Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/ Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Final Report March 2005

Prepared By:

Prepared For:

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 1.1 Project History 1.2 Current Study History 1.3 Study Purpose and Need Statement Existing and No-Build Future Conditions 2.1 Study Area 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 2.3 Safety History 2.4 Park and Ride Facilities 2.5 ATRC Travel Demand Model 2.6 Future Traffic Volume Growth 2.7 Maine Sensible Transportation Policy Act Analysis Description and Evaluation of Interchange Strategies 3.1 Overview of Interchange Strategy Selection Process 3.2 No-Build Strategy 3.3 Strategy 1 – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) 3.4 Strategy 2 – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) 3.5 Strategy 3 – South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) 3.6 Strategy 4 – Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) 3.7 Strategy 5 – River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) 3.8 Strategy 1A – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge 3.9 Strategy 2A – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge 3.10 Strategy 5A – River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge 3.11 Strategies Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis Coordination and Consultation 4.1 Interagency Coordination Public Involvement 5.1 Study Advisory Committee (SAC) 5.2 Study Steering Committee ES-1 6.0 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 11 11 15 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 41 41 42 42 42

5.3 5.4 5.5

Public Information Meetings Auburn and Lewiston City Councils’ Coordination ATRC Website

43 43 43 44

Recommendations

2.0

Appendices A1 – Safety Assessment A2 – Congestion Assessment A3 – Project Cost Summary A4 – Benefit Cost Analysis A5 – Study Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting Notes A6 – Public Informational Meeting Notes and Other Public Comments A7 – Detailed Evaluation Matrix A8 – Resolutions from the Joint Council Workshop A9 – Maine DOT/ MTA Model Acceptance Letter

45 46 47 49 50 65 74 86 88

3.0

4.0 5.0

March, 2005 Final Report

I

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study List of Tables
Table 2-1 Table 3-1 Table A1 Table A2 Table A3 Table A4 1999-2001 High Crash Location History Summary Evaluation Matrix Safety Assessment Summary Study Area Intersection Volume Change Benefit Cost Analysis Summary Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix 9 12 45 46 49 76 ES-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27

List of Figures
Proposed Improvement Strategies Study Area Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes 1999-2001 High Crash Location History Forecasted Daily Traffic Change: 2000 to 2025 Generalized Land Use Historic/Cultural Resources Natural Environment Strategy 1 – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) Strategy 1 Origin Destination Data Strategy 1- River Road Interchange (Lewiston): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 2 – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 2 Origin Destination Data Strategy 2 – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 3 – South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 3 Origin Destination Data Strategy 3 – South Main Street Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 4 – Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 4 Origin Destination Data Strategy 4 – Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 5 – River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 5 Origin Destination Data Strategy 5 – River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 1A – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 1A Origin Destination Data Strategy 1A – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 2A – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 2A Origin Destination Data Strategy 2A – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes Strategy 5A – River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 5A Origin Destination Data Strategy 5A – River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes ES-3 6 7 8 10 13 14 14 16 16 18 19 19 21 22 22 24 25 25 27 28 28 30 31 31 33 34 34 36 37 37 39 II

March, 2005 Final Report

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
High Crash Location (HCL) – A High Crash Location is an intersection or highway segment that experiences an abnormally high number of accidents relative to the traffic demands that are served. For the State of Maine, the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) identifies HCLs. (Maine’s) Sensible Transportation Policy Act (STPA) – Maine’s Sensible Transportation Policy Act is a state law enacted in 1991 by the citizens of Maine that provides a decision-making framework for examining a range of transportation alternatives. The STPA is applicable to transportation planning decisions, capital investment decisions, and project selection decisions made by the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA), and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. The STPA identifies two types of projects that fall under the review of STPA: Significant Highway Projects (projects that create new through-capacity on roadways) and Substantial Public Interest Projects (new interchanges qualify as this type of project so the STPA applies to this study). The Act states that nonroadway capacity projects must be given preference if they meet a project’s purpose and need. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) – The federal legislation that requires an interdisciplinary approach in planning and decision-making for federal-aid actions. The Act includes requirements for the contents of environmental impact statements that are to accompany every recommendation for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The interdisciplinary study approach includes the analysis of potential impacts to the natural, social and economic environment. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) – Relatively low cost measures to increase capacity and/or provide safety improvements on the existing transportation system. These measures typically include traffic signal timing or phasing adjustments, designation of turning lanes at specific intersections or driveways, access management improvements, and enhanced signage or markings. Travel Demand Management (TDM) – A system of actions whose purpose is to alleviate traffic problems through improved management of vehicle trip demand as opposed to adding new highway segments. Vehicle-Hours Traveled (VHT) – VHT is a measure of automobile use and trip time. One vehicle traveling one hour constitutes one vehicle-hour. Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) – VMT is a measure of automobile use and trip length. One vehicle traveling one mile constitutes one vehicle-mile.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AADT – Annual Average Daily Traffic ATRC – Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center B/C – Benefit Cost Ratio CRF – Critical Rate Factor GIS – Geographic Information Systems HCL – High Crash Location ITD – Integrated Transportation Decision-making LF – Linear Feet MaineDOT – Maine Department of Transportation MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization MTA – Maine Turnpike Authority NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act NWI – National Wetlands Inventory SAC – Study Advisory Committee SF – Square Feet STPA – (Maine’s) Sensible Transportation Policy Act TAZ – Traffic Analysis Zone TDM – Travel Demand Management TSM – Transportation System Management USGS – United States Geological Survey VHT – Vehicle-Hours Traveled VMT – Vehicle-Miles Traveled WSA – Wilbur Smith Associates

Standard Terms
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) – The total yearly traffic volume on a given highway segment divided by the number of days in the year. AADT is expressed in vehicles per day (vpd). Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C) – The ratio of user benefits in dollar to capital and operating cost of a proposed facility. Critical Rate Factor (CRF) – The ratio of Accident Crash Rate to Critical Crash Rate. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – Average Daily Traffic is the number of vehicles that use a given roadway over a 24-hour period in both directions.

March, 2005 Final Report

III

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Executive Summary
Study Description The Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC), in cooperation with the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) and the Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA), retained Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to conduct a feasibility study of constructing a new interchange between Exits 75 (Auburn) and 80 (Lewiston) on the Maine Turnpike. The study is to address the feasibility of providing improved access from the Maine Turnpike to the Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns. The study process began in August 2002 and required approximately two years of work effort. Specifically, this study: Reviewed current and future transportation information in the general study area; Obtained meaningful input from public officials and members of the general public through a total of nine Study Advisory Committee meetings and four public meetings; Coordinated with the Lewiston and Auburn City Councils on the strategies to carry forward for further study; Developed a planning level Purpose and Need Statement for use in future phases of the project development process; and Recommends six strategies to be considered during the next project development phase. Study Purpose and Need Statement Purpose Provide improved transportation connections between the Maine Turnpike/I-95 and the Auburn and Lewiston Downtowns. Address appropriate transportation connectivity for both local and regional travel in the study area. Address current and future traffic congestion and safety issues along key transportation corridors in both communities. Realize economic redevelopment of the Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns and economic development opportunities along key corridors/areas of both communities through enhanced transportation linkages and connectivity. Provide connectivity opportunities and enhancements for local bicycling and pedestrian travel. Improve Emergency/Public Safety Vehicle Access to and from the Maine Turnpike to respond to incidents. Needs: Congestion and Accessibility delays due to inadequate capacity to move within the study area reduce congestion for local and through travelers in the study area March 2005 Final Report

delays caused by events that interrupt traffic flow impeded access to homes, institutions and businesses within the study area future growth in congestion due to increasing travel, property ownership, and business development improve regional road system linkage improve local bicycling, pedestrian, and recreational linkage improve access to alternative modes – transit, park & ride, etc. Public Safety traffic accidents caused by congested stop-and-go operation, inadequate gaps in traffic, and driver frustration hazardous locations in the highway network reduce accidents within the study area slow response times for emergency vehicles Quality of Community Life deterioration of neighborhoods due to spillover traffic on local roads and streets limit negative impacts on communities, farmland and neighborhoods impacts of potential transit routes and methods reduced access to local attractions consistent with and supports the goals of Auburn and Lewiston Comprehensive Plans encourage bicycling, pedestrian, and recreational opportunities and reduce impediments to these opportunities enhance truck routing while limiting truck traffic in neighborhoods Regional and Local Economic Health difficulty in attracting customers to businesses in the region because of congestion improve economic opportunities for businesses opportunities to revitalize core communities connectivity to downtown business areas improve the current and future flow of traffic and shipment of goods to the Maine Turnpike Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Impacts No-Build This strategy consists of the transportation network for the base year of analysis (2000) plus those projects or services already constructed, permitted or funded in the region before year 2025 (the future analysis year). These future base improvements include the Veteran’s Bridge Flyovers in both Auburn and Lewiston and the construction of the Maine Turnpike Route 9 interchange (Exit 86) in Sabattus. These base improvements are also included in each of the interchange strategies.

ES- 1

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

Strategy 1 – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange at River Road in Lewiston. This strategy may reduce traffic congestion in Lewiston, may avoid park and recreation land impacts, and may have a good benefit-cost conclusion. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts. Strategy 2 – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange on Route 136 in Auburn. This strategy may improve regional connectivity, adheres to design standards, may enhance bicycle/pedestrian opportunities, may have economic development benefits in Auburn, and may have a good benefit-cost conclusion. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts. Strategy 3 – South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange at South Main Street in Auburn. This strategy improves emergency access and adheres to design standards. This strategy has the potential for neighborhood impacts on South Main Street. Strategy 4 – Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange between Route 136 and South Main Street and the construction of a new road connecting the interchange with South Main Street and Route 136 in Auburn. This strategy improves emergency access and adheres to design standards. This strategy has the potential for neighborhood impacts on South Main Street. The adverse effects are expected to be less than those for Strategy 3. Strategy 5 – River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a new half interchange in Lewiston with access to and from the south on the Maine Turnpike and construction of a new full interchange in Auburn at Route 136. This strategy results in high interchange usage, improves access to both Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns, enhances bicycle/pedestrian opportunities, improves emergency access, improves local and regional connectivity, may have positive economic benefits in both Lewiston and Auburn, may reduce congestion in Lewiston, and may have a good benefit-cost conclusion. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts. Strategy 1A – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange at River Road in Lewiston and the construction of a proposed River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge. This strategy may reduce traffic congestion in Lewiston and Auburn, may avoid park and recreation land impacts and may have positive economic development benefits in both Lewiston and Auburn. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts other than a high project cost estimate.

Strategy 2A – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge This strategy consists of the construction of a new full Maine Turnpike interchange on Route 136 in Auburn and the construction of a proposed River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge. This strategy improves local and regional connectivity, improves bicycle/pedestrian opportunities, adheres to design standards, may improve economic development outside of downtown Auburn, improves emergency access, and may reduce congestion in Lewiston. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts other than a high project cost estimate. Strategy 5A – River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge This strategy consists of the construction of a new half interchange in Lewiston at River Road with access to and from the south on the Maine Turnpike, the construction of a new full interchange in Auburn at Route 136 and the construction of a proposed River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge. This strategy results in high interchange usage, improves access to both Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns, enhances bicycle/pedestrian opportunities, improves emergency access, improves local and regional connectivity, may have positive economic benefits in both Lewiston and Auburn, may reduce congestion in Lewiston, may improve high crash locations, improves truck circulation, and may have a good benefit-cost conclusion. This strategy is not likely to have any significant negative impacts other than a high project cost estimate.

Recommendation Following a detailed strategy evaluation of Transportation, Land Use, Socio-Economic, Natural Environment, and Cost and with input from a public outreach process and the two city councils, it was recommended by the Study Advisory Committee that Strategies 1, 2, 5, 1A, 2A, and 5A be considered for future study by the MaineDOT and MTA. It was further recommended that Strategies 3 and 4 be dismissed from further analysis due to these interchange concepts failing to substantially meet the study Purpose and Need Statement. Strategies 3 and 4 are recommended to be dismissed primarily due to their high negative impacts to the South Main Street neighborhood and low transportation benefits, including low traffic volume usage at the proposed interchanges. Strategies 3 and 4 were the lowest performing strategies of the eight Build Alternatives. Additionally, the Auburn City Council and citizen comments at the four public meetings expressed opposition to further consideration of Strategies 3 and 4. The next phase in the process is for MaineDOT and the MTA to take this study and information and begin more detailed evaluations. MaineDOT has a formal ten-step Integrated Transportation Decision-making Process. This study represents the completion of step one in that process.

March 2005 Final Report

ES- 2

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

March 2005 Final Report

Figure ES-1: Proposed Improvement Strategies

ES-3

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 1.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
1.1. Project History In 1988 the Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA) and the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) conducted a study, the Northern Corridor Study, of the northern portion of the Maine Turnpike. This study looked at traffic, tolls and access to the Maine Turnpike in a study area from Cumberland north to Augusta. This study was the first step in investigating a new interchange on the Maine Turnpike in the Lewiston-Auburn area. It was recommended that a study be conducted to determine if an interchange(s) was viable in the area. It included looking at interchange locations at South Main Street and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn, the Grove Street and Crowley Road area in Lewiston, and Route 9 in Sabattus. In 1991, taking the information from that study, the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (at that time LACTS) in coordination with the MaineDOT and the MTA began a study to see where new interchanges could be located in the metropolitan area. The study team included the consultant, MTA, MaineDOT, and LACTS. After extensive investigation and research, the Route 9 location in Sabattus was able to move more efficiently through the environmental permitting processes as well as garnering tremendous public support. However, strong public support could not be achieved for either location in Auburn or the Lewiston site. While City officials were still interested in access to the Maine Turnpike, there was no consensus on where an interchange could be built or which alternative was best. In October of 2002 the Maine Turnpike Authority broke ground on a new interchange at Route 9 in Sabattus and it was completed in November of 2004. Lacking a definitive community preference for constructing individual interchanges, the cities returned to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to review how a combined interchange location might serve the transportation and access needs of both communities. This study is the result of these discussions. 1.2. Current Study History In August 2002, ATRC issued a Request For Proposal to perform a feasibility study. This action reflected the Cities desire to revisit interchange viability. The ATRC Policy Committee reviewed submitted proposals and authorized the staff to engage Wilbur Smith Associates to perform the study. On October 31, 2002, the ATRC chair and staff met with the MaineDOT, MTA, and Wilbur Smith Associates to kick-off the study. A Study Advisory Committee (SAC) and a Study Steering Committee were formed. The first Study Advisory Committee meeting was held on December 12, 2002. During that time frame, ATRC contracted with the Louis Berger Group, Inc. to develop and calibrate the TransCAD Travel Demand Model for use in the study. Throughout the study effort, the Study Steering and Advisory Committees have met numerous times, reviewed extensive transportation data, suggested strategies, developed a planning-level Purpose and Need Statement, reviewed maps and drawings, discussed traffic volumes, learned about travel demand models and their calibration, reviewed traffic forecasts, heard comments from four public meetings, held city council workshops, and examined recommendations. Based upon these efforts, the committees March 2005 Final Report have concluded that it is feasible to make better connections to the Maine Turnpike from the downtowns of Lewiston and Auburn, and the six strategies recommended to go forward are the best options for further study. A long-standing goal of the MPO is to better integrate the Maine Turnpike within the urban transportation system of Lewiston and Auburn. Because downtown access to the Maine Turnpike is limited to two interchanges separated by approximately 5 miles, the full benefits of the interstate highway facility to the region have yet to be realized. It is envisioned that a new interchange between Exits 75 and 80 will create improved accessibility between the communities of Lewiston and Auburn to the developing areas of each city’s downtown and to the mid-coast region. It is also believed that a new interchange will reduce in-town traffic congestion and provide new opportunities for park and ride facilities and intermodal connectivity. Some of the most substantial plans for development and redevelopment in the metropolitan area are contained within each city’s downtown. Improving access to the downtowns should enhance developments planned for those areas. With the exception of roadways located within the downtown areas, none of the roadways in the study area are generally experiencing poor Levels of Service. However, an additional interchange with any required roadway improvements could dramatically affect access to the downtowns by highway and transit and improve downtown congestion levels. The purpose of this study is to address the feasibility for providing improved access from the Maine Turnpike to the Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns. Specifically, this study: Reviewed current and future transportation information in the general study area; Obtained meaningful input from public officials and members of the general public through a total of nine Study Advisory Committee meetings and four public meetings; Coordinated with the Lewiston and Auburn City Councils on the strategies to carry forward for further study; Developed a planning level Purpose and Need Statement for use in future phases of the project development process; and Recommends six strategies to be considered during the next project development phase 1.3. Study Purpose and Need Statement The Purpose and Need Statement is a guiding set of statements developed for a project to substantiate the specific objectives a project is designed to meet as well as the deficiencies the project is geared to address. If done well, the Statement helps narrow the range of practicable alternatives that can reasonably meet the objectives and address the deficiencies. The Purpose and Need Statement is intended to be useful in the decision-making portion of a study process. Proposed transportation strategies that are documented to not meet Purpose and Need can be dropped from further consideration. Those that do meet the Purpose and Need Statement are subject to further study to find the best practicable strategy with the least environmental impacts.

