Study Team Meeting with Advisory Panel of Regional Developers
Additional Notes and Files
Gorham East West Corridor Feasibility Study
Developer Meeting
June 28, 2010
Maine Turnpike Authority Headquarters, Portland, Maine
Attendees: Joe Malone, Malone Commercial Builders; Peter Bass, Developers Collaborative; Frank O’Connor, The Dunham Group; Kevin Bunker, Developers Collaborative; Elliot Chamberlain, Chamberlain Homes; Paul Ureneck; Boulos Company; Tom Dunham, The Dunham Group; Vin Veroneau, JB Brown & Sons; Roxanne Cole, Roxanne Cole Commercial Real Estate; Paul Porada, Woodward & Curran; Ted Chapin, Woodward & Curran; Gerry Audibert, MaineDOT; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Sara Devlin, MTA; Paul E. Violette, MTA; Ray Faucher, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communitations; Benjamin Ettelman, Morris Communications.
·Representatives from MaineDOT and Maine Turnpike Authority welcomed members of the ad hoc advisory panel.
·Members of the Study Team gave a brief introduction to the study and provided background on the projected growth and proposed land use allocations.
·Members of the panel expressed the need for very clear sets of rules for developers in order to provide a more predictable marketplace. Increased predictability would create an environment where developers would be more willing to take risks in terms of investing in more mixed use and high-density projects.
·Members of the panel expressed the need for increased cooperation between transportation agencies and local planning boards.
·Study Team members explained that a density of .4 - .6 or 400 to 600 square feet of development for a 1000 square foot lot would be needed in the targeted growth areas in order for certain aspects of the Urban and Rural plan to be feasible. These aspects include but are not limited to transit, improved walkability, improved roadway level of service and reduced congestion.
·Members of the panel expressed the need for the projects suggested to be larger in size in order to accomplish the intent of the planned land use allocation.
·Members of the panel expressed concern over trying to achieve high levels of density when customers demand six parking spots per every 1000 square feet because studies have shown that that is the minimum amount of parking needed. A member of the panel explained that they know that the tenant in one of their recent developments was not using all of the parking that they had demanded. A new study developing data that supports the need for less parking would help developers convince buyers and tenants that they don’t need as many parking spaces.
·Members of the panel explained that the high cost of parking in Portland is turning businesses back to the suburbs. This is especially true for larger companies with lots in excess of 10,000 square feet.Members of the panel expressed concern over Portland’s new rules for required parking in new development. The rule is that all new development must build a minimum amount of parking and companies can buy their way out of that minimum at $10,000 per space. They stated that previously, other options were available for shared parking and leased parking, which provided flexibility. They believe the new rules force them to create parking.
·Some members of the panel expressed concern that Maine, and Portland in particular, are perceived as places that are difficult to do business in and attempting to limit parking spots for new development would only serve to increase that perception.
·Members of the panel expressed the belief that a robust transit system could work very well in Portland.
·Members of the panel expressed concern that there is no effective regional planning entity that works to create a consensus among the many communities within the greater Portland area. A county planning board was suggested with the understanding that the reality of this kind of entity is far fetched. There was general understanding though that cooperation among the communities within the Greater Portland area would create more opportunities to develop the type of projects that the Study Team is proposing. A regional advisory board was also suggested.
·Members of the panel expressed concern with the inconsistent and unpredictable regulatory process in Portland and stated that many out-of-state developers will no longer work there.
·Members of the panel discussed the possibility of incentivizing large employers to create dense headquarters within the proposed growth centers.
·Members of the panel agreed that relaxed regulatory rules and a streamlined approval process within the growth centers would make developing higher density attractive to investors.
·A regional business park like First Park in Oakland was suggested as a possibility to reduce traffic congestion and in problem areas. There was concern voiced over whether this would truly benefit municipalities who would lose business to the park.
·Members of the panel expressed interest in increased master planning for new development.
·Members of the panel expressed concern with the unpredictability of impact fees in Portland. There was agreement that impact fees are expected and are not deal killers, but the exact cost needs to be more predictable earlier so investors aren’t dissuaded from developing in Portland. If it is too difficult to develop in Portland and the region, developers will just go elsewhere and the region suffers.
·There was agreement that there needs to be increased education about new programs such as MaineDOT’s proposed policy of impact fees for all rather than just for those first in a development.
Meeting: Steering and Advisory Committee Workshop
Meeting Date: 07/21/10 - 8:00-10:00 am
Location: USM Gorham Campus/Health & Safety Lab, John Mitchell Center, Room 242
Possible Corridor Road Improvements
Meeting: Steering Committee Meetiing
Meeting Date: 06/24/10 - 1-3 pm
Location: Maine Turnpike Authority Headquarters, Skyway Drive, Portland (next to Turnpike Jetport exit/entrance)
Study Update: Full Transit Results/Road Improvements
Additional Notes and Files
Gorham East-West Corridor Study
Steering Committee Meeting
June 24, 2010 1-3 PM
Maine Turnpike Authority, Portland, Maine
Attendees: David Cole, Town of Gorham; Burleigh Loveitt, Town of Gorham; Gerry Audibert, MDOT; John Duncan, PACTS; Eric Dudley, Town of Westbrook; Carl Eppich, PACTS; Tex Haeuser, Town of South Portland; Sara Devlin, Maine Turnpike Authority; Benjamin Ettelman, Morris Communications; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Ray Faucher, HNTB, Tom Hall, Town of Scarborough
The meeting began at 1:05 pm.
Update
Carol Morris: We’ve had a really good response for the developer meeting next Tuesday. There will be a really good cross-section of developers attending. Evan Richert will facilitate and minutes will be taken. Essentially, we want to know what they think the barriers are for the types of development we are recommending in Urban and Rural.
Paul Godfrey: We will provide a brief overview of the study. We want to know what they see as barriers and what it will take to get folks to develop in the way the study will be recommending.
Carol Morris: In addition, I want to give you an update on the situation with the western communities and adding other communities such as Standish. I spoke to Gordie Billington and he is not happy with the decision not to add western communities to the Steering Committee. He believes they are not well represented in the study. I reminded him that Standish is represented on the Advisory Committee, but he does not feel that is enough. He asked if we would come out and speak with them again. Perhaps if we do that, Gorham would like to come along? I told him there will be a meeting in July that will address the road issues and this is a joint Advisory/Steering Committee meeting. I got an email from Lou Stack in response to that, and he can attend. I’d like to schedule this meeting in the first half of July because this meeting will ease their concerns, I think.
David Cole: Standish is concerned that this was supposed to result in a new road. The mindset in Standish is just as prevalent in Baldwin and Hollis, and we need to keep that in mind.
Burleigh Loveitt: This has been a long process and we all have been very patient. I think Standish is just suffering from a little impatience. I was also at the last Advisory Committee meeting and I think that you folks handled it very well. I think the best way to handle the situation is to get right on with holding the joint committee meeting and discussing the roadway improvements. I was a little disappointed to see that Standish wasn’t at the most recent advisory committee meeting.
Carol Morris: Yes, Lou Stack apologized that he couldn’t be there.
Roadway Improvements
Paul Godfrey: We are going to start talking about what type of roadway improvements we need to consider based on what we have learned to date. We are going to look at the degree to which we need to address the issue of trends and accommodating good land use. We can also take a path to do something different. I would like to hear from you some of the practicalities that we are dealing with. For example, in downtown Westbrook there is a very serious traffic issue; is it practical to consider major changes?
John Duncan: I just want to clarify that we are going to be talking about some broad ideas that we will analyze, and the results of the study will be summarized in some general suggestions that will be further analyzed in a phase 2.
Paul Godfrey: Yes, however, there is a list of things that we know enough about that provide an opportunity for more advanced recommendations. Other recommendations will require a future level of study.
We’re going to talk about the full range of road improvements. Low-level road improvements are things that are more immediately practical; intersection updates, turning lanes, signalization, and roundabouts. Given our future these will be many of the things in our toolbox, but these will only carry us so far. High-level improvements include taking a two-lane road and making it four to help alleviate areas of congestion. But what is the practicality of this and where?
Freight rail needs to be a part of the equation. Truck traffic in this region is sizeable. What degree does freight rail help begin to address our issues?
We talked a while back about our ultimate charge - to find a roadway improvement scenario to test. We would like to test one scenario, however one thing that will improve the “sellability” of this study is for us to understand what it is we are trying to accomplish and show people who are not on board how this could decrease roadway problems in the future.
This is a map of the 2035 Trends scenario with intersections that are operating poorly. We see intersections on Route 25 and in downtown Gorham and Westbrook rating at Es and Fs. We go from 7 intersections today that are running poorly to 23 in 2035. This helps us focus on where we need to be. From a roadway level of service perspective, this shows the areas where we have roadway segments that are at roadway capacity in 2035; again looking at intersections in and around Gorham, Westbrook, sections of 295 and Route 1, and Maine Mall area. We are also keeping our eyes on when congestion occurs that we continue to stay aware of where our residential roads are and where they have gone beyond being residential roads. The red lines on the slide, show the roads that are above 2,000 vehicles a day. They have gone beyond what they were intended and there is a lot of red. This slide shows the 2035 Trends Summary: There are 23 intersections with poor level of service (LOS). (E or F). There are 16.5 miles of state roads with poor LOS, which is up from 4 today. There are 59 miles of residential roads, which are above 2000 cars per day. From my perspective this is a pretty sizeable list.
This picture under the Transit scenario shows Urban and Rural land use plus Transit scenario. There are still problems with many intersections that are failing and these issues are in Gorham, Westbrook, the Maine Mall area and the overlap. We still have many intersections that are failing. We have been able to improve LOS in and around Gorham but the surrounding areas have stayed the same.
Carl Eppich: The last few slides have shown LOS in Standish, Buxton and Hollis. We should also include the road segments for those areas.
Paul Godfrey: Yes, good point. Residential roads are still getting high capacity even under the Transit scenario. When there is congestion and when things get better, people still find a way to go around. We still have many miles of residential roads with a problem we are simply not addressing. In the 2035 Urban and Rural with full Transit scenario, there are 17 intersections with poor LOS, down from 23 under trends scenario, 11.5 miles of state roadways, down from 16 miles, and we have slightly more residential roads being affected than in the trends scenario. Our cast of issues is essentially the same. The pile is less but there is still a sizable pile.
John Duncan: This works for me. Will we have MOEs like preservation of wildlife etc? Will those be incorporated back into the equation?
Paul Godfrey: Yes.
Tom Hall: The only thing that is missing is the cost factor. I want to see the expense.
Paul Godfrey: We want to understand the cost in each scenario. Part of this is understanding the cost differential. If the MTA or MaineDOT doesn’t have to spend that extra money, could that be an opportunity for something else?
Carol Morris: You could potentially say the money you save on the roadway improvements can be spent on transit because we know that will be expensive. If we can work out the logistics of funding, that could be a better long-term solution.
Paul Godfrey: We want to know the cost of transit, roadway improvements and land use.
Carol Morris: If you look at it from a traffic perspective, how are we going to present this to the public? How much are we paying for six improved intersections and five miles of improved road congestion?
Tom Hall: I’m assuming that the transit model complements where we are headed with land use?
Paul Godfrey: Yes it does.
Tom Hall: Do any of the MOEs appreciate all the effects of one model or the other? There are some things that are difficult to quantify with land use and public policy.
Paul Godfrey: Yes that is the hard part. We have a list of MOEs and there are other things that we haven’t figured out how to represent. Some aspects are difficult to quantify.
Carol Morris: When we present this as a package, we will be presenting it with all the MOEs.
Carl Eppich: It is hard to do this piece by just looking at level of service and other easily measurable factors.
Paul Godfrey: Thank you, and if this were fifteen years ago LOS would be the only thing that we looked at. I want to find the way that we can decide what exactly we want to solve. We need to get a perspective of what we need to address. So what are we charged with doing? Do we just want to get rid of the Es and Fs on the map? What is practical? Does Westbrook really want to make William Clark Drive six lanes? This is a candidate for a high level of improvement. There are some high-level answers here, assuming that our charge is to make the E and F intersections go away. Are we concerned if it’s an E, if that means wiping out homes and neighborhoods? Are we only addressing LOS or are there other MOEs we want to keep in the forefront? I’m looking to you to give me some sense.
David Cole: I think LOS is a big part of it. I agree that there are other factors; I’m not quite sure in my mind how you quantify those. First and foremost you need to have a transportation system that works and I need to see what’s most cost effective. I also see us laying out a game plan for some immediate recommendations.
Tom Hall: I’m a little confused that you’re asking this question now. We have a Purpose and Need statement and we will be crucified if we don’t stay true to it.
Paul Godfrey: Let me restate, clearly we want to address those issues. I’m asking to what degree do we try to address them? How important is it to understand the level of benefit that comes from doing the easy stuff and what’s the cost of that?
Eric Dudley: I don’t think this process is about a solution; it’s about planning for the future. We need to try to figure out how this area’s economy and communities are going to develop. I heard a little slipping from the support for transit. We need to have funding for transit married to this process. Maybe we need to think about adding another toll to help fund the transit opportunities. Otherwise I don’t see how we will be able to afford to provide those kinds of amenities. It’s beyond 35 years; it’s the beginning of the next 200 years.
Paul Godfrey: Eric, that is great, your vision of this is that this is not just about 2035, it has to be our charge that we’ve got to have some level of new capacity to accommodate growth. We can’t turn a blind eye to it.
Tex Haeuser: I feel that new capacity has to be on the table despite my support for transit. I agree with Eric about marrying funding for transit. I’ve never really felt that our Urban and Rural scenario would be possible politically without a good carrot.
Carol Morris: What is the carrot?
Tex Haeuser: Better mobility east and west. Economic development is very important. I look around, and what have we got in this region, we have a ton of health care and services, but not many manufacturers. You can achieve a good technology park or industrial park with good transportation.
Paul Godfrey: Does anybody disagree that this is about the future, and incorporating new capacity to the west, and creating a carrot to allow us to do things we might not be able to do?
Carl Eppich: As an interpretation of the Purpose and Need statement?
Paul Godfrey: Nothing I’ve said flies in the face of Purpose and Need. Every engineering bone in my body wants to start drawing things because I think I know what the right answer is but I’m trying to be careful about not jumping to conclusions. I think where we’re headed is going to address everything we’ve been talking about.
David Cole: We are trying to create economic development. We need to have new capacity not only to the core towns but beyond to the more western communities. Capacity is one of the needs for viable economic development.
Carol Morris: Paul, why don’t you start with the overlap and show three levels of things we could do at the overlap?
Paul Godfrey: In my professional opinion, you can widen the overlap to at least four lanes. The magic number is probably five. The intersections will need to be sizably improved and the character of that area will be very different. The other opportunity is to create another road to siphon capacity from the overlap. That’s a great challenge for Gorham. Is it practical to put in six-lane roads with massive intersections in that area?
David Cole: When you talk about moving traffic, you are talking about new capacity. If you are asking me, adding capacity without ruining the existing character along the overlap is the answer. We have major routes that need LOS of C at least for new roads. If we want a new system we’ve got to be able to get goods and services back and forth easily.
Paul Godfrey: New capacity can be a limited access highway. We are going to preserve the capacity of that new road, as opposed to the roads that have been cut up by the bypass.
Burleigh Loveitt: It’s an adage that you never hit anything higher than what you aim for. We should really look to the future in a thorough way and land use scenarios will follow. The difference made from the bypass in Gorham is enormous and if something connects to the bypass to the west they will benefit as well. The only thing that outlying towns need is transportation. Also, we need to attract the Idexxes and Nappi Distributors of the state.
Paul Godfrey: David, I heard you say that the more appropriate approach is to remove traffic from the overlap. Eric, you seem to feel the same way about the problems in Westbrook. Tom, how do you feel about Payne Road and Route 1? I’m shopping for opinion on our basket of solutions.
Tom Hall: Additional capacity is absolutely necessary. What will happen with the remainder of Payne Road near exit 42? South of exit 42 is residential and we want to keep it that way. ((
Ray Faucher: Instead of adding capacity, you limit the amount of intersections you have with red light after red light. You can eliminate that by adding a frontage road where people get off and do businesses on those roads.
Tom Hall: I’m not sure if that is practically possible.
Eric Dudley: Why don’t we do fronage roads?
Paul Godfrey: Frontage roads have huge property impacts. It takes homes and businesses and that is what you are trying to serve so it doesn’t work. NOTE: This is true with existing roads, not necessarily new developments.)
Carol Morris: To clarify, when you say new capacity you mean a new road, and added capacity is added capacity to an existing road.
Paul Godfrey: Yes.
Tom Hall: I don’t think it’s fair to say one or the other but I think it will be mostly a combination.
Paul Godfrey: So here’s what I know. If we were to contemplate new capacity from Portland west to the western corridors, it could help a number of problem areas. It might not help I-295 but it will help a number of areas. My question is, in your opinion what are the limits? How far do we go?
Carl Eppich: Conway, New Hampshire.
Paul Godfrey: So you are saying a long-term connection rather than a short-term fix for the study area?
John Duncan: Why are we thinking that?
Carl Eppich: Because I don’t think you can just talk about west to Standish, if we just solve the problem here then we have only succeeded in moving the problem west; we need to plan for the future.
Burleigh: We do have to address movement of traffic to the west. I think we should talk about collateral circulation. The quicker people can get to a conduit to get them to where they are going will ease the problem.
Ray Faucher: Should we also talk about the section of the highway that has been approved by Federal Highway but not funded or planned? This section has been approved by Federal Highway as part of the Gorham Bypass. This is segment two.
Paul Godfrey: From this group’s perspective, what is the corridor we are most looking to improve? Are we looking for one huge improvement to solve everything? Are we looking for a number of small improvements? I’m trying to get a sense of what the priority is.
Carol Morris: Which of those two are better for economic development? Do small improvements create more opportunity, or does one major improvement make the most difference?
Paul Godfrey: I want to make sure that we don’t miss something along the way so I am making sure we are being very thorough.
David Cole: Would it help to connect the east side of the Gorham bypass to Westbrook? Does it help Westbrook?
Paul Godfrey: Only if it goes far enough around to connect people coming from Windham into Portland. From what I have heard today, we are looking to do more than just localized bypasses.
Paul Godfrey and the Steering Committee brainstorm a number of possible new roadway capacities.
Burleigh Loveitt: If you start at exit 42, and start an arch that goes towards Gorham, and come right in behind Westbrook and arches all the way to the north of Portland somewhere. This is a rough idea, but this will help South Portland, Scarborough, Gorham, Westbrook, and the western communities, if you can provide a conduit that provides access for all communities, you can increase connectivity. This can be done incrementally as well. If a leg were built as an example that would allow people from the west to access the interstate, Westbrook would get considerable relief. This is a solution that does not go hand in hand with the land use scenario, but it is the future for this area.
Paul Godfrey: Are you suggesting that this is a phase 2?
Burleigh Loveitt: Well, I know that the overlap is a problem, and the area from the mall to the overlap is a problem as well. This would put out your biggest fires first.
Paul Godfrey: Are you suggesting that this is phase 1, instead of an east-west road?
Burleigh Loveitt: If we were to do this arch of some sort, it would immediately remedy the worst problems we have. This works with an east-west corridor as well. Our friends in the west would have increased access.
Tom Hall: I think this would help in Scarborough in a number of ways but we are different in that we have a large amount of cut through traffic. Enhanced access to the turnpike would help considerably. Additional capacity on the turnpike is important as well.
Carl Eppich: I’ve always thought that this kind of road would be a firewall for the western communities using exit 42 to access the highway. A lot of traffic comes through Saco and Biddeford and comes up the turnpike. If there was phase 1 of a ring road, with limited access it could address all of these “cut through” problems that cause congestion.
Paul Godfrey: So what I am hearing is that it is an east-west corridor road or a ring road. This might be a good point to bring forward to the joint committee meeting. We recognize we want to get traffic out of congested roads. Are we providing another east-west corridor or is there a connection to the east-west corridors that is a better solution. Is it both in the long term? I don’t know today which would be better.
Carl Eppich: From Charlie Colgan’s projections, facilitating movement between communities is needed if we can do it differently than we have done it in the past.
Carol Morris: Another thing a ring road does is it fits better with high density development. It is hard for us to talk about denser development and couple it with building a new road that will make it easier to spread development and sprawl out to the west.
Tex Haeuser: That’s my concern, I feel we should have a sensible transportation hierarchy with the right level of roads supported by a healthy transit system and connected to a sensible regional land use pattern that maintains vast environmental resources. I’m not sure that I have a lot of confidence that the carrot aspects of a toll road would be sufficient to make the communities get together and agree on some land use changes. And without that we’ve created a sprawl rocket. The ring road is inherently sustainable.
Paul Godfrey: We can all speculate as to who would use what and to what degree. My original perception was that the east-west corridor was the answer. But I would like to go back and find out what the desires of the western regions are in terms of where people are going.
Tom Hall: I think that the curvilinear road provides all kinds of options.
Tex Haeuser: It does provide more options.
The group, led by David Cole, drew some lines on the map that could potentially be a ring road.
Paul Godfrey: It would be helpful for all of us to understand the user base that we are talking about. When we are talking about these two opportunities, it’s important to talk about the size of the mass that we are working with. The amount of people traveling from the west to Portland and back each day is very sizable, so it’s important to understand what the potential mass is.
David Cole: It seems to me that at some point you can draw a conceptual ring road and east-west right of way and test them.
Paul Godfrey: For this study the best thing to do is be non-specific, once we get specific we get into the anxieties based on possible property acquisitions.
Ray Faucher: This should be more corridor-based rather than alignment based.
Carl Eppich: The northern bypass that has already been approved, could it connect from the north side of the Gorham bypass?
Ray Faucher: That western end of the connector does not tie in where the existing connector is, it’s about a quarter mile down the road.
Carl Eppich: Right, but since that is already approved we should include it in the evaluation.
Paul Godfrey: To what degree is that something that is already in play, and how much does that fast-forward the process, and to what extent is it the right part of the bigger picture? I want to stop here and take this all in. This was a really good discussion.
Gerry Audibert: I wasn’t expecting this and it is good to think outside of the box. I am concerned about the new capacity. I’m concerned about STPA as well. This looks a lot like new capacity, so we need to tread carefully.
Paul Godfrey: It is, and we will. We need to look at this in the sense that this will be a test, and we may find that there is one segment in the curve that is a huge opportunity to address.
Gerry Audibert: You are opening up western communities too, like in Boston, increasingly concentric bypasses. We’re not Boston, but it concerns me.
Paul Godfrey: I understand. I want to understand what part of this is the best solution and where the mass amounts of people are traveling.
Carl Eppich: STPA says before new capacity you have to examine other alternatives, which is what we have done. In order for the ring road to be built there would have to be an agreement for land use allocation and transit. That is a really good tradeoff. This can create a lot of synergy between transit, land use and new capacity.
Carol Morris: At what point in the testing process do you have to define number and location of access points?
Paul Godfrey: My goal is to try and keep it generic. Details will bog down what we are trying to achieve.
Carol Morris: So you can test without those?
Paul Godfrey: No we can’t, it’s like the transit scenario. There are details that we shouldn’t be contemplating, but for the purpose of the model we have to make some assumptions. We want to keep it generic.
Tex Haeuser: This should be considered as a toll road, because how else is it going to be built?
Paul Godfrey: Here’s the million-dollar question. While not speaking for the Turnpike Authority, the Authority will be an interested party to evaluating a toll road if it is determined to be viable. If curvilinear is the better answer, but east-west is more toll viable, what do you do? Maybe that answer becomes part of the phase 2.
David Cole: We need to generate the numbers in order to answer the question.
Burleigh Loveitt: Since we are talking toll, I think the curvilinear option is excellent business for the turnpike. If one is in Standish and wants to go to Portland, you can fight your way through Gorham and Westbrook, or they could pay for the quick route. There are numerous opportunities for the curvilinear option to feed people onto the toll roads.
Paul Godfrey: It’s interesting, but right now there are plans to widen I-95 through greater Portland. Long-term forecasts predict the need to widen the highway. If there’s a ring road, does it need to be widened? Could that 100 million dollars be diverted?
Carl Eppich: Regional tolling could work, if you are going north and you got off at the ring road you pay no toll, if you go past exit 42, you pay a toll.
Eric Dudley: How would that create funding for the ring road?
Paul Godfrey: Let’s wait and see if the ring road is the right answer.
John Duncan: This is a really fun conversation, but I think little pieces would work better than the “grand salami”.
Paul Godfrey: I don’t disagree; we just need to find that out.
Okay folks, the next step will be scheduling a joint committee roadway improvement workshop. Ultimately we want to identify a roadway improvement scenario to test. We want to bring that to a public meeting sometime in July/August, testing that through the summer and sharing the results in September. And again we will be looking to bring that forward with other study recommendations in October.
Gerry Audibert: So you are saying one scenario, so it is either an east-west corridor or spot improvements?
Paul Godfrey: Or a ring road. I think so, but we need to work on that answer. The data will lead us in the right direction; it might be close enough that we will have to test both. I am not going to guess.
Gerry Audibert: The concern I have is that this is a very big idea; and there may be other things we could do, particularly in the short term.
Carol Morris: It would be possible to construct it in pieces. We need to see what we find when Paul does the numbers.
Paul Godfrey: Yes, the curvilinear could be done in phases. In terms of the joint committee meeting, we need to involve them in this process. The first half would be catching everyone up, and the rest would be continuing this discussion, making sure that we didn’t miss anything and then coming up with a plan that is legitimate to test. As we have always done, the Study Team will take a step back and validate what we have come up with to make sure that we didn’t miss something. Okay everyone; thank you very much for your help today.
The meeting ended at 3:05 pm.
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Gorham East-West Corridor Study
Steering Committee Meeting
June 24, 2010 1-3 PM
Maine Turnpike Authority, Portland, Maine
Attendees: David Cole, Town of Gorham; Burleigh Loveitt, Town of Gorham; Gerry Audibert, MDOT; John Duncan, PACTS; Eric Dudley, Town of Westbrook; Carl Eppich, PACTS; Tex Haeuser, Town of South Portland; Sara Devlin, Maine Turnpike Authority; Benjamin Ettelman, Morris Communications; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Ray Faucher, HNTB
The meeting began at 1:05 pm.
Update
Carol Morris: We’ve had a really good response for the developer meeting next Tuesday. There will be a really good cross-section of developers attending. Evan Richert will facilitate and minutes will be taken. Essentially, we want to know what they think the barriers are for the types of development we are recommending in Urban and Rural.
Paul Godfrey: We will provide a brief overview of the study. We want to know what they see as barriers and what it will take to get folks to develop in the way the study will be recommending.
Carol Morris: In addition, I want to give you an update on the situation with the western communities and adding other communities such as Standish. I spoke to Gordie Billington and he is not happy with the decision not to add western communities to the Steering Committee. He believes they are not well represented in the study. I reminded him that Standish is represented on the Advisory Committee, but he does not feel that is enough. He asked if we would come out and speak with them again. Perhaps if we do that, Gorham would like to come along? I told him there will be a meeting in July that will address the road issues and this is a joint Advisory/Steering Committee meeting. I got an email from Lou Stack in response to that, and he can attend. I’d like to schedule this meeting in the first half of July because this meeting will ease their concerns, I think.
David Cole: Standish is concerned that this was supposed to result in a new road. The mindset in Standish is just as prevalent in Baldwin and Hollis, and we need to keep that in mind.
Burleigh Loveitt: This has been a long process and we all have been very patient. I think Standish is just suffering from a little impatience. I think the best way to handle the situation is to get right on with holding the joint committee meeting and discussing the roadway improvements. I was a little disappointed to see that Standish wasn’t at the most recent advisory committee meeting.
Carol Morris: Yes, Lou Stack apologized that he couldn’t be there.
Roadway Improvements
Paul Godfrey: We are going to start talking about what type of roadway improvements we need to consider based on what we have learned to date. We are going to look at the degree to which we need to address the issue of trends and accommodating good land use. We can also take a path to do something different. I would like to hear from you some of the practicalities that we are dealing with. For example, in downtown Westbrook there is a very serious traffic issue; is it practical to consider major changes?
John Duncan: I just want to clarify that we are going to be talking about some broad ideas that we will analyze, and the results of the study will be summarized in some general suggestions that will be further analyzed in a phase 2.
Paul Godfrey: Yes, however, there is a list of things that we know enough about that provide an opportunity for more advanced recommendations. Other recommendations will require a future level of study.
We’re going to talk about the full range of road improvements. Low-level road improvements are things that are more immediately practical; intersection updates, turning lanes, signalization, and roundabouts. Given our future these will be many of the things in our toolbox, but these will only carry us so far. High-level improvements include taking a two-lane road and making it four to help alleviate areas of congestion. But what is the practicality of this and where?
Freight rail needs to be a part of the equation. Truck traffic in this region is sizeable. What degree does freight rail help begin to address our issues?
We talked a while back about our ultimate charge - to find a roadway improvement scenario to test. We would like to test one scenario, however one thing that will improve the “sellability” of this study is for us to understand what it is we are trying to accomplish and show people who are not on board how this could decrease roadway problems in the future.
This is a map of the 2035 Trends scenario with intersections that are operating poorly. We see intersections on Route 25 and in downtown Gorham and Westbrook rating at Es and Fs. We go from 7 intersections today that are running poorly to 23 in 2035. This helps us focus on where we need to be. From a roadway level of service perspective, this shows the areas where we have roadway segments that are at roadway capacity in 2035; again looking at intersections in and around Gorham, Westbrook, sections of 295 and Route1, and Maine Mall area. We are also keeping our eyes on when congestion occurs that we continue to stay aware of where our residential roads are and where they have gone beyond being residential roads. The red lines on the slide, show the roads that are above 2,000 vehicles a day. They have gone beyond what they were intended and there is a lot of red. This slide shows the 2035 Trends Summary: There are 23 intersections with poor level of service (LOS). (E or F). There are 16.5 miles of state roads with poor LOS, which is up from 4 today. There are 59 miles of residential roads, which are above 2000 cars per day. From my perspective this is a pretty sizeable list.
This picture under the Transit scenario shows Urban and Rural land use plus Transit scenario. There are still problems with many intersections that are failing and these issues are in Gorham, Westbrook, the Maine Mall area and the overlap. We still have many intersections that are failing. We have been able to improve LOS in and around Gorham but the surrounding areas have stayed the same.
Carl Eppich: The last few slides have shown LOS in Standish, Buxton and Hollis. We should also include the road segments for those areas.
Paul Godfrey: Yes, good point. Residential roads are still getting high capacity even under the Transit scenario. When there is congestion and when things get better, people still find a way to go around. We still have many miles of residential roads with a problem we are simply not addressing. In the 2035 Urban and Rural with full Transit scenario, there are 17 intersections with poor LOS, down from 23 under trends scenario, 11.5 miles of state roadways, down from 16 miles, and we have slightly more residential roads being effected than in the trends scenario. Our cast of issues is essentially the same. The pile is less but there is still a sizable pile.
John Duncan: This works for me. Will we have MOEs like preservation of wildlife etc? Will those be incorporated back into the equation?
Paul Godfrey: Yes.
Tom Hall: The only thing that is missing is the cost factor. I want to see the expense.
Paul Godfrey: We want to understand the cost in each scenario. Part of the sell-ability is understanding the cost differential. If the MTA or MaineDOT doesn’t have to spend that extra money, could that be an opportunity for something else?
Carol Morris: You could potentially say the money you save on the roadway improvements can be spent on transit because we know that will be expensive. If we can work out the logistics of funding, that could be a better long-term solution.
Paul Godfrey: We want to know the cost of transit, roadway improvements and land use.
Carol Morris: If you look at it from a traffic perspective, how are we going to present this to the public? How much are we paying for six improved intersections and five miles of improved road congestion?
Tom Hall: I’m assuming that the transit model complements where we are headed with land use?
Paul Godfrey: Yes it does.
Tom Hall: Do any of the MOEs appreciate all the effects of one model or the other? There are some things that are difficult to quantify with land use and public policy.
Paul Godfrey: Yes that is the hard part. We have a list of MOEs and there are other things that we haven’t figured out how to represent. Some aspects are difficult to quantify.
Carol Morris: When we present this as a package, we will be presenting it with all the MOEs.
Carl Eppich: It is hard to do this piece by just looking at level of service and other easily measurable factors.
Paul Godfrey: Thank you, and if this were fifteen years ago LOS would be the only thing that we looked at. I want to find the way that we can decide what exactly we want to solve. We need to get a perspective of what we need to address. So what are we charged with doing? Do we just want to get rid of the Es and Fs on the map? What is practical? Does Westbrook really want to make William Clark Drive six lanes? This is a candidate for a high level of improvement. There are some high-level answers here, assuming that our charge is to make the E and F intersections go away. Are we concerned if it’s an E, if that means wiping out homes and neighborhoods? Are we only addressing LOS or are there other MOEs we want to keep in the forefront? I’m looking to you to give me some sense.
David Cole: I think LOS is a big part of it. I agree that there are other factors; I’m not quite sure in my mind how you quantify those. First and foremost you need to have a transportation system that works and I need to see what’s most cost effective. I also see us laying out a game plan for some immediate recommendations.
Tom Hall: I’m a little confused that you’re asking this question now. We have a Purpose and Need statement and we will be crucified if we don’t stay true to it.
Paul Godfrey: Let me restate, clearly we want to address those issues. I’m asking to what degree do we try to address them? How important is it to understand the level of benefit that comes from doing the easy stuff and what’s the cost of that?
Eric Dudley: I don’t think this process is about a solution; it’s about planning for the future. We need to try to figure out how this areas economy and communities are going to develop. I heard a little slipping from the support for transit. We need to have funding for transit married to this process. Maybe we need to think about adding another toll to help fund the transit opportunities. Otherwise I don’t see how we will be able to afford to provide those kinds of amenities. It’s beyond 35 years; it’s the beginning of the next 200 years.
Paul Godfrey: Eric, that is great, your vision of this is that this is not just about 2035, it has to be our charge that we’ve got to have some level of new capacity to accommodate growth. We can’t turn a blind eye to it.
Tex Haeuser: I feel that new capacity has to be on the table despite my support for transit. I agree with Eric about marrying funding for transit. I’ve never really felt that our Urban and Rural scenario would be possible politically without a good carrot.
Carol Morris: What is the carrot?
Tex Haeuser: Better mobility east and west. Economic development is very important. I look around, and what have we got in this region, we have a ton of health care and services, but not many manufacturers. You can achieve a good technology park or industrial park with good transportation.
Paul Godfrey: Does anybody disagree that this is about the future, and incorporating new capacity to the west, and creating a carrot to allow us to do things we might not be able to do?
Carl Eppich: As an interpretation of the Purpose and Need statement?
Paul Godfrey: Nothing I’ve said flies in the face of Purpose and Need. Every engineering bone in my body wants to start drawing things because I think I know what the right answer is but I’m trying to be careful about not jumping to conclusions. I think where we’re headed is going to address everything we’ve been talking about.
David Cole: We are trying to create economic development. We need to have new capacity not only to the core towns but beyond to the more western communities. Capacity is one of the needs for viable economic development.
Carol Morris: Paul, why don’t you start with the overlap and show three levels of things we could do at the overlap?
Paul Godfrey: In my professional opinion, you can widen the overlap to at least four lanes. The magic number is probably five. The intersections will need to be sizably improved and the character of that area will be very different. The other opportunity is to create another road to siphon capacity from the overlap. That’s a great challenge for Gorham. Is it practical to put in six-lane roads with massive intersections in that area?
David Cole: When you talk about moving traffic, you are talking about new capacity. If you are asking me, adding capacity without ruining the existing character along the overlap is the answer. We have major routes that need LOS of C at least for new roads. If we want a new system we’ve got to be able to get goods and services back and forth easily.
Paul Godfrey: New capacity can be a limited access highway. We are going to preserve the capacity of that new road, as opposed to the roads that have been cut up by the bypass.
Burleigh Loveitt: It’s an adage that you never hit anything higher than what you aim for. We should really look to the future in a thorough way and land use scenarios will follow. The difference made from the bypass in Gorham is enormous and if something connects to the bypass to the west they will benefit as well. The only thing that outlying towns need is transportation. Also, we need to attract the Idexxes and Nappi Distributors of the state.
Paul Godfrey: David, I heard you say that the more appropriate approach is to remove traffic from the overlap. Eric, you seem to feel the same way about the problems in Westbrook. Tom, how do you feel about Payne Road and Route 1? I’m shopping for opinion on our basket of solutions.
Tom Hall: Additional capacity is absolutely necessary. What will happen with the remainder of Payne Road near exit 42? South of exit 42 is residential and we want to keep it that way.
Carol Morris: When you say adding capacity you mean we could widen that road?
Tom Hall: Yes.
Ray Faucher: Instead of adding capacity, you limit the amount of intersections you have with red light after red light. You can eliminate that by adding a frontage road where people get off and do businesses on those roads.
Tom Hall: I’m not sure if that is practically possible.
Eric Dudley: Why don’t we do frontage roads?
Paul Godfrey: Frontage roads have huge property impacts. It takes homes and businesses and that is what you are trying to serve so it doesn’t work.
Carol Morris: To clarify, when you say new capacity you mean a new road, and added capacity is added capacity to an existing road.
Paul Godfrey: Yes.
Tom Hall: I don’t think it’s fair to say one or the other but I think it will be mostly a combination.
Paul Godfrey: So here’s what I know. If we were to contemplate new capacity from Portland west to the western corridors, it could help a number of problem areas. It might not help I-295 but it will help a number of areas. My question is, in your opinion what are the limits? How far do we go?
Carl Eppich: Conway, New Hampshire.
Paul Godfrey: So you are saying a long-term connection rather than a short-term fix for the study area?
John Duncan: Why are we thinking that?
Carl Eppich: Because I don’t think you can just talk about west to Standish, if we just solve the problem here than we have only succeeded in moving the problem west; we need to plan for the future.
Burleigh: We do have to address movement of traffic to the west. I think we should talk about collateral circulation. The quicker people can get to a conduit to get them to where they are going will ease the problem.
Ray Faucher: Should we also talk about the section of the highway that has been approved by Federal Highway but not funded or planned? This section has been approved by Federal Highway as part of the Gorham Bypass. This is segment two.
Paul Godfrey: From this group’s perspective, what is the corridor we are most looking to improve? Are we looking for one huge improvement to solve everything? Are we looking for a number of small improvements? I’m trying to get a sense of what the priority is.
Carol Morris: Which of those two are better for economic development? Do small improvements create more opportunity, or does one major improvement make the most difference.
Paul Godfrey: I want to make sure that we don’t miss something along the way so I am making sure we are being very thorough.
David Cole: Would it help to connect the east side of the Gorham bypass to Westbrook? Does it help Westbrook?
Paul Godfrey: Only if it goes far enough around to connect people coming from Windham into Portland. From what I have heard today, we are looking to do more than just localized bypasses
Paul Godfrey and the Steering Committee brainstorm a number of possible new roadway capacities.
Burleigh Loveitt: If you start at exit 42, and start an arch that goes towards Gorham, and come right in behind Westbrook and arches all the way to the north of Portland somewhere. This is a rough idea, but this will help South Portland, Scarborough, Gorham, Westbrook, and the western communities, if you can provide a conduit that provides access for all communities, you can increase connectivity. This can be done incrementally as well. If a leg were built as an example that would allow people from the west to access the interstate, Westbrook would get considerable relief. This is a solution that does not go hand in hand with the land use scenario, but it is the future for this area.
Paul Godfrey: Are you suggesting that this is a phase 2?
Burleigh Loveitt: Well, I know that the overlap is a problem, and the area from the mall to the overlap is a problem as well. This would put out your biggest fires first.
Paul Godfrey: Are you suggesting that this is phase 1, instead of and east-west road?
Burleigh Loveitt: If we were to do this arch of some sort, it would immediately remedy the worst problems we have. This works with an east-west corridor as well. Our friends in the west would have increased access.
Tom Hall: I think this would help in Scarborough in a number of ways but we are different in that we have a large amount of cut through traffic. Enhanced access to the turnpike would help considerably. Additional capacity on the turnpike is important as well.
Carl Eppich: I’ve always thought that this kind of road would be a firewall for the western communities using exit 42 to access the highway. A lot of traffic comes through Saco and Biddeford and comes up the turnpike. If there was phase 1 of a ring road, with limited access it could address all of these “cut through” problems that cause congestion.
Paul Godfrey: So what I am hearing is that it is an east-west corridor road or a ring road. This might be a good point to bring forward to the joint committee meeting. We recognize we want to get traffic out of congested roads. Are we providing another east-west corridor or is there a connection to the east-west corridors that is a better solution. Is it both in the long term? I don’t know today which would be better.
Carl Eppich: From Charlie Colgan’s projections, facilitating movement between communities is needed if we can do it differently than we have done it in the past.
Carol Morris: Another thing a ring road does is fits better with high density development. It is hard for us to talk about denser development and couple it with building a new road that will make it easier to spread development and sprawl out to the west.
Tex Haeuser: That’s my concern, I feel we should have a sensible transportation hierarchy with the right level of roads supported by a healthy transit system and connected to a sensible regional land use pattern that maintains vast environmental resources. I’m not sure that I have a lot of confidence that the carrot aspects of a toll road would be sufficient to make the communities get together and agree on some land use changes. And without that we’ve created a sprawl rocket. The ring road is inherently sustainable.
Paul Godfrey: We can all speculate as to who would use what and to what degree. My original perception was that the east-west corridor was the answer. But I would like to go back and find out what the desires of the western regions are in terms of where people are going.
Tom Hall: I think that the curvilinear road provides all kinds of options.
Tex Haeuser: It does provide more options.
The group, led by David Cole, drew some lines on the map that could potentially be a ring road.
Paul Godfrey: It would be helpful for all of us to understand the user base that we are talking about. When we are talking about these two opportunities, it’s important to talk about the size of the mass that we are working with. The amount of people traveling from the west to Portland and back each day is very sizable, so it’s important to understand what the potential mass is.
David Cole: It seems to me that at some point you can draw a conceptual ring road and east-west right of way and test them.
Paul Godfrey: For this study the best thing to do is be non-specific, once we get specific we get into the anxieties based on possible property acquisitions.
Ray Faucher: This should be more corridor-based rather than alignment based.
Carl Eppich: The northern bypass that has already been approved, could it connect from the north side of the Gorham bypass?
Ray Faucher: That western end of the connector does not tie in where the existing connector is, it’s about a quarter mile down the road.
Carl Eppich: Right, but since that is already approved we should include it in the evaluation.
Paul Godfrey: To what degree is that something that is already in play, and how much does that fast-forward the process, and to what extent is it the right part of the bigger picture? I want to stop here and take this all in. This was a really good discussion.
Gerry Audibert: I wasn’t expecting this and it is good to think outside of the box. I am concerned about the new capacity. I’m concerned about STPA as well. This looks a lot like new capacity, so we need to tread carefully.
Paul Godfrey: It is, and we will. We need to look at this in the sense that this will be a test, and we may find that there is one segment in the curve that is a huge opportunity to address.
Gerry Audibert: You are opening up western communities too, like in Boston, increasingly concentric bypasses. We’re not Boston, but it concerns me.
Paul Godfrey: I understand. I want to understand what part of this is the best solution and where the mass amounts of people are traveling.
Carl Eppich: STPA says before new capacity you have to examine other alternatives, which is what we have done. In order for the ring road to be built there would have to be an agreement for land use allocation and transit. That is a really good tradeoff. This can create a lot of synergy between transit, land use and new capacity.
Carol Morris: At what point in the testing process do you have to define number and location of access points.
Paul Godfrey: My goal is to try and keep it generic. Details will bog down what we are trying to achieve.
Carol Morris: So you can test without those?
Paul Godfrey: No we can’t, it’s like the transit scenario. There are details that we shouldn’t be contemplating, but for the purpose of the model we have to make some assumptions. We want to keep it generic.
