implications relative to the Future 2050 Build

Scenario. Iterative analyses, with review by the team, will evaluate the implications of varying growth patterns

associated with each interchange addition or improvement by employing metrics like percent future growth in

targeted growth areas (and outside of targeted growth areas), average travel times for underserved or

vulnerable populations (at the Traffic Analysis Zone level), and land area of sensitive natural and cultural

resources potentially impacted by growth.

Land use impacts within Chittenden County due to Interstate or Interchange improvements will be presented

and discussed with municipal planners during a CCRPC Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting. For

scoping purposes, we have assumed that CCRPC will lead and facilitate this discussion with the CCRPC PAC

with consultant team representatives in attendance.


The Technical Committee will meet to review modeling and land use impact results with the TC and discuss

how it will be presented to the Advisory Committee at their next meeting.


The AC will review modeling results from the evaluation of new and/or improved I-89 Interchanges. The

committee will discuss which interchange improvements, if any, will be carried forward into a full evaluation

within one or more of the alternatives/strategies bundles. A facilitator will be used to assist with the

discussion.

Deliverables: Modeling results of the different interchange options; TC and AC agenda, presentations, and

meeting notes.

Task 5 – Identify and Evaluate Alternatives

Task 5.1: Identify Preliminary Strategies

The VHB team will identify possible strategies or projects that, when grouped together, will form an

alternative to evaluate. The strategies may address future deficiencies or concerns that align with the future

vision of the corridor. Some of the possible strategies that we anticipate will be part of the discussion include:

• Infrastructure Enhancements

o Additional access points or interchanges

o Interchange improvements

o Widening/lane expansion

o Part-time shoulder use

• Interchanges – Task 4 Recommendation

o Existing interchange upgrades or a possible new interchange

• Intelligent Transportation Systems

o Traffic monitoring and message signs

o Travel time and message signs

o Dynamic Speed Limits

o Weather monitoring and message signs

o Adaptive signal control

o Ramp metering

• Transportation Demand Management Strategies

• Transit and Non-Motorized Travel Options

• Enhanced Maintenance Activities

• Environmental stewardship activities (stormwater, wildlife/AOP crossings)

• System Resilience (flooding is the major threat, but we should consider if there are other threats that

need to be considered – like cybersecurity)

• Bicyclist and Pedestrian (crossings at interstate segments and through arterial/on-off ramp

intersections)

A critical step in the process of identifying preliminary projects or strategies is to screen them for alignment

with the I-89 Vision and Goals and to narrow the strategies to those that will effect positive change. This will

assist the team and committees to start developing the alternatives that will be evaluated further in the

modeling suite.

During the identification of preliminary strategies, the VHB Team will again meet with the VTrans Asset

Management Group and TSMO to discuss how VTrans’ needs and projects can integrate and align with the

study recommendations. Guiding questions for these discussions could include “What will be the ramifications

of the strategies on existing assets or operations? How can strategies incorporate high priority or actionable

asset management and operations tasks? How will recommended new assets integrate with the existing asset

management system?”


The TC and other key project team members will convene to review and refine preliminary strategies

developed by the VHB team. Leveraging the expertise assembled for this effort, the session will aim to verify

strategies and identify an additional range of projects and strategies that will address deficiencies and fulfill

corridor vision and goals. Strategies or projects will then be bundled together to form alternatives to evaluate.

The meeting is also intended to ensure the methodologies, screening criteria and thresholds developed in

prior tasks for evaluating alternatives are still valid. Screening of possible alternatives will consider whether a

project or strategy addresses a deficiency or area of concern and aligns with corridor goals. We envision this

session will make use of the extensive knowledge of participants in highway design, traffic engineering, safety

improvements, transportation technologies, intelligent transportation systems, constructability, permitting,

transit planning, stormwater, and bridges and structures to ensure that the collection of projects and

strategies carried forward is comprehensive and that the vetting process accounts for real-world

constructability and/or implementation constraints. The outcome of this session will be up to three initial

alternatives, each including a bundle of different strategies to carry forward into a detailed analysis. The three

initial alternatives will be reviewed and verified by the Advisory Committee.