1

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
For this study, a planning-level Purpose and Need Statement was prepared. This is a more general statement. At later phases of the project development process (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), a project-level Purpose and Need Statement is developed. This is more specifically related to the preferred transportation strategy that is selected. For the study, the Study Advisory Committee (SAC) developed a draft planning-level Purpose and Need Statement as one of its first tasks. This draft statement was continually refined throughout the study process and public comment was continually sought. The draft statement was highlighted at each SAC meeting and Public Meeting. The planning-level Purpose and Need Statement is presented below. PURPOSE: Provide improved transportation connections between the Maine Turnpike/I-95 and the Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns. Address appropriate transportation connectivity for both local and regional travel in the study area. Address current and future traffic congestion and safety issues along key transportation corridors in both communities. Realize economic redevelopment of the Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns and economic development opportunities along key corridors/areas of both communities through enhanced transportation linkages and connectivity. Provide connectivity opportunities and enhancements for local bicycling and pedestrian travel. Improve Emergency/Public Safety Vehicle Access to and from the Maine Turnpike to respond to incidents. NEEDS: Congestion and Accessibility delays due to inadequate capacity to move within the study area reduce congestion for local and through travelers in the study area delays caused by events that interrupt traffic flow impeded access to homes, institutions and businesses within the study area future growth in congestion due to increasing travel, property ownership, and business development improve regional road system linkage improve local bicycling, pedestrian, and recreational linkage improve access to alternative modes – transit, park & ride, etc. Public Safety traffic accidents caused by congested stop-and-go operation, inadequate gaps in traffic, and driver frustration hazardous locations in the highway network March 2005 Final Report 2 reduce accidents within the study area slow response times for emergency vehicles Quality of Community Life deterioration of neighborhoods due to spillover traffic on local roads and streets limit negative impacts on communities, farmland and neighborhoods impacts of potential transit routes and methods reduced access to local attractions consistent with and supports the goals of Auburn and Lewiston Comprehensive Plans encourage bicycling, pedestrian, and recreational opportunities and reduce impediments to these opportunities enhance truck routing, while limiting truck traffic in neighborhoods Regional and Local Economic Health difficulty in attracting customers to businesses in the region because of congestion improve economic opportunities for businesses opportunities to revitalize core communities connectivity to downtown business areas improve the current and future flow of traffic and shipment of goods to the Maine Turnpike

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2.0 Existing and No-Build Future Conditions
2.1 Study Area The selection of roadways and intersections to be included in the study area was based upon a review of those likely to be impacted by the construction of a possible interchange between Exits 75 (Auburn) and 80 (Lewiston) on the Maine Turnpike. The study area primarily includes: 1.) Route 202 (Washington Street and Minot Avenue) in Auburn; 2.) South Main Street in Auburn; 3.) Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn; 4.) Court Street (Route 202) in Auburn; 5.) Main Street (Route 136) in Auburn; 6.) Route 196 (Lisbon Street) in Lewiston; 7.) Lincoln Street in Lewiston; 8.) Main Street (Route 202) in Lewiston; 9.) Sabattus Street (Route 126) in Lewiston;10.) Canal Street (Route 196) in Lewiston; and 11.) the Maine Turnpike between Exits 75 (Auburn) and 80 (Lewiston). The final study area was reviewed, modified, and approved by the Study Advisory Committee (SAC). Figure 2-1 illustrates the study area. 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes were obtained for selected streets within the study area from the MaineDOT and the MTA. The specific years for this data vary by location, from 1999 to 2002. AADT volumes on the primary study area roads include: 1.) 21,000 vehicles per day on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) north of Exit 75 of the Maine Turnpike; 2.) 4,020 vehicles per day on South Main Street in Auburn; 3.) 4,400 vehicles per day on Route 136 (Riverside Drive) north of the Maine Turnpike in Auburn; 4.) 19,180 vehicles per day on Court Street in Auburn; 5.) 20,680 vehicles per day on Main Street (Route 136) in Auburn; 6.) 20,000 vehicles per day on Route 196 (Lisbon Street) west of Alfred A. Plourde Parkway in Lewiston; 7.) 7,410 vehicles per day on Lincoln Street in Lewiston; 8.) 31,340 vehicles per day on Main Street (Route 202) in Lewiston; 9.) 26,830 vehicles per day on Sabattus Street (Route 126) in Lewiston; 10.) 6,340 vehicles per day on Canal Street (Route 196) in Lewiston; and 11.) 17,050 vehicles per day on the Maine Turnpike between Exits 75 (Auburn) and 80 (Lewiston). Figure 2-2 presents the Existing AADT volumes and the year the data is from in the study area. 2.3 Safety History Existing traffic safety conditions in Auburn and Lewiston were summarized according to reported crash experience from the most recent available three-year period at the study inception. Crash statistics were obtained for the study area from the MaineDOT for the period 1999-2001. MaineDOT considers both a Critical Rate Factor (CRF) of 1.0 or greater and the occurrence of eight crashes or more over a three-year period as a general guideline for identifying High Crash Locations (HCL). Figure 2-3 and Table 2-1 summarize the HCLs. Detailed tables and statistics for the High Crash Location intersections and roadway segments can be also found on Figure 2-3 and Table 2-1. 2.4 Park and Ride Facilities Three formal park and ride lots exist in the study area: one Auburn lot at Exit 75 with 137 spaces, and two Lewiston lots at Exit 80 with a combination of 92 spaces,. Usage of the park and ride lots in Auburn and Lewiston was determined from two sources: 1.) The MTA conducts annual utilization surveys at all park and ride lots. The surveys are conducted during the mid-day time period where the number of vehicles parked in a lot is recorded. In 2002, 81 vehicles were parked in the Auburn lot, representing 59% of the capacity and 61 vehicles were parked in Lewiston, representing 61% of capacity. This data is a “snapshot” of usage at the particular time the survey was conducted. 2.) WSA conducted occupancy surveys at the area park and ride lots in 2003 during both the morning and afternoon time periods. Results indicate that during the mid-morning period, 83 vehicles were parked at the Auburn lot, and 67 vehicles were parked at the Lewiston lot. During the mid-afternoon period, 68 vehicles were parked at the Auburn lot, and 61 vehicles were parked at the Lewiston lot. Again, these numbers are a snapshot of usage at the particular time the survey was conducted. Both surveys confirm that usage of the park and ride lots is moderate and that excess capacity exists. Park and ride opportunities should continue to be evaluated for the interchange strategies considered. 2.5 ATRC Travel Demand Model The ATRC Travel Demand Model was developed to assist the ATRC in forecasting the changes in traffic between the base year 2000 and the future forecast year 2025 for the No-Build and Build Alternatives. The ATRC model was created by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. using TransCad as the software platform. The model includes all cities and towns in Androscoggin County and the following cities/towns: Brunswick, Cumberland, Freeport, Gray, New Gloucester, North Yarmouth, Pownal, Yarmouth, Chesterville, Jay, Fayette, Litchfield, Monmouth, Wayne, Buckfield, Canton, Hebron, Oxford, Paris, Bath, Bowdoinham, Bowdoin, and Richmond. The model uses Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) to generate traffic. These zones contain information from the US Census Bureau such as population, number of households and number of autos, and employment information from the US Department of Labor (e.g., the number of retail and non-retail employees per TAZ). The road network was created to represent the existing road network used by the MaineDOT in its statewide travel demand model and uses the same roadway classification structure. The model contains all federal functionally classified roads and also includes some local roads. The model base year is 2000 and reflects the road structure at that time and includes the Annual Average Daily Traffic counts that were taken in 2000. This information is used to assist in the calibration of the model. The model is designed to project traffic to a future forecast year. It does that by using the TAZ data from 2000 and then forecasting growth rates to 2025. The growth rate is determined from various data sources that include the University of Southern Maine’s Center 3

March 2005 Final Report

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
for Business and Economic Research, Maine Department of Labor, Maine State Planning Office, the Maine Department of Transportation Travel Demand Model and the US Census Bureau. The information is input into the model and corresponding future traffic figures are generated. In addition to the TAZ differences between the year 2000 and the year 2025, the 2025 road network includes the additions to the road system that were completed after 2000 and those that are committed – the new interchange (Exit 86) at Route 9 in Sabattus and the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Bridge overpasses in Lewiston and Auburn. The model’s strength is forecasting future roadway segment volumes, but is also able to forecast intersection turning movements. In assigning traffic to the roadway network, the model will generally choose the shortest/fastest route (based upon a combination of travel time and travel distance) because many drivers make a choice to take what they have determined is the easiest route or most familiar. The travel demand model is one tool that is used to estimate traffic projections and/or impacts. 2.6 Future Traffic Volume Growth Future year 2025 traffic volumes were developed within the study area using the ATRC Travel Demand Model discussed in Section 2.5. Roads that are expected to see the greatest traffic growth in the study area include the Maine Turnpike (118% north of Exit 80 and 47% south of Exit 75) and Washington Street (Route 202/4/100). Two locations in the study area are expected to experience a slight decline in traffic over the next 25 years, Route 196 at the Lewiston/Lisbon town line and on the Longley Bridge between Lewiston and Auburn. Traffic reductions on Route 196 are associated with the construction the Maine Turnpike interchange on Route 9 in Sabattus, while the Longley Bridge is expected to see a slight decline in traffic due to the influence of the Veteran’s Bridge Flyover project and the new Maine Turnpike interchange in Sabattus. Figure 2-4 presents the anticipated traffic growth on roads in the study area. 2.7 Maine Sensible Transportation Policy Act Analysis In 1991, the citizens of Maine enacted the Sensible Transportation Policy Act (STPA) into law. The STPA, 23 MRSA Sec. 73 requires an evaluation of a “full range of reasonable transportation alternatives” for significant highway construction or reconstruction projects. A new interchange on the Maine Turnpike classifies as significant highway construction. The STPA also states that preference be given to those reasonable alternatives that best meet the identified transportation deficiency or need and best meet the policy objectives of the rule before increasing highway capacity. The ATRC 20-Year Transportation Plan (September 2003) includes Travel Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM) efforts in the Lewiston and Auburn area. The transit system, citylink, completed an evaluation of the fixed route bus system and made some recommendations for expansion of routes and adding a new shuttle service in the downtown area of Lewiston and Auburn. The areas along the Maine Turnpike currently do not March 2005 Final Report have any substantial residential development to support bus service expansion. The 20-Year Transportation Plan does recommend and support the addition of park and ride lots at any new interchanges to encourage ride sharing. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2001) does include Route 136 from the Maine Turnpike into Auburn and Lincoln Street as a route to the Lewiston downtown, as bicycle routes. Improvements to these roads would continue to consider bicycle and pedestrian facilities. During the study, as the planning-level Purpose and Need Statement was being developed, the inclusion of the need to improve bicycling, pedestrian and recreational linkage was made part of the statement. In addition, improving access to alternative modes e.g. transit, park and ride – was also included in the statement. The study is consistent with the ATRC 20-Year Transportation Plan. While it focuses on Build strategies, it also revisits the effectiveness of such transportation alternatives as TDM and TSM. Other non-auto alternatives were not specifically tested and analyzed as part of the study, but transit routing was given consideration. 2.7.1 Travel Demand Management (TDM) Travel Demand Management (TDM) alternatives are measures geared towards affecting transportation demand rather than transportation supply. These measures attempt to change travel behavior by offering incentives or disincentives to make these shifts in behavior attractive to the motorist. TDM alternatives may include: Alternative Modes (bus, rail, non-motorized alternatives) Carpool and Vanpool Park and Ride Lots/Multimodal Terminals Employer TDM Programs (flexible work hours, staggered work shifts, transit subsidies) Pricing Strategies (increase in parking pricing, peak hour tolls). Modal strategies that are currently ongoing include the statewide GoMaine rideshare program. Rideshare activities have focused on the formation of a database of people interested in carpooling, and ride matching services using that database. There is a subscription bus service which serves workers at Bath Iron Works and makes use of the park and ride lots at Exit 80. This program has proven to be a success and could be expanded to new park and ride lots at new interchanges. While the existing transit system does serve the New Auburn area, the lack of residences and commercial areas beyond that preclude any further expansion at this time. The Lisbon Street route also serves the area near Exit 80 at Lisbon Street (Route 196) but does not serve the large number of employers in the industrial parks. TDM measures alone will not address the need to gain better access to the Maine Turnpike from the downtowns of both cities, as specified in the Purpose and Need statement for the study. TDM measures should be considered complementary actions in addition to improvements in roadway access from the Maine Turnpike to the downtowns. 4

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

2.7.2. Transportation System Management (TSM) Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives are measures that do not require large capital costs or large infrastructure expansions. The goal of successful TSM alternatives is to manage the existing and future traffic more efficiently and safely within the current roadway facility. TSM alternatives may include: New signal controller phasing/timing/interconnection Intersection improvements Addition of intersection turning lanes Intelligent Transportation Systems (such as dynamic message signs). These measures currently are not nor are forecasted to provide, by themselves, the level of improvement necessary to address the safety and capacity issues in the Lewiston and Auburn area and alone would not meet the Purpose and Need. TSM measures are recommended to be incorporated with a Build strategy. 2.7.3 Additional Strategies to be Considered for Further Analysis Strategies from the ATRC 20-Year Transportation Plan that are recommended for further consideration as part of the study include: Area-wide Travel Demand Management Measures Transportation System Management Measures (intersection improvements) Other modal strategies o Alternative Modes (bus, rail, non-motorized alternatives) o Carpooling and Vanpooling o Park and Ride Lots/Multi-modal Terminals Employer TDM programs (flexible work hours, staggered work shifts, transit subsidies) Pricing strategies.

March 2005 Final Report

5

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
SEE INSET A
Ru s se ll S t.

ue

et Sabattus Stre 14 (Route 126)

15

Key Number 1

City Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Auburn Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston Lewiston

Intersection Minot Avenue (Route 202/4/11/100) @ High Street Minot Avenue (Route 202/4/11/100) @ Elm Street Minot Avenue (Route 202/4/11/100) @ Court Street Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) @ Exit 75 Main Street (Route 136) @ Court Street (Route 202/11/100) Main Street (Route 136) @ Academy Street South Main Street (Route 136) @ Mill Street Mill Street (Route 136) @ Broad Street Lincoln Street (Route 196) @ Cedar Street (Route 196) Main Street (Route 202/11/100) @ Lisbon Street / Canal Street (Route 196) Lisbon Street (Route 196) @ East Avenue Main Street (Route 202/11/100) @ Lincoln Street (Route 196) Main Street (Route 202/11/100) @ Sabattus Street (Route 126) Sabattus Street (Route 126) @ East Avenue Sabattus Street (Route 126) @ Russell Street Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy. @ Exit 80 SB Ramps Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy. @ Exit 80 NB Ramps Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy. @ Lisbon Street (Route 196) EB Ramps

Ea st

Av

en

AUBURN

LEWISTON

2 3 4

11
Minot Ave. ) (Route 11/121

Lis (R b o n ou St t e re e 19 t 6)

Exit 80 Detail
Lis (R b o n ou St t e re e 19 t 6)

5 6

c Lin oln St

Drive ) rside Riveoute 136 (R

e re t

18 16

7 8 9 10 11

W (R ashi ou n g te ton 20 S 2 /4 tr e / 1 0 et 0)

reet

South Main St

EXIT 80
River Road

17
Alfred A Plourd . e Pkwy.

INSET A
p urn eT i ke
n Tur
t. (R t. 00) S 1 / ain 1 M 2/1 0 2 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

in Ma

13

et Sabattus Stre (Route 126)

er S

EXIT 75 Minot Ave. (Rt. 202/4/11/100) 4

2 Elm St.

1
. ve ) t A 21 ino 11/1 M te ou (R
W (R ashi t. 2 n g 02 ton / 4/ S 1 0 t. 0)

Academy St. 6 h ig . H t S

M Main St. echa Row (Rt. 136 )

3 Court St. (Rt. 202/ 11/100)

t.

5

nics

12

t. rS e da 9 C

M

S ill

t.

So u Bri th d ge

) 196 ) u te 96 Ro e1 et ( out Stre St. (R on l Lisb Cana t tree n S 96) col Lin ute 1 (Ro
Ri v (R ersi ou de te D 13 riv 6) e

7
et

8
South Ma in Street

St re

Lis (R bon o u St te re 19 et 6)

LEGEND:
#

Study Area Intersection Location with Key Number (referenced above) Study Area Road Segments

Br oa

d

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 2-1: Study Area

6

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
34,3001 19,1801 20,6801 7,4102 21,6401
da Ce
Court St. (Rt. 202/11 /1

02

/1

1/

31,3402
St .( R t. 2

10 0

26,8302 13,8702
Sabattus Stree t (Rt. 126)

)

1

00)

6,9101
na Ca
rS

12,9302

17,2502

6,3401 9,4001 24,4501
Lis bo nS

= 2002 Count = 2001 Count 3 = 2000 Count 4 = 1999 Count
2

t.

Lewiston

VEHICLES PER DAY 16,000+ 12,000-16,000 8,000-12,000 0-8,000

M ai

n

l St 9 t. 1 . (R 6)

Br oa d

Auburn

16,9401 6,9204
ive Dr i de 36) ers e 1 Riv Rout (

St .

tre

et

(R ou

te 19 6

c Lin o ln et re St

)

20,0001 16,2001

9,2401 4,0202

Wa (R shin g ou t e t on S 20 2/4 tree / 10 t 0)

South Main Str ee

9,5701

2,3004 4,4001 1,9001

2,0001
River Road

EXIT 80

t

9,2501

Source: MaineDOT/Maine Turnpike Authority Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/100)
21,000 19,850

Ma

ine

Tu

rn

e pik

South Main Street
1,900

Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)
4,400 Auburn

River Road
2,000

Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)
20,000 Maine Turnpike

19,8501 EXIT 75

17,0501

15,950 Lewiston 10,500 17,050

12,350 9,250

16,200

10,5001

21,0001

Year 2002 Volumes

28,300

Total Volume of Interchanges

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 2-2: Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes

7

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

Wildwood Dr.

SEE INSET A
Pi n eS t.

Ru ss

21

Perley St.

t. oute 12 . Street (R abattus S 23 24 38 22
St . Fa rw e ll

ell

Fa ir

St

law nS

6)

LEGEND
37 25

Number of Crashes At Intersection Location (within 3 year period)

Number of Crashes Of Road Segments (within 3 year period)

d Ran d. all R

Po

8 – 10 11 – 20 21 – 30 31+
# #

8 – 10 11 - 20 21+

E as t A v

e.

nd

Ro

ad

‘Key Number’ of Intersection Location or Roadway Segment.

D Soumo uth nt Av Ave e. .

Mi St ll .

Ca ss e ll

St .

Minot Ave. ) (Route 11/121

26 40 L (R i s b o ou n S te 19 t. 39 6)
Ol ive

34 35

‘Key Number’ of a Roadway Segment near an Intersection Location. Color equals Number of Crashes on Road Segment (within 3 year period). Note: Key Numbers are referenced in Table 2-1.

c Lin oln

e Drive Riversid 136) (Route

St .

