2005 downtown connectorl-a final

7/31/2019 2005 DownTown ConnectorL-A Final

1/95

PreparedPrepared For:

LewistonLewistonAuburn Downtown Connector/Auburn Downtown Connector/

Turnpike Interchange Feasibility StudyTurnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

Final ReportFinal Report

March 2005March 2005

PreparedPrepared By:


2/95

Lewiston Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

March, 2005 IFinal Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ES-1

1.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 11.1 Project History 11.2 Current Study History 11.3 Study Purpose and Need Statement 1

2.0 Existing and No-Build Future Conditions 32.1 Study Area 32.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 32.3 Safety History 32.4 Park and Ride Facilities 32.5 ATRC Travel Demand Model 32.6 Future Traffic Volume Growth 42.7 Maine Sensible Transportation Policy Act Analysis 4

3.0 Description and Evaluation of Interchange Strategies 113.1 Overview of Interchange Strategy Selection Process 113.2 No-Build Strategy 153.3 Strategy 1 River Road Interchange (Lewiston) 163.4 Strategy 2 Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) 193.5 Strategy 3 South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) 223.6 Strategy 4 Route 136/South Main Street Combination

Interchange (Auburn) 25

3.7 Strategy 5 River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) 28

3.8 Strategy 1A River Road Interchange (Lewiston) withProposed River Bridge 31

3.9 Strategy 2A Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) withProposed River Bridge 34

3.10 Strategy 5A River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge 373.11 Strategies Considered But Eliminated From Detailed

Analysis 40

4.0 Coordination and Consultation 414.1 Interagency Coordination 41

5.0 Public Involvement 425.1 Study Advisory Committee (SAC) 425.2 Study Steering Committee 42

5.3 Public Information Meetings 435.4 Auburn and Lewiston City Councils Coordination 435.5 ATRC Website 43

6.0 Recommendations 44

Appendices

A1 Safety Assessment 45

A2 Congestion Assessment 46

A3 Project Cost Summary 47

A4 Benefit Cost Analysis 49

A5 Study Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting Notes 50A6 Public Informational Meeting Notes and Other Public Comments 65

A7 Detailed Evaluation Matrix 74

A8 Resolutions from the Joint Council Workshop 86

A9 Maine DOT/ MTA Model Acceptance Letter 88


3/95


4/95


5/95


6/95


7/95


March 2005

Final Report

ES-3Figure ES-1: Proposed Improvement Strategies


8/95


9/95


10/95


11/95


12/95


March 2005 5Final Report

2.7.2. Transportation System Management (TSM)

Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives are measures that do not require largecapital costs or large infrastructure expansions. The goal of successful TSM alternatives is tomanage the existing and future traffic more efficiently and safely within the current roadwayfacility. TSM alternatives may include:

New signal controller phasing/timing/interconnection Intersection improvements Addition of intersection turning lanes Intelligent Transportation Systems (such as dynamic message signs).These measures currently are not nor are forecasted to provide, by themselves, the level ofimprovement necessary to address the safety and capacity issues in the Lewiston and Auburnarea and alone would not meet the Purpose and Need. TSM measures are recommended to beincorporated with a Build strategy.

2.7.3 Additional Strategies to be Considered for Further Analysis

Strategies from the ATRC 20-Year Transportation Plan that are recommended for furtherconsideration as part of the study include:

Area-wide Travel Demand Management Measures Transportation System Management Measures (intersection improvements) Other modal strategies

o Alternative Modes (bus, rail, non-motorized alternatives)o Carpooling and Vanpoolingo Park and Ride Lots/Multi-modal Terminals

Employer TDM programs (flexible work hours, staggered work shifts, transit subsidies) Pricing strategies.


13/95


March 2005

Final Report

6

RiversideD

rive

(Route

136)

LincolnS

treet

LisbonStreet

(Route196)

East

Avenu

e

Washi

ngto

nSt

reet

(Route

202

/4/100)

Maine

Turnp

ike

Sou

thM

ain

Str

ee

t

RiverRoad

SabattusStreet

(Route126)

EXIT 75

RussellSt.

MinotAve.

(Route11/121)

SEE INSET A

Alf

red

A.

Plo

urd

e

Pk

wy

.

LisbonStreet

(Route196)

EXIT 80

4

17

18

16

11

1415

LEWISTONAUBURN

Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy. @ Lisbon Street (Route

196) EB Ramps

Lewiston18

Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy. @ Exit 80 NB RampsLewiston17

Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy. @ Exit 80 SB RampsLewiston16

Sabattus Street (Route 126) @ Russell StreetLewiston15

Sabattus Street (Route 126) @ East AvenueLewiston14

Main Street (Route 202/11/100) @ Sabattus Street

(Route 126)

Lewiston13

Main Street (Route 202/11/100) @ Lincoln Street(Route 196)

Lewiston12

Lisbon Street (Route 196) @ East AvenueLewiston11

Main Street (Route 202/11/100) @ Lisbon Street /

Canal Street (Route 196)

Lewiston10

Lincoln Street (Route 196) @ Cedar Street (Route

196)

Lewiston9

Mill Street (Route 136) @ Broad StreetAuburn8

South Main Street (Route 136) @ Mill StreetAuburn7

Main Street (Route 136) @ Academy StreetAuburn6

Main Street (Route 136) @ Court Street (Route

202/11/100)

Auburn5

Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) @ Exit 75Auburn4

Minot Avenue (Route 202/4/11/100) @ Court StreetAuburn3

Minot Avenue (Route 202/4/11/100) @ Elm StreetAuburn2

Minot Avenue (Route 202/4/11/100) @ High StreetAuburn1

IntersectionCityKey

Number

Figure 2-1: Study Area

Exit 80 Detail

M

ain

St.