The AC will review and finalize the preliminary alternatives proposed by the TC and consultant team.

Task 5.4: Evaluation of Alternatives

A full evaluation of the three preliminary alternatives will be carried through the established modeling

workflow, evaluating the morning and evening peak time periods for the 2050 future year.

It is envisioned that the evaluation of the three alternatives will be an iterative process with up to a maximum

of nine total iterations/model runs. The project team will be reporting to the Technical Committee, soliciting

feedback on the efficacy of the strategies and projects in addressing the deficiencies or concerns for each

model run.

Land use impacts of the three alternatives in Chittenden County and neighboring counties will be evaluated

and the results will inform possible changes to the alternatives that will be assessed using the model suite.

The three alternatives will be evaluated for the 2050 future planning year across all categories identified

previously (safety, capacity, environment, resiliency, land use accessibility, natural/cultural resource impacts,

etc.). Results will be presented in separate evaluation matrices for each alternative for the full system, corridor

segments, and interchanges. These evaluations may include sketch conceptual drawings, 3D visualizations,

general cost estimates, and further qualitative assessments that will help strengthen the evaluation matrices

for each alternative.


The TC will meet to review results of evaluation of the three alternatives, determine whether additional

changes are needed, discuss presentation of results to the AC and the format of the second public meeting.


Following changes based on the TC’s input, the AC will be presented with results of the evaluation of the three

alternatives. The AC will also discuss the second public meeting. A facilitator will be used to assist with the

discussion.


Up to four Focus Group sessions will be convened and facilitated to discuss results of the three alternatives.

Each group will be asked to discuss these alternatives as they relate to their respective fields. The perspectives

of each assembled focus group will help to fine-tune the next step which is the development of the

Implementation Plan.

The Focus Groups may be comprised of the following groups (to be refined based on input from TC):

• Municipal Staff

• Federal, State, and Local Elected Officials

• Freight and Logistics Providers

• Major Employers (UVM Medical Center, UVM, Global Foundries, Champlain College)


The three alternatives will be presented to the broader public at up to three separate public meetings in the

northern, central, and southern portions of the study area. The goal of the public meetings and stakeholder

engagement will be to gather feedback to help in the narrowing of the three bundles of alternatives to one

optimized suite of treatments for the corridor out to 2050.

As with the first set of public meetings, the public will be notified with adequate time prior to the meeting and

made available through online live streaming from the project website with opportunities for live polling and

voting. Both general and targeted outreach (i.e. to nearby large employers, local listservs, and general

outreach like Front Porch Forum) will be conducted for each of the three public meetings. The public will also

have the opportunity to review materials and provide comment online.

Deliverables: Project briefings to CCRPC and stakeholders documenting the strategies selected to form three

alternatives. Evaluation matrix with results from alternative evaluations. Technical Committee, Advisory

Committee, Focus Groups, and Public Meeting agendas, materials, and notes.

Task 6 – Develop Implementation Plan & Define Areas for Further Scoping

The overarching goal of the study is to develop a living document that will be adaptable to the future

circumstances dictating the condition and performance of the I-89 corridor through Chittenden County. The

team will summarize the final implementation plan through a matrix, where each strategy in the

recommended bundle is identified with priority; condition and performance thresholds; implementation

trigger points; measurable factors to monitor; impact on study goals; risks; generalized costs; impacted

stakeholders; and potential funding sources.

Task 6.1: Develop Implementation Plan

Based on results from the three alternative evaluations and feedback from project committees, stakeholders,

and the public, the consultant team, in close collaboration with the CCRPC and VTrans, will develop a draft

final alternative for review by the TC and AC committees that will be the basis for the I-89 Implementation

Plan.

