Welcome everyone. This is our second public meeting for this project. We hit a bit of a slowdown when the pandemic hit. So it's been a while since we've got together, but this past fall we kind of rebooted this project, got it going again in earnest, and we are now back and tonight we'll be presenting some draft alternatives for everyone to consider and discuss. Hopefully everyone had a chance to watch the recorded video in advance. I think that'll really, really help you out. But if not, I think you'll be able to follow along reasonably well. And just a real, real quick, this study is funded by the Chittin County Regional Planning Commission with federal transportation dollars. It was requested by the City of Burlington as part of our annual work program. And so they are contributing a local match to that, and we've hired VHB as our consultant to take care of this work, and also Diane Meyerhoff with Third Sector Associates to take care of the public involvement. Hopefully you've received some emails from her, and that's why you knew about this meeting and are here joining us tonight. And I don't think I have anything else to add. And unless anyone else has some intro stuff, Nicole, if you want, feel free, if not, give it right over to Drew to kick this off. I think I'm all set. Thanks for kicking us off. And yeah, let's turn it over to Drew. All right. Thank you, Jason and Nicole, for the introduction there. And yep, just to bring everybody in. This is our Colchester Avenue, Bikeways, Parking and Intersection Safety Study. So in order to hold plenty of space for discussion tonight, we want to remind you that the presentation slide that we're presenting here and a prerecorded version of the presentation are also available on the website. And we encourage you to visit those materials as we'll be skipping through the project purpose and need and a bit of a project refresher in the interest of getting through the corridor concepts and alternatives evaluation, and most importantly, to your public comment. So just a quick reintroduction of the team here. As Jason kicked us off here, him and his colleague, Marshall Distiller with the CCRPC. We also have Nicole Loesch and Elizabeth Ross from the City of Burlington on the project team and then representing the consultant team here with BHB as myself, Jen Conley and Karen Sentoff. And also on this side, you'll see the list of names of our advisory committee. A number of members I'm sure are among us tonight. And just a quick reintroduction to the project scope and schedule. So back in December of 2019, we had our first public meeting, which was our local concerns meeting, followed by a couple advisory committee meetings mixed in along with our alternatives assessment. We then did have a bit of a project hiatus due to managing and navigating, as I'm sure everyone has been doing so the COVID-19 pandemic. And now we are resuming public outreach process for this project today with the alternatives presentation meeting and followed by this will be a development of the preferred alternative as well as a third and final advisory committee meeting and then draft of the scope and a presentation to the city council. I'm going to send it over to my colleague Karen. Thanks Drew. So what you're seeing on the screen now is really the guide for this presentation. We'll be going through the alternatives basically from left to right on the screen here. So we'll start with the western end of the corridor of Colchester Avenue, sort of west of East Avenue and move on to concepts east of East Avenue. And then to bring it home, we'll talk through the alternatives for the intersection with Colchester Avenue and East Avenue. Karen, before you begin, should we just share that if folks need to ask a clarifying question that they can do so in the question and answer pod? And I will alert either Drew or Karen, whoever's speaking, that there's a clarifying question, but we are going to wait for feedback until the presentation is complete. Yep. And after, so quickly after we get through each section here, sort of represented as the columns in this table, we will pause for a moment to make sure that there aren't any further clarifying questions because we understand there is a lot of content here and so we'll sort of go section by section and just make sure that everyone sort of has a good grasp on what we're presenting and the information regarding each segment of the of the corridor. I understand it's a long corridor, so stick with us. So again, I apologize. Jack raised his hand, Jack. Could I steer you to the question and answer pod? If you can't locate that, that is down in the middle of your screen at the bottom of your screen. For now, we're just going to take kind of questions through through the question and answer pod instead of by raising hands. Sorry, Karen. No problem. So what you're seeing on the screen right now is just really a reference slide for folks who have been following along with the project sort of prior to the hiatus that we took with the pandemic. And it's just regarding the naming convention that we were using for some of the concepts that we had evaluated very early on in the process. So really just for reference. All right, so we're going to start with the western end of the corridor, sort of west of East Avenue, between Prospect Street and East Ave. And we're going to look first at Concept One West, which is on street separated bike lanes. And here you're seeing Concept One West in cross section at the top and then plan view at the bottom for that first section between Prospect and the hospital entrance. Some important features to note in this section include that we are shifting curves to better accommodate those bicycle lanes with a buffer and a vertical element. Here we're also holding the back of sidewalk to the existing back of sidewalk. So there's really not any implications in terms of right away beyond the back of sidewalk than what's out there today. And the newly constructed shared use path on the south side that we're all pretty excited about is flanked by a narrow green belt in this option with on street bike lanes having that three foot buffer and that vertical element such as a ballard. And here we're seeing a continuation of that concept from the previous slide. So this is between UVM Medical Center entrance and East Avenue. For now, let's ignore the treatment at the intersection and really just focus on the cross section here, understanding that again we're holding that space for the three foot buffer with the bike lane so better accommodating that bike lane along this section. We're holding the back of sidewalk where we can, but in some places we're going as far as four feet back from the existing back of sidewalk. And again, here we're seeing that newly constructed side path on the south side continues along this stretch. All right, thanks Karen. And just as a reminder to everybody, at the end of the this western section, we will have any slight pause for any clarifying questions, but for now we're going to continue to proceed with the concept. So now we're going to look at concept two for the west end of the corridor, which is the concept including raised and separated bike lanes. So as you'll see in the cross section in the layout, the bike lanes in this case are both horizontally and vertically separated from the roadway. This design will also have a slight vertical separation from the sidewalk to define clearly defined space for each user. We kind of have a sample photograph. It's slightly hard to tell the vertical delineation between the sidewalk and the raised bike lane, but it's we're talking a very slight slight change of grade just to emphasize that separation. There is enough width here to call for grass strips wide enough on both sides to allow for new tree plantings. And even with the widened grass strip, the area of impact does not extend some of the concept one beyond the existing back of sidewalk. And just given the vertical separation in this case between difference being the main difference between concept one and two, there's naturally more space for bikes and pets to operate separate from traffic. Continuing along this section, the grass strip does narrow. However, there is still space for a key feature in this concept being separated space or the creation of space to allow for left turns for bicyclists. And during our local concerns meeting back in December of 2019, there was a clear desire for improving conditions for bicyclists along the corridor, particularly in the realm of left turns onto and off of the corridor. And so this concept accomplishes that while keeping turning bicyclists separate from vehicle traffic and separate horizontally from through bicyclist traffic. So that's kind of the first the first two concepts here for concept two West. And so as is the case with these sort of studies, we then like to do side by side comparisons. And so to an order better understand the impact and implication of these design concepts, we've developed this evaluation matrix to compare side by side the critical concept factors such as costs, safety impacts and impacts of the community care. These cost evaluations are presented on a high level relative cost scale. So for these the big cost generators are in both cases, both concepts are moving the curve and widening the roadway. And as we've mentioned, these are generally significant reconstruction efforts, because as has been touched on in previous public outreach efforts, you know, the the short term changes to Colchester Avenue, the project team fields are what's currently out there with the recent side paths, improvements as well as the striped bike lane and enhanced pedestrian treatment at some crossings. The larger cost seen here indicated by the third dollar sign for concept two comes from the design implications of raising the bike lanes to near sidewalk grade as opposed to concept one, which carries striped but vertically separated bike lanes within the existing cartway of the road. Looking at safety, you know, these two concepts provide protected and separated facilities for all modes using this corridor being pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. As a result, we see improvements to safety across the board. The main difference as we have covered between concept one and two, in particular for bicyclists safety, is that we see concept two potentially being more apt to pull in the quote unquote, interested but concerned type, interested but concerned, excuse me, type of cyclists with the on street separate facilities as there still is a certain level of perceived exposure from vehicle traffic when you are on the same grade, whereas these users are more likely to be comfortable, we think raised and separated from vehicle traffic. The concepts see improvements to pedestrian safety as well because bicyclists currently using the shared use path along the south side of the road now have an exclusive facility to operate in. Looking at the impacts, you'll notice similar impacts between the two concepts across the board. You know, we assess these impacts against all of them, the number of things you see here, existing utilities, right of ways, overall thoughts on your constructability, impacts to parking, trees, and then finally any historical or archaeological impacts to the corridor. The two concepts here match up pretty much the same across the board with the similar impacts to the utilities. It's known that there are above ground utilities along this corridor that would need to be potentially relocated or modified in some way, shape, or form to make sure that these streetscape improvements fit. The right-of-way impacts, there are no impacts to the right-of-way as Karen touched on. Each concept sees a little bit of a shift of the back of sidewalk, but that still plays, still stays, excuse me, within public right-of-way, and then there's no existing parking along the corridor, therefore we don't have any changes to parking. And there could be moderate impacts to some existing trees, but we also are recognizing that the new concepts do present some tree-built opportunity for new planning. Looking at the community character, concept one generally holds the existing aesthetic character of the corridor with the striped bike lanes, however now separated via a buffer and a vertical element. Well, concept two we see as an improvement as the green belt is widening