W (R ashi ou n g te ton 20 S 2 /4 tr e / 1 0 et 0)

17
reet
ee t
River

47

S tr

South Main St

ad

Bro

Alfred A. Plourde Pkwy.

ad
e Court Stre t

Un io n

Ro

St .

W ith

am

16
Railroad St.

Main St. Mechanics Row (Rt. 136)

South Goff St.

Sprin g

H ar

ve. Minot A 1/100) 202/4/1 (Rt.

ds cr ab

bl e

in Ma

e

r np Tu

i ke

9

8
St.

et ) re 00 20 St 1 / 1 n ai / 1 M 20 2 t. (R
Ash e Stre Pin t

Oa k

Stre et

dm Ro an a Ro d

St

e re t

13

EXIT 80 36

INSET A

Road

Sabattus Street (Route 126)
Ba tt rtle eet Str

7

b Lis

1

33

eS

t tree

on St .
na Ca

R

oa

l St

d
W es

Elm S t.

2

EXIT 75

gh S

t

4

12
Hi

Academy St.

st Che

n

t. ut S

32

46
. 19 (Rt

.

6) . 19 (Rt

s St.

Hutch in

st St .

er yS

t.

W (R ashi t. 2 n g 02 ton / 4/ S 1 0 t. 0)

St re

South Main Street

Dr i ve

et

oa

Es se

36

Br

March 2005 Final Report

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

Su m Av mit e.

)

xS Vi t. ne St .

(R t. 1

43

d

Ea st

28

42

27 41

Av en

. ve t A 1) no 1/12 Mi . 1 t (R

ue

M

10

44

Ga

S ill

Ri ve rs id e

An dr os co g

rne

t.

Bl ea

tA

gin

5

Lo

ch

ve .

Av e.

cu

Ki tty

te

ha wk Av e.

rn e Av nu e

6)

18

14
ur wb Ne St.

19

Ced
er S Ri v

ar S

t.

31

11

3

30
t tree

ple Ma

et S t re

29
Lis (R b o n t. 1 9 St . 6) 45

y

15 6

ry er wb ra St

e ac Pl

8

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

Auburn

Lewiston

Note: These tables correspond to Figure 2-3.

March 2005 Final Report

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

9

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
+4,950 +24%
Center St. (Rt. 4)

+9,950 +34%
Ru ss

Exit 86 Interchange Inset +6,000 +29%
et (Route 126)
in Ma
ut (Ro St. 2 6) e1

+200 + 1%
Ma 2 0 in S 2/ 1 t . 1/1 (Rt 00 . )

el l

St

.

Exit 86 Interchange

S ab

s attu

+4,100 +19%
AUBURN

+1,050 +56%
urn eT p ik e
Centre Rd. (Route 9)

Sabattus Stre

+6,250 +24%

-1,000 - 3%
Lis (R b o n ou St t e re e 19 t 6)

+1,150 + 7%
LEWISTON

Legend Daily Traffic Growth: 2000-2025 Percent Growth: 2000-2025

Minot Ave. ) (Route 11/121

+1,700 +10%
Wa (R shin ou gto te 2 0 n St 2 /1 r e e 00 t )

+3,150 +18%

South Main St

+1,300 +31%

Drive ) rside Riveoute 136 (R

reet

EXIT 80

+1,000 +34% +7,550 +31% +11,950 +47%
in Ma

p urn eT

i ke

+10,050 +52%

-300 - 2%

EXIT 75

+7,000 +79%

Source: ATRC Model.

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 2-4: Forecasted Daily Traffic Change: 2000 to 2025

Lew i s t on

+11,700 +118%

Tow n L in

e

10

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 3.0 Description and Evaluation of Interchange Strategies
3.1 Overview of Interchange Strategy Evaluation Process Each of the proposed interchange strategies was evaluated based upon several criteria in five categories: Transportation, Land Use, Socio-Economic, Natural Environment and Project Cost. These criteria and the results of the evaluation are provided in Appendix A7. These criteria are listed and described below. The ratings for a strategy for each of the criteria are relative to the ratings of each of the other strategies. Transportation. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to various Transportation measures. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Total New Interchange Usage – This presents the total daily traffic volume projected to use the proposed interchange(s) in the year 2025. Improves Access to Downtown Lewiston or Auburn to/from the Maine Turnpike – This evaluates how each proposed interchange strategy increases traffic usage at each interchange and to/from the downtowns. Reduces Traffic Congestion in Lewiston or Auburn – This evaluates the anticipated improvement or worsening of congestion at select intersections in the study area. Potential to Improve Safety at High Crash Locations – This evaluates the anticipated improvement or worsening of crash history at existing High Crash Locations in the study area. It was based upon the projected change in entering traffic volumes at each of the High Crash Location. Improves Truck Traffic Flow/Circulation – This evaluates how each strategy reduces truck traffic in neighborhoods and improves truck routings. Compatibility with New/Enhanced Bridge Crossings – This evaluates the level of roadway connectivity from proposed interchange strategies and traffic levels on a proposed Androscoggin River bridge. Level of Potential Upgrade Needs – This reviews the need to upgrade existing roadway facilities as a result of constructing a new interchange. Compatibility with Bicycle-Pedestrian Plans and Opportunities – This evaluates how each strategy improves bicycle-pedestrian connectivity and their relationship with existing regional bicycle routes. Improves Emergency Access to the Maine Turnpike – This evaluates each strategy with respect to existing public safety facilities and improved access to the Maine Turnpike. Improves Local Traffic Connectivity – This evaluates improved local connections between Lewiston and Auburn and within each of those communities. Improves Regional Traffic Connectivity – This evaluates how each strategy enhances regional connectivity. Improves Access to/Enhances Opportunities for Alternative Modes – This evaluates the opportunity for park and ride enhancements and the quality of destinations for transit service. Construction Issues – This reviews issues such as site conditions and likelihood of permitting. March 2005 Final Report Land Use. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Land Use. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Figure 3-1 shows generalized land use in the vicinity of the interchange strategies. Compatibility with Lewiston or Auburn Comprehensive Plans – This evaluates how compatible the strategy is with goals and objectives as stated in adopted municipal comprehensive plans. Both Lewiston and Auburn Comprehensive Plans were reviewed. Potential for Farmland Impacts – This evaluates the potential impacts of the strategies in terms of soil suitability (are there prime or significant farmland soils in the vicinity), agricultural zoning (is land in the vicinity zoned for agricultural uses), and proximity to active farmland (are there active farms in the vicinity and what are the principal current land uses). Information is derived from a windshield survey of the area and county level digital soil data from the Soil Conservation Service. Potential for Parks and Recreation Land Impacts – This evaluates the potential for impacts to public or private park or recreation lands in the vicinity of the interchange strategies. Information is derived from review of Comprehensive Plans, digital data of conservation lands and review of USGS maps. Potential for Direct Residential Impacts – This evaluates the potential for direct impacts to residences in the immediate vicinity of where an interchange may be located. Information is derived from review of aerial photographs and windshield survey of the study area. Potential for Direct Business Impacts – This evaluates the potential for direct impacts to businesses in the immediate vicinity of where an interchange may be located. Information is derived from review of aerial photographs and windshield survey of the study area. Refer to Appendix A7 for the detailed matrix. Socio-Economic. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Socio-Economic Development. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Figure 3-2 shows the location of identified historic/cultural resources in the vicinity of the interchange strategies. One National Register property, the Penley Corner Baptist Church, is shown. The location of numerous cemeteries within the study area are identified on the USGS map base. Enhances Economic Development in Downtown Lewiston or Auburn, or in areas Outside of the Downtowns in each Community near the Interchange Locations – This is based upon two criteria: the level of traffic that uses the proposed interchange that is destined to or originates from the downtowns or districts outside the downtowns; and, the relative improvement in connectivity to the district and the ‘desirability’ of the route (desirability is rated by how direct the route is and how compatible the roadway and adjacent land uses are for an increase in automobile and truck traffic). Minimizes Potential for Historic/Cultural Impacts – This evaluates the proximity of historic and cultural resources (cemeteries, historic buildings, churches, etc) to the general vicinity of the interchange strategies. Information is derived from the windshield survey of the study Adherence to Design Issues – This evaluates interchange spacing and weaving criteria. Refer to Appendix A7 for the detailed matrix.

11

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
area, review of USGS maps, and review of National Register listings from the National Park Service. Potential for Neighborhood Impacts/Benefits – This evaluates the potential indirect impacts or benefits to a neighborhood. If additional traffic will be directed to a neighborhood area or an already congested area, this was deemed a negative impact. If a strategy removed traffic from a congested area, it was deemed more positive. The information is derived from a windshield survey of the area. Refer to Appendix A7 for the detailed matrix. Natural Environment. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to the Natural Environment. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Figure 3-3 shows the natural resources (ponds, streams, wetlands, and rivers) in the vicinity of the interchange strategies. Minimizes Potential for Wetlands Impacts – This criteria evaluates the relative order of magnitude of wetlands and functionality in the immediate vicinity of a potential interchange location. Wetlands inventoried were from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Potential wetland functionality was determined based upon the ‘Beginning with Habitat’ assessment of wetland functions developed by the State Planning Office. Minimizes Potential for Stream/Waterbody Impacts – This evaluates the proximity of the interchange strategies to USGS identified ponds, streams, lakes and rivers as contained in digital data from the Maine Office of GIS. Minimizes Potential for Habitat Impacts – This criteria evaluates the relative order of magnitude and quality of wildlife habitat in the immediate vicinity of a potential interchange strategy according to the ‘Beginning with Wildlife’ methodology of the State Planning Office. (See http://www.beginningwithhabitat.org/ for more information on this methodology.) Refer to Appendix A7 for the detailed matrix. Project Cost. These criteria evaluate a strategy by its order of magnitude cost and benefit-cost ratio. Order of Magnitude Project Cost – An estimate of project costs, based on 2004 costs. Benefit-Cost Analysis – A comparison of time value and operating cost benefit compared to project costs. Summary Evaluation Matrix Table 3-1 provides a summary of the findings from the detailed evaluation of the eight Build interchange strategies and the No-Build strategy. Plus signs (+) or negative signs (-) are used to indicate the strength of the positive or negative overall benefits, respectively, of the strategy in relation to each of the five Goals. Refer to Appendix A7 for the detailed matrix.

March 2005 Final Report

12

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

Auburn

Lewiston

New Auburn

Legend
Exit 80 Downtown Commercial Mixed Use Industrial
pik u rn e

Residential Agric./Natural Resource/Open Space/Golf

in e Ma

T

Exit 75

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 3-1: Generalized Land Use

13

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 3-2: Historic/Cultural Resources

Figure 3-3: Natural Environment

14

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.2 No-Build Strategy This strategy consists of the transportation network for the base year of analysis (2000) plus those projects already constructed, permitted or funded in the region before year 2025 (the future analysis year). These projects include the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Bridge flyovers in both Auburn and Lewiston (completed in 2003) and the Sabattus Exit 86 Maine Turnpike interchange (opened in November 2004). These projects are also included in each of the interchange strategies. A No-Build strategy is required for evaluation. Transportation There are no positive transportation benefits associated with the No-Build option. Traffic congestion and safety will not be improved and will further degrade with traffic growth, with the exception of slight traffic reductions on the Longley Bridge and on Route 196 at the Lewiston/Lisbon town line. Regional and local connectivity, truck traffic routing, emergency access, and bicycle/pedestrian conditions will not be improved. Land Use There are no anticipated significant negative impacts nor positive benefits related to land use of the No-Build strategy. Socio-Economic Further downtown development is not aided and is likely to be hindered by a No-Build strategy due to increased traffic congestion that is forecasted and worsening safety problems. The No-Build strategy does not improve Local or Regional Connectivity. No historic/cultural resources or park/recreation resources are negatively impacted by the No-Build strategy. Natural Environment The No-Build strategy does not negatively impact natural resources. Project Cost There are no project costs associated with the No-Build strategy.

March 2005 Final Report

15

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.3 Strategy 1 – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) This strategy consists of the construction of a full Maine Turnpike interchange at River Road in Lewiston (Figure 3-4). Transportation Of the projected 18,750 daily vehicles anticipated to utilize the new Maine Turnpike interchange at this location, 40 % will originate from or be destined to the Lewiston South Avenue/Lisbon Street (Route 196) area; 38% to and from the Exit 80 Lewiston Industrial Park area; 17% to and from downtown Lewiston; 1% to and from downtown Auburn; and 4% to other areas (Figure 3-5). Strategy 1 diverts a significant amount of traffic from the existing interchange at Exit 80, reducing that interchange’s usage by an estimated 10,150 vehicles per day. Moderate traffic reductions are expected on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) and on Lisbon Street (Route 196) from this strategy. River Road in Lewiston is estimated to see increased traffic volumes of approximately 14,000 vehicles per day. Overall, Maine Turnpike interchanges at Exit 75, Exit 80, and the new Strategy 1 are estimated to see an increase of 6,550 vehicles per day when compared to conditions without Strategy 1 (Figure 3-6). This strategy has both positive and negative transportation impacts. A new interchange on River Road may encourage usage of Lincoln Street as an alternative to Lisbon Street (Route 196) for truck access to downtown Lewiston and will negatively impact the Lincoln Street neighborhood. However, it may provide alternative truck access routing from the Maine Turnpike to the Lewiston Industrial area and along Lisbon Street (Route 196) resulting in overall improved truck routing conditions. Marginal improvement in regional connectivity is anticipated with a new interchange on River Road. This strategy is located in an area that has industrial and commercial activity and provides traffic relief to the Exit 80 vicinity. Overall, it may improve local connectivity more than regional connectivity. Negligible improvement is expected from additional March 2005 Final Report 16 access opportunities from the Lisbon Street (Route 196) Fire Station and to Central Maine Medical Center. Additionally, this strategy provides increased Maine Turnpike accessibility. This new interchange will be located less than 1 mile south of Exit 80 and therefore creates some issues as related to merge/diverge movements. This condition will likely necessitate the need to construct a collector/distributor ramp system where merge/diverge ramps will serve both the existing Exit 80 interchange and the proposed River Road interchange. A second issue is the difficulty of improving River Road at the Maine Turnpike overpass, where additional lanes will likely be required for movements to and from the Maine Turnpike. An interchange on River Road is located near Lincoln Street which is a regional bicycle route. This option provides bicycle-pedestrian connectivity opportunities as an alternative to the Lisbon Street (Route 196) corridor. With likely improvements to Lincoln Street, enhanced on-road bicycle accommodations are likely and would provide increased bicycle access to homes and commercial and industrial jobs in the Exit 80 area. Land Use Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 1 is compatible with the Lewiston Comprehensive Plan. The Plan specifically discusses using/improving Lincoln Street as an improved gateway to the downtown. Current Lewiston zoning supports redevelopment in the vicinity of the interchange strategy. Current land uses in the immediate vicinity of the potential interchange location are Commercial and Industrial uses with residential neighborhoods abutting. Farmland. There are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the vicinity of the interchange strategy although much of the area is already developed. No land is zoned Agricultural in the immediate vicinity. There is no active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses are Industrial and Commercial. Parks/Recreation Lands. No Parks and Recreation lands are located in the immediate vicinity. A canoe launch is located in the general area on Lincoln Street 0.6 miles north of the Maine Turnpike. Residential/Business Impacts. No direct negative residential impacts are anticipated. A small subdivision and mobile home park north of the Maine Turnpike are located in the general vicinity of a potential interchange location. There are potential negative direct impacts to a city-owned gravel pit in the immediate vicinity of the interchange strategy. There is one business off of Mount Hope Avenue that could be negatively impacted depending upon the ultimate interchange configuration. Socio-Economic Auburn Access. Relative to other strategies, there is minimal new interchange usage forecasted to Auburn downtown (less than 200 additional vehicles per day). This strategy does not create/enhance a desirable route to downtown Auburn over existing routes. To areas in Auburn outside of the downtown,

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
there is very low (less than 100 vehicles per day) new interchange usage. This strategy does not create/enhance a desirable route to these areas in Auburn. Lewiston Access. There is a high level of new interchange usage (3,200 vehicles per day or 17 % of new interchange usage) forecasted to the Lewiston downtown via Lincoln Street. This strategy creates a good, direct route to downtown Lewiston. For areas outside the Lewiston downtown, there is high new interchange usage (14,400 vehicles per day or 77% of new interchange usage) via Lincoln Street, River Road and Alfred A. Plourde Parkway. The strategy provides a moderate level of new connectivity to areas for new development relative to the other strategies. Historic/Cultural Resources. No direct negative impacts to known Historic and Cultural resources are anticipated. Mount Hope cemetery is located just northwest of the potential interchange location. Other cemeteries are also located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy (Figure 3-2). Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. Strategy 1 has both positive and negative impacts with regard to the potential for neighborhood impacts. On balance, overall impacts are positive. The strategy adds additional traffic to the Lincoln Street corridor but provides traffic relief on South Bridge and in New Auburn, and provides traffic relief to the Lisbon Street (Route 196) corridor. Forecasted reductions in traffic on South Bridge are 2,150 vehicles per day and reductions on Lisbon Street (Route 196) are 2,300 vehicles per day. If traffic is reduced on the Lisbon Street (Route 196) corridor, it is likely that there will be less cut-through traffic (traffic that seeks to avoid congestion and delays on Lisbon Street) on neighborhood streets that connect to Lisbon Street (Route 196) and South Avenue or East Avenue. Natural Environment Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with low functionality (as defined by the ‘Beginning with Habitat’ methodology) in the strategy’s immediate vicinity. There is a perennial stream in the immediate proximity (Figure 3-3) to the potential interchange location. Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity of Strategy 1, and there are no deer wintering areas in the general vicinity. Project Cost Estimate $14,500,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)

March 2005 Final Report

17

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2025 No Build
27,600
6, 45
3, 45 0

2,900

4,900

0

Auburn

7, 20

0

South Bridge

18,900

1,600

23,000
4, 20 0

Source: ATRC Model Not to Scale Maine Turnpike

18,750
3, 85

22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15

30,050

25,900

Lewiston

20,600

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/100)

15,600

14,400 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

0

0

4, 80

7, 85

Auburn

2, 45

0

5, 00 0
0 -1 ,6 5

6, 50 0

40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 1: Total Volumes
23,900 4, 10 0 2,900 4,300 South Bridge 16,750 15,600
1, 65 0