Tex Haeuser: This should be considered as a toll road, because how else is it going to be built?
Paul Godfrey: Here’s the million-dollar question. While not speaking for the Turnpike Authority, the Authority will be an interested party to evaluating a toll road if it is determined to be viable. If curvilinear is the better answer, but east-west is more toll viable, what do you do? Maybe that answer becomes part of the phase 2.
David Cole: We need to generate the numbers in order to answer the question.
Burleigh Loveitt: Since we are talking toll, I think the curvilinear option is excellent business for the turnpike. If one is in Standish and wants to go to Portland, you can fight your way through Gorham and Westbrook, or they could pay for the quick route. There are numerous opportunities for the curvilinear option to feed people onto the toll roads.
Paul Godfrey: It’s interesting, but right now there are plans to widen I-95 through greater Portland. Long-term forecasts predict the need to widen the highway. If there’s a ring road, does it need to be widened? Could that 100 million dollars be diverted?
Carl Eppich: Regional tolling could work, if you are going north and you got off at the ring road you pay no toll, if you go past exit 42, you pay a toll.
Eric Dudley: How would that create funding for the ring road?
Paul Godfrey: Let’s wait and see if the ring road is the right answer.
John Duncan: This is a really fun conversation, but I think little pieces would work better than the “grand salami”.
Paul Godfrey: I don’t disagree; we just need to find that out.
Okay folks, the next step will be scheduling a joint committee roadway improvement workshop. Ultimately we want to identify a roadway improvement scenario to test. We want to bring that to a public meeting sometime in July/August, testing that through the summer and sharing the results in September. And again we will be looking to bring that forward with other study recommendations in October.
Gerry Audibert: So you are saying one scenario, so it is either an east-west corridor or spot improvements?
Paul Godfrey: Or a ring road. I think so, but we need to work on that answer. The data will lead us in the right direction; it might be close enough that we will have to test both. I am not going to guess.
Gerry Audibert: The concern I have is that this is a very big idea; and there may be other things we could do, particularly in the short term.
Carol Morris: It would be possible to construct it in pieces. We need to see what we find when Paul does the numbers.
Paul Godfrey: Yes, the curvilinear could be done in phases. In terms of the joint committee meeting, we need to involve them in this process. The first half would be catching everyone up, and the rest would be continuing this discussion, making sure that we didn’t miss anything and than coming up with a plan that is legitimate to test. As we have always done, the Study Team will take a step back and validate what we have come up with to make sure that we didn’t miss something. Okay everyone; thank you very much for your help today.
The meeting ended at 3:05 pm.
Meeting: Advisory Committee Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/09/10 - 8-10:30 am
Location: Health and Safety Lab, John MItchell Center, USM, Gorham Campus
Evaluation of Transit Scenario for Project Advisory Committee
June 9, 2010, 8:00 AM – 10:30 AM
University of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine
Advisory Committee Members: John Duncan, chair, PACTS; Barbara Charry, Maine Audubon Society; Bruce Hyman, Portland Trails/Bicycle Coalition/GrowSmart ME; Paul Weiss, Maine Sierra Club; Alex Jaegerman, Portland; Rob Sanford, USM; Steve Linnell, GPCOG; Dale E. Hannington, Maine Motor Transport; Ed Clifford, Zoom Transit; Warren Knight, Smiling Hill Farm/Westbrook Works; Myranda McGowan, Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission.
Steering Committee Members: Tex Haueser, South Portland; Burleigh Loveitt, Gorham; Conrad Welzel, MTA; Sara Devlin, MTA; Gerry Audibert, MDOT
Observers: Hilary Frenkel, Young Voters League,
Study Team: Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Kevin Hooper, Hooper Associates; Andrea d’Amato, HNTB; Benjamin Ettelman, Morris Communications; Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Ray Faucher, HNTB
Meeting began at 8:15 AM
Welcome
Conrad Welzel: Welcome and thanks for coming to the advisory committee meeting for the Gorham East-West Corridor Feasibility Study. We’re continuing to have a great deal of activity and success with this study. To give us a brief orientation as to where we are, Rob Sanford is here to give a quick introduction.
Rob Sanford: I’m the chair of the environmental science department here at USM, this is the John Duncan Mitchell Center and USM is happy to host this meeting. (Information about housekeeping.) John?
John Duncan: Welcome everyone; I am the advisory committee chair. We had a steering committee presentation of this material yesterday, and Kevin Hooper will provide us with some analysis of the transit scenario. I’m going to turn the floor over to Kevin Hooper who has the transit scenario results to share with us today.
Transit Scenario Results
Kevin Hooper: We are going to go over the results of our evaluation of the transit scenario today. We are handing out all of the slides we are presenting. I want to remind everyone what the purpose of the transit service evaluation is. Than I will describe to you what we tested. We will go over the base assumptions and methodology we used and provide the key results. I will then provide a summary of where we go from here.
Kevin Hooper shows a slide of the purpose of the Transit Scenario Evaluation.
We just want to remind everyone of the purpose of this evaluation. We wanted to identify a transit system that truly complements the Urban and Rural land use allocation. The Urban and Rural is a land use plan that concentrates development in growth centers in the study area. We wanted to test and evaluate the effects of this transit system using Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) established for this project.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing a Quick Summary of the results.
I’d like to share a quick summary of what I will be sharing with you folks today. We have seen very positive results in terms of shifting travel to transit. There was a healthy increase in transit riders, a noticeable improvement in traffic operations. Again we are using the Urban and Rural land use allocation so the MOEs did not change from that.
Kevin Hooper shows a map of the existing transit system.
This is a map of the transit system, as it exists today. In blue are the existing transit routes. Under the Urban and Rural land allocation scenario we identified growth centers in the study area. Steve Linnell, Carl Eppich and I initially created a transit system that modestly increased existing service. We had more service to Scarborough, South Portland, Gorham, Standish and Windham. We shortened headways as well. This was a modest increase over existing service. When these results were presented, the overwhelming response from you was to do more in terms of a transit system. The next step was to have a transit workshop and there we developed a new transit scenario to complement Urban and Rural.
The key components of the Transit Scenario were 10-minute headways on primary bus routes, circulators on Portland Peninsula, in the Maine Mall area and in downtown Westbrook. Adding Rail service on the Mountain Division out to Fryeburg; rail service for Portland North and a Downeaster Commuter rail south. The headways for the train service are 30 minutes. The Downeaster Commuter line had stops in South Portland, Scarborough, Old Orchard, Saco and Biddeford. Another key point was additional bus transit service to Buxton and North Windham.
Kevin Hooper presents a map showing the Transit Scenario with ridership results.
This map shows the improved transit scenario with express bus, local bus and rail shown in different colors. This is the same as what we presented to you at the last advisory committee meeting with a couple small improvements. The rail routes here are Portland North, the Mountain Division going out through Little Falls and Sebago Lake Village and beyond and the Downeaster Line. We also had express bus from the transportation center down I-295 to the Maine Mall area, then going through the bypass in the vicinity of the Route 22/114 overlap and into Gorham Village. We also added local service within Scarborough, South Portland and Westbrook. The numbers on the routes correspond with the word document that we’ve distributed, and the numbers on in the circles represent ridership results for the routes. We’re going to move right into the results after I outline the base assumptions and methodology we used.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing the Base Assumptions and Methodology used in the model.
The base assumptions and methodology was the Urban and Rural land use allocation. We had concentrations of growth centers shown on the map and remember that these blobs aren’t representative of density, so the larger blob in Buxton than in Gorham doesn’t mean they predict more growth in Buxton than Gorham. We used current transit fares and the current zone system, so a rider from Gorham traveling from Gorham to Portland pays more than a rider from Westbrook to Portland. We used the same fare for local bus, express bus and rail. We understood that this is unrealistic but for the model we assumed the same prices for all different modes.
Here’s how we determine the numbers: In terms of the mode choice model, we used a couple of factors to determine the mode choice. We look at household income and automobile availability. We look at how trip purposes affect trips, why people make trips and what modes that are used; work trips are much easier to get people into transit because they make this trip everyday. We also look at travel time for each mode. The in vehicle time whether it be in train, bus or riding in the car. We also measure terminal time, which are the headway times, transfer times, time traveling to transit whether it is walking or riding to park. Cost for each mode is part of the model’s evaluation as well; both fares and tolls are taken into consideration. Tolls were assumed at the current level as well.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing a map of the Urban and Rural scenario.
This slide depicts the Urban and Rural scenario with the shaded areas representing the forecasted growth centers. Remember that the size of the shaded area is not representative of the size or population density of the projected growth area.
Carol Morris: Do you want to talk a little about how you test the PACTS model to assess if it is accurate?
Kevin Hooper: We calibrate it. On the traffic side what we have done for years is try and predict today’s traffic volume with the assumption that if we can predict current traffic volume trends, we can predict future traffic volume trends using factors such as jobs, locations of residences and availability of roads, etc. A year or two ago PACTS invested in their model to look at transit as well.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide of the order in which Key Results will be provided.
The results of the model are presented as follows: transit ridership by town and by route; travel modes (to home from work) by town as well as compared to other metro areas; vehicle miles and hours saved and traffic congestion.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing a map with Transit Ridership by Route.
This map shows the future transit system in the study area and provides ridership numbers by route. In the red are the ridership numbers traveling outbound during the PM Peak hour. There are inbound numbers as well that I do not have on this map, as the outbound numbers are higher. I will talk about the percentage of the travel share we captured in a little bit.
Heading south there are three different transit services: there is the Downeaster Commuter Line; there is service down Route 1 and the Zoom service along I-95. We are estimating in 2035 under Urban and Rural about 190 riders taking those lines outbound from Portland to points south in the afternoon PM Peak hour. I lumped the three routes with the same destination into one number because when the routes are looked at individually we get some untrustworthy results. For example we got very little ridership on the Downeaster Rail line from the transportation center in Portland to Biddeford. The reason for this is because we assumed 30 minute headways for the rail, and stops in South Portland, Scarborough, Old Orchard and Saco; and 10 minute headways for the Zoom bus, which traveled at a bit of a slower speed but went straight to the Biddeford park and ride and transferred to local service. These assumptions affected ridership and to avoid getting mired down by the anomalies of the model we put the numbers together to simply show the potential of transit ridership along this corridor, which is very good.
The 190 number is a very good number and we have a lot of potential for people traveling along that corridor. A recommendation will most likely be to focus on that corridor. Again, we are not trying to present a transit plan, just seeing what quantities of people we could shift out of vehicles.
Heading north from Portland on the Portland North rail service, we forecast 100 riders. Most of these riders are getting off in Yarmouth. These numbers seem to be higher than the last Portland North numbers I have seen. If we put as much transit service to the north as we did to the west we could most likely get a higher number.
In Gorham Village you see that 90 people came in on the express bus that came into the village through the Maine Mall and on to downtown Gorham. For the sake of the simulation, we assumed that people could come in and park at Gorham Village, and ride to work in Portland, and we get a good number of people doing that. That number of 90 is with 20-minute headways, and that is a very good number.
The 230 number represents transit ridership into Scarborough, not including the rail service. This is because we provided a lot of bus service along Route 1; with that amount of bus availability no one took the train because bus headways were shorter and service was quicker. That 230 number is all local bus service, and that is a tremendous amount.
Next is the Mountain Division rail line. Beyond Little Falls and South Windham, we have ridership of 40 traveling outbound, that’s traveling to Sebago Lake Village and beyond. The model stops at Baldwin.
Paul Weiss: Where do you get these numbers?
Kevin Hooper: We put in the land use, travel patterns and where people live and work and what options they would have in this transit scenario. As I said, we look at household income and automobile availability. The model then forecasts how people will travel based on all of those factors and the modes available to them.
Paul Weiss: So you basically made an assumption that with no existing non-commuter rail service in the State of Maine, and gave people a choice between non-existent rail service and bus service?
Kevin Hooper: No, that is not right. We did not give them a choice between something that doesn’t exist and something that was. As I said, there are rail service choices in this model. So, if there was a rail service choice, and it ran at 30 minute headways, and a person is at the transportation center and had a choice of a bus that ran every ten minutes and a train that runs every thirty minutes, the model predicted that people would take the bus. It may not happen that way, but that is the mode choice that the model predicted. We are not trying to prejudge here whether the transit should be rail versus bus. That is not the purpose of this study.
Paul Weiss: You set up your model so that one would fail.
Carol Morris: That’s not correct, in fact, in the model, we assumed the same amount of fare for bus and rail fare. In reality that is virtually never true; rail would be higher. But we wanted to make a level playing field.
Paul Weiss: As you know, headway time is critical in the success of the service, for you to make the precluded assumption that the train is going to go every half hour, of course it’s not going to get the same amount of ridership.
Carol Morris: We did have busses in the model as well that were every half hour, but to do a test where train headways were every ten minutes with the current infrastructure would be difficult to support.
Paul Weiss: You’ve made some assumptions that are kind of startling, for one, have you spoken with Pan Am lines that owns that line and found out that there are six passenger trains running now and full freight service and they can barely fit that in? I’m a promoter of rail, but you are making assumptions that lead me to believe you haven’t looked at the reality.
Kevin Hooper: The assumptions came from our workshop and the meetings with the advisory and the steering committee.
Paul Weiss: Did you meet with any rail people?
Kevin Hooper: We met with you. You participated in those meetings.
Gerry Audibert: What this is showing is the potential that would include both rail and bus service. This is not a detailed transit study that looks at routes and mode choice. This is showing what the potential for transit is.
Paul Weiss: You’re basing numbers on a service you have designed.
Carol Morris: When you say “you” you really should say “we”; it was designed with the help of many people in this room.
Paul Weiss: The facts are when you design a service that is inferior in the way of headways, that will be a failing method of measurement.
Kevin Hooper: The final result of this study may be that GPCOG, SMRPC and MDOT spend some money to find how you can capture 190 people or more to take transit in this corridor. I’m certain that this study will not make a recommendation on mode choice.
Paul Weiss: I agree with you that we are not at the stage of making decisions. When you’ve made your assumptions based upon somewhat arbitrary numbers that doesn’t create an even playing field it is a little bizarre.
Carol Morris: You see that we are not comparing them because Kevin has all the transit numbers in this corridor numbers lumped together.
Kevin Hooper: That’s why they are lumped together because I did not want to compare them, I didn’t think that was fair.
Paul Godfrey: I think for us, for this study, there is an opportunity to look at the fact that we could capture 190 riders, what does that mean? What other problems still exist, etc. This is about finding the potential and discovering what challenges still exist.
Alex Jaegerman: Does that include the trips that already exist?
Kevin Hooper: This is the total amount of trips; this is not an increase.
Steve Linnell: What are those numbers as a percentage of total volume?
Kevin Hooper: I will share that with you in a moment.
John Duncan: I think this is very exciting and well done. Those numbers are based on a scenario that dramatically breaks the trend in the dispersion of population. This may not be a reality: it is simply a vision.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing PM Peak Hour Transit Ridership by destination.
This slide shows transit ridership, not by route but by destination during the PM Peak Hour. We have the current ridership under the 2009 heading, 2035 forecasted ridership under the Trends Scenario heading, 2035 forecasted ridership under the Urban and Rural Scenario heading, which includes some minor transit improvements and 2035 forecasted ridership under the Transit Scenario heading.
Kevin Hooper presents slide with percent of change in PM Peak Hour Transit by destination.
This is the same information as the last slide with the percent of increase from the Urban and Rural Scenario to the Transit Scenario. In Gorham under Current and Trends we have virtually no ridership. Under Urban and Rural we got 99, and under the Transit Scenario we upped that by 50% to 149 riders during the PM Peak hour. That’s the express bus service and the Mountain Division rail line up to Little Falls.
Paul Weiss: This is people, not cars, during one hour?
Kevin Hooper: Yes, this is people on transit, heading outbound from work to home during that PM Peak hour. In Portland there is no increase, but trips from Portland would have a huge increase. This is just people riding transit from work to home or shopping. We got a big increase in Gorham, a big increase in Scarborough. In South Portland we did not have a huge increase because we did not add any new destinations in South Portland. We shortened headways, but it would seem as though that didn’t have much of an effect since there is so much service in South Portland already. In Westbrook, even though we did not add a lot of destinations besides the Mountain Division rail line and out to the Duckpond and Prides Corner area, we got a 25% increase in ridership. And again this is percent of increase from the Urban and Rural to the Transit Scenario; if we compare it back to the Trends Scenario we have a huge increase. Region-wide we have a 24% increase, and that includes Windham, the Standish area, down to the Saco-Biddeford area and up to the Yarmouth area.
Paul Weiss: When you are doing transit promotion, you need to have a carrot and a stick. The problem is with transit promotion is you only promote the carrot, without the stick there is much less use. I know it’s beyond the scope of the study but we need to look at the stick, like adding tolls on roads. As a commuter I am making a decision based on factors that you have laid out, like time and tolls. If it is more expensive to drive our car to work people will get on transit, and I think this is a factor that is missed in these studies.
Kevin Hooper: Yes, I agree that that is a possibility. In some people’s minds we’ve gone too far in the transit direction, they point out that the headways are too low and the service is unrealistically extensive. Overall, it is the land use change that makes this work though.
Paul Godfrey: Whatever the future holds, this study is going to include putting the right pieces in place to make the recommendations successful.
Rob Sanford: At USM, because so many of our students are commuter students, there is a great opportunity to take advantage of creating a successful transit system for these students, which in turn would create transit riders after these students move on from the university.
Kevin Hooper: That number of 90 coming from Portland to Gorham had no students. I did not model students transit behavior, it does include university employees, but students transit behavior is difficult to accurately forecast.
Kevin Hooper presents slide of Travel Modes to Home From Work for Gorham Residents.
This slide shows travel from work to home for residents of Gorham, currently the percentage of transit’s share of mode choice is less than 1%. Under Trends it stayed the same, under Urban and Rural we got it up to 5%, under the Transit Scenario we got it up to 8%. Not everybody who lives in Gorham works
Meeting: Steering Committee Meetiing
Meeting Date: 06/08/10 - 1-3 pm
Location: MTA Headquarters
Transit Scenario Results
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Gorham East West Corridor Feasibility Study
Evaluation of Transit Scenario
Steering Committee Meeting
June 8, 2010 1 PM – 3 PM
Maine Turnpike Authority, Portland, Maine
Attendees: David Cole, Town of Gorham; Dan Bacon, Scarborough Planner; Tom Hall, Town of Scarborough; John Duncan, PACTS; Eric Dudley, Town of Westbrook; Carl Eppich, PACTS; Gerry Audibert, ME DOT; Sara Devlin, MTA; Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Kevin Hooper, HNTB; Ray Faucher, HNTB.
Meeting began at 1:05 pm
Carol Morris: Thank you all for coming to this project steering committee meeting for the Gorham East West Corridor Study. Today, Kevin Hooper will present the results of the transit scenario and we will then discuss these findings.
Kevin Hooper: This is the same presentation that I’d like to give to the Advisory Committee tomorrow, if you have any feedback or questions please let me know. What I plan to do today is to remind everyone of the intention of the transit scenario; provide a quick summary of the results; go over the base assumptions and methodology we used in the transit scenario; share the key findings of this test and talk a little about the recommendations and next steps.
Kevin Hooper shows a slide of the purpose of the Transit Scenario Evaluation.
We just want to remind everyone of the purpose of this evaluation. We wanted to identify a transit system that truly complements the Urban and Rural land use allocation. We wanted to test and evaluate the effects of this transit system using MOEs established for this project and to confirm the benefits of the Transit Scenario. You’ll notice that we do not say to develop a transit plan for this corridor because that is not the intention of this evaluation. This is not a transit plan; it is a transit evaluation to attempt to calculate the potential of a robust transit system in this corridor. In the next 25 years, PACTS and GPCOG will come up with much better transit plans for this corridor. This just tests the potential.
I’d like to share a quick summary of what I will be sharing with you folks today. We have seen very positive results for the transit scenario. There was a healthy increase in transit riders, a noticeable improvement in traffic operations. Our recommendation at the end of this evaluation will be to retain all elements of the Transit Scenario in subsequent testing of Transportation improvements for the study area.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing a map of the existing transit scenario within the study corridor.
As a reminder, this is a map of the existing transit scenario. This shows bus transit only; this map does not have the Downeaster rail line.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing a map of 2035 Urban and Rural scenario with existing and future transit as well as growth areas.
This is a map of the 2035 Urban and Rural scenario with existing and some initial future transit service. We worked with the GPCOG staff to come p with some transit that would compliment the Urban and Rural scenario. It included express bus service out to Windham, Gorham and Standish as well as increased service in Scarborough. This had some great benefits but the resounding response from both the Advisory and Steering Committee was to do more in terms of creating a network of transit for the study area.
John Duncan: The blobs are not where all of the projected growth is, just the majority correct?
Kevin Hooper: Correct, the blobs just show growth centers; there are more areas with projected growth.
We met with a number of planners as well as regional and town representatives and we created a revised transit scenario. This was presented to both the Advisory and Steering Committee. The key points of this scenario were 10-minute headways on primary bus routes, circulators in on Portland Peninsula, Maine Mall area and in downtown Westbrook. Rail service on the Mountain Division out to Fryeburg; rail service for Portland North and a Downeaster Commuter rail. The headways for the train service are 30 minutes. This line had stops in South Portland, Scarborough, Old Orchard, Saco and Biddeford. Another key point was service to Buxton and North Windham.
Kevin Hooper presents a map showing the Enhanced Transit Scenario.
This map shows the improved transit scenario with express bus, local bus and rail shown in different colors. The routes here are Portland North, the Mountain Division going out through Little Falls and Sebago Lake Village and beyond; the Downeaster Line. We also had express bus from the transportation center down I-295 to the Maine Mall area, than going through the bypass and into Gorham Village. We also added local service within Scarborough, South Portland and Westbrook.
Tom Hall: I have a question about route #8, how are you accomplishing a bypass of Route 22?
Kevin Hooper: That would be a new section of road.
Tom Hall: Is there other new sections here?
Kevin Hooper: No, this is the only new section of road for transit.
Dan Bacon: Wasn’t the connection out to Gorham supposed to be a new or separate surface for rapid transit?
Kevin Hooper: Yes there is a bus route that goes down Route 114 into Gorham Village and somehow bypasses the overlap. On I-295 there was express bus lanes on the shoulders so the busses drove at free flow speed. This is all hypothetical, I don’t know if you could actually do some of those things realistically, but the point of this evaluation was to test potential rather than achievability.
We also had express bus from Westbrook Center to Gorham Village with 30-minute headways and we had barely any ridership because of the 10-minute headways for the bus going into Gorham Village along Route 114. If you were going to Gorham from Downtown Portland, this is the route that the model chose. Again, this is all hypothetical; we’re not transit planning, we’re simply evaluating potential.
Carol Morris: When we did a route out along Route 22 out to Buxton, (Route # 16) was this tested on a separate lane?
Kevin Hooper: No it wasn’t but once you get through the bypass it traveled quickly.
Dan Bacon: What did you use for a stop in Scarborough?
Kevin Hooper: Pleasant Hill, by the Industrial Area. We also had bus service that ran out Pleasant Hill to Route 1 all the way up to Governors Restaurant on Route 1. We also had park and ride capabilities at some of these stops.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing the Base Assumptions and Methodology used in the model.
The base assumptions and methodology was the Urban and Rural land use allocation. We had concentrations of growth centers shown on the map and remember that these blobs aren’t representative of density, so the larger blob in Buxton than in Gorham doesn’t mean they predict more growth in Buxton than Gorham. We used current transit fares and the current zone system, so a rider from Gorham traveling from Gorham to Portland pays more than a rider from Westbrook to Portland. We used the same fare for local bus, express bus and rail. We understood that this is unrealistic but for the model we assumed the same prices for all different modes.
In terms of the mode choice model, we used a couple of factors to determine the mode choice. We look at household income and automobile availability. We look at how trip purposes affect trips, why people make trips and what modes that are used; work trips are much easier to get people into transit because they make this trip everyday. We also look at travel time for each mode. The in vehicle time whether it be in train, bus or riding in the car. We also measure terminal time, which are the headway times, transfer times, time traveling to transit whether it is walking or riding to park. Cost for each mode is part of the model’s evaluation as well; both fares and tolls are taken into consideration. Tolls were considered at the current level as well.
Carol Morris: If someone has to make a transfer is that considered to be a negative?
Kevin Hooper: It adds to the trip time and that affects the model’s outcome.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide of the order in which Key Results will be provided.
The results of the model are presented as follows: transit ridership by town and by route; travel modes (to home from work) by town as well as compared to other metro areas; vehicle miles and hours saved and traffic congestion.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing a map with Transit Ridership by route.
This map shows the future transit system in the study area and provides ridership numbers by route.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing PM Peak Hour Transit Ridership.
This is an important table that shows the ridership by town. First off we are going to look at the results for the Scarborough lines traveling to Saco. There are three different transit services: there is the Downeaster Commuter Line; there is service down Route 1 and the Zoom service along I-95. We are estimating in 2035 under Urban and Rural about 190 riders taking those lines outbound from the study area to points south in the afternoon PM Peak hour. I’ll approximate that number is maybe 10 buses, taking into account some of that ridership would be train service, so 190 is a very large number.
Dan Bacon: So that would be 190 shared among those three routes?
Kevin Hooper: Yes and the reason I lumped the three routes with the same destination into one number is because when the routes are looked at individually, we get some untrustworthy results. For example we got very little ridership on the Northeaster Rail line from the transportation center in Portland to Biddeford. The reason for this is because we assumed 30 minute headways for the rail, and stops in South Portland, Scarborough, Old Orchard and Saco; and 10 minute headways for the Zoom bus, which traveled at a bit of a slower speed but went straight to the Biddeford park and ride and transferred to local service. These assumptions affected ridership and to avoid getting mired down by the anomalies of the model, we put the numbers together to simply show the potential of transit ridership along this corridor, which is very good. We can take 190 people out of that corridor during the PM Peak time period, that’s a lot of people.
We get good numbers on the Mountain Division out to Little Falls in Gorham and South Windham, and beyond that we have about 40 riders and 20 of those were leaving the area altogether.
And we only have about ten out to Standish, it could be that there is very little potential for transit to this destination and it could be that we didn’t plan well for those riders.
Carl Eppich: We had very slow headways for that service.
Kevin Hooper: Yeah and if you shorten them you’re going to get more ridership. The number (190) traveling south, that is a corridor that shows tremendous potential. That is a very strong axis of travel.
On the Portland North service we got about 100 riders. That projection is a little higher than the Portland North Study projections,
Carl Eppich: That’s a train right?
Kevin Hooper: That’s a train that stops in Yarmouth, Freeport and Brunswick.
Dan Bacon: Not Falmouth?
Kevin Hooper: No, not Falmouth.
Carl Eppich: Does that number jive with the Portland North number?
Kevin Hooper: Yes but our number is higher because we project more growth and it’s a more complete transit system. The numbers beyond the study area are the same because I assumed the same numbers. I had a lot of ridership stopping in Yarmouth.
Tom Hall: It seems to me when you make that rail connection from Portland to the Rockland Branch, you have a lot more potential ridership. Not the same commuter riders, but there are likely to be more statewide benefits.
Kevin Hooper: I agree.
Carl Eppich: Portland North pays attention to the commuter aspect; they have not paid attention to excursion, shopping or the day-tripper.
Kevin Hooper: Again, we recognize the possibility of that line but we’re not doing a transit plan, just testing for potential for transit within the study area.
The Maine Mall area in South Portland to Downtown Westbrook, we’re getting about 50 riders, and we’re getting about the same number of riders heading from Westbrook out to the Mall area at the same time period, that’s a pretty good number. There are 90 riders going from Gorham to Downtown Portland, which does not include students as we did not include students in the model. If you include students that would increase that number and makes that service very viable.
Carol Morris: Do you have travel time for that line?
Kevin Hooper: I don’t know, I can estimate it from what we have for headways.
John Duncan: These numbers are outbound only? But the model would be bringing people in?
Kevin Hooper: Yes that’s correct, to keep the data from becoming too dense, we simplified it. But yes there are inbound and other direction trips as well.
John Duncan: At the hour of the day the afternoon peak, the outbound numbers would be the biggest.
Tom Hall: So it’s not a simple doubling?
Kevin Hooper: No. The morning inbound would be the same or similar. For the 190 riders heading outbound to Saco / Biddeford, my guess is there would be about 50 riders coming inbound during the afternoon peak.
Tom Hall: So this is outbound, going home from work at the afternoon peak hour?
Kevin Hooper: Yes, in the year 2035. Going out to Buxton there was a bus every 10 minutes. There were three buses carrying 11 people per bus. Coming back in there was, I’d estimate four per bus. The model did forecast what the number would be.
The 190 heading south from Portland to Saco / Biddeford, that’s approximately 170 vehicles that are taken off of the road in the PM Peak hour. That’s a sizable number of vehicles.
When we get to Windham, taking 90 vehicles off of Route 302, that’s approximately 8% of the vehicles.
David Cole: I’m curious about the transit model; I know that PACTS has one?
Kevin Hooper: That’s it; it’s the same model.
David Cole: What leads us to believe that this is a reliable model?
Kevin Hooper: On the auto side, you calibrate this model to current traffic volumes, and on the transit side you compare it to current transit numbers. The model forecasts trips made in certain areas, like Gorham Village based on population, household’s type of employment, etc. Than we distribute the trips, we get a good feel for how many people who live in Gorham Village and work in downtown Portland, where in Portland and what kind of employment. And we match those trips up; we have reliable market surveys on what kind of trip lengths to expect, where the Mall draws customers from. And than based on the purpose of a trip we can specify the choices available for that trip. If a trip was going from Gorham Village to Portland for work, there is a much greater likelihood that transit would be used. The mode compares modes, travel times, costs and the model forecasts the choice that is made for each trip.
David Cole: How long have we been using this model?
Kevin Hooper: The PACTS model has had transit in its model for ten to fifteen years.
John Duncan: We just beefed it up a year ago so it would be more accurate.
David Cole: How do we see if the changes in the model are making the forecasts more accurate?
Kevin Hooper: You calibrate the forecasted volume against current traffic volume. If you can predict today, than you can predict the future.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing PM Peak Hour Transit Ridership by destination.
Kevin Hooper: This slide shows transit ridership, not by route but by destination during the PM Peak Hour. We have the current ridership under the 2009 heading, 2035 forecasted ridership under the trends scenario heading, 2035 forecasted ridership under the Urban and Rural scenario heading and 2035 forecasted ridership under the Transit scenario heading.
Carol Morris: To clarify that, 2009 is today. 2035 Trends is if there are no land use changes and we continue to do things as we have. 2035 Urban and Rural is if we do land use changes with some transit. And 2035 Transit considers land use change and a robust transit scenario.
Kevin Hooper: Right. The Numbers for ridership in Gorham includes professors, not students; it includes people using park and ride with transit.
Eric Dudley: The numbers in Westbrook look fairly low in comparison to other communities, is that because transit is fairly well established today?
Carl Eppich: The 2009 number is low by comparison right?
Eric Dudley: It just seems like there is more activity than that today.
Kevin Hooper: Well let’s look at it. How many buses during the peak hour currently? At best fifteen-minute headways, so four buses with maybe 30 riders per bus, so that estimation is accurate.
Dan Bacon: Would Westbrook and Portland really benefit from this more in the AM? Both are employment centers.
Kevin Hooper: This is a slice of ridership that is going home and to shopping after work.
Carl Eppich: But that’s a good point, if you look at the chart, morning peak is a spike, whereas the afternoon is more of a plateau. People tend to hang out after work, not head straight home.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing PM Peak Hour Transit Ridership with percentage of increase by destination.
Kevin Hooper: Right. In this slide it is the same data, just with the percentage of increase by destination from the Urban and Rural scenario. If you compare these numbers to the current numbers the percentage would obviously be much, much higher. Gorham is up 51%. Scarborough is up 58% because that’s where we added a lot of new service. In South Portland we didn’t add a lot of new destinations so it increased only about 13%. In Westbrook the only new service we added was The Mountain Division, and a couple of other small lines of service; it increased 25%. We added no new destination trips in Portland, so it increased only 1%. Again this is just where people are traveling to in the PM Peak hour. Overall we increased transit ridership in the study area by 24%.
Gerry Audibert: Isn’t this where you are going from?
Kevin Hooper: This is traffic heading home, or to other destinations in the pm peak hour. So these numbers are ridership numbers by destination only. Again, we’re not trying to do transit planning, just testing for potential within the study area. But these numbers are big increases.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing Travel Mode to Home from Work by destination during PM Peak Hour.
Another way of looking at it is shown in this slide. If you live in Gorham, currently less than 1% take transit, under the 2035 Trends scenario less than 1% take transit, in the Urban and Rural scenario that has some transit we got it up to 5%, and finally under the Transit scenario which includes land use allocation and a robust transit scenario, we got it up to 8%. In Scarborough we got it up to 8%. In South Portland, we got it up to 9%; it’s currently at 7%. Again we didn’t do much for South Portland for people heading home from work, but we did improve headways. In Westbrook we got it up to 9%.
David Cole: This model assumes that the communities implement all of the land use allocations in the Urban and Rural scenario as well as implement all of the parts of the transit scenario. To the extent that if some of those things don’t get done it begins to reduce the forecasts?
Kevin Hooper: For Gorham, the biggest bang for your buck is the land use, that gets you a long way towards getting citizens of Gorham on transit. Essentially you are going from .3% transit to 5.4% with the land use allocation and one very regular bus.
David Cole: So if you evaluate it in a bang for your buck analysis, one could theoretically do the land use stuff without a whole lot of public money and see a real positive bump in transit use.
Kevin Hooper: Yes but, and this is a big but, the Urban and Rural, in my opinion, won’t happen unless you have some level of an extensive transit system to compliment it. It’s a much easier sell, politically and economically from a developer’s standpoint, to put in high density dwellings in Oak Hill and Gorham Village if there is a promise of transit service, even if 95% of the people don’t take the transit, it still helps sell higher density. Could you add high-density dwellings to Gorham Village with no transit service? It’s a tough sell.
David Cole: I would have to see what we would have to accomplish politically to see if this is a realistic possibility.
Carol Morris: In terms of transit or land use?
David Cole: The Urban and Rural land use changes.
Carol Morris: I did bring some details about the Gateway 1 project I worked on and I’d like to hand this out to everyone.
Carol Morris distributes handout with a chapter of the Gateway 1 plan titled: “Chapter 7: The Municipalities’ Role: Local Actions”
Carol Morris: This is one chapter of the Gateway 1 plan about the Municipalities’ role in terms of land actions. There are three levels of actions: basic, intermediate and advanced. This project’s recommendations will be different but this gives you an idea of the types of actions that will be recommended.
David Cole: So the basic changes here would achieve the Urban and Rural Scenario?
Carol Morris: These would be some similar recommendations that would give you an idea of the types of recommendations that we are going to develop. This is for a different kind of corridor with a different set of challenges; we’ll look at this simply for a frame of reference.
John Duncan: This is not based on practice this is based on a plan?
Carol Morris: This is based on a plan that is in the process of being implemented.
Kevin Hooper: Are there performance measures in this?
Carol Morris: Yes there are.
Kevin Hooper: Which you would have to set for Urban and Rural to happen.
Carol Morris: Yes
Tom Hall: Given all the work that the planners have done, for just the four communities in this study, shouldn’t we be able to be far more specific?
David Cole: I think when we get to a final plan it would be much more specific. This is just an example for us to look at.
Carol Morris: This is what 20 towns came up with as measures that were considered acceptable for their communities in order to implement this plan.
Tom Hall: I’m just saying since the Gateway 1 project is 20 towns and this study having only four, we have the opportunity to be much more specific in our land use plans.
Carol Morris: Yes we can customize it to fit the needs of the four core communities in the study.
David Cole: This is the plan that the Gateway 1 communities have adopted?
Carol Morris: They are in the process of adopting them.
David Cole: How many have been implemented?
Carol Morris: None as of yet, they are in the process of fine tuning the recommendations and bringing them to the town councils. It’s still early and it could still fall apart.
David Cole: If you look historically at all of the communities who have adopted these types of plans, and then moved on to implement them, they get there heads handing to them on a platter. If you look at all of the communities with comprehensive plans you’d find that many of the steps were not implemented.
Carol Morris: There is a carrot involved in this, the towns that agree to implement the plan, will be able to sit on a governing body that will allow them to oversee transit planning, in other words, DOT won’t be doing it, they will. That’s a big deal for these towns, and it’s a big deal for a town’s neighbor to have a say, and for them not to have a say.
Tom Hall: Could we expect the same sort of incentives for this plan?
Carol Morris: I don’t know, that’s a question for your MPO down here. There is no MPO in the Gateway Corridor.
Tom Hall: I think that’s very important.
Eric Dudley: There is another large component that’s not considered here, that’s the rest of the infrastructure. In order for Gorham to implement a plan like this, they need to vastly expand their wastewater infrastructure. I know Gorham and Windham are interested in that, hopefully there could be some incentives involved. Town of Gorham can’t do it alone.
Carol Morris: We started to address that in Gateway, and Evan Richert is a much more qualified individual to talk about that. He has some ideas about working with the DEP and this is a program that looks to be successful over the long haul.
Tom Hall: The notion of promoting denser development speaks to that doesn’t it; infrastructure improvement is the first step to making that a reality.
David Cole: We’re using numbers to assume that all of these things get done. If we are going to make decisions based on these numbers which are assumption I think somewhere we need to have a good discussion, about a timeline for this and how much of this has to be done in concert with other towns in order to be successful, and how does that change the numbers. The political will may cause these towns to have different time lines.
Carol Morris: Certain Memorandums of Agreement could be put into place. This plan is the first one trying to do this with current legislation that is in effect, in terms of the STPA. We are all kind of feeling our way and we should absolutely spend as much time as possible finding out what communities need to make this a reality.
David Cole: That’s very importation to lay out the benefits, so the towns can sell the benefits of these ideas. We need to make sure we are all on the same page as to what the priorities are and what each town is ready to do.
Carol Morris: That is some of the discussion that we need to continue to have as to how specific the recommendations of this plan are going to be. We are not there yet and we need to look to the towns in order to make those decisions.
Sara Devlin: Not only how specific but how to prioritize them. One of the MTA’s goals is to keep momentum going at the close of this study.
Carol Morris: Right, so we need to have short term and long-term recommendations. And in terms of political will we need to have some incentives to aid the process.
Carl Eppich: In terms of political will, there is no way David Cole and Tom Hall could sell this to their councils without help. Whenever we think about changing the status quo, and reestablishing the priorities; a big part is the educational campaign.
Carol Morris: Working with developers will be a key part of the puzzle as well. We are going to be meeting with them to ensure that what we do is marketable and profitable.
Tom Hall: Looking at all of this data has kind of made me question why we are doing this? It seems to me that there is recognition that there are current problems with the transportation infrastructure. Looking into the future, this is about making responsible transportation and land use investments.
Carol Morris: And maintaining community character.
Kevin Hooper: Under trends we continue to see widening of roadway capacity and continual diminishment of community character. As a hypothetical: under trends we really need a North Gorham bypass, under the transit scenario we don’t. This is the selling point for this plan.
Tom Hall: What is assumed in the 2035 trends?
Carol Morris: Under the trends scenario there are minor roadway improvements but no major increases in capacity.
Tom Hall: So if we do the land use changes alone produce a 2% increase in transit use
Kevin Hooper: And there is some additional transit service, not as robust as the transit scenario, but a little more than the current transit system.
Gerry Audibert: Another thing we need to look at is single occupied vehicles (SOV) today we are at 89%; with land use you are at 87% and with transit you are at 84%.
Tom Hall: What does it all mean in terms of roadway congestion?
John Duncan: We will get there; this is just the first part.
Dan Bacon: That slide just shows mode though, it doesn’t show all of the other negative aspects of the trends scenario like time of travel, etc.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing the Transit Share Comparison for the United States
Kevin Hooper: This is to show the legitimacy of the transit model. This slide shows the region wide transit percentage, which includes the Saco Biddeford area, Freeport, Windham and Standish. It was 3% and we got it up to 5.6%. Boston is 12%, Dallas 5%, Chicago 11% and Portland, Oregon is 12%. This proves that we have accomplished quite a bit with this transit scenario.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing the PM Peak Hour Peak Direction Transit Mode Share in Key Corridors.
This slide shows the reduction in traffic within specific corridors. The share of cars that would be in transit is about 6% along Route 1 in Scarborough, 6% along Route 25 in Gorham west of Route 237, and about 8% along Route 302 in Windham.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) during PM Peak Hour.
This slide shows the VHT of vehicles traveling in the study corridor during that PM Peak Hour, and a reduction of VHT was one of the MOEs. This slide shows that in the four core towns, there was a 9.6% reduction or 3400 vehicle hours, from the Trends scenario and a 3% reduction, from the Urban and Rural scenario using the transit scenario. When you consider the economical benefits of fuel savings etc, there are big benefits associated with these findings.
Kevin Hooper presents a slide showing PM Peak Hour Levels of Service (LOS).
This slide shows the congestion levels under the 2035 transit scenario. The orange is LOS E and red is LOS F. Clearly there are still some congestion issues at the overlap on Route 22. There’s some congestion along Route 302, Gorham Village and in Westbrook, I-95 Southbound.
Dan Bacon: I imagine this is congestion for SOVs, that type of congestion is what will lead more people to transit.
Kevin Hooper presents PM Peak Hour Intersection’s Level of Service (LOS).
Kevin Hooper: This slide shows the intersection’s LOS. There are two letters associated with each intersection; the left letter is the 2009 LOS grade, and the right letter represents the LOS grade under the 2035 transit scenario. There are a couple of intersections that LOS worsens. In Gorham you go from a C to a D under the transit scenario. Again this includes the projected population growth in 2035. &nb
Attendees: Liz Hertz, State Planning Office; Wayne Newbegin, Standish Council; Lou Stack, Route 113 Corridor Committee; Warren Knight, Smiling Hill Farms and Westbrook Works; Eric Dudley,Westbrook; Rick Shinay, MEREDA; Barbara Charry, Maine Audubon; Chris Hall, Portland Chamber; Steve Linnell, GPCOG; Rob Sanford, USM; Richard Rudolph, Rippling Waters Farm; Rebecca Schaffner-Tousignant, GPCOG; Robert Moulton, Scarborough Police; Burleigh Loveitt, Gorham Town Council; Ed Clifford, ZOOM; Tom Ellsworth, Town of Gorham; Bruce Hyman, Bicycle Coalition Maine/PT/GrowSmart ME; Carl Eppich, PACTS; Tex Haeuser, South Portland; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Kevin Hooper, Kevin Hooper Associates; Sara Devlin, Maine Turnpike Authority; Conrad Welzel, Maine Turnpike Authority; Carol Morris; Morris Communications.
Observers: Hilary Frenkel, League of Young Voters; Gary Higginbottom
Carol Morris: Thank you for coming to the advisory committee meeting for the Gorham East West Corridor Feasibility Study. The main part of the agenda will be to look at the revised transit plan. In March, we completed our evaluation of the Urban and Rural alternative land use pattern, and decided that it would benefit and work better with additional transit opportunities. Kevin Hooper and Paul Godfrey worked with Steve Linnell to come up with a basic draft transit plan designed to solve some of the congestion problems in the corridor. In looking at this, we felt that it should be fine tuned, that maybe we develop something that was a little more aggressive to achieve as much loss of congestion as possible before we move on to our final leg, which will be developing transportation solutions. To achieve this, we held a transit workshop, with operators, planners and members of advocacy groups and we asked them to come up with an advanced, non-auto oriented transit plan. They developed two versions, Kevin and Paul merged them into one to delete any redundancy, and we then sent the new plan to Dan Bacon, Scarborough Planner; Steve Linnell, GPCOG; Tex Hauser, South Portland Planner and Tom Meyers, South Portland Metro to give them a quick look. They suggested some additional changes and Kevin Hooper is going to share that revised transit plan with you today. He will then run this plan through the travel demand model, and by the end of this month we will have a brand new, enhanced transit plan to combine to our land use model. At that point we will look to see where we have additional congestion issues and we will look at transportation solutions.