for nearly the full length of the corridor and in particularly winding west of the UVM Medical Center driveway allows for tree plantings and then assessing both of these concepts against the purpose and need. This checks both of those boxes. So now, before we jump into the eastern section of the corridor, we're looking for any clarifying questions and again, these are not broad statements or thoughts. We'll save all of the time at the end for those. These are simply, if you're a bit confused and just seeking clarification about one or two of the proposed elements of each of these concepts. We ask that you please use your raised hand feature and we'll unmute you for clarifying questions. Again, please stay away from any grand statements or thoughts at this point. We will have time for that at the end. And then prior to that discussion, we would like to hear from all of our participants about what your initial preference is given the introduction to this concept. So after we do have those clarifying questions, we will show a brief poll to gauge folks' first impressions of the concepts presented. True, the first question is a clarifying question wondering if the impacts factor in stormwater runoff and how that is evaluated in the evaluation criteria. Could you say that one more time, Jen, but it was in regard to stormwater? It's in regards to stormwater runoff and whether that has been accounted for in the evaluation criteria. That has not been part of the evaluation criteria. Generally, that kind of occurs and somebody please feel free to step in. That kind of occurs more in the design of preliminary engineering design phase. That would, of course, be a consideration because we recognize that with the relocation of curbs. There is a certain amount of stormwater infrastructure that would need to also be relocated. I think you could look to other examples in the city to see some of the common countermeasures that the city has been implementing. I think we could consider some of those along this corridor. That would be more a question addressed in the preliminary engineering design phase of a project. Is it correct though that the impervious surface in the two alternatives is similar so we would not expect a big difference in the stormwater runoff impact? That's fair to say. We are widening the roadway. However, the implication of additional impervious surface is somewhat mitigated by the inclusion of grass strips and tree buffers along the project corridor. Okay. One other clarifying question was what is meant by modified tree impact on the north side of the green belt? Modified impact on trees on the north side of the green belt. Is that or I presume that it's referring to the evaluation matrix? I would assume as much. Yes. Okay. Let me just clarify myself. I believe it was moderate impact was the language used. And then there was another question about one version having plantings in one does not. And if I'm think similar to the stormwater impact, I think the amount of green space in each alternative would be similar. It's just where it's located, correct? Correct. So that was referring to the width available west of the UVM Medical Center driveway relative to that which is available to the east. So we have it in our current concepts that there would be six feet of available grass strip space west of the UVM Medical Center, which would be wide enough for tree planting. And then to the east in the interest of avoiding any private property and right of way impacts, we have a narrower grass strip of four feet, which generally is not considered sufficient for tree planting. And then finally, there is a question and I think we got this in some of our preliminary feedback that has to do with how bus stops will be accommodated with the raised bike lanes. And I believe that's a detail that would be worked out later, but there are examples of how that can be accommodated. Yep. Example not being presented here, but there are there are design examples, yes, in the field that we would absolutely reference and make sure that we are minimizing or mitigating any potential conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. In the final clarifying question, oh wait, there's a couple. One is how do cyclists turn left on the separated raised path? So that was touched on in I can click back to it because it is a bit hard to see. So if you look at, for instance, Fletcher Place, where there's a crosswalk proposed, we're also proposing a bicycle crossing and you can see a slight shift in the gray area, which is otherwise considered the separated bike lane in this concept, where a bicyclist would pull to the left and then assess traffic and then yield as needed and or operate. I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong, this is where an RRFB currently exists so they can activate the RRFB to then dismount their bike and cross the street or wait for a gap in traffic to then cross at this crossing location. There is also one other question about whether we have spoken with GMT and I can answer that because they do sit on our committee. So we do have some input from GMT as we move through the process. And then there's final one question about, you just said something happens in the design phase, but what level is their involvement at this stage? I think that's referring back to GMT and as I said they are involved at the committee level and so we are getting input from them as we go, but obviously those details would be worked out later. And Drew, I think that's it. If you want to go to the poll, can we move along? Yeah, I think Matt, I think we'll need to. All right, yep. I'm going to go ahead and launch the poll. Everyone out there should just see this pop up on your screen. If you don't see it, go ahead and click the poll button at the bottom and we've got our first question up and we've got about 60% voting so far. Let's give it another maybe 15 seconds or so. Okay, I'll give you another five seconds or so to go ahead and vote in the poll. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and end the poll now. We've hit a minute and let me share those results with everybody. Well, it seems at this end of the quarter there is a strong preference for concept two, which is the race separated by claims. I'm just noticing that Dave has his hand up and I don't know if he wants to speak, his question wasn't clarified. Dave, would you be able to put a question into the chat, into the either the chat or into the question and answer pod? Looks like he did put his hand down. Okay, maybe it was an error when he was responding to something. Oh, David says I'm okay. Thanks, David. Thank you, David. Good to be here. All right, I'm going to shut down the results of the first poll. We all sit on this section then, Drew. Yep, we do have one hand raised now. Do Jack's hand is raised? Jack, did you have a question you want to put in the chat? It says my question was answered live, but I don't believe it was. All right, Jack, I apologize if I missed you here. Yeah, I will just allow Jack to talk really quickly just so we can finish off this section. Okay, Jack, you should be able to unmute now. Go ahead. Jack, are you able to unmute? I apologize if I missed your question. I'm sorry, John. His question was, could the project team explain why it is that raised separated bike lanes are not considered any safer than the on-street lanes in the evaluation matrix? Sorry, my connection got messed up. Did I miss my window? Sorry. No, but Matt did just read your question, Jack. I don't know if you did want to repeat it, but it sounds like it. No, if you just got it, that's fine. Yeah, so why are raised separated bike lanes not considered safer than the on-street separated bike lanes? In the case of actual safety, this is why we touched on this the way we did. It's kind of a measure of actual versus perceived safety. Raised separated bike lanes are in actuality very similar in nature to an on-street but still vertically separated bike lanes. So we thought it was pertinent to mention that when you're assessing these two facility types, they are actually considered equally safe against each other. However, there is the matter of perceived safety, which perhaps is what you're alluding to, and that's why we touched on the interest and but concern population of bicyclists. When they see a raised separated facility that is off the street, we think that that facility is more than likely going to pull in a larger cycling population to use because they will perceive that it is safer because they see it as vertically separated from vehicles in addition to being horizontally separated from motorists. There was one final clarification question on this section, which was how do cyclists go left or straight at East Ave in the raised option, and we'll get into those intersection alternatives. In a few minutes, that's the third column, and we'll get to that a little later, Elani, so we'll save your question till that time. Yep. Yeah, we'll circle back to we're kind of moving left to right as Karen touched on. So we'll circle back to East Avenue and the alternatives presented there and make sure to hopefully hit on all those things. And then of course, if we do not after the fact, please feel free to raise that question. We'll be sure to address it. All right, Karen. All righty. So jumping into the eastern end of the corridor. So this is between East Avenue and Barrett Street. So going down the hill on Colchester Avenue towards the Winooski River. And we'll be starting with concept one East, which will present the on street separated bike lanes. So similar to concept one West. This is a continuation of that concept, which changes the curved curve with the better accommodate on street separated bike lanes with buffers and a vertical element. And the key features that you're seeing here, both in plan view and cross section are that there is a five foot bike lane with a three foot buffer and a vertical element. In this section, there are a number of driveways. So that vertical element will be limited in terms of where it can be just to continue to allow access to those driveways. We'll keep those access points open, but we'll have to limit the number of bollards that can be out there. And although the right of way line is wide here beyond the back of existing sidewalk, we attempted to limit the impacts to those adjacent properties with this concept.  Along the section, there is a minimal green belt. Really tight through this section. And so the segment between Centennial Entrance and Greenmount Cemetery would have an expanded green belt. But the segment in front of the cemetery and heading down the hill would require no green belt just based on the bloke limits that were in the field there. And so we'd be limited in in terms of the green belt space in that section. Moving on to the continuation of that down the hill and down to Barrett Street, like the previous slide. Along the section, we have that five foot bike lane with the three foot buffer and vertical element. We're showing minimal green belt, even though we are well within the right of way, again to limit those impacts. Front yard space and off street parking to the adjacent properties here. And we carry that minimal green belt space all along this segment of the corridor. All right. Thank you, Karen. So we're going to jump now back into concept two and take a look at how it looks east of the East Avenue intersection. So it is worth noting that while the cross section shown at the top of the page represents the majority of the corridor, it's not indicative of the entire length. It is just kind of the most that is going to be seen here. And you can see in the graphic that, for instance, east of Campus Kitchen, we have a wider green belt, which will allow for tree plantings for a portion of this segment. But then the tree belts and even the grass strip narrow completely around the curve, as Karen just touched on in concept one as well, due to the adjacency to the Green Mount cemetery and potential slope impacts as well as archaeological impact. The grass strip does return east of the cemetery. However, it is kept narrow at that three foot width. And this is to avoid any impacts beyond the existing back of sidewalks. And while the project team sees that as within public right away, there's something to be said for the fact that the resident utilization of this space is fairly high, whether that