20,700 3, 65 0 21,500 Maine Turnpike

16,700
4, 30

18,750
1, 55

11,900
3, 50

31,350

31,450 4,300 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

Lewiston

19,100

0

0

7,

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

0

+7

-4

Auburn

50

,8 5

,7 5

0

3, 50 0 , -1 50 0

15,600

3,300 River Road

South Main Street

15,500 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

2,

70 0

30 0

47,350
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 1: Volume Change
-3,700 +6 50 0 -600 South Bridge -2,150 +14,000
+1 ,6

-2,300 -5 50 Maine Turnpike +900

-2,050
+4 5

+18,750
55

-10,150
-6 50

+1300

+5,500 -600 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

Lewiston

0

-6,800

0

+1 ,

+7 ,7 00

-4 ,2 00

0 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

South Main Street

+1,700 River Road

+1,100 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

+6,550
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build

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

March 2005 Final Report

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

18

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.4 Strategy 2 – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a full Maine Turnpike interchange on Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn (Figure 3-7). Transportation Of the projected 8,200 daily vehicles anticipated to utilize the proposed Maine Turnpike interchange at this location, 38 % will originate from or be destined to downtown Lewiston; 11% to and from New Auburn; 8% to and from North Lewiston; 7% to and from downtown Auburn; and 3% to other areas (Figure 3-8). Strategy 2 diverts some traffic from the existing interchange at Exit 75, reducing that interchange’s usage by an estimated 3,250 vehicles per day. Moderate traffic reductions are expected on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) from this strategy. Route 136 (Riverside Drive) is estimated to see an increase of approximately 3,200 vehicles per day on the in-town side of the Maine Turnpike. Overall, Maine Turnpike interchanges at Exit 75, Exit 80, and the new Strategy 2 are estimated to see an increase of 5,200 vehicles per day when compared to conditions without Strategy 2 (Figure 3-9). This strategy is expected to improve truck routings by eliminating truck circulation through New Auburn and South Bridge by providing a direct connection to the Maine Turnpike from Route 136 (Riverside Drive). Regional connectivity may be improved by providing a direct connection between the Maine Turnpike and Route 136 (Riverside Drive). Additionally, the interchange location allows for improved accessibility between Auburn and Lewiston via the Maine Turnpike. Options with a Route 136 (Riverside Drive) connection provide the greatest regional travel benefit. Emergency access is improved from the South Main Street fire station, particularly as it relates to improving river crossing movements between South Main Street and Exit 80 and creation of another connection to the Maine Turnpike. No interchange spacing issues are anticipated. March 2005 Final Report Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 2 is mixed in terms of compatibility with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Some statements and policies conflict with the strategy and some support the strategy. In support, the Comprehensive Plan cites/anticipates the need for re-evaluation of zoning in the area if an interchange is constructed. In conflict, the Future Land Use Map suggests continued Agricultural/Resource Protection zoning in the vicinity of the interchange strategy and “maintain[ing the] rural nature of outlying areas.” The strategy would likely increase pressure for non-agricultural land uses (such as Commercial or Industrial) in the area. Farmland. There are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the vicinity of the Riverside Drive at the Maine Turnpike (though lesser amounts than other strategies). There is land zoned Agricultural/Resource Protection in the immediate vicinity along with active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses in the general vicinity are Residential and Farming/Agricultural. Parks/Recreation Lands. No Parks and Recreation lands are in the immediate vicinity of Riverside Drive. The Prospect Hill Golf Course, a private golf course, is located in the general area intersecting South Main Street north of the Maine Turnpike. The Fox Ridge Golf Course is located further south, east of the Maine Turnpike. Residential/Business Impacts. A neighborhood of over 20 residences at Vickery Road is located immediately adjacent and to the west of the Maine Turnpike at this location. These residences will need to be taken into consideration in the development of location-specific interchange configurations to avoid direct negative impacts to the homes. There are potential direct negative impacts to active farms in the immediate vicinity adjacent to the Maine Turnpike and along Riverside Drive (Route 136). Socio-Economic Auburn Access. Relative to other strategies, there is forecasted to be moderate new interchange usage to the Auburn downtown via this interchange strategy (575 vehicles per day). Route 136, a state highway, is a desirable route to the Auburn downtown. This interchange location provides good access to areas outside the downtown area in South Auburn. Approximately 900 vehicles per day are forecasted to use the interchange to access the general vicinity of a new interchange in this area. Lewiston Access. The travel demand model forecasts high new interchange usage of approximately 3,100 vehicles per day to the Lewiston downtown, relative to other strategies. This accounts for 38% of interchange usage and is considerably more than the interchange usage to access downtown Auburn. This strategy would route traffic to the already busy South Bridge to access the Lewiston downtown, so it is a moderately desirable route. It provides poor access and connectivity to other areas of Lewiston 19 An interchange on Route 136 (Riverside Drive) would be located on a regional bicycle route. This option provides little bicycle-pedestrian connectivity improvements, but with likely improvements to Route 136 (Riverside Drive), enhanced on-road accommodations are likely. Land Use

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
considered in this study (Exit 80/Industrial and South Avenue/Lisbon Street areas). Few users are expected to use the new interchange to access these areas. Historic/Cultural Resources. No direct impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources are anticipated. Cemeteries are located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. The Penley Corner Baptist Church, on the National Historic Register, is in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy (0.8 miles from Maine Turnpike at Route 136). A cemetery is also located there (Figure 3-2). Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. The interchange strategy adds additional traffic to the Route 136 (Riverside Drive) corridor directing traffic to New Auburn, so it would have some impacts to this commercial and residential center. Natural Environment Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with moderate functionality (as defined by the “Beginning with Habitat” methodology) in the general vicinity of this interchange strategy. There is also one pond in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. A perennial stream is in close proximity to the interchange strategy location. This strategy has the closest proximity to the Androscoggin River (Figure 3-3). Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity and no deer wintering areas in the general vicinity. Project Cost Estimate $12,800,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)

March 2005 Final Report

20

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2025 No Build
27,600
6, 45
3, 45 0

2,900

4,900

0

Auburn

7, 20

0

South Bridge

18,900

1,600

23,000
4, 20 0

Source: ATRC Model Not to Scale Maine Turnpike

18,750
3, 85

22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15

30,050

25,900

Lewiston

20,600

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/100)

15,600

14,400 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

0

0

5, 20

2, 70

Auburn

6, 90

0

5, 00 0
0 ,2 5 -1

6, 50 0

40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 2: Total Volumes
26,200 3, 30 0 2,500 8,100 1, 75 0 South Bridge 19,000 1,600 22,100 4, 15 0 20,900 Maine Turnpike

15,500
3, 50

8,200
1, 65

22,300
4, 05
Lewiston

30,200

28,250

26,850

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

0

,7 0

+2

-3 0

Auburn

0

3, 50 0 -1 ,5 00

0

16,400 South Main Street

5,100 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

River Road

14,700 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

2, 10 0

7, 20 0

46,000
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 2: Volume Change
-1,400 -1 50 -400 +3,200 +1 ,7 50
0

South Bridge

+100

0

-900
-5 0

-3,250
50

+8,200
65

+250
-1
Lewiston

-3

+1 ,

00

+150

+2,350

+950

+300

Maine Turnpike

+2 ,1 00

+7 00

+800 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11) South Main Street

+200 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

River Road

+300 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

+5,200
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build

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

March 2005 Final Report

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

21

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.5 Strategy 3 – South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a full Maine Turnpike interchange at South Main Street in Auburn (Figure 3-10). Transportation Land Use Of the projected 6,500 daily vehicles anticipated to utilize the new Maine Turnpike interchange at this location, 34 % will originate from or be destined to downtown Lewiston; 7% to and from New Auburn; 5% to and from North Lewiston; 6% to and from downtown Auburn; and 48% to other areas (Figure 311). Strategy 3 diverts some traffic from the existing interchange at Exit 75, reducing that interchange’s usage by an estimated 2,900 vehicles per day. Moderate traffic reductions may result on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) from this strategy. South Main Street may see an increase of approximately 1,300 vehicles per day on the in-town side of the Maine Turnpike. Overall, Maine Turnpike interchanges at Exit 75, Exit 80, and the new Strategy 3 are estimated to see an increase of 4,050 vehicles per day when compared to conditions without Strategy 3 (Figure 3-12). Trucks will likely utilize South Main Street to access the Maine Turnpike and impact the existing neighborhood and require significant roadway improvements to South Main Street. Regional connectivity is slightly improved by allowing travel to and from Route 136 (Riverside Drive) to access the Maine Turnpike via South Main Street. Connectivity to the Maine Turnpike improves and therefore improves regional connectivity. The interchange area is low intensity residential and golf course uses. Marginal improvement in local connectivity is provided. This interchange improves direct emergency access of the Maine Turnpike from the South Main Street fire station and creates another connection to the Maine Turnpike. Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 3 is mixed in terms of its compatibility with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (1995). Several characteristics of the strategy conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The strategy directly conflicts with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan’s stated goal of “protecting residential neighborhoods from inappropriate traffic” and “maintain[ing the] rural nature of outlying areas.” Inappropriate traffic, in the context of this study, can be considered to be additional through-traffic on South Main Street that would use a new interchange. The strategy directs traffic to South Main Street and would put pressure on the area for new development that would conflict with the neighborhood. In support of the Comprehensive Plan, the Plan suggests future Industrial development extending into the South Main Street/Maine Turnpike area. An interchange at South Street would provide good access to this development. Farmland. There are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the immediate vicinity of the interchange strategy. There is land zoned Agricultural/Resource Protection in the immediate vicinity. There is active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses are Residential, Recreation (golf course) and Farming/Agricultural. Parks/Recreation Lands. There are no publicly owned Parks and Recreation lands in the immediate vicinity. A privately owned golf course, Prospect Hill Golf Course, is located north of the Maine Turnpike. Residential/Business Impacts. There are several residences located in the immediate vicinity of the interchange strategy. These residences will need to be taken into consideration in the development of location-specific interchange strategies to avoid direct impacts to the homes. There are potential negative business impacts to businesses along South Main Street. Socio-Economic Auburn Access. Relative to the other strategies, there is moderate to low new interchange usage (390 vehicles per day) to downtown Auburn. South Main Street is a poor route to downtown Auburn because of the roadway’s pavement condition and geometrics (horizontal and vertical curves), and because of the moderate density of the residential neighborhood. There is moderate (450 vehicles per day) new interchange usage to areas outside the downtown of Auburn. Moderate new connectivity is provided to the Route 136 (Riverside Drive) vicinity, the state highway network. No interchange spacing issues are anticipated. South Main Street is not a regional bicycle route. This option provides little bicycle-pedestrian connectivity improvements. With likely improvements to South Main Street in conjunction with a new interchange, enhanced on-road accommodations are may be possible but may be difficult in some locations due to the proximity/limited setbacks of houses to the street.

March 2005 Final Report

22

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
Lewiston Access. Considerably more traffic using a potential South Main Street interchange is destined to downtown Lewiston than downtown Auburn. Relative to the other strategies, there is moderate new interchange usage (2,200 vehicles per day) to downtown Lewiston. South Main Street is a poor route to downtown Lewiston via South Main Street/South Bridge in New Auburn. The interchange provides little access to other areas of Lewiston. Historic/Cultural Resources. No direct negative impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources are anticipated. There are no resources in the immediate vicinity of the interchange location. There are several cemeteries in the general vicinity of the Maine Turnpike/South Main Street. Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. The South Main Street interchange strategy adds traffic to South Main Street, channeling it through a moderate density residential neighborhood. Roadway geometrics are poor. Potential indirect negative impacts are high. Natural Environment Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with low functionality (as defined by the “Beginning with Habitat” methodology) in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. There is also one pond in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. (Figure 3-3). There are intermittent streams in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. Strategy 3 is the farthest interchange strategy location from the Androscoggin River (minimizing potential direct impacts). Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity or any deer wintering areas. Project Cost Estimate $10,125,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)

March 2005 Final Report

23

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2025 No Build
27,600
6, 45
3, 45 0

2,900

4,900

0

Auburn

7, 20

0

South Bridge

18,900

1,600

23,000
4, 20 0

Source: ATRC Model Not to Scale Maine Turnpike

18,750
3, 85

22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15

30,050

25,900

Lewiston

20,600

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/100)

15,600

14,400 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

0

5, 60

0

1, 90

Auburn

6, 90

0

5, 00 0
0 -8 5

6, 50 0

40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 3: Total Volumes
26,100 3, 10 0 4,200
1, 65 0

4,800

South Bridge

18,900

1,700

22,500 4, 45 0 21,300 Maine Turnpike

15,850
3, 50

6,500
1, 35

22,500
4, 30

29,600

26,900

26,300 4,800 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

0

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

0

,9 0

+1

-3 0

Auburn

0

3, 65 0

Lewiston

15,800

3,100 South Main Street

River Road

14,500 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

6,

1, 60 0

85 0

44,850
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 3: Volume Change
-1,500 -3 50 -2,900
50

+1,300 +1 ,6 50 +400
0

-100

South Bridge

0

+100

-500 +2 50 +450 Maine Turnpike

+6,500
35

+200 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

+200 South Main Street

+1 ,

-100 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

River Road

+100 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

+1 5

-450

+1,000

-3

Lewiston

+700

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

, -1 35 0

March 2005 Final Report

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

+1 ,6 00

0

+3 50

+4,050
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build

24

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.6 Strategy 4 – Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) No interchange spacing issues are anticipated. This strategy consists of the construction of a full Maine Turnpike interchange between Route 136 (Riverside Drive) and South Main Street and the construction of a new road connecting the interchange with South Main Street and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn (Figure 3-13). Transportation Of the 5,550 daily vehicles projected to utilize the new Maine Turnpike interchange at this location, 41% will originate from or be destined to downtown Lewiston; 12% to and from New Auburn; 6% to and from North Lewiston; 7% to and from downtown Auburn; and 34% to other areas (Figure 3-14). Strategy 4 diverts some traffic from the existing interchange at Exit 75, reducing that interchange’s usage by an estimated 2,000 vehicles per day. Moderate traffic reductions may result on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) from this strategy. South Main Street and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) may see a slight increase in traffic on a daily basis. Overall, Maine Turnpike interchanges at Exit 75, Exit 80, and the new Strategy 4 are estimated to see an increase of 3,650 vehicles per day when compared to conditions without Strategy 4 (Figure 3-15). This strategy will likely have similar truck issues as noted in Strategies 2 and 3. It may impact the South Main Street neighborhood negatively, but could provide some improved accessibility benefits from Route 136 (Riverside Drive), a positive. This strategy may provide similar regional mobility benefits as Strategy 2, although access to the Maine Turnpike is less direct. The interchange area has low intensity residential/farm/golf uses, but likely improves local connectivity between Auburn and Lewiston between Route 136 (Riverside Drive) and Exit 80. Overall it improves local connectivity. This strategy improves direct emergency access of the Maine Turnpike from the South Main Street fire station and creates another connection to the Maine Turnpike. March 2005 Final Report An interchange on Route 136 (Riverside Drive) is located on a regional bicycle route. This option provides little bicycle-pedestrian connectivity improvements, but with likely improvements to Route 136 (Riverside Drive) enhanced on-road accommodations are likely. Land Use Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 4 is mixed in terms of its compatibility with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 4 conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of “protecting residential neighborhoods from inappropriate traffic” by directing traffic to South Main Street and “maintain[ing the] rural nature of outlying areas”. However, negative traffic impacts to South Main Street are anticipated to be less for Strategy 4 than for Strategy 3. Farmland. There are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the vicinity of the interchange strategy. There is land zoned Agricultural/Resource Protection in the immediate vicinity. There is active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses are Residential, Recreational (golf course) and Farming/Agricultural. Parks/Recreation Lands. There are no publicly owned Parks and Recreation lands in the immediate vicinity. A privately owned golf course, Prospect Hill Golf Course, is in the immediate vicinity. Residential/Business Impacts. Residences are located in the vicinity of where a connector road might intersect with South Main Street. These residences will need to be taken into consideration in the development of location-specific interchange strategies to avoid direct impacts to the homes. There are potential negative impacts to active businesses in the immediate vicinity of this strategy. Their location will need to be taken into consideration in the development of location-specific interchange strategies to avoid direct impacts. Socio-Economic Auburn Access. Relative to other strategies, moderate to low levels of traffic destined for downtown Auburn are forecasted to use the new interchange (390 vehicles per day). South Main Street is a poor route to access the Auburn downtown. Route 136 is a better route (although likely less direct for than Strategy 2). There is moderate (675 vehicles per day) new interchange usage to areas outside downtown Auburn. The strategy provides good new connectivity to the Route 136 (Riverside Drive) vicinity or the state highway network. Lewiston Access. There is moderate new interchange usage (2,275 vehicles per day) to Lewiston downtown. The route via Route 136 (Riverside Drive)/South Bridge in New Auburn to the downtown is moderately desirable. There is generally low forecasted usage to the other Lewiston districts.