A refined version of the final alternative will be run through the modeling suite to 2050. The 2050 Final

Alternative will include the full suite of projects and strategies to be included in the Implementation Plan, built

upon the Future 2050 Build Scenario. In addition, an iterative analysis of the Final Alternative will be

conducted for the 2035 growth scenario. For each iteration of this analysis, particular projects or strategies

from the Final Alternative will be strategically added to the Future 2035 Build Scenario and evaluated in order

to identify the most critical and highest priority projects or strategies to employ. In essence, this iterative

analysis will provide guidance on a projected timeline for implementation of each strategy. The

implementation trigger point for each strategy will be a combination of the influential externalities as well as

measurable condition or performance metrics.

The prioritization, condition and performance thresholds, and implementation trigger points will be

documented in the alternative matrix. The alternatives matrix will be expanded to accommodate

recommendations on factors to monitor over time, impacts on study goals, risks associated with each strategy,

generalized costs, and potential funding sources, becoming the basis for the implementation plan. Specific I-

89 segments and interchange areas that will require further scoping will also be identified.

Recommendations will be made for each strategy on the relevant factors to monitor over time and the agency

or department responsible. “Smart corridor” elements can be part of potential alternatives, but also play a

larger role in gathering analytical corridor data to further inform implementation.

In addition to providing recommended timeframes for implementation, each strategy will be individually

analyzed by environmental, design, and construction experts to develop risk registers. Risks associated with

strategies can range from environmental permitting, to right-of-way acquisition, to construction access, to

difficult maintenance and each can have an impact on scoping and implementation of strategies. As part of

the risk analysis, asset management implications for existing and proposed corridor assets will be considered.

Implementation is a key first step but maintaining assets over time will also contribute toward meeting the

study goals. Risks can impact the timeframe and ultimately cost of implementation and maintenance and

having that understanding before scoping begins will be valuable information.

A relative scale of generalized costs associated with each strategy or project will be developed and included in

the expanded implementation matrix. If applicable, potential sources of funding for the strategy or project will

be identified.

As part of developing the implementation plan and matrix, the VHB Team will meet with the VTrans Asset

Management Group to finalize recommendations. Each asset discussed during the development of initial

strategies will be revisited and reevaluated to confirm the priority of the asset and that action is needed. Final

decisions will be documented through the implementation plan and potentially recommended for further

scoping.


The Technical Committee will reconvene to provide additional feedback on the Implementation Plan and

selected areas for further scoping before it is presented to the AC and the public. This meeting will likely be

held during the course of Task 6.1 to ensure TC concurrence on details of the final alternative. Feedback

received from the TC will be incorporated by the project team before presented to the AC. The TC will also

prepare for the final set of public meetings by agreeing on the presentation style, preferred means of

outreach, input to be solicited, and other details regarding the public meetings.


A facilitator will be used to assist with the discussion and selection of the final draft Implementation Plan for I-

89. The AC will also discuss and approve the areas selected for further scoping. The agreed upon

Implementation Plan will be presented to the public for their feedback.

Deliverables: Implementation Plan, TC, AC and public meeting agenda, materials, and notes.

Task 7 – Draft and Final Report

Task 7.1: Draft Report

The VHB Team will compile pertinent technical information, analysis, recommendations, and stakeholder input

into a Draft Report for review and input. The Draft Report will be circulated to the AC and TC and made

available more broadly through the project website.


The Draft I-89 2050 Study will be presented at up to three public meetings along the corridor and made

available online through the project website, targeted press releases, and social media. These meetings will

include an overview of the study progress to date and present the recommendations for comment. These

meetings will be notified and streamed in a similar manner to the previous sets of public meetings. Feedback

from reviewers and the public will be incorporated into the draft report.


The Technical Committee will meet a final time to review the draft report and discuss input from the public

meeting and any potential changes to the implementation plan or report.


The final Advisory Committee session will be held to review the Draft Report and input from the third round of

public meetings. This meeting is an opportunity to reflect on the study process, evolution and outcomes.

Feedback will be documented and incorporated into the Final Report.

This meeting is also an opportunity to discuss potential options moving forward on areas which were slated

for further scoping and analysis. Funding sources, timelines, and implementation partners can be discussed to

lay a framework for successful implementation of the recommendations made in the report.

Task 7.5: Final Report

The VHB Team will compile input received from the public, AC, and TC and prepare a Final I-89 2050 Plan.