is for recreation or park to private vehicles. All right, moving on to concept three, just a reminder for mobility, i.e. bicycles and pedestrians. This cross section is generally the same as concept two. The big difference comes with attempting to address the need for parking for residents and parking to support local businesses along this segment of the corridor. So we can see here in concept three the balance of trying to implement the on-street parking while maintaining distant facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. Given the presence of businesses like Cappy's flowers in Campus Kitchen, there was an expressed interest for this parking to be located on the southern side of the corridor. So that's what you're seeing here with the enhancements made east of University Road in a few locations. Now, just for everyone's, we're not continuing eighth, because continuing eighth of concept three and concept three a down the hill, it's the same cross section and layout as concept two, just to avoid any questions about that. So concept three a, as conversations developed with Campus Kitchen, it was noted that there was a strong desire to evaluate the possibility of maintaining short-term, high turnover on-street parking immediately in front of their location. And as such, this specialized concept three a was created. And so concept three a mimics concept three and its inclusion of on-street parking and select lower impact locations while also pursuing, as seen in this layout, on-street parking immediately in front of Campus Kitchen. Given the need to balance all users in this very tight cross section, this concept calls for a change to the corridor dynamics for bicycles and pedestrians, as you'll see in between DeWall Parkway and University Road. Highlighted on this side is the creation of a narrow shared use and or slow or mixing zone space for bicycles and pedestrians through the frontage of Campus Kitchen. Given a high vehicular turnover, the project team believes it makes sense to encourage a slow zone at this location anyway. When you think about high turnover parking areas, whether it's pickup drop-off or, you know, food pickup, these, which is ever more important these days to try and build in that curbside management piece to the projects as we look at them, you know, we see we see these being, you know, 15-minute or 30-minute parking spaces that are primarily having people exit their vehicle performing a pickup then entering their vehicle and returning to their trip. So when we look at bicycles and pedestrian facilities adjacent to that sort of curbside activity, we see a need to slow those users down. Obviously pedestrians walk at a fairly slow pace anyway, but just to make make everyone aware with bicycles coming through the corridor that there's going to be a change in the dynamics of this section, we're going to need you to go slower to maintain and manage safety for all users of this particular area of the project. And, you know, this concept in the grand screen and the grand scheme, excuse me, represents a compromise for all modes in the greater interest of addressing all of the needs of the project. So if I may, a clarification on the cross-section, Jason's stuff will notice it is labeled as an 11-foot planting strip, but to be clear that is not a new planting strip. That is in most cases already what is long in front of folks' houses, but is within the right of way. Yes, that is not to be considered new infrastructure, merely a naming from the software we use to develop the cross-section to depict this project area. All righty. So jumping into concept four east, we'll be presenting a shared use path to help accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists on one side of the roadway. So here on your screen, you're seeing a shared use path on the north side of the corridor. This is coupled with a raised separated bike lane and sidewalk on the south side. Putting the shared use path on the north side was in anticipation of slow uphill cyclists. The speed of the uphill cyclists makes mixing the bikes and pads in this section really more tolerable than mixing downhill cyclists and pads together, given the rate of speed of downhill cyclists, especially in this steep segment, particularly in the steeper segment that we'll see on the next screen. And in this section, the back of sidewalk in this concept is generally within one to two feet of the existing back of sidewalk along this entire stretch. So the impacts do reach beyond the existing back of sidewalk, but the impact is pretty minimal. Again, one to two feet to better accommodate that mixed shared use path on the north side. And here's a continuation of that concept down the hill towards Manuski. The shared use path here is on the west side or the uphill side. Again, you know, it's more desirable on that side given the the speed of cyclists getting up the hill there and pedestrians walking along that section. And again, this would accommodate that separated bike lane on the west side. So the downhill cyclists would be still separated from the pedestrians. And again, in this cross section, the design would stay within one to two feet of the existing back of sidewalk. So we attempted to minimize the impacts to that front yard or off street parking space that folks are utilizing. We will see one to two feet of impact beyond where the existing back of sidewalk is out there today.  There have been a number of questions about what the resulting, although the impact is in the right of way, what is the resulting in each section for each concept, how much beyond that the existing back of sidewalk were going so that they can really do a comparison of how it's going to feel to their front yards. Just so you know as you go through that, that's kind of a question that they'd like to understand based on concerns of it coming closer to the houses and to the parking spots to just really understand how the options differ. All right. Thank you, Jen. So bear with us here. This is going to be a few lengthy slides as we compare these five concepts for the eastern section of the corridor. As we mentioned earlier, the evaluation of these for the West End, the evaluation matrices developed to compare each of these eastern corridor concepts across the four same factors being cost, safety, overall impacts to the built environment and community care. So the costs are once more presented on a relative scale. So this assessment concept one was evaluated lower on the scale as the only significant impact is the widening of the curb width and residual work that comes from that or as concepts two through four include that work in addition to establish to establish a new raised and separated facilities off the street, as we have seen. Now looking at safety along this eastern section of the corridor, in general, the concepts are providing improvements over the existing conditions because we are providing a separation of all various modes. Now, as you'll see here, there are slight discrepancies looking at concepts 3A and 4. Concept 3A as we discussed brings in the tradeoff of accommodating additional parking with creating a shared slow mixing zone for bicyclists and pedestrians across that frontage. Similarly, Concept 4 has a shared facility along the north side for bicyclists and pedestrians. And as a result, we're calling this out as a combination of no change slash a slightly worst case for pedestrians with these concepts based on the fact that in the existing condition pedestrians have their own space along the sidewalk and bikes are generally operating in the street. Now we all obviously recognize that some cyclists choose to ride on the sidewalk. However, in looking at kind of apples to oranges here, we do need to fully assess the changes based on the existing environment and the existing corridor accommodations for modes based on what's being proposed. And lastly, all concepts represent an improvement of vehicular safety given that the traveling they're now exclusively for vehicles. The impacts of the corridor concepts on the eastern segment are fairly consistent across the concepts as well as we've touched on. All concepts will have impacts to utilities and will require significant relocation and reconstruction. This assessment evaluating parking in right-of-way impacts go hand in hand in a way as we've discussed while none of the concepts being considered have actual right-of-way impacts concepts 3 and 3A naturally require more space to accommodate on-street parking alongside the proposed multimodal facilities. So kind of touching on Jen's question in this case, we're looking at, you know, 78 more feet of impact in those locations. Now those were deliberately chosen to be located in areas of lower impact, but there still is that increased impact to that space utilization based on the need for park. These locations do not encroach into private parking, but rather impact space within private right-of-way as we touch on being utilized by our residents. Regarding impacts to trees, all concepts are anticipated to have some level of impact with concept 3 and 3A again presenting slightly more significant impacts given the need for more width. Just to reiterate, the community character is really focused on the question, does the concept improve the aesthetics of the corridor and meet the preset project purpose and need? We see, for the most part, yes, obviously again in concept 1 given that the improvements are predominantly striping and pavement markings, there's no change to the aesthetic, but across the board for all the other concepts we see improvements being made. This satisfies the purpose and need statement is met across the board with a yes. However, there are asterisks on concepts 1, 2, and 4, and this is in regard to parking, which we've called out here, you know, the existing on-street parking that exists along Closester Avenue is either reduced or removed in all these concepts with concepts 3 and 3A retaining some of this on-street parking. We're calling this as an asterisk because it has been identified that business parking needs to be further addressed as these conversations continue. Now, some of those conversations have happened and we have identified potential for additional parking opportunities adjacent to the corridor, but we are flagging these concepts 1, 2, and 4 with an asterisk pertaining to the addressing of the parking need and the purpose and need statement. All right, and so before we jump into the intersection alternatives, excuse me, Jen, I already see she's come off mute, which to me suggests there are... We do have a list, so I do think you kind of clarified a little bit about what the impacts would be along the different sections as to impact. It was a follow-up question that actually connected as well to trees as to kind of which section has tree impacts, where those tree impacts might be that you think may be happening, and I don't know if you have additional information to provide on that. I know, Karen, do you have anything to weigh in on here? Yeah, I guess I can just give some clarification around what we were considering moderate or major impacts to the existing trees that are out there. So the range of six existing greenbelt trees, four trees that are behind the sidewalk in the existing condition, that was considered a moderate impact. So there is going to be an impact to the greenbelt and the trees that are existing in the greenbelt in some locations based on, again, that relocation of curb and the significant work that would go into that, but really the impacts beyond the back of walk were limited at most to four trees being potentially impacted, and then to give you a sense of what we're saying are major impacts. In that case, we're talking about eleven greenbelt trees along the entire corridor being impacted with that pretty significant curb work to shift curbs around and get curbs in a more desirable location, and then as many as 10 trees being impacted behind the sidewalk or the existing sidewalk, and just to give you a sense to, you know, this would definitely need to be evaluated by, you know, arborists beyond the capability of sitewalk and identifying those locations, and would definitely depend on that preliminary design where, you know, you would be able to limit those impacts essentially, but that was an evaluation of, you know, the existing trees that are out there and in our sense of where