25

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
Historic/Cultural Resources. There are no direct negative impacts to Historic/Cultural Resources anticipated by this strategy. There are no cemeteries in the immediate vicinity, but there are several in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. Negative neighborhood impacts for Strategy 4 are expected to be less than for Strategy 3, which directs traffic exclusively to South Main Street. Strategy 4 adds additional traffic to the Route 136 (Riverside Drive) corridor that travels through New Auburn but adds lesser traffic than Strategy 3 to the South Main Street neighborhood. South Main Street roadway geometrics are poor to handle additional traffic. Natural Environment Wetlands/Waterbodies. There are two small NWI wetlands with low and moderate functionality (as defined in the “Beginning with Habitat” methodology) in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. A perennial stream is in close proximity to the strategy location, and intermittent streams are also in the general vicinity. There is also one pond in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. (Figure 3-3) Habitat. No Maine Natural Areas Program locations are in the general vicinity nor are any deer wintering areas. Project Cost Estimate $14,700,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)

March 2005 Final Report

26

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2025 No Build
27,600
6, 45
3, 45 0

2,900

4,900

0

Auburn

7, 20

0

South Bridge

18,900

1,600

23,000
4, 20 0

Source: ATRC Model Not to Scale Maine Turnpike

18,750
3, 85

22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15

30,050

25,900

Lewiston

20,600

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/100)

15,600

14,400 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

5, 60

2, 05

6, 90

Auburn

0

0

0

5, 00 0
0 -8 5

6, 50 0

40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 4: Total Volumes
25,800 3, 30 0 16,750
3, 60

3,100
1, 10 0

5,700

South Bridge

19,900

1,200

22,700 4, 35 0 22,150
4, 15

5,550
80

0

30,750

27,850

26,150

Lewiston

21,000

Maine Turnpike

0

15,400 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

3,400 South Main Street

5,500 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

River Road

14,700 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

6,

0

,0 5

+2

-3 0

Auburn

0

4, 25 0 -7 50

1, 60 0

75 0

44,450
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 4: Volume Change
-1,800 -1 50 -2,000
50

+200

+1

+800
,1 00

South Bridge

+1,000

-400

-300
+1 50

+5,550
+8 0

+100
0

+700

+1,950

+250 +600

-2

Lewiston

+400

Maine Turnpike

+1

0

+2

-200 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

+500 South Main Street

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

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 3-15: Strategy 4- Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes

,6 00

+300 River Road Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

50

+3,650
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build

Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

27

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.7 Strategy 5 - River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) This strategy consists of the construction of a partial interchange in Lewiston with access to and from the south on the Maine Turnpike and construction of a full interchange on Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn (Figure 3-16). Transportation Of the projected 27,200 daily vehicles anticipated to utilize the new Maine Turnpike interchanges, 9,800 daily vehicles are expected to utilize the Route 136 (Riverside Drive) interchange in Auburn and 17,400 daily vehicles are expected to use the River Road interchange in Lewiston. Of the total traffic at the two proposed interchanges 32% will originate or be destined to the Lewiston South Avenue/Lisbon Street (Route 196) area; 23% to and from the Exit 80 Lewiston Industrial Park area; 15% to and from downtown Lewiston; 3% to and from downtown Auburn; and 27% to other areas (Figure 3-17). Strategy 5 diverts a significant amount of traffic from the existing interchange at Exit 80, reducing that interchange’s usage by an estimated 10,150 vehicles per day. This traffic is primarily destined to the River Road half interchange. Traffic reductions at Exit 75 are also estimated, where just fewer than 4,000 vehicles per day will be shifted to the proposed interchanges. Moderate traffic reductions may result on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) and on Lisbon Street (Route 196) from this strategy. River Road in Lewiston may see increased traffic volumes of approximately 12,900 vehicles per day, and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) may see an increase of 2,400 vehicles per day. Overall, Maine Turnpike interchanges at Exit 75, Exit 80, and the new Strategy 5 are estimated to see an increase of 13,100 vehicles per day when compared to conditions without Strategy 5 (Figure 3-18). This strategy may provide improved regional travel as a result of a new direct connection between the Maine Turnpike and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) and increases the accessibility to and from the Maine Turnpike. This strategy is located in areas with moderately intense commercial/industrial uses and low intensity residential/farm uses. This option provides the highest local connectivity benefit, particularly as it relates to travel between Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn and Lewiston. This strategy provides improved emergency access via the South Main Street and Lisbon Street (Route 196) fire stations and provides additional access to the Maine Turnpike. Possible weaving issues may exist between the River Road interchange and Exit 80, although because this concept only provides connections to and from the south, merge/diverge problems are not anticipated. Weaving issues may also exist between the River Road interchange and the Route 136 interchange. Both Lincoln Street and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) are located on regional bicycle routes. This option provides little bicycle-pedestrian connectivity improvements, but with likely improvements to both Lincoln Street and Route 136 (Riverside Drive), enhanced on-road accommodations are likely. Land Use Comprehensive Plan. Overall, this strategy supports the Comprehensive Plans of Lewiston and Auburn. In Lewiston, the Comprehensive Plan specifically discusses using/improving Lincoln Street as an improved gateway to the downtown. Current Lewiston zoning supports redevelopment in the vicinity of the interchange strategy. Current land uses in the immediate vicinity of the potential interchange location are Commercial and Industrial uses with residential neighborhoods abutting. In Auburn, the Comprehensive Plan cites/anticipates the need for re-evaluation of zoning in the area if an interchange is constructed. In conflict with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map suggests continued Agricultural/Resource Protection zoning in the vicinity of the interchange strategy and “maintain[ing the] rural nature of outlying areas.” The strategy would likely increase pressure for nonagricultural land uses (such as Commercial or Industrial) in the area in Auburn. Farmland. In Lewiston, there are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the vicinity of the interchange strategy although much of the area is already developed. No land is zoned Agricultural in the immediate vicinity. There is no active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses are Industrial and Commercial. In Auburn, there are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the vicinity of the Riverside Drive at the Maine Turnpike (though lesser amounts than other strategies). There is land zoned Agricultural/Resource Protection in the immediate vicinity along with active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses in the general vicinity are Residential and Farming/Agricultural. Parks/Recreation Lands. There are no Parks and Recreation lands in the immediate vicinity. The Prospect Hill Golf Course is in the general area in Auburn. A canoe launch is in the general area in Lewiston, 0.6 miles north of the Maine Turnpike on Lincoln Street. Residential/Business Impacts. In Lewiston, no negative direct residential impacts are anticipated. A small subdivision and mobile home park north of the Maine Turnpike are located in the general vicinity of a potential interchange location. In Auburn, a neighborhood of over 20 residences at Vickery Road is located immediately adjacent and to the north of the Maine Turnpike at this location. These residences will need to be taken into consideration in the development of location-specific interchange configurations to avoid negative direct impacts to the homes. In Lewiston, there are potential negative 28

March 2005 Final Report

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
direct impacts to a city-owned gravel pit in the immediate vicinity of the interchange strategy. There is one business off of Mount Hope Avenue that could potentially be negatively impacted. In Auburn, there are potential direct negative impacts to active farms in the immediate vicinity adjacent to the Maine Turnpike and along Riverside Drive (Route 136). Socio-Economic Auburn Access. This strategy has the highest new interchange usage (820 vehicles per day) to Auburn downtown relative to the other strategies. This is a desirable route to the Auburn downtown from the Maine Turnpike via Route 136. There is also high (1,100 vehicles per day) new interchange usage to the New Auburn/South Auburn district. The strategy provides good new connectivity in the vicinity of Route 136. Lewiston Access. This strategy provides high new interchange usage (4,080 vehicles per day) to Lewiston Downtown and is a good route to downtown Lewiston via Lincoln Street. This strategy also provides high new interchange usage (14,950 vehicles per day) to other areas via Lincoln Street, River Road and Alfred A. Plourde Parkway. It provides moderate connectivity to new development in Lewiston outside of the downtown. Historic/Cultural Resources. No direct negative impacts to Historic/Cultural Resources are anticipated. Cemeteries are located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. The Penley Corner Baptist Church, on the National Historic Register, is located 0.8 miles south of the Maine Turnpike on Route 136. Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. In Lewiston, Strategy 5 has the potential for both positive and negative impacts on neighborhoods, but overall, potential impacts are positive. The strategy adds additional traffic to the Lincoln Street corridor but provides traffic relief on South Bridge and provides traffic relief to the Lisbon Street (Route 196) corridor. Forecasted reductions in traffic on the South Bridge are 3,000 vehicles per day and reductions on Lisbon Street (Route 196) are 3,300 vehicles per day. If traffic is reduced on the Lisbon Street (Route 196) corridor (as is forecasted), it is likely that there will be less cut-through traffic (traffic that seeks to avoid congestion and delays on Lisbon Street) on neighborhood streets that connect to Lisbon Street (Route 196) and South Avenue or East Avenue. In Auburn, the interchange strategy adds additional traffic to the Route 136 (Riverside Drive) corridor, directing traffic to New Auburn so it would have some impacts to this commercial and residential center. Natural Environment Wetlands/Waterbodies. In Lewiston and Auburn, there is one small NWI wetland with low functionality (as defined by the ‘Beginning with Habitat’ methodology) in the immediate vicinity of each interchange location. In Lewiston, there is a perennial stream in the immediate proximity (Figure 3-3) to the potential interchange location. In Auburn, there is one pond in the general vicinity. Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity of either of the new interchanges, and there are no deer wintering areas in the general vicinity. March 2005 Final Report 29

Project Cost Estimate $18,900,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2025 No Build
27,600
6, 45
3, 45 0

2,900

4,900

0

Auburn

7, 20

0

South Bridge

18,900

1,600

23,000
4, 20 0

Source: ATRC Model Not to Scale Maine Turnpike

18,750
3, 85

22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15

30,050

25,900

Lewiston

20,600

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/100)

15,600

14,400 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

0

0

0

4, 60

1, 95

8, 55

Auburn

1, 60

0

5, 00 0
0 -1 ,8 5

6, 50 0

40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 5: Total Volumes
22,900 3, 80 0 2,600 7,300 3, 10 0 9,800
3, 00

South Bridge

15,900

14,500

19,700 3, 95 0 11,900
3, 95

14,800
4, 15

0

15,800 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11) South Main Street

6,300 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

4,400 River Road

15,700 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

31,150

17,400 31,300
Lewiston

32,250

17,200

Maine Turnpike 21,100

0

0

0

,9 5

,5 5

+8

-5 ,6 0

+1

Auburn

0

2, 25 0 -2 ,7 50

8,

1, 75 0

2,

85 0

40 0

53,900
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 5: Volume Change
-4,700 +3 50 -300 +2,400 +3 ,1 00
0

South Bridge

-3,000

+12,900

-3,300 -2 50 Maine Turnpike

-3,950
0

+9,800
00

+3 0

+3 ,

+200 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11) South Main Street

+1,400 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

+2,800 River Road

-2

00

+1100

+17,400 +5,400
Lewiston

-10,150 -8,700 +500
-4 ,1 00

+6,350

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

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 3-18: Strategy 5- River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/ Route 136 Interchange (Auburn): Daily Traffic Volumes

+1 ,7 50

+8 ,8 50

+1,300 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

+13,100
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build

30

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.8 Strategy 1A – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge This strategy consists of the construction of a full Maine Turnpike interchange at River Road in Lewiston and the construction of a proposed River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge (Figure 3-19). Transportation Of the projected 18,300 daily vehicles anticipated to utilize the new Maine Turnpike interchange at this location, 37% will originate from or be destined to the Lewiston South Avenue/Lisbon Street (Route 196) area; 33% to and from the Exit 80 Lewiston Industrial Park area; 17% to and from downtown Lewiston; 4% to and from downtown Auburn; and 14% to other areas (Figure 3-20). Strategy 1A diverts a significant amount of traffic from the existing interchange at Exit 80, reducing that interchange’s usage by an estimated 10,300 vehicles per day. Moderate traffic reductions may result on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) and on Lisbon Street (Route 196) from this strategy. River Road in Lewiston may see increased traffic volumes of approximately 14,600 vehicles per day. The proposed River Bridge is estimated to carry 5,750 vehicles per day. Overall, Maine Turnpike interchanges at Exit 75, Exit 80, and the new Strategy 1A are estimated to see an increase of 5,550 vehicles per day when compared to conditions without Strategy 1A (Figure 3-21). Like Strategy 1, marginal regional travel improvements are expected, although improved connections from Lewiston to Route 136 (Riverside Drive) will result with the construction of a proposed River Bridge. Moderate connectivity improvements from a proposed River Bridge are expected. A proposed River Bridge provides a fifth river crossing between Auburn and Lewiston, thus providing an important alternative to existing crossings for emergency vehicles. Similar to Strategy 1, this proposed interchange will be located less than 1 mile from Exit 80, and therefore creates some concern as it relates to merge/diverge movements. This condition will likely necessitate the March 2005 Final Report Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 1A supports the Lewiston Comprehensive Plan. The Plan specifically discusses using/improving Lincoln Street as an improved gateway to the downtown. Current Lewiston zoning supports redevelopment in the vicinity of the interchange strategy. Current land uses in the immediate vicinity of the potential interchange location are Commercial and Industrial uses with residential neighborhoods abutting. The bridge does not conflict with the Lewiston Comprehensive Plan. Farmland. There are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the vicinity of the interchange strategy, although much of the area is already developed. No land is zoned Agricultural in the immediate vicinity. There is no active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses are Industrial and Commercial. Parks/Recreation Lands. No Parks and Recreation lands are located in the immediate vicinity. A canoe launch is located in the general area on Lincoln Street, 0.6 miles north of the Maine Turnpike. Residential/Business Impacts. No negative direct residential impacts are anticipated. A small subdivision and mobile home park north of the Maine Turnpike are located in the general vicinity of the potential interchange location. There are potential negative direct impacts to a city-owned gravel pit in the immediate vicinity of the interchange strategy. There is one business off of Mount Hope Avenue that could potentially be negatively impacted. The potential negative impacts of a new bridge are unknown at this time. Socio-Economic Auburn Access. Relative to other strategies, there is high usage forecasted for traffic using the new interchange to/from Auburn downtown (730 vehicles per day). This strategy provides moderate connectivity to the Auburn downtown via the new bridge. To the New Auburn/South Auburn area, there is low (275 vehicles per day) new interchange usage. This strategy creates new connectivity to Route 136 (Riverside Drive) and areas outside of the Auburn downtown via the new bridge. Lewiston Access. There is a high level of new interchange usage (3,100 vehicles per day) forecasted to the Lewiston downtown. This strategy creates a good, direct route to downtown Lewiston via Lincoln Street. To the Exit 80/Industrial and South Avenue/Lisbon Street districts, there is high new interchange usage (12,810 vehicles per day) via Lincoln Street, River Road and Alfred A. Plourde Parkway. The need to construct a collector/distributor ramp system, where merge/diverge ramps will serve both the existing Exit 80 interchange and the proposed River Road interchange. A second issue is the difficulty improving River Road at the Maine Turnpike overpass, where additional lanes will likely be required for movements to and from the Maine Turnpike. The proposed River Bridge provides improved regional and local bicycle/pedestrian connectivity travel. Land Use

31

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
strategy provides a moderate level of new connectivity to new development. There are some additional benefits to downtown Lewiston access, due to the creation of a fifth bridge. Historic/Cultural Resources. No negative direct impacts to known Historic and Cultural resources are anticipated. Mount Hope Cemetery is located just northwest of the potential interchange location. Other cemeteries are also located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy (Figure 3-2). Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. Strategy 1A has the potential for positive and negative neighborhood impacts, but overall, potential impacts are positive. The strategy adds additional traffic to the Lincoln Street corridor, but provides traffic relief on South Bridge and in New Auburn and provides traffic relief to the Lisbon Street (Route 196) corridor. Forecasted reductions in traffic on South Bridge are 6,500 vehicles per day, and reductions on Lisbon Street (Route 196) are 2,500 vehicles per day. If traffic is reduced on the Lisbon Street (Route 196) corridor, it is likely that there will be less cut-through traffic (traffic that seeks to avoid congestion and delays on Lisbon Street) on neighborhood streets that connect to Lisbon Street (Route 196) and South Avenue or East Avenue. Natural Environment Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with low functionality (as defined by the ‘Beginning with Habitat’ methodology) in the strategy’s immediate vicinity. There is a perennial stream in the immediate proximity (Figure 3-3) to the potential interchange location. The potential impacts of a new bridge are not known at this time. Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity of Strategy 1A, and there are no deer wintering areas in the general vicinity. Project Cost Estimate $25,100,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)

March 2005 Final Report

32

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2025 No Build
27,600
6, 45
3, 45 0

2,900

4,900

0

Auburn

7, 20

0

South Bridge

18,900

1,600

23,000
4, 20 0

Source: ATRC Model Not to Scale Maine Turnpike

18,750
3, 85

22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15

30,050

25,900

Lewiston

20,600

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/100)

15,600

14,400 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

0

4, 85

Auburn

7, 10

3, 00

5,400 31,100 5,400 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

0

0

5, 00 0
0 ,6 0 -1

6, 50 0

40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 1A: Total Volumes
South Bridge 24,500 3, 85 0 2,100
z

12,400 5,750
z

1,

16,200
80 0

20,500 3, 35 0 21,150 Maine Turnpike

16,300
4, 30

18,300
1, 80
Lewiston

11,750
3, 05

31,100

20,050

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

0

+7

-4

Auburn

00

,1 0

,2 0

0

3, 30 0 , -1 70 0

0

0

7, 60 0

2, 35 0

15,900

4,300 River Road

16,400 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

46,350
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 1A: Volume Change
South Bridge -3,100 +4 00
z

-6,500 +5,750
z

-800

+500

+1

+14,600
,8

-2,500 -8 50 Maine Turnpike

-2,450
+4 5

+18,300
80

-10,300
,1 0

+1,050

+5,200 +500 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

+1 ,

+300 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

+2,700 River Road

+2,000 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

-1

Lewiston

-5,850

+550

0

+7

0

0

, -4

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

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 3-21: Strategy 1A- River Road Interchange (Lewiston) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes

,6 00

15 0

+5,550
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build

33

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.9 Strategy 2A – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge This strategy consists of the construction of a full Maine Turnpike interchange on Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn and the construction of a proposed River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge (Figure 3-22). Transportation Of the projected 8,550 daily vehicles anticipated to utilize the new Maine Turnpike interchange at this location, 14% will originate from or be destined to the Lewiston South Avenue/Lisbon Street (Route 196) area; 12% to and from the Exit 80 Lewiston Industrial Park area; 30% to and from downtown Lewiston; 5% to and from downtown Auburn; and 30% to other areas (Figure 3-23). Strategy 2A diverts some traffic from the existing interchange at Exit 75, reducing that interchange’s usage by an estimated 3,400 vehicles per day. Moderate traffic reductions may result on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) from this strategy. Route 136 (Riverside Drive) may see an increase of approximately 3,700 vehicles per day on the in-town side of the Maine Turnpike. The proposed bridge is estimated to carry 6,500 vehicles per day. Overall, Maine Turnpike interchanges at Exit 75, Exit 80, and the new Strategy 2A are estimated to see an increase of 4,450 vehicles per day when compared to conditions without Strategy 2A (Figure 3-24). Like Strategy 2, this option provides improved connection to Route 136 (Riverside Drive), improved accessibility to the Maine Turnpike, and also improved connectivity between Auburn and Lewiston from construction of a proposed River Bridge. Similar to Strategy 1A, this strategy provides moderate connectivity improvements from a proposed River Bridge. Similar to Strategy 1A, a proposed River Bridge provides a fifth river crossing between Auburn and Lewiston, thus providing an important alternative to existing crossings for emergency vehicles. No interchange spacing issues are anticipated. A proposed River Bridge provides improved regional and local bicycle/pedestrian connectivity travel. Land Use Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 2A’s degree of compatibility with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan is mixed. The Comprehensive Plan cites/anticipates the need for re-evaluation of zoning in the area if an interchange is constructed. The Future Land Use Map suggests continued Agricultural/Resource Protection zoning in the vicinity of the interchange strategy and “maintain[ing the] rural nature of outlying areas.” The strategy would likely increase pressure for non-agricultural land uses (such as Commercial or Industrial) in the area. The bridge does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Farmland. There are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the vicinity of Route 136 (Riverside Drive) at the Maine Turnpike (though lesser amounts than other strategies). There is land zoned Agricultural/Resource Protection in the immediate vicinity along with active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses in the general vicinity are Residential and Farming/Agricultural. The bridge does not introduce additional impacts. Parks/Recreation Lands. No publicly owned Parks and Recreation lands are in the immediate vicinity of Riverside Drive. The Prospect Hill Golf Course, a private golf course, is located in the general area, intersecting South Main Street north of the Maine Turnpike. The Fox Ridge Golf Course is located further south, east of the Maine Turnpike. The bridge does not introduce additional impacts. Residential/Business Impacts. A neighborhood of over 20 residences at Vickery Road is located immediately adjacent and to the west of the Maine Turnpike at this location. These residences will need to be taken into consideration in the development of location-specific interchange configurations to avoid direct impacts to the homes. There are potential impacts to active farms in the immediate vicinity adjacent to the Maine Turnpike and along Route 136 (Riverside Drive). The potential impacts of a bridge are unknown at this time. Socio-Economic Auburn Access. There is forecasted to be moderate new interchange usage to the Auburn downtown via this interchange strategy (430 vehicles per day). Route 136 (Riverside Drive), a state highway, is a desirable route to the Auburn downtown. This interchange location provides good access to areas outside the downtown in New Auburn. Approximately 770 vehicles per day are forecasted to use the interchange to access the general vicinity in New Auburn/South Auburn. Lewiston Access. The Travel Demand Model forecasts high new interchange usage of approximately 2,575 vehicles per day to the Lewiston downtown. Approximately 2,200 vehicles per day are forecasted to be new interchange users to access other areas of Lewiston (Exit 80/Industrial and South Avenue/Lisbon Street districts). It provides moderate access and connectivity to other areas of Lewiston considered in this study. The new bridge provides new local and regional connectivity to the Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns. March 2005 Final Report 34

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

Historic/Cultural Resources. No negative direct impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources are anticipated. Cemeteries are located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. The Penley Corner Baptist Church, on the National Historic Register, is in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy (0.8 miles from the Maine Turnpike at Route 136). A cemetery is also located there. (Figure 3-2) Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. The interchange strategy adds additional traffic to the Route 136 corridor, directing traffic to New Auburn so it would have some potential negative traffic impacts to this commercial and residential center. Natural Environment Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with moderate functionality (as defined in the “Beginning with Habitat” methodology) in the general vicinity of the interchange portion of the strategy. There is one pond in the general vicinity. (Figure 3-3). A perennial stream is in close proximity to the interchange strategy location. This strategy has the closest proximity to the Androscoggin River. The impacts of a new bridge are not known at this time. Habitat. There are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations and no deer wintering areas in the general vicinity of the interchange portion of the strategy. The impacts of a new bridge are not known at this time. Project Cost Estimate $23,300,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)

March 2005 Final Report

35

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2025 No Build
27,600
6, 45
3, 45 0

2,900

4,900

0

Auburn

7, 20

0

South Bridge

18,900

1,600

23,000
4, 20 0

Source: ATRC Model Not to Scale Maine Turnpike

18,750
3, 85

22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15

30,050

25,900

Lewiston

20,600

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/100)

15,600

14,400 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

0

0

5, 20

3, 10

Auburn

6, 25

0

5, 00 0
0 ,2 5 -1

6, 50 0

40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 2A: Total Volumes
South Bridge 25,700 3, 15 0 8,600 2,900
z

14,400 6,500
z

1,

35 0

2,400

22,600 4, 40 0 21,000 Maine Turnpike

15,350
3, 35

8,550
1, 40

21,350
4, 10
Lewiston

30,750

28,450 South Main Street

25,400

0

0

16,000 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

5,100 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

River Road

15,300 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

2,

6,

0

,1 0

+3

Auburn

-9 5

0

3, 65 0 -1 ,3 50

-1,900 -3 00 -3,400
00

+3,700
z

70 0

60 0

42,250
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 2A: Volume Change
South Bridge
+1

-4,500 +6,500
z

0

,3

+800 -700

50

-400 +2 00 +400 Maine Turnpike

+8,550
+1 ,

40

-5

-5

+700

+2,550

Lewiston

-500

0

0

+2 ,7 00

+1 00

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

+400

South Main Street

+200 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

River Road

+900 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

+4,450
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build

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

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 3-24: Strategy 2A - Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes

36

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.10 Strategy 5A – River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge This strategy consists of the construction of a half interchange in Lewiston with access to and from the south on the Maine Turnpike, the construction of a full interchange on Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn, and the construction of a proposed River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge (Figure 3-25). Transportation Of the projected total 27,100 daily vehicles anticipated to utilize the new Maine Turnpike interchanges, 10,150 daily vehicles are expected to utilize the Route 136 (Riverside Drive) interchange in Auburn and 16,950 daily vehicles are expected to use the River Road interchange in Lewiston. Of the total traffic a the two proposed interchanges 31% will originate from or be destined to the Lewiston South Avenue/Lisbon Street (Route 196) area; 25% to and from the Exit 80 Lewiston Industrial Park area; 15% to and from downtown Lewiston; 3% to and from downtown Auburn; and 26% to other areas (Figure 3-26). Strategy 5A diverts a significant amount of traffic from the existing interchange at Exit 80, reducing that interchange’s usage by an estimated 10,300 vehicles per day. This traffic is primarily destined to the River Road half interchange. Traffic reductions at Exit 75 also occur, where approximately 4,000 vehicles per day may be diverted to the new interchanges. Moderate traffic reductions may result on Washington Street (Route 202/4/100) and on Lisbon Street (Route 196) from this strategy. River Road in Lewiston may see increased traffic volumes of approximately 13,100 vehicles per day, and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) may see an increase of 2,600 vehicles per day. The proposed River Bridge is estimated to carry 3,650 vehicles per day. Overall, Maine Turnpike interchanges at Exit 75, Exit 80, and the new Strategy 5A are estimated to see an increase of 12,950 vehicles per day when compared to conditions without Strategy 5A (Figure 3-27). Like Strategy 5, this option provides improved connection to Route 136 (Riverside Drive), improved accessibility to the Maine Turnpike, but also improved connectivity between March 2005 Final Report The proposed River Bridge is expected to improve regional and local bicycle/pedestrian travel connectivity. Land Use Comprehensive Plan. This strategy is generally supports the Comprehensive Plans of Lewiston and Auburn. In Lewiston, the Comprehensive Plan specifically discusses using/improving Lincoln Street as an improved gateway to the downtown. Current Lewiston zoning supports redevelopment in the vicinity of the interchange strategy. Current land uses in the immediate vicinity of the potential interchange location are Commercial and Industrial uses with residential neighborhoods abutting. In Auburn, the Comprehensive Plan cites/anticipates the need for re-evaluation of zoning in the area if an interchange is constructed. The Future Land Use Map suggests continued Agricultural/Resource Protection zoning in the vicinity of the interchange strategy and “maintain[ing the] rural nature of outlying areas.” The strategy would likely increase pressure for non-agricultural land uses (such as Commercial and/or Industrial) in the area in Auburn. The bridge does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plans. Farmland. In Lewiston, there are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the vicinity of the interchange strategy although much of the area is already developed. No land is zoned Agricultural in the immediate vicinity. There is no active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses are Industrial and Commercial. In Auburn, there are mapped Prime/Significant Farmland soils in the vicinity of the Riverside Drive at the Maine Turnpike (though lesser amounts than other strategies). There is land zoned Agricultural/Resource Protection in the immediate vicinity along with active farmland in the immediate vicinity. Principal land uses in the general vicinity are Residential and Farming/Agricultural. The bridge is not anticipated to introduce additional impacts. Parks/Recreation Lands. There are no Parks and Recreation lands in the immediate vicinity. The Prospect Hill Golf Course is in the general area in Auburn. A canoe launch is in the general area in Lewiston, 0.6 miles north of the Maine Turnpike on Lincoln Street. The bridge is not anticipated to introduce additional impacts. Residential/Business Impacts. In Lewiston, no negative direct residential impacts are anticipated. A small subdivision and mobile home park north of the Turnpike are located in the general vicinity of a 37 Auburn and Lewiston from construction of a proposed River Bridge. Moderate connectivity improvements from a proposed River Bridge are expected. A proposed River Bridge provides a fifth river crossing between Auburn and Lewiston, thus providing an important alternative to existing crossings for emergency vehicles. Possible weaving issues may exist between the River Road interchange and Exit 80, although because this concept only provides connections to and from the south, merge/diverge problems are not anticipated. Weaving issues may also exist between the River Road interchange and the Route 136 interchange.

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
potential interchange location. In Auburn, a neighborhood of over 20 residences at Vickery Road is located immediately adjacent and to the west of the Maine Turnpike at this location. These residences will need to be taken into consideration in the development of location-specific interchange configurations to avoid direct impacts to the homes. In Lewiston, there are potential negative direct impacts to a city-owned gravel pit in the immediate vicinity of the interchange strategy. There is one business off of Mount Hope Avenue that could be negatively impacted. In Auburn, there are potential negative impacts to active farms in the immediate vicinity adjacent to the Maine Turnpike and along Route 136 (Riverside Drive). The impacts of a new bridge are not known at this time. Socio-Economic Auburn Access. This strategy has the highest total new interchange usage (815 vehicles per day) to Auburn downtown relative to the other strategies. This is a desirable route to the Auburn downtown from the Maine Turnpike via Route 136. Relative to other strategies, there is also high (1,080 vehicles per day) new interchange usage to New Auburn/South Auburn. The strategy provides good new connectivity to the Route 136 vicinity. Lewiston Access. This strategy provides high new interchange usage (4,060 vehicles per day) to Lewiston Downtown relative to the other strategies and is a good route to downtown Lewiston via Lincoln Street. This strategy also provides high new interchange usage (15,200 vehicles per day) to the Exit 80/Industrial and South Avenue/Lisbon Street districts via Lincoln Street, River Road and Alfred A. Plourde Parkway. The interchange provides moderate connectivity to new development in Lewiston outside of the downtown. The new bridge provides a moderate level of new connectivity between the Lewiston and Auburn Downtowns. Historic/Cultural Resources. No negative direct impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources are anticipated. Cemeteries are located in the general vicinity of the interchange strategy. Penley Corner Baptist Church, on the National Historic Register, is located 0.8 miles south of the Maine Turnpike on Route 136 (Riverside Drive). The bridge is not anticipated to introduce additional impacts. Neighborhood Benefits/Impacts. In Lewiston, Strategy 5A has potential positive and negative impacts on neighborhoods, but overall, impacts are positive. The strategy adds additional traffic to the Lincoln Street corridor but provides traffic relief on South Bridge and provides traffic relief to the Lisbon Street corridor. Forecasted reductions in traffic on South Bridge are 5,600 vehicles per day and reductions on Lisbon Street are 2,800 vehicles per day. If traffic is reduced on the Lisbon Street corridor, it is likely that there will be less cut-through traffic (traffic that seeks to avoid congestion and delays on Lisbon Street) on neighborhood streets that connect to Lisbon Street and South Avenue/East Avenue. In Auburn, the interchange strategy adds additional traffic to the Route 136 corridor, directing traffic to New Auburn so it would have some impacts to this commercial and residential center. The new bridge may have additional benefits in New Auburn by drawing additional traffic from South Bridge. Natural Environment March 2005 Final Report 38

Wetlands/Waterbodies. There is one small NWI wetland with low functionality (as defined by the ‘Beginning with Habitat’ methodology) in the immediate vicinity of each interchange location. In Lewiston, there is a perennial stream in the immediate proximity (Figure 3-3) to the potential interchange location. In Auburn, there is one pond in the general vicinity. The potential impacts of a new bridge on waterbodies are not known at this time. Habitat. In Lewiston and Auburn, there are no Maine Natural Areas Program locations in the general vicinity of either of the new interchanges and there are no deer wintering areas in the general vicinity. The potential impacts of a new bridge on habitat are not known at this time. Project Cost Estimate $29,400,000.00 (For cost breakdown; See Appendix A3)

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study 2025 No Build
27,600
6, 45
3, 45 0

2,900

4,900

0

Auburn

7, 20

0

South Bridge

18,900

1,600

23,000
4, 20 0

Source: ATRC Model Not to Scale Maine Turnpike

18,750
3, 85

22,050 4,900 South Main Street Riverside Drive (Rt. 136) River Road
4, 15

30,050

25,900

Lewiston

20,600

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/100)

15,600

14,400 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

0

0

0

1, 85

8, 45

4, 70

1, 65

Auburn

0

5, 00 0
0 -1 ,7 5

6, 50 0

40,800
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 5A: Total Volumes
South Bridge 7,500 23,600 4, 00 0
z

13,300 3,650
z

2,300

2,

14,700

85 0

20,200 3, 85 0 21,050 Maine Turnpike

14,900
4, 30

10,150 32,350 South Main Street
3, 10

16,950 34,050
Lewiston

11,750
4, 00

30,600

17,100

0

0

Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11)

16,400

6,400 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

4,200 River Road

15,900 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

0

2,

8,

0

-5 ,5 5

+1

+8

50

,8 5

,4 5

Auburn

0

0

1, 90 0 , -3 10 0

2,

35 0

50 0

25 0

53,750
Total Volume, All Interchanges

Strategy 5A: Volume Change
+2,600 -4,000 +5 50 -3,850
+4 5
z

South Bridge
+2

-5,600 +3,650
z

+13,100

-600

,8

-2,800 -3 50 +450 Maine Turnpike

+10,150
10 +3 ,

+16,950 +8,150
Lewiston

-10,300
-1 50

+550

+6,450

-8,800

0

+8

+2

-4

0

,5

+800 Exit 75 Washington Street (Rt. 202/4/11) South Main Street

+1,500 Riverside Drive (Rt. 136)

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

March 2005 Final Report

Figure 3-27: Strategy 5A- River Road Half Interchange (Lewiston)/Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) with Proposed River Bridge: Daily Traffic Volumes

,3 50

,2

+2,600 River Road

00

+1,500 Exit 80 Lisbon Street (Rt. 196)

50

+12,950
Total Change, All Interchanges Versus 2025 No Build

39

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3.11 Strategies Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis Several other strategies were identified during the public process of the study. These strategies were reviewed and were not recommended for further study for reasons noted below. Hackett Road (Auburn) Interchange – This strategy consists of the construction of a full new interchange at Hackett Road in Auburn. This strategy was developed and evaluated during previous studies. After preliminary strategy screening, it was concluded that this strategy should not be considered for further study for its inability to satisfy the Purpose and Need for this study. Specifically, it failed to improve accessibility to either Lewiston or Auburn Downtowns. New Androscoggin River Bridge – At the study’s Public Meeting held on October 5, 2004, it was suggested that a strategy should consist of the construction of only a new Androscoggin River Bridge between the Maine Turnpike and South Bridge. Preliminary traffic volume projections indicate low usage, it does not improve access to and from the Maine Turnpike, has marginal improvement to regional connectivity, and did not satisfy the study Purpose and Need; and therefore, was not considered for further study. Parallel Turnpike Roadway between Exit 75 and Route 136 – At the Study Advisory Committee meeting held on September 21, 2004, it was suggested by a member of the public that a new roadway connecting Exit 75 and Route 136 (Riverside Drive) in Auburn be considered. It was determined that this option did not satisfy the study Purpose and Need, particularly improved access to and from the Maine Turnpike, and was not considered for further study. Modification of Strategies 1A, 2A, and 5A with New Androscoggin Bridge east/south of the Maine Turnpike Bridge – At a public informational meeting held on April 30, 2003, it was suggested that the location of a new Androscoggin River Bridge should be located east/south of the Maine Turnpike to capture traffic from areas on the east side of Lewiston. According to preliminary traffic volume projections conducted by ATRC, a bridge location east/south of the Maine Turnpike does not attract significant traffic levels, nor satisfy the study Purpose and Need of improving regional and downtown accessibility; and therefore, should not be considered for further study.

March 2005 Final Report

40

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

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

March 2005 Final Report

41

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
• February 4, 2003 o There were several comments on editing the Purpose and Need Statement including bicycle/pedestrian modes and adding the possibility of more than one interchange. o Study area limits for the project was presented and accepted. March 4, 2003 o There was a comment to revise the Purpose and Need Statement to include language regarding truck traffic and emergency access to the Maine Turnpike. April 8, 2003 o It was noted that a No-Build evaluation should be included. May 20, 2003 o It was noted that emergency access measures should not only include access to the Maine Turnpike, but also improving access to medical facilities in the region. o It was asked that a bridge option be included in the evaluation. o It was asked that an alternative be added that includes an interchange in Lewiston and a second interchange in Auburn. o It was agreed that the Hackett Road interchange should be eliminated from further study. January 13, 2004 o Revised traffic projections were presented. o It was asked that a half interchange in Auburn and a full interchange in Lewiston be considered. It was discussed and eliminated from further consideration. o It was asked that an alternative be added that includes a bridge with Strategy 4. It was discussed and eliminated from further consideration. January 27, 2004 o Additional traffic data was reviewed including origin-destination data. September 21, 2004 o A presentation of the evaluation matrix was performed. o It was asked that a new strategy be considered that included an express route between Exit 75 and Route 136(Riverside Drive). o The Committee unanimously approved not to further study Strategies 3 and 4. February 23, 2005 o The committee approved the Final Report (Belinda Gerry opposed the motion) with a recommendation to forward it to the ATRC Policy Committee.