Deliverables: Draft and Final Report, Technical Committee, Advisory Committee, and Public Meeting agendas,

materials and notes

Additional Public Participation Elements

In addition to more traditional public participation activities, the VHB team will emphasize outreach to those

who are traditionally underrepresented. As Burlington and Winooski have areas of significantly higher poverty

than other municipalities in the study corridor, we will hold one of our first round of meetings in Burlington

and one meeting in the second round in Winooski with targeted outreach to these typically underrepresented

populations. Accommodations such as child care and translator services may be provided at these meetings.

We will reach out to at least four community organizations that serve the underrepresented, including those

of low-income and new Americans. We will maintain contact with these organizations, understanding that

identifying a local champion and reaching out to people rather than asking them to come to us is a more

successful way to solicit meaningful input.

Project Website

A project website will serve as the landing page for all information and study materials, surveys, and event

notifications over the course of the study. This website will be hosted on an independent public engagement

platform, likely EngagementHQ. The project team will provide materials to be posted on the website,

including base maps, survey and poll language, project graphics, and committee and public meeting

materials. For scoping purposes, we have assumed that VHB will take the lead on setting up the project

website and TSA will be responsible for updating and maintaining the website over the course of the study.

The project team will continuously update the website throughout the study in order to provide the public

with as many opportunities to engage as possible.

Online Surveys, Polls, and Feedback

Surveys and polls will be conducted over the course of the study to gather input from the committees and the

public on topics including general comments, areas of concern, and preferences on alternatives. These surveys

will be hosted through the public engagement platform. To reach those who do not have reliable access to

the internet, the project team will reach out and partner with public libraries’ tech centers to encourage

participation and digital inclusion. The Burlington Fletcher Free Library has already agreed to put a short cut to

study surveys on all tech center homepages. Results from all public input efforts will be made available to the

Advisory and Technical Committees as well as the public.

Mile Marker Radio/Podcast

TSA will communicate with Vermont Public Radio (VPR) and local podcasters to create a special or series on

the history of the Interstate through Chittenden County and the purpose and need for this project. If this were

to be hosted on VPR, this would be an opportunity for broader public comment on the study. This would be a

collaborative effort with local experts and members of the project team and committees.

Schedule

Assuming a Notice to Proceed is issued by April 15, 2019, VHB anticipates the Project advancing according to the

schedule outlined below. Given the number of unknown variables that may arise during the course of this study, the

schedule will be reviewed and may need to be adjusted at key milepoints during the course of the project.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Task 0 – Project Management & Coordination

Task 1 – Project Initiation and Kickoff Meetings

Task 1.1: Project Initiation and Internal Kick-off



Task 2 – Analyze Current & Future Base Conditions

Task 2.1: Gather Data and Information

Task 2.2: Coordinate Resource Agencies and Other Resources

Task 2.3: Develop Integrated Modeling Suite


Task 2.5: Evaluate Current & Future Base Conditions



Task 3 – Corridor Vision and Goals

Task 3.1: Develop draft Vision, Goals, Objectives for I-89 Corridor



Task 3.4: Future (2050) Build Scenario

Task 3.5: Technical Committee #4

Task 3.6: Advisory Committee #3

Task 4 – Evaluate New and/or Improved I-89 Interchanges

Task 4.1: Model New and/or Improved Interchanges

Task 4.2: Land Use Evaluation



Task 5 – Identify and Evaluate Alternatives

Task 5.1: Identify Preliminary Strategies



Task 5.4: Evaluation of Alternatives



Task 5.7: Focus Group Sessions - Round #2


Task 6 – Develop Implementation Plan

Task 6.1: Develop Implementation Plan



Task 7 – Draft and Final Report

Task 7.1: Draft Report




Task 7.5: Final Report

Additional Public Participation Elements

Project Website

Online Surveys, Polls, and Feedback

Mile Marker Radio/Podcast

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission

Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study

SCHEDULE

2019 2020 2021

Project Management & Coordination

Documents

Transcript of Project Management & Coordination