1. BURLINGTON BIKE PATH RESTORATION
Rehabilitation of the City’s Shoreline Treasure
BIKE PATH
PUBLIC
FORUM
Contois Auditorium
in City Hall
Wednesday, March
14th, 2012,
5:30 – 7:00 pm.

2. Evening Agenda
1. Overview of the Process (20 min)
 Introduction
 Review of fact sheet
 Review of evaluation tools
2. Policy Discussion (30 min)
 General policies
 Location-specific policies
 Q&A!
3. Funding Discussion (30 min)
 Review of packages/costs by segment
 Funding options
 Q&A!
4. Next Steps (10 min)
 Additional Q&A!
Contact info

3. Fact Sheet… WHAT
The City Council passed a Resolution on September 14th, 2010
creating the 12-member Bike Path Task Force and charged it to:
 Review the current bike path system and the capital needs focusing on the 7.5 miles and its
connections to other paths in the network
 Review the 2002 Feasibility Study and 2005 Island Line Sign & Amenities Plan; make
recommendations and revisions
 Review current maintenance budget and capital budget allocations
 Identify any financial gaps in the operation budget and future capital budgets
 Understand how the Bike path is a part of the Island Line Trail and explore opportunities for
regional signs, funding and or maintenance
 Recommend a preferred funding mechanism to address maintenance/capital funding gaps
 Create a concise written action plan to address funding gaps and Feasibility Study
 Present findings

4. Fact Sheet… WHERE
The Task Force was
charged with assessing
the 7.5 miles of bike
path along the
shoreline of Lake
Champlain, beginning
from Austin Drive and
ending at the Winooski
River Bridge.

5. Fact Sheet… WHY
The bike path was built 25 years ago and was one of the first in
New England. However, it was not built to today's standards
and with heavy use and lakeshore impacts some sections
are now unsafe and impassable.
Yearly repair is no longer a sustainable option for the major
restoration and rehabilitation issues.
Because the Bike Path is so important to alternative
transportation goals, to the health and wellness of our
residents, and to the tourism industry in Burlington the City
Council created the Task Force with the goals listed above.

6. Fact Sheet… WHO
As directed by the City Council, the Parks & Recreation
Commission appointed Task Force members:
 Lisa Aultman-Hall
 John Bossange (Chair)
 Patrick Standen
 Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur (Vice-chair)
 Peter Clavelle
 Bob McKearin
 Steve Allen
 Jane Knodel
 Will Flender
 Katherine Monstream
 Zandy Wheeler
 Kurt Wright
Additional support has come from…
Local Motion
Department of Parks & Recreation  Chapin Spencer, Executive Director
 Mari Steinbach, Director
 Deryk Roach, Parks Superintendent CEDO
 Jen Francis, Parks Planner  Larry Kupferman, Director
Department of Public Works Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
 Nicole Losch, (CCRPC)
Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Environmental Planner  Peter Keating

7. Fact Sheet… HOW
The full Task Force has met every
other month along with sub-
committee work between Task Force
meetings. Initiatives and action steps
were created to meet the criteria of
the Resolution.
Consulting engineers, Resource
Systems Group was hired to write a
feasibility study assessing and
recommending necessary projects
with accompanying estimates.
Public input was
received, reports were
generated and decisions
were made regarding the
design, prioritization &
restoration processes.

8. Evaluation Tools – Prioritization Matrix
The Path was divided into sixteen sections and the projects in
each section were carefully assessed using the matrix criteria:
 SAFETY (personal security, traffic security, signs & markings)
 DESIGN STANDARDS (width & shoulders, surface type, storm water management)
 CONNECTIVITY (local connections and enhanced access points, community destinations)
 ECONOMIC VITALITY (visitor information, restrooms, drinking fountains, mile markers)
 MAINTENANCE EFFICIENCY (utilities, trees & shrubs, cleanliness)
Each criteria guideline was given a grade and guideline grades were averaged to develop the
overall improvement grade.

9. Evaluation Tools – Prioritization Matrix
Matrix used to evaluate the 74 specific recommendations in the
feasibility study…

10. Evaluation Tools – Improvement Spreadsheet
An improvement spreadsheet was developed to prioritize each
project and summarize costs. Each section was evaluated and
broken into three categories: A’s, B’s and C’s + D’s.