5.0 Public Involvement
Public participation was initiated throughout the conduct of the study to solicit input and incorporate public comments and concerns into the development of study scope, goals and objective, purpose and need, and improvement strategy assessment and screening. The study’s public participation program consisted of the following: Study Advisory Committee (SAC), meetings with the Auburn and Lewiston City Councils, use of the ATRC Web site for dissemination of information, and public informational meetings. 5.1 Study Advisory Committee (SAC) The Study Advisory Committee (SAC) was established as a voluntary committee to provide guidance to ATRC and WSA on study activities. The SAC consisted of a diverse group of individuals including municipal officials, residents, and business representatives. The members included: Bob Thompson - AVCOG/ATRC – Chair; Mark Adams - Assistant City Manager, City of Auburn; Lee J. Feldman - Planner, City of Auburn; Belinda Gerry - Councilor, City of Auburn; Glen Gordon Western Maine Transportation Services (WMTS); Lucien Gosselin - Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council; Paul Gosselin - United Ambulance; Normand Guay - Mayor, City of Auburn; Kelly Matzen - Councilor, City of Auburn; Greg Mitchell - Assistant City Manager, City of Lewiston; Robert Morency – UPS; Chip Morrison - Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce; Phil Nadeau Assistant City Manager, City of Lewiston. Interested parties to the study included the following: Peter Chalk - Central Maine Medical Center; Linda Hertell - Downtown Capital Group; Michael Lajoie - Lewiston Fire Chief; John McGonagill - Auburn-Lewiston Airport; James Rioux - Lewiston Police Department; Sandra Skillings – Realtor; Wayne Wertz - Auburn Fire Chief; Pam Wichroski - Bates College; James Williams - Citizen Nine SAC meetings were held over the course of the study held on the following dates with key conclusions and issues noted: • December 12, 2002 o The meeting introduced the project history, the study area, the draft Purpose and Need Statement, the scope of work and schedule, and MaineDOT’s Integrated Transportation Decision-making Process. o Kelley Matzen suggested that an assessment of pedestrian conditions be included in the study. o Lucien Gosselin asked about the timing and funding of the study. Although just an estimate, the NEPA process could take between 1 to 3 years with design to follow. No funding has been secured.

• • •

• •

Copies of the meeting notes are attached in the Appendix A5. 5.2 Study Steering Committee The Study Steering Committee met on a frequent basis to help guide the study process and included the following members: Mark Adams - Assistant City Manager, City of Auburn; Ray Faucher – MaineDOT; Greg Mitchell Assistant City Manager, City of Lewiston; Duane Scott – MaineDOT; Conrad Welzel - Maine Turnpike

March 2005 Final Report

42

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
Authority; Don Craig – ATRC; Bob Thompson - AVCOG/ATRC; Mike Morgan – MaineDOT; Paul Godfrey – HNTB; Dan Stewart – Maine Turnpike Authority; Rebecca Grover – Maine Turnpike Authority; Jennifer Williams – ATRC; Tom Errico – Wilbur Smith Associates; Bruce Hyman – Wilbur Smith Associates; Robert Jurasin – Wilbur Smith Associates. 5.3 Public Information Meetings 5.5 ATRC Website Four public informational meetings were held during the duration of the study. Meeting notes are attached in the Appendix A6. • January 15, 2003 o Several comments were made about the need for a new Maine Turnpike interchange due to traffic congestion and accessibility. o Pat Finnigan noted that the Auburn City Council could not support a South Main Street alternative. • April 30, 2003 o Attendees of the meeting were separated into breakout groups for purposes of improving public participation. o There were several repeated comments on the poor and unsafe condition of Exit 80; existing truck impacts to local roads; and negative impacts to South Main Street from Strategies 3 and 4. • March 30, 2004 o Several comments were made about the need for Strategies 1 and 1A because of poor conditions at Exit 80 and impacts from the Wal-Mart project. o Comments focused on the negative impacts to South Main Street from Strategies 3 and 4. o It was noted by some that Strategies 5 and 5A provided the best benefit, particularly by providing relief to Exit 80. • October 5, 2004 o It was suggested that a strategy include only a new bridge. o There was concern expressed about impacts to Lincoln Street. 5.4 Auburn and Lewiston City Councils’ Coordination Communication with both the Lewiston and Auburn City Councils occurred throughout the duration of the study. Auburn appointed two councilors as members of the Study Advisory Committee (SAC), and both cities had management staff actively involved on both the SAC and the Study Steering Committee. Both cities received regular updates from the city administration staff that were part of the Study Advisory Committee. During the process of the study, ATRC provided a briefing to the Lewiston City Council at a regular council meeting on January 21, 2003. As an additional part of the outreach to the councilors, a joint workshop, with both city councils in attendance, was held on March 11, 2004. The joint workshop was used to bring both councils up to date on the progress of the study, the information gathered from the public meetings, and to hear any recommendations from them. The Auburn City Council received a study update and recommendations briefing on October 25, 2004, at a council workshop and again at a regular council meeting on November 1, 2004. At the November 1, 2004 March 2005 Final Report 43 Dissemination of information for the project was posted throughout the course of the study on the ATRC website www.atrcmpo.org. In addition to providing up to date information, the website was a tool available for obtaining comments from concerned or interested citizens. Meeting, the Council voted to endorse a resolution in support of the feasibility study and continued efforts to secure better access to the Maine Turnpike. The Lewiston City Council received an additional study update and recommendations briefing on December 7, 2004, at which time they unanimously voted to endorse the same resolution as Auburn. Resolutions from the joint council workshop are attached in Appendix A8.

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

6.0 Recommendations
Following a detailed strategy evaluation of Transportation, Land Use, Socio-Economic, Natural Environment, Cost and an extensive public outreach process including endorsements by the two City Councils, it was recommended by the Study Advisory Committee that Strategies 1, 2, 5, 1A, 2A, and 5A be considered for future study by the MaineDOT and MTA. It was further recommended that Strategies 3 and 4 be dismissed from further analysis, due to the lack of these interchange concepts to meet the study’s Purpose and Need Statement. The specific reasons for dismissal include: Strategies 3 and 4 fail to meet the study purpose and need including: Fail to reduce traffic congestion for local and through travelers in the study area; Fail to improve regional road system linkages; Contribute to the deterioration of neighborhoods; Do not enhance truck routings; Do not improve connectivity to downtown business areas; Strategies 3 and 4 have the lowest interchange traffic volume usage projections; Strategy 4 does not improve safety in the study area; Strategies 3 and 4 do not significantly reduce traffic congestion in the study area; Strategies 3 and 4 will have a negative traffic impact to the South Main Street neighborhood; Strategy 3 does not improve local connectivity; Strategies 3 and 4 conflict with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and the goal of “protecting residential neighborhoods from inappropriate traffic”; Project costs and benefits for Strategy 4 result in a negative cost benefit ratio; and At the January 2003 Public Meeting, Pat Finnigan, Auburn City Manager, noted that the Auburn City Council could not support an interchange strategy that impacts South Main Street.

March 2005 Final Report

44

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix – A1 Safety Assessment
The evaluation of an improvement strategy as it relates to safety impacts was based upon a qualitative assessment of traffic volume impacts at intersections determined to be High Crash Locations (HCLs) according to MaineDOT data. For each of the eight interchange strategies and the No-Build alternative, daily traffic volumes changes were developed for twenty-two intersections in Lewiston and Auburn that are High Crash Locations as defined by MaineDOT. For locations that decreased by 1,000 vehicles or more per day, a corresponding improvement in crash rates was assumed. For locations that increased by 1,000 vehicles or more per day, crash rates were assumed to increase. Table A1 summarizes the qualitative safety impact of each of the interchange strategies. Table A1 Safety Assessment Summary No-Build Strategy 1 – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) Strategy 2 – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 3 – South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 4 – Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 5 - River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange Strategy 1A – River Road (Lewiston) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 2A – Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 5A – River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge No Change 6 HCL Improve and 5 HCL Worsen 7 HCL Improve and 5 HCL Worsen 4 HCL Improve and 2 Worsen 1 HCL Improves and 1 Worsen 7 HCL Improve and 4 HCL Worsen 7 HCL Improve and 4 HCL Worsen 5 HCL Improve and 3 HCL Worsen 8 HCL Improve and 3 HCL Worsen

As noted in the above table, all interchange strategies will likely have a positive impact on safety in the study area, with the exception of Strategy 4 and the No-Build alternative where no change is projected.

March 2005 Final Report

45

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix – A2 Congestion Assessment
A qualitative assessment of traffic congestion was conducted within the study area. The assessment included the review of traffic volume changes for eight locations in Auburn and ten locations in Lewiston. The change was based upon a comparison between the overall entering PM peak hour volume in the 2025 No-Build and the Build strategy. Table A2 presents the results. Table A2 Study Area Intersection Volume Change Strategy Strategy 1 – River Road Interchange (Lewiston) Strategy 2 – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 3 – South Main Street Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 4 – Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn) Strategy 5 - River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange Strategy 1A – River Road (Lewiston) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 2A – Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Strategy 5A – River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge Auburn Intersections 6 intersections improve 2 intersections worsen 5 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen 3 intersections improve 5 intersections worsen 6 intersections improve 2 intersections worsen 6 intersections improve 2 intersections worsen 7 intersections improve 1 intersections worsens 4 intersections improve 4 intersections worsen Lewiston Intersections 7 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen 6 intersections improve 4 intersections worsen 5 intersections improve 5 intersections worsen 5 intersections improve 5 intersections worsen 7 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen 7 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen 7 intersections improve 2 intersections worsen 1 no change 7 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen As noted in the Table A2 all interchange strategies will have a positive influence on traffic congestion with the exception of Strategy 3, where congestion is expected to degrade in Auburn. Strategies 3 and 4 are neutral in their impact on congestion in Lewiston, while Strategy 2A is neutral in its impact on congestion in Auburn. The No-Build alternative provides no improvement.

5 intersections improve 3 intersections worsen

March 2005 Final Report

46

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix – A3 Project Cost Summary
An Engineer’s cost estimate has been prepared for each of the interchange strategies. The costs are based on approximate 2004 construction costs. Typical unit costs for ramps and bridges have been provided by the MaineDOT and HNTB, the engineers for the Maine Turnpike Authority. Engineering costs have been added as a 25% increase to the cost. An estimate for anticipated right-of-way costs, 10%, has also been added to the total cost. The typical costs do not reflect special conditions or unusual design elements encountered during the design process due to unknown site conditions. During the preliminary and final design of the improvements, a detailed engineer’s estimate will be performed to better determine the anticipated project costs. The following cost estimates are generic in nature and intended to provide a magnitude of cost for comparison. Strategy 1 – River Road Interchange (Lewiston)- Proposed full diamond interchange. 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 6,000,000 Widening of existing bridge for left turn lanes = $ 1,500,000 One-mile frontage road, both sides = $ 2,000,000 New bridge over River Road for each frontage road (100’x 32’ x = $ 1,280,000 $200/SF) x 2 ____________ Subtotal = $10,780,000 Engineering, 25% = 2,695,000 Right-of-way, 10% = 1,078,000 TOTAL =$ 14,553,000

Strategy 3 – South Main Street Interchange (Auburn)-A modified half cloverleaf design. 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 6,000,000 Widening of existing bridge for acceleration lanes = $ 1,500,000 Subtotal = $ 7,500,000 Engineering, 25% = 1,875,000 Right-of-way, 10% = 750,000 TOTAL = $ 10,125,000

Strategy 4 – Route 136/South Main Street Combination Interchange (Auburn)- A diamond type interchange with a new structure over the turnpike for a connector road. 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 6,000,000 New bridge over the Turnpike = $ 2,500,000 Connector road for ramps, 6,250 LF = $ 2,367,000 Subtotal = $ 10,867,000 Engineering, 25% = 2,717,000 Right-of-way, 10% = 1,087,000 TOTAL = $ 14,671,000

Strategy 2 – Route 136 Interchange (Auburn)- Proposed interchange (a trumpet configuration) is about 1.8 miles from Exit 13. 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each New bridge over the Turnpike Connector road for ramps, 2600 LF Subtotal Engineering, 25% Right-of-way, 10% TOTAL = $ 6,000,000 = $ 2,500,000 = $ 985,000 = $ 9,485,000 = 2,371,000 = 949,000 = $12,805,000

Strategy 5 - River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange- Full interchange at Route 136 and half a diamond at River Road. Route 136 4 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 6,000,000 New bridge over the Turnpike = $ 2,500,000 Connector road for ramps, 2600 LF = $ 985,000 River Road 2 interchange ramps @ $1,500,000 each = $ 3,000,000 Widening of existing bridge for left turn lanes = $ 1,500,000 Subtotal = $ 13,985,000 Engineering, 25% = 3,496,000 Right-of-way, 10% = 1,399,000 TOTAL = $ 18,880,000

March 2005 Final Report

47

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

For Options with a New River Bridge - This option would include a new bridge over the Androscoggin River between the Turnpike and downtown. The option would also include a new connection to the Turnpike and approaches to the bridge. Assuming a 650-foot long bridge at 60 feet wide (39,000 SF) at a unit cost of $200 per SF including some approach work, riprap, mobilization, etc. Total cost for this option includes the cost for the new interchange selected above and a new bridge over the Androscoggin River. The estimated cost of the new bridge over the river is: New River Bridge = $ 7,800,000 Engineering, 25% = $ 1,950,000 Right-of-way, 10% =$ 780,000 TOTAL = $ 10,530,000

Strategy 1A – River Road (Lewiston) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge = $ 25,083,000 Strategy 2A – Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge = $ 23,335,000 Strategy 5A – River Road (Lewiston) Half Interchange/Route 136 (Auburn) Interchange with Proposed River Bridge = $ 29,410,000

March 2005 Final Report

48

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix – A4 Benefit Cost Analysis
A preliminary benefit cost analysis was conducted for each of the interchange strategies to determine the cost merit of implementation when considering the cost of travel and operating costs, as compared to project cost. The following assumptions provided by MaineDOT (as obtained from the publication, User Benefit Analysis For Highways, AASHTO) were used in the analysis: • Value of Vehicle Running Costs to the Motorist – Vehicle running costs include only the operating cost of the vehicle which includes the cost of fuel, oil, maintenance and repairs. It excludes the ownership costs of the vehicle and Federal and State taxes. o Passenger Vehicles -- $0.12 (Cost per vehicle/mile) o Heavy Trucks -- $0.70 (Cost per vehicle/mile) • Value of Travel Time Savings to the Motorist o Passenger Vehicles -- $10.00 (Cost per vehicle/hour) o Heavy Trucks -- $39.00 (Cost per vehicle/hour) • A discount rate of 6% • Annual benefit dollars between 2006 and 2025. • Based on VMT and VHT as estimated by the ATRC Travel Demand Model. Table A3 summarizes the results of the analysis. Table A3 –Benefit Cost Analysis Summary Strategy 2025 VMT 2025 VMT Difference From NoBuild N/a -17,768 -16,521 -13,912 +5,545 -21,761 -25,105 -11,028 -28,513 2025 VHT 2025 VHT Difference From NoBuild N/a -1,251 -967 -896 -55 -1,372 -1,383 -946 -1,347 Project Cost Benefit BenefitCost Ratio N/a 4.5 3.8 3.4 -0.06 3.7 2.8 2.1 2.8 For any strategy that produces a benefit-cost ratio that exceeds +1.0, it is concluded that its value exceeds its costs and therefore should be considered a financially feasible project. As noted above, all of the interchange strategies produce positive results with the exception of Strategy 4 where negative benefits were computed. The negative benefit is a result of increased vehicle miles traveled in the study area from the construction of a new connector road between South Main Street and Route 136 (Riverside Drive).

No-Build Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 5 Strategy 1A Strategy 2A Strategy 5A

8,778,911 8,761,143 8,762,390 8,764,999 8,784,456 8,757,150 8,753,806 8,767,883 8,750,398

188,827 187,576 187,860 187,931 188,772 187,455 187,444 187,881 187,480

N/a $14.5M $12.8M $10.125M $14.7M $18.9M $25.1M $23.3M $29.4M

N/a $65.1M $49.0M $34.4M $-1.0M $70.3M $70.5M $48.5M $81.6M

VMT – Vehicle-Miles Traveled VHT – Vehicle-Hours Traveled

March 2005 Final Report

49

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix – A5 Study Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting Notes
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Notes Thursday, December 12, 2002 7:00 PM to 9:00PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Members Present: Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance), Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce) Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Beckie Conrad (Bates College), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), John White (Town of Durham), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Wesley Bennett, Jr. (Durham Selectman), Judy Marden (Greene), Les Griswold (Auburn), Kurt Youland (K&K Excavation), Belinda Gerry (Auburn) Participants Present: Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Pam Wichroski (Bates College), Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager) ATRC Policy Committee: Robert Thompson (AVCOG), Chris Branch (Lewiston Public Works) ATRC Technical Committee: Bob Belz (Auburn Public Works), James Lysen (Lewiston Planning Director) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Robert Jurasin (Wilbur Smith Associates), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates).

1. Introductions and History – Robert Thompson After an introduction of all attendee’s Bob noted that ATRC has met with MaineDOT to discuss the steps in the study process. He further noted that community commitment was key, and the broad public input for the study process would ultimately be forwarded to the ATRC Policy Committee. He concluded with the emphasis that the first steps are critical to the success of the study and public participation is very important 2. Public Process and Communications – Robert Jurasin Bob gave an overview of the study public outreach process. He highlighted that the study Team would be communicating at Study Advisory Committee meetings, Public meetings, City Council meetings, and with special interest, business, and neighborhood groups. He noted that the study would be consensus built. 3. On-Going City Activities – Mark Adams Mark gave a brief overview of some of the on-going development activities that are currently taking place in both Auburn and Lewiston. The overview noted projects that either have recently been constructed or will be in the near future. He noted that this represents a short-term or two-year log of activities. The presentation will be posted on AVCOG’s website (www.avcog.org) in the near future for further detail.