they made. Karen, you just lost yourself. Are you speaking again? I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yep, you're back. You're good. Excellent. Okay. So that's just to give you a sense of what we're talking about when we're talking about moderate versus major for these alternatives. We had a couple of questions really raised specifically about that mixing zone, I believe, in front of Campus Kitchen. One was someone didn't understand where the bikes go during that section, and there was also another question, if there is so much right of way, why couldn't all of that fit within the right of way? There should be room to have parking, the race bike lane, et cetera. Was that looked at is the other question? Yep, I can hit on that. So I think it might make sense just to go back to the slide to answer the can't that all fit in the right of way question. So I'm not sure how big folks screens are, but if you can identify the Campus Kitchen location, it is two blue rectangles also known as parcels over from the University Road label. And to the east, you can see kind of what that space allocation would look like if we maintained on-street parking, the grass strip, the separated bike lane, and the sidewalk. And now if you were to just picture that shifted west to being in front of Campus Kitchen, you really wouldn't have any frontage left and people would be walking within a few feet of the entrance to Campus Kitchen. Now as it currently stands, there are a couple picnic tables out there. There's also a driveway used by the owners for loading and unloading and parking during business hours and otherwise. So it would be a bit too cramped there. So there was a desire to kind of maintain as much of that space as possible in this particular location, which is why this slow mixing zone was considered in addition to the anticipated higher curbside activity at this location relative to the other locations along the corridor, which are primarily residential. Again, clarification in the mixing zone, the folks that are in the separated bike facility are then traveling in the same space as the pedestrians. Yep, similar to the existing path west of East Avenue, the new path, a shared-use path sort of conditioned through that area. Another concern that was brought up on that shared-use path idea is the fear will some people think of that as a cycle track. If it is wide enough, is there any concern by the project team that folks might use it to travel in the wrong direction, not necessarily down the hill, but perhaps in kind of the more flat area once you get to the top of the hill? I think with any facility there's concern that it will be used incorrectly, you know, salmoning is the proper term, riding in the contraflow direction. We hope that this would be mitigated by the fact that there would be a well-established, separated bike lane on the opposite side of the road. And in this location, there is a crossing right at University Road that has an RFB, so it'd be fairly easy to navigate to the other side of the road for westbound cyclists. That question would also, you know, at that point, I don't know if we'd be anticipating if westbound cyclists would be coming from east of Colchester Avenue where the separated bike lane still exists on the opposite side of the road, if they'd be coming out of University Road, but the hope is that, you know, it would be known that there is a separated bike facility on the opposite side of the road in the appropriate level, in the appropriate direction of travel. It was also a concern, does the city have a plan for how to maintain the protected bike lane during the winter? Might that be, I don't know if Nicole would want to step in with that, or that might be more appropriate in the general discussion at the end of the presentation? That's up to Nicole. If you'd like to answer it now, or if we should get into that later? I can probably give a quick answer now. Yeah, we do have a, you know, a plan that's still kind of in development because protected bike lanes are still fairly new for Burlington, but we do meet with our maintenance team regularly. We have a meeting at the beginning of every winter to kind of evaluate what our plan is for the coming season, but we do maintain our protected lanes with the same sidewalk tractors that we use to clear our sidewalks. We have a couple of new sidewalk tractors this year. They're going to try a slightly different plan for clearing them. And as of last year, we have a new strategy for actually removing snow in the protected lanes instead of just plowing, which is what we had done the past. So work in progress, but definitely something we are focusing on and trying to improve every year. A couple of other clarifying questions. When you say that trees are impacted, does that mean removed? And I think I can answer that that at this point, we can't say for certain because this is a planning level study. There is not detailed survey and there also has not been an arborist to take a look at what the root situation is on all of those trees, but we just, those are the trees we as a design team would be concerned about. We know there would be some impact to them and we would have to get additional information to clarify exactly what that impact would be. There is further, there is some feedback and comment, which I'm going to save and allow people to give kind of when we get to that section. But if there was clarifying, do we have a clarifying thing is, I guess it's more more a question. I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but whether there is feedback or data indicating that a mixing zone does work well for a cyclist that you would say that it is a good option for a cyclist is kind of the question. Have you seen that used other places to where you would say that the mixing zone is a good option for a bicyclist? As far as a transition from a purely separated bike lane and a sidewalk adjacent to each other, navigating into a very specific short segment of shared space, then separating back out. The short answer is no. I don't think that is a condition saved for an extremely contained environment. Now, looking at this corridor in particular, just west of this location, there is the existing shared use path, which is navigated by eastbound cyclists and east and westbound pedestrians. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any post safety concerns, picture that facility is just a bit to the east along the project corridor. It would not be a major concern given shared use paths exist on UVM's campus. Elsewhere in the city, they're not totally foreign concept. Of course, if such a concept were to be preceded to engineering design, surface materials would be assessed how to properly mark and sign for the potentially unexpected condition. That would all be evaluated in the design phase in the hopes of minimizing any sort of as much conflict as possible. I think someone is trying to gear up for their response to the poll that's coming because they want a clarification on which option allows continuous bike lane down the hill. That would be every option. There was also a question, which is an interesting one. Are options 3A and 4 mutually exclusive, or could they be combined into one alternative? I think this goes back to an earlier question about one treatment on the flats and another treatment for the hill piece. Yeah. The difference between 3A and 4 on the south side of the road is negligible because concept 4 could exist on the north side of the road while concept 3A still exists on the south side of the road. I think that would be further developed in a and kind of a potential engineering design phase of the project. Post-study question. But yes, they could go exist. Just checking to see if there's any other clarifications on this. Oh, there actually was one question about why did the drive lane width vary? Why is it up to 12 feet in concept 3A? I can answer. I know in some situations we did have a drive lane width of 12 feet because that is a minimum if there is a hard curb running up right next to it. But was there was there a reason, Drew, in that location? I believe that along this tighter section and the continuation down the hill, the awareness of the proximity to the hospital and emergency vehicles using this corridor often with very high frequency, accommodating that little bit of extra space in the travel lanes to be able to have folks be able to pull over and still get those emergency vehicles along the stretch. I think it was a concern that was raised early on in the process and we're conscious of it when we were laying these out. It was also a clarification earlier and I apologize for not noticing it. How do bikes enter and exit the separated bike lanes? And I believe, Drew, I believe you touched on it a little bit. But did you want to touch on then again how do bikes enter and exit separated bike lanes? Just to make sure I fully understand the question it might help to have that person who did ask that question unmute. I don't know and that would be Andrea Todd. Andrea would I don't know if Matt if we can unmute Andrea so she could just clarify the clarifying question. Andrea you should be able to go ahead and unmute now. Yeah thank you so much. Can you hear me? Yep. Awesome. Yeah I guess my question is at the points of the shared use like or the where you enter and exit those lanes where do you get, where do you enter and exit them? Like going up Colchester Ave or going down Colchester Ave is like a commitment.   Yeah I'm actually even thinking like that mixed mixing zone would totally, is totally stressful and I would avoid that. I would rather ride in the lane like I do on Pine Street rather than in a mixing zone and so if I wanted to exit and get in the street at the mixing zone how would I exit the path? So this is pertaining to concept 3a as shown here? Yeah. So in that specialized case you would do as you just said you know at Tybalt Parkway you would enter the road like in the lane and then re-enter at University Road. So there's, you have to wait to, I guess I, is it, if it's a continuous lane for bikes where you have to wait to a street entrance to exit it? Yes. Generally yes. Yes or a driveway. I mean I don't know if that's the right answer but on a driveway you could, you could go down or up but typically it's outside streets where the ramps you know are set up to allow you to. Okay thank you. Yeah so perhaps this is, perhaps this is a better example you can see ultimately you know drive, driveways and intersections would provide you your reprieve to enter and exit the facility while traveling along it. Karen did you have? Yeah I was just going to add that we were careful to give some sort of apron across from the side streets that aren't at you know a four-way intersection just so that folks could have that access to you know get in and get out as you're, as you're referring to. So the example there on the screen so it's very small on my screen. At Tivall University. Yeah north of Tivall we would we would have an apron there so you could if you're coming off a Tivall Parkway you know make that left hand turn and get on to the bike lane on the far side. Great thank you. Yeah thank you. There still seems to be concern about the 12 foot lanes. The 12 foot lanes are used in any situation in which there is not a bike lane when there is a hard curb at the outside of the lane. It is important for emergency vehicles to have a full 12 feet. Now when there is a buffer for a bike lane next to the vehicles that does provide them with that additional safe foot of width for think of the fire trucks mirrors for example. So I know we keep getting that question it's come up a couple of times speaking to emergency response in places where there is hard curb the minimum amount of width needed to be 24 feet. That was one of the parameters for laying out these concepts so that is why the concepts are laid out that way. We did have one request would be Drew would you mind very quickly just flipping through the alternatives you don't need to speak to them but just so people can remind to themselves of which was which before you pull. All right so starting with concept one east our on street bike lanes concept two east are raised and separated bike lanes concept three east raised and separated with the enhancements in the interest of maintaining parking. Three a is the specialized concept with the