(R

t.1

36)

RiversideDrive

(Route136)

Main

St.(R

t.

202/1

1/100

)

CourtSt.(Rt.202/11/100)

Ceda

rSt.

Bro

ad

Street

ElmSt.

MillS

t.Min

otAve.

(Route

11/12

1)

AcademySt.

LisbonStre

et(R

oute196)

CanalS

t.(Route196)

LincolnStre

et

(Route1

96)

High

St.

TurnerSt.

INSET A

13

6

1

2

7

10

9

12

8

5

SabattusStreet

(Route126)

Sou

thM

ain

S

tree

t

MinotAve.

(R

t.202/4/11/100)

LisbonStreet

(Route196)

3

South

Bridge

Mechanics

Row

Washi

ngto

nSt

.

(Rt.202

/4/100)


14/95


March 2005

Final Report

7

1 = 2002 Count2 = 2001 Count3 = 2000 Count4 = 1999 Count

VEHICLES PER DAY

16,000+

12,000-16,0008,000-12,000

0-8,000

Source: MaineDOT/Maine Turnpike Authority

Bro

ad

St.

Washi

ngto

nStre

et

(Route

202/4/1

00)

Maine

Turnp

ike

S

ou

thM

ain

Str

ee

t

Rive

rside

Drive

(R

oute136)

LincolnS

treet

LisbonStreet(Route196)

RiverRoad

SabattusStreet (Rt.126)

Main

St.

(Rt.20

2/11

/100)

CourtSt.(Rt.202/11/100)

Ceda

rSt.

EXIT 75

EXIT 80

26,8302

17,250212,9302

19,8501 17,0501

9,2501

9,2401

9,5701

21,6401

19,1801

31,3402

24,4501

16,2001

4,4001

6,9204

4,0202

Auburn

Lewiston

13,8702

9,4001

6,9101CanalS

t.(R

t.196)

6,3401

34,3001

20,6801

7,4102

20,0001

2,3004

1,9001

21,000110,5001

16,9401

MaineTurnpike

1,900 4,40020,00021,000

10,500

17,050

15,950 12,350

16,200

9,250

Exit 75

Washington

Street (Rt. 202/4/100)

South Main

Street

Riverside

Drive (Rt. 136) River Road

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

Total

Volume of

Interchanges

2,000

Year 2002 Volumes

Lewiston

Auburn

28,300

2,0001

19,850

Figure 2-2: Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes


15/95


March 2005

Final Report

8 10

11 20

21 30

31+

8 10

11 - 20

21+

Maine

Turnp

ike

Sou

thM

ain

Str

ee

t

Rivers

ideD

rive

(Route136

)

Linc

olnStre

et

Lisbon

St.

(Ro

ute196)

RiverRoad

EXIT 75

EXIT 80

Eas

tA

ve

.

South

Ave

.

Alf

redA

.

Plo

urde

Pk

wy

.

Rodm

anRoad

HardscrabbleR

oad

Kittyhaw

k

Ave.

25

24

35

34

36

2322

26

13

4

17

11

Pond

Roa

d

SEE INSET A21 37

47

Witha

mRoad

Mill

St.

39

Oliv

eSt.

SabattusStree

t(Route126)

RussellSt.

38

40

FarwellS

t.

PineSt.

PerleySt.

WildwoodDr.

RandallRd.

Bro

ad

Str

eet

Figure 2-3: 1999-2001 High Crash Location History

WashingtonSt

reet

(Route

202/4/100)

MinotAve.

(Route11/121)

Casse

llSt.

Dum

ontA

ve.

FairlawnSt.

6

5

15

9

7

8

2

1

12

10

19

31

30

29

33

32

20

28 42

4445

46

INSET A

3

1418

16

27

CourtStreet

SouthGoffSt.

Minot

Ave.

(Rt.11/1

21)

WesternAv

enue

Broad

Stre

et

Sou

thM

ain

Str

ee

t

MillS

t.RiversideDrive(Rt.136)

Newbury

St.

HighSt

Hutchin

sSt.

AcademySt.

ElmSt.

Ra

ilroa

dS

t.

Sprin

gSt.

Unio

nSt.

Mec

han

ics

Row

Ma

inSt.

(Rt.

136)

MainSt

reet

(Rt.2

02/11/10

0)O

ak

Str

eet

Sabattus Street

(Route126)

AshStr

eet

PineS

treet

Bartle

ttStre

et

Ceda

rSt.

Chestnu

tSt.

CanalSt.

(Rt.196)

Lisb

onSt.

(Rt.1

96)

Rive

rStre

et

MapleStreet

Locu

stSt. LisbonSt.

(Rt.196)

GarnetA

ve.

Essex

St.

Ble

ache

rySt.

StrawberryPlace

And

roscog

ginAve

.

EastA

venu

e

Summit

Ave

.41

VineSt.

43

MinotAve.

(Rt.202/4/11/100)

W

ashingtonSt

.

(Rt.202/4/100)

#

#

Key Number of a Roadway Segment near an Intersection Location. Color

equals Number of Crashes on Road Segment (within 3 year period).

Key Number of Intersection Location or Roadway Segment.

LEGEND

8


16/95


March 2005

Final Report

Auburn Lewiston

Note: These tables correspond to Figure 2-3.