Conrad Welzel: I just want to say welcome. The input that you folks have been providing has allowed this to be more than your typical transportation study. The land use work and the ability to look at all of the different components that are out there, along with the dialogue amongst yourselves and within your respective organizations has been very important and very beneficial to the process. I continue to be impressed and have been talking about this study with a lot of people who are amazed that we’re mixing transportation and land use. The study has stayed on schedule and that’s impressive and people have been diligent to follow up and get to meetings, and I appreciate that, so I just wanted to thank you all.
Kevin Hooper gave a presentation showing the revised transit scenario:
Consolidated Transit Service Recommendations for Further Study
Based on Discussions at Gorham East-West Corridor Study Transit Workshop
Held April 15, 2010 at HNTB Office
Revisions to Existing Fixed-Route Bus Transit Service in Year 2035
Headways on all existing METRO and South Portland Bus Service on arterial streets and major collectors are 10 minutes. All other existing service, including ShuttleBus (Tri-Town and InterCity) and ZOOM, has headways of 20 minutes.
New Bus Transit Service on Existing Road Rights-of-Way in Year 2035 (or with a small portion on new right-of-way)
#1. Downtown Portland Circulator – Provide frequent (10-minute headway) bus service connecting the Portland Transportation Center, Bayside, Pulse, Old Port, and Commercial Street, making use of existing and abandoned rail rights-of-way as well as public streets
#2. Maine Mall Area Circulator – Provide frequent (10-minute headway) bus service connecting Maine Mall, UNUM, Portland Jetport, Fairchild (Western Ave corridor), Brick hill, Clarks Pond, Scarborough Gallery, and Target.
#3. Scarborough to Maine Mall to Westbrook – Provide bus service at 10-minute headways connecting Oak Hill intersection, the Maine Mall Circulator, Gannett Drive, Five Star Industrial Park, and downtown Westbrook.
#4. Saco to Scarborough to Portland – Provide bus service at 20-minute headways connecting Saco, Dunstan Corner, Oak Hill, at Maine Medical Center (Scarborough), intersection of Turnpike Spur and Route 1, Cash Corner, and the Portland Transportation Center.
#5. Saco to Scarborough to Portland – ZOOM – Add a ZOOM stop at the Exit 42 park-ride lot and increase service frequency to 20-minute headways.
#6. Standish to Gorham – Provide bus service at 20-minute headways between Standish (intersection of Routes 25 and 35) and Gorham Village.
#7. Gorham to Westbrook – Provide bus service at 10-minute headways between Gorham Village (center of downtown) and downtown Westbrook, and between downtown Westbrook and Morrill’s Corner in Portland.
#8. Gorham to Maine Mall to Portland – Provide Express Bus service at 20-minute headways connecting downtown Gorham, the Maine Mall area (at a circulator stop), and the Portland Transportation Center. This service includes a bus-only bypass of the Route 22/114 overlap and the addition of a bus-only lane on I-295 between Route 703 and the Congress Street interchange.
#9. Gorham to North Windham – Provide bus service at 20-minute headways connecting Gorham Village, Little Falls, the Route 202/302 rotary, and North Windham commercial district.
#10. Westbrook – Provide bus service at 20-minute headways between downtown Westbrook and Prides Corner growth center.
#11. Raymond to Windham – Provide bus service at 20-minute headways between Raymond and North Windham.
#12. Scarborough to South Portland – Provide bus service at 20-minute headways between East Scarborough and South Portland along Highland Avenue and between East Scarborough and the route 1/Pleasant Hill Road intersection.
#13 – Maine Mall to Haigis Parkway to Dunstan Corner – Provide bus service at 20-minute headways between the Maine Mall Circulator, Exit 42 area, Haigis Parkway, and Dunstan Corner.
New Commuter Rail, Light Rail, or Express Bus on Existing Rail Rights-of-Way in Year 2035
#14. Mountain Division – Provide rail transit service at 20-minute headways along the Mountain Division right-of-way between the Portland Transportation Center and South Windham/Little Falls with intermediate stops at Rand Road and downtown Westbrook.
#15. Amtrak – Provide commuter rail service at 30-minute headways along Amtrak corridor with stops in Saco, Old Orchard Beach, Scarborough, South Portland, and the Portland Transportation Center.
#16. Portland to Westbrook to Windham – Provide rail transit service between the Portland Transportation Center and Morrills Corner (with a stop at Woodfords Corner) and continue as express bus service along Route 302 with stops at Riverside Street growth center, Prides Corner, and North Windham.
Comments:
Lou Stack: I thought the bill that was passed regarding this study asked to connect the western towns of Cumberland and York counties to Route 1. Based on the map you are showing, how is bus service connecting these counties to Route 1?
Kevin Hooper: We will do that in the new transit service, what you see is a map of the existing routes. On existing routes, we will be doubling and tripling service. What we will focus on next is the additional service that we want to test including connections of the western suburbs to the Turnpike and Route 1.
Lou Stack: I am concerned that neither Standish, Buxton nor Baldwin is on that map. Why aren’t they on that map?
Kevin Hooper: What we have on this map is the core study towns in the study. It is zoomed in so you can see detail.
Lou Stack: Why is it that the study corridor towns are four towns instead of seven?
Kevin Hooper: The model does include Saco, Biddeford, Old Orchard, Buxton, Hollis, Windham and Standish. It does not include Baldwin. We do include the transit services in Saco, Biddeford and Old Orchard, the local and shuttle bus service. One of the things we want to talk about today is whether or not we ought to have additional transit service on the Route 22 corridor heading out to Buxton and Hollis. But those were not identified as high priorities. That does not mean we can’t add those today.
Paul Godfrey: What Kevin is going to explain is what we are currently proposing in terms of a future transit system. Lou, what I’m hearing you say is did we look far enough west? We would like you to challenge us as to whether what we have is correct.
Richard Rudolph: In addition to peak hour service, you need to look at other points in time during the day. If you’re talking about 2035, you’re talking about a lot of older people. They may not be going to work at eight in the morning but they will want to have alternative modes of transportation.
Paul Godfrey: To answer your question, we need to look at this from a perspective of where we are providing service. Our travel demand-modeling tool is only structured around the PM peak hour, and we will be clear in our recommendation that this recommendation isn’t for that afternoon period but that it should be considered for a broader perspective. Understand that our tool allows us to analyze the evening peak hour, but we recognize there is a broader perspective than just that peak hour.
Kevin Hooper: As the project evolves, if a recommendation is for a people mover, or a downtown circulator, for example, we’re not going to be much more specific than that. For those to be implemented, it’s going to take years of study and analysis, and it would have to look at not only the PM peak hour, but the whole day. At this point, because this is a feasibility study, we need to look at things with not a whole lot of precision or detail, essentially look at the big picture.
Carol Morris: So basically what we’re looking to do here is provide future direction and policy; the details of how it will work and how it will be funded will be looked at later. This is a policy level study.
Steve Linnell: The travel demand model has traditionally been used to analyze PM peak time. That peak hour is what has been used for roads, so it’s just a tool, not a decision that’s already been made.
Kevin Hooper: Exactly, it’s just a tool; it just gives you a glimpse of the pm peak hour.
Paul Godfrey: When we talk transit today, we’re going to talk about bus and passenger rail. There has been mention made about freight rail; in our next step when we talk about transportation we will also be evaluating freight rail opportunities and freight rail benefits. We are not doing this under this transit scenario, but it will be looked at as part of the next step.
Lou Stack: When you mentioned freight rail, is that going to be part of the study?
Paul Godfrey: Yes, here we are creating a transit scenario, a bus and rail transit scenario, for passengers. When we look at the transportation piece of this, it will cover freight rail as well as more traditional transportation solutions.
Carol Morris: And that will be covered in the June 1st (note – meeting date to be changed) meeting.
Kevin Hooper presented #1 of the revised transit scenario.
Lou Stack: Is #1 going to connect with the Amtrak station?
Kevin Hooper: Yes, the Portland transportation center is the Amtrak station.
Lou Stack: So you can walk from Amtrak to the bus terminal.
Kevin Hooper: Yes, that’s taking a bit of a leap; but within this system we assume there is a very efficient circulation within downtown Portland, whether it’s five or ten minute headways.
Kevin Hooper presented #2 - #7 of the revised transit scenario.
Richard Rudolph: Are you implying that in #6 and #7 of the transit scenario there would be three transfers between Standish and downtown Portland?
Kevin Hooper: No, one of the things that’s going to come up is the use of the Mountain Division for express transit to downtown Portland. So a person in Standish would take one bus from Standish to Westbrook and transfer there.
John Duncan: I think the model is going to simulate the through-ness of those trips, but not in a very refined way.
Kevin Hooper: We assume that there are very good connections, with little or no transfer time. We assume that it is very well planned and very well operated, so if anything we get over-ridership. An issue will be, how should we do it? All the service coming in from the west, should it stop at a rail or a bus station and have everyone transfer there? It certainly is a cost issue.
Richard Rudolph: Another way out would be to extend the rail line out to Steep Falls, that would capture people coming down from Fryeburg, as well as people moving into the Standish Sebago Lake area.
Kevin Hooper: We have it running to South Windham, and we’ll get to this in a few minutes.
Richard Rudolph: South Windham is not Standish and it’s not Sebago Lake.
Kevin Hooper presented #8 - #13 of the revised transit scenario.
John Duncan: On #10 it says Pride’s Corner but it is not Pride’s Corner.
Kevin Hooper: On the map, the growth center is called Pride’s Corner. That whole section was one major growth center. So that’s why we ran the service up there.
Eric Dudley: You could do East Bridge St. to Pride’s Corner.
Burleigh Loveitt: I don’t live in nor do I represent Westbrook, but I think with water and sewer, and with the mill not smelling the whole place up anymore, it seems to me that the that the North Westbrook area, or you could call it the Duck Pond area, is a prime area from West Cumberland and Windham. I think that that would be a good area for development.
Kevin Hooper: In our Urban and Rural growth scenario, North Westbrook was an area where we expected a lot of growth. It doesn’t hurt to have #10 still there and if we don’t get any ridership than we still have that data.
Carol Morris: That’s part of what we’ll be looking at here, to see what kind of ridership we get and in the end, all routes may not be successful.
Kevin Hooper: At the end of all of this we may move some routes down to a lower priority. Does anyone have a problem with leaving #10 on?
That’s all the service we added on existing road ways, the last three are along existing rail corridors.
Kevin Hooper presented #14 of the revised transit plan.
Richard Rudolph: The Portland North group, one of their possible recommendations is to use the Pan Am right of way with a stop at the Portland Transportation Center and then it would swing over to Commercial St. There is an existing rail lane that goes there. If we are really serious about getting people to use alternative modes of transportation, we need to bring them into the peninsula. I believe we should extend service down to Center St.
Kevin Hooper: The #1 was a circulator within Portland that connects the Transportation Center with all of these places on the peninsula, maybe on an existing right of way.
Carol Morris: Isn’t Portland talking about this? I think everyone understands that if we have service into Portland that the existing Transportation Center will be just one part of what is needed. We decided not to address that very challenging problem here; the transit work group’s solution was to put in a circulator, knowing that that may not be the best solution.
Kevin Hooper: Even if we move the Transportation Center to Commercial and Center St., there also should still be a people mover.
Richard Rudolph: I’m not advocating one; I’m advocating both.
Observer: We need to coordinate this with Portland North because they are all one regional transportation-planning concept.
Kevin Hooper: But what do we assume from there?
Steve Linnell: I mentioned that in my comments that we need to incorporate something going north, at least to Yarmouth.
Kevin Hooper: I think we all recognize that it would have only a minor effect on the west corridor.
Observer: It’s one entire transportation region and it points out the need for PACTS and GPCOG to look at the entire region and not just break it out into a Portland North or Gorham West issue. Which I think GPCOG has some funding planning to carry out.
Kevin Hooper: Yes, they’re updating Destination Tomorrow.
Carl Eppich: We’re doing Destination Tomorrow, but he’s talking about the need to look at the region as a whole.
Carol Morris: Is the question do we need to include anything additional in the model run?
Observer: When you start talking about connections downtown the Portland North concepts being examined include connections downtown.
Paul Godfrey: I agree with Kevin that west, where the study is focusing, will experience little to moderate change; certainly the viability and level of ridership of that circulator through Portland is going to be enhanced if we make that assumption for northern connections, so I do think we need to look at it, incorporating the most logical piece of data that is out there.
Steve Linnell: The Jetport and Maine Mall are destinations of people coming from the north.
Kevin Hooper: Yes, so it could have an effect. I was thinking more out toward Gorham, but in this corridor there will be an effect.
Lou Stack: Assuming that we are talking about the year 2035, we need to run that out to Fryeburg.
Kevin Hooper: The next stop would be in Sebago?
Lou Stack: I’d like to have a Sebago Lake Village, Steep Falls, then Baldwin, if not Hiram or Brownfield and certainly in Fryeburg. We are going to find out on the 13th how much of the $4 million in the bond package is going towards the Mountain Division. We may have rail available to take care of passengers to North Windham by next year. To cut this off at South Windham is not realistic.
Richard Rudolph: The other piece is #7. I don’t know whether you are thinking that a bypass will have been built by 2035, but if you are assuming ten minute headways, that’s ludicrous for the afternoon and the morning. They spent $35 million for a bypass through Gorham, and they weren’t really taking a lot of houses; I think we’re talking $50 to $60 million or more for another bypass. I can’t imagine people agreeing to that. It seems to me a much better approach would be to get people on the Mountain Division.
Kevin Hooper: At this point there is no roadway approval for a north bypass, in this concept we are assuming existing roadways with some improvements.
Paul Godfrey: Well, we would have a localized bypass for the bus.
Kevin Hooper: For the overlap, yes, but he’s talking about going north.
Richard Rudolph: The headways on Route 25 from Gorham to Westbrook, you could be talking about an hour ride in 2035.
Steve Linnell: We haven’t talked a lot about this but these scenarios will assume bus rapid transit, so the bus will have right of way, maybe a dedicated lane. The assumption is that the bus will move faster than traffic.
Kevin Hooper: In congested points, yes.
Steve Linnell: Not signal pre-emption but signal priority, cue jumping.
Jim Libby: Good luck with that though, that’s a lot.
Kevin Hooper: There are two things up in the air from the workshop; first, how far do we go with Mountain Division. The second was a connection from Westbrook to Gorham, should there be a use of the old abandoned rail right of way.
Burleigh Loveitt: It’s my impression that we’re talking about areas to model, not proposed bus lines. One of the best things we’ve done is save our rail lines and the suggestion to use the Mountain Division for passenger and freight has a lot of future for the greater Portland Area. I suggest, if #14 will work, then #14b would work from South Windham to Sebago Lake Village or Station. I think we should model these separately.
Kevin Hooper: The work we are doing is not intended to justify the Mountain Division; we’re testing the Mountain Division to get a feel for this study as to the potential ridership and potential impact on Measures of Effectiveness.
Steve Linnell: It’s a network; it’s not any one particular alignment.
Kevin Hooper: Take the example of ZOOM; if we say for #4, we get 60 riders in the peak hour, I bet my house that Ed is not going to buy a bus; they will do their own analysis as to whether this is a feasible and marketable run. I don’t want everyone to get worried that if we only run a test from one area to another that anything is decided in terms of routes; this exercise is to gather data and information.
Carol Morris: And another point is that this is predicated on all that new housing that you’ve seen, and we haven’t done that beyond the study area. To run the rail line to Fryeburg may fail because the study doesn’t show people up there, so we really need to stay within the study area.
Kevin Hooper: If we assume we don’t get much ridership in Sebago, there are all sorts of factors: growth, headways. We are trying to gather information without getting hung up in details.
Observer: I think this is a positive thing that you’re building the Mountain Division as a potential rail transit corridor because there were times when a study like this would not consider that. That being said; there has to be from a land use perspective a careful consideration that we don’t replace bus-supported sprawl as opposed to automobile supported sprawl.
Jim Libby: I don’t understand what you mean by bus-supported sprawl.
Observer: If we look at areas that could be developed, and we accommodate that by running busses to those areas, than we are inducing sprawl with busses rather than inducing sprawl with automobiles.
Carol Morris: Well no, because you have densified nodes around the bus stops, so it’s different.
Observer: It depends on what the density around the nodes is.
Carl Eppich: During the land use exercise, we included analysis in Buxton, Hollis and Standish, and the first impression here was that we can’t see those towns on the map, but they were included and it would help to see those areas on the map. So the question is why is Gorham cut off?
Kevin Hooper: It was simply to make the detail bigger; it doesn’t represent the full scope of the study.
Jim Libby: The test that you’re running doesn’t properly take into account the traffic patterns on Route 22.
Kevin Hooper: What do you mean? I think it does.
Jim Libby: I don’t think it really does. The heavy usage of Route 22 coming in is a major artery; if you take into account widening the road for automobiles, that’s fine but it doesn’t provide bus service out that way. I’m not saying it should, I’m just saying it’s not included.
Paul Godfrey: So you’re saying that Route 22 should go farther out with bus service.
Kevin Hooper: Here on this map you see that one of the transit work groups had service heading out to Buxton. We could include this.
Jim Libby: I’m just saying that it doesn’t include service, not that it should.
Kevin Hooper: It does not, you’re right. It could if this group feels that it should.
Wayne Newbegin: What I’m hearing has to do with moving people; I’m concerned with the economic development side. If that line goes all the way up through it could open up the western part of the state. Also, if you add an extra lane to Route 22 and connect it to Route 25, that would help congestion a lot.
Lou Stack: Route 22 extends right out through to a dead end at Route 25 on Saco Rd. If you put four lanes out there, you wouldn’t have needed to spend $28 million on a bypass in Gorham.
Carol Morris: That is exactly the type of suggestions we will be looking for at the next meeting.
Bruce Hyman: I would suggest the Mountain Division going out farther, at least to Sebago Lake Village.
Kevin Hooper: We had 20-minute headways out to South Windham? I suspect we will get fair amount of ridership, especially if we run it at 20-minute headways. If we go any farther we are depending on just what’s out there and there is not nearly as much that far out as there is in South Windham. Bruce, what should I assume for headways?
Bruce Hyman: Maybe it’s every other train goes west, so double the headway.
Kevin Hooper: We are trying to be realistic; we could run busses every minute and get more ridership, but that’s obviously not going to happen. Who wants to run this out further?
Carol Morris: Let’s see a show of hands. (Most raise their hands.)
Kevin Hooper: And the same service, but less frequent? I still have a question about the connection from Westbrook out to Gorham; in my mind a Gorham trip to downtown Portland, if we service it this way, it’s just as fast as if we used the Mountain Division and a train or bus out to Gorham. I think we solved the Gorham to Standish and to the west, and onto downtown Portland and also have picked up the Mall area; that pattern will be just as fast not including this. The reason I took this section out is that it would primarily serve the Gorham / Standish to Westbrook, and I don’t know if that’s worth it.
Tex Haeuser: I think you should keep it, even if the ridership isn’t that much. I think we should connect those two.
Kevin Hooper: I have it as local service, and other than downtown Westbrook and Gorham Village, you’re going to zip along Route 25 anyway. How about a show of hands if we should include express transit from downtown Westbrook to Gorham Village in a straight line?
Carol Morris: The vote is yes.
Richard Rudolph: I know you’re not taking into account economic considerations, earlier Steve Linnell mentioned bus ways, and bus ways can be very expensive. One example is in Connecticut from West Hartford to New Britain, 8.9 miles, they’re projecting $579 million dollars to run rapid bus service, and you could build a huge rail network in this state for that money.
Carol Morris: You’re right, Richard, but that’s not part of the equation.
Richard Rudolph: I understand that and that’s always mentioned but we need to keep in mind that taxpayers won’t want to pay for buses.
Kevin Hooper: I understand that, but the bus could run along the rail corridor.
Observer: Well, if we’re going to run a bus, why don’t we run a train along the rail corridor?
Kevin Hooper: The model doesn’t know the difference between train and bus; this is just a test to understand the potential ridership.
Ed Clifford: Will the study address operation and funding?
Tex Hauser: We’re not getting into that.
Ed Clifford: So this just shows ridership?
Paul Godfrey: We’ve stated and we will restate, this is for us to understand, with looking at land use and growth centers, where there are new potentials. Some of these are going to jump off the map as a really great opportunity. We’re also going to see some that don’t make sense and will identified as a lower priority.
Kevin Hooper: And those are ideas that could be pursued at a later date.
Paul Godfrey: We are identifying the potential and identifying what are the remaining problems. When we conclude this piece, we will move on to transportation solutions and when we finish those, we will have a full package of land use recommendations and transportation recommendations.
Kevin Hooper: Does anyone not want me to run express service from Gorham to Westbrook?
Observer: Does that mean #7 would be amended?
Kevin Hooper: No because that is a place where there is supposed to be a good amount of growth.
Paul Godfrey: If this is a 20 minute headway, and this is a 10 minute headway on Route 25, what’s the better route from a time perspective?
Kevin Hooper: It depends; I’ll put it in as a ten minute headway.
Bruce Hyman: In addition to the ridership numbers, I’d like to see full trip potential numbers to see how many people are making movements within these corridors. I’d like to see future numbers.
Paul Godfrey: Ok, we can look at that.
Burleigh Loveitt: If we are going to talk about areas to look into further, Jim Libby had a good point about the Route 22 corridor out to the north Scarborough corners. We have to look at the congestion in this area. We should model something to help this area.
Kevin Hooper: We should run transit service regularly out on Route 22, we can tie it to this, and than run it all the way to Hollis with 20 minute headways.
Jim Libby: If you look at the municipal area, where Buxton municipal Center is, that’s where the problem starts.
Kevin Hooper: At the end of all of these, you would have park and ride lots, and that peels off some people. Again, the first concern that was raised, should we have a Buxton to Saco?
Eric Dudley: Buxton to Saco, that’s Route 112.
Kevin Hooper: I know but does it have an effect here?
Steve Linnell: I don’t think so.
Paul Godfrey: I think we have a reasonably good consensus here, Kevin Hooper will endeavor to put this down and send it out to folks, and we will very quickly be running this. On June 1st we will share with you what we understand. That’s our plan over the next thirty days or so.
Kevin Hooper: Are we sending this out to people once its revised?
Paul Godfrey: We would have you revise this sheet and this map and send it to people with the understanding that it will be being run when they get it.
Tex Haeuser: What did we decide on whether or not to include commuter rail to Yarmouth?
Paul Godfrey: We are going to include some level of assumption for Portland North, and we will get the right people working on that project to give us the most rational assumption.
Steve Linnell: I just want to see if the recommendations that the four of us made will be included, like a Westbrook circulator?
Kevin Hooper: Yes, we might as well run a circulator.
Paul Godfrey: We probably don’t want to overlay it over what we have; if it were new it would be fine to look at.
Kevin Hooper: The one thing I don’t have, and don’t want to include is Falmouth, unless the group thinks I should.
Steve Linnell: That was the other thing, the ring around Portland.
Kevin Hooper: I’d rather not try it if it doesn’t get ridership.
Lou Stack: What about connecting the western part of Cumberland county to Route 1 and the Turnpike,
Kevin Hooper: Steve’s point is that it’s a system that works together.
Paul Godfrey: Next meeting is June 1; we will share the results of this and talk about transportation solutions. Thanks for coming.
Meeting: Steering Committee Meetiing
Meeting Date: 04/22/10 - 1-3 pm
Location: MTA Headquarters
Transit Workshop Report, AC and Public Meeting Report, Transportaion Workshop Update
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Gorham East West Corridor Feasibility Study
Steering Committee Meeting
April 22, 2010
Maine Turnpike Authority, Portland, Maine
Attendees: Gerry Audibert, Maine DOT; Tex Haeuser, South Portland Planner Sara Devlin, Maine Turnpike Authority; Burleigh Loveitt, Gorham Town Council; Eric Dudley, Westbrook Public Works; John Duncan, PACTS ED; Dan Bacon, Scarborough Planner; Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Ray Faucher, HNTB.
The meeting began at 1:05 pm.
Transit Workshop
Carol Morris presented an overview of the transit workshop, explaining the process and the two proposals generated by the two workgroups.
John Duncan: I was amazed at the breadth of the proposals. To have that many people get together and come up with such a clear plan is impressive.
Dan Bacon: My group, group 1, didn’t think about either rail or bus, we thought about it as a phased approach where if bus rapid transit was successful than it could open a window for rail. That’s how we looked at, we didn’t get caught up on mode and we focused more on route.
Carol Morris: It would be great if this turned into a pilot in the near future. Gerry or Sara, do you have anything you would like to add?
Gerry Audibert: I think this is a great approach. I think it is wise to not to predetermine rail versus bus right now. It’s clear they tried to pick up the major growth areas. At some point you’re getting diminishing returns, where it may be a good idea but perhaps not economically feasible.
Carol Morris: That is one of the things that we can look at, we can determine what the ridership will be, and if the ridership isn’t sufficient, it may not be a high priority. Eric, what do you think? I worked on the Rail Plan last year, and at the last meeting we had in December we had a contingent of Westbrook citizens who lived close to the tracks who were concerned. Do you think Westbrook citizens would see a benefit overall versus the hardship for the folks who live adjacent to the tracks?
Eric Dudley: I think there could be positive spin for the Mountain Division into Cumberland Mills. Once you get north and west of Cumberland Mills, you’re going to see both Windham and Westbrook residents not seeing the benefit. We have some very dense residential neighborhoods that are within fifteen to twenty feet of the tracks. I see that section as problematic, but I see the other sections as pretty workable.
Carol Morris: Gerry do you know specifically what the $4 million in the bond, if it’s passed, will be for?
Gerry Audibert: I do not; I’m assuming it’s for rail improvements and will find out specifically what it’s for.
Tex Haeuser: I just want to mention, in terms of funding, for something like a section of commuter rail, I’m imagining that if it makes sense and is exciting enough to people, we could have regional agreements for impact fees on new housing and development that would help to pay for some of the initial local leverage required for a federal capital. For ongoing operations and subsidies, we want to use the transit TIFF mechanism, where different communities in the region would establish the TIFF districts and help subsidize some of the operations.
Carol Morris: Is that something we want to see as a study recommendation?
Gerry Audibert: I think that’s beyond the scope, but I also wouldn’t shut the door on innovative ideas.
Sara Devlin: I don’t know how detailed the recommendations are going to get at this point; there will be land use recommendations though.
Gerry Audibert: A lot of this stuff is great, but the harsh reality of funding has to be addressed at some point.
Carol Morris: We asked them to develop the transit plan without regard to funding - don’t look at existing capitalization, and you know its not going to happen tomorrow anyway. It’s a plan and something we would try and put together over time.
Gerry Audibert: I think it would also serve as an education tool, that a lot of people don’t realize we can’t use gas tax money for rail and transit and other non-highway uses, so I think it would be good to point out some of the obstacles and opportunities of moving forward.
Carol Morris: I know when I worked on the Rail Plan, one of the big things that the advisory committee, which was made up of shippers and freight people, said was that we need education on rail funding and how it works, and how people can help to support it.
Gerry Audibert: And it’s both on the state and federal level, by law; that doesn’t mean things can’t change either.
Burleigh Loveitt: We have got to be very careful about prescribing impact fees and TIFFs on communities. I think this is an area-wide operation, and it’s not necessarily just Gorham, Standish, Buxton or Windham; it’s all Cumberland County and some of York County. If there is a reason to have county government at all, this may be one. I think that Cumberland County’s taxation ability is just as great as any individual town. I know that most towns are having issues with budgets, it’s hard right now because everything is being passed down to the local level. If we are talking about funding mechanisms, this needs to be handled by regional government, not local government.
Gerry Audibert; I think that’s an excellent point, we need to identify methods to continue this process and package that as a recommendation for this project.
Carol Morris: Any other thoughts on this topic?
Dan Bacon: What’s the next step; Kevin’s going to run the models?
Carol Morris: No, first we have to put them together into something that’s not redundant. My question is: do we need to put a meeting together for those who were at the transit workshop to approve this melded version? We don’t want to run the model until we have some general agreement that what we have is a good representation of the two proposals together.
Dan Bacon: I think we can send something out that combines the two models and explains the methodology; if there’s a lot of angst we can have a meeting.
Tex Hauser: I think our group wants to see the Mountain Division run in the model as rail.
Gerry Audibert: With the bond, if we are going to do all of the infrastructure improvements, it may not be that much of a stretch to add a passenger component.
Carol Morris: I’ll make sure Paul and Kevin know that that portion of the model needs to be run as rail.
Gerry Audibert: I’ll see what we’re doing with the Mountain Division both with the bond and a little bit further down the road. Carol, you’ve been involved in the rail plan, is that pretty near final?
Carol Morris: It got delayed because of all the work being done on the Maine and Montreal abandonment. I’m hoping within the next few weeks a draft will go out to the technical advisory committee.
Gerry Audibert: Do you think anything will have an effect on what we’re doing?
Carol Morris: What we did was identify the key corridors and then come up with a set of criteria that could help the state to make funding decisions. Because you need to have specific projects in a rail plan to get federal funding, we also have a project list and the Mountain Division is on that list.
Gerry Audibert: Is that the only one in this area?
Carol Morris: Inter-city rail to Lewiston-Auburn, and Amtrak to Brunswick, and ongoing funding for existing Amtrak, those are seen as the priorities, so it’s all pretty consistent.
Energy Prices
I’m hoping to get some guidance from you folks on this. We have said from the start that although Urban and Rural is an energy-friendly development pattern, we’re not going to factor into the travel demand model a change in fuel prices. The reason being, we can assume energy prices are going to go up, but we don’t know how it’s going to affect travel behavior. There’s so much technology coming down the road from electric cars to low mileage cars, Charlie Colgan felt that it didn’t make sense to factor it in. It is his belief that if things ratcheted up to the point where gas was $10.00 a gallon, then a lot of the growth projections that he did in this study would be for naught because it would have a major negative effect on the economy. So based on that, and based on the fact that we are trying to propose a fairly conservative, yet progressive plan here, the study team decided to not factor in a specific number because picking an accurate number would be impossible. That has caused concern in a number of meetings we’ve been at. From my perspective as public outreach lead, this raises a red flag because it’s an issue of public credibility. I’ve given you Charlie’s letter, and I need to hear from you folks, is this the position you are comfortable with?
Gerry Audibert: What the study is doing by moving growth centers from the rural areas back into the urban areas, I think we are addressing the fact that fuel prices will likely continue to rise. My only question would be, is there some way to do a sensitivity analysis, say throw in a number, and factor that into the model and see what that does to projections.
Carol Morris: Yes, but we want to make this plan effective even if gas prices only rise incrementally.
Gerry Audibert: What we’re doing is putting more people in urban areas. If outside circumstances make this happen sooner or to a greater degree, I don’t think that invalidates the study at all. That reinforces what we’ve done.
Carol Morris: Ok, let’s go around the room.
Tex Hauser: Americans like their cars, they want to keep their cars; they’ll go to electric, hydrogen, hybrid, etc in order to keep their cars. If this happens so quickly that they can’t make that transition, than all bets are off anyway, so I agree with what we have now.
Sara Devlin: We’ve had a lot of discussion about this, I want to make the point that our study manager knows a lot about the industry and there are no other planning studies that are taking this into account, not in Maine, NH, Massachusetts. As an industry standard, no other studies are taking this into account.
Burleigh Loveitt: All the more reason to do something different. I think that any amount that one picks as far as fuel prices go is speculative and it throws a speculative twist in what is not supposed to be speculative document and that could poison the well. I think the traffic patterns are pretty well fixed; we know where the development is going to occur and we know where the major roads are. We need to expect that oil prices are going to increase, maybe dramatically. We could look at fuel prices as increasing at a percentage, rather than taking a per gallon price.
Gerry Audibert: That’s why I brought up the sensitivity analysis. Another thing too is a recent law increasing mileage requirements by 10 mpg over the next 15 years. The other issue is that Maine is primarily oil heat; other factors besides transportation will affect people’s behavior.
Carol Morris: The Governor’s office just came out with a projection in terms of how Mainers will spend their money in the next ten years, and the energy went up significantly. They did not separate it out between oil, electricity and natural gas, but it occurred to me that we will have more options in terms of transportation than in heating.
Eric Dudley: It’s difficult to model something that you don’t have the evidence to provide the basis for the model. It’s hard to judge exactly what people are going to do when fuel prices inevitably go up, and my feeling is that it’s inappropriate to model speculation.
John Duncan: I liked Gerry’s idea, doing a sensitivity test. We all know the price of gas will go up and we don’t know by how much, but I think a sensitivity analysis would be a good idea. We’re doing a lot of speculation and that’s the nature of the business.
Dan Bacon: I think it would be worth doing a sensitivity analysis; I’d like to know Burleigh’s thoughts on percentages rather than plucking a number out of the sky and acknowledging the uncertainty of fuel prices in the report. Urban to Rural is more likely to occur if there are steadily increased fuel costs.
Gerry Audibert: And I think all of the statements made today should be included in the report.
Carol Morris: If we predicate the report on X change in gas prices and they don’t happen, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, and that is a major concern on the study team’s part.
Gerry Audibert: That’s why I had some concern with Charlie’s sentence; saying if prices go up everything goes out the window.
John Duncan: Yeah I’ve looked at that a couple times, and I think well gee, if we use his stuff and spend 50 million dollars and find out his forecasts are wrong, what do we do?
Tex Hauser: No, it’s a reasonable statement, he’s basically saying you have to assume fairly consistent economic conditions, and if extremes happen, everything goes out the window.
John Duncan: I think our sensitivity analysis would not be an extreme.
Meeting Updates
Carol Morris: The next item is upcoming meetings. We will get back to you about the transit workshop, if all goes well we won’t have to get together but I will let you know. The MTA, Paul and I will be meeting with the town of Standish on April 29th, next Thursday.
Sara Devlin: We received a call from the Standish town manager who had some concerns about the study; he felt as though the study was more of an advocacy study and he had some serious concerns that the rural communities were not involved and that the steering committee was comprised of only urban communities. We are meeting with him.
Burleigh Loveitt: Is this an open meeting?
Carol Morris: I think it would be good to have Gorham there, but it’s up to Sara.
Sara Devlin: My only concern is that they called the meeting and I wouldn’t want to spring it on them.
Burleigh Loveitt: I’ll talk to Bud.
Carol Morris: Anything you can do to help us understand where this is coming from would be great.
Gerry Audibert: I had heard this from other people - are other rural communities feeling the same? Should we have a meeting with the rural communities?
Burleigh Loveitt: We’ve had meetings in Gorham purposely, and Standish has not found it in their interest to come, I do not believe this is a widespread problem. I’ll see what I can find.
Carol Morris: As far as the other rural communities, I haven’t heard anything negative. Hollis has been a regular attendee at the advisory committee meeting.
Burleigh Loveitt: do you want me to call Bob Libby, selectman of Buxton?
Carol Morris: Yes that would be helpful. A good time to check in.
Gerry Audibert: Would the PACTS policy committee meeting be an appropriate venue to do more outreach to these communities?
Dan Bacon: Standish is not a participant in PACTS, nor is Buxton.
Tex Haueser: We have had our meetings with the different communities all together and they have been successful, for example with Portland being willing to take much of the region’s housing.
Carol Morris: I don’t think anyone here disagrees.
Tex Hauser It’s the separate meeting. It sounds like they need it, I’m just concerned.
Sara Devlin: It’s just a courtesy to reaffirm that they are part of the planning process.
Gerry Audibert: It may be just miscommunication between one person that has been active to one who has not been involved.
Tex Hauser: If they ever wanted to have a meeting with the steering committee we could have one out in Standish.
Dan Bacon: How much of the planning has Bud been involved in?
Sara Devlin: He’s been to all of the advisory meetings.
Carol Morris: The other thing that concerns me about this is that I was hearing was that we were going through the motions and that all the decisions had been made. That is not true and we can’t let that go.
Gerry Audibert: My understanding is that their concern is that the growth centers have already been established and that this would be pulling future develop away from them.
Tex Hauser: That’s an important thing that we should check out with them. If Standish is not going to go along with the Urban to Rural plan, then we may have a serious issue.
Carol Morris: I believe Wayne was positive about Standish being happy not to have all the residential growth.
Burleigh Loveitt: Portland can have all the growth that Gorham has allocated, we don’t need residential growth - we might exchange a little industrial growth for that though.
Carol Morris: Next item is the PACTS policy committee, essentially that will be to give folks an overview of the study, John do you want to elaborate?
John Duncan: About twenty people are coming, Carol and I were chatting about how to draw folks into that room out on the land use issues and what can PACTS do and what can DOT and the Turnpike do on leveraging land use actions by communities for transportation funding. I’m hoping it will stimulate a lot of discussion
Carol Morris: One of the questions is that if this goes ahead, will it be something PACTS will be interested in taking a monitoring role?
Carol Morris: We have an advisory committee meeting on May 6th, and we won’t have the results of the model run by then, but can talk about the transit model.
Tex Hauser: When will we be done with the model runs?
Carol Morris: We will be done by the third week in May; we want to wait until we get that before we delve deeply into transportation solutions. We would have another advisory committee meeting on June 1, and a steering committee at the end of May, where we would start work on those solutions.
Gerry Audibert: You may want to talk with Sara and my senior managers prior to that as to what those recommendations are.
Carol Morris: Yes, of course. Finally, at the last public meeting, we had a lot of comments from a local developer, and it did make us realize that we need to make sure developers support what we are doing, so we are thinking about putting together a meeting.
Burleigh Loveitt: So who else is going to come?
Carol Morris: Well that’s what I’m asking you folks. This would not be a big public meeting - whom do you guys see as the developers to be part of this?
Burleigh Loveitt: Joel Malone, he is responsible civic-minded individual.
Carol Morris: We want it to be developers who are active in the four core communities because they are the ones who most could be affected.
Burleigh Loveitt: There are groups, the Maine Constructers Association.
Carol Morris: MCA?
Gerry Audibert: We should ask for people to submit names. One of the things we need to discuss is developer permitting, is there a way to package permits to cut the red tape?
Dan Bacon: At the association of planners meeting in June, we will talk about DEP regulations and how they may conflict with planning trends.
Tex Hauser: I’m still not sure it wouldn’t be better to get on a MEREDA agenda, as opposed to pulling in individual people. I see periodic large meetings from them but I don’t know if they have a Portland chapter. I see how we need to get some information, but more generally we need to get these people as allies. I think our plan is a growth program; it’s just to say we want to direct it a little bit.
Carol Morris: I think I want to meet with some people ahead of time and then go back in front of MEREDA and say here’s what we may be thinking.
Gerry Audibert: Are you thinking one on one?
Carol Morris: Maybe a handful at once, an informal setting.
Gerry Audibert: I think this would be a good precursor for future discussions after the study recommendations are out. Part of the public outreach would be to speak with MEREDA and others on a regular basis.
.
Carol Morris: I’m thinking the first part would be a fact-finding mission.
Dan Bacon: You may also want to pinpoint redevelopers and not just new developers.
Eric Dudley: You’re looking at your JB Browns, your Dunhams. They work on existing structures.
Carol Morris: Any other thoughts? Thanks, this was a good meeting.
The meeting ended at 2:55 pm.
Meeting: Transit Workshop
Meeting Date: 04/15/10 - 3-6 pm
Location: HNTB Corporation
Alternative Transit Scenario
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Gorham East-West Corridor Feasibility Study
Transit Workshop
April 15, 2010 3 – 6 PM
HNTB, Westbrook, Maine
Participants: Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Kevin Hooper, Hooper Associates; Dan Bacon, Study Steering Committee (Scarborough); Tex Haeuser, Study Steering Committee (South Portland), Bruce Hyman, Study Advisory Committee (GrowSmart Maine, Bicycle Coalition, Portland Trails); Myranda McGowen, Study Advisory Committee (Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission); Steve Linnell, Greater Portland Council of Governments-GPCOG; Ed Clifford, Shuttlebus-ZOOM; Tom Meyers, South Portland Metro; John Duncan, Study Advisory Committee Chair (Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System PACTS); Carl Eppich, Study Advisory Committee (PACTS); Barbara Donovan, MaineDOT; Alton Benson, Standish; Alex Jaegerman, Study Advisory Committee (Portland); Dennis Coffey, HNTB; Rebecca Shaffner-Touisignant, Study Advisory Committee (GPCOG); Craig Hutchinson, University of Southern Maine; Paul Weiss, Study Advisory Committee (Sierra Club); Liz Hertz, Study Advisory Committee (State Planning Office); Sara Devlin, Maine Turnpike Authority; Caroline Parras, GPCOG; Carol Morris, Morris Communications.
Observers: Hilary Frenkel, League of Young Voters; Gary Higginbottom, resident,
Paul: Thank you everyone for coming here on this beautiful day, I’m Paul Godfrey and we’ll introduce everyone here shortly. Today we are looking to get feedback from everyone regarding options pertaining to alternative modes of transportation in the Gorham East-West study area.
Today is all about transit and brainstorming ideas that we have for a future that is moving forward in terms of transit access. Any questions from anyone? No, okay, then I’d like to introduce Kevin Hooper, who is developing the study travel demand model.
Kevin Hooper: We’ve got a few slides to show you in order to underscore what we hope to accomplish today, than we will break into two groups and come up with some ideas for alternative modes of transit within the study area.
As Paul mentioned, I’m a travel demand forecaster, I try and predict current and future travel patterns.
The overall goal of the study to evaluate all the options and find the right package of alternatives to protect homeowners’ quality of life over the long term, without adding excess transportation capacity. This is the intent of the State Transportation Policy Act.
Paul Weiss: It seems like this goal has changed since the last meeting.
Paul: This has been the goal from day one, it’s consistent with what we are trying to accomplish.
Carol Morris: If you are thinking that this is from the Purpose and Need Statement, it’s not, this slide is from the home page of the website, developed a year ago.
Comment: Why are we referring just to homeowners? Don’t we want to improve everyone’s quality of life?
Carol: That is a good point, I think the reason we used homeowners vs. residents was to make sure it was clear to the public that the study outcomes would protect property values, and this is something renters are usually not as concerned about.
Kevin: In this slide you’ll see some transit ideas: For example: Provide regular and frequent bus transit service between downtown Westbrook and the Maine Mall area (and beyond to Oak Hill); may need circulator bus to serve Maine Mall, Fairchild, Target, Payne Road; Commuter Rail Service on Mountain Division Branch from Portland to Westbrook; enhance Park and Ride Westbrook. These are the sorts of suggestions that we will include in the study in terms of the level of detail. For us to do our analysis, though, we are going to go into more detail tonight, i.e. making assumptions about headway, bus stops, etc. I need these kinds of details to successfully forecast travel in the model. Ultimately the recommendation will likely be based on a combination of using alternative modes of transportation, targeted, denser growth areas and other potential road-based transportation solutions yet to be developed.
So more specifically, the object of tonight is to develop a non-auto oriented package of improvements by mode and destinations served. I developed a sample with Steve Linnell and I’ll share that with you. We still have roadway congestion issues with the model Steve and I developed though, and that’ why we’re having this workshop.
The recommendations made should represent viable improvements, but don’t limit concepts to existing capitalization funding and conversely, don’t expect some unknown windfall will come in and save the day.
Also it is important that everyone speaks and is granted an equal voice when making suggestions.
So let’s introduce ourselves:
Rebecca Shaffner: regional planner, advisory committee, I represent most of the towns in the study.
Steve Linnell: transportation planner with GPCOG.
Alex Jaegerman: Regional planner for Portland area.
Ed Clifford: Director of shuttle bus service, chairman of PACTS transit committee.