enhancements to maintain parking and add short-term high turnover parking immediately in front of campus kitchen. And concept four is raising separated bike lanes in the eastbound direction and a shared use path in the west bound direction. And now I will ask Matt to display the poll and it looks like that is now live if you could provide your gut reactions please. And they are fast and pure slavery while they still remember which concept was which. The responses are coming in. I appreciate that question it was like they knew that homework coming. Yeah. Run through the candidates one more time. All right we're already past 60 participation. Wonderful. Seventy. A bit more of a split this time. We'll give it another 15 seconds or so. A minute seems to kind of be the magic number here. Got about five seconds left to vote. And we'll go ahead and close the poll and let me share the results. Thank you Matt and thank you all for your responses. Okay. We are going to shift into a look at the alternatives at the Colchester Avenue and East Avenue intersection. Hopefully you're all still with us and the first alternative we're going to look at staying on theme is the lowest overall impact option which in this case are equipment and striping upgrades to the intersection of Colchester Ave and East Avenue. Now Karen will get into this a bit more in a few slides but in evaluating the crash data for this intersection which is considered a high crash location the majority of crashes that occur here are rear end type and generally this is indicative of poor signal visibility, signal head signal face visibility at the intersection. Through our investigations to date we found that the signal equipment at this intersection relative to the lane configurations and their alignment is not up to standard. So this first alternative proposed is relocating the signal equipment as well as providing more bolstered pavement markings to improve the conspicuity of other modes at the intersection. Alternative two is we'll look at it slightly more intensive involving a realignment of East Avenue as well as signal relocations and upgrades at the intersection as well as a very important change to the bicycle lane configuration at this intersection. So as we know there's a less than desirable skew at the intersection and this alternative proposes to realign East Avenue bringing it to 90 degrees with Colchester Avenue. This will help in addressing visibility concerns as well as concerns about the speeds at which less turns are made from Colchester Avenue onto East Avenue. There is also as you'll see on the north side of the intersection a realignment of the north side of the intersection onto the UVM Trinity campus in that location and the other significant change that will have a major impact we think on bicycle comfort and safety at this intersection will be the design to keep bicyclists separated in the bike lane to the right of the travel lanes. Now those that currently like the corridor know that in this case there is a short dashed area where vehicles right turning vehicles are to yield to through bicyclists thus creating a certain stance where at the intersection bicyclists are in between right turning vehicles and through vehicles. This alternative proposes keeping the bike lane to the right of right turns and this would only be possible through the installation of a bicycle signal phase at the intersection and separate bicycle only phase which are both proposed as upgrades to this alternative. Great and the third alternative for the intersection of East Avenue is similar to the concept that Drew just shared with the exception of the bike treatment and so in this alternative the intersection is realigned and upgraded and with relocated equipment like an alternative to but in this alternative as you can see on your screen the eastbound bike lane is brought up to the intersection so that it can navigate the intersection with the through vehicles so bringing up that bike lane in between the through vehicles and the through lane and the right turn lane and then those bicyclists would be accommodated at the intersection with the through movement vehicles. In this option certainly the bicyclist is more exposed than with a dedicated bike signal that Drew just shared with us and then the fourth alternative for the intersection with East Avenue is caring for the concept from previous planning efforts to have a roundabout in this location. The roundabout would also square up the intersection with East Avenue bringing it closer to a 90 degree angle with Colchester Avenue and it would realign the entrance to UVM Trinity campus as well. The roundabout would have as shown here an inscribed diameter of 110 feet and formalize the crossings on all four approaches so a little bit different than what's out there today and would certainly provide more access in that regard and similar to the corridor concepts these intersections were evaluated side by side through the evaluation matrix with cost safety impacts and community character as as symmetric. From a relative cost standpoint we're seeing a range of the treatment options from simply upgrading and relocating equipment represented as the single dollar sign here all the way up to you know the significant road reconstruction work that would go into a realignment and then even more so with a roundabout option. Clarification Karen a question was raised about cost and there was a question about whether the construction of the entrance road shift on that north leg into UVM in the movement of UVM's EV charging stations if that was taken into financial consideration and just to address that I mean it did receive the highest rating of dollar signs so there isn't a higher rating to go to but we do understand and do want to be clear that the roundabout option will will be more costly than the other alternatives. Absolutely all right in terms of safety for vehicle safety evaluations of these alternatives we turn back to the highway safety improvement program evaluation that was conducted at this location. That report as Drew had mentioned earlier saw that the predominant crash type was rear end type crashes. These were often occurring when the light has turned red and the second vehicle fails to stop or when the light has turned green and these crashes were indicative of that signal head visibility issue. Some other mitigation that was recommended out of that report was to add signal back plates and update the equipment there update the pedosal mounted equipment that's out there today. All of the signalized intersection options presented here would update that equipment and help to realign that equipment with its assigned lane so that when you're sitting there at the intersection you know you're facing the signal head on and and know which signal is for you as you're as you're sitting there waiting for your turn. The recommendations from the report to realign East Avenue and realign the UVM driveway were also considered in alternatives to in three here so that's seen as an improvement. Alternative four would lower vehicle speeds and produce fewer conflict points at the intersection so well documented that roundabouts improve safety in terms of the number of conflict points. Because of this the roundabout was definitely considered to be a significant improvement over the existing condition and then in terms of bike safety the separation of bikes at the intersection through a dedicated signal and phase in alternative two would be an improvement over the other alternatives that are presented here and for pedestrian safety the signal protected crossings were considered the greatest improvement for safety so although we're reducing conflict points and providing more access with the roundabout option for pedestrians you know having that signalized crossing was viewed as a significant improvement and in terms of the impacts of the intersection treatments these were also compared side by side in all four cases there would be major impacts to utilities minor impacts to the right of way most of that is through the impacts on that northern side of the intersection there at East Avenue. For alternative one this would involve new or relocated mast arm poles and mast arms and a more a minor effort in terms of constructability for the other alternatives the major roadwork required for realignment or roundabout development would be pretty significant for the realignment and the roundabout intersection treatments there would be a reduction of two to three parking spaces along East Avenue right intersection there and minor impact to trees there are one to two trees that are really close to the intersection there and so it's anticipated that there would be impacts to those two trees in the area immediately around the intersection and then it's important to note that there was an archaeological assessment of the corridor and that had recommended that areas along UVM Trinity Campus frontage there any impact beyond the existing back of sidewalk really should undergo an additional review just as that was identified as a sensitive area not necessarily anything known but just to have folks looking at that if there are impacts beyond the back of of existing structures. Ready for some sorry not quite yet. The alternatives that leverage curbing to separate facilities and provide green belt space were considered improvements to the aesthetics of the corridor and that or excuse me so the intersection in this case so that was an improvement for alternative two and alternative four all of the intersection alternatives would satisfy the purpose and need particularly in terms of safety the upgrades to equipment striping would address the primary recommendations from that highway safety improvement program report and then the realignments in alternatives two and three would follow through on the secondary recommendations from that report so really the focus on safety at this intersection all of these alternatives would help to satisfy those recommendations and then the roundabout alternative would similarly provide significant improvements to safety at this high crash location in the future. Karen can I just ask a quick question? You don't need to go back you can say where you're at as far as the slide goes but I had a question come in over email and I just wondering thinking that now might be the right time to address it just the traffic performance of the roundabout compared to the signalized intersections I think people kind of know what the congestion looks like today on a daily basis with the signal but this person was specifically curious as to how the roundabout would perform comparatively. Yeah so that's a great question and and certainly in the existing condition the delay particularly for folks on east avenue is is pretty significant and so overall the intersection and the existing condition doesn't perform all that well but the roundabout would be a slight improvement over the existing condition in terms of the level of service the level of safety for the roundabout that we've laid out and you know it would improve upon the condition for the approach that sees the most significant delays so in terms of you know the experience delay waiting for that signal in the existing condition it would be an improvement over the existing condition. Thanks ready for additional questions the first one was the one that was brought up earlier which is if I am a cyclist heading westbound how do I turn left to go on to east avenue on any of these alternatives they understand how on the roundabout but how do they do it on the other alternatives that would be covered with two-stage left turn boxes at the east half intersection we would have room to build those in they are shown they were shown in the layout concepts as well for those unfamiliar with the two-stage left turn box you would enter it on your green signal for westbound travel you would queue there out of the way of any conflicting vehicular or bicyclist movements and then when the you would be detected for that southbound movement and then you would go with this vehicular green for that movement to cross onto east avenue and head south. Another one is can alternative one work with separated raised bike lanes? So just I'll click back to the so the intention of this slide at the start was to suggest that the western concepts are shown grouped with the alternatives to the east and at the intersection