Table 2-1: 1999-2001 High Crash Location History9


17/95


18/95


19/95


20/95


March 2005

Final Report

13Figure 3-1: Generalized Land Use

Downtown

Commercial

Mixed Use

Industrial

Residential

Agric./Natural

Resource/Open

Space/Golf

Legend

Auburn

New

Auburn

Exit 75

Exit 80

Lewiston

Maine

Turnpik

e


21/95


March 2005

Final Report

14Figure 3-3: Natural EnvironmentFigure 3-2: Historic/Cultural Resources

L i A b D C /T ik I h F ibili S d


22/95



3.2 No-Build Strategy

This strategy consists of the transportation network for the base year of analysis (2000) plus thoseprojects already constructed, permitted or funded in the region before year 2025 (the future analysis

year). These projects include the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge flyovers in both Auburn andLewiston (completed in 2003) and the Sabattus Exit 86 Maine Turnpike interchange (opened in

November 2004). These projects are also included in each of the interchange strategies. A No-Buildstrategy is required for evaluation.

Transportation

There are no positive transportation benefits associated with the No-Build option. Traffic congestion

and safety will not be improved and will further degrade with traffic growth, with the exception of

slight traffic reductions on the Longley Bridge and on Route 196 at the Lewiston/Lisbon town line.

Regional and local connectivity, truck traffic routing, emergency access, and bicycle/pedestrianconditions will not be improved.

Land Use

There are no anticipated significant negative impacts nor positive benefits related to land use of the

No-Build strategy.

Socio-Economic

Further downtown development is not aided and is likely to be hindered by a No-Build strategy dueto increased traffic congestion that is forecasted and worsening safety problems. The No-Build

strategy does not improve Local or Regional Connectivity. No historic/cultural resources or

park/recreation resources are negatively impacted by the No-Build strategy.

Natural Environment

The No-Build strategy does not negatively impact natural resources.

Project Cost

There are no project costs associated with the No-Build strategy.


23/95


24/95


25/95

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/100)

River RoadExit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

6

,450

3,4

50

5,0

00 3,

850

Maine

Turnpike25,900

2,900 4,900

23,000

7,200

4,2

00

6,5

00 4,

150

27,600

15,600

18,750 22,050

4,900

20,60030,050

1,600

14,40040,80

Total Vol

All Interch

2025 No Build

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

Lewiston

Auburn

Source: ATRC M

Not to S


March 2005

Final Report

South

Bridge18,900

Note: The numbers represented are Travel Demand Model numbers and as such are only projections of what might happen. The numbers should be used to represent a level of magnitude of growth or reduction not an actual count of vehicle

Strategy 1: Volume Change

Strategy 1: Total Volumes

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)River Road

4,80

04,1

00

3,5

00 4,

30031,350

2,45

03,6

50

2,3

00 3,

500

7,85

0 1,650

7,7

00 1,

550

Maine

Turnpike

2,900 4,30020,700

31,450 19,100 21,500

23,900

16,700 18,750 11,900

15,600 4,300

15,600

15,5003,300Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

47,35

Total Volu

All Interch

Lewiston

Auburn

+14,000

South Main

StreetRiverside Drive

(Rt. 136)River Road

-1,650

+65

0

-1,5

00 +4

50+1300

-4,750

-550

-4,2

00 -6

50

Maine

Turnpike

0

+5,500

-600

+7

,850

+1,6

50

+7,7

00 +1

,550 -6,800 +900

-2,300-3,700

-2,050 +18,750 -10,150

0 -600+1,700 +1,100

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

+6,550

Total Chan

All Interchanges

2025 No Bu

Lewiston

Auburn

Figure 3-6: Strategy 1- River Road Interchange (Lewiston): Daily Traffic Volumes18

South

Bridge16,750

South

Bridge-2,150


26/95



27/95

p g y y


considered in this study (Exit 80/Industrial and South Avenue/Lisbon Street areas). Few users are

expected to use the new interchange to access these areas.

Historic/Cultural Resources. No direct impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources are anticipated.

Cemeteries are located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. The Penley Corner BaptistChurch, on the National Historic Register, is in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy (0.8 miles

from Maine Turnpike at Route 136). A cemetery is also located there (Figure 3-2).

Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. The interchange strategy adds additional traffic to the Route 136

(Riverside Drive) corridor directing traffic to New Auburn, so it would have some impacts to thiscommercial and residential center.

Natural Environment

Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with moderate functionality (as defined by theBeginning with Habitat methodology) in the general vicinity of this interchange strategy. There isalso one pond in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. A perennial stream is in close

proximity to the interchange strategy location. This strategy has the closest proximity to the

Androscoggin River (Figure 3-3).

Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity and no deer

wintering areas in the general vicinity.

Project Cost Estimate

$12,800,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)


28/95

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/100)

River RoadExit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

6

,450

3,4

50

5,0

00 3,

850

Maine

Turnpike25,900

2,900 4,900

23,000

7

,200

4,2

00

6,5

00 4,

150

27,600

15,600

18,750 22,050

4,900

20,60030,050

1,600

14,40040,80

Total Vol

All Interch

2025 No Build

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

Lewiston

Auburn

Source: ATRC M

Not to S


March 2005

Final Report

South

Bridge18,900


Lewiston

Auburn

Lewiston

Auburn-1,250

-150

-1,5

00 -3

50+150

-3

00-50

+700 -1

00

Maine

Turnpike

-400

+2,350

+3,200

+2,700

+1,7

50

+2,1

00 +1

,650 +950 +300

-900-1,400

+800

5,20

03,3

00

3,5

00 3,

50030,200

6,90

0 4,150

7,2

00 4,

050

2,70

0 1,750

2,1

00 1,

650

Maine

Turnpike

2,5008,100 22,100

28,250 26,850 20,900

26,200

5,10016,400

15,500 8,200 22,300

-3,250 +8,200 +250

+200

1,600

14,700

46,000

0

+300 +5,200

Total Volu

All Interch

Total Chang

All Interchang

Versus 2025 No

South Main


(Rt. 136)River Road

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)River RoadExit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

Figure 3-9: Strategy 2- Route 136 Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes21


Strategy 2: Total VolumesSouth

Bridge19,000

South

Bridge+100


29/95



30/95


Lewiston Access. Considerably more traffic using a potential South Main Street interchange is destined

to downtown Lewiston than downtown Auburn. Relative to the other strategies, there is moderate new

interchange usage (2,200 vehicles per day) to downtown Lewiston. South Main Street is a poor route todowntown Lewiston via South Main Street/South Bridge in New Auburn. The interchange provides

little access to other areas of Lewiston.