Carl Eppich: Transportation planner for PACTS.
Dan Bacon: Town planner, Scarborough.
Alton Benson, Town administrator for Standish.
Caroline Parras: Greater Portland Council of Governments member.
Myranda McGowan: Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission.
Tom Meyers: Director of South Portland bus service.
Hilary Frenkel League of Young Voters
Liz Hertz: State Planning Office
Craig Hutchinson, USM shuttle bus representative
Barbara Donovan: Maine Department of Transportation.
Paul Weiss: Maine Sierra Club.
Gary Higginbottom: Rail transportation advocate.
Bruce Hyman: Planning consultant, GrowSmart Maine
Sara Devlin: Maine Turnpike Authority
Tex Haeuser; South Portland city planner
Paul Godfrey: HNTB
Dennis Coffey: HNTB transportation and Maine State Rail Plan
Carol Morris: Study Public Outreach consultant
Kevin: Thank you all for joining us. So, in this slide we see a map of the entire region of the study. As you can see we have a projection of a 16% increase in new jobs in the study region by the year 2035. In this next slide we have a projection of a 31% increase in dwelling units by the year 2035.
In the following slides we see the land use projections of specific areas that are predicted as growth areas. See Slides 12-16 in PowerPoint.
For what we are trying to accomplish tonight, we’re not going to focus on the numbers but we will think just about the growth centers; those are the yellow, orange and red blobs. In this final slide we have all of the growth areas within the study and they are represented as shaded in orange. This is where we are looking for suggestions for improvements in alternative modes of transit, as there is more traffic congestion in these areas.
Question: For the purpose of transit, what about the existing areas of density? It would be nice to have the existing high-density areas.
Kevin: These “blobs” are representative of some of the existing growth centers within the proposed growth areas. This map highlights just new growth centers but existing growth centers are represented within them.
Question: Does this study intend to direct growth or just let the chips fall where they may?
Kevin: Yes, in the Urban and Rural Model, we would be directing growth. The numbers you see here represent a change in density levels to the point where the planners and municipal officials believe the public might accept them. so there is insight involved in where growth centers ought to be.
This slide shows our existing transit within the study area
Question: Does this include Amtrak?
Kevin: We have it on other maps and have taken Amtrak into account in terms of ridership but this map is only representative of existing bus transit in our study area.
Comment: One reason we don’t include train trips is because there are no trips during the PM peak travel time.
Kevin: I have one train represented in the test; it’s in there with the existing fare and frequency. We used trips leaving the region as well, i.e., The Downeaster. We don’t have the new Brunswick service though, and we should have. (Note: The test was completed prior to the Brunswick TIGER grant announcement.)
With this new land use plan we wanted to come up with a transit system to test within the future framework to see what the impacts would be. It didn’t solve everything. Here’s a description of what we assumed:
The base transit system in 2035 would include increased transit service on existing roads as well as new service. For all existing service we want to cut headways in half but to no less than 20 minutes. And we want to retain all existing headways already less than 20 minutes and achieve a ten-minute headway for service across the Casco Bay Bridge.
Comment: As a general rule of thumb, if you double service, ridership increases 50%, and if you lower frequency to ten minutes, people throw schedules away.
Kevin: So for future transit and growth areas we’ve added a lot of lines, as you can see. These are all bus routes. The zig zag routes in South Portland had low ridership. This is the level of detail that I had to assume and this is what I want from you folks today.
Question: How did you predict where people wanted to travel?
Kevin: We used trip projections based on ridership models.
For fares we thought about the possibility of zones. Metro and South Portland fare is the same, and there is a higher fare going out to Gorham. One of the questions we should think about is whether the entire region should have a single fare. Should we have zones for fares?
We also didn’t do anything out towards Buxton and Hollis, and the question is, should we? These are the types of things that I’m going to ask you to improve upon.
These are the new transit services that we came up with:
• Oak Hill-to-Payne Rd-to-Maine Mall (including
Spring St)-to- Westbrook
– 20 minute headway
• Saco-to-Scarborough-to-Portland
– 20 minute headway with stops at Dunstan
Corner, Oak Hill, Maine Med, Governor’s
- ZOOM stop at Exit 42 park-ride lot
• Standish-to-Gorham
– 30 minute headway
• Gorham-to-Westbrook
– 20 minute headway
• USM-to-USM Express
– 30 minute headway
– Start at park-ride at intersection of 25 and
Bypass
– Stops at USM, Gorham Village, USM, Pulse
• Gorham-to-Little Falls-to 202/302 Rotary to-
North Windham
– 30 minute headway
• Raymond-to-North Windham-to-Portland
– 30 minute headway
In this chart we have some assumed future transit headways. See Slide 25.
Question: Did you do this exercise before the public meeting where you talked about the Measures of Effectiveness?
Paul: Yes, this draft transit model developed by Steve and Keving was included in the results we showed you at the public meeting. It showed an improvement over the current trend and also over the Urban and Rural land use pattern without any increased transit.
Question: I have significant concerns about how you have not included rail service out to the Buxton area, you only have bus models. High-speed rail is the ultimate goal for long term urban planning. Buses will make only slight improvement over the current model. I encourage you to find what resources exist for rail and encourage you to think outside the box in order to see how rail can work. The method you are using is not touching rail transit and will not be effective.
Carol: If you can stay for the workshop, you will see that rail is part of the discussion. We would really appreciate your input.
Kevin: This model did increase the population of people within a ¼ mile of a bus stop 42%, to 102,000 people by 2035.
Transit trips: This is the transit ridership we got with this draft model and this did not include students. The point of this is to show we did have increased ridership. Again this is only within a 60-minute period (pm peak hour).
Question: Why are you not including student trips?
Kevin: Student trips are a unique circumstance, this doesn’t include campus-to-campus ridership, and this information is based on trips for services, shopping and jobs. Right now the students are outside the model because they are separately taken care of. If service is available, students would use more public transportation and they would be part of the model.
Comment: I would suggest we include the opportunity for this not to be separate.
Question: If we have light rail, does ridership increase?
Kevin: Yes it does, because of the perception that it’s faster.
Question: What would it take to get these ridership numbers up?
Tex Hauser: How do we get to 7%?
Paul: That’s what we want to find out.
Question: Is it fare, headway?
Kevin: We need to figure that out.
Kevin: As you can see here, we still have congestion problems under this model in the following areas:
• Route 22/114 Overlap
• Downtown Westbrook
• Payne Road
• Route 1 – Oak Hill
• Maine Turnpike and I-295
Kevin: This is how I think you ought to approach the break-out groups: You should take a look at the blobs and draw lines on the maps or make a list of connections, use existing maps, or start from scratch; but I’d like to see where you think the connections we need should go. Think about existing service and changes that need to be made first, then add new services. You can focus on Saco and Scarborough, or Gorham, and finally, ask yourselves did you address congestion areas?
Comment: I want to warn everyone: I don’t think simply solving congestion should be the solution to our transit problems. Congestion is a tool to get people on public transit.
Paul: Yes that’s right, and we need to keep that in mind. If there are areas that should continue to be congested to drive people to public transportation we should definitely be mindful of that.
Kevin: Our focus has been on buses, it can be bus ways, carpool lanes, bypasses, new throughways for buses, it could be rail, either existing or new. It could also be light rail service between Saco and Portland. I want to see what you think might work.
The meeting then broke into two separate groups. The results of each group’s work is shown below. These two sets of proposals will be merged into one that combines the most feasible of both. Workshop participants will have the opportunity to review and comment on the revised plan prior to it being analyzed via the travel demand model.
Meeting: Public Informational Meeting
Meeting Date: 03/25/10 - 6-8 pm
Location: Maine Turnpike Authority Headquarters, Skyway Drive, Portland (next to Turnpike Jetport exit/entrance)
Slides referenced can be viewed in the PowerPoint for this meeting.
Meeting began at 6:06pm
****
Sarah Devlin:
Thank you everyone for coming tonight to our second public meeting.I want to introduce a few other people here tonight.Sarah introduces other presenters. To provide a little background and history, this study asked us to look at ways to mitigate congestion and traffic issues in the corridor.We have four core towns in the study: South Portland, Gorham, Westbrook, and Scarborough.These towns are leading the effort.John Duncan from PACTS has put a lot of effort in as well, as has the Advisory Committee. A full list of committee members is out on the table.Tonight, we’re going to focus on the land use aspect of the study.This is a land use and transportation study but we’ll be looking closely at land use tonight.
Carol Morris:
Thanks, Sara.
The problems that brought the four communities together were traffic congestion, safety issues, and the loss of rural character in the area.The Advisory Committee felt especially strongly that rural character was at risk. I wanted to ask the folks in this room to raise your hand if you feel rural character is at risk here.
Most of the audience members raise their hands.
The study also looks at why these problems are happening, as it is difficult to find the right solution if you don’t know what is causing the problem.The study will also look at recommendation as to where transportation dollars should go in the long term.Should we develop different strategies?
Study area map: These show the four core communities in brown, but the study area encompasses a wider area. Because there’s movement back and forth between Portland and the outlying towns, we will be including them in the study area as well.
Time and change: To understand where you’re going, you need to look back and see where you’ve been.We need to look at past trends in this study to make sense of the future. Why has the region grown the way it has?What will happen if we do nothing? Do we need to change the trend and if so, who is responsible for that?
(Maps showing the History of Growth in Gorham and Scarborough are shown, from 1925-2010 and projected out to 2035.)
Gorham 1925 - 2035: These maps show growth.Red dots indicate a house or a business. You can see growth disseminating out from core village areas. Notice the number of new homes projected for Gorham in 2035.It’s a scary prospect as there are many. Where might those homes and businesses best go?
Scarborough 1925 - 2035: In 1925, most development was out by the water.By 1975, you see a definite spreading out beginning in the western part of the town.There was a big jump in 2000.By 2035, we have over 6,500 new dwelling units to fit in.It’s daunting.
Why has this happened?
• Residential development along existing roads
• More affordable land to the west
• Relatively cheap fuel
• Historically, Mainers generally favor rural, not urban environments
• Land use regulations allow development to occur in most places
It’s cheaper to build along an existing road.And people are willing to travel to afford a bigger house and lower property taxes.Cheap fuel has enabled this.And in general, people don’t move to Maine to live in the big city.
The region today: Carol walks through photographs showing what we see today in the region from a traffic and development perspective.
We see congestion, strip development, high crash locations, and people getting on the bus.Guess what percentage of the population uses the bus?About 2%.We also see the Mountain Division line, an existing rail track with nothing running on it.We also see a huge field.Now it’s a housing development with just a few large homes.
The region in 2035:
70% of growth in Maine forecasted to be in Cumberland and York Counties
Over 110,000 new people and 52,000 new jobs in Cumberland and York counties*
Forecast generated by Dr. Charles Colgan, USM Muskie School
Remember all those red dots?Charlie Colgan is a very well known and respected economist in Maine.This is his projection.Why?Because this part of Cumberland and York counties is where the jobs will be, with rural migration from other parts of Maine into the Portland area.
In the study area in 2035:
• 35,000 new houses - 9,200 additional acres of consumed land - 15 square miles
• 25,000 new jobs - mostly in retail and service
• 50,000 new people
• Jobs and homes continue to grow farther apart
• People spend 50% more time in their cars compared to today
• Three times as many congested intersections
• More traffic on residential roads
• Four times the number of roadways with stop-and-go traffic
• Numerous crash “hotspots” and other safety issues that will likely increase as traffic volumes grow
What are our choices?Some people may think it’s ok to get noise and safety issues.In Maine we’ve been fortunate, there is not much congestion.How many think it’s ok to continue to grow and just accept an increase in noise and congestion?
No one raises their hands or says anything.
What can we do? There are a limited number of things you can actually do:
1. Let it happen – it’s inevitable
2. Keep things the same
3. Upgrade existing roads
4. Build more roads
5. Develop/Use more public transportation
6. Improve transportation system efficiency and increase travel choice
7. Land Use change: encourage locations where housing and jobs can be closer together
8. Land Use change: encourage development that preserves open space
9. Other?
Have we missed anything?
Comment: More opportunity for bike commuting.
Comment: Another thing is telecommuting.
Comment: Encouraging open spaces pushes sprawl out.I build a housing development of 90 acres plus, using a quarter acre per house, with the rest in common land.Most of that is land that can never be used.Instead of going to Gorham, now you have to go to Standish or Buxton.Right now if I want to go somewhere and build a village, can’t think of any town that would allow me to.
Evan: There are some communities that will allow it.Communities are beginning to reform ordinances.Scarborough has done some serious changes.Gorham helped introduce some interesting tools…far away from allowing the kind of place you’ve described.Don’t dismiss the option.
Continued: We respond to the laws and regulations in front of us.We will develop where it is easier.We will follow the laws.
Carol: Point well taken.
Carol: Which of these choices is the best?
Prudent planning tells us that all of these choices should be considered before a final solution is recommended.This is also what Maine’s Sensible Transportation Policy Act requires us to do.
Tools for letting it happen: I’m going to go through the tools in a little more detail.
Do nothing: it’s easy.However, this will lead us to more congestion, safety issues, and loss of the rural character we talked about.
Keep things the same: We could not come up with tools here.A lot of people would like this but change is going to happen.
Upgrading existing roads: This means taking the road footprint and widening or adding signals, turning lanes, etc.This can add capacity to the system but will increase noise, safety, and the taking of land.
New roads:
• New roads can be localized or regional bypasses, new highways
• MaineDOT and MTA can build new roads – if process shows need and feasibility
• Bypass examples: Gorham Bypass, Fore River Pkwy, Rand Rd. Connector at Exit 47
MaineDOT has the ability to build if this study shows that roads are the answer but it’s a last resort, the most dramatic solution.It comes at a very high cost.If you build a new road, people will use it more and develop along it.In 25 years, we’re in the same boat.
More public transit: Here we have two categories.We can increase the amount of existing routes, or the second is provide new routes.This is pretty positive on all levels.This could allow folks to have just one car or put fewer miles on their cars.
Evan: People look at transit as a throwaway: of course no one takes it, they think. Buses are seen as a social service.In more developed highly vibrant economic areas, and even in places like Bar Harbor, transit is a stimulus.It is an economic development tool.We see growth and development around the nodes.We see transit in Portland to Boston, Brunswick, in Orono, with university and downtown systems.People come to expect it not just as a service to the elderly and low-income people but to people who now have choice.If you plan correctly, you can make it a stimulus.
Carol: We have to consider how we can make sure people will use it.In Maine, it would be a big change.
Use Travel Demand Management (TDM): This reduces the number of cars on the road by changing human behavior.Now we mostly have SOVs – single occupant vehicles – with this approach we would get more people into the cars by carpooling.Or, with flexible work hours.
Use Transportation Systems Management (TSM): This is using technology to make roadways more efficient:
• Coordinating signal systems
• Real time driver and transit information/ITS
• Targeted traffic enforcement
• Congestion pricing
This is typically a tool in more urban areas but we’ll be looking at it also.
Land use opportunities: Clustering jobs and housing is a proven way to reduce time and distance, travel, and help preserve rural land and space.This is new in Maine, but not unique. We currently have 16 Route 1 communities considering adopting this concept as part of the Gateway 1 Plan because Route 1 is the only road they’ve got and they know they must keep it moving.
Paul Godfrey:
Thank you, Carol. The study actually kicked off about a year ago and since then we’ve gathered a lot of background data, evaluated the way the world is today. We’ve forecasted and analyzed the future to get a sense of how the world could be in 2035.We compared that against what we called a “do nothing” scenario.If we follow the existing trend, what will things be like?You’ll see we’ll have more congestion, more safety issues, more traffic on residential roads, and limited opportunity for development.So, we tested a new land use pattern.We’re looking at it from a standpoint of land use and transit, before we get to other transportation improvements.
Land use test: The basic concept is wanting to build on what we have: urban communities have done great things in this arena.The rural aspect of this region is important to our Steering and Advisory Committees AND to the public.Our attempt is to move in the direction people want to move and address the problems at the same time.It is a test, remember, this land use pattern has not been blessed or endorsed by the communities. Do we address congestion and safety; does it make the area a better place to live?
What did we change?This map shows the study area.Communities highlighted in red are urban: Portland, Westbrook, South Portland. The inner suburbs are the first ring: Scarborough, Gorham, Windham, Saco.This is the critical transition.In yellow are outer suburbs, with sizable growth during the past decade.
New jobs: The amount of new jobs that we put within each of the three areas is: 65% to urban, 30% to inner suburbs, and 5% to outer suburbs.This proportion of new jobs is pretty consistent with proportions today - it’s strongly focused in the urban communities.In our pattern, we’re keeping this roughly the same.
Evan: Although the existing trend says the outward shift of jobs will continue away from the urban area.
Paul: Excellent point.It does reverse trend.
New housing: Under the Urban and Rural pattern, we have 35% of new housing going to the urban area.A lot of the urban areas are losing resident populations.So to put new homes back into these regions is a marked shift.On purpose, if we do this, can you accommodate it, we asked the planners. They said yes.45% went to inner suburbs, again, we are seeing sizable growth proportions there.The most dramatic shift is to the outer suburbs with 20% growth: much less than the trend today.Buxton, Standish, Hollis, and so forth.We take some housing from outer suburbs and bring it back into the urban areas.
Evan: If the trend continued, it would be 30% to urban, 50% to inner, less than 10% to outer.
Carol: It’s important to note that we worked with all the communities to come up with these numbers.We didn’t make them up by ourselves. The planners and municipal officials believe that these numbers are plausible.
Paul: It is easy for us to hypothesize.We certainly want to push the envelope but not so far that the communities reject it.We’re testing the waters. We need to come to a consensus as to whether it is worth going down this path, and whether there is enough benefit for the respective communities.
Scarborough growth centers: Instead of having development occur anywhere, like it does today, under Urban and Rural, growth is concentrated in growth centers. This shows possible centers for Scarborough. They sat down and mapped out likely centers of varying densities, from low to high.In Urban and Rural, the majority of jobs and 40% of new homes go into the “growth centers”. In this scenario jobs and homes are in close proximity.
Evan: We could be more aggressive.We had a lot of discussion with representatives of the communities - in Portland and South Portland we saw very high percentages to growth nodes.In the inner and outer areas, significantly more went to nodes but still under half, because beyond that, our conclusion was, we’ve gone past the edge of plausibility.
Paul: Based on what you will see, do you think this is worthwhile?Your input is valuable.
The bottom line: We tested the pattern, it performed better than the do nothing scenario.We looked at a number of measures of effectiveness (MOEs), which are the criteria on which we base the effectiveness of the model. Here are areas where we saw positive change under the Urban and Rural model:
• Less local road Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
• Less Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT)
• Less fuel used and reduced vehicle emissions
• Increased transit trips and transit potential
• Less land consumption, especially land consumption in rural areas
VMT represents the total distance an individual drives in their car.Under the Urban and Rural model we see a reduction in VMT on local roads.VHT is the total time an individual spends in their car, which is reduced in a direct correlation with the reduction of VMT. This reduction in VMT and VHT means less fuel use and fewer emissions.We also saw a general improvement in transit under the Urban and Rural model. So how do we tap into this potential?
Yet:
• We still have numerous problems:
• Transportation – problems remain regarding poor intersection and roadway operation, limited transit ridership and some traffic still diverting to residential roads
• Land Use – existing land use pattern limits level of land use change, including transit opportunities.
Comparison of Urban and Rural to "Do Nothing" by MOE:
Intersection Level of Service (LOS): This map is a summary.Letters in white are existing whereas black represents future changes. Red and green show where intersections got better or worse.
PM peak hour LOS: Along the state routes, blue represents good to acceptable levels of service during PM peak hours of travel.Orange and red are service levels E and F, which we don’t like to see.We have improvement around the overlap, Route 22, South St, I-295, and the Turnpike. Unfortunately we projected that PM peak hour travel LOS grew worse in Westbrook.
PM peak hour volume change: The areas shaded in green represent volume reductions such as downtown Gorham, outer Route 22 and Scarborough. Areas shaded in red represent increases in total volume, shown here in Westbrook and in Scarborough on Route 1.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT): We see projected reductions of 3% in total vehicle miles traveled, in the traffic world, this is a good first step. We project reductions in residential roads of 7%, which is sizable.
Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT): We see even bigger percentages for improvement projected here as we see a 10% drop in hours spent traveling.
Comment: I just wanted to point out that this is still an increase from today but a reduction from the future “do nothing” scenario.
Paul: Both are worse than where we are today, in fact we see a projection of 50% more VMT and VHT than today.We are looking to bring those down.
More MOEs:
Travel time map: Under Urban and Rural, it takes 4 minutes less to get from Gorham to Westbrook.That’s 18 hours a year you don’t have to be in the car.
Fuel used: Under the Urban and Rural projections we see a 5% decrease in estimated fuel use in 2035 from the “do nothing” prediction.What a great number to build on.Fuel use doubles in the future, so we are looking for ways to reduce that number. Emissions: We see that Urban and Rural brings emissions levels down as well.
Transit/Bike/Walk: Our mode choice model shows an increase of 27% in transit. It’s a good starting point. Walking and biking show a projected 6% increase.
Transit potential: Today, the number of people a quarter mile from existing transit is 71,600. Under Urban and Rural, we show a projection of 102,000: almost a 50% increase.This is untapped potential. When I lived in Boston, you tried your best to live near a train or bus station.
More MOEs:
How people travel: Under Urban and Rural, public transit sees a 1% projected increase with a respective 1% decrease in single o
Julie Bassett, Scarborough Economic Development Corporation
Liz Hertz, State Planning Office
Dale Hannington, Maine Motor Transport Association
Barbara Charry, Maine Audubon
Judith Harris, City of Portland
Alex Jaegerman, City of Portland
Ben Severance, Hollis Selectman
John Duncan, PACTS
Paul Weiss, Maine Sierra Club
Richard Rudolph, Rippling Waters Organic Farms
Lou Stack, Route 113 Corridor Commission
Carl Eppich, PACTS
Rebeccah Schaffner-Touignant, GPCOG
Steve Linnell, GPCOG
Warren Knight, Smiling Hill Farm / Westbrook Works
Bruce Hyman, GrowSmart Maine /Bicycle Coalition of Maine/ Portland Trails
Rob Sanford, University of Southern Maine
Also attending:
Penny Vaillancourt, MaineDOT
Rebecca Grover, MTA
Ray Faucher, HNTB
Conrad Welzel, MTA
David Cole, Gorham Town Manager
Tex Haeuser, South Portland Planning Director
Absent:
Phil Savignano, Maine Dept. of Tourism
Keith Luke, Westbrook Economic Development
Tom Ellsworth, Gorham Economic Development
Jim Libby, Buxton
Wayne Newbegin, Standish
Maria Fuentes, Maine Better Transportation
Ed Clifford, PACTS Transit Committee
Ray Penfold, VIP
Wayne Davis, Trainriders
Mike Bolduc, Saco
Chris Hall, Greater Portland Chamber
Slides referenced can be viewed in the PowerPoint for this meeting.
The meeting began at 7:40am
*******
Sara Devlin:
Thank you for coming. We’re happy you’re here. We are at a really exciting point in the study and have some interesting info to share with you today. Let’s go around the table and make some introductions. (Group introduced themselves)
Paul Godfrey: Good morning everybody. We have a good meeting today with a lot to share. Our centerpiece is the results of the Urban to Rural land use pattern test. We’ll go through our updated Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). We’ve gotten good feedback on these and have made a lot of changes. We will also take a look at the study schedule and public meeting agenda.
Carol Morris: Normally, we’d start with the changes to the MOEs first and then look at how we have used them to measure the Urban to Rural pattern. But many of you must leave early today for another meeting, so we are starting with the most important item – the Urban to Rural results.
Paul: What did we change? This is a land use pattern. How we can potentially change our world from a land use perspective? We ask today, do you think this change is worth fighting for? Did we do good things with this pattern? Does it do enough?
Study area: First, to refresh our memories. The Urban to Rural pattern concerns the three areas on this map. The communities in red are urban. Then we have the inner suburbs in brown. And the outer suburbs in yellow. This is important because we had to figure out how many new homes and jobs we’d put into each of these areas.
New job growth: The majority is in the urban area - 65%. 30% of growth goes to the inner suburbs and 5% to the outer. This proportion is about the same as it is today. The greatest percentage is in the urban, slightly less in inner suburbs and much less in the outer.
John: Is that reflective of the trend in job growth?
Paul: A little different. In the existing trend, a lot moves to the inner suburbs. From a proportion standpoint, we are the same as today. We do reverse the trend a little.
New housing: 35% goes into the urban core, 45% into the inner suburbs, and 20% to outer. We look to push housing back into the urban communities. The big shift is that outer suburbs have been gaining a large share of new housing. We consciously tried to slow that down. That’s going to be important.
Dwelling units (homes) per acre: Once we determine how we allocate jobs and housing, we sat down and created compact growth corridors. The colored blobs indicate 70% of jobs and housing to these areas. It’s a different mindset. Growth doesn’t just occur where it will. We achieve density and opportunity.
The bottom line:
Urban to Rural performed better than the Trends/Low Density scenario in almost all MOEs
Positive Change: local road Vehicle Miles Traveled, Vehicle Hours Traveled, fuel used, vehicle emissions, transit trips, transit potential, residential land consumption, and land consumption in rural TAZs
Paul Weiss: What’s a TAZ?
Paul: A Traffic Analysis Zone. We broke the study area into these zones to help us estimate how trips (people) move throughout the region.
Paul: There are still numerous problems. We can have a good discussion about taking this potential and doing something different but there are still a lot of poor levels of service. Roadway volumes, continued low transit ridership. There is still some diversion to residential roads.
John: I want to encourage everyone to ask questions. Urban to Rural was carefully constructed and it is pushing the envelope but not so radical as to be “dead on arrival.”
Richard: I’ve been on a few boards in Standish talking about this for years – idea and reality – it’s a big if to project out 10 years. I would question the 20% growth in outer suburbs. It seems to fly in the face of trend.
David: What’s not been said yet is what it would take to achieve our goal – to put rubber to the road. This model is accurate. That’s what everyone needs to understand.
Carol: To clarify, this was a test to see if making this kind of change makes a difference. Today, we see that it will. Next question is how to get there.
Judy: What we are looking at is transportation and planning policy, not public policy. There are severe limits on urban areas as far as support to people living there. What are the additional costs, n both urban and inner areas? Right now, for example, urban areas are hurting very badly.
Alex: As counterpoint, some of the stressors that the city realizes fiscally have to do with growth moving out of the city. The capability to serve the development is more efficient with more people. When we did the land use distribution, we used existing zoning. I would like to further test those capacities. We have the land use plans in place to take the growth this scenario posits. This is within the capacity of our plans.
Paul: Urban to Rural is a test to help us understand opportunity. Time is not totally relevant in terms of pinpointing when this would occur – but rather, what benefit do we see? This will take hard work and cost. Can we do better or not? We are testing what we believe to be the outer bounds. Communities will have to make changes: that is not always easy. This pattern is reasonably feasible.
Tex: As far as the idea of regional land use cooperation goes: our communities are already involved in municipal agreements of all sorts. The potential for this is not unreasonable.
Ben: In the back of peoples’ minds is: it’s not as attractive to be far away from your job as it used to be. Vehicle costs are higher. Drastically higher fuel prices would really stop growth in the outer area.
David: With $6 gas…this scenario complements that situation.
Paul: Gas prices are likely to be higher over time. Whether its 2035 or 2055, barring some dramatic change, what you see here is likely to be encouraged over time with rising prices. So how do we address it? Do we make a change in land use? Based on level of benefit, what else do we do to address the transportation issues out there? These are things that are coming.
Lou: Housing growth in the urban area means 7,000 units. Are those single or multifamily?
Paul: Both.
Lou: The problem is to encourage people to move into multifamily housing vs single in the outer ring. This is a big nut to crack here.
Paul: Yes. Under Urban to Rural we have more multifamily units. It’s a different mindset.
Alex: Evan Richert worked with the communities’ planners. The challenge was that the housing growth IS single family housing. We were challenged to accommodate both single and multifamily housing. It was harder to find places for the single family. The choice is living in smaller houses on smaller lots if you want to be in Portland vs. living in the outer areas.
Paul: You were able to accommodate a lot of single family units in Portland.
Lou: The inventory of land…in the past, multifamily land was not choice land and was costly to develop.
Paul:
Intersection LOS: Under the Urban to Rural, you can see 23 intersections were at unacceptable levels. Under trend, we were also at 23. We have improved the traffic in the Overlap and in Gorham. Intersections have gotten worse in Westbrook.
PM peak hour LOS: Under the Urban to Rural scenario, we get improved levels of service in many areas.
Rob: Is there a standardized basis of improvement?
Paul: We did not assume any roadway improvements. Under Urban to Rural, we did assume more transit.
Rob: So there could be mitigation available?
Paul: Yes absolutely. We want to go step by step. Are there other transit opportunities, other modal opportunities? The last thing we address is transportation improvement strategies.
Alex: When you say level of service improves or worsens, against what?
Paul: These are compared to low density – to trend.
PM peak hour volume change: Green indicates reduced volume. Areas where volumes have increased include Westbrook and Scarborough.
Summary of VMT: Vehicle miles traveled – under Urban to Rural, most communities see VMT reduction. We do see more sizable numbers for local roads.
Summary of VHT: Sizable changes here. Overall VHT growth is about 10%, which is really, really good. We are able to reduce the amount of time sitting in cars. We’re not diverting to other roads. There are some sizable percentages.
Rob: Are these weighted?
Paul: No. We are looking holistically. We can focus on certain things if we need to.
MOEs 6 – 10:
Fuel used / vehicle emissions: In the PM peak hour, we’re using about 2,000 gallons today. This doubles in 2035 under the low density, because of the amount of time waiting. Under Urban to Rural, we bring it down somewhat: 50,000 gallons per year. We see similar trends with VOCs and NOx. This is air quality. The way we address this is to reduce congestion: intersection improvements or putting people on transit. We need to do something proactive.
Average commuting time: Four employment centers are illustrated. We can see average commuting time and distance reduced.
Transit / Walking: Within our mode choice model, what is the likely ridership? From our perspective, transit numbers increase sizably. Why? We put people in growth cores where transit exists or is planned and see decent increases. Increased numbers of people could walk or bike or take the bus.
Transit potential: We’ll have 102,000 people in greater Portland in 2035 within .25 mi proximity of transit under Urban to Rural. This is a good thing, and it is up from 71,600.
Rob: What do these represent in percentages?
Paul: I’m not sure.
John: It’s about 200,000 people, roughly. So it would be 50%.
Paul Weiss: I’m uneasy about these assumptions – your whole mindset is cars, highways, pavement. We need to move away from paving and roadways into trains. Rail transit is the cleanest, most efficient mode we have. There is still a rail infrastructure in this region. You should be studying how many people are in proximity to rail. Portland used to have one of the most progressive rail systems in the US. You’re not considering this. These studies are car and gas and road-oriented. It’s time for a paradigm shift. You’re not thinking out of the box. The future is way out of the box. This is not what we should be looking at. This is way in the box. We should be looking at the future across other countries – revitalizing rail. For us not to be thinking of that is ludicrous. It is not sustainable. We are heading to that point really quick. Communities don’t have money to pave roads.
Carol: We will be pinpointing rail opportunities as we hone in on transit. What you are saying here is that we have to look at all opportunities.
Paul Weiss: You have gone down the path of road transit. How many people are in distance of rail tracks? No slide or data on that here.
Carol: Again, that’s going to be part of it.
Paul: We have not yet looked at rail. We need to look at how many people are near rail and at the densities we need to achieve it. In terms of the process, we will look at everything. Transit potential is just one measure. We have the same opportunity with rail. At what densities does rail become viable? I hear what you are saying.
Lou: You might alleviate some congestion if we reconstruct the Mountain Division line. 25,000 truck trips could be eliminated by that line. All those trucks – plans are in the works right now – add another 12,000 trips a year in plan. That will start immediately. There’s a lot of congestion and damage caused by trucks.
Paul Weiss: I would be very discouraged to hear it will be all about how density drives rail. There is a misconception in the US that rail will pay for itself. No system pays for itself. We spend money on transit. We spend nothing on rail in compare to roads and airports. Rail is critical. In modern countries, they are spending huge amounts on rail. Density – is it worth it? You are closing the door. In Canada, you have rail heads that connect almost every major city. They have put their money into rail. It’s not justified by density there. They are far ahead of us. Well, we don’t have the density. $4 million to pave a road? Add up all the road costs – rail cost pales in comparison. We’ve gotta get out of the box.
Paul: I understand that no line pays for itself. My challenge is that you need to get certain levels of density to have enough ridership for rail. That’s part of our charge. I believe we need to look at the opportunity to have the right amount of mass for rail viability. I agree.
David: This whole concept is predicated on pushing the envelope. They’ve been saying high gas prices will come for years. Our ability to prognosticate the future is less reliable.
Tex: The only thing is – no secret that my dream is to bring back trolleys in my town – but Americans will sell their children to maintain independent transportation. That’s the problem. Keep in mind – Wayne Davis spent years trying to bring rail back. All of a sudden the Downeaster came into being. Laying the foundation takes time and effort.
Paul: Urban to Rural is intended to bring that back. Walking, transit, even rail can be considered.
Judy: Looking at operating ports and airports – in transportation we say “freight doesn’t vote.” That’s why you have airports. And ports have the same problem. I don’t disagree.
Richard: Pollution levels – I don’t have a crystal ball on gas prices. The dimension not being discussed is providing a better future for our kids. Take this into account: most climatologists worldwide have said that if we don’t begin to lower the CO2 level, we are in a stew. We are at a tipping point. I want to see my grandkids live. That may not happen. We need to take that into account. Skeptics are being paid for by the coal or fuel industry. It’s a manufactured debate in this country. Things are not ok. We could be in the forefront. It’s probably not going to happen at the national level. We need to take action locally. We need to take other actions. We need transit. Even in LA, people are using it.
Liz: Another major effort is Gateway 1 – right now individual towns are looking at what to incorporate into their plans. With the arrival of the Downeaster into Brunswick, everyone wants the train to stop in their towns. I feel we have an opportunity to push back against long-time thinking. It’s scary to put something out of the box out there. Find some balance. We don’t have a choice anymore. Push back just enough with enough science of the options. Obviously it’s sensible to pick the right choice – transit.
Paul Weiss: Those are great points. We have to make drastic changes. With the previous administration – we had no chance. Now, there’s funding. Example of ports and freight - $4m road paving – one truck on that road is equivalent to 10,000 vehicles. One truck off the road saves several months of traffic. Shift your costs to rail. We need to change dramatically in Maine. I’m not afraid to go there. The science backs us up. It’s time for paradigm shift. When gas was at $4 gallon, there was change in how everyone thought. We have to make this change.
Judy: I know you’ll study transit. Keep in mind we’ve looked at short sea shipping. You can take trucks off I-95 if we use US ports. Our barriers are the Harbor Maintenance tax and the Jones Act. Let’s use ports to move goods. Include that as an alternative for coastal areas. We have three ports. Remove trucks off of major corridors. It’s quite clean compared to other things. Maine has more coast than any other state. Short sea shipping – they don’t want to lose highway taxes. And we have issues with trucking associations. Those are our blocks.
Tex: This is a different kind of transportation planning project. Normally, we’re trying to fix problems with traffic engineers. Here land use is added. This growth management discussion is valuable.
Paul Weiss: You have a good point. In this region you have rail infrastructure. It exists and it should be used.
Paul: Good discussion, thanks.
MOEs 11 – 15:
How people travel from work: We need to do other things to get this to change. Transit goes up slightly under Urban to Rural. The discussion has been good. I take away that in 2035 under trends, we have problems. More than anything – what opportunity do we have for change?
Job accessibility: Under trend, there’s high job accessibility in Portland core. Under the Urban to Rural pattern, you see jobs moving out to other areas. Again, we’re able to look at improving within the region. With retail access, we see similar trends. We improve under Urban to Rural.
MOEs 16 – 20:
Proximity of population to job centers by auto: We do see some improvement with Urban to Rural.
Jobs per acre: Under Urban to Rural, we have some improved densities. Downtown Gorham and Westbrook. We see the same thing in households per acre. In Windham and Standish, it translates to a positive.
MOEs 21 – 25:
Additional land consumed: Overall, we are likely to consume an additional 9,000 acres. Under Urban to Rural, it’s much lower.
Viewshed map samples: As we look at physical improvements, we will be able to identify if these viewsheds are being impacted. This is just a sample.
Rural land: The key thing here is that Evan identified the rural TAZs in the region. What we see here is under the Urban to Rural, we significantly reduce land consumed in the rural TAZs. This is rural land preservation – this model reduces rural land consumed over the next 25 years.
Paul: So, what do you think? Is this a pattern we should pursue?
Alex: It’s quite interesting. We wanted a land use scenario that was not “dead on arrival” but aggressive enough to make a difference and it does. This is an incremental approach, with a concept of regional planning on the table. There’s a huge appetite for this conversation and a huge range of opinion. I’m very pleased. It’s frustrating that there’s only a percentage point improvement over degradation in 2035. If we want to reverse the tide of global warming, we must do more. This study is representative of a new way of thinking about transportation and land use – sustainable communities – and this study demonstrates that land use and transportation make a difference. I’m glad the MOEs are better. I suggest more work could be done in that area. This puts us in the conversation mode.
Paul: I hear you say we need to sell all the things you don’t see in a chart – and that there is appetite for regional planning. If we can change course, where can we go?
Alex: The best chart for me was transit potential. It demonstrates the importance of other modes.
Bruce: I echo that last point. My concerns: Have we set this as the land use scenario we’re going to pursue? At the local level, I still see reallocations to areas that have low densities, such as in Scarborough. How were things reallocated? Growth is not really in proximity to rail options. I agree we need to look at dramatic change. I don’t think we are pushing the envelope enough on the land use front.
Judy: I do a lot of marine work. I lived and died by the watershed map. I use it to talk to kids about pollution. I’d love to see it as an overlay.
Liz: To me, one of the most compelling was reduction in land consumed, especially in rural TAZs. Usually when you dig into how people perceive rural character, it’s about seeing the fields. That is very compelling. I was surprised at how little some of the other measures changed. I agree – even that shift is giving us small change. We need to look at more aggressive transit.
Barbara: Let’s look at the gallons saved slide. That’s not going to get us where we need to be. What about trend plus more aggressive rail?
Paul: It was hard for us to get planners to increase densities even to the Urban to Rural level. It’s very different from what we do today. For me, I heard even this was hard for the communities. But the world doesn’t end in 2035. The idea is we need to begin a shift. I see this as a momentum builder. We don’t want to go too far because we don’t want so much pushback that the effort is dead on arrival.
Barbara: Transit could be significantly changed without doing the land use part. Is that what we want to do first?
Paul: We have some thoughts but you help us. We’re going to look at land use again. We heard even that was a huge undertaking. What additional things can we do? Let’s start with transit and park and ride.
Next Steps:
• Finish all MOEs and provide to Steering and Advisory Committees
• Identify additional transit/modal strategy and evaluate. We will be scheduling a transit workshop with PACTS, MaineDOT, others
• Identify TDM/TSM strategy and evaluate
• Identify Transportation strategies and evaluate
Richard: I agree it’s a step in the right direction. But from 3% to 4% in transit is a joke. In last few years, Amtrak was up 7 – 8% per year. We have new starts all over the country. Ridership potential is three times what was forecast. Our growth is unsatisfactory. As planners or policymakers, it is ludicrous to accept this figure. How we can get more people on transit?
Paul: What are the barriers not allowing us to make marked change?
Richard: Barriers include institutions: planners are fixated on a particular approach. In Massachusetts there was tremendous development. Housing prices skyrocketed. It was a smashing success.
David: The problem is not the planners. I spend my career hoping to be effective but I’m not a dreamer. When you think about this scenario, it’s something that will evolve over 15 years. At least it is on the table. Some adopt immediately, some in 15 years.
Tex: This has been much less boring a meeting than I expected, since I have already seen this presentation at the Steering Committee Meeting. This should be an iterative process. We did land use, now let’s look at transit. Also, I’d love to see a forum where decision makers come together to have a passionate climate change / alternative paradigms discussion. Maybe we are at the point where it will fly. It won’t work for us if we keep having debate internally. We have to agree to move forward together.
Lou: One of the barriers is the name “Urban to Rural.” Another barrier is that we can’t get people out of their cars. It’s the Great American Dream: people in apartments want to get into a house. Get a job, get a home, not an apartment. This is stronger in Maine than anywhere else in the US. If we’re in looking at Standish, there are increased densities. Do they want these smaller size lots, or will they go to Hiram or Baldwin.
Carol: A lot of people want different things in terms of how they live. Perhaps young people can’t afford a house right away. Perhaps older people don’t want a yard anymore. It’s shifting.
Carl: The population numbers or money may not be there anymore. So this is worth pursuing. How do we do it in order to push it for public consumption? We need to have better goals – what would it take to get pollutants to 1990 levels? Fine tune the MOEs. Where are the discrete changes? Where can we make a difference without so much public push? We’re not improving things…we are making them less worse.
Paul: Good point. With Gateway 1, we were able to show the effects of current trends to the point where the Midcoast communities said, “this is not the future we want.” We want to head down the right road. That’s the selling strategy here. How can we make a change that lessens the burden, opens the door for rail, getting acceptance of that mindset.
Steve: I’m struggling with mode choice. The growth in transit potential doesn’t make sense- you need commensurate growth in use.
Paul: What I saw was for areas served by transit, we get 100% growth.
Steve: But urban areas have the least amount of growth.
Paul: Let’s take a look at that.
Paul Weiss: Let’s look at port transit. We have a rail line within 100 ft. of the largest cargo terminal in Maine that is not connected. Let’s connect that. At this time of year, the roads are torn up. In Portland, we have old trolley lines – let’s reinvent the past. Watershed runoff – for every mile of road you pave, add at a rate of inch an hour of rain runoff. There’s pollution from roads. Rail does not do that. Someone mentioned the American dream; we are watching the end of suburbia. It’s unsustainable. In China, six cities of 3 million people each are putting in subways the size of New York’s. This will be completed in several years. In the US, we are abandoning track. China sees the future. We have to make dramatic change – step out of your bounds – at a local level. I’d be happy to work with you to do that.
Ben: I’m not a planner. I figure out how to sell ideas to my town. I have to look at how to repair a road that washed out on Sunday. The state and federal governments may not help us. I’m not a planner but have heard concepts here that I do take back to my community. You talk about China - the Chinese don’t have the expectation of instant gratification. You order a sweater or boots online; Americans expect to get it tomorrow, not 45 days later via cargo port and rail. Those other countries will have that someday.
Paul Weiss: That’s a good observation. FedEx delivers in China overnight. We may need to change the way we do business. The true cost of transportation of a product is unsustainable. People aren’t thinking of the future.
David: China also has the advantage in that the government can just decree things. That’s not our model here. (Everyone laughs.)
Carol: This has been a great discussion. We brought this group – this Advisory Committee together for the very purpose of getting diverse points of view. We have that here. But, I’m hearing a commonality of comments around the importance of pushing the envelope as much as possible, and the importance of multiple modes of transit. There will always be those who are comfortable with radical change, and those who are more pragmatic. That’s a difference in human nature, and we need – and have heard – both sides. Thank you again.
Public meeting agenda:
• The Problem
• What are our Choices?
• Possible Solutions
• Results of Urban to Rural
• Next Steps
Carol: We’ll send out to you the ad we are running and the press releases so you can mail it to anyone you think might be interested. We want a broad group of people at this meeting, if possible.
Schedule / next steps:
• Public Informational Meeting: March 25
• Analysis of Transportation Strategies: March-April
• Friends of PACTS lunch: April 8
• PACTS Policy Meeting: April 29
• Advisory Committee Meetings: April/June
• Draft Report and Findings: June-July
• Advisory Committee Meeting: July
• Final Report and Findings: September/October
John: Note, there is a Friends of PACTS lunch – interested citizens – at the GPCOG office at noon on the 8th.