11. Funding Packages – Three Opportunities
Projects were clustered into these three improvement funding packages based on the graded
rating system.
1 - Rehabilitation (Comprehensive Rehabilitation) = A’s
Preliminary Estimate: $11,645,000
Defined as costs that must be expended to save the bike path and meet the current
design standards for sub-base, path width, surface, shoulders and drainage.
2 - Functional (Additional Safety Improvements) = A’s + B’s
Preliminary Estimate: $13,875,000
Defined as recommendations that improve safety, add capacity, or improve
conditions beyond the existing system including fencing near slopes, lighting in key areas,
directional signage, etc.
3 - Enhancement (Additional Amenities) = A’s + B’s + C’s + D’s
Preliminary Estimate: $16,873,000
Defined as enhancements to the path’s character and aesthetics including trailhead
kiosks, pause places, learning stations, drinking fountains, etc.

12. Policy – Recommendations
Recommendations were organized in two categories:
1.) general actions that should be taken for the length of
the corridor to improve uniformity and 2.) location-specific
actions. The recommendations address:
 Rehabilitating the path to include a wider paved section and unpaved shoulders to
improve safety for users and increase the structural ability of the path to accommodate
maintenance vehicles.
 Upgrading the path-roadway intersections to improve safety for all users.
 Enhancing connectivity to and from the path.
 Constructing gateways/trailheads to enable visitors to more easily find and navigate
the facility.
 Enhancing the path with a comprehensive suite of amenities such as pause places,
wayfinding, and interpretive stations.

13. General Policy – Cross-Section
The majority of existing path is 8’ wide…
with informally developed running paths along each side between 0-2’ wide.
The recommended minimum cross-section is 11’ wide…
with 2’ of defined unpaved shoulders on either side of the path.
A widened (11’) path is the
minimum width needed for
A widened path will two bicycles traveling in
accommodate opposite directions to pass
maintenance & emergency one another AND a
vehicles. pedestrian (AASHTO).

14. General Policy – Cross-Section
Associated cross-section (path width) costs…

15. General Policy – Path-Road Intersections
Each intersection differs and will need to be
considered on a case-by-case basis but
general elements should be consistent:
 Right-of-way assigned to vehicles on the
road and intersection control is therefore to
be applied to the path. Recommended
because of seasonal variety of path use and
emissions reductions.
 4-way stop signs are NOT recommended
due to variability of volume.
 Traffic calming should be applied on the
road to reduce vehicle speeds including
speed table/raised crosswalk, neck down to
11’ travel lanes and splitter islands.
Intersection treatments are based on AASHTO and
 Intersection control is dictated by sight MUTCD guidelines and standards.
distances. The lease intersection control
that is effective should be used (that is,
‘yield’ is preferable to ‘stop’).

16. General Policy – Connections
To improve path’s regional connectivity, the recommendations of the CCRPC Regional
Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan and Metropolitan Transportation Plan should be pursued.
Locally, consider two issues:
1.) Improving existing connections
where gateways should be developed
to raise the level of amenities
2.) Defining connections that
are currently informal
Example gateway treatment at
Manhattan Drive
 The connection behind Burlington College
 The gap between Starr Farm Road and North Avenue Extension
 Depot Street
 Improved access at the Lakeside Avenue bridge staircase

17. General Policy – Signs & Amenities
The 2005 Island Line Plan, suggested for
implementation, includes design and placement
recommendations for:
 Directional and regulatory signs
 Interpretive markers,
 Entry/gateway kiosks with interpretive/safety info
 Pause places
 Restrooms
 Benches Sample etiquette signage
 Bike racks
The feasibility study recommends
additional enhancement items:
 Drinking fountains
 “You are here” maps
 Trash receptacles
 Dog waste bag dispensers
 Signs to existing restrooms
 Mile markers
Directional signage design

18. General Policy – Centerline Striping
Recommendations:
 4” wide yellow striping
(broken where it is safe to pass and solid in no passing zones)
 “Keep Right” pavement markings