Historic/Cultural Resources. No direct negative impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources areanticipated. There are no resources in the immediate vicinity of the interchange location. There are

several cemeteries in the general vicinity of the Maine Turnpike/South Main Street.

Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. The South Main Street interchange strategy adds traffic to South Main

Street, channeling it through a moderate density residential neighborhood. Roadway geometrics are

poor. Potential indirect negative impacts are high.

Natural Environment

Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with low functionality (as defined by theBeginning with Habitat methodology) in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. There is also

one pond in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. (Figure 3-3). There are intermittent streams

in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. Strategy 3 is the farthest interchange strategy locationfrom the Androscoggin River (minimizing potential direct impacts).

Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity or any deer

wintering areas.



Le iston A b rn Do nto n Connector/T rnpike Interchange Feasibilit St d


31/95

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/100)

River RoadExit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

6,45

03,4

50

5,0

00 3,

850

Maine

Turnpike25,900

2,900 4,900

23,000

7,20

0 4,200

6,5

00 4,

150

27,600

15,600

18,750 22,050

4,900

20,60030,050

1,600

14,40040,80

Total Vol

All Interch

2025 No Build

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

Lewiston

Auburn

Source: ATRC M

Not to S


March 2005

Final Report

South

Bridge18,900


Lewiston

Auburn

Lewiston

Auburn-85

0-350

-1,3

50 -3

50

-3

00+25

0

+350 +1

50

Maine

Turnpike

+1,900

+1,6

50

+1,6

00 +1

,350

5,60

03,1

00

3,6

50 3,

500

6,90

0 4,450

6,8

50 4,

300

1,90

0 1,650

1,6

00 1,

350

Maine

Turnpike

Total Volu

All Intercha

Total Chang

All Interchan

Versus 2025 No

South Main


(Rt. 136)River Road

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive


Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

-450

+1,300

+400

-100

+200

-2,900

-100

+6,500

29,600

4,200 4,800

26,300

26,100

4,80015,800

15,850 6,500

26,900

-1,500

+1,000

3,100

+200

+450

22,500

21,300

22,500

+100

44,850

+4,050

1,700

+100

14,500

+700

-500

Figure 3-12: Strategy 3- South Main Street Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes24



Bridge18,900

South

Bridge0


32/95



33/95


Historic/Cultural Resources. There are no direct negative impacts to Historic/Cultural Resources

anticipated by this strategy. There are no cemeteries in the immediate vicinity, but there are several in

the general vicinity of the interchange strategy.

Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. Negative neighborhood impacts for Strategy 4 are expected to be lessthan for Strategy 3, which directs traffic exclusively to South Main Street. Strategy 4 adds additional

traffic to the Route 136 (Riverside Drive) corridor that travels through New Auburn but adds lessertraffic than Strategy 3 to the South Main Street neighborhood. South Main Street roadway geometrics

are poor to handle additional traffic.

Natural Environment

Wetlands/Waterbodies. There are two small NWI wetlands with low and moderate functionality (asdefined in the Beginning with Habitat methodology) in the general vicinity of the interchange

strategy. Aperennial stream is in close proximity to the strategy location, and intermittent streams arealso in the general vicinity. There is also one pond in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy.(Figure 3-3)

Habitat. No Maine Natural Areas Program locations are in the general vicinity nor are any deerwintering areas.





34/95

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/100)

River RoadExit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

6,45

03,4

50

5,0

00 3,

850

Maine

Turnpike25,900

2,900 4,900

23,000

7,20

0 4,200

6,5

00 4,

150

27,600

15,600

18,750 22,050

4,900

20,60030,050

1,600

14,40040,80

Total Vol

All Interch

2025 No Build

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

Lewiston

Auburn

Source: ATRC M

Not to S


March 2005

Final Report

South

Bridge18,900


+700

Maine

Turnpike

+200 +800

+400

-300

-200

-2,000 +100

+600

+5,550

30,750

Maine

Turnpike

3,100 5,700 22,700

27,850 21,000

25,800

5,50015,400

16,750 5,550 22,150

1,200

+1,950

44,450

+3,650

26,150

-1,800

+250

-400

+500 +300

3,400 14,700

Total Volu

All Interch

Total Chan

All Intercha

Versus 2025 N

South Main


(Rt. 136)

River Road

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive


Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

-30

0+15

0

+250 0

6,90

0 4,350

6,7

50 4,

150

+2

,050

+1,1

00

+1,6

00 +8

00

-85

0-150

-750 -2

50

2,05

01,1

00

1,6

00 80

0

5,60

03,3

00

4,2

50 3,

600

Lewiston

Auburn

Lewiston

Auburn

Figure 3-15: Strategy 4- Route 136/South Main Street

Combination Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes27



Bridge19,900

South

Bridge+1,000


35/95


36/95



37/95

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/100)