Tex: Can we get name tents for the next meeting?
Carl: Is Phase 2 of this study funded?
Paul: We’re not sure what Phase 2 would be yet. MaineDOT and the Turnpike Authority are committed to following through.
Carl: With HUD funding, there’s a big pot of money available.
Carol: We have had this conversation MaineDOT and MTA and it is on the radar screen.
Bruce: Who is developing the transportation strategies?
Carol: We’ll use the same iterative process: Steering and Stakeholder input, transit modal workshop, and a transportation workshop.
Advisory Committee members attending: John Duncan, PACTS; Sara Devlin, MTA; Tom Ellsworth, Gorham Economic Development; Barbara Charry, Maine Audubon; Paul Weiss, Sierra Club; Jim Libby, Buxton; Wayne Newbegin, Standish; Alex Jaegerman, Portland; Rick Shinay, MEREDA; Bruce Hyman, GrowSmart, Bicycle Coalition, Maine Trails; Steve Linnell, GPCOG; Rob Sanford, USM; David Knapp, 113 Corridor Committee; Carl Eppich, PACTS; Robbie Moulton, Scarborough Police Department; Rebecca Schaffner, GPCOG, Gerry Audibert, MaineDOT.
Steering Committee members attending: David Cole, Gorham; Burleigh Loveitt, Gorham; Tex Haeuser, South Portland.
Absent: Phil Sauvignon, Dept. of Tourism; Keith Luke, Westbrook Economic Development; Ben Severance, Hollis; Mike Bolduc, Saco; Judy Harris, Portland; Liz Hertz, SPO; Maria Fuentes, MBTA; Julie Basset, Scarborough Economic Development; Warren Knight, Smiling Hill Farm; Ed Clifford, PACTS Transit Committee; Ray Penfold, VIP; Brian Parke, Maine Motor Transport; Anna Price, FHWA; Bob Lefebvre, Metro Chiefs; Sue Moreau, MaineDOT; Richard Rudolph, Rippling Waters Farm; Ann Peoples, State Legislator; Phillip Bartlett, State Legislator; Paul Niehoff; PACTS, Chris Hall, Greater Portland Chamber.
Other Study Team attending : Ray Faucher, HNTB
Slides referenced can be viewed in the PowerPoint for this meeting.
Meeting began at 1:10pm
*******
Sara Devlin:
Thank you all for coming out to the meeting today. We had some committee members who had legislative conflicts today, so at the end of the meeting we’ll discuss a potential new meeting time. Can we go around the room and make introductions? Committee members introduce themselves. I’d like to mention we have a new MaineDOT Project Manager, Gerry Audibert, who is taking the place of Mimi Cerveny.
John Duncan:
Let me go over the agenda. Carol will give you an overview of what’s happened since September – a lot has gone on in terms of land use planning and thinking. Today we’ll talk about the Measures of Effectiveness, or MOEs: how we measure the success and potential of the strategies we’ll be considering. Paul will talk to that. We’ll go over the results of the low density model, see what the transportation system looks like in 2035 if we don’t do anything to change trends during that time. We’ll look at an alternative pattern of development – several of us were at the University of Maine meeting last week and had a very exciting regional land use discussion, led by Evan Richert. This is really a fascinating element of this study. At the end, Tex Haeuser looked around and said, “This has been a historic discussion!” It was an excellent meeting.
Carol Morris:
Study progress since September: The committee hasn’t met since last September. At that meeting, you finalized the Purpose and Need statement and we presented the baseline land use and transportation data. We also reported on Charlie Colgan’s jobs and housing forecast for 2035, in which 60 – 70% of the growth in Maine would be in Cumberland and York Counties. That’s a lot of new houses and jobs. Where might we put those? That’s in part what this study is all about. What we’ve done since then is very land use-focused. We have been working with the land use working group, which includes all municipalities from the study area, not just the core, - their planners and municipal officials. Also in that group is about ten members of the Advisory Committee – you may recall I sent out an email asking who wanted to be part of that working group. Since September, we also developed Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs), working with the study team and land use group. These will help us measure if a strategy will fulfil the study Purpose and Need and evaluate which ones work better. As of last week, we have also completed the analysis of the existing low density growth pattern: what happens if we do nothing? As John mentioned, you will see that today.
Review of study process: Based on the Purpose and Need, MOEs help us measure the benefits of each strategy and choose which might be the best solutions. We’ll use them to analyze the existing low density pattern. Then, we choose an alternative land use pattern to test. What happens if we put new jobs and housing in different locations? Does this affect our transportation issues? If that does make a difference, then we develop transportation strategies that complement that land use pattern. We will be testing two land use patterns, the low density pattern and the alternative pattern. Once this is completed, and strategies developed for both, we expect final study recommendations by May / June.
Purpose and Need: This is a feasibility study, so we need to remember that we want to have a range of potential solutions for both land use and transportation issues.
Sensible Transportation Policy Act (STPA): Essentially, this Maine law requires us to abide by the things laid out in your handout for transportation planning, capital development, and project decisions. I’d like to point out that number three says preference is given to non-highway new capacity projects before building new highways! We will look at the entire range of solutions before adding new capacity. I want to reiterate that.
No solutions: it will be easy to jump to conclusions when you see the results of the low-density analysis, but let’s hold off on that. We are still identifying problems and the STPA requires us to look at all possible options. The MOEs will help us to vet solutions.
Paul Godfrey:
Good afternoon. If you have questions, don’t hesitate to ask. Don’t be shy about jumping in.
MOEs: Essentially, we need to know if what we propose could make things better, worse, or the same. We look at things we can quantify. More or less traffic, more or less development, jobs to housing balance. We need to be as objective as possible. Again, different than other transportation studies, we try to have a good blend of quality of life measures and transportation measures. We’re not done yet, although we have some great feedback. We’ll potentially add other MOEs during the process.
Draft summary chart: You’ll see this a lot. It’s what we’re going to use moving forward every time we develop a land use or transportation strategy to understand how it measures against baseline. To quickly understand if we are heading down the right path. You have a handout that shows the MOEs that we have currently developed:
Level of Service (LOS)
Vehicle Miles Traveled / Vehicle Hours Treveled (VHT/VMT)
High Crash Locations (HCLs)
Roadway Volume Change
Corridor Delays
Transit Ridership
Walkability
Bikeability
Emergence Medical Service (EMS) Distance
Job Accessibility
Retail Accessibility
Acres of Land Consumed
Housing / Job Ratio
Viewshed
Cost
That’s our laundry list. Other MOEs could be: better ways of addressing pedestrian / bike safety, looking at density levels. For example, if we want to expand bus service, what density offers opportunities for transit or commuter rail? Habitat: identifying wildlife areas and to what degree do our strategies impact those and open spaces?
Paul Weiss: Have we discussed energy and pollution emissions?
Paul: It is generally considered that Vehicle Hours Traveled and Vehicle Miles Traveled measure pollution from vehicles.
Paul W: Also energy used, oil or otherwise.
Paul: Do you mean to what degree is energy being consumed? What type?
Carol: To decrease oil dependence? We have not factored in alternative energy use.
Paul W: All types of energy.
Paul: We may need to talk about this more.
John: I’ve been working with the study team on a weekly basis and have seen the evolution of the MOEs and want to say that it’s been a pleasure working with the study team. Practically the whole team did the Gateway 1 Study also - so when you say evolving – other MOEs are being considered – it reminds me it is an evolving process.
Low Density: What did we learn? This is a potential snapshot based on existing trends in land use and transportation, barring major intervention. What the world could look like.
Summary of results:
22 out of 47 intersections analyzed at level of service E/F (up from 7 intersections)
17 of 116 miles of roadway at level of service E/F (up from 4 miles)
No relief to 61 high crash locations
Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) growing twice as fast as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
These are our key findings – we want to give you a chance to respond to that. VHT and VMT have really caught our eye, because VHT - how long you sit in your car - is growing twice as fast as VMT. Why? People are driving the long way around busy areas to avoid congestion. People will also be sitting in congestion for longer periods of time.
Intersection level of service map: This map shows the 47 intersections we have analyzed. Where do we have undesirable levels of service? The overlap area, downtown Gorham, etc. By 2035, we have more intersections with a poor level of service. As congestion grows, there’s more and more traffic.
PM peak hour map: This map shows what the roadway levels of service are. Today we have issues in the overlap section, on Route 114, I-295 and the turnpike. Fast forward and see we have sizable areas that are now at a lower level of service. And areas with lower levels of service have grown, including sections on Routes 1, 302, and 25. The trend continues.
High crash location map: The red dots and lines on this map represent the high crash locations. Red means that by 2035, there’s more volume in these locations, meaning potentially more crashes.
Summary of VHT / VMT chart: Within the study areas, VMT grows by 25% but even it is even more sizable on residential roads. In the four key communities, we have concerns that people are moving onto roads not intended to carry that kind of traffic. VHT is growing twice as fast as VMT. We don’t want to see this traffic on residential roads.
2035 results:
Sizeable change in volumes on all roads
Miles of residential roads carrying greater than 200 vph increased from 32 to 47 miles, a 47% increase
Travel delays along key corridors increased
Transit ridership increased 26%, but primarily due to assumed increases in service and extension of services
Walkability/Bikeability increase similar to transit ridership
When we get volumes above 2000 cars per day, it changes from a residential road to a different kind of road. Because our model is a peak hour model, 2000 vehicles per day equates to 200 vehicles in the peak hour. We see an increase in the number of residential roads with volumes of more than 2000 vehicles per day and it’s a concern. Delays – how much longer it takes to drive from A to B? Here, transit did increase by 26% - but we did assume an extension of service in the future. We also see increases in walkability and bikeability but this is primarily because there are more people, so the numbers are higher.
PM peak hour volume change: This is per hour volume changes. It’s kind of proportional: interstates and the turnpike show the greatest increase in volume.
Residential roads PM peak hour volume map: Fast forward to 2035 there’s only some change - conclusion is a lot of residential roads are above that threshold already today. An example is Day Road in Gorham, carrying 4000 cars per day. If there’s a back-up in the overlap, vehicles go there. Do we want that?
Summary of corridor travel delays: We looked at different origin / destination points. By 2035, we see 8-mile trips that can take 45 minutes. We’re starting to see double-digit time increases.
Barbara Charry: It’s interesting that 2000 cars per day is the volume where everything changes for in terms of road character; it also increases the impact for wildlife at that point.
Transit & multimodal summary: These are actual peak hour ridership numbers. They are higher, but that again is just because of more people. We’re going to look at how we can make these numbers mean something. Create opportunity for mode choice. Get in the car, or take a bus?
Steve Linnell: For Gorham, it’s obvious we’re not counting the University of Maine bus?
Paul: Correct.
Steve: Not that I want to raise expectations, but John asked for transit data for another project, spanning the last 10 years. In that, South Portland increased by 50% and Metro Portland by 25 – 35% in this timeframe. We’re talking 25 years out here. These numbers might be slightly under.
Paul: We can use these numbers as a baseline. We should be more concerned about creating opportunities. For the Gateway 1 Study, there were a tiny number of trips in the Route 1 corridor using transit – we were able to forecast growth to 4% from under 0.5%. Here we have greater opportunity because of larger population and growth.
Bruce Hyman: That raises an issue. We need the MOEs to reflect what you said. They don’t currently. A good change would be to measure how many people are within a half mile of transit
Paul: Yes. We can measure improved density opportunities as they relate to transit.
Bruce: I hope the next version reflects that.
Carol: It will.
Paul: Percentage walkable trips map: Walkable means within a traffic analysis zone (or TAZ), the percentage of trips that are a quarter-mile or less. Rural areas are in red, those are small numbers of walkable trips. The downtowns have more walkability.
Barbara: Where are we walking to and from?
Paul: Any trip within a TAZ. Could be home to work, or home to home. This is data we have available.
Carol: This measures existing car trips that are a quarter-mile or less. We assume people are willing to walk this. It’s not a measure of where people are actually walking, but where it is feasible for them to walk. It’s a benchmark.
Paul: Carol’s point is right on the mark. For example, in the alternative land use pattern, what if we develop a dense area? We can use this measure to see how much we can change walking opportunity. Visually it helps understand the opportunity.
Carol: By opportunity, we mean the opportunity to provide bike and walk infrastructure where you have population density. We’re not factoring in potential biking and pedestrian improvements here.
David Cole: What drives the yellow splotch in North Gorham? I find it hard to see that as higher walkability.
Paul: My sense is that there’s a small portion of that area with a decent number of small trips. We’ll follow up. (NOTE: This area surrounds the White Rock Elementary School area, where there would be a likelihood of short trips to drop off and pick up children from school.
Dave: If it turns out it is the school - that school won’t be there much longer.
Paul: That is good to know.
Burleigh Loveitt: Where it says Gorham, the square area has water and sewer and is slated for dense population growth overlay. I think that increases the potential for sidewalks. But Gorham’s roads are suicide to walk or bike on. I don’t see the rural roads acting as connectors. I do think that Gorham Village and the overlay district have great potential.
Paul: I agree. The challenge is with the tools we have, how to best measure. Burleigh mentioned some existing hurdles. If we consciously develop in certain areas, to what degree do we get greater walk and bike options, taking into account bike and pedestrian safety. What level of opportunity do we have?
Paul W: I caution you on how you are using data. Rural – by definition – will be more walkable from a data standpoint. It may behoove you to just look at urban area walkability. Farmland won’t have sidewalks.
Paul: Maybe we can overlay it with density maps to better look at opportunities.
Paul W: Be careful with low numbers and the large percentages that develop from increased numbers – especially where there is no service available now. Maybe it’s a baseline but there’s bias in the data.
Carol: There is no bias in the data.
Paul W: It is data that doesn’t exist. If there’s no transit today, data on three people using a bus does not make sense.
Paul: The charge here is to understand how we can make numbers mean something. Little to no transit is what that says, there. That is clear.
Carol: We have to use some measure as a starting point.
Paul W: You don’t have to use the data just because you have it. Maybe put an asterisk.
Paul: Point well taken. Making sure the information is meaningful is very helpful. The data isn’t wrong. The reality – are they truly walkable? We don’t know at this point.
Carl Eppich: I don’t understand how walkability improves from 2009 to 2035 when we assume the roads will be worse. Most places walking is still on roads. So there should be fewer opportunities to walk.
Paul: This is not a measure of walking today but of vehicle trips in the TAZ a quarter mile or less. From our perspective, increases do make sense. With more people, houses, jobs in a TAZ, we get more trips of that length. Maybe we should call it “walking opportunities.”
Carol: I agree that the walkability label is a problem.
Carl: The reality is that we have better opportunity but it’s not the right story. Conditions would not necessarily allow more walking.
Wayne Newbegin: Maybe insert a quality of life measure into the data set. Is a trip within a quarter-mile equal to quality of life?
Carl: It is not a good measure. It does not show anything useful.
Paul: Literature tells us that trips within a quarter-mile can be walkable.
Carl: It’s not correlated with other measures.
Carol: We all want more people to be walking – how can we prove that our solutions make that happen?
Carl: This distorts it. It can go either way. It’s not about walkable trips.
Barbara: Identifying places where if there was infrastructure, you could walk…but we’re not saying we’ll have that infrastructure in 2035.
Carol: It indicates a good place to put that infrastructure.
Paul: We can use it as an overlay to see where to invest. To target investment.
Carol: This comes back to quality of life.
Paul: Every time we show this map we learn more.
Gerry Audibert: Are we going to map activity centers? That might make it more real.
Paul: Yes, another layer. The four communities have given us those centers to overlay on this.
Bikeability map: We used a two mile trip length here. What we want is to use this data to guide decisions.
2035 results summary: Through the Fire Marshals’ Association, we ascertained critical distance to EMS services. What we see in 2035 is that the number of homes within the critical distance is increasing but the overall number of homes is decreasing. Job and retail access is increasing. We have 9,200 additional acres planned for residential development in the time period: is that what we want? And where do we put it?
Tex Haeuser: Underscore that factoid - it is most compelling in terms of public opinion.
Paul: We also have 370 additional acres of planned commercial development.
EMS access index: Percentages decline, the numbers of homes increase. To what degree can we move these numbers?
Paul W: A better index of EMS is access time. That would be harder to gather. It’s more important. Is it 5 or 10 miles away – who cares? But how long does it take.
Paul: The distance data is adjusted based on rural vs. city. The distance is shorter in the city. But if you have data on that, we’d love to see it.
Paul W: EMS runs reports from the towns. You can get it off the state EMS website.
Paul: Job accessibility maps: Job access is the distance from where you live. Highest accessibility is near a lot of jobs – so if you’re in the Maine Mall area, you have high job accessibility. In 2035, job accessibility is a little better, because there are more jobs and more people.
Retail accessibility map: There are improvements from the standpoint of getting to retail. How do we use this? If we are creating a center – how much and what do we put in?
Bruce: Does that include only jobs and residences in the four core communities?
Paul: Yes.
Committee member: Can we have a combined carpool and mass transit predictions map?
Paul: Help me understand.
Continued: Can we measure how near homes/jobs would be to something near a corridor?
Paul: How far are you from a major road? Is that what you mean?
Continued: Yes.
Alex Jaegerman: To what extent have you incorporated the GoMaine database?
Paul: We have that database. We will use to crosscheck; it’s a great resource.
Residential acres consumed map: You can see how it’s broken down. Scarborough gains two-thirds of the 9,200 acres. This will take up all the available land in Scarborough, based on current trend.
Barbara: What size residential units are those?
Paul: I do not recall.
Barbara: Because that will have wildlife ramifications.
Paul: I will find out what calculation was used.
(NOTE: The formula is based on a town’s existing zoning allowances, which were then multiplied by the number of new housing units being allocated within that TAZ.)
Carl: Does this exclude marshland or areas you cannot develop?
Paul: Yes.
John: Have the towns given comments on those? Do those numbers bother the towns?
Paul: We had a discussion with Scarborough. They thought the initial housing was too high due to their growth cap.
John: Is the question whether this is good or bad?
Tex: This is not the preferred alternative for the study area.
Paul: We know this growth will occur. How much can we change of those 9,200 new acres? What if we modify lots size, etc?
David C: If you are a municipality, you must fund services through taxes. Residential property is a money loser - we pay more money for services than we get back in taxes. I want to consume industrial property or commercial. Residential is a no. If residential was a line of business in the town budget, I’d discontinue it. We are concerned.
Paul: I add to that point that in this example, Gorham assumes 2,200 new acres of residential growth. New homes are on new roads. Who takes care of those roads? 200 new feet of road, 2,500 new homes. Do we want that?
Tex: Take it one step further. We are going out of the business of new roads. Subdivisions are now private roads. Gated communities.
Paul: Again, this is the fun part of the exercise. How can we change this? How can the number of new residential roads be smaller? This is potentially very important.
Alex: You’re showing just the core four. When will we see the same for other communities?
Paul: We have residential acres for the entire region.
Alex: When we start comparing to baseline, we’ll be looking at this kind of data in community categories?
Paul: Yes.
Alex: For whatever reason, Portland is anxious to have residential. We have a policy to maintain our residential share in the region. We welcome that growth. You need to present the urban data to the other communities.
Paul: When we get into the alternative model, we will.
David C: I do think Portland is different. Our economic model is for Gorham.
Barbara: Miles of roads equal huge impact to wildlife. Let’s explore this in terms of measuring habitat fragmentation. Also acres consumed. Houses of a certain lot size may have larger ramifications.
Paul: We can talk afterward about what we can likely show for all communities, not just the four. It’s an ongoing discussion.
MOE summary: As we develop, analyze, and provide information for different strategies, we want to find a way to see the differences. Are we headed in the right direction? This is a work in progress and a flavor of what we are looking to do. Note that the viewshed info is being gathered. Cost will be looked at when we get into the alternative land use pattern. That is our summary for the future. There is a boatload of data behind it, so let us know if you need more. We are happy to share.
Carol: Is anything surprising here?
Paul W: It’s what’s expected.
Paul: From a professional perspective, the amount of VHT and VMT growth was a big indication of rural roads becoming cut-through routes. Residential acres consumed are big. Also the degree of congestion. If people are going to Saco to avoid the overlap in Scarborough, it’s not a good thing.
Burleigh: Westbrook is an undervalued commodity. It’s much more desirable to live in. Our population in Gorham is around 16,000 and we’re begging for attention. I think that will change.
Paul: We agree.
Wayne: Will we talk about outlying communities? I do have some concerns. What those four big towns do means problems for us.
Paul: The message I am taking is we need to understand the whole study area.
Carol:
Alternative land use patterns:
Workshop 1: Reviewed and discussed four possible regional land use patterns
I’d like to go over an abbreviated version of what the land use group looked at last week. For that meeting, we had the following folks with us:
Jim Libby, Buxton
Wayne Newbegin, Standish
David Knapp, 113 Corridor
Bob Sanford, USM
Bruce Hyman, Portland Trails
Ben Severance, Hollis
Alex Jaegerman, Portland
Liz Hertz, State Planning
Steve Linnell, GPCOG
Carl Eppich, PACTS
John Duncan, PACTS
2009 housing and jobs distribution: Currently Portland has the least share of housing. The inner suburbs have the most, whereas the outer suburbs have also a high percentage.
Paul W: Is this houses or apartments?
Paul: It is all housing: single, multifamily, and so on.
Carol: Here you see that Portland has most of the jobs. Inner suburbs have a good share. The outer suburbs, not so much; it requires a lot of driving for folks to get to jobs. Projecting to 2035, you can see that things get worse because the housing moves even further out but jobs are mostly in Portland, with some in the inner suburbs. And Portland housing stays relatively low.
Alternative pattern #1: Urban-to-Rural:
Core urban communities retain high share of jobs and dramatically increase share of residential growth
Inner suburbs stabilize at existing trend for both (slight increase in jobs) and create denser, multimodal clusters
Outer suburbs stabilize jobs but much smaller share of residential growth than in Low Density
The question is, can we do something different? Can we test this pattern to see if it makes a difference? This completely reverses the trend we’re looking at now.
Alternative pattern #2: Suburban CCC:
Core urban communities cede some job shares but halt loss of residential shares
Inner suburbs significantly increase share of jobs vs. trend, capture higher share of suburban residential growth (from outer suburbs), create denser, multi-modal clusters
Outer suburbs stabilize jobs and reduce share of residential growth to 1990-2000 levels
This is a little less aggressive and flattens the trend. We give up some jobs to the inner suburbs but stop the downward trend. In 2035, Portland is projected to drop to a 10% share of new housing on the low density pattern: a huge drain. This stops that. Essentially, it means less of a difference in terms of housing and job density between Portland and the inner suburbs.
Alex: When we looked at this with Evan, he showed the data behind this.
Carol: Yes, that’s on the next slide. We are moving some jobs out of Portland into the inner suburbs, making them more job rich.
Alex: I think that’s the share of growth on the suggested allocation slide?
Paul: Yes, that’s correct.
Carol: One of the most interesting things about the land use meeting last week is the reaction from the inner suburbs towns. We thought they would lean towards the Suburban CCC model because it gets them more jobs. But, there was a strong regional perspective – the feeling that it was important for Portland to be healthy and keep jobs – be more in line with the urban model. For the outer suburbs, the story is less housing in either scenario.
Wayne: In Standish we are projecting we have to build 751 homes in the next ten years. What we see here is a cutback to maybe 40 homes for the next 25 years. It’s kind of hard to go back to Standish and say your projection is wrong.
Carol: Remember, this is a test, not a projection. We are not saying it’s surely going to happen. If it will make a difference and is feasible, then we can decide if we want it to happen, we being the region as a whole.
Land use working group recommendation – Urban to Rural Pattern:
Promotes strong urban center by retaining jobs and increasing the housing share
Maintains 1:1 ratio of jobs and housing in inner suburbs
Creates denser, multimodal clusters
Is biggest contrast to Low Density and thus provides good test
May be adjusted slightly to increase jobs in inner suburbs
Wayne: We also did a study to find out where people work. In Standish they work in Portland and Gorham.
Carol: Exactly. At the Planners’ Meeting next week, they will look at the towns individually and determine where the denser clusters of activity could be placed. The towns will make the recommendations based on zoning and activity centers. Questions?
Carl: Has the Southern Regional Planning Commission been invited?
Carol: No, good point, we need to do that.
Carl: They know which towns will have more housing – they need to be there.
Carol: Possible incentives to drive allocation:
Aid for new or enhanced sewer, water infrastructure
Density bonuses
Transit investments
Transit-oriented developments
TIF districts
Any questions?
Paul W: This is getting into a lot of politics.
Carol: We’re all aware of the challenges to this kind of approach, but how else do you make change?
Paul W: Historically, trending in the towns and cities can have a significant effect on what people want.
Carol: They all have been very upfront in terms of seeing barriers.
Barbara: Put it in terms of dollars. If the citizens know they have to pay huge money to support something, it may help change their minds.
Bruce: One thing that Kevin Hooper said last week – the zone structure does not support good analysis. It will underrepresent a lot of things. It really needs to be looked at closely.
Paul: We will use existing zone structure.
Carol: For the first go-through?
Paul: Yes.
Carol: We are expecting the results of this test by early March.
Alex: It does extend beyond the four communities to the larger region. There are not a lot of venues for these types of conversations. This is the first time I’ve seen the low-density trend graphically. To begin to even think about alternatives is an opportunity for the region to look at itself. If we go ahead with the trend, it may make a big difference for transportation and other reasons. It is interesting that we are even having the discussion. Just the point of – if we don’t plan ahead – that’s what happens – it’s interesting. Especially when there is still opportunity to adjust the outcome. Exciting to be involved because of the dynamic opportunity for the region to look at our future.
Gerry Audibert: It appears that urban and rural communities are looking for the same thing – there was less conflict at last week’s meeting than we had thought.
Carol: Before we end, John will talk about timing for meetings.
John: We have roughly 30 members on our committee, and only 17 are here today. We need to improve this.
Paul W: It’d be nice to have it in late afternoon or evening – I have to take vacation time for the meetings.
Carol: Does anyone NOT want evening? About a half dozen members did not want an evening meeting.
Carol: Breakfast? (General agreement). Let’s try that next time. Thanks very much.
Liz Hertz, State Planning Office; Sanda Mowery, Gorham; Mike Phinney, Gorham; David Cole, Gorham; Burleigh Loveitt, Gorham; Tom Coward, South Portland; Tex Haueser, South Portland; Wayne Newbegin, Standish; James Libby, Buxton; Dan Bacon, Scarborough; Rob Sanford, USM; Alex Jaegerman, Portland; Molly Just, Westbrook; John Duncan. PACTS; Rebecca Schaffner-Tousignant, GPCOG; Steve Linnell, GPCOG; Bruce Hyman, Growsmart/Bicycle Coalition/Portland Trails; Gerry Audibert, MaineDOT; Sara Devlin, Maine Turnpike Authority; Conrad Welzel, Maine Turnpike Authority; Kevin Hooper, Hooper Associates; Charlie Colgan, Muskie School; Essek Petrie, HNTB; Andrea D’Amato, HNTB; Ray Faucher. HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communications.
Slides referenced can be viewed in the PowerPoint for this meeting.
Meeting began at 4:11pm
*******
Paul Godfrey:
I’d like to go around and have everyone introduce themselves. Audience members briefly introduce themselves. As we go through the presentation tonight, please don’t be shy about your questions. You’ll see a lot of data the first 45 minutes that you will find very relevant to the discussion that Evan will follow up with later on.
In terms of agenda, I’ll start out with a brief reminder of study measures of effectiveness, or MOEs. I’ll go over the results of the future low density analysis. What do things look like in 2035? Is it good, or is it bad? Evan will then assist with the discussion, continuing on from the first workshop, on which alternative pattern you’d like to test. We are looking for an open discussion on choosing this pattern.
Q: What does low density mean?
Paul: It’s the future no-build, or how things evolve without major influence. It is assuming the same path as today.
Measures of Effectiveness: MOEs help us determine whether the proposed land use / transportation strategies would meet the study Purpose & Need. It contains a lot of good information about what we are trying to accomplish. The MOEs we have to date are on your handout. We want them to be quantifiable to take out the guesswork. Can we measure it? Does it make things better, worse, or the same? We think it’s very important to include quality of life measures and to incorporate them into the process. If these measures need to change, if we find others that will work based on existing data, we will adopt them.
Draft MOE summary chart: This shows how we begin to assess the different strategies we’re looking at. We will compare the future with this chart, which shows today. We will begin to fill this in during subsequent meetings with you and the public. As we get into the assessment and testing of the alternative land use pattern, we’ll use it. Which ones give us the good, double green dots? It gives us a good sense of how the strategies compare to one another. We have reams of information and have analyzed a lot of data. This will show us the story.
Before go on, I know it would be very easy to start solving problems from looking at this. We ask you to look at the problems and not to jump to solutions. Unearth the true story. The Sensible Transportation Policy Act requires us to evaluate everything fully. We also want to make sure we understand the how a land use strategy helps address our issues before we move ahead with it.
Summary of 2035 results:
22 out of 47 intersections analyzed at LOS E/F (up from 7 intersections)
17 of 116 miles of roadway at LOS E/F (up from 4 miles)
No relief to 61 high crash locations
Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) growing twice as fast as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Jumping right in, we see many undesirable levels of service, increasing crashes, and lots of congestion and/or delay in trying to avoid congestion.
Intersection level of service map: The graphic shows the level of service at the 47 intersections analyzed, today and in the future. Notice five intersections with undesirable levels of service. In downtown Gorham, the bypass provides relief but in the future, it will go back to undesirable levels of service as we see additional traffic make it impossible for vehicles to get to the bypass.
PM peak hour LOS map: We have four colors on the map indicating level of service. This shows all the state routes today, with few poor levels of service. But as we move to 2035, you see color changes. The overlap is larger. We see the effect of peak hour increase.
High crash location map: These are represented by the little fuzzy dot or the red segment. In the future these will be challenges if we do not intervene.
Summary of VHT/VMT: VMT growth will be much higher on residential roads. Residential means local or minor collectors. People are living along them. So VMT is higher here than on other roads. VHT growth, study-area-wide, is 50%. VHT is also higher on residential roads.
Comment: We’re finding the state is increasing the move to shift maintenance and repair costs to the municipalities. The more we increase traffic on the local roads, the worse the funding crisis.
Paul: Well-stated. Also, people are building homes on roads and then finding it’s no longer a residential road at some point. It’s a byproduct of congestion – people trying to find the fastest way. To what degree can we offset this so communities don’t have to fix it?
2035 results summary:
Sizeable change in volumes on all roads
Miles of residential roads carrying >200 vph increased from 32 to 47 (47%)
Travel delays along key corridors increased
Transit ridership increased 26%, but primarily due to assumed increases in service and extension of services
Walkability/Bikeability increase similar to transit ridership
So, sizable changes on all roads. 200 VPH is a threshold. A road changes character when it reaches over 2000 cars per day. Multiply what you have in peak hour by ten to get daily volume. When we see residential roads carrying greater than that, we ask if we really want that traffic on that particular road. There are opportunities to develop good mode choice. Let’s think about how to ratchet this up.
Carol: A 26% increase in transit is not a lot, given how small the initial number is.
PM peak hour volume change map: The green lines show volume increases, with the largest increases on primary routes like the Turnpike and I-95. Most state routes are in the middle on the volume scale. It is somewhat proportional.
Residential road PM peak hour volume map: The red shows those already carrying over 200 VPH. In 2035, see the changes, if you look at the upper corner in Westbrook, in Gorham, in Scarborough. It’s not as dramatic as we’d thought. When we look at what they’re carrying today…we see most are carrying greater than 200 already! Do we want this volume?
Summary of corridor travel delays: We have picked some origins and destinations and looked at travel times. Seeing some increasing times. Double-digit increases in travel times for 6 – 8 mile trips is a concern.
Transit and multi-modal summary: This gives ridership figures. The general trend is even though we have increases, numbers are modest. How can we make these 2035 numbers substantial? How can we add benefit to the transport network, for example with walk / bike increases? This will be more of a focus when we look at alternative land use patterns.
Walkability: Walkable means a distance of a quarter-mile or less. It’s mapped by TAZ, or Traffic Analysis Zone. Generally, we see these go along with what we expect. When we get out into rural areas, TAZs are less walkable.
Q: How did you get those numbers?
Paul: We looked at all trips within a TAZ and measured those which are a quarter-mile or less.
Q: What if you double that? People are willing to walk further than a quarter-mile.
Paul: It’s not set in stone. But rather than just change the metric, we want to increase the number of people walking. The charge is understanding and focusing on certain things. So, how do we get things to go to yellow, to get people to walk more.
Bikeability: When we fast forward to 2035, we get increases, generally modest. The threshold is trips of two miles or less. In 2035, we have some TAZs doing better: South Portland, Gorham, Westbrook.
Q: Why does the walkability and bikeability improve in the future if you don’t change anything?
Paul: There are simply more trips in 2035. It’s a function of more people, so more of every kind of trip.
2035 results summary: More data, more homes, more jobs, in absolute numbers. We also look at how many homes are in a given community. We look at job and retail access. How can we do better? Where do we want to do it? With all the new housing units in this study area, it comprises 9,200 acres, a land area of about 15 sq miles. Where do we put that? Do we want all that? On the jobs side, we have 370 additional commercial acres. With EMS access, because of the greater numbers of homes, overall in the study area, we see a slight decline. If we do certain things, to what degree can we change these percentages?
Job accessibility: Red indicates low job access, or how far it is between homes and jobs within a TAZ. It gets to be less in rural areas. Fast forward to 2035, some improvement but again, do we want to increase this?
Q: What’s the criteria for job accessibility?
Paul: Kevin, can you handle that one?
Kevin: The formula that’s used is: numerator is the number of jobs with denominator being the distance. So in this TAZ, we are close to a lot of jobs, here in downtown Portland. This takes into account both distance from jobs and number of jobs.
Comment: So the basic concept is, if you are near a lot of jobs, you have high accessibility. If you have to travel, it’s low.
Paul: Yes. Where do you want to concentrate your growth in the alternative pattern? What is your end product? Hopefully, we can ID more areas where we can have both housing and jobs close together.
Carol: Another way to look at it is that if you move to a place that has high job accessibility, it means you have a better chance of finding a job close to where you live.
Paul: Retail accessibility: This is proximity of housing units and retail services. Out to 2035, it gets a little better but for the most part, if you are out to the west, you have lower access. People are driving in a long ways to get to retail. Do we want to change this? We can measure it. Is retail important to us?
Acres consumed: The residential acres consumed: 9,200. Right now, a large concentration is in Scarborough: 6,500 acres. That’s a lot. Where are those going to go?
MOE summary table: We’ve now added dots to indicate how we believe the 2035 low density model compares to today. It reads from left to right. Reads slide categories.
Q: While I understand job access and retail access are important, and improve, they’re offset by the increase in VHT.
Paul: Yes. That is correct. There will be good data behind all of this. This is just a quick view.
Evan: In context, it is good to understand that if you’re dealing with a confined area, both growth in that area and decentralization in that area gives certain benefits. As you decentralize, modest numbers of jobs access increases. There may be a cost to that but those things do improve. Decentralization can be a strategy.
Q: It is a work in progress. Could there be more MOEs?
Paul: Yes. This is not done yet. The study team wants to look at other things that could yield additional MOEs. If you see things that should be added or subtracted, do let us know.
Q: Looking at your dots, what does “varies” vs. “varies widely” mean?
Carol: It means the results were spotty, and were better in some locations and worse in others.
Paul: Questions about what you’ve seen so far?
Bruce: I’d like to see a little more broad inclusiveness of safety. Right now it’s auto-centric. I’d like to see walkability and bikeability changed to trip potential. Also, how strong of an indicator is accessibility in terms of livability? Back to the last workshop, the four Ds were important. I want MOEs that relate to density, with more thought to the other Ds.
Paul: We are looking to break out pedestrian and bike safety. What I hear you saying is, let’s talk about safety more.
Bruce: If we had 1000 trips within a quarter-mile distance before and have more now, it doesn’t mean it is more “walkable.”
Carol: Are you talking about measuring pedestrian and bike improvements?
Paul: I like the density suggestion.
Bruce: It’s not just residences per TAZ.
Q: How are the TAZs designated?
Kevin: Census tracts and block groups. You want the TAZs to be relatively uniform in nature so that in downtown Portland, a TAZ might be street blocks. As you get further out, TAZs are larger, bounded by natural features.
Evan: We are somewhat data-limited. In rural areas, geography is just large.
Kevin: A TAZ can be subdivided. As you get into hinterlands, numbers don’t mean all that much.
Comment: The last time we looked at habitat maps. That should be an MOE.
Paul: We are working on that, trying to identify growth by TAZ and where it would go. To what degree will development make an impact? It’s a work in progress. Habitats are very relevant, speaking to the environment. I’m going to hand over to Evan now.
Evan Richert:
Alternative land use patterns, to date:
Workshop 1: Reviewed and discussed four possible regional land use patterns
Outcome: Four revised patterns
Evan and Study Team combined to two:
– Urban-to-Rural
– Suburban Community-Centered Corridor
Other two Land Use patterns considered “Best Practices” to be applied to final selected alternative Land Use Pattern
We felt that we needed a workshop with key people in the study area to help identify and choose the alternative land use pattern to test. We could have done it on our own and it would have been wrong because we don’t have all the information. We wanted to convene people “in the know” in their communities – those with physical and political knowledge. Tonight’s outcome will be a recommendation for the Advisory and Steering Committees.
October 29, we held the first workshop. We only vaguely defined the scenarios - patterns. We broke into groups to talk about them and got four revised patterns. We then began to allocate homes and jobs to parts of the region. The Steering Committee decided on two distinct patterns. The other two patterns got incorporated into those patterns as best practices. The job for you is to guide us into which of these two to choose. It could be a hybrid. The goal is to test just one alternative. We have to create a pretty assertive but realistic test of the land use.
Molly: How does the second to last paragraph in the handout document relate to what you said? Is the Urban to Rural scenario off the table?
Evan: No. We are building up from the Suburban Community Centered Corridor pattern. That is the baseline. We really have two factors: the test pattern must be different than low density, and it must be plausible.
Alex: In the scope of services, will we only test one alternative?
Evan: Yes.
Bruce: How is the choice of land use impacting the range of transportation options? If we do Suburban Community Centered Corridors, the Mountain Division (rail line) cannot be tested. What is the relation between land use and transportation?
Evan: We don’t know without running the test.
David: It does seem to me that we can test a lot of things that would be great in utopia. If there is a zero chance of it happening, it’s a waste of money.
Evan: You guys can also tweak this.
Comment: I want to know what it would take from a reorganization of land use to make it plausible? Don’t constrain the test model too much at the outset.
Evan: That’s why we want to get your input. One future is that the number of failing intersections will triple. 9,000 acres of rural land consumed. This is the kind of future were looking at.
Comment: The thing to remember is that the status quo is what we’re comparing to. The recommendation should be different than that.
Evan: Yes. That’s a good floor to start from. Make it different from the low density scenario.
Allocating jobs and housing: One way to look at is to ask what the trends in growth in the subregions are and then how can we modify the trends? Then, how do we allocate growth within a given community? We have some rules for this unless you tell us differently. We allocate regionally and within the communities. Later this month, town planners will be fine-tuning this to the town & TAZ level. That will be what Kevin Hooper will test.
Alternative pattern #1: Urban-to-Rural:
Core urban communities retain a high share of jobs and dramatically increase their share of residential growth
Inner suburbs stabilize at existing trend for both (slight increase in jobs) and create denser, multimodal clusters
Outer suburbs stabilize jobs but get a much smaller share of residential growth than in Low Density
The Urban-to-Rural pattern reverses the longtime trend. The charts in your hands give you a sense of the numbers.
Urban centers have 65% of the jobs. The inner suburbs have 29%. In the low density scenario, we see decentralization. Housing-wise, urban growth dropped in 2009. The trend is for urban areas to have 29% of growth, inner suburbs 45%, outer suburbs 26%. By 2035, urban areas only capture 10% of new housing, inner suburbs over half, outer suburbs nearly 40%. We have vast decentralization. This alternative reverses that.
Q: Are we still decentralizing to some extent?
Evan: Yes.
Alternative pattern #2: Suburban CCC:
Core urban communities cede some job shares but halt loss of residential shares
Inner suburbs significantly increase their share of jobs vs trend, capture higher share of suburban residential growth (from outer suburbs), create denser, multi-modal clusters
Outer suburbs stabilize jobs and reduce their share of residential growth to 1990-2000 levels
Jobwise, here we have urban areas with 50% of the new jobs, inner suburbs with 45%, outer with 5%. In some ways, this means the job-rich areas get more residential. Residential growth numbers: urban 20% of homes, inner suburbs get a 55% share, outer would get 25%. There is a chart at the end of this with these numbers.
A pattern for best practice as suggested at the previous working session in October: Sub-regional balance:
Growth of housing and jobs will be allocated regionally in order to try to create a strong jobs / housing balance in all regions
This needs to be part of the ultimate fine-tuning of allocations by town planners
We will do this in any scenario – work towards jobs / housing balance.
Another pattern for best practice: Greenbelt development:
This pattern suggests placement of new development based on principle of maximizing identified green and open space
Can be integrated into any development pattern
First, figure out what should not be developed in terms of open space, woodland, farmland, etc., and then allocate growth. That’s how most of us plan now.
How to make it happen: Whenever you depart from trend, even when you look at energy prices, aging demographics, etc, it is not easy to flatten a trend. What is the public’s appetite for intervention? Oil is starting to go back up and we can concoct a future where the rules of the game change.
Possible incentives/regulations to drive allocation:
Aid for new or enhanced sewer, water infrastructure
Density bonuses
Transit investments
Transit-oriented developments
TIF districts
Strong rural zoning
Stronger growth boundaries
Regional Transfer of Development Rights program
Regional zoning
Measures could include regulation at the local and regional level, stronger rural zoning, stronger growth boundaries, rights programs so you can compensate land owners, and regional zoning. Some of these things would have to happen.
Q: What are density bonuses?
Evan: At the community level, you allow for development of certain growth areas in the community. Orono has a serious density bonus program, with a multiple of four times of allowable density in some areas.
Q: So there are real winners and losers with land owners?
Evan: There’s a lot of innovation in this area. Scarborough, South Portland, and Gorham have all enacted transfer development programs. Those do nothing to take away any existing rights from landowners. Our judgment is that they will do very little to alter the pattern. It does not penalize. If you create a system of winners and losers, you try to compensate the losers.
So, which alternative should we test?
The pattern tested should be reality-based, yet demonstrate sufficient change to potentially make a difference
Selection of the alternative pattern is not an endorsement of this pattern; it is for testing purposes only
Discussion Topics:
Evaluate perceived potential public tolerance of needed incentives and land use regulations
Balance the above against apparent need for major transportation interventions
Balance both against perceived public desire to maintain area rural qualities
What is the public willing to trade to maintain rural qualities? To keep city centers vital?
Paul: What if we tested the extremes in jobs and dwelling units? To what level are you comfortable? Is it better to see how far we can push?
Evan: Are you suggesting two tests?
Paul: No, but we can look at different traffic levels. Certain things I am comfortable interpreting from a transportation perspective.
Evan: Can we extrapolate without further testing?
Paul: Yes.
Evan: We’ve reviewed a lot of literature from the last 15 – 20 yrs. We can say if we go 20% farther, we can make things “X” much better. The 4D paradigm internally capture rates, density here and at the point of origin. If we use the test as a reference point.
Paul: I want to alleviate fears.
Evan: Refers to suggested allocations in jobs and housing for urban areas, inner suburbs, and outer suburbs. This chart gives you a sense.
Carol: Now we’re looking for everyone’s thoughts about what to test. What are your concerns and questions?
Evan: To what degree do the low density projections move the political plausibility bar?