that work with those concepts so in this case the short answer is no the on-street separated bike lanes would not work with what's being proposed in the other alternatives it is intended that concept one works with concept one east and alternative one at the intersection. Another clarification that there is still there are some impacts also to Trinity road at UVM in those EV charging stations even when that intersection is just being shifted so just a comment on that as a you know differentiator I suppose. What are the emergency vehicle impacts with option for the roundabout all the ambulance passing pass through this intersection to get to the UVM medical center? So that was assessed okay so that that was no problem that was assessed this question came up the local concerns meeting as well as our advisory committee meetings as we do have a representative from the UVM medical center on the on the advisory committee and we assessed it against vehicular speed emergency vehicular speeds of up to 10 miles an hour can travel through the roundabout which we see is being pretty analogous with emergency vehicles approach to a signalized intersection with sirens and lights blazing we see as minimal speed differential between the signalized intersection and the roundabout in this case and the roundabout alternative does have a truck apron but the 10 mile an hour assessment that was done I believe this account for avoiding that truck apron as the implication of any vertical deflection for an emergency vehicle is less than desirable. clarifying questions on the roundabout in the separated bike lane options how do bikes enter and exit through the roundabout how do bikes get around the roundabout I guess would be the question if they're in a separated bike lane what's happening at that roundabout for the bicyclists um I don't know if it might help to put the slide up again but the intent would be for a bicyclist to already be in the separated bike lanes entering the roundabout otherwise there are striped bike crossings that can be utilized to enter the enter and exit the roundabout at each leg so you would go down if you were ahead of eastbound you would travel a little bit down the east of leg and cross can you show that with your mouse because it's really what you just described doesn't really explain how you where the shared bike lane or where the separated bike lane actually gets you from one side of that intersection together can you just talk it through with your mouse showing me where you're gonna go um I unfortunately I'm just sharing the powerpoint presentation window for the sake of the public presentation I'm not sure I can trace it in my mouth as a result why don't why don't we attempt to just to describe it so if you're coming from the west if you're coming from the museum medical center and you're in that dark gray which is where the cyclist is traveling I can see your cursor yeah oh you can yeah can you this is um Matt from VHB if you go up to the top of your screen and click on view options there's an option to annotate that will let you draw if you'd like oh just remember with great yes all right we'll make it green because bikes are green so as Jen was alluding to Andrew to answer your question if you are eastbound cyclist the idea is that you will already be in the separated facility um to continue eastbound you would oh it's a little light can you guys see that you would come down here and then similar to a pedestrian crossing you would await for a gap or hopefully a yielding vehicle you would cross the bike crossing here and then you would continue up here um through the intersection to continue east thank you that was helpful yeah and then similarly if you were to turn left you would travel all all the way around the roundabout to then proceed on east avenue etc etc through still on that similar topic if you are a cyclist is there enough room are the splitter islands wide enough that on my bike I can make it halfway across before I have to look in the other direction to continue my crossing yes the the median shown here followed pedestrian guidance for refuge island so they are minimum of six feet of space so if you are in a tandem bicycle it might be one crossing however if you're on a single bicycle you could queue in that space in the median and then proceed one other question regarding safety does the roundabout slowing speeds provide safety elsewhere on the corner in a way that the signalized intersections don't does that give it kind of a you know when we're thinking about our safety evaluation is there is there a kind of a bump for the roundabout as a result because it isn't just improving the safety of the intersection but it could have more of an effect on the corner Karen you want to take that that's a really great question um so I guess I would anticipate that with a roundabout you're going to have more free flowing traffic so if you think of you know shorter queues or delays on any of the approaches just because folks aren't going to be waiting for a signal so in that regard it might actually be you know folks moving along but to your point I think you know by design the roundabout is um supposed to slow people down um along those approaches so I think in the immediate vicinity of the of the intersection along each approach you'll see reduced speeds but maybe a more continuous flow of traffic um but then you know the other treatments along the corridor are really where we may see um a speed reduction as we're sort of squeezing lanes down and and you know limiting uh how much how much space folks have when they're in a vehicle so that sort of narrowing of the roadway um has the effect of traffic calming and slowing people's speed so the combination of both I think would ultimately result in some slower speeds along the corridor but um in the immediate vicinity of of this intersection with a roundabout I definitely anticipate that there would be um slower speeds another question if I'm a commuter cyclist am I likely to be able to navigate the roundabout in the road itself and not do that what can be kind of a cumbersome you know movement to get to do like the crossings as a pedestrian by design um there are many examples of roundabouts basically accommodating both so you know for those cyclists that are are interested but maybe not bold those folks can use the crossings that we're showing on the screen here um and then oftentimes as a design element um you can provide uh access for those those bolder braver cyclists to hop into the roadway there and and navigate as a vehicle um so certainly we could accommodate both but I think that would be more of a design element that would be decided upon in in sort of the next phase of a project that was implementing a roundabout right I think everything else I have now is more commentary and not clarification questions I think now we'll take our final um immediate response poll for the intersection alternatives and then we'll open it up for public input and general discussion and that poll is open already at 75 percent everybody felt strongly about this one this is great we'll give it another 15 seconds or so 89 participation this is great okay I'm going to go ahead um five seconds last call for the three people out there who haven't voted I know at least one of those is a phone user okay we're going to end the poll and everyone should see the results pop up so I think we are ready then to enter our kind of a discussion portion of our evening I will start by reading what it has already been raised in the chat for either commentary or against mostly commentary opinions um you know a little additional information and then we can open it up to folks if you do have a comment or I don't know Matt if I'm stealing your thunder because I've had to do a few of these without backup um Matt would you want to be the one who calls on folks and um elevates them or would you prefer that I do that happy to help out okay excellent I'll start by reading the the items and the questions and answer um it was a comment from rick sharp that there's a concern that 11 feet of public right of way is being seated to adjoining landowners on each side of the street that right of way could be better utilized for public transportation as it was intended that could allow separation of the sidewalk and the right the race by path on the north side of the street up the hill um in addition there was you know some a response to an earlier question about the perception of safety is impact is important because it impacts human behavior both on a bike and behind the wheel resulting in situations that can be safer or less safe depending on the behavior um and you know glenn believes there's some literature on that point it's just something to think about uh Peggy had commented back when there was consideration of the shared path the shared use path option that that could be used by kids riding to edmunds elementary or middle school um on the pole there was a commentary that they wanted um kind of a split option a combination of three a and four for that east section so a modified option that was not put up as part of part of a question um the vastly reduced idling and ditching the electronic signaling and reduction in collisions and the roundabout is the most green option and um a contra opinion to that would be that they this opinion is that the roundabout does not have an improvement for cyclists it is slightly less for uh pedestrians at least with a signalized intersection bikes and peds can push a button and wait for the light um that there's a concern that the roundabout will be less safe for cyclists and pedestrians those are all the comments that are in the chat matt if you want to be the uh moderator sure so uh we can continue to take questions via the q and a tool or if you would prefer to speak on mike go ahead and click that raise hand button and we will unmute folks in the order they come in we have um sorry i didn't catch if you covered this we had a question come in from andrea about stormwater yes okay great i just saw that one thank you if stormwater is not factored into these design at the early stages it's a shame because any beautiful perfect design will be non-functional if there's a storm that fills the roads paths with dirt leaves and needles yes that is entirely true once this reaches the engineering phase that certainly would be something that would be considered right away to make sure that there is the um the stormwater accommodation to handle any of this impervious area agreed andrea so noted thanks john uh we've got two raised hands and really quickly uh let's just remind i we have at least one person out there on the phone if you'd like to raise your hand press star nine and we can let you unmute first off we've got rick sharp rick i'm going to allow you to unmute and you can ask your question yep um as to uh the roundabout um i always believe that roundabouts were built for cars not for pedestrians and bicycles and i think that's true of this one as well i think you're all used to the concept of desire lines and i think if you lay the desire lines down on a round on that roundabout you will discover that people will not be using the crosswalks they will instead go straight across the roundabout both on bikes and on pedestrians on feet as well i think that that design forces the bikes out into the traffic which is exactly what you don't want to do and therefore the roundabout is a complete disaster probably also costs more than all the other improvements that you're going to make to that colchester right of way combined to put that in and i think it's very unsafe for the emergency vehicles as well so i'm very opposed to the concept of the roundabout the last thing that i think is a big problem i'd like you to address it directly if you could is that if you have um signals and all the crosswalks that you can stop the traffic what is to prevent those crosswalks from um from being activated and thereby backing up all the traffic so that it goes right around the um roundabout and becomes a big snarl i think there's a misunderstanding with the roundabout option those would not be fully signalized crossings you're going to let people cross east avu and colchester avu without the ability to stop the traffic well we haven't figured out the exact approach and that there might be an inappropriate location for an rfb but because the pedestrians are only crossing