River RoadExit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

6,45

03,4

50

5,0

00 3,

850

MaineTurnpike

25,900

2,900 4,900

23,000

7,20

0 4,200

6,5

00 4,

150

27,600

15,600

18,750 22,050

4,900

20,60030,050

1,600

14,40040,80

Total Vol

All Interch

2025 No Build

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

Lewiston

Auburn

Source: ATRC M

Not to S

March 2005

Final Report

South

Bridge18,900


Total Vo

All Interc

Total Chan

All Intercha

Versus 2025 N

Lewiston

Auburn

Lewiston

Auburn4,60

03,8

00

2,2

50 4,

15031,150

1,60

0 3,950

2,4

00 3,

950

1,95

0 3,100

1,7

50 3,

000

Maine

Turnpike

2,6007,300 19,700

32,250 21,100

22,900

6,30015,800

17,200

8,55

0

8,8

50

31,300

14,500

15,70053,90

4,400

South Main


(Rt. 136)River Road

South Main


(Rt. 136)River Road

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

-1,850

+35

0

-2,7

50 +3

00+1100

-5,60

0 -250

-4,1

00 -2

00

Maine

Turnpike

-300

+6,350

+2,400

+1,950

+3,1

00

+1,7

50 +3

,000 +500

-3,300-4,700

+200

-3,950 +9,800 -10,150

+1,400

-8,700

+8,55

0

+8,8

50

+17,400

+5,400

+12,900

+1,300 +13,10+2,800

14,800 9,800 11,90017,400

Figure 3-18: Strategy 5- River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/

Route 136 Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes30



Bridge15,900

South

Bridge-3,000


38/95



39/95


strategy provides a moderate level of new connectivity to new development. There are some additional

benefits to downtown Lewiston access, due to the creation of a fifth bridge.

Historic/Cultural Resources. No negative direct impacts to known Historic and Cultural resources are

anticipated. Mount Hope Cemetery is located just northwest of the potential interchange location.Other cemeteries are also located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy (Figure 3-2).

Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. Strategy 1A has the potential for positive and negative neighborhoodimpacts, but overall, potential impacts are positive. The strategy adds additional traffic to the LincolnStreet corridor, but provides traffic relief on South Bridge and in New Auburn and provides traffic reliefto the Lisbon Street (Route 196) corridor. Forecasted reductions in traffic on South Bridge are 6,500vehicles per day, and reductions on Lisbon Street (Route 196) are 2,500 vehicles per day. If traffic isreduced on the Lisbon Street (Route 196) corridor, it is likely that there will be less cut-through traffic(traffic that seeks to avoid congestion and delays on Lisbon Street) on neighborhood streets that connect

to Lisbon Street (Route 196) and South Avenue or East Avenue.

Natural Environment

Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with low functionality (as defined by theBeginning with Habitat methodology) in the strategys immediate vicinity. There is a perennial stream

in the immediate proximity (Figure 3-3) to the potential interchange location. The potential impacts of a

new bridge are not known at this time.

Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity of Strategy 1A,

and there are no deer wintering areas in the general vicinity.





40/95

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/100)

River RoadExit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

6,45

03,4

50

5,0

00 3,

850

MaineTurnpike

25,900

2,900 4,900

23,000

7,20

0 4,200

6,5

00 4,

150

27,600

15,600

18,750 22,050

4,900

20,60030,050

1,600

14,40040,80

Total Vol

All Interch

2025 No Build

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

Lewiston

Auburn

Source: ATRC M

Not to S

March 2005

Final Report

South

Bridge18,900


Figure 3-21: Strategy 1A- River Road Interchange (Lewiston)

with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes33

Strategy 1A: Volume Change

Strategy 1A: Total Volumes

Total Vo

All Interc

Lewiston

Auburn

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)River Road

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

4,85

03,8

50

3,3

00 4,

30031,100

3,00

0 3,350

2,3

50 3,

050

7,10

01,8

00

7,6

00 1,

800

Maine

Turnpike

2,100

5,400

20,500

31,100 20,050 21,150

24,500 zz

15,900 5,400

5,750

16,300 11,75018,300

16,200

16,400 46,354,300

South Bridge 12,400

Total Chan

All Interchan

Versus 2025 N

Lewiston

Auburn

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)River Road

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

-1,600

+400

-1,7

00 +4

50+1,050

-4,200

-850

-4,1

50 -1

,100

Maine

Turnpike

-800

+5,200

+500

+7,100

+1,8

00

+7,6

00 +1

,800 -5,850 +550

-2,500-3,100

+300

z

z+5,750

-2,450 -10,300+18,300

+500

+14,600

+2,000+5,550

+2,700

South Bridge -6,500


41/95



42/95


Historic/Cultural Resources. No negative direct impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources are

anticipated. Cemeteries are located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. The PenleyCorner Baptist Church, on the National Historic Register, is in the general vicinity of the interchange

strategy (0.8 miles from the Maine Turnpike at Route 136). A cemetery is also located there.(Figure 3-2)

Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. The interchange strategy adds additional traffic to the Route 136

corridor, directing traffic to New Auburn so it would have some potential negative traffic impacts to this

commercial and residential center.

Natural Environment

Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with moderate functionality (as defined in the

Beginning with Habitat methodology) in the general vicinity of the interchange portion of the strategy.There is one pond in the general vicinity. (Figure 3-3). A perennial stream is in close proximity to theinterchange strategy location. This strategy has the closest proximity to the Androscoggin River. The

impacts of a new bridge are not known at this time.

Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations and no deer wintering areas in the general

vicinity of the interchange portion of the strategy. The impacts of a new bridge are not known at this

time.