Carol: Once we do a test and the test shows making land use changes improves things…could that improve political will?
Q: What do we do next?
Evan: Starting from the parameters given for the Suburban CCC pattern in terms of job and housing allocation, how far are you willing to move?
Continued: Are we doing this discussion as a group of 30 people?
Evan: Yes.
Q: Is the dwelling unit growth distributed within community compact growth nodes?
Evan: Well, what’s the real difference between the Urban-to-Rural and the Suburban CCC? Within communities, in both cases the intent is core growth areas that are multimodal friendly, and increasing the possibility of transit. That’s true under either case. Beyond that, the Suburban CCC still allows a lot of decentralized growth. The Urban-to-Rural is only 20% decentralized. We think that over the last 40 years, well over 60% of housing growth has been outside of designated growth areas.
Burleigh: Are you looking for what works politically?
Evan: Yes, with a caveat: what is the edge of plausibility?
Continued: For the areas in greater Portland with in-place water and sewer it makes a lot of sense. Too bad that Portland loses residences to the outside. With some attention Portland has nice livable residential dense areas. Politically, that’s very appealing. In outlying areas like Gorham, the infrastructure or lack thereof dictates. The Standish prototype is an example. This fits Gorham. People hate willy-nilly development. Mixed use is very palatable to the political will and the individual.
Evan: Compact growth nodes means 6-15 units per acre in urban areas, 4-12 in rural areas.
Continued: Westbrook is an emerging market with an artificially low history of housing.
Evan: I think you’re right there.
Tex: In South Portland and Portland, we have denser areas, areas zoned for multifamily where we’re willing to consider multifamily zones and increased density. Politically, I don’t see us moving from single family to multifamily use. From 10 units per acre and up is ok. Our problem is we don’t have separated sewers. We have trouble with storm water discharge. We can’t put it into combined sewers.
Evan: For this test, let’s not limit ourselves by the dollars are available today. We can make a funding argument.
Tex: We have tremendous support for bike- and walkability. We are excited about meshing our plan with whatever comes out. We have dropped the ball on sprawl development. We should have been doing more dense development. The result is great support for denser development. Our problem is we don’t have much left to develop. We can do infills and some redevelopment. There is more political support for pulling development our way instead of spreading out further. That trend will continue.
Comment: In our case, we don’t have vacant land. It’s tear down and put up new.
Comment: We are trying to keep things from being developed.
Molly: Speaking for Westbrook, we are quite unique, with a self-sustaining downtown and suburbs and exurbs. There are areas not served by public water and sewer. Looking at the Urban-to-Rural for Westbrook, in terms of jobs to housing, 65/35 is ideal for us. When you go to 50/20, we are a ghost town. Not what we want to see. Westbrook is committed to density.
Evan: And here’s where we work with Windham, Standish, Gorham to divert housing and fulfill your vision.
David: You have widespread agreement with the concept. The key question is what level and the next level after that.
Evan: I propose more time for impressions and initial thoughts. When you feel you’ve gotten that on the table, let’s operationalize with the numbers, using the suggested allocations slide as a floor.
Wayne: Out of the four, the first alternative had to do with getting the public involved. You have to do this – if they buy in you can get the bonds and take care of some of the incentives. If you don’t get the large landowners involved, it’s bad. Three years ago, we cut down to 85 building permits per year.
Even: That’s very constructive information.
Alex: I would like to go for the more robust test. Can Portland absorb this level of growth? I’d like to share: Portland has a policy of sharing regional population as housing policy. We are on the losing end of the trend line. What does Portland have in place now for planning and zoning? I did promote an infill multifamily amendment and got beat up. Single family infill was ok, multifamily was not. We have the areas for growth – areas where there are no residential limitations. Portland is well situated for elder or for single-person but muliti-family? I found that we do have some vacant land. More multifamily means we don’t have to change the rules, we have to change the trends. We have the policy, the plan, the zoning in place. I was pleased to realize, not just politically, that we are urging growth to come our way and we already have land use policy in effect. Capacity exists. Sewers are a factor. We don’t have the best schools. A school policy is needed for growth. Bottom line, it’s good for the region if my city has a healthy core. We don’t want to take it away from any other community but there’s only so much growth to go around. If we test a less aggressive version, I’d rather test a tipping point…get the economic benefit.
Evan: My conclusion based on what I’m hearing is that Portland, South Portland and Westbrook, with a proper upgrade of infrastructure, have the land base and will to retain and achieve a stronger share of the region’s housing. It is technically possible.
Burleigh: Gorham has 200 units currently in approval stage, another 500 developing.
Evan: 500 units per year on average is the estimated growth for each of the three cities.
Alex: At that pace of growth, it does not seem radical even though it’s bigger than trend. That would not overwhelm us. This is a natural growth rate.
Evan: Given the land base and political will in those three cities, we can do a strong test. How important is it to have political will in the suburbs to do things to deflect the growth from them? Dave has argued that is important. From the three cities’ point-of-view, what are the kinds of things you’d think of? Either you create magnets or walls. Do you see that as necessary? Or possible?
David: Gorham has 200 units in the pipeline. Many times residential units don’t pay their own way. The housing question may be more palatable. The jobs question is more delicate. Some of the communities have growth caps now.
Evan: Scarborough has a growth cap.
David: The question is what does it take to achieve it?
Evan: Would this property owner of 30 acres be willing to accept 30 homes there?
Continued: What does it take to do it? If what it takes is so disagreeable, what good is it for us? If it’s on the outer edge of doable,can you talk about it? Tell me what I have to do to and then gp on to the next level.
Evan: To get to the Suburban CCC pattern, inner suburbs have to do very little. The organization inside the community must be stepped up. Scarborough, Gorham, and Standish have already taken steps. You have to enhance it. Deflecting growth from rural to growth corridors. Stronger rural zoning. Transfer of development credits program. Or making those corridors so attractive that that’s where developers want to go. Or growth caps.
Comment: Looking at the suggested allocation, Urban-to-Rural is an improvement to status quo while it also focuses density where there is infrastructure.
Evan: Yes. Either of these require some significant changes in the market. Energy prices, aging demographics or determination from outer suburbs to get down to a lower share. This requires reigning things in. That’s not a small task. Portland could say, Standish, we’ll pay you for housing: transfer of development rights program.
Alex: But that adds costs to developing in Portland.
Evan: If this becomes an important transportation mitigation action, why not spend $5000 per unit to shift homes vs. a million per mile to upgrade road? I’m pressing this because it’s what you have to do to get there. A lot has to do with the outer suburbs accepting and implementing actions that slow down the rates of growth they’ve experienced the last 40 years.
Q: For Standish, do you want to grow as fast as trend is taking you? Portland is strong at trend. But I wonder about communities that are moving from rural to more suburban. Maybe the carrot is letting them choose what they want.
Evan: There is one policy answer, another for rural landowners.
David: Incentives. Gorham is taking a different tact. Overlays have gotten us more dense growth. I suggest that we use a free market approach to corral growth. Gorham is trying to do that. One reason Gorham and other burbs have developed a lot is that they’re the only areas where inexpensive land is available. We should incentivize in the American tradition of people doing the right thing as opposed to legislative requirements. In Gorham, it won’t fly. People do have land investments. But most people are not holding onto their land to get wealthy. Most people are generous with their land. Gorham is glad to help Portland with housing units.
Rob: It’s a push – pull. Every community has something that pulls and things that push away. Sometimes we cancel other communities out. Let’s do regional planning. If you have a push from suburbs, using incentives or other programs can help the pull. Articulate what the push and pull is and regionally coordinate. For example, should we have regional policy on tripling density?
Evan: Some of the communities are closer with established policy than I realized. Standish and Scarborough have a building cap. That works both for regional and internal distribution. Gorham and Scarborough have incentive overlay districts. Portland is zoned for growth…the wall to climb may not be as high as I envisioned.
Dan: With Scarborough, we have a building cap. We are happy to give some residential to cities. We want to keep jobs high enough for property taxes. That’s where it looks like the suburban scenario is better. If commercial was closer to housing, Scarborough would be more comfortable with our current property tax situation. My other comment – the costs of extending sewer and water out is a big component. The Urban-to-Rural is less costly to the region. Fewer locations where utilities need to be extended. I support that with a bump in jobs or holding steady for inner suburbs.
Evan: Yes, the Suburban CCC pattern holds you steady.
Jim: Looking at Urban-to-Rural, I like the push-pull analogy. When I think of Buxton and our growth, people like to build and it’s easy to build out our way. From what I hear in this room, it has a lot to do with infrastructure. Tax rates – ours is less than 10 mils. That’s a pull. In the next three years though, reduction impacts our schools.
Evan: Growth caps tend to be leapfroggers. Now, look at a hybrid of the Urban-to-Rural to test but with a greater job allocation than 30% to the suburbs to better match the housing. Drop the 65% urban jobs. How about some ceding of jobs to suburban nodes, at least in the inner suburbs?
Molly: I think our goal for tonight is to focus on one alternative. I feel like we’ve done that. This is a suggestion or request. You guys go back and study the Urban-to-Rural. We know who and what we’re talking about. Look at the numbers. I feel like we’ve had huge progress tonight.
Evan: I want to walk out of here with a good sense of where we are for the Advisory Committee – I want to say, here’s what we will test. We are getting there. David Cole has issued strong cautions.
David: I am comfortable with those hybrid allocations. The real question is, what do we do if we like the numbers. I am fine if we give a little more job growth to suburbs and then just test.
Molly: My angst is the urban areas don’t gain any jobs.
Evan: These are shares of growth. You do gain job. At a 50% share, you gain over 12,000 jobs.
Molly: But our share remains the same. It feels the same but we have more housing.
Evan: You get three times the amount as you do under low density.
Tex: I understand where she’s coming from. If you want to reduce traffic, keep jobs near housing. From 65% to 60% in urban areas is arbitrary. This is a great discussion tonight. Maybe a little historic, in terms of a regional discussion about potentially doable things. It’s significant that the gentleman from Buxton is here. Buxton has to be part of the region, they have to be comfortable.
Evan: Endorsing this in a policy is way is down the road.
Alex: With our situation in Portland – our tax rate is the highest – we are the service center for the region – the jobs are critical for our economic base. If we are not hemorrhaging jobs – the 5% reduction – is it the right message to send? It generally operates to the detriment of the downtown. I am troubled by the 5% - I want to push back on that due to the fiscal strain. We feel it worse. Our tax rate is as high as anyone’s and our stressors are higher than most.
Evan: I would say that there is something to be said for improving the job / housing balance at sub regional levels. You are job-rich – not a bad thing. Your taxpayer cost is high because your daytime population is so much higher than your nighttime population. I don’t want to weaken Portland or Lewiston or Bangor. At the same time, it may help to right that jobs / housing balance.
Burleigh: I move for consensus to study the Urban-to-Rural as we have it on the slide.
Paul: My perspective is that modeling the difference between a 65/30 to 60/35 jobs / housing ratio will make a difference. From a transportation perspective, 60/35 will yield something better. How much, I don’t know. When we try to do a jobs/ housing balance it is better from transport perspective. Part of this is a transportation study. If the region and state can save money on transport, we can use it elsewhere.
Steering Committee attending: David Cole, Gorham; Tex Haeuser, South Portland; Jim Gailey, South Portland; Eric Dudley, Westbrook; John Duncan, PACTS; Dan Bacon, Scarborough; Tom Hall, Scarborough, Conrad Welzel, Maine Turnpike Authority; Sara Devlin, Maine Turnpike Authority, Gerry Audibert, MaineDOT.
Study Team: Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Ray Faucher, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communications
Absent: Burleigh Loveitt, Gorham; Paul Neihoff, PACTS
The meeting began at 1:03 pm.
Paul started the meeting by providing an overview of the agenda.
-Overview of 2nd Land Use Workshop
-Results of 2035 Low Density Analysis
-Transportation Strategies Brainstorming
-2010 Steering Committee Meeting Schedule
-What’s Next/Schedule Update
Land Use Workshop
The second land use workshop is scheduled for tomorrow night, and will include a presentation on the 2035 Low Density analysis to provide the group with an overview of what major problems would be in 2035. This will be the last of the two workshops.
Two patterns remain – one is Urban-to-Rural and the other is Suburban Community Centered Corridor. If we find that these new development patterns improve the problems we see in the Low Density analysis, we can consider incorporating land use solutions into the plan.
Tom Hall: You say we have two left. How many did we have to start with?
Carol: We started with four that Evan had developed at the first land use workshop. The workshop participants made recommendations on those, and we ended up with four new ones. Two of this set of four we believed could be incorporated as best practices. One of these takes a Greenbelt approach, meaning that new development would be located around existing green and open space that communities want to keep intact. The second involved the desire to keep a balance between jobs and housing not just on a town-by-town basis, but also on a subregional basis. Both those patterns could be used as a part of whichever of the alternative approaches are chosen.
Paul: We have resources to test just one alternative. But we may find that we will do some additional fine-tuning based on what works and what doesn’t. Tomorrow we will primarily discuss the remaining two alternative patterns. These work with the three categories of communities: Urban, inner suburbs and outer suburbs. The remaining communities in the model area have not yet been categorized.
Our goal is to move housing and jobs around in a different way from what is happening now.
The goal for tomorrow night is to make sure people understand the purpose of testing this. We will determine what range of housing and job allocation people are comfortable with.
Then, a planners’ meeting will take place later in the month to more finely allocate to all the towns.
Tom: Will the planners’ meeting take place before or after the test?
Paul: It will take place before the test takes place.
2035 Low Density Analysis
Paul: This is a lot of information, so please make sure to ask questions.
Based on the analysis:
- 22 out of 47 intersections will be at Level of Service (LOS) E or F – up from 7 intersections currently at E or F.
- The number of miles of roadway that are at an undesirable level of service increases four-fold.
- There are 61 high crash locations in the study area. In 2035, there will be essentially no relief if nothing is done. In the 1980s, I recall that the number of high crash locations was in the 20s. The caveat is, that over the course of time, some of these would be addressed by MaineDOT. As we get further along, we will coordinate with PACTS and MaineDOT on this. But this is a good litmus test.
- Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) measures how long people spend in their cars. It is growing at a rate twice as fast as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), or how many miles traveled. This means people are either sitting in traffic, or driving longer to get around congestion. This is a big problem and as part of the study, we have to see what we can do to mitigate it.
- Of the 47 intersections that will be at LOS E or F, we have a map that shows current 2009 Level of Service in the peak hour and also what the anticipated level is in 2035. Problems show in Gorham downtown, the Scarborough overlap, Payne Rd., Broadturn Road, William Clark Drive. We are seeing the benefit of the recently built bypass compromised by growth.
- Roadway levels of service. This map shows the situation today: Blue is good, green not so good, orange and red are undesirable. We can see that the Overlap location is not good, as well as the turnpike southbound between Exits 42 and 44 during evening (pm) commute. Main Street in Gorham, west of New Portland Road in 2035 gets worse. The overlap area of undesirable LOS in Scarborough gets bigger. Bigger stretches of the turnpike Southbound is now at Levels of Service E and F. Large sections of I-295 as well, even though we showed it widened. We can also look at local roads in this measure but for now we are looking at state roads.
Tex Haeuser: The legend shows that (LOS) E is orange and F is red. Both are undesirable. You should make all undesirable red – LOS E and F.
There was general agreement that this would make the map easier to read. Study Team will look at incorporating this change for future mapping.
Paul – We see changes in degree of High Crash Locations – these are growing issues. We see most will have a negative change in 2035.
Tom: Can you predict where new High Crash Locations (HCLs) will be?
Paul: Yes, that is technically something that can be done, however, this Study is not currently scoped to include this effort. Gerry, does the number of HCL’s generally grow every year?
Gerry Audibert: In the 90s, they were shrinking. Not sure what has happened in the last decade here. The cutoff is eight crashes in three years.
Paul: Here we have a summary of VMT/VHT, showing an increase on all roads, with a larger increase on Residential Roads (Residential Roads are defined here as roads having less than 2,000 vehicles per day and less that 200 vehicles per hour). This shows that people are driving more on these roads. In VHT, we see that people are spending more time in their cars as well.
Results Summary
-Percentage increase in traffic volumes on Residential Roads means traffic is growing greater than on other roads
-Miles of Residential Roads that are carrying more than 200 vehicles per day increased from 32% to 47%
-Travel delays increased along key corridors.
-Transit ridership has increased 26%. However, this is based on an assumed increase in service and extension of services
-Walkabilty and bikeability are increased, but not enough to make a real difference in transportation choice.
Paul: PM Peak Hour Volume Change: Over 25 years, roads in the Study Area that are showing the biggest increase in volume are the bigger roads, growing over 500 vehicles in the peak hour. Many of the state roads are growing between150-500 vehicles in the PM peak hour. The bypass in Gorham did not grow that much because there are too many chokepoints before it – people cannot get through. They are finding different ways to get to their destinations. And that is why the volumes on the residential roads are growing so fast.
Paul: Residential Roads at Peak Hour Volume: Today, the red line shows residential roads with more than 200 vehicles per hour – looking at 2035, we see where those increase. There is not too much change.
Paul: Summary of Corridor Travel Delays: Here, there is not as much increase in delay as we expected, but still a lot of double digit increases in travel time.
John Duncan: I think these are quite compelling.
Eric Dudley: I agree. Ten more minutes on a 20-minute trip is a lot.
Steering Committee requested that we add distance to the table summarizing corridor delays. Study Team will incorporate.
Paul: Transit and Multi-modal: This shows an increase, but we need to find what to do to make this increase meaningful. We are not where we need to be to in terms of trip choice. Same with biking.
Paul: Maps of walking and biking: The comparison between 2009 and 2035 shows that the world gets a little bit better in terms of walking and biking accessibility but we are not getting the kind of densities we need to really provide choice for people. Again, we still have a long way to go.
Eric: Why in North Gorham do we have a higher percentage of trips that are walkable?
David Cole: What makes a two-mile trip walkable in 2009 vs. 2035?
Paul: There is no difference.
Paul: Eric, I see your point. We need to look at it to see what drives it.
Eric: It just seems counter-intuitive.
2035 summary
-We also look at Emergency Management Service (EMS) critical distance – how far a home is from EMS. We see that the number of homes within the critical distance increases but overall community percentage within the critical distance decreases slightly. There is a decrease in the regional study area, the four core communities fared pretty well, with most keeping the same percentage.
-Another measure is Job and Retail Accessibility, and we see that increasing within the four core communities
-Due to the number of expected new houses, 9,200 additional residential acres are consumed from 2009 to 2035 – approximately the land mass of Westbrook or Scarborough.
-370 additional acres are consumed by commercial growth
Tex: In the previous acres consumed slide, can we map this so we show loss of open space?
Paul: Yes, we can do that. Note – we have since reviewed this request and found that while we can determine the amount of acres consumed by TAZ, mapping the actual location of the development within the TAZ cannot be precise.
Tex: We need to see the map in terms of open space so we can see what would actually disappear.
Conrad: We heard that people really liked the green space aspects of this region, so this is a good point.
David: We need to know what is driving the EMS index. It is potentially unsafe since Gorham has a relatively low number of homes within the critical area.
Paul: We will do some work on that.
Job accessibly
Paul: There is good job accessibly in the South Portland area, with some in Scarborough and some in Westbrook. Other than that, it’s not great. And it’s not much better in 2035. This is a good opportunity to see how we could change that.
Retail ServicesAccessibility
This is similar to Job Accessibility. It also doesn’t change much in 2035. Is this good or bad? That is up to you.
John: Where does this measure come from?
Paul: This came from the Gateway 1 Study.
Carol: It is important because it reduces the time and distance people have to travel to go to stores, buy groceries, etc. If retail services are accessible, there are fewer cars on the road.
Sara Devlin: Does it include medical services?
Paul: No.
Eric: Usually, doctors’ offices are close to retail services. I think this is an important measure. That is what we deal with pedestrian improvement. People want to get from their home to the grocery store easily. It’s very important.
Paul: The number of vehicle trips has grown every year – and it has grown mostly in the number of discretionary trips. If we were able to put a green retail blob in Gorham, what would that do to traffic issues?
Eric: If we can get that data, it would be great.
Sara: Is this the Iowa study?
Paul: Yes, I have heard about that. I will follow up to see what I can find.
Residential acres consumed
Paul: Over the next 25 years, we will consume 2,210 new acres in residential growth in Gorham alone. Over the core communities, 9,184 acres. This is a big number. Is it what you want to happen? In commercial acres consumed, we’re looking at 368 acres.
Tex: It seems odd that Scarborough is less than South Portland.
Paul: Yes, we will check with Evan on this tomorrow.
Methods of Evaluation (MOEs)
Paul: This chart shows how the MOEs compare with Low Density, now and in 2035. Safety, mobility and EMS responses worsen, as do VHT, VMT, Level of Service and Delays.
John: New jobs and new homes by town “improve significantly” here. Is this what we want? Is improves the right word? Is more better? Do we say yes, we want to grow by 15,000 people?
David: Under the current structure in Maine, I (Gorham) want all the businesses in my town and I want all the people to live in Scarborough. Residential property is a money loser. And I make money from businesses. We do want the whole area to get jobs because that helps everyone.
Tom: Maybe there is a way to change the words. Now, there is a judgment involved. New homes and jobs increase - can you change from “improving” to “increasing”?
Paul: My understanding is that communities do want both residential and job growth.
David: I am not going to get enough tax dollars from residential homes to pay for the services I provide. I do get that from industrial development.
Gerry: What if you are a service center without a lot of population?
David: Large service centers get hurt because they now attract not just commercial property, but non-profits. If you took 80% of their tax-exempt property and made it taxable, you would see a big difference.
Tom: Of the tax base in service centers, I would say 25% are tax-exempt.
Tex: I agree, we should go to “increase”, not “improve”.
Tom: Or use an “up” or “down” arrow.
Dan: Are these just for the four core communities?
Paul: Yes, the Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) measure outcomes in the four core communities.
Tex: Why is there not a “worsen significantly” too?
Eric: What does the safety MOE mean?
Paul: It’s related to high crash locations.
Eric: Can we make that something more specific?
Tex: Can we add an open space MOE?
Tom: Do we want to keep adding MOEs?
Paul: If we have the data, it is easy to add MOEs. If we have to go after data we don’t have, that is a problem. But this is about more than just fixing roads and we want to get that across.
Tom: I like this slide. It’s a good graphic – summarizes a lot of what the cost of progress is all about.
Paul: To go to your earlier question, we can add more.
Tom: We need to have definitions so people know what they are and understand where they came from.
Paul: Yes. As data is made available, we will also look to see if there are additional items that should be measured.
Tom: To go back to David’s comment, at the end of the day this has to be financially viable.
Paul: Some cost assessments are easy to do, some are not. Can we financially measure EMS? I have tried to quantify cost on this, but it is very difficult. Putting a cost to what it would take to implement a different land use pattern is hard.
David: When I think of doing a construction project, we know we need some way to fund it. Sometimes people want to wave a magic wand. If this study makes recommendations that are politically unfeasible, we will put it on the shelf. We need to make this study result useful, something that we can do something with. If not, we have spent a lot of time doing nothing.
Tom: But we are trying to solve the problem here, and if we can demonstrate that we can do it, we can build the political will. That is what we are trying to do here.
Paul: And maybe we can spend less as part of what we do.
Tom: Is it possible that we can recommend several transportation solutions as part of this study”
Paul: Yes, that is likely.
Paul: We want to compare the various costs of transit and land use, new roads and land use change. We will mix and match everything to see what works the best. We will attach costs as we can.
David: The difference is what will be viable. If we make change compulsory, it is politically undoable. But, if the study says you want to get to this point, and recommends interim steps, then public opinion can change. In this room, we spend a lot of time asking what CAN we do. Not what we want to do. We can’t build utopia.
Tex: The MTA has a revenue model that is the only one that works for building new transportation capacity. Using the toll mode, something can be done to improve economic development, and also add some Smart Growth features. That is what keeps me coming to these meetings.
Dan: Related to Level of Service, where are the overall traffic numbers?
Paul: Level of service has been generated from the peak hour link volumes.
Dan: Is it possible to see the raw numbers?
Paul: Yes.
Transportation Strategies
Paul: Yourhandout shows the kind of transportation strategies we could implement. Today I would like to focus on these three:
- Improve Existing Infrastructure
- New Capacity
- Transit/Multi-modal
We have signalized intersections that are failing – could we improve at Gorham downtown? Can we improve at William Clark Drive?
David: With enough money, we can improve downtown Gorham by changing the signals and the intersection. I am not sure what new technology is available.
Paul: Looking at William Clark Drive, there are lots of signals here. Can we improve? What is the cost, and to what degree does it solve the problem.
David: Signals enhance safety at the expense of travel time.
Jim Gailey: In some places we cannot signalize because it does not meet the DOT warrants.
Paul: But it perhaps would in 2035. So we would assemble a package for what the appropriate solution – signal, roundabout - whatever improves safety and mobility.
Ray Faucher: We look to see if there are any corridors that need to be looked at in terms of LOS and HCL.
Eric: We have a project already in process on William Clark Drive.
Tom: In Scarborough, Running Hill Road is a mess. Something needs to be done and I’m not sure what the answer is.
Paul: I know you have plans for that - we need to incorporate that and other communities’ plans to assess what will work overall.
Conrad: There are four or five hot spots I see here. Either there is a lot of traffic at intersections or traveling through, or there is a reason why everyone is trying to get to that particular location, or it is a combo of both. It would be helpful to know the reality of those hot spots. Downtown Gorham is a combination. As we try to break down the reasons behind the hot spots, we will have a better idea.
Paul: Rte. 1 South, Rtes. 22 and 25 and 302 and 114. These are our principal corridors. We want to know what would work. Is a frontage road feasible? In downtown Gorham, probably not. William Clark Drive, maybe.
Tom: Volumes on Holmes and Broadturn Roads are already a problem. There will be new hot spots.
Conrad: Why are they a problem?
Tom: People passing through.
Conrad. That creates a different solution.
Paul: We will create a laundry list of what the possible solutions are and we will bounce them to you. Here is the list of things we’d like to apply. You will tell us what we have missed.
Ray Faucher: For an intersection solution you can have a good menu of items you can use. New capacity becomes more challenging. We are looking to get more feedback on what can be more appropriate.
Paul: Yes, I wanted to have a discussion of new capacity. That is next on the list. This is a huge bottleneck for the region. (Routes 114 and 22). Can we do a localized bypass here? Is this something we should look at?
John: Will we bless this list?
Paul. Of course. I would love to have you tell me what you want. But we can also develop a list, have you approve and amend it.
David: How will a local bypass solve regional congestion? It will just push the problem down the road.
Paul: What if we were able to put together a package of localized bypasses – would it get you half the way there.
Ray: If combined with access management
Paul: The possibilities are infinite.
Ray: It needs to be politically viable as well as constructible.
David: Access management on town roads is immediate death. On new roads, you can do it.
Tex: The original purpose here is reflected in the title of the committee. We are looking to explore new capacity, new roads, looking at Right of Way (ROW) for multi-modal access to accommodate alternate roads extending from east to west.
Paul: If you had to be reasonably specific, where would it go?
Tex: – I look to transportation engineers to tell me where the best solution would be. But I think the ring road concept is interesting.
Jim: I agree with Tex. Create ROW that is multi-use, focus on transit, Create hubs and networks that entice people to take a quicker and easier way to get into the urban cores. I entered into this thinking the answer was to get people in and out more quickly. Now I see limited access new capacity as the answer. Here it is 2010 and we are seeing greater emphasis on transit – we need to be prepared.
John: You said give us some ideas – I have been thinking that I need to generate some lines on a map, but it is hard to do. You give it a shot and we can fine-tune it.
Dan: Tex’s idea from the last meeting was limited access that would evolve into transit as well. Either a ring road or one that splits and serves two different corridors. Standish/Windham and Buxton/Hollis, those really are two corridors.
Tom: Conrad asked why these problems exist. Does a little local bypass solve the problem? We need to ask the questions.
Paul: We are looking at who uses them from where. Is it people driving though or is it more localized? That will go into our assessment.
Tom: There is lots of conversation about the economic development. Not sure a limited access road helps that. Or quality of life.
David: It could be built so it does. There would be three or four access points. A road that efficiently and quickly moves goods is a good economic component. A few points off and on to serve the economic area.
Tex. That was what I was thinking.
Paul: We will come back to you with a suggestion. I am concerned that I am hearing that we just need to get to the limited access idea and take care of the problem. The number of new facilities built is very small, we don’t want to bank on something that is not viable.
Gerry: We need to keep the Sensible Transportation Policy Act (STPA) in mind – expanding capacity is the last option. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) we also have to identify all reasonable alternatives. This is based on current conditions projected forward. We also have to look at land use patterns.
Paul: Yes, we will look at them. We may find that it does not do enough.
Gerry: Do we look at land use first and see what the effect is?
Paul: The intent is to do both and look at them individually, decide to what degree each works then put them together.
Eric: We need to explore opportunities for partnership with utilities. If we create a new corridor, can we get a partner to help with that. That would help to offset costs.
Tom: Have you asked us this question prematurely? We have spent a lot of time getting to a land use pattern – shouldn’t we do that first, and then choose a transportation solution?
Paul: Yes, we could do land use first, and then move to transportation.
Tom: Shouldn’t we decide on what preferred land use pattern first? We are so close.
Paul: There is no right or wrong way. We know that the Land Use decision falls to you folks. The likelihood of achieving a full land use change is challenging. But is this making it harder?
John: I like the idea, there is some logic to it.
Gerry: Yes, but you can start thinking about the transportation solutions. I agree that this is a good idea.
David: The key is to get to Tom’s endpoint without holding up the study.
Paul: It is our intent that the impacts of this land use pattern be completed by the end of the month. By the end of February we will know what the implications are. At that point, we can internally generate some transportation packages and test from there.
Conrad: With no change in the timing?
Paul: Yes, but we will have to assess that to be sure.
Meeting Schedules
There was discussion as to a revised date for Steering Committee meetings in 2010. At length, the fourth Tuesday of the month, mornings from 9-11, was agreed upon. (NOTE: This has had to be changed due a scheduling issue: The new date is the fourth Thursday of the month, from 1-3.
Steering Committee: Tex Haueser, John Duncan, Carl Eppich, David Cole, Burleigh Loveitt, Dan Bacon
Study Team: Paul Godfrey, Carol Morris, Ray Faucher, Evan Richert, Conrad Welzel, Sara Devlin, Rebecca Grover
Introduction
Conrad welcomed everyone, saying he was very impressed with everything so far, and he appreciates the interest and attention from the communities and PACTS. Last week, we had the MTA quarterly meeting at the Gorham Council Chambers. The Study was presented to the council and the Maine Turnpike Authority, with excellent feedback.
Charlie Colgan Job and Population Projections
Evan, presenting for Charlie, said thatwe have been meeting with the communities to ground truth the town-specific numbers in the projections to 2035 of population, housing and jobs. He said we are trying to determine how the units of jobs and housing should be distributed in concert with zoning regulations, energy issues and demographics. If the traffic impacts out to 2035 turn out to be benign or desirable, the job is easy. If there are serious congestion and safety problems, the alternative scenario may make a difference. Today we are going to talk about the trend scenario.
In the revised REMI model, Cumberland County jobs are projected to increase by about 50,000 by 2035. Evan said that Charlie projects the population will increase by about 72,000 by 2035. Evan said the model tends to see Maine in a more positive way and Charlie always dials it back based on other data. Evan believes the projected 72,000 growth in population is reasonable. It’s about 26% growth and in line with the previous 20-year trend.
John asked about migration from other parts of the state. Evan said this is caused mainly by job creation and the subsequent migration of people to fill those jobs. The REMI model shows most other counties in Maine will lose population. The urban center communities have lost population over time; the inner suburbs have seen their share go from 30.6% to 34%. Evan outlined the change in growth for the three parts of the study area: urban, inner suburbs and outer suburbs. That then produced our community-specific population projections. Scarborough is projected to grow to about 35,000 people. That translates into about 8,000 additional housing units. The inner and outer suburbs are a very dynamic region for growth due to their available land and proximity to strong job centers of Portland and South Portland.
Paul said it is important to share this with the communities and the Steering Committee so everyone is comfortable with how the numbers have been developed. The foundation needs to be right. Carol asked how the SC thinks the public will receive this information. John said he was comfortable with the refined numbers. He wondered what Portland thinks. Evan said they are going to talk to Portland, Standish, South Portland and Westbrook. David said as far as we can see there is a pattern that has existed and will continue, and nothing is going to dramatically affect this. Paul asked if there are other ongoing studies, projections that might be counter to this one. He wants to make sure that we are touching all the bases. Carl mentioned the Tri-community study for Saco-Biddeford-Old Orchard Beach. He has given them Charlie’s numbers, and they were surprised. But, their projections are to 2025, not 2035. Paul will follow up with them. Tex said he thought GPCOG was doing a regional comprehensive plan and Carl said it was just beginning. Paul said we are already getting requests for this data. While it was done for this study, it will be utilized by others. John asked if fuel prices had been put into the discussion? Evan said yes, to a degree. Carl mentioned that Buxton always sticks out as an important area, that it is a location that a lot of people could go to with higher population pressures. Evan said the projection is for 1,100 new dwelling units in Buxton, a 32% increase over the 27 years. There was some discussion of development in the various towns. Paul asked if the group could help ground truth the next level of detail – the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). All were willing and Paul will work with the four towns to see if we got the order of magnitude right at the TAZ level.
Carol said that at the land use workshop last month, the group broke out into small sessions to discuss whether Evan’s alternative land use development patterns made sense. Overall, we came out with four revised patterns to look at, and Evan will review them now. The Advisory Committee has not met since September, and the land use work has taken longer than anticipated. Consequently, she feels a comprehensive update should be sent to the Advisory Committee soon. January 7th is confirmed as the second land use workshop. Then the next week an Advisory Committee meeting will be scheduled.
Evan said that his interpretations of the group’s intent are as follows:
1.Urban to Rural Form: This is a hybrid. The urban area would retain its share of population and jobs. That is a big reversal in trend. The internal suburbs maintain their share, with multiple nodes that are susceptible to alternative modes of transportation. The outer suburbs get a bit less in terms of population and jobs.
2.Sub-Regional Balance Form: This is a modification of the Community-Centered Corridor Form, noting that the urban areas are places people want to live. The housing-rich communities need more jobs and the job-rich areas need more people. This form provides a balance.
3.Suburban Community Centered Corridor Form: This is also a modification of Community-Centered Corridor. It favors community centered corridors but is not put off by growth in the suburbs or declining growth in Portland. However, more compact centers are important, and eventually it could evolve a transit friendly environment.
4.Greenbelt Development: This form does not specify where growth would go, but first starts by asking where should the large blocks of unfragmented open space be. Once that is established, we would look at where the development should go. This can also be done as part of other patterns.
David added that we need to look at what is actually doable. We would be lucky if we could do number 1. Number 2 and 3 he doesn’t think we could get to. We need to have this discussion with the larger group. Carol said this is agood point; and we will have to provide folks with specific criteria and background information when they are trying to determine the best alternative. One would be what is politically feasible; another would be how serious the transportation issues will be. When we have the January meeting, we will have the 2035 projections as to where the problem spots would be. Tex said if we get into a discussion on what can be done politically, we will need to be more specific, and provide graphic images of what kind of transportation you are thinking of. David said he thought it would be helpful if we are able to say that to achieve #3 you would have to do X policies. Then we would have something concrete to discuss. Carl pointed out that political feasibility is very dynamic, if things come to a head, reaction may be different today than tomorrow based on external factors. David said Carl’s point is well taken, if we produce a report, there needs to be a time frame on it. Carol agreed with all these comments and the Study Team will work them into the January meetings and discussions. Evan agreed that looking at the level of problems, satisfying Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs), and political feasibility are all good ways to structure the discussion. Tex asked if increasing transportation choice is one of the MOEs? Paul answered yes. Carl said he thought that if the study can provide choices based on the state of the world, like an ala carte menu, it would be effective.
Transportation Strategies
Paul said that we need to begin looking at transportation strategies, and as part of these we will consider Transportation Demand Management, Transportation Systems Management, other modes, existing infrastructure improvements, new capacity or new alignment, and certainly a combination of the above. He showed a map of the existing trouble spots.
Burleigh pointed out that Route 25 still has congestion; it carries more traffic than Route 114. He said that should be added to the map as a trouble spot. The Route 25 study indicated it would still be a problem even after the bypass was built. We still have an enormous problem on Route 25 and this affects Windham and Westbrook as well.
Paul listed corridors where there is congestion today, and others added to the list. Congestion is an issue on Routes 25, 22, 114, 295, 302, 1, 95, 237, River Rd, Running Hill Rd, and Spring St.
Dan asked if it would help to address just the intersections? Burleigh said it is a problem of convergence. The major numbered routes in this area are convergence areas. So we need either new capacity or a new way to move people in these convergence zones.
Paul said you can put bypasses (roads) around sticky convergence points, but by the time you go around, you need more capacity on the other side - another road. Paul said those points in the interior are going to become worse. Burleigh said a ring road around any problems means more miles of road, but he would appreciate hearing what a ring road could do. A linear road will transport people in a linear fashion, but a ring road could make a lot of sense. Carl added that we have the good spokes, so a ring would free up the spokes.
Paul said that in view of the time constraints we would continue this conversation at the next Steering Committee meeting. Today was about opening the door.
The meeting ended at 3:10 pm.
Meeting: Public Informational Meeting
Meeting Date: 10/08/09 - 6-8 pm
Location: Gorham Municipal Offices, 75 South St., Gorham
Study Introduction, Baseline Data, Land Use, Purpose and Need Statement
IMPORTANT NOTE: Accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities. Auxiliary aids will be provided upon advance request. TDD Telephone 888-516-9364
Any inquiries regarding this project may be directed to the attention of Carol Morris, 207-329-6502.
Study Team Members Presenting: Conrad Welzel, Maine Turnpike Authority; Mimi Cerveny, MaineDOT; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Evan Richert; Carol Morris, Morris Communications.
Study Team Members Attending: Sara Devlin, Ray Faucher, John Duncan, Rebecca Grover
WELCOME
Conrad Welzel welcomed everyone and noted that even back in 1991 when he started working for the Maine Turnpike Authority, he was going to meetings regarding Gorham. But he said that we are in a new world since 1991. In 1991 the Maine Sensible Transportation Policy Act (STPA) was passed and changed how the Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA) and the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) have been planning for transportation. He mentioned that the changes could be seen by how the process worked in terms of widening the Turnpike and in MaineDOT’s Gateway 1 study. In the first, it was required to look at all other alternatives before the widening could be authorized; with Gateway 1 study, land use solutions are being incorporated with transportation solutions to reduce Route 1 congestion in the Midcoast towns between Brunswick and Stockton Springs.
Conrad then introduced the Study Team members present. MaineDOT is represented by Mimi Cervney, Sara Devlin is running the study from the MTA side, and key are the four communities that passed a Legislative Resolve to fund the study:, Gorham, Scarborough, South Portland and Westbrook. John Duncan, from PACTS, is also on the Study Team. The MTA has hired HNTB as the engineering firm to do the study, Paul Godfrey, and Ray Faucher represent HNTB, Carol Morris is handling public outreach, Evan Richert is the planning guru, Charlie Colgan, from the Muskie Institute and former state economist, is handling the economic piece, and Kevin Hooper is on traffic forecasting. The Study’s Advisory Committee is made up of people from the adjoining towns, interest groups, regional planners, chambers of commerce, and affected businesses such as Smiling Hill Farm. We have almost 30 members on the committee. Conrad made the point that the land use component of this study will play a huge role in deciding outcomes. Conrad then gave some perspective on how transportation has changed over the years and introduced Mimi Cerveny of MaineDOT.
Mimi said that transportation issues remain in this region, even though some of the problems have been solved with the new bypass. Given that state and local funding is scarce, no one is going to spend money on a project unless it is truly the right choice. She said we need to measure what we have: how bad is it now and what will it look like in 20 years if we do nothing - and then its where do we want to be? It might take transportation AND land use means. She said the Study will evaluate various strategies to see what makes the most sense.
STUDY PURPOSE
Carol Morris went over the agenda and turned the meeting over to Paul Godfrey. He said that a history of strong regional growth is why we are here - we want to see how the region has grown over the years and talk about if we want to continue to grow the same way. The four towns (Gorham, South Portland, Westbrook and Scarborough) have asked us to do the study, with Legislative support. Paul went over background material on congestion and safety impacts in this region. This remains the fastest growing region in Maine. He said that the likely outcome of this study is most likely not just one solution, but a range of solutions.
He said that the Study will evaluate all transportation strategies, such as new transit opportunities, increased road capacity or enhancing existing infrastructure. We will also look at corresponding land use actions; land use can be defined as how residential and commercial uses have developed over time. This is an open and unbiased process and there is no predetermined outcome.
The Purpose and Need Statement is a synopsis of what we are trying to do in the Study. Since spring, we have been collecting and summarizing data. We have been working with the Steering and Advisory Committees to develop the Purpose and Need Statement. For the rest of 2009 we are going to focus on the land use side of things. This is different than many other transportation studies. The outcome may ask your town leaders to do things differently that you do them today. Early next year we will brainstorm transportation strategies (solutions) and then we will analyze these to determine which combination will do the best job of solving problems.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Paul Godfrey noted that this presentation was prepared by Dr. Charlie Colgan of the Muskie School.
He is estimating that by 2035, the population of Cumberland County could total as many as 380,000 people, up from the current population of 278,632, which is a 38% increase. This compares to just a 14% increase in population between 1990 and 2008 A good part of that growth is from people who are age 65 plus. By 2035, York County will have a population of 268,000 people, up from 204,235. This increase – 31% - compares to a 24% increase between 1990 and 2008. Charlie believes that 70-75% of all the population growth in Maine will be in Cumberland and York Counties. Paul asked, where are the homes for these people going to be? What communities will have the growth? This is something you need to plan for. Employment in Cumberland County is anticipated to grow as well, a 22% increase by 2035. With Brunswick Naval Air Station closing there will be a brief decline, but then it will trend upward again as we move towards 2035. York County is somewhat of a bedroom community; therefore employment growth will be less: 11%. The fastest growing employment sectors of the economy will be amusement and recreation, social assistance, and museums.
Paul asked: What do businesses look at when deciding where to locate?
Access - How easy it is to move goods to a location
Agglomeration – They look for the benefits that occur when businesses locate near each other
Avoided Costs – They look at the cost of utilities, and other local costs
Paul displayed maps showing where jobs currently are located in the region and what type of jobs they are. He next showed a map that indicated where residences are located, where people live. The trend is for people to live and work farther and farther apart.
LAND USE IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Evan Richert told the attendees that we have known for a long time there is a connection between land use and transportation, and that it makes sense to address the two systems together. In doing so, we can reduce some demand on highways. Maine laws - the Growth Management Act and the Sensible Transportation Policy Act - require it. Even though we have known the connection between land use and transportation, we have not been able to operationalize it. Transportation is nothing more than connecting one land use type to another. The way these land uses are arranged will affect how the transportation is laid out. Embedded in current zoning ordinances is that all land use should be grouped with similar land uses and separated by a road and served by single occupancy vehicles. However, a different arrangement of land use can reduce traffic volumes, can improve safety and traffic flow, increase choice in modes and can help or hurt impacts on scenic areas. Evan asked the audience, why should we plan as a region? He noted that the way the economy is headed, it is the urban areas that are going to grow the fastest. That growth does not respect town boundaries - each community will have opportunity to gain or lose. The communities must begin to think about the land use -transportation connection. Where will the next 50,000 homes and jobs go? Evan said to help answer that question, the Study will create two land use scenarios:
An existing trend scenario will illustrate the results of an extension of the last 20 years of low-density growth, adjusted for changes in energy costs, the aging population, etc.