19. Policy – Location-Specific
Map of location-specific
recommendations

20. Location-Specific Policy – Kiosks & Lighting
Gateways & Kiosks:
 Oakledge Park (gateway & kiosk)
 King Street to College (kiosk)
 College Street to Lake Street (gateway & kiosk)
 North Beach to Little Eagle Bay (gateway)
 Little Eagle Bay to Shore Road (gateway & kiosk)
 Starr Farm Road to North Ave (kiosk)
 North Avenue Extension to Winooski River (kiosk)
Pause Places & Learning Stations
 Oakledge Park
 Lake Street through Urban Reserve
 North Beach
Lighting
 Southern portion of the bike path
(south of round house point)
 Waterfront North/Urban reserve Kiosk design
 North of North Beach

21. Location-Specific Policy – Alignment
Alignment refers to the bike path’s course and footprint as
it passes through an area.
Some sections of the path may be considered for
realignment to improve safety and user experience.
 Oakledge Park
 The tight curve north of the Blodgett Ovens building by Lakeside Avenue
 The sharp turn North of the water treatment plant to Perkins Pier
 Between Perkins Pier/Maple Street and College Street

22. Policy – Q&A
Questions/Comments?
General Policy:
 Cross-section
 Path-Road Intersections
 Connections
 Amenities
 Centerline Striping
Location-specific Policy:
 Kiosks & Lighting
 Alignment

23. Funding – Review of Packages
1 - Rehabilitation (Comprehensive Rehabilitation) = A’s
Preliminary Estimate: $11,645,000
Defined as costs that must be expended to save the bike path and meet the current
design standards for sub-base, path width, surface, shoulders and drainage.
2 - Functional (Additional Safety Improvements) = A’s + B’s
Preliminary Estimate: $13,875,000
Defined as recommendations that improve safety, add capacity, or improve
conditions beyond the existing system including fencing near slopes, lighting in key areas,
directional signage, etc.
3 – Enhancement (Additional Amenities) = A’s + B’s + C’s + D’s
Preliminary Estimate: $16,873,000
Defined as enhancements to the path’s character and aesthetics including trailhead
kiosks, pause places, learning stations, drinking fountains, etc.

24. Funding – Costs by Segment
Scenario costs estimates by segment…

25. Funding – How to pay?
Federal Congressional Delegation
 FEMA shoreline restoration
 TIGER IV grant application
 Enhancement grants
State Agency of Transportation
 Bike Path Program
 Transportation Community Preservation (TCP)
Regional/Local Opportunities
 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC)
 TIF District – Waterfront
 Vermont Community Foundation
 Private/Corporate Contribution

26. Funding – Local Assistance
A bond option could be put forward on the November ballot to
secure a funding source for the local share.
16.9 Million Bond
20 years / 4% / raises $1,234,000 per year to pay back the bond
= about 3 cents on the tax rate
This translates to about $75.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.
11.6 Million Bond
20 years / 4% / raises $850.00 per year to bay back the bond
= about 2 cents on the tax rate
This translates to about $50.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.
6.7 Million Bond
20 years / 4% / raises $490,000 per year to pay back the bond
= about 1 cent on the tax rate
This translates to about $25.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.

27. Funding – Q&A
Questions/Comments?
16.9 Million Bond
20 years / 4% / raises $1,234,000 per year to pay back the bond
= about 3 cents on the tax rate
This translates to about $75.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.
11.6 Million Bond
20 years / 4% / raises $850.00 per year to bay back the bond
= about 2 cents on the tax rate
This translates to about $50.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.
6.7 Million Bond
20 years / 4% / raises $490,000 per year to pay back the bond
= about 1 cent on the tax rate
This translates to about $25.00 per year on a tax bill for a home assessed at $250.000.

28. Next Steps – GET INVOLVED!
For more information or further discussion, please contact:
John Bossange, Task Force Chair (802) 578-7468
or Mari Steinbach, P&R Director (802) 864-0123.
Questions & comments may also be emailed to:
jsfrancis@ci.burlington.vt.us
This entire presentation is available online, along with the full Burlington Bike Path Improvement
Feasibility Study. Please visit the Parks & Recreation website for additional details:
http://www.enjoyburlington.com/Parks/BikePath1.cfm
Thank you for your support in the restoration of our bike path!