43/95

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/100)

River RoadExit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

6,45

03,4

50

5,0

00 3,

850

MaineTurnpike

25,900

2,900 4,900

23,000

7,20

0 4,200

6,5

00 4,

150

27,600

15,600

18,750 22,050

4,900

20,60030,050

1,600

14,40040,80

Total Vol

All Interch

2025 No Build

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

Lewiston

Auburn

Source: ATRC M

Not to S

March 2005

Final Report

South

Bridge18,900


Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Figure 3-24: Strategy 2A - Route 136 Interchange (Auburn)

with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes36

Total Cha

All Interch

Versus 2025 N

Lewiston

Auburn

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)River Road Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

-1,250

-300

-1,3

50 -5

00+700

-950 +200

+100 -5

0

Maine

Turnpike

0

+2,550

+3,100

+

1,350

+2,7

00 +1

,400 -500 +400

-400-1,900

+400

z

z+6,500

-3,400 -700+8,550

+3,700

+800

+900+4,45

+200



Total Vo

All Inter

Lewiston

Auburn

South Main


(Rt. 136)

River RoadExit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

5,20

03,1

50

3,6

50 3,

35030,750

6,25

0 4,400

6,6

00 4,

100

3,10

0 1,350

2,7

00 1,

400

Maine

Turnpike

2,90022,600

28,450 25,400 21,000

25,700 zz

16,000

6,500

15,350 21,3508,550

8,600

2,400

15,300 42,25,100

South Bridge 14,400

South Bridge -4,500


44/95


45/95

2025 No Build



46/95

Exit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/100)

River RoadExit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

6,45

03,4

50

5,0

00 3,

850

MaineTurnpike

25,900

2,900 4,900

23,000

7,20

0 4,200

6,5

00 4,

150

27,600

15,600

18,750 22,050

4,900

20,60030,050

1,600

14,40040,80

Total Vol

All Interch

2025 No Build

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

Lewiston

Auburn

Source: ATRC M

Not to S

March 2005

Final Report

South

Bridge18,900


Total Ch

All Interc

Versus 2025

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

River RoadExit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

-1,75

0 +550

-3,1

00 +4

50+550

-5,550 -

350

-4,2

50 -1

50

Maine

Turnpike

-600

+6,450

+1,850

+2

,850

+2,3

50 +3

,100 -8,800 +450

-2,800-4,000

+800

z

z+3,650

-3,850 -10,300+10,150

+2,600

+1,500

+8,450

+8,5

00

z

+16,950

+8,150

+13,100

+1,500 +12,95+2,600

Figure 3-27: Strategy 5A- River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136

Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes39



Total Volu

All Interch

Lewiston

Auburn

South Main

Street

Riverside Drive

(Rt. 136)

River RoadExit 75

Washington Street

(Rt. 202/4/11)

Exit 80

Lisbon Street

(Rt. 196)

4,70

04,0

00

1,9

00 4,

30030,600

1,65

0 3,850

2,2

50 4,

000

1,85

0 2,850

2,3

50 3,

100

Maine

Turnpike

2,30020,200

32,35017,100 21,050

23,600 zz

16,400

3,650

14,900 11,75010,150

7,500

6,400

8,45

0

8,5

00

16,950

34,050

14,700

53,754,200 15,900

South Bridge -5,600

South Bridge 13,300

Lewiston

Auburn


3 11 St t i C id d B t Eli i t d F D t il d A l i


47/95


3.11 Strategies Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis

Several other strategies were identified during the public process of the study. These strategies werereviewed and were not recommended for further study for reasons noted below.

Hackett Road (Auburn) Interchange This strategy consists of the construction of a full new

interchange at Hackett Road in Auburn. This strategy was developed and evaluated during previousstudies. After preliminary strategy screening, it was concluded that this strategy should not be

considered for further study for its inability to satisfy the Purpose and Need for this study.

Specifically, it failed to improve accessibility to either Lewiston or Auburn Downtowns.

New Androscoggin River Bridge At the studys Public Meeting held on October 5, 2004, it was

suggested that a strategy should consist of the construction of only a new Androscoggin River

Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge. Preliminary traffic volume projections

indicate low usage, it does not improve access to and from the Maine Turnpike, has marginalimprovement to regional connectivity, and did not satisfy the study Purpose and Need; and therefore,

was not considered for further study.

Parallel Turnpike Roadway between Exit 75 and Route 136 At the Study Advisory Committee

meeting held on September 21, 2004, it was suggested by a member of the public that a new

roadway connecting Exit 75 and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn be considered. It wasdetermined that this option did not satisfy the study Purpose and Need, particularly improved access

to and from the Maine Turnpike, and was not considered for further study.

Modification of Strategies 1A, 2A, and 5A with New Androscoggin Bridge east/south of the MaineTurnpike Bridge At a public informational meeting held on April 30, 2003, it was suggested that

the location of a new Androscoggin River Bridge should be located east/south of the Maine

Turnpike to capture traffic from areas on the east side of Lewiston. According to preliminary trafficvolume projections conducted by ATRC, a bridge location east/south of the Maine Turnpike does

not attract significant traffic levels, nor satisfy the study Purpose and Need of improving regional

and downtown accessibility; and therefore, should not be considered for further study.



48/95


4.0 Coordination and Consultation

4.1 Interagency Coordination

Coordination with state and federal regulatory agencies occurred in the form of presentations anddiscussions at some of the monthly MaineDOT interagency meetings. The Interagency Group is ameeting of federal and state regulatory agencies, such as U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S.Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection that would be involved in project oversight and approval. The study waspresented to the Interagency Group on two occasions. The first presentation was made on March 11,2003, to introduce the study, its objectives and the draft planning-level Purpose and Need Statement.The second presentation was made on October 12, 2004, and involved informing the group that thefeasibility study was drawing to a close, the methods used during the process, the Build strategies thatwere examined, and the strategies that were not being recommended for further study and the reasoning.The group did not voice any objections with the presentation and recommendations which were made topossibly assist in the next phase of the process.