A second scenario, yet to be developed, will evaluate the results of adopting different land use policies and infrastructure investments that follow Best Practices with respect to density, distance, design, diversity: the 4 Ds.
These two scenarios will be evaluated by specific measures of effectiveness (MOEs), currently being developed. We will get input on the MOEs and the scenarios via technical works with the Advisory Committee, local municipal and regional planning experts and the Study Team. Results will be shared with the committees and the public.
AUDIENCE FEEDBACK
Carol Morris asked the audience what their outlook is on both the growth that has occurred in the region and the growth that can occur? Are you satisfied, unsatisfied, what are the good points, the bad points? She said we do not want solutions at this point. We will get to solutions when we understand the nature and scope of the problem, and how the transportation problems are linked to development patterns.
South Gorham resident: I think the Gorham town council has already voted to widen the overlay, but I guess the state ran out of money. I think the town council has done a good job – they have already voted to say they want a turnpike extension. It’s a good dream to make people go to Ma and Pa stores but they have to compete for that to happen. The growth has to deal with the aging population. We also know that the state of Maine and the communities have to do something about an east-west corridor. I think it’s time to do something about transportation and then we can do something about land use. We should take care of the problems we have now.
Business Owner: Growth is both a problem and a benefit. My business is different than others here as it is tourism based, 80% of my customers come from out of state. From the perspective of current economic development opportunities, Gorham is in the middle of the largest economic triangle in Maine – Kennebunk/Freeport/Sebago. We would have enormous benefit from having more access. The question for some of us is how soon.
Westbrook Resident: We want to grow in Westbrook but it depends on what kind of growth. The type of growth we have had in downtown has been good, we would like more growth like that. Residential growth is challenging us. We need to strike a balance between residential and economic growth. I applaud your goal here. Watching the way land use and transportation decisions are made in one community is very difficult; I think it will be a challenge for multiple communities to do this.
Gorham resident: I thought the Bypass was all that was going to be done. We just bought a house on Route 25. I didn’t know that Route 25 could be affected by additional roadwork; do you know what will be done on Route 25?
Paul Godfrey: We aren’t ready to talk about the physical improvements that will be made. We want feedback on what you need – we want to get thoughts on what is going on in terms of growth in your communities.
Evan Richert: We have come to appreciate that when the pattern of development is farther out, there are always people that are hurt in that process. Your problem is an anecdote to a more widespread matter.
Carol Morris: To answer your question more specifically, we will have a better idea of what some of the solutions might be by June of next year. There is no decision yet as to whether any road needs to be widened. Should that happen, there is a specific state process that will be followed that we can talk more about later.
Gorham commuter: I travel Gorham to Commercial Street every day. Thank you for the Gorham Bypass, Route 25 is now safer and easier. If there is any way to improve the Route 22/114 intersection, that would be great as there is a major bottleneck there. I look forward to further discussion.
Gorham resident: The bypass does well uptown, but it also goes through a residential area. You solved one problem, and made another problem somewhere else.
MMTA Board member and Gorham resident: I understand the transportation side of the issue, and I sympathize with businesses trying to move goods. I moved my family here because I liked the quality of life, and that needs to be kept in mind. You probably should have been here a year ago. No matter what you do there will be impacts. If you bypass the town, the local businesses will get hurt. I like to spend my money locally. But we are frustrated because the roads are crowded,
Buxton resident: For years I knew nothing of Gorham’s Main Street because I wanted to go through as fast as possible. Now since the bypass, I enjoy the Main St and I stop and shop here, where I used to not.
Gorham resident: A large water company transports water on our roads. Are you going to talk land use for highway corridors? Highways should be designated early on. We are losing our farms. How are you going to dictate land use to people? Not everyone in the state of Maine wants to live in the city.
Gorham resident: We need a bypass for this transporation corridor.
Carol thanked the audience and asked them to continue to monitor the Study via www.gorhamcorridor.org, saying there is the opportunity to provide comment directly on the website.
STUDY DATA
Paul Godfrey: We have been collecting a lot of data; we would like to show you some of this information. We have the images around the room as well if you would like to look at them after the meeting and ask any questions.
Natural and Physical Resources: Paul showed maps of each of the four communities that included the location of wetlands, rare animals, and forested areas. Maps have also been created to show where the water and sewer lines are located in the four communities.
Land Use: Paul showed maps of the four communities that located residential, commercial industrial and agricultural uses. Maps that show proposed Activity Centers for each of the four communities were developed by working with each of the towns’ planners.
Transportation: Paul showed maps of the four communities that depicted level of service, high crash locations and the location of rail lines.
Other: Paul noted that data from other current studies will be incorporated into this Study, such as the PACTS Bike and Pedestrian Plan, the Maine State Rail Plan, etc.
He said that this information will be useful to us and to the communities in the planning process so we can better begin to understand the impacts of any proposed actions.
CLOSING
Carol said we will be doing work this fall with the local planners, municipal officials and the Advisory Committee in workshops to develop scenarios and MOEs. She said there will be another public meeting to bring you up to date in early 2010. And by spring, we will have recommendations on proposed solutions to bring back to you for comment. She asked everyone to make sure they signed in so everyone can be put on the emailing list. She encouraged everyone to go to the website – www.gorhamcorridor.org - to see study updates and to make comments. In response to a question she said that the slide show will be posted on the website within the week.
Meeting: Steering Committee Meetiing
Meeting Date: 09/29/09 - 1-3 pm
Location: Maine Turnpike Authority, 2360 Congress Street, Portland
Study Update, Purpose and Need, Public Meeting planning
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Gorham East-West Corridor Feasibility Study
Steering Committee Meeting
August 25, 2009
1-3 pm
Maine Turnpike Authority Headquarters
In attendance:
Steering Committee - Eric Dudley-Westbrook, Tex Haeuser-South Portland, David Cole-Gorham, Dan Bacon-Scarborough, Tom Hall-Scarborough, Paul Niehoff-PACTS, Mike Morgan and Dan Webster-MaineDOT, Conrad Welzel and Sara Devlin-Maine Turnpike Authority.
Study team - Paul Godfrey and Bill Bent-HNTB, Carol Morris-Morris Communications. Roberta Grover, Maine Turnpike Authority
Absent - Mimi Cerveny-MaineDOT; John Duncan-PACTS, Burleigh Loveitt-Gorham
Guests – Charlie Colgan
Carol called the meeting to order at 1:05 and the group made introductions.
Carol stated that there are three items on the agenda: Charlie Colgan, Muskie School, will talk about economic development projections for York and Cumberland County; the group will revisit the Purpose and Need Statement, and if time allows, the communities will review the land use mapping that has been completed.
Economic Opportunities: Charlie Colgan
My role in this study is to figure out what kind of economic growth should be accommodated by transportation.
Growth takes place regionally. In order to decide what level of population and employment growth will take place at the town level, you start at county level and move to town level. All counties in Maine have an impact on York and Cumberland County due to in-migration.
We look at the allocation of town growth: what industries are going to be growing, what forces will influence the growth, where key sectors are located today.
The preliminary numbers you see here are 5% plus/minus where we will be when the statewide forecast is completed.
The Forecast: 1990-2035 Population Changes
In Cumberland County, from 1990 to 2035, we estimate growth of 110,000 people – 80% of the population growth in Maine during that time period will take place in Cumberland County. That is a lot to squeeze in this area.
In York County, the growth will be slower: 63,000 more people through 2035. If the Downeaster grows, York County could grow more.
We are looking at two scenarios for this study. The first is if we predict the future will be like the past, with the outward movement into the suburbs and outlying towns growing faster than Portland. The second is if we believe that people will reconcentrate towards urban areas.
The recession is built into this forecast. Cumberland County took the major hit in this recession but will grow steadily in employment starting in 2013.
Total Employment
Cumberland County added 53,644 jobs between 1990 and 2008 (this is total employment, which includes self-employed people, federal and farm jobs vs. wage and salary). York County during the same time added 20,547 jobs.
Cumberland County will add 52,000 jobs through 2035, the same number as from 1990-2008 but over a longer period. York County added 20,000 jobs during that first time period. During 2008-2035 York County is projected to add 11,600, though they may do better.
The recession has eaten away at jobs and recovery will not really take hold until 2012. There is now slower in-migration into York County.
Cumberland population numbers include the Brunswick Naval Air Station shutdown. That is contributing to the projection that there will be no growth until 2012.
Question: Because of that loss, will there be less new home building in the rest of the county?
Charlie: Yes, because it will dump 800-1,000 homes on the market at the precise time the market bottoms out.
Economic Change by Sector
There are two different sets of trends in industry: health care and social assistance dominates the sector still growing in recession. Professional and technical services make up an increasing share in job growth in the next 25 years. This is going to be one of the keys to the future because health care growth is going to slow down – we simply have to manage back the growth of this sector because we can’t go from 18 percent of GDP for health care to 35 percent without collapsing the economy.
Question: What is social assistance?
Charlie: Social assistance is non-profit health care support services.
Question: Does this include state and federal dollars as well?
Charlie: Yes.
The other key here is retail trade, which has been the dominant sector. Retail facilities are now overbuilt, and all the economic forces that have sustained the growth in retail are gone. Retail is the biggest loser in the recession, with one in three jobs lost. Half to 70% of those will be in Cumberland County. It will take to 2020 to recover to 2008 retail levels.
Question: What are the top five employment sectors by number?
Charlie: In Cumberland County, retail and wholesale trade, heath care, accommodations and food service, professional and technical services, and financial services. Pretty much the same in York County and throughout Maine.
In Cumberland County, of the 52,000 new jobs, the vast majority will be in private retail and service sectors. We overbuilt retail space – it will be empty for a decade, and so much retail space will be vacated that there will be quite a lot on the market for cheap. It is a risky time to build new retail space.
Professional and technical services will be a strong driver. The big driver in health care will be ambulatory health services, and these are best located closer to where people live. The fastest growing sectors will be amusement and recreational services (mini-golf, movies, coastal water tours), social assistance, museums, nursing and ambulatory health.
Where new jobs will go
There are three forces that drive where new jobs will go. On its own, the market responds to:
-Access: you can get from here to there. We need to look at changing access points as part of this study. Unless you’re opening virgin land, mostly you can already get there from here. Most of this here would be changes in the margin, not big change.
-Agglomeration: Services like to cluster together. This means that where you have got a combination of access and avoided costs, you will get agglomeration.
-Avoided costs: Is it easy (cheap) to get there and operate there.
Question: Is agglomeration true with all industries?
Charlie: Yes.
If you take the employment growth we have forecast, you then ask, where are they going? Either where current agglomeration or access exists. So what are the opportunities for new agglomeration to occur?
If the past is prologue, what that says is that in this corridor, all things being equal, an outward movement to growth would push towards Gorham as a new “edge city”. The Maine Mall area is an edge city for Portland –as is Scarborough.
In an urbanization scenario, greater development would be towards South Portland and Scarborough, less in Gorham.
That is the baseline in terms of economic development/opportunity and implications given the market forces and the transportation system and condition
Question: Do you see growth going farther than these four communities?
Charlie: I can see Windham being a force - another potential edge city. These centers occur where roads cross and there is some sort of agglomeration.
Question: Do your models take in consideration increased energy costs?
Charlie: Good question. This is an issue that we are investigating through a Muskie School sustainable landscapes grant of $20 million. We will be developing complex models. Circumstances may in fact not change the total cost of transportation. They will alter the technology of transportation. And for some segments we will make driving less expensive. There is some evidence that at $4.50 a gallon gas may present no problem by substituting fuel-efficient vehicles. Higher fuel may not affect transportation costs that much. The aging of the population will have more of an influence than fuel costs.
Question: If you get high gas prices, it will spur alternate transportation.
Charlie: Energy cost affects personal transportation but not mass transportation. Mass transportation is influenced by density. With re-urbanization, if we stop growing outward, do we get enough density to move to a mass transit system? There are not enough people to put heavy rail in – perhaps BRT in the Scarborough corridor between Rte. 1 and the Mall.
As an example, transit in Los Angeles has absorbed growth so that the freeways are still mobile – it has not solved the congestion problem, but allows a longer life for the roads.
Question: What is the trend on migration into the state and other counties in Maine?
Charlie: Maine has maintained net in-migration into Cumberland and York County. But this is reversing now due to the recession and BNAS closing. Also the Mid-coast has some in-migration. The rest of the state has a net loss. In 2013, this will turn around but will it will be just half of what it was. There are about 4,000 a year coming into York and Cumberland Counties from other states. The remainder is in-migration from other Maine counties. They come to York County to retire, not to Cumberland County, due to the beaches.
Question: Is there any new combination of new transportation and land use that could result in new economic development that would not otherwise occur in the area?
Charlie: If you go back to the growth maps I showed you, the growth area is professional/technical and financial. One could imagine a transportation corridor linking and completing access from Scarborough to the tri-town area. A company could, because of the extraordinary quality of life in Portland, build their corporate headquarters (a small software company, for example) right there. That would be 600-800 jobs because the transportation corridor is there. We can’t see it happening in the model but I could see it happening in reality if the land is available and the zoning is appropriate. It would be consistent with agglomeration.
Question: One of the things that enables sprawl is a state subsidy for living outside urban areas. At the local level, we have property taxes decreed by state standard; there are not a lot of ways locally that we can change that subsidy. How at the local level do you give incentives to combat sprawl and encourage people to live close to town centers?
Charlie: Our school subsidy formula was designed to keep property taxes low for those with low property values. By doing this, you get a much better school system than property wealth would suggest you should. This achieves a social good. But it has a side effect – it lowers the effective cost for people living in rural areas. You can pass a local option sales tax in Gorham and not in Scarborough, but it is a short-lived phenomenon because everyone wants the penny and eventually everyone adopts it.
Question: As a retailer, aren’t you going to go where the people are?
Charlie: If Gorham, for example, has certain kinds of retailers, yes. Local businesses will go there, but regional/national/big box will not. This is the decade where big box stores discovered Maine. That era is over. The challenge in the next decade will be what to do with empty big boxes.
Question: Are there things happening in Portland that would have a greater impact on the forecast?
Charlie: At this point, this re-urbanization will affect Portland, but it is already densely developed. Marginal Way has lots of opportunity. Much of what is going to change is the inner ring suburbs around Portland, where growth has already taken place, where there is already some residential development but not dense development, where energy costs in terms of commuting will not make a huge difference. This is the battleground of tension, between employment, residential growth, and land conservation. More so than the exurbs, Fryeburg, for example). This transportation project is right at the heart of that set of issues.
Question: In the quadrangle of tri-towns, if land use management was put into place to have Transit-Oriented Development or some concept like that, would that fit into what you modeling?
Charlie: The model presents possibilities and those are alterable by land use and transportation decisions. Some approaches have more economic development potential than others because they are friendlier to agglomeration and economic cost.
Question: If we do nothing to increase the likelihood of development at the tri-town area, there would be no focus there. Would a transportation system there increase the chance?
Charlie: Yes – if you build it they would stay. It connects the dots. That would be one potential strategy. Another would be coming down further south and creating something new.
(There was general discussion regarding Charlie’s projection and what it could mean for the region.)
Purpose and Need Statement
Carol handed out a Purpose and Need Statement showing the minor revisions that had been suggested at the July Steering Committee meeting, along with some wordsmithing suggested by Paul Neihoff of PACTS. The group reviewed the changes and agreed to accept the document and send it along to the Advisory Committee for review at their next meeting.
Land Use Mapping
As it was almost 3 pm, Bill and Carol suggested that the communities take the Activity Center maps back to their communities to review one more time. It was agreed that they would get back to Bill with any changes within two weeks.
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 pm.
Meeting: Advisory Committee Meeting
Meeting Date: 09/22/09 - 9-noon
Location: Maine Turnpike Authority, 2360 Congress Street, Portland
Baseline data, Purpose and Need Statement, Public Meeting planning, incorporating land use planning
In attendance: John Duncan, PACTS; Robert Lefebreve, Metro Chiefs; Wayne Newbegin, Standish; Carl Eppich, PACTS, Dale Hanington, Maine Motor Transport; Julie Bassett, Scarborough Economic Development; Barbara Charry, Maine Audubon; Liz Hertz, State Planning; Chris Hall, Portland Chamber; Bruce Hyman, GrowSmart/Bicycle Coalition; Richard Rudolph, Rippling Waters; Paul Weiss, Sierra Club; Ben Severance, Hollis, Tom Ellsworth, Gorham Economic Development; Paul Neihoff, PACTS, Tex Haeuser, South Portland; Alex Jaegerman, Portland; Anna Price, FHWA;David Knapp, Rte. 113 Coalition: Jim Libby, Buxton; Warren Knight, Smiling Hill Farm; David Cole, Gorham, Sara Devlin, Conrad Welzel and Rebecca Grover, Maine Turnpike Authority; Mimi Cerveny, MaineDOT, Paul Godfrey and Ray Faucher, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Evan Richert, Evan Richert Inc.
Guests: Rebecca Schaffner, PACTS;Art Handman, Gorham citizen; David Goodwin, Hollis Planning Board, Rob Moulton.
The meeting began at 9:03.
John Duncan opened the meeting and thanked everyone for coming. He then turned the meeting over to Conrad Welzel. Conrad said it was nice to see such a good turnout, that there has been a lot of progress made since we last met in meetings with the staff, consultants and Steering Committee. He said he feels that the level of energy regarding this study has been high and continues to grow. Conrad then asked the group to introduce themselves.
Carol Morris presented an overview of the agenda. She stated that the first two Advisory Committee meetings, in the late spring and early summer, were very interactive as the group was working on the Purpose and Need Statement and identifying issues, but that this meeting would be more presentation-style, as the Study Team had a significant amount of information to report. Carol encouraged the group to ask questions throughout the presentations.
ECONOMY
Paul Godfrey gave a synopsis of a presentation that was given by Charlie Colgan to Steering Committee members a few weeks ago on county economic trends. He noted that all the material is available at www.gorhamcorridor.org. Paul also stated that we can get committee members a CD the presentation on request. Paul said he asked Charlie, as part of the study process, to look at population and job forecasts for Cumberland and York Counties. The first slide shows the population forecast for Cumberland County. It is anticipated it will grow by 110,000 people over the next 27 years. When divided into age groups, the age 65 and older group is growing faster. This is a trend we see statewide.In York County the forecast shows that in 2035 there will be about 267,839 people. Paul said that for this report, we aren’t so concerned with absolute numbers, but with trends over time. This is a significant amount of growth; most of the state’s growth over this time period will take place in these two counties. The question people need to ask themselves is where do they want all this new population to go? The projected population within each town is based on a range and is dependent on whether growth follows past trends, with faster growth in the immediate suburbs and less growth in urban areas, or develops in a different way (for example, proportionate to their existing size.) Charlie is also projecting an average annual employment growth rate of .8% in Cumberland County and .4% in York County.
Richard Rudolph asked what the percentage increase of seniors in Cumberland County would be? Paul stated he does not know but will find out. Richard said that these are people who may not be able to drive at some point. Paul stated that over the next 27 years, York and Cumberland Counties will make up about 70% to 75% of growth of the entire state, and that growth in southern Maine is coming at the expense of the other parts of the state.
David Knapp asked is that happening now? Evan Richert stated that it has been going on a long time. David followed up with is that at the service center level? Evan said that it was at the county level.
Paul continued talking about the potential range for population change by town, there are extremes in Scarborough and Portland, we try not to get hung up on the absolute numbers but the potential and how we can plan and influence where this growth can go. Paul then showed a slide of employment growth over time to 2035. In Cumberland County history is repeating itself. In the 1990s there was a decline in employment, and we may see that over the next few years, primarily with BNAS closing, in 2015, that trend begins to move back upward. York County will show slow but constant growth. Paul explained that there are factors that could change this, for example if high-speed rail was introduced, more people from the Boston area might move to southern Maine and there would subsequently be more growth in York County. Paul then showed a graph that looks at how employment has changed by sector over three distinct time periods. There is sizable growth in health care, negative growth in manufacturing and retail. By 2020, this will modify, with construction and retail showing some renewed growth. Paul said one of the areas we asked Charlie to talk about is what can communities do to make a good connection with Land Use and Transportation. Paul discussed:
Access – provides good economic opportunity
Agglomeration - with mass, you can have growth
Avoided Costs - these are electricity, energy costs, costs that would not reverberate to taxes and borrowing
Next Paul went over the maps looking at where employment is, and where it is the densest, for example, the Maine Mall area, and downtown Westbrook. Evan commented that this data comes from the Department of Labor.
Alex asked if there is no information shown in Portland because it is not part of the primary study area. Evan added that some of the businesses were mis-addressed, that they corrected a lot of them, but there are still some that are in error. Paul said that they have most of the information and would be using it in the analysis but that it was not mapped. Paul said overall, he was surprised by the amount of population and employment growth and that is a strong statement it tells us we better do a better job planning. Where do we want it to go, how do we want it to be aligned? How does each community work together and should it be focused in one area, and we need to build upon successes.
Bruce Hyman said he was disappointed about the void in mapping vis a vis Portland. He said you can’t get away from Portland being a hub or destination; we need to think about how it might shape growth in the future. Alex said he had the same comment. Paul Weiss asked if we could compare existing information with what Portland has. Paul Godfrey stated the much of the data was there, and he agreed would be good for comparison.
John Duncan was surprised at the level of growth Charlie proposed.
Evan stated that he asked Charlie a number of questions about the level of growth.He is sure Charlie will look at it and modify as he sees appropriate. Charlie then has to translate the population numbers into households - it would be between 50,000 to 70,000 households - where do the community and service providers wish that they go? What kind of services will they need? These are all questions we need to ask. Alex commented that some of the households are aged, and what kind of effect will that have on where they want to live and what type of house - they will need different kinds of services. Carl Eppich asked what about older people moving in with their kids? Evan responded that itdepends on how robust the economy is. Carol noted that it could also be based on the increasing need to caretake the older population.
LAND USE
Evan then began the discussion on the land use approach. The reality is that transportation is nothing more or less than getting from land use A to land use B. How to manage this has been grappled with over the last 20 years based on the four D’s: Density, Design, Diversity and Distance.The analysis is showing that if the 4 D’s are in sync in urban areas, it can amount up to 1/3 reduction of VMT (vehicle miles traveled), reducing congestion. In more rural areas, where there are fewer transportation choices, it is not possible to reach those levels.
Evan went on to say that land use affects VMT, VHT (vehicle hours traveled), transportation mode choice and rural and scenic character. It is common sense to look at them in tandem, but also required because of STPA (Maine’s Sensible Transportation Policy Act) of 1991. It was about that time that further federal legislation required some of the same things. In the more rural states with less density, it is harder to make the connections. It’s only recently that we have begun to understand how to go about managing the connections between land use and transportation.In 2003, the STPA was amended to require Maine’s Growth Management Act and the STPA to interrelate. The STPA rule says that before significant transportation projects are recommended, MaineDOT or MTA must look at alternatives, including land use strategies.
Evan said that each community has something to gain or lose from the decisions of their neighbors. This region has begun to think about the land use-transportation connections and is ahead of other regions. For example:South Portland was a leader in using transit TIFs. Gorham and Scarborough have ordinances allowing the transfer of development rights. There is some momentum here. The question is where will the next 50,000 jobs and 80,000 homes go, based on Charlie’s projections?We are going to model two land use scenarios, what will they mean for transportation and other measures.
A low-density scenario similar to recent growth patterns.The aging population, energy costs, and new policies will be factored in. We will model this with the help of Kevin Hooper, HNTP, and MaineDOT.
An alternative land use-transportation scenario. We don’t know what it will look like yet, we will rely on the committee, with the advice of the staff of the 4 communities, and others to construct. This scenario will take into account best practices with respect to the 4 D’s. Would this alternative scenario make a difference in the demand in the transportation system? We will model that.
Alex said that heprojects a dilemma - what about Portland? How are you going to treat it? Paul said we have had this discussion, the other communities are not left out, we couldn’t complete this without understanding what is happening in Portland. There is no exclusion. He said we will do a better job at bringing information forward.
RichardRudolph added that home and land pricing is a huge issue; it’s why people settle where they do.Evan said he would agree except Richard is not taking into account the pricing of the transportation system. People make trade offs for cheaper land but then pay more for transportation. In the past, Evan agreed, pricing has been more important than the 4 D’s in determining land use. Evanwent on to say we should not limit ourselves to the confines of just these four communities. What does the region want its metropolitan area to look like?
Paul Godfrey said if you are asking yourself as an Advisory Committee member. Why I am here, what do I bring?Well, is because the Study Team has to understand the value of certain things. How much habitat is fragmented, how much commercial growth is added? How do you want to measure things? He said that each of the independent skills you bring to the table is important.
Tex Haueser said we have been talking about policies the four towns would adopt relative to land use in a broad way, another way could be more direct; do we want a new town, will we make a concession to the turnpike and say we take care of 10,000 people that way, with a tech park, housing and services, open spaces, power generation needs. That would be another possible solution.
Evan said that this is the kind of discussion we will have regarding what that second scenario should look like; you may decide you want to create three new centers as a solution to new growth. We will map it, we will have all the layers, and he encourages everyone to have that kind of thinking and put it on the table.
Ben Severancesaid that the premise here is that we are going to grow, and he is not sure that it is automatic and we have to live with it. It’s another variable here. Evan commented that the scenarios would be using Charlie Colgan’s growth forecast. Ben states that growth only occurs because you allow development.
Jim Libby said he hoped the committee is balanced in its understanding of what the road problems are that we have now. Alex commented that there is a policy for the (Portland) peninsula to maximize the four D’s. Evan said we will need to know how that translates in terms of capacity. Wayne Newbegin asked if the four towns have already been planning together. Evan responded that we (the study team) had met with the planners to map existing land use and future growth plans. Wayne asked if when the study team comes back with something from those four towns, would we have a chance to look at it?Carol said yes, the study team would bring any scenarios back to this group for input – before it goes out to the general public.
STUDY SCHEDULE
Paul said that in August the baseline data was completed. In September the economic forecasts are being done and the purpose and need will be finalized. In October, there will be a public meeting and the traffic forecasting will be complete. In November we are talking about a land use workshop and in January we will brainstorm strategies and strategy analysis.
Paul then went over the baseline conditions and analysis. He explained that we do have a primary and secondary study area; there is a lot of the detail shown for the primary study area, because resources are limited.
BASE MAPPING
Natural resources: These maps show, shore land zoning, rare species, developed areas, habitat areas and wetlands. The majority comes from Maine DOT GIS website,
Land use: These maps show existing land use in the four communities in 10-12 categories, existing zoning, activity centers and a map showing year-built data
Liz Hertz asked where did you get the labels from? Andrea D’Amato said they were from assessors and validated with the planners.
Transportation: These maps show shoulder width, speed limits, turning movement counts, high crash locations, rail facilities. A transit map is being developed.
Paul asked the group to let the study team know if you have any additions or changes, as the team is trying to make the maps as accurate as possible.
Wayne asked how did the bypass affect the Gorham businesses. Tom Ellsworth said he did an informal poll. He talked to 30 village businesses. He had some positive responses from in the middle of the village. Away from the intersection, the response was more tepid, with businesses saying that traffic and amount of business is not much different. Generally speaking there has not been a definitive improvement. Paul and Carol both noted that in many cases where a bypass is built, business suffers at least over the short term and sometimes longer, so this report could be perceived as a positive response on that basis.
PURPOSE and NEED STATEMENT
Carol began the discussion on Version 8 of the Purpose and Need Statement. The first two Advisory Committee meetings were focused on this document, it has been reformatted to fit with federal requirements, has gone before the Steering Committee twice, and now it’s back to you. Carol provided an overview of the Purpose and Need Statement and where the Advisory Committee had provided direct input, and opened it up to comments.
Richard asked if Phase 2 and 3 of the Study are mandated by legislation. MimiCerveny responded that additional phases are noted as potential in the response from MaineDOT and MTA to the legislature, but that nothing is mandated. Richard said that we are only studying the four towns now, but if there is a Phase 2, the study needs to look at the potential impacts on Portland and the towns west of Gorham. He urged that we change the last sentence to say we must include a redefined study area. Carol said we can’t predetermine that there is going to be a Phase 2 and we can’t predetermine what the results of phase 1 will be, but we can say something more specific about redefining the study area if there is a Phase 2.Paul suggested, “should include a refined study area”. There was a discussion of this versus would, and it was pointed out that the sentence starts with “If warranted.”The sentence will now read: If warranted, a Phase 2 of this study would provide a more focused and detailed evaluation of the Phase 1 recommended strategies and would include a refined Study Area
Carl added that on page 2, it should say key transportation routes “currently follow” instead of“are.” This was agreed to.Rebecca Schaffner added that there should be an energy reduction section under Study Need. There was a discussion on whether the P&N should state reducing dependence on oil or “foreign” oil, since the goal according to Paul Weiss is to reduce dependence on all oil. Foreign oil is used in federal documentation. Paul Godfrey noted it would be very difficult from a measurement perspective to differentiate between the two. After more discussion, it was agreed to change it to “oil.”
Paul Weiss had a few comments.He said, when we get to measuring things we need to be careful to not measure them improperly by including existing road subsidies. Paul added that we need to think out of the box, when gas jumped, the game changed in transportation. The government policy on carbon tax may have a dramatic effect, technology may shifts, we are on the cusp of big changes.
Liz asked if the Growth Management Act should be added along with STPA. Carol said that was an oversight.
Carol said she would get a revised version back to the committee. Carol then went over upcoming meeting: there is an October 8th meeting from 6-8 in Gorham, and this is the first time the general public will have a chance to hear about the study face-to-face. She hopes that the committee will pass the information along to those who might be interested. She noted it is not a workshop; they will listen and ask questions. It will be designed to be informative and educational. Bruce recommended at least some part of the meeting be interactive.
Carol asked if there were any questions, and as there were not, closed the meeting.
The meeting ended at 11:50
Meeting: Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting Date: 08/25/09 - 1-3 pm
Location: Maine Turnpike Authority, 2360 Congress Street, Portland
Study update, economic opportunities
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Gorham East-West Corridor Feasibility Study
Steering Committee Meeting
August 25, 2009
1-3 pm
Maine Turnpike Authority Headquarters
In attendance:
Steering Committee - Eric Dudley-Westbrook, Tex Haeuser-South Portland, David Cole-Gorham, Dan Bacon-Scarborough, Tom Hall-Scarborough, Paul Niehoff-PACTS, Mike Morgan and Dan Webster-MaineDOT, Conrad Welzel and Sara Devlin-Maine Turnpike Authority.
Study team - Paul Godfrey and Bill Bent-HNTB, Carol Morris-Morris Communications. Roberta Grover, Maine Turnpike Authority
Absent - Mimi Cerveny-MaineDOT; John Duncan-PACTS, Burleigh Loveitt-Gorham
Guests – Charlie Colgan
Carol called the meeting to order at 1:05 and the group made introductions.
Carol stated that there are three items on the agenda: Charlie Colgan, Muskie School, will talk about economic development projections for York and Cumberland County; the group will revisit the Purpose and Need Statement, and if time allows, the communities will review the land use mapping that has been completed.
Economic Opportunities: Charlie Colgan
My role in this study is to figure out what kind of economic growth should be accommodated by transportation.
Growth takes place regionally. In order to decide what level of population and employment growth will take place at the town level, you start at county level and move to town level. All counties in Maine have an impact on York and Cumberland County due to in-migration.
We look at the allocation of town growth: what industries are going to be growing, what forces will influence the growth, where key sectors are located today.
The preliminary numbers you see here are 5% plus/minus where we will be when the statewide forecast is completed.
The Forecast: 1990-2035 Population Changes
In Cumberland County, from 1990 to 2035, we estimate growth of 110,000 people – 80% of the population growth in Maine during that time period will take place in Cumberland County.That is a lot to squeeze in this area.
In York County, the growth will be slower: 63,000 more people through 2035. If the Downeaster grows, York County could grow more.
We are looking at two scenarios for this study. The first is if we predict the future will be like the past, with the outward movement into the suburbs and outlying towns growing faster than Portland. The second is if we believe that people will reconcentrate towards urban areas.
The recession is built into this forecast. Cumberland County took the major hit in this recession but will grow steadily in employment starting in 2013.
Total Employment
Cumberland County added 53,644 jobs between 1990 and 2008 (this is total employment, which includes self-employed people, federal and farm jobs vs. wage and salary). York County during the same time added 20,547 jobs
Cumberland County will add 52,000 jobs through 2035, the same number as from 1990-2008 but over a longer period. York County added 20,000 jobs during that first time period. During 2008-2035 York County is projected to add 11,600, though they may do better.
The recession has eaten away at jobs and recovery will not really take hold until 2012. There is now slower in-migration into York County.
Cumberland population numbers include the Brunswick Naval Air Station shutdown. That is contributing to the projection that there will be no growth until 2012.
Question: Because of that loss, will there be less new home building in the rest of the county?
Charlie: Yes, because it will dump 800-1,000 homes on the market at the precise time the market bottoms out
Economic Change by Sector
There are two different sets of trends in industry: health care and social assistance dominates the sector still growing in recession. Professional and technical services make up an increasing share in job growth in the next 25 years.This is going to be one of the keys to the future because health care growth is going to slow down – we simply have to manage back the growth of this sector because we can’t go from 18 percent of GDP for health care to 35 percent without collapsing the economy.
Question: What is social assistance?
Charlie: Social assistance is non-profit health care support services.
Question: Does this include state and federal dollars as well?
Charlie: Yes.
The other key here is retail trade, which has been the dominant sector. Retail facilities are now overbuilt, and all the economic forces that have sustained the growth in retail are gone. Retail is the biggest loser in the recession, with one in three jobs lost. Half to 70% of those will be in Cumberland County. It will take to 2020 to recover to 2008 retail levels.
Question: What are the top five employment sectors by number?
Charlie: In Cumberland County, retail and wholesale trade, heath care, accommodations and food service, professional and technical services, and financial services. Pretty much the same in York County and throughout Maine.
In Cumberland County, of the 52,000 new jobs, the vast majority will be in private retail and service sectors. We overbuilt retail space – it will be empty for a decade, and so much retail space will be vacated that there will be quite a lot on the market for cheap. It is a risky time to build new retail space.
Professional and technical services will be a strong driver. The big driver in health care will be ambulatory health services, and these are best located closer to where people live. The fastest growing sectors will be amusement and recreational services (mini-golf, movies, coastal water tours), social assistance, museums, nursing and ambulatory health.
Where new jobs will go
There are three forces that drive where new jobs will go. On its own, the market responds to:
-Access: you can get from here to there. We need to look at changing access points as part of this study. Unless you’re opening virgin land, mostly you can already get there from here. Most of this here would be changes in the margin, not big change.
-Agglomeration:Services like to cluster together. This means that where you have got a combination of access and avoided costs, you will get agglomeration.
-Avoided costs: Is it easy (cheap) to get there and operate there.
Question: Is agglomeration true with all industries?
Charlie: Yes.
If you take the employment growth we have forecast, you then ask, where are they going?Either where current agglomeration or access exists. So what are the opportunities for new agglomeration to occur?
If the past is prologue, what that says is that in this corridor, all things being equal, an outward movement to growth would push towards Gorham as a new “edge city”. The Maine Mall area is an edge city for Portland –as is Scarborough.
In an urbanization scenario, greater development would be towards South Portland and Scarborough, less in Gorham.
That is the baseline in terms of economic development/opportunity and implications given the market forces and the transportation system and condition
Question: Do you see growth going farther than these four communities?
Charlie: I can see Windham being a force - another potential edge city. These centers occur where roads cross and there is some sort of agglomeration.
Question: Do your models take in consideration increased energy costs?
Charlie: Good question. This is an issue that we are investigating through a Muskie School sustainable landscapes grant of $20 million. We will be developing complex models. Circumstances may in fact not change the total cost of transportation. They will alter the technology of transportation. And for some segments we will make driving less expensive. There is some evidence that at $4.50 a gallon gas may present no problem by substituting fuel-efficient vehicles.Higher fuel may not affect transportation costs that much.The aging of the population will have more of an influence than fuel costs.
Question: If you get high gas prices, it will spur alternate transportation.
Charlie: Energy cost affects personal transportation but not mass transportation. Mass transportation is influenced by density. With re-urbanization, if we stop growing outward, do we get enough density to move to a mass transit system? There are not enough people to put heavy rail in – perhaps BRT in the Scarborough corridor between Rte. 1 and the Mall.
As an example, transit in Los Angeles has absorbed growth so that the freeways are still mobile – it has not solved the congestion problem, but allows a longer life for the roads.
Question: What is the trend on migration into the state and other counties in Maine?
Charlie: Maine has maintained net in-migration into Cumberland and York County. But this is reversing now due to the recession and BNAS closing. Also the Mid-coast has some in-migration. The rest of the state has a net loss. In 2013, this will turn around but will it will be just half of what it was. There are about 4,000 a year coming into York and Cumberland Counties from other states. The remainder is in-migration from other Maine counties. They come to York County to retire, not to Cumberland County, due to the beaches.
Question: Is there any new combination of new transportation and land use that could result in new economic development that would not otherwise occur in the area?
Charlie: If you go back to the growth maps I showed you, the growth area is professional/technical and financial. One could imagine a transportation corridor linking and completing access from Scarborough to the tri-town area. A company could, because of the extraordinary quality of life in Portland, build their corporate headquarters (a small software company, for example) right there. That would be 600-800 jobs because the transportation corridor is there. We can’t see it happening in the model but I could see it happening in reality if the land is available and the zoning is appropriate. It would be consistent with agglomeration.
Question: One of the things that enables sprawl is a state subsidy for living outside urban areas. At the local level, we have property taxes decreed by state standard; there are not a lot of ways locally that we can change that subsidy. How at the local level do you give incentives to combat sprawl and encourage people to live close to town centers?
Charlie: Our school subsidy formula was designed to keep property taxes low for those with low property values. By doing this, you get a much better school system than property wealth would suggest you should. This achieves a social good. But it has a side effect – it lowers the effective cost for people living in rural areas. You can pass a local option sales tax in Gorham and not in Scarborough, but it is a short-lived phenomenon because everyone wants the penny and eventually everyone adopts it.
Question: As a retailer, aren’t you going to go where the people are?
Charlie: If Gorham, for example, has certain kinds of retailers, yes. Local businesses will go there, but regional/national/big box will not. This is the decade where big box stores discovered Maine. That era is over. The challenge in the next decade will be what to do with empty big boxes.
Question: Are there things happening in Portland that would have a greater impact on the forecast?
Charlie: At this point, this re-urbanization will affect Portland, but it is already densely developed. Marginal Way has lots of opportunity. Much of what is going to change is the inner ring suburbs around Portland, where growth has already taken place, where there is already some residential development but not dense development, where energy costs in terms of commuting will not make a huge difference. This is the battleground of tension, between employment, residential growth, and land conservation. More so than the exurbs, Fryeburg, for example).This transportation project is right at the heart of that set of issues.
Question:In the quadrangle of tri-towns, if land use management was put into place to have Transit-Oriented Development or some concept like that, would that fit into what you modeling?
Charlie: The model presents possibilities and those are alterable by land use and transportation decisions. Some approaches have more economic development potential than others because they are friendlier to agglomeration and economic cost.
Question: If we do nothing to increase the likelihood of development at the tri-town area, there would be no focus there. Would a transportation system there increase the chance?
Charlie: Yes – if you build it they would stay. It connects the dots. That would be one potential strategy. Another would be coming down further south and creating something new.
(There was general discussion regarding Charlie’s projection and what it could mean for the region.)
Purpose and Need Statement
Carol handed out a Purpose and Need Statement showing the minor revisions that had been suggested at the July Steering Committee meeting, along with some wordsmithing suggested by Paul Neihoff of PACTS. The group reviewed the changes and agreed to accept the document and send it along to the Advisory Committee for review at their next meeting.
Land Use Mapping
As it was almost 3 pm, Bill and Carol suggested that the communities take the Activity Center maps back to their communities to review one more time. It was agreed that they would get back to Bill with any changes within two weeks.
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 pm.
Meeting: Steering Committee Meetiing
Meeting Date: 07/28/09 - 1-3 pm
Location: Maine Turnpike Authority, 2360 Congress Street, Portland
Draft Purpose and Need Statement, incorprating land use change into planning process
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Gorham East-West Corridor Feasibility Study
Steering Committee Meeting
July 28, 2009
In attendance:
Communities- Eric Dudley-Westbrook, Tex Hauser-South Portland, David Cole-Gorham, Dan Bacon-Scarborough
Study team- Paul Godfrey and Bill Bent-HNTB, John Duncan & Paul Niehoff-PACTS, Mimi Cerveny-MaineDOT, Carol Morris-Morris Communications, Sara Devlin & Rebecca Grover-MTA
Guests- Evan Richert, Joe Grilli
Carol called meeting to order at 1:05 and the group did introductions.
Carol stated that there are two major items on the agenda:
1. To review the revised Purpose and Need: A lot of work has gone on over the last few weeks, and we need to make sure the final format and content will work with federal and state review.Joe Grilli is here from HNTB and he has a lot of expertise in the area and will discuss how that will work
2. Evan Richert is here to explain how land use and transportation work together and to explain the scenarios that will be used in the study.
Joe talked about the Purpose and Need Statement and how the study team has tried to streamline it, eliminate redundancy and to make it concise. An additional priority is to make sure it has the information it needs to establish a foundation for other work that may come out of this Study – work that may go through the permitting process with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and NEPA. Purpose and Need Statements are important to those processes; our goal is for this document to be a foundation. Organizationally we have made a few changes; we have deleted redundancies and tried to make it more concise. Normally needs are defined as problem statements, not solutions, so these were restructured.Land Use Opportunities have been revised to put the emphasis on the opportunity to tie land use and transportation together.
Tex highlighted a typo on page one, 4th bullet “promote reduction OF” not ON. Also on page 2 “desire” for economic opportunity, he felt that desire is sort of a weak word, and requested changing it need. Joe said this had not been discussed, but could be changed. Eric suggested removing the word desire altogether, which would make it consistent. Everyone agreed with this change.
Carol commented that on page 2 under Transportation Deficiencies, the 4th bullet, do we need to define what the design standards are? In the past AASHTO standards have not always matched local desires, so this could be a concern. The wording sounds vague to the layperson. Paul N. said that design guidelines are not always black and white, and that there is often design exception (due to ROW impacts). Joe said that it’s not black and white, and depends on the roadway, so it’s too complicated to put a definition of what the design standards are in here. This will be discussed further.
Mimi added that NHS roadways would follow the guidelines established by AASHTO.Collector roadways would follow MaineDOT design standards and the local roadways would follow local design guidelines.
Dan commented that he likes the new format and it is easy to follow. On page 3 under System Connectivity he asked if travel time be under the first category, travel times and capacity? Carol said yes and that was a good catch. Dan also asked if the “Lack of Modal Choices” bullet in Travel Times/Capacity should be moved to System Connectivity. Discussion with the study team afterward was concluded with a decision to leave it as originally placed but add a parenthetical comment that it affects system connectivity as well, since it fits in both categories.
John Duncan asked what happens next. Carol stated that the Purpose and Need will be on the agenda for the next Steering Committee meeting, that if people have more comments to let us know. It would go next to the Advisory Committee for the September 15 meeting and eventually to the public in October.
Paul G asked Joe if the agencies change things in other studies’ purpose and need statements? Has he had any experience with this? Paul noted that we are taking a very broad approach, how will that sit with the agencies? Joe explained that the Corps likes to see a brief and broad purpose statement that will not preclude any strategies. Joe thought that what we have developed is the kind of Purpose and Need that they like to see, so he doesn’t expect much comment on it. The needs and deficiencies will have to be further documented as the study moves along; the needs have to be measureable. The agencies will look at past studies’ needs, recognize this is a study, and understand that perhaps someday this will mean physical roadway improvements. Any options will have to have the impacts from such improvements measured as part of the EIS. This is a key part of the NEPA process.