traffic approaching from one direction and that is not necessarily making a number of turning maneuvers etc it is a safer crossing location than many many others so yes those those crossings will not be fully signalized that's entirely insane we have a little bit more feedback in the q&a um and who is at 211 colchester avu is concerned that she will have an impossible situation coming out of her driveway because of the roundabout i don't know and if it's because the splitter island would be blocking your driveway or what the concern is because i know obviously if vehicles do queue on that approach through any of the alternatives it would impact you but i don't know if if the concern is that the splitter island in particular would eliminate you from being able to take a left in and a left out um and some of that we could obviously look at in design but um but your concern is is noted um greg has commented that the vast majority of pedestrian buttons in town are not responsive um would new pedestrian buttons for peds or bikes be any more responsive than the ones that we have now um i think this is kind of a two-part concern i think this is something that if there are locations where the pedestrian buttons are not working that is something um that you should probably speak about the speech of the city about kind of separately offline from this in any alternative where we would be putting in new traffic signal equipment though that would be in any of the signalized alternatives that would be upgrades of equipment um and so everything would be fully operational and in new when it went in um so it would need to be operational um and i just add a plug for if that is occurring around the city um c-click fix is a great way to elevate that issue um to folks at the city to fix any issues with head buttons not activating crossing and that's on the city website c-click fix i can share a link excellent um there was a concern raised that kathy's flower shop needs parking for their business um i know jason i believed it a little bit of discussion with kathy's flower shop um jason you want to just weigh in on that concern yeah i can speak to that we did meet with the uh one of the owners uh of kathy flower co and went over the alternatives with them you know in a perfect world they would appreciate some parking spaces on colchester avenue um but at the same time we're very supportive of the alternatives to make it safer for bicycling on colchester avenue and you know they also have is you know during the summer at least an ample amount of um parking uh on the adjacent street is it leatham court and that for the most part is sufficient for their business needs and they also have employee parking out back behind their business um yeah and largely they were they were supportive of um the alternatives to make it safer for bicycling along the border okay we've got a few raised hands we'll try to get to in order um jonathan weber gonna go ahead and allow you to unmute hey folks uh jonathan here from local motion um is it is it possible to look at uh 3a um on the campus kitchen section the e-section so just my my one of my questions here is um you know i asked a few questions about the the lane widths just it seems like we're so close to having room for the continuous raised bike lane and the sidewalk and avoid this mixed use zone which seems a little hazardous to me it's it's not a compromise we would ever ask of people driving to like you know share share their their space in that sort of same unpredictable way that i think this this will this will work um why not narrow the green belts by one foot to find that extra two feet for the sidewalk and the and the separated bike lane that could that could certainly be considered cool yeah i think that would that would be great to look at and if not doubt it i agree with the other person you mentioned maybe looking at the property right of ways i think achieving that continuous bike lane would be really worthwhile um beyond that i think i think this is these are really great concepts um i think the separated raised bike lanes are really what this corridor needs um you know there are a lot of people walking and biking here there are a lot of new users as we know buying bikes uh as bike shops are sold out um and this kind of infrastructure is really what makes folks feel safe um and we know that when folks feel safe they're more inclined to ride um and there is a really strong safety numbers effect when there are more folks out riding uh drivers tend to watch for people riding more um and that that really increases the safety um as far as the roundabout is concerned i do you think those the splitter island with is worth looking at there are a lot of people riding cargo bikes bringing their kids to school on cargo bikes um and those are certainly longer oftentimes than the 60 inches that i think was mentioned for those splitter island refuges so just some things to look at there um and i would also love to see a way for people riding to merge into um sort of that car travel lane um so that they don't have to use the crosswalks if they're a more advanced comfortable rider so thanks for this work i think uh you know any any combination of these improvements with the raised lanes um and the roundabout or the bike signal improvements would be really worthwhile thanks thanks johnathan johnathan can i also just provide you um when the idea of a mixing zone was raised i was very hesitant about it at first and one of the things that actually um made me think it was an alternative worth carrying forward was the fact that there is a lot of friction in that area there are a lot of people getting out of cars and walking across the spike lane and if nothing else whether that alternative gets carried forward it is definitely something as the design report to just think about how we alert the cyclist who might be going a little faster that this could be happening in and likewise the pedestrian was crossing that area that this is an area that so treating it with a different texture did appeal to me for that very reason this is really a mixing zone because you do have folks coming and going from from the parking and going to get their takeout etc so we do have a couple of other comments in the chat um one is that the crosswalk button should be reachable by someone in a wheelchair that is that's a great comment and anything with the new a new traffic signal we would make sure it's um ADA compliant um of course as that gets designed and um that the color of raised bike lanes should be different and very obvious to pedestrians on the sidewalk to avoid that kind of that the mixing where mixing is not intended those were two other pieces of feedback in the chat thanks Jen uh we still have three raised hands left i'm gonna move to Jason next Jason you should be able to unmute and go ahead all right can you hear me yes okay so um one thing i think we have to consider is that this is going to be maybe a 20 or 30 year investment and so change is going forward it could be here for a long time uh some of the details i like to see are maybe some of the behind sidewalk impacts uh to the individual property owners um property owner in the area um the overlay to the tree impacts um i understand there's some green belt impact and as well as ones behind the sidewalk um just figuring out which trees and letting people know which ones are impacted i think is important for the neighborhood communication and overlaying the bus stops and how they work into the plan i couldn't really see in any of the plans where the bus stops are and how they uh facilitate into that i think that needs to be made more clear um as far as my preference i think bikes versus pedestrians if you want to call it that is better than um bikes versus cars or vehicles um keeping a separation between high moving you know large vehicles and people on bikes and walking is very important so i i appreciate all the separated options as being viable and where you can look at it like it's been brought up but uh when it rains the storm water down the street is very heavy sometimes several inches so whichever one facilitates the best uh you know storm water i think that's important and where you can bury the utilities that's important as well because uh they present opposite obstacle to the green belt space and a number of other things but overall i support any number of the options going forward to improve what's there but uh the best one is thanking for it for the next 20 or 30 years so thank you very much thank you jason up next we've got lani lani i'm going to go ahead and allow you to unmute thank you so i i heard one comment saying that now that the bikes are going to be in the bike lane they won't be in the vehicle lanes and i'm not sure that that's um something that's that's part of the legal framework of vermont my understanding is that a bicycle can go anywhere that a car goes on a public road so there still might be cyclists who want to go really fast who um you know if they if they feel that the bike lane is obstructed in some way or has trash or something they may still want to be in the bike lane and i can see that and so on one hand they'd have a legal right to that on the other hand it would be easy for a car driver to get upset that there is a cyclist in their in their lane so i'm not quite sure how to resolve that but i i think that's something you want to consider and maybe it's a public education or something i don't know the second thing is that we're voting now as sort of without without the constraints of money we all know that some of the alternatives are more money than others but it's not coming out of our pockets when we're voting so i just would encourage you to take that into account if we were voting and that included like a tax increase or something maybe we would vote differently so i just wanted to point that out also and the third thing is i i myself voted for the separated lanes but i would hate to see the separated lane separated bike lane that's going down Colchester Avenue turn into a canal when it rains um so stormwater might be a really big a big deal especially if the lane is separated and it sort of is turning into a trough um that's it for my comments thank you thank you very much Lonnie up next we've got uh sarah flash sarah i'll go ahead and allow you to talk should be able to unmute now thank you very much um i definitely like the idea of the background behind all these proposals on my mind it's um slowing down a major quarter coming into uh brunton whether it's um Colchester Ave or wilson road or shelbin road main street um so all these um efforts to narrow the road i approve of and i certainly see the roundabout as one of those um infrastructures that will help people realize that coming into our city is not a rush you know to get downtown or whatever um so i'm aware that roundabouts are extremely controversial and they're often probably always the most expensive option um and despite my strong preference for bicycling um this is seems to be the one case where i would push for the increased safety for motor vehicles as um i feel that the way motor vehicles behave you know affects us all so um i don't expect that i'm ever going to be able to um change rick's mind or probably rick won't be able to change my mind and i think to some extent you can always use different data sets certainly we've got plenty of traffic engineers in our area that you know are strong proponents like tony reddington um it's just great in my mind since i happen to live on east avenue to see the possibility of one of these safety enhancements be seriously considered um so yeah i guess that's i just needed to respond and um i think that's about the end of my focus on safety and really looking to for this to happen in the future whenever it is thanks thank you sarah we have one more raised hand um and whoever you are you're showing up as a galaxy s8 plus so i'm gonna allow you to talk but if you could just do us a favor and just state your full name so we know who you are that'd be great okay go ahead hi can you hear me yes yes um i didn't mean to be the mystery guest my name is Sharon busher um and um i wanted to ask you a question um i did listen to the presentation and i've heard it a second time and maybe i've missed it but you know it is pedestrian focused also so the sidewalks all along colchester avenue are they going to be