49/95


50/95



51/95


6.0 Recommendations

Following a detailed strategy evaluation of Transportation, Land Use, Socio-Economic, Natural

Environment, Cost and an extensive public outreach process including endorsements by the two City

Councils, it was recommended by the Study Advisory Committee that Strategies 1, 2, 5, 1A, 2A, and 5Abe considered for future study by the MaineDOT and MTA. It was further recommended that Strategies 3

and 4 be dismissed from further analysis, due to the lack of these interchange concepts to meet the studysPurpose and Need Statement. The specific reasons for dismissal include:

Strategies 3 and 4 fail to meet the study purpose and need including: Fail to reduce traffic congestion for local and through travelers in the study area; Fail to improve regional road system linkages; Contribute to the deterioration of neighborhoods; Do not enhance truck routings; Do not improve connectivity to downtown business areas;

Strategies 3 and 4 have the lowest interchange traffic volume usage projections; Strategy 4 does not improve safety in the study area; Strategies 3 and 4 do not significantly reduce traffic congestion in the study area; Strategies 3 and 4 will have a negative traffic impact to the South Main Street neighborhood; Strategy 3 does not improve local connectivity; Strategies 3 and 4 conflict with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and the goal of protecting residential

neighborhoods from inappropriate traffic;

Project costs and benefits for Strategy 4 result in a negative cost benefit ratio; and At the January 2003 Public Meeting, Pat Finnigan, Auburn City Manager, noted that the Auburn City

Council could not support an interchange strategy that impacts South Main Street.


Appendix A1


52/95


pp

Safety Assessment

The evaluation of an improvement strategy as it relates to safety impacts was based upon a qualitativeassessment of traffic volume impacts at intersections determined to be High Crash Locations (HCLs)

according to MaineDOT data. For each of the eight interchange strategies and the No-Build alternative,daily traffic volumes changes were developed for twenty-two intersections in Lewiston and Auburn that are

High Crash Locations as defined by MaineDOT. For locations that decreased by 1,000 vehicles or more per

day, a corresponding improvement in crash rates was assumed. For locations that increased by 1,000vehicles or more per day, crash rates were assumed to increase. Table A1 summarizes the qualitative safety

impact of each of the interchange strategies.

Table A1

Safety Assessment Summary

No-Build No Change

Strategy 1 River Road Interchange

(Lewiston)6 HCL Improve and 5 HCL Worsen

Strategy 2 Route 136 Interchange

(Auburn)7 HCL Improve and 5 HCL Worsen

Strategy 3 South Main Street Interchange(Auburn)

4 HCL Improve and 2 Worsen

Strategy 4 Route 136/South Main Street

Combination Interchange (Auburn) 1 HCL Improves and 1 Worsen

Strategy 5 - River Road (Lewiston) Half

Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn)

Interchange

7 HCL Improve and 4 HCL Worsen

Strategy 1A River Road (Lewiston)

Interchange with Proposed River Bridge7 HCL Improve and 4 HCL Worsen

Strategy 2A Route 136 (Auburn)Interchange with Proposed River Bridge

5 HCL Improve and 3 HCL Worsen

Strategy 5A River Road (Lewiston) Half

Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn)Interchange with Proposed River Bridge 8 HCL Improve and 3 HCL Worsen

As noted in the above table, all interchange strategies will likely have a positive impact on safety

in the study area, with the exception of Strategy 4 and the No-Build alternative where no change

is projected.


Appendix A2 As noted in the Table A2 all interchange strategies will have a positive influence on traffic


53/95


Congestion Assessment

A qualitative assessment of traffic congestion was conducted within the study area. The assessmentincluded the review of traffic volume changes for eight locations in Auburn and ten locations in Lewiston.

The change was based upon a comparison between the overall entering PM peak hour volume in the 2025No-Build and the Build strategy. Table A2 presents the results.

Table A2Study Area Intersection Volume Change

Strategy Auburn Intersections Lewiston Intersections

Strategy 1 River Road

Interchange (Lewiston)

6 intersections improve

2 intersections worsen



Strategy 2 Route 136

Interchange (Auburn)





Strategy 3 South Main

Street Interchange (Auburn)





Strategy 4 Route

136/South Main Street

Combination Interchange(Auburn)





Strategy 5 - River Road(Lewiston) Half

Interchange/Route 136

(Auburn) Interchange





Strategy 1A River Road(Lewiston) Interchange with

Proposed River Bridge


1 intersections worsens



Strategy 2A Route 136(Auburn) Interchange with




7 intersections improve2 intersections worsen

1 no change

Strategy 5A River Road(Lewiston) Half

Interchange/Route 136

(Auburn) Interchange with






congestion with the exception of Strategy 3, where congestion is expected to degrade in Auburn

Strategies 3 and 4 are neutral in their impact on congestion in Lewiston, while Strategy 2A is nein its impact on congestion in Auburn. The No-Build alternative provides no improvement.


54/95


F O ti ith N Ri B id Thi ti ld i l d b id th A d i


55/95


For Options with a New River Bridge - This option would include a new bridge over the AndroscogginRiver between the Turnpike and downtown. The option would also include a new connection to theTurnpike and approaches to the bridge. Assuming a 650-foot long bridge at 60 feet wide (39,000SF) at a unit cost of $200 per SF including some approach work, riprap, mobilization, etc.