Mimi mentioned the highway methodology used by the Corps - they look at Purpose and Need and come up with something more specific, shorter, like how do we get from point A to point B, and impact as few natural resources as possible. If there is a build alternative, we will have our statement, they will have their more direct version and they will look at the strategy and see if it meets the goal of getting from point A to point B. They are more streamlined and precise.The earlier you have them involved the better.
John asked if the Corps’ subsequent efforts will have their own Purpose and Need? Joe replied that they would.
Mimi suggested that a phone call with Corps, it may be a good idea before September. Dave said to keep in mind that by the time you go to the Corps you are permitting a project, not a study, it will be a much smaller profile than what the study was to begin with. He said he thinks it’s important to keep agencies in the loop and get their buy -n all along. Paul G agreed and said we intend to get this to the agencies in September
Tex asked if the original resolve included the four communities, because the agencies may ask why these communities are part of the study. Mimi said that it mentioned Gorham specifically and getting to and from the Maine turnpike. The links to the Resolve and all concurrent document will be made available via the website.
Joe said he likes to think of it as a funnel, in a study there is a lot to consider, and then it gets narrowed down to a project that can be implemented. Carol reiterated that Purpose and Need will be on the agenda for August’s SC meeting.
Next, Evan talked about why include land use in a study like this. In 1991 the Sensible Transportation Policy Act (STPA) was written with a land use component. Many people were not aware of STPA because it was not implemented. That began to change in 2002; a legislative amendment required that SPTA and the Growth Management Act had to work together and complement each other. Evan also mentioned that this region has developedwork in the land use/transportation planning field with the Destination Tomorrow plan from PACTS.In 2007, incentives were added to STPA, for towns that developed comprehensive plans with built-in land use connections. In 2008 the rule was enacted in the legislature.It is important because it requires significant transportation projects to explicitly take into account regional and local land use policies – and it also allows MaineDOT and MTA to determine if the land use policies of the communities are going to undermine the transportation facilities that are built. As a result, MaineDOT and MTA could ask the community to change its policies, or refuse to do the project, or do the project but ask for a higher financial match to make up for it. It explicitly governs comprehensive plans in respect to transportation and builds in a small incentive for communities that perform at a minimal level and a higher incentive if they perform at a higher level, i.e., implement stricter local land use policies that will make the best use of existing transportation infrastructure.
Evan said that a lot of work has been going on with this concept over the years.There have been findings that say the connection and benefit of a carefully planned land use system is not as great as it some think it could be, but it’s clearly not nothing. There is a significant and measureable impact to land use change that can save transportation dollars down the road. They are finding that a 1% increase in density will increase 1.8% in transit use. Evan emphasize that we are going to take this very seriously, and treat land use as an equal partner to transportation.
APPROACH: We will develop two scenarios, which we can compare.
Low Density Scenario: This will be an extension of what we have experienced in terms of patterns over the last 25 years. We will extend it by modifying it for external factors, the ageing population, (housing patterns), energy costs, new policies in the last 10 years the (communities in this area have already done some significant things with land use policies). We have already met with the four town planners and completed some mapping. We will develop projected growth, population, and the like based on the last 25 years, as modified by some external forces.
Urbanization Scenario: If the communities were to adopt land use policies and infrastructure investments that made a good land use-transportation connection, we will look at what would happen to VMT, etc. We will identify those thresholds and redistribute the population to the places comprehensive plans say are growth areas in some nodal kind of way. We will then rerun the model and see what kind of difference it makes.
Evan said we need to know this is plausible, but we do want to push a little bit. It may involve some hard decisions and some give and take.Evan indicated that on this project we need the advice and guidance from the four communities, as well as Portland and Standish.
Dave suggested not calling it urbanization; no one likes to think Maine is urbanized. In his experience people seem to miss the benefits of smart growth. He thinks it may be because it’s an incremental benefit. The perception is that we are already locked into our transportation use.
Evan said one perspective that may be helpful is that the Portland metro area is very young. It is still possible for it not to look like older metro areas in the US. It is young in terms of demographics and transportation functions. If you have good measures of effectiveness, the results will either make their eyes glow or their mouths yawn. That’s a good indicator.
Dave said there is opportunity here; people are getting over their skepticism of traffic being decreased in Gorham village since the bypass opened up. When all is said and done, it is clear that the results are ending up pretty much how the modeling said they would.
Paul G said that in the Gateway 1 Study we were very up front with towns about what we may ask them to do. Tex said that in previous meetings he has mentioned economic development. He thinks there is economic development that could be released with this project, so we aren’t just looking at densities that support transit, but housing that is attractive to pull bio tech people from Boston, for example, so that’s another way to show the benefits of change. Tex also asked if this discussion with Evan would also take place with the Advisory Committee? Paul G said both Charlie and Evan would be speaking at the Advisory Committee Meetings as well as the Steering Committee Meetings.
Dan asked is it up to Maine DOT what kind of role the STPA has to make the communities make the changes, is it a requirement or just an incentive. Evan said he doubts the MTA or MaineDOT will want to use the act to force unwanted change. Mimi said it is still new. Evan said it can be used in a constructive way. In some ways MaineDOT would have a justification to be aggressive, but he thinks it will use its knowledge on behalf of protecting transportation assets and use the power of persuasion on a town-by-town basis. He doesn’t think we are going to come up with things that are outlandish; we don’t need to have a revolution to make things significantly better. John said he thinks if the state pushed, gently, it would be productive.He hopes that the STPA gets used.
Paul G. said there will be lots of opportunity to focus on this during the land use charrette this fall. It will be an open process; these area communities are already many steps ahead of the rest of the state. Evan stated that he needs guidance on how much we need to think of these communities as a region. We need to think about if and how we involve Portland, need to know fairly soon, how we collect data will be affected.Dave said that obviously the impact will go beyond four communities, the harder question is, at one point do you draw the line and why was the line drawn? In terms of achieving more density, he asked if there a standard regarding how much density you need for transit? Evan said that it is 4-6 dwelling units per acre. Density by itself is not the only factor, if job density is at 50-75 jobs per acre, there is more opportunity. Accessibility, time and distance are also factors. These factors are becoming better understood.
Bill then updated everyone on some of the other work happening for the study. There have been land use planner meetings, involving Kevin Hooper with the modeling, and HNTB has been geocoding employment centers to TAZ zones. Transit and rail activities are ongoing over the next few weeks and there will soon be a report on that.The traffic analysis is wrapped up, and will be a on the agenda soon as well.
Carol then reviewed the next meeting’s agenda - it will include a discussion with Charlie Colgan on economic opportunities, the Purpose and Need and some of the study products HNTB is producing. The meeting is August 25th, starting early at 12:45pm so folks can look at some new data. Also if any one has any comments on the Purpose and Need prior to the meeting, please let us know. The website is up and running, with has meeting notes and meeting dates and times on it, among other things.
The meeting ended at 2:45 pm.
Meeting: Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/23/09 - 1-3 pm
Location: Maine Turnpike Authority, 2360 Congress Street, Portland
Topic: Study Update, Purpose and Need Statement
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
MEETING NOTES
Gorham East-West Corridor
Steering Committee June 24, 2009
Location: MTA Conference Room
Attending: Sara Devlin, Conrad Welzel and Rebecca Grover, MTA; Tom Hall, Dan Bacon, Scarborough;
Paul Godfrey, Bill Bent, HNTB; Tex Haeuser, South Portland; Burleigh Loveitt, David Cole, Gorham; Eric Dudley, Westbrook;
John Duncan, PACTS; Carol Morris, Morris Communications
Conrad Welzel called the meeting to order at 1:10 PM and thanked everyone for coming. He said that the Advisory Committee Meeting had a very large turnout and that it was a very productive meeting. Conrad then turned the meeting over to Paul Godfrey.
Paul quickly reviewed the proposed agenda for today’s meeting. He said that the major focus of the meeting was discussion and reaction to the Advisory Committee comments and suggestions for the Purpose and Need Statement (P/N).
Carol Morris gave the Committee a brief update on her discussions regarding the Advisory Committee’s role as well as new members who have been added.
Purpose and Need
Study Purpose
Paul, John D and Carol reviewed the notes from the breakout sessions with the Advisory Committee. Some of the general themes that all the breakout sessions had were:
• Adding economic development in many areas
• Making sure that energy and energy consumption is thought of in the P&N
• Using positive language instead of reacting to deficiencies
• Making sure that all geographical areas are included
The committee then hand a lengthy discussion on the comments on the purpose.
• David Cole cautioned about widespread participation and not having the ability to solve all of the problems. The P/N needs to be a good foundation for the study
• Burleigh stated he didn’t hear anything “too wild” from the A. C. Carol concurred
• Tex indicated that he thought that Economic Development needs to be up front on the P/N
• John D indicated that his experience was more regional in nature, not roadway specific
• Paul indicated that a Feasibility Study may be more open and the P/N needs to relate back to measures
• Tom indicated that the geographical size needs to consider the connectivity to the transportation system
• Tom also thought it might be prudent not to get caught in the weeds by looking at energy efficiency, questioning how this would be measured.
• Carol said that federal and state regulations were going to require that energy items be included, but that guidelines on the measures were still in process..She also said that this item had been discussed as part of Gateway 1, a land use-transportation study for midcoast Maine, and such measures were being included.
• Eric said that economic development actions may be the exact opposite of promoting energy efficiency
• Tom wanted to know what do we measure the strategies against –Paul said that they would be measured against the “No-Action” strategy.
• David clearly stated that if we want to move something forward it needs to be able to be funded-strategies need to be financially feasible - How does this get defined? The best solution possible may not ever stand a chance of being funded and therefore would need to be eliminated.
• David suggested that maybe there be priorities in the needs statements
• Conrad compared the P/N to developing goals and objectives
• Burleigh thought the words need to be carefully chosen
• Paul reminded the committee that improvement strategies are measured against the P/N and it is used to develop evaluation criteria
• Other discussion
o Tom wanted to know if a Study Statement might be helpful “Why are we here?”
o Burleigh agreed
o John wanted make sure the P/N remained concise (1 1/3 pages)
Study Need
The next portion of the meeting was concerned with the Study Need. Again, following the same format, Paul, John and Carol gave brief overviews of their breakout sessions from the A. C.
The discussion on Project Need centered on economic development. There were many thoughts on how to measure economic development potential. It was agreed that it would be helpful for the Steering Committee to have a presentation by Charlie Colgan. It was recognized that however important economic benefit is to the region, the primary goal of transportation is to move people and goods. However, it was noted that how people and goods are moved can have an enormous impact on economic development and that good transportation infrastructure is needed for economic development. Getting goods to customers/making transportation connections must be efficient and rapid; this is easy to quantify.
There was also discussion about the challenge of trying to enhance business in multiple municipalities since those municipalities typically compete with each other for new commercial development. As Burleigh noted, “One man’s benefit is another man’s loss.”
Tom noted that it might be helpful to have a simple statement at the beginning of the P&N. Carol suggested a shorter version of the first bullets; Tom indicated he thought a more transportation-oriented version might be appropriate. Carol noted that transportation infrastructure doesn’t exist just for itself, but should be developed to achieve certain objectives. Paul and Carol agreed to craft a short statement for the beginning of the P&N.
Next Steps of P/N
Paul and Carol will sift and filter the comments from the Steering Committee and craft the next version of the P/N. It will be sent out to the Steering Committee for review and comment. This will be done over the next two weeks. Then it will go back out to the Advisory Committee for comments.
Charlie Colgan will be invited to an upcoming Steering Committee meeting to talk about economic opportunties. Paul will contact Charlie to see what might work for him.
Study Progress
Traffic
Bill presented an overview of progress to date on the traffic elements. He summarized the progress and the initial traffic counts and truck data collected in the area of the Gorham Bypass. Bill also mentioned the safety analysis and new data recently sent by MaineDOT.
Land Use
Paul described the progress made on the land use element and reminded the committee about the two growth scenarios for the future. There are two approaches:
• Existing trends
• Smart growth/reurbanization
It was agreed that Evan Richert would be invited to attend the next Steering Committee meeting to talk about land use and how it affects transportation planning.
Meetings Schedule
Carol handed out a summary of the meetings for this project. It was determined that meeting listed as August 24 should be August 25th. The Steering Committee may cancel one of the two summer meetings depending on progress on the P/N and Charlie Colgan.
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 PM
Meeting: Advisory Committee Meeting
Meeting Date: 06/18/09 - 9 am - noon
Location: Maine Turnpike Authority, 2360 Congress Street, Portland
Meeting Topic: Draft Purpose and Need Statement discussion
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Gorham East-West Corridor
Advisory Committee
June 18, 2009
Location: MTA Conference Room
AC Members Attending: Keith Luke, Westbrook Economic Development; Tom Ellsworth, Gorham Economic Development Corps. Barbara Charry, Maine Audubon; Paul Weiss, Sierra Club, Ben Severance, Town of Hollis, Selectman; Jim Libby, Town of Buxton; Wayne Newbegin, Town of Standish; Alex Jaegerman, City of Portland: Planner; Elizabeth Hertz, Maine State Planning Office; Rick Shinay, MEREDA; Bruce Hyman, Grow Smart Maine and Portland Trails; Ed Clifford, ZOOM/PACTS Transportation; Maria Fuentes, Maine Better Transportation Association; Julie Bassett, Scarborough Economic Development Corporation; Steve Linnell, GPCOG; Warren Knight, Smiling Hill Farms; Ray Penfold, VIP; Jason Briggs, VIP; Wayne Davis, Passenger Rail Association; David Knapp, 113 Corridor Committee; Carl Eppich, PACTS; Robert Lefebvre, Fire/Metro Chiefs; Mike Bolduc, Saco; John Duncan, PACTS
Steering Committee and Study Team Members Attending: Tex Haeuser, South Portland; John Duncan, PACTS; David Cole, Gorham, Mimi Cerveny, MaineDOT; Sara Devlin, Maine Turnpike Authority; Conrad Welzel, Maine Turnpike Authority
Study Team Members Attending:; Rebecca Grover, Maine Turnpike Authority; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Bill Bent, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communications
Observers: Rebecca Shaeffer, GPCOG; David Winrey, MaineDOT; Brian Keezer, MaineDOT; Chris Hall, Portland Regional Chamber; Art Handman, H Group
Introduction
Conrad Welzel called the meeting to order at 9:07 AM and thanked everyone for coming. Conrad said he was happy with the strong turnout at today’s meeting. Conrad then turned the meeting over to John Duncan, Chairman.
After introductions from the attendees, John quickly reviewed the proposed agenda for today’s meeting. He said that the major focus of the meeting was to discuss the Purpose and Need Statement.
Committee Roles
Carol Morris gave the Committee a brief update on the discussion with the Steering Committee regarding roles and membership. She said that new members are here today, Jim Libby from Buxton and Mike Bolduc from Saco. We have asked the Saco River Corridor Commission if they are interested, but have gotten no response. Robert Lefebvre, Gorham, is here representing the Metro Chiefs (fire) and we are waiting for a regional police chief assignment. Carol reported back from the Steering Committee that they felt that that committee. should remain as the four core towns, as they had done the work to get this study funded through the legislative process, and that any land use or transportation changes would primarily take place in these four towns. She also mentioned that this is phase 1 of this study and if, based on strategies selected, other municipalities need to be added in the next phase, then that would be done. Conrad added that he was happy to see that members are acknowledging that they wear more than one hat as an Advisory Committee member.
Study Area
Paul Godfrey then discussed the proposed Study Area outlining a Primary Study Area within the four principal communities and a secondary study area that encompassed many of the adjoining communities. The Secondary Study Area is important to consider for both transportation and land use, but will most likely not have significant immediate impacts.
Alex Jaegerman asked if Portland was included in the secondary area. Yes. He requested copies of the map be sent to Advisory Committee members. John Duncan also mentioned two regional studies that are ongoing from PACTS that overlap the Study Area:
• PACTS Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
• Update of the Long Range Transportation Plan (Destination Tomorrow)
Purpose and Need (P/N)
Paul Godfrey took over and discussed the importance of the P/N statement. It will be the document by which all improvement strategies are evaluated. If a strategy does not satisfy the P/N then it will not move forward. During the course of the study, the P/N will be reviewed and can be altered if need be.
Bruce Hyman asked if the result is evaluation criteria. Paul said yes the evaluation criteria are based on the P/N.
Steve Linnell asked about environmental and energy considerations. Paul indicated they are included.
Following comments, questions and concerns from the A. C., the P/N will be brought to the Steering Committee for their input and comment. The final P/N will be brought before the A. C.
At that point, the A. C broke into three groups to go over the P/N Statement, bullet by bullet. Paul, Carol and John D acted as facilitators for the three groups.
Gorham East-West Advisory Committee Meeting:
Breakout Group Comment Summary
(Note: See the end of this document for the Draft Purpose and Need Statement on which these comments were made.)
Study Purpose
First Bullet:
- Add “sustainable” in terms of both financially and environmentally sustainable
- Add “identifying economic opportunities” to study purpose statement
- Change to “promote or improve” economic growth and make it regional growth
- Preserve poor word – change is inevitable – try “consider and manage” effects of growth so as to “conserve” all items? Add natural environment/wildlife to this
- Need energy and carbon emission reduction-related strategies here or somewhere
- Specify multi-modal
Second Bullet:
- Increase geographical size when referring to “provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods (Port of Portland, 295, Rte. 1)
- Add the need to consider energy efficiency when evaluating the strategies (here or elsewhere – universal)
Third Bullet:
- Add “state” to list of disconnected local and regional
- Add reference to lack of truck routes being a deficiency
Fourth Bullet:
- Strategies should not just meet, but shape need for multi-modal.
- Add interconnections between multimodal
Study Need
First Bullet:
- Transportation/energy efficiency, climate change also a need
- Add interconnections
Second Bullet:
- “Unplanned” loss of open space; add wildlife issues; fragmentation of habitat’
- Add “compact, walkable, transit-supportive” communities – and need for more hubs
- “Incompatible” zoning as opposed to “uncoordinated” – place no blame
Study Issues:
Travel times
- This are classic transportation metrics – need to be updated
- Lack of efficient travel also limits quality of life
- Need to add Rte. 1, 295, 112, 117, and 302 to list of routes with growing congestion
- Add lack of truck routes
System Connectivity
- Add connectivity in trails, rail
- Add connectivity between hubs
- Lack of public private
Under-regulated growth
- Need to identify how to measure and evaluate change in rural, cultural, historical character
- Add to limited funding, limited “allocation” of funding
- Add issue with loss of rural lands due to “fragmentation” of development
- Limited regional inter-municipal cooperation: Issue with this – untrue or unsubstantiated
The breakout sessions lasted until 11:15 AM.
Each of the three facilitators presented their groups comments, thoughts, and ideas to the collective A. C. A lively discussion followed echoing many of the points discussed in the individual sessions.
Study Progress
Traffic
Bill Bent presented an overview of progress to date on the traffic elements. He summarized the progress and the initial traffic counts and truck data collected in the area of the Gorham Bypass. Bill also mentioned the safety analysis and new data recently sent by MaineDOT.
Land Use
Paul described the progress made on the land use element and reminded the committee about the two growth scenarios for the future. There are two approaches:
• Existing trends
• Smart growth/reurbanization
A question was asked regarding the level of land use analysis for the core towns as opposed to the outlying towns – would the Study cover analysis for the outlying towns as well. Paul responded that there will be a focused assessment of the core towns and a limited analysis of the outlying towns.
There was also discussion of how Smart Growth concepts would be incorporated into the study, initiated by Bruce Hyman, Alex Jaegerman and Paul Weiss. Paul Godfrey said that Evan Richert would be leading that initiative and that Evan would be attending the September Advisory Committee meeting to outline the process and discuss ideas.
The meeting adjourned at 12:01 PM.
INITIAL DRAFT PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT ON WHICH ABOVE COMMENTS WERE MADE
Gorham East-West Corridor Study: Draft June 12, 2009
(Paragraph on background of Study to be inserted)
Study Purpose
• The Gorham East-West Corridor Feasibility Study is the first phase of a study to identify transportation and land use strategies that will:
- support economic growth and stability
- create opportunities to live and work within local or adjacent communities
- preserve the study area’s rural, cultural and historical character.
• Strategies will provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods:
- within, between and through the communities of Gorham, Scarborough, South Portland and Westbrook
- as well as to and from the Maine Turnpike/Interstate 95.
• Strategies will address existing and future transportation deficiencies that:
- are the result of disconnected regional and local land use and transportation planning
- as well as other unconnected public and private choices.
• Strategies to meet:
- current and future demand for local and regional travel
- by all modes, including vehicular, rail, transit, pedestrian and bicycl will be evaluated and incorporated
- as they support the purpose of this Study.
The Study will identify strategies that may lead to a Phase 2 Study that would provide additional project definition.
Study Need
The need for the project is based on transportation and land use deficiencies that have been identified in past studies and are evident today.
• Transportation deficiencies include:
- traffic congestion;
- inadequate roadway design features, particularly for accommodating truck movements;
- limited mode choice;
- inadequate facilities for pedestrian and bicycle modes; and
- safety issues.
• Land use deficiencies include
- loss of open space, agricultural and rural lands as a result of past or limited zoning;
- limited policies or ordinances that plan and provide for walkable and bikeable communities;
- limited policies or ordinances that that create hubs for mode connection, and
- incompatible zoning across the region
Study Issues
Study issues identified by the four municipalities and regional stakeholders that will be evaluated as part of this Study include:
Travel Times/capacity – classic traffic engineering metrics:
• Lack of efficient travel limits economic development and tourism opportunities
• Lack of rail, transit and mode choice in the region
• Growing congestion on key transportation corridors in the region, including State Routes 22, 25, 114, and US Route 202 having undesirable affect of traffic moving onto local and neighborhood roadways
System Connectivity:
• Poor connections to interstate highways and major arterials that are essential to move goods and services
• Increasing distance between homes and jobs in the region
Underregulated Growth, zoning and planning:
• Rapid and unplanned residential and commercial growth in the four communities and region
• Rapid loss of any new transportation capacity due to suburban growth trends
• Loss of rural lands and habitat due to limited or no zoning
• Limited regional inter-municipal cooperation
• Aging population of region requires more modal choice and supportive land use patterns [social issue]
• Limited funds for transportation and land use actions [overall government issue]
• Concerns with Public Safety
• Preservation of rural, cultural and historical character (Quality of Place)
• Sustainability
Meeting: Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting Date: 05/26/09 - 1-3 pm
Location: Maine Turnpike Authority, 2360 Congress Street, Portland
Meeting Topic: Advisory Committee Meeting Report, Purpose and Need Statement discussion
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Gorham East-West Corridor
Steering Committee
May 26, 2009
Location: MTA Conference Room
Attending: David Cole, Gorham; Burleigh Loveitt, Gorham; John Duncan, PACTS; Tom Hall, Scarborough; Paul Niehoff, PACTS; Tex Haeuser, South Portland; Conrad Welzel, MTA; Mimi Cerveny, MaineDOT; Bill Bent, HNTB; Sara Devlin, MTA; Rebecca Grover, MTA; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communications. Absent: Eric Dudley, Westbrook.
Conrad Welzel called the meeting to order at 1:12 PM and thanked everyone for coming. After introductions, Conrad turned the meeting over to Paul Godfrey.
Study Progress
Paul went over the agenda, reviewed the work progress to date and emphasized the Land Use elements. Paul indicated that HNTB is currently underway with 15 new Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATRs) in order to assess the traffic implications related to the opening of the Gorham Bypass. Additionally, there will be Turning Movement counts (TMCs) conducted during the PM Peak Periods at five key locations.
Tom Hall asked if he could obtain a listing of all count locations conducted previously. Mimi mentioned that the count locations are detailed in the Scope of Study.
The Base Mapping tasks are well underway. The mapping of zoning and land use for the four principal communities is almost complete. There have been meetings by the study team and all of the Planners for the municipalities.
Advisory Committee Follow-up
The initial Advisory committee (A. C.) meeting was held on April 30th at the Town of Gorham municipal offices. There was a good turn out by a number of stakeholders with varied interests. There was good discussion by the A. C. and the breakout groups were very successful. John Duncan spoke of the importance of Land Use that he shared with the A. C. He said that linking transportation and land use really resonated with the committee
The breakout groups resulted in asking that the following points be brought to the Steering committee for consideration. The four points are presented below:
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative analysis
• Overlap with other studies
• Request for additional groups to join AC
• Steering Committee make-up – request from Portland and Western communities to be on SC
The qualitative analysis tasks were generally acknowledged by the Steering Committee. David Cole expressed that in broad terms qualitative elements are easier. When they are broken down further there are many varying opinions on quality of life concepts. Tom Hall agreed, noting that it would be very important to define what those elements are early in the process and get buy-in. Conrad offered that the final definitions on quality of life for this study will need to be decided by the Steering Committee. Paul and Carol noted that some of these quantitative measures have been developed for Gateway 1. The Study Team (including Evan Richert and Charlie Colgan) will begin to develop some ideas for these measures to bring to the Steering Committee and the A. C. for feedback.
The A.C. also mentioned that there are two ongoing studies that need to be considered with this study:
• Mobilize Maine
• GPCOG Regional Plan
Three additional members to the A. C. were suggested at the A.C. meeting:
• Saco River Corridor Commission
• Emergency Management
• South Portland economic development
Burleigh thought the Saco River might be too far from the core study area to make much of an impact. Tom mentioned that there is a group called the Metro Chiefs and it includes South Portland, Portland, Westbrook, Windham and Scarborough. They may be the right group for the emergency management group. Conrad mentioned the EMT of Southern Maine led by Donnie Carroll. Tex mentioned that an Ad Hoc Economic Development Group had been meeting that includes the four principal communities
There was a long discussion concerning the composition of the Steering Committee and the pros and cons of adding new members. Paul presented a slide outlining the roles of both the Steering and Advisory Committees. The Steering Committee felt it was important to more precisely define the roles of each committee. Wording such as validate and endorse was reviewed. The following are some of the key points discussed:
• The burden of possible land use impacts from this project will be faced by the four principal communities
• Important to consider that this is a Phase 1 study and the results may need to reconsider the committee structure in future phases.
• These four communities banded together and worked hard to get this study initiated
• Worried about if Portland enters then who else and how many – a larger group is much more challenging in terms of working through decisions.
• The A. C. is an excellent cross section of many view points and need to be free to do its job
• The four communities are more alike than Portland
Results:
• Study Team to review more closely the wording for the committee roles – Carol to revise based on input from this meeting
• Final wording will be sent to the Steering Committee for review and comment
• The final roles will be presented to the A. C with the understanding that for the time being the committee structure will remain intact
• As study results dictate, the committee structure will be reviewed
Land Use
Paul described a meeting held with Charlie Colgan and Evan Richert concerning growth scenarios for the future. There are two approaches:
• Existing trends
• Smart growth/reurbanization
Under the first scenario current trends would be extended into the future. The second approach is to determine the “reasonable” smart growth techniques that might be applied to this study. Evan would be charged with determining the “reasonable” techniques for this study.
These two approaches would serve as bookends for the analysis of future trends. Tom Hall mentioned that transportation and sewer/water are the key elements in determining where growth might occur. Conrad mentioned that qualitative aspects would be useful in this effort as suggested by the A. C. David Cole and Tex didn’t feel comfortable with a Charrette as soon as September. Tex said stay away from early September and the holidays. October might be the best month for a land use Charrette.
Purpose and Need
The Steering Committee reviewed and discussed the Purpose and Need elements as contributed by the A. C. at their recent meeting. John Duncan thought it was a good listing in the form of problem statements. The following thoughts were relayed by members:
• David Cole: The solution must provide an efficient transportation system that serves the needs of business and promotes economic development.
• Tom Hall: We don’t have the funds as individual towns to finance a solution; that is why we have to work together.
• Tex: Connections to interstate facilities are important to South Portland and the region. He has seen industry move from South Portland because of congestion.
• Sara Devlin: It is important for MTA for traffic to be able to get to the turnpike. This is as important as it is to serve traffic on the mainline. Conserving system capacity and ensure safety and efficiency are also very important.
• Mimi Cerveny: Continuing with the theme from the earlier Gorham Environmental Assessment: Reduce congestion and improve travel times from communities north, west and within the Gorham vicinity to the interstate and Maine Turnpike highway system to accommodate future [2035] traffic and land use demands. Metrics to be determined once base conditions and no action are measured.
• Conrad indicated the Purpose and Need should identify who we are trying to serve.
• Tex feels that the benefits are not only at the end points of the solution but in the middle as well.
• Burleigh stated that from a land use/community planning perspective, this study is very important to all four communities.
• Mimi mentioned the P/N will at some point involve the Army Corps of Engineers.
Paul thanked the Committee for their thoughts. The next step is for the Study Team to assemble the collective thoughts of both committees and craft a draft P/N statement to share with the Steering and Advisory Committee. Tom Hall asked that it be sent to the Steering Committee first, prior to when it is transmitted to the A. C. Carol said that the P/N would go to the SC first to make sure it met their needs, and then to the A.C. She also noted, and all agreed, that there would likely be a number of iterations back and forth between the two committees. Everyone agreed that it is very important to get the P/N right.
Other Business
Conrad reminded the members that it is important for the Steering Committee to be represented at the A. C. Meeting on June 18, 2009 at the Maine Turnpike Authority. David Cole indicated he would attend and Tom Hall would come in a bit late.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 PM
Meeting: Advisory Committee Meeting
Meeting Date: 04/30/09 - 9 am - noon
Location: Gorham Municipal Offices
Topic: Kickoff Meeting
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
East-West Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting Gorham Municipal Offices 9 am-noon April 30, 2009 Attendees: John Duncan, Ben Severance, Julie Bassett, Barbara Charry, Carl Eppich, Paul Niehoff, Alex Jaegerman, Tom Ellsworth, Keith Luke, Judith Harris, Wayne Newbegin, Warren Knight, Richard Rudolph, Bruce Hyman, Rick Shinay, Dave Knapp, Richard Rudolph, Elizabeth Hertz, Steve Linnell, Sara Devlin, Mimi Cerveny, Rebecca Grover, Burleigh Loveitt, David Cole, Paul Godfrey, Bill Bent, Carol Morris.
Meeting Introduction
The meeting began with introductions around the table; attendees explained who they were and what organization or point of view they were representing. Carol Morris provided an overview of the purpose of the Advisory Committee and noted that several organizations were asked to be part of the Committee but had to decline due to lack of resources. These organizations are the Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce, Natural Resource Council of Maine, NNEPRA, the University of Southern Maine and Portland Trails. Several other organizations are on the Committee but could not attend this meeting. They are Trainriders, Town of Buxton, Maine Better Transportation Association, Bicycle Coalition of Maine, Sierra Club and Maine Motor Transportation. Paul Godfrey then outlined the background, purpose and goals of the study:
- In LD 1720 the Maine State Legislature directed the Maine Turnpike Authority and the Maine Department of Transportation to study the needs in the corridor - The Maine Turnpike Authority and the Maine Department of Transportation are funding partners on this study. - The goal is to evaluate feasible transportation strategies and corresponding land use actions - The study must be consistent with NEPA and STPA - The study must include all affected communities and relevant stakeholders - The study will embody an open and unbiased process
Destination Tomorrow Land Use Policy
Paul introduced John Duncan of PACTS, chairman of the Advisory Committee, who explained that this study was the first study that would implement the PACTS Land Use Policy created a few years ago as part of Destination Tomorrow. The policy was created to implement a link between land use and transportation planning. This study is the first opportunity to test this policy within the PACTS region. John also explained that the PACTS policy is in line with Maine’s Sensible Transportation Policy Act, and so is supported by both MaineDOT and the Maine Turnpike Authority. John added that this study will build on what has been learned as part of Gateway 1, a land use and transportation planning project in Mid-coast Maine. He noted that many of the same staff people who are working on Gateway 1 (Paul Godfrey, Carol Morris, Evan Richert, Kevin Hooper) are also working on this study, and it is an exciting opportunity to develop a related type of approach that is suited to this corridor. Breakout Session
The committee then broke into three smaller groups for break-out sessions. The purpose of the break-out sessions was to hear committee members’ perceptions of the biggest threat to this corridor, as well as what makes the corridor different from others. (Full notes from the session are at the end of this report; a summary follows.)
Results of the breakout session:
Green Team (Facilitated by John Duncan and Mimi Cerveny: Wayne Newbegin, Liz Hertz, Judy Harris, Paul Niehoff, Barbara Charry)
Mimi Cerveny reported back for the Green Team. Issues derived from the team included the lack of transportation linking Standish to the turnpike and other arterials resulting in compromised ability to move products; the lack of rail opportunity results in over reliance on trucking for transport of lumber, gravel and other products; the traffic congestion conditions with major congestions at Routes 114 and 22 is excessive. There is a lack of mass transit. Many of the residents in the westerly communities commute through Gorham and the study area to Portland for work and services.
Concerns expressed by the group include the fact that the area is largely environmentally biodiverse therefore wildlife habitat and connectivity need to be considered in any transportation solution concepts. Also the analysis of secondary and cumulative impact issues need to be taken into account as it is intrinsic to the NEPA environmental analysis requirements. The consideration of cost-benefits of strategies the study considers will be important. Concern was expressed that the lack of efficient travel through the study area limits growth opportunities in Oxford County.
Some of the challenges are: the difficulty in connecting small communities with transit, intergenerational needs and the need for smart land use policies. This area is unique because it is the gateway to the west and abutting tourist destinations; also, the study area is centrally located between residential communities and Portland being the largest service center of the region.
Another possible member of the committee was pointed to be someone from the Saco River Watershed (or Saco River Corridor Commission).
Red Team (Facilitated by Carol Morris and Rebecca Grover: Carl Eppich, Steve Linnell, David Cole, Ben Severance, Julie Bassett, Richard Rudolph)
Carl Eppich reported back for the Red Team. He said that the area is unique because there is no transportation system to the west like there is to the north and south. This results in cheap and available land west to the west. The transportation system has not kept up with the residential and commercial growth of the region. Congestion can have a positive or negative impact on local economics, and the solutions will have very strong economic implications. Doing nothing is not an option. The current transportation system is a “move yourself” system, which limits mobility for the young and aging due to cost and health factors. The Red Team also mentioned the intergenerational issue and that we need to plan for an aging population. This region is often characterized as rural, but it really is suburban with rural character, and the people who live there demand suburban services and amenities even while enjoying the rural character. There are some solutions that could increase problems in terms of increasing sprawl to the west. There are opportunities in that there are already nodes (villages) in the western part of the corridor that give planners and residents something to build on.
Black Team (Facilitated by Paul Godfrey and Sara Devlin: Tom Ellsworth, Alex Jaegerman, Bruce Hyman, Warren Knight, Richard Shinay, David Knapp, Keith Luke)
Paul Godfrey reported back for the Black Team. Issues that were discussed included, sprawl and the issue that very few people work where they live, requiring long travel distances. There has also been a loss of agricultural land. Compatible uses with agriculture need to be kept in perspective, as sometimes zoning is part of the issue. In general, residential development is not a good mix with agriculture. Any solutions should not perpetuate auto dependency, and there needs to be greater opportunity for mode choice. Public safety needs to be considered in all solutions. It was also mentioned that transportation is the only place where good inter-community planning is done.
After the reports, Paul said that the notes will all be compiled and will be the basis of the first draft of the Purpose and Need statement.
Study Overview
Next, Paul provided an overview of the study process. The process will include others at HNTB, and consultants such as Charlie Colgan and Evan Richert. The Steering Committee is comprised of MTA, MaineDOT PACTS, Gorham, South Portland, Scarborough and Westbrook. The success of the Study hinges on the involvement of all those Advisory Committee members here today. Because time is valuable, we want to make sure that meetings are productive. The Advisory Committee will meet at key milestones.
General Discussion
Judy Harris asked why Portland was not on the Steering Committee. Paul answered that the MTA and Maine DOT had discussed it with Portland. The four communities on the steering committee were included because all signed a joint resolution on the need for the Study. Carol stated that based on Judy’s comment, we would bring this question back to the Steering Committee at its May 26 meeting for a response.
Rick Rudolph stated that he thought the communities west of Gorham should be on the Steering Committee as well. It was noted that that would be part of the discussion. Carol said that one committee is not really more powerful than the other and that the Advisory Committee is where a lot of the work will be done. If the Advisory Committee is not supportive of the final strategies, they will not be successful in the communities.
Paul outlined that technical working groups will be convened on specific subjects and that there will be public outreach including a website, www.gorhamcorridor.org. The website will be on line the week of May 11th. Paul also outlined the content of the study scope; baseline information that will be updated, updating the PACTS travel demand model, and the need for a No Action alternative as a baseline.
Bruce Hyman said that we need to make sure to evaluate strategies qualitatively as well as quantitatively. He said there is support for things you can’t put a number on. He suggested that we use STPA as a resource and make sure the Study website is linked to the portion of the STPA website that indicates what MaineDOT and MTA can ask of the communities. In general, it requires that preference be given to projects that don’t increase the number of roads.
Judy Harris asked will we be doing a review of the current infrastructure? Paul answered in the affirmative. Barbara Charry asked if habitat data will be collected. There is the potential for endangered species in the area that are likely to be impacted by roads. Paul said that we will. Richard Rudolph added that he thought we should think about how we can reduce our carbon footprint. Wayne Newbegin asked when would a decision be made about adding members to the Steering Committee. Paul said it would be the end of May.
Liz Hertz asked about interfacing with other efforts in the region. She mentioned Mobilize Maine; there could be some overlap there. The Study Team will follow up. Steve Linnell mentioned that the Greater Portland Council of Governments is working on a regional comprehensive plan to meet guidelines of the state. Judy Harris mentioned that emergency management should be brought in on this. Alex Jaegerman mentioned that there is no one on the Advisory Committee from South Portland, and there was some discussion of who this could be.
Paul outlined the next steps. He would like to have the committee look at the scope and comment on it. The Study Team will generate a draft Purpose and Need statement before the next meeting, which will be in July or August. Carol will contact people about the next meeting date and the Steering Committee meeting, as well as provide them with updated contact sheets and pre-meeting information. The meeting ended at 11:35.
Detailed Notes from Breakout Groups:
GORHAM EAST-WEST CORRIDOR STUDY BREAK OUT GROUP NOTES Advisory Committee Meeting: April 30, 2009
Black Team:
Maine Real Estate Development Association: • Promote responsible development. Comp plan/Scarborough Chair. • Working on process to improve getting from here to there without contributing to sprawl. • Making it easier for people to live further from Portland. • Promote businesses to locate away from Portland - now very few locate in outlying area. • Transportation improvement promotes further movement outward from the City = sprawl • Few people working in the place they live.
Smiling Hill Farms: • We fail to plan: Very reactive; playing catch up • If we just react, the corridor will be behind issue rather than in front • SHF- loss of agricultural land can support other agricultural activity; often rent/lease these lands - perception of abandoned land with effect • Survival is dependent on value added; getting people to farm or getting products to the consumer • Amount of traffic is not all bad from agricultural perspective • Land use policy/zoning puts agricultural use with residential - could be commercial, good to have compatible neighbors.
Grow Smart: • Can’t fuel sprawl in the region or dependency on the automobile (Single Occupancy Vehicle) • Create travel options: we are missing out on populations (Consumers) that can’t drive (youth, elderly, disabled) • Sustainable prosperity means lowering high energy/utility costs • Utilize “Quality of Place” • Energy/Environment: Use of fossil fuels to transport goods/people • School placement is important: getting kids around is expensive
City of Portland: • Will be greatly affected • Worry about capacity of investment • Doing its best to be growth center but policies/patterns around Portland have been competitive • Promoting mixed use area: place for people to live and work • Sustainability is a planning link • Very little land use planning is in a cooperative way. Usually just transit planning. • Each community in the corridor should have a plan to save capacity and create compact growth centers • Ability to be served should be put in place before building highways • There are strengths in density, others should have that opportunity as well. • Promote density to support mobility choices • Right now we are feeding a pattern of development that increases sprawl
Route 113 Corridor Committee: • Reverse access can’t mitigate how to get to Portland and trying to attract people away from Portland • Create something that increases ease of access to and from Portland • Access to colleges affects work force development which affects economic development • Good jobs in the Portland area
Gorham Economic Development-Public Safety (Police/Fire): • Bypass not contributing to sprawl • Use local input for checks and balances • 22/114 business development is a challenge
Westbrook Economic Development: • Increased fuel prices • Employees living so far away • Look at other regional models Rte. 2 in Mass is a pipeline into city, also more affordable • Straight and fast: limited access • Turnpike model: user based tax
Green Team:
Issues: • Lack of efficient means of transportation linkage from Standish area to major hubs and mobility corridors • No high-speed access to move products (gravel, lumber, etc.) • No rail opportunity o Congestion overall o Rtes. 114 at 22 presents excessive congestion conditions. Need to determine what level of congestion is acceptable and target a realistic goal • No effective mass transit options • High percentage of residents to the west commute to Portland for employment through the study area • 65% of people commuting from Standish are employed in the greater Portland area
Concerns: • Largely environmentally biodiverse • Consider connectivity for wildlife in order to protect, promote, improve within transportation system • Transportation affects land use, which affects habitat. • NEPA – the need to assess cumulative effects is A MUST • This are is significant within the Saco River Watershed • Consider benefit costs during assessment of potential solutions
Challenges: • The study area corridors host a mix of rural and small developed areas whereby making difficult to connect via alternative modes of transportation • Need Smart Land Use Policies throughout the communities that link • Recognize intergenerational needs for development whereby the mix of elderly, family types, business, and service centers • Need planning in terms of getting elderly to medical facilities vs. smarter design of distance between - top future concern via TRB • Growth management: consider that growth traditionally follows roads • Consider growth and mass transit opportunity considering future land use goals
Unique: • Corridor is the gateway to the westerly bedroom communities; as well as the westerly and northwesterly tourist destinations and summer residences • Oxford County has no good access to the Maine Turnpike or mobility corridors whereby limiting economic development in Oxford County • Close to extremely large service center (Portland) • Most biodiverse area with in the entire state separating the divisional band of northerly habitats • Tourism traffic is mixed with residents
**Potential additional Advisory Committee member - the Saco River Corridor Commission
Red Team
Threats:
• Inability to sustain a transportation system that moves good and services efficiently • Increase in time and decrease in safety has negative economic impact • Rising gas prices and lack of alternate modes • Lack of social inclusion: aging of population/cost of gas/right to mobility • Young AND old need mobility – we have a “move-yourself” system that is hard for these two demographics (pre-license or pre-car) • The population is aging and people live longer – we need to plan for different lifestyles as people remain active but cannot/do not drive • Time and distance: competitive issue – Gorham vs. Standish • Time is important • Need to evaluate short and long trips • There is an issue with the way things have been done: property rights, right to access, right to use • Doing nothing is not an option – has economic impact • Congestion can be threat or opportunity to businesses
Increasing Change in Corridor:
• More signals, which equals more air pollution, more time on road, more cost • Longer commute times • There may be a trend back towards living in cities due to lack of $$ resources to travel far • But loss in real estate values may mean no way to move – and then no way to get to work • Could mean shift to wealthier populations in rural areas • Lower transportation budgets mean fewer improvements on less-traveled roads • The transition period is NOW
How Corridor is different:
• Cheap and attractive land to the west due to lack of transportation infrastructure • Transportation capacity has not kept up with residential growth • This growth now demanding mobility • This is not a rural corridor – it is suburban with rural character • Residents what rural character with suburban amenities
Miscellaneous:
• Increased capacity will change character of western towns • Solutions could increase sprawl and other problems – need to be careful • Transportation access means economic development: need a solution that takes business into account • Green alternatives are good • Efficiency is key: 5 minutes is important to a business bottom line • People will want to choose to be closer to work if economic/gas trend continues
Opportunity:
• Nodes/clusters do exist in outer areas – this is an opportunity if bolstered, planned utilized