looked at and improved as far as as leveling so that there aren't areas where people trip um i haven't heard any i've heard you know with with shared paths definitely but i haven't heard any specifics around all of the sidewalks along this corridor being looked at and improved for safety for the pedestrian i can i can go ahead and address that quickly um just pertaining to this study Sharon uh the alternatives being proposed would result in more than likely a complete uh streetscape reconstruction in which case those sidewalks because a lot of the alternative they are being relocated would be reconstructed and would no doubt be sure to check all of the required standards in terms of state design and ADA standards so and and i thought most of it would be but i wasn't sure if it would be complete like this is a complete street i would like to see this a complete pedestrian way and so i just wanted to understand that and just get that on the record um so that to make sure that i know sidewalks are expensive i'm not naive in this process um but i i would like to make sure that um the pedestrian is also given priority here thank you thank you very much Sharon we have uh one more raised hand um jen did you want to check in with the q and a yes a few things to come in with q and a um one of the questions is can bikes and peds be part of the automatic signal at a signalized intersection so the pedestrian buttons are not necessary and yes we did analyze the operations of the signalized intersections a number of different ways and some of which could just be concurrent and come up automatically or others which are for an exclusive pedestrian phase so there are a number of options at this intersection which of course would be fine tuned if that is a selected alternative as it goes through design but there are options to accommodate pedestrians in either way um jenny has indicated she seconds what jason said about public transportation as a regular bus rider will be very helpful to see how the bus stops interact with these options um jim has indicated that if we really want to add around about to burlington let's try to find somewhere where it makes more sense like replacing the jug handle or the shelburn street rotary and that's all the feedback in the q and a all right um we'll go now to jack hanson jack i'll uh light on mute go ahead great thanks and jim we're we're working on the rotary for sure um but it's a process um but yeah no i just wanted to say i think this is this is really exciting i think i often get frustrated that in criteria for these shifts to our our transportation infrastructure there isn't the criteria of the climate crisis which to me is the overarching criteria that should take precedence in terms of our transportation system and the need to make changes to it rapidly um but i do that being sad i do think this project is one of the most exciting opportunities that we have and that we've ever had in burlington for that type of transformative change that would really i think shift things in a meaningful way in terms of um the way that people are able to get around i think but we need this type of infrastructure this raised and separated to really get new people who aren't already out there on bikes who don't feel safe and a city like copenhagen that has tons of these all over the city has 50 percent of people in that city commuting by bike so i think this is a starting point and if we can get this you know in this part of the city hopefully it can it can spread from there and create a real network and really be a game changer we do have another comment in the chat and it is something that we haven't really discussed um during this but it is it was mentioned just briefly about ways to accommodate parking that might be lost on the quarter jim wanted to just mention the potential for short-term parking in the centennial north university road entrance is something that ubm is willing to consider and discuss this would involve closing the eastern entrance exit and widening the western entrance exit to be two-way that would allow for more temporary parking spaces on the east side of the parking go ahead chase and there was a question that came in via email to me in advance of this meeting and it was um and i apologies about i missed it um in tonight's discussion but it was with regard to the intersection of east ab and colchester ab as to whether the additional crosswalk could be put in at the signalized alternatives so that would be crosswalk across colchester avenue on the western side of the intersection but jason that that ties into my comment a little earlier that yes there is the potential for crosswalks on all legs of the intersection but in that case they would probably have to be a shift to an exclusive pedestrian versus if you were to limit to just one crossing of colchester ab you could create a situation where the crossings could be done concurrently with with phasing um which then makes it come up automatically so that is a you know a detail i think that would be worked out later weighing whether it's the convenience of having all of the crossings at the intersection um and how that then affects how those pedestrians are treated whether they have to push a button to get an exclusive phase um but those those would be details that could be worked out the answer is that yes either alternative could work um so i'm confident that that that could be if that that is desired that crosswalk could be put in all right don't have any additional raised hands so we're good there looks like we might have two more comments in the q and a channel if we wanted to touch on those i'm sorry my apologies we do we have residential shared zone parking for a parking management plan instead of the way it's done currently by street is something that has been brought up in our process as a as a desired um a desired situation so that folks who currently park on colchester ab could park on different streets by zone um thanks for remembering additional sidewalk there's already curb cuts in truncated dome plates for that western side crosswalk this could and should be considered and uh and then just a pat on the back for a druing karen's presentation awesome presentation and thanks so much i had one more question um i think that was probably a great note to end and i apologize for keeping you you can just say that again when you're done jason we do have a raised hand as well jason after you again okay i won't be the last one um there was a question about um bike boxes at the um signalized intersection was that something that we talked about tonight or could we consider it um yet we did um mention two-stage left turn boxes for consideration uh primarily at colchester avenue and east avenue and then at all uh signalized and unsignalized intersections along the way we have created q space for left turns for bicyclists along the corridor okay i think clear specifically interested in you know right in front of the stop bar are we talking about the same thing um oh so i guess bike boxes versus two-stage left turn boxes um yes kind of six and one half dozen the other um two-stage left turn boxes came out as an interim approval from fhwa after bike boxes um bike boxes have seen some effectiveness but overall have seen to only address uh improving bicyclists safety for left turns during a red signal phase at intersections and so there was a desire to create um a condition that worked during all phases of the signalized intersection in which case um two-stage left turn boxes were then researched and uh then granted interim approval by fhwa so that has been our preferred um design consideration for intersection maneuvers but we could uh if you know things advanced to a design we would consider all all potential improvements for navigating intersections for bicyclists great thanks yeah okay we do have one more hand raise uh we're going to go to greg go ahead on on mute hello can you hear me a lot of clear okay great uh yeah thank you for the presentation there's some some really uh great ideas in here um i just wanted to uh voice my support of the of the roundabout option and it's for for a few reasons uh one is that i just feel a lot safer when i only have to cross one lane at a time and especially on uh that that eastbound section um uh of colchester where it meets uh east ab when you have that when you have a dedicated right turn lane the drivers really do not like to slow down when they have a dedicated turn lane and uh this would this would reduce everybody to one lane which would uh i i think uh uh really helped to to to calm traffic um and i think that that um rick's concern about drivers not yielding to pedestrians and bicyclists i think i think you could uh do some things to to encourage them to to slow down even before they reach those crosswalks um you know you could raise the crosswalks you could kind of have the whole thing be one big speed table um i don't know you all are the engineers you could figure it out but i think i think that could be addressed um so i just wanted to to say that i think uh that that would be it would would be a great option thank you thank you very much correct all right we do have a little bit more in the q and a and we are really up against um time here but i will um just go through there was a thank you for addressing the bike park question and then a comment that the roundabout reduces three different left turn lanes all right well with that i'll click forward to our final slides here um in case i assume everybody can still see the presentation up on the screen so uh first and foremost thank you for everybody's interest in this project i think it's clear to see this is uh you know heavily involved public and it seems like you know we that's that's what really feeds these projects that's what keeps them going so thank you for your extremely thought out questions and um great feedback also thank you all for being respectful to one another and to the project team these forums are always can can get heated uh and i thought everybody here was extremely respectful of all of the ideas being presented here so on behalf of the project team thank you for that um just looking ahead uh for our scoping study the next steps will be to select a preferred alternative from there we will have one final third and final meeting with our advisory committee in which case we will then have our refined uh preferred alternatives and with that we will then bring that recommendation to the transportation energy and utilities committee as well as city council for their approval um we did have i know we are over time we did have final poll questions i don't know jason and nicole uh to revisit the selected alternatives i know at this point i think we have had a few people drop off i'm not sure if it is appropriate to ask those questions or what uh just to engage people's thoughts on that uh do we want one final poll for people's preferred alternatives good question i think um my guess is judging by the comments and since we've lost uh you know several several of our attendees um i didn't get a sense from comments that people know this really changed their mind based on our additional conversation so i feel like the information that we got from the initial poll um it's probably good and and we're you know being respectful of everybody's time tonight um don't want to belabor that perfect yeah i would say if you if you had a huge change of heart um please do email me about that and you know we could make that subtle adjustment or just kind of note that when we're we're looking at this and then preparing to um bring this to the advisory committee at their next meeting um which should be some time in in february um we're still trying to schedule that but just so you're aware of um what timeline we're looking at we're thinking like mid february um tentatively right now and just clarification on the last slide um the advisory committee will be making their recommendation of a preferred alternative and then that will go to the public works commission the two and then the city council eventually makes the actual decision there thank you for the clarification there jason and i think um with that thank you all for your attendance um if there are any other closing remarks from the project team please feel free otherwise we will uh as nicole said be respectful of everybody's time and let's your return to your monday evening