Total cost for this option includes the cost for the new interchange selected above and a new bridgeover the Androscoggin River. The estimated cost of the new bridge over the river is:

New River Bridge = $ 7,800,000Engineering, 25% = $ 1,950,000Right-of-way, 10% = $ 780,000

TOTAL = $ 10,530,000

Strategy 1A River Road (Lewiston) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge = $ 25,083,000

Strategy 2A Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge = $ 23,335,000

Strategy 5A River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed

River Bridge

= $ 29,410,000


56/95


57/95


58/95


59/95


60/95


61/95


6. Meeting Conclusion Bob Thompson ATRC will add MaineDOTs ITD Timeline to the Study website. (Done)


62/95


The next meeting agenda will include revisiting the existing transportation data, review and provide

acceptance of the Socio-Economic data, and Future No-Build information. Bob asked if other

topics/information was of interest to the Committee and no comment was provided. Bob continued that weare planning for the next Public Meeting and will be asking the Study Advisory Committee what

information should be presented. A newsletter will be prepared to assist in generated interest for the

meeting.

Kelly Matzen noted that all handouts should be dated.

Action Items

Edit February 4, 2003 Meeting Minutes to correct Rebecca Swanson Conrads attendance. Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for truck routing. Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for Emergency Access to the Turnpike. Add Main Street traffic volume data to Figure 1. Add traffic data on South Bridge in Figure 3. Note closure of South Bridge on Figure 5. Add deficiencies on Court Street at Mechanic and Main Street to Figure 15. Add the Town of Minot into the Socio-Economic data. Provide information on the largest employers in the region.

Action Items From February 4, 2003 Meeting

ATRC will schedule the April Public Meeting date to account for school vacation. (Pending) ATRC will schedule the May City Councils workshop date to avoid the budget review time period.

(Pending)

ATRC will transmit a draft agenda for the next AC meeting with Meeting Minutes. (Done) ATRC to provide a link between the Study website and the Lewiston and Auburn websites. (Lewiston

Done/Auburn Pending)

WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to include Bicycle and Pedestrian issues.(Done)

WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to indicate the possibility of more than oneinterchange. (Done)

WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to note both Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to include Farmland Impacts. (Done)

Action Items From December 12, 2002 Meeting

The City of Auburn to provide ATRC/WSA with the development slide presentation. (Pending)


63/95


64/95


65/95


66/95


67/95


68/95


69/95


70/95


will determine what actually should be done, and where if necessary. As in all studies, the No Buildalternative will be looked at throughout the remaining process. Kelly Matzen added that there has been a

clear policy determination by the two communities that improved access to the Maine Turnpike is needed.


71/95


Christopher Carson then asked if a needs assessment had ever been done, and if the true impacts to the local

roads (such as the need for widening) had been evaluated. The response was that those evaluations all comein the next phase of study.

George and Georgette Morin expressed concern about the timing of some traffic signals within the study

area. Bob Thompson replied that part of the ongoing process will be to look at the coordination of signals.

There were concerns expressed about the potential need to upgrade existing roadways where a potential

interchange would be constructed and the potential impact it may have on historic buildings. Don Craignoted that preliminary analyses did not indicate significant widening was necessary on either Route 136 or

Lincoln Street. Improvements would likely occur at intersections, and future studies will detail those needs.

With no further discussion, Lucien Gosselin made a motion to accept the final report and forward it to the

Policy Committee. Kelly Matzen seconded the motion. The motion passed with Belinda Gerry opposing

5. Recommendation Acceptance of final report and forward onto the ATRC Policy Committee.Lucien Gosselin made a motion to accept the final report and forward it to the ATRC Policy Committee.

Kelly Matzen seconded the motion. The motion passed with Belinda Gerry opposing.


Appendix A6

Public Informational Meeting Notesand

Other Public Comments

LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE

FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC MEETING

Meeting Notes


72/95


Other Public Comments Meeting NotesWednesday, January 15, 2003

7:00 PM

Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC)

Auburn, Maine

Study Advisory Committee Members Present: Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Belind

Gerry (Auburn City Council)

Participants Present: Conrad Welzel (Maine Turnpike Authority), Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Duane S

(MaineDOT), Pat Finnigan (Auburn City Manager)

ATRC Policy Committee: Robert Thompson (AVCOG), Chris Branch (Lewiston Public Works)

ATRC Technical Committee: Bob Belz (Auburn Public Works), Dennis Emidy (MaineDOT)

Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smit

Associates), Dale Spaulding (Louis Berger Group)

Public Present: James Williams (58 Olive St., Auburn), Alfred Libby (386 S. Witham Rd., Auburn), Roger Gauthier, Jr. (

Penley Corner Rd., Auburn), Don Martill (Sun Journal)

1. Introductions and History Robert ThompsonAfter an introduction of all attendees Bob gave an overview of the project, particularly noting that wit

continued growth within Auburn and Lewiston, transportation improvements will be likely. Bob noted

the project was at the early planning stage and improvement strategies have not been identified, contrar

the recent newspaper article. He further noted the importance of improving access to the Maine Turnp

an effort to allow motorists to use the underutilized Turnpike for local travel.

2. Public Process and Communications Bruce HymanBruce gave an overview of the study public outreach process. He highlighted that the study Team wou

communicating at Study Advisory Committee meetings, Public meetings, City Council meetings. He no

that there would be many opportunities for the public to provide meaningful input.


73/95


74/95


75/95


76/95


77/95


78/95


79/95


80/95


81/95


82/95


83/95


84/95


85/95


86/95


87/95


88/95


89/95


90/95


91/95


92/95


Appendix A8

Resolutions from the Joint Council Workshop


93/95




94/95



Appendix A9

Maine DOT/ MTA Model Acceptance Letter


95/95


2005 downtown connectorl-a final

Documents