March 2005 Final Report

50

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
4. Study Area – Tom Errico 9. Establish tentative schedule of future meetings – Robert Jurasin Tom noted that the study area being presented was preliminary and that refinement would/could take place later. In fact a portion of a future AC meeting would be dedicated to the review and adoption of a study area. The preliminary study area includes: Route 202 from the Turnpike to Court Street between Route 202 and Lewiston; South Main Street from the Turnpike to Court Street; Route 136 from Durham to South Main Street; Court Street; Broad Street; Lincoln Street; Main Street between Auburn and Sabattus Street; River Road between A. Plourde Parkway and Lincoln Street; Lincoln Street; Cedar Street; Sabattus Street from Main Street to the Turnpike; and the Turnpike form Exit 12 to Route 9. 5. Draft Purpose and Need – Robert Jurasin Bob reviewed the Draft Purpose and Need that included four Purposes and several Needs including: Congestion and Accessibility, Public Safety, Quality of Community Life, and Regional and Local Economic Health. He noted that it is a work in progress and this group and others will provide comments and refine it to be appropriate for the study goals and objectives. 6. Scope of Work – Robert Jurasin Bob gave a brief overview of the study scope of work including: Data Collection, Study Area Definition, Existing Conditions Analysis, Future Condition Analysis, and Preliminary Identification and Evaluation of Improvement Strategies. 7. Schedule and Deliverables – Robert Jurasin Bob briefly noted the project duration of the study, approximately 9 months with completion in late summer of 2003. He further highlighted the intense public outreach component including AC monthly meetings, public meetings, and continual contact with interest groups and City Council. Kelley Matzen noted that the Scope of Work is very comprehensive, but indicated that pedestrians play a vital role in the downtown areas and was concerned that pedestrians were not going to be included in the assessment. Bob responded that the Study will not specifically evaluate pedestrian conditions and facility needs, but will consider them in a qualitative fashion. Bob Thompson noted that the Study would open the opportunities for pedestrians. 8. MaineDOT Integrated Transportation Decision-making – Duane Scott Duane gave a review of MaineDOT’s Integrated Transportation Decision-making process. Due to the comment from Mr. Matzen, he began with the confirmation that the study will include other modes, including pedestrians. Duane primarily summarized the “Ten Steps” from planning to project implementation as explained in a handout provided. He then went into how important the process was to insure that it did not have to be repeated. He emphasized that Maine’s Sensible Transportation Policy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Army Corp’s process were integrated under this process and each had its requirements. It was concluded that the next AC meeting would be scheduled during lunch and after the tentatively scheduled Public Meeting on January 15, 2003. 10. Public Comment Lucien Gosselin asked about the timing and funding of the study. It was said that the general schedule of the NEPA process is between 1 and 3 years, although this is just an estimate. Following the NEPA phase is the time to conduct the Final Design. Funding for the project has not been secured, but the steps currently being undertaken are critical in terms of meeting federal requirements that will allow for the future appropriation of funding for construction of the project.

March 2005 Final Report

51

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Notes Tuesday, February 4, 2003 11:30 AM to 1:00PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Members Present: Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance), Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce), Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager), Robert Thompson (AVCOG), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council), Steve Garett (Lepage Bakeries), Glenn Gordon (Western Maine Transportation Services), Rebecca Swanson Conrad (LA Excels), Lee Feldman (Auburn Planning Director) Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Beckie Conrad (Bates College), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), John White (Town of Durham), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Wesley Bennett, Jr. (Durham Selectman), Judy Marden (Greene), Les Griswold (Auburn), Kurt Youland (K&K Excavation), Belinda Gerry (Auburn) Interested Parties: Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Cam Martin (Auburn Fire), Wayne Werts (Auburn Fire), Andrea Quaid (Congressman Michaud), Randy Bumps (Senator Collins) ATRC Policy Committee: Chris Branch (Lewiston Public Works) ATRC Technical Committee: Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Robert Jurasin (Wilbur Smith Associates), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates).

Bob Thompson asked whether the time and day (1st Tuesday of the Month at Lunch) of the Study Advisory Committee meetings were acceptable. Everyone agreed that the day and time was acceptable. Kelly Matzen did note that the L&A City Council’s joint workshop on May 21st would conflict with budget approval discussions and revision to the date should be considered. Don Craig noted that a draft agenda for the next Study Advisory Committee meeting on March 4th would be transmitted with the minutes from this meeting ASAP. Ray Faucher emphasized that the level of public participation would help this project compete for funding versus other projects. The more public participation the better. Andrea Quaid from Congressman Michaud’s office, who resides on the House Transportation Committee, offers any assistance to help this project. 4. Present January 15, 2003 Public Meeting Summary – Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized the methods that were used to advertise for the January 15th Public Meeting. Kelly Matzen asked if the study website was linked to the Lewiston and Auburn municipal websites. Bob Thompson replied that they are not but that they would try to incorporate a link. Andrea Quaid asked for the website address. Don Craig noted that it is www.atrcmpo.org. Bruce summarized the comments and issues from the public meeting as noted in the copy of the minutes provided. 5. Review Draft Purpose and Need – Bob Jurasin Bob began with discussions on the purpose of the Purpose and Need statement. It needs to include intermodal/multi-modal transportation and investigate impacts as it relates to socio-economic, environmental and cost. He further noted that it must be consensus built. Bob presented all items in the draft Purpose and Need statement (copies were distributed to members). Bob Thompson noted that MaineDOT indicated that all future strategies in the area would be measured against the Purpose and Need statement. Kelly Matzen was concerned that the current Purpose and Need statement did not specifically include bicycle and pedestrian components. Bob Jurasin replied that work would include bicycle/pedestrian modes from a linkage standpoint. Kelly indicated that Auburn is looking at improving connections to bicycle/pedestrians.

1. Introductions and History – Robert Thompson 2. Approve December 12, 2002 Study Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Don Craig Don distributed copies of the minutes to those members who did not have copies. Upon review the minutes were approved unanimously. 3. Future Meeting Topics and Schedule – Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized the meeting schedule (handout) over the next six months. Bruce noted that the Interagency meeting has been postponed to March 11th. Mark Adams noted that April 21st was not a good date for the Public Meeting because of school vacation. Bob Thompson noted that the Study Advisory Committee should help in the outreach process effort. Study information material is available from ATRC for distribution. Bruce noted that there would also be Neighborhood Outreach, which was not identified on the schedule. March 2005 Final Report

52

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
Chris Branch would like to change the Purpose statement to indicate the possibility of more than one interchange. Kelly Matzen further emphasized that bicycle/pedestrian must be specifically noted in the Purpose and Need statement. Bob Thompson noted that he provided the project team information on the ATRC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and that it will be addressed in the Purpose and Need statement as best as possible. Mark Adams noted that the Purpose needs to be revised to note both Lewiston and Auburn Downtown’s. Bob Jurasin noted that for the Needs the committee may want to add something on Homeland Security. He further added that for the Needs, performance measures will be developed to assess the relative benefits of improvement strategies. 6. Review February 11, 2003 Interagency Process and Meeting – Duane Scott/Bob Jurasin Duane explained the purpose of the Interagency meeting. It is basically a forum that allows Resource Agencies to gain an understanding of project specifics and ask questions. For the first meeting in March, the Agencies will have interest because it is new to them. Duane further noted the importance of the Purpose and Need statement and noted that the study is developing a Planning Purpose and Need that will be used in later study steps in the development of a Project Purpose and Need. Accordingly, it is very important that that Planning Purpose and Need lay the foundation for future studies. Duane noted that the Draft Purpose and Need should be revised to be unique to the study area. It should be marked-up and revised as the Committee wishes. He further noted that the bicycle/pedestrian mode issues previously noted as being important should be added and put in the Purpose section and put in the Needs section under Quality of Life and Congestion. Bob Jurasin noted that farmland impacts would be looked at relative to impacts and improvement strategies would be measured against each other according to farmland impacts. Chris Branch asked if Route 136 into Durham would be investigated. It was noted that currently the scope of work only would qualitatively investigate impact on Route 136 in Durham. However, if it is determined that significant impacts are identified from certain improvement strategies, then a more detailed analysis would occur, if deemed appropriate. A request was made to add MaineDOT’s Integrated Transportation Decision-making (ITD) Timeline to ATRC’s website. Bob Thompson indicated that they would add it to ATRC’s website. 7. Presentation of Existing Traffic Data – Tom Errico It was requested that the Committee consider approving the study area for the transportation assessment portion of the study. It was noted that other roads could be added if impacts are determined to be significant at a later date. Tom Errico briefly reviewed the study roads as presented at the December 12, 2000 meeting. Action Items ATRC will schedule the April Public Meeting date to account for school vacation. ATRC will schedule the May City Council’s workshop date to avoid the budget review time period. ATRC will transmit a draft agenda for the next AC meeting with Meeting Minutes. ATRC to provide a link between the Study website and the Lewiston and Auburn websites. WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to include Bicycle and Pedestrian issues. WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to indicate the possibility of more than one interchange. WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to note both Lewiston and Auburn Downtown’s. WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to include Farmland Impacts. ATRC will add MaineDOT’s ITD Timeline to the Study website. Action Items From December 12, 2002 Meeting The City of Auburn to provide ATRC/WSA with the development slide presentation. (Pending) Chris Branch asked about the assessment of parallel roads like Pleasant Street and Webster Avenue. It was noted that they would be evaluated from a qualitative perspective, specifically changes in traffic volumes. If volumes decreased on a facility it would be assumed that improved conditions would result. The Committee unanimously accepted the Study Area. Ray Faucher noted that that this study is a feasibility study with the objective of determining if additional turnpike interchanges are necessary.

March 2005 Final Report

53

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Notes Tuesday, March 4, 2003 11:30 AM to 1:00PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Members Present: Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager), Robert Thompson (AVCOG), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council), Steve Garett (Lepage Bakeries), Rebecca Swanson Conrad (LA Excels), Lee Feldman (Auburn Planning Director), Greg Mitchell (City of Lewiston), Belinda Gerry (Auburn), Mike Grimmer (St. Mary’s Hospital), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC) Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Beckie Conrad (Bates College), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), John White (Town of Durham), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Wesley Bennett, Jr. (Durham Selectman), Judy Marden (Greene), Les Griswold (Auburn), Kurt Youland (K&K Excavation), Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce), Glenn Gordon (Western Maine Transportation Services)Interested Parties: Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Wayne Werts (Auburn Fire), Andrea Quaid (Congressman Michaud), Randy Bumps (Senator Collins), Scott Taylor (Lewiston Sun Journal), Real Roy (Lisbon Resident) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates), Chuck Lawton (Planning Decisions), Marsha Bennett (AVCOG), Joan Walton (AVCOG)

Bob Thompson requested appropriate language regarding access to the Turnpike by emergency vehicles to respond to emergencies on the facility. 4. Presentation of Existing Transportation Data – Tom Errico Tom presented the on-going efforts on existing transportation including, traffic volumes, traffic volume growth, crash history, level of service, travel time and delay, truck deficiencies, truck percentages, transit routes, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. A handout was provided. Mark Adams requested that we add Court Street data downtown to Figure 1. Lee Feldman requested that we add traffic data on South Bridge in New Auburn on Figure 3. Ray Faucher noted that South Bridge was out of service for a period of time and that should be noted on Figure 5 Mark Adams inquired as to whether information on Figure 15 would be expanded upon. Mentioned deficiencies on Court Street, Main Street at Elm Street, Main Street between Elm and Court Streets, and Academy Street. Mentioned the Downtown Traffic and Parking Study, which identify more issues. Mark Adams mentioned the BIW shuttle at Exit 13. Users may be getting dropped off or carpooling to lot so use of lot may be higher than indicated by the numbers given. Bob Thompson noted that we consider, as appropriate, the Passenger Intermodal Facility that will be located at the airport in Auburn. Look at potential shifts in traffic that may be using Exit 13 now. Also consider informal park and ride lot usage (shopping center parking lots, for instance) in the analysis. Joan Walton may have useful data on locations and use. 5. Presentation of Existing Social, Economic, and Community Development Issues – Chuck Lawton. Chuck presented information on Population, Socio-Economic, Employment, and Commuting patterns for the Lewiston-Auburn metropolitan statistical area. A handout was provided. Mark Adams asked why the Town of Minot was not in the statistics. Chuck replied because it is in the Oxford area. Mark asked to have Minot added to the area. Mike Grimmer asked do the large employers generate the most traffic? Answer, yes. He requested a map of the largest 20 or so employers in the region to correlate with roads and congestion problems.

1. Introductions – Robert Thompson 2. Approve February 4, 2003 Study Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Don Craig Rebecca Swanson Conrad (LA Excels) noted that her name was listed as both present and absent. Upon review the minutes were approved unanimously with the change noted. 3. Review Revised Draft Purpose and Need Statement – Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized what a Purpose and Need Statement is, that the “Need” is the problem statement and the “Purpose” is the objective. Bruce summarized the changes incorporated into the Purpose and Need Statement as highlighted in the handout. Mark Adams requested appropriate language regarding the issue of truck routing in Lewiston and Auburn. He further noted the importance of limiting truck traffic through neighborhoods and including current efforts by Auburn and Lewiston on the development of truck routes.

March 2005 Final Report

54

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
6. Meeting Conclusion – Bob Thompson The next meeting agenda will include revisiting the existing transportation data, review and provide acceptance of the Socio-Economic data, and Future No-Build information. Bob asked if other topics/information was of interest to the Committee and no comment was provided. Bob continued that we are planning for the next Public Meeting and will be asking the Study Advisory Committee what information should be presented. A newsletter will be prepared to assist in generated interest for the meeting. Kelly Matzen noted that all handouts should be dated. Action Items Edit February 4, 2003 Meeting Minutes to correct Rebecca Swanson Conrad’s attendance. Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for truck routing. Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for Emergency Access to the Turnpike. Add Main Street traffic volume data to Figure 1. Add traffic data on South Bridge in Figure 3. Note closure of South Bridge on Figure 5. Add deficiencies on Court Street at Mechanic and Main Street to Figure 15. Add the Town of Minot into the Socio-Economic data. Provide information on the largest employers in the region. Action Items From February 4, 2003 Meeting ATRC will schedule the April Public Meeting date to account for school vacation. (Pending) ATRC will schedule the May City Council’s workshop date to avoid the budget review time period. (Pending) ATRC will transmit a draft agenda for the next AC meeting with Meeting Minutes. (Done) ATRC to provide a link between the Study website and the Lewiston and Auburn websites. (Lewiston Done/Auburn Pending) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to include Bicycle and Pedestrian issues. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to indicate the possibility of more than one interchange. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to note both Lewiston and Auburn Downtown’s. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to include Farmland Impacts. (Done) March 2005 Final Report 55 ATRC will add MaineDOT’s ITD Timeline to the Study website. (Done) Action Items From December 12, 2002 Meeting The City of Auburn to provide ATRC/WSA with the development slide presentation. (Pending)

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 4. Review Future No-Build Traffic Data – Tom Errico. Meeting Notes Tuesday, April 8, 2003 11:30 AM to 1:00PM Lewiston City Hall Lewiston, Maine
Members Present: Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager), Robert Thompson (AVCOG ), Steve Garett (Lepage Bakeries), Lee Feldman (Auburn Planning Director), Mike Grimmer (St. Mary’s Hospital), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance), Phil Nedeau (Lewiston), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce), Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Beckie Conrad (Bates College), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), John White (Town of Durham), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Wesley Bennett, Jr. (Durham Selectman), Judy Marden (Greene), Les Griswold (Auburn), Kurt Youland (K&K Excavation), Glenn Gordon (Western Maine Transportation Services), Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council), Rebecca Swanson Conrad (LA Excels), Greg Mitchell (City of Lewiston) Interested Parties: Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Wayne Werts (Auburn Fire), Andrea Quaid (Congressman Michaud), Randy Bumps (Senator Collins), Scott Taylor (Lewiston Sun Journal), Real Roy, Linda Hertell, Roland Madore ATRC Policy Committee: Chris Branch (Lewiston) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates), Robert Jurasin (Wilbur Smith Associates)

Tom presented graphics comparing the 2002 Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes to the projected 2025 Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes. Chip Morrison noted that it was difficult to see the graphics on the screen. It was noted that the graphics would be posted on ATRC’s website for review. 5. Review Previous Study Improvement Strategies and Findings – Robert Jurasin Bob reviewed the prior study history and emphasized the difference in the Purpose and Need statements. He further summarized the previously evaluated interchange locations, elimination process (initial and detailed), and reviewed study scope at each interchange location. He concluded by noting that this study will also consider bridge-crossing options. Lucien Gosselin asked when would an evaluation of topography be considered for those options to be studied. Bob replied that we would begin our evaluation process soon. Rebecca Grover asked if a No-Build evaluation will be included and noted experiences where the term “nobuild” was confusing. Bob replied that it would be included. Bob noted that we will begin development of the screening of alternatives and presented a draft evaluation matrix. Chip Morrison noted that cost should be included in the matrix. Not just construction cost but also annual operation costs. 6. Preview Content of Next Meeting Agenda – Robert Jurasin Bob briefly presented the topics for discussion at the next meeting. 7. April 30th Public Meeting Agenda – Bruce Hyman Bruce presented the agenda for the Public Meeting.

1. Approve March 4, 2003 Study Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Don Craig Upon review the minutes were approved unanimously. 2. Review Revised Draft Purpose and Need Statement – Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized the change incorporated into the Purpose and Need Statement as highlighted in the handout (“enhance truck routing while limiting truck traffic in neighborhoods”). The change was accepted. Bob Jurasin noted that the Purpose and Need statement is dynamic and a living document and will be flexible. Suggestions can be provided at any time. 3. Review Updated Existing Transportation Data and Connection to Purpose and Need – Tom Errico

Chris Branch noted that most people would not be interested about the agenda items. We want to be careful not to bore them. Bruce noted that it’s not the quantity of the comments we receive but the quality.

Tom explained how the existing transportation data (level of service, crash history, traffic volumes, traveltime delay) would be used to assess the projects ability to meet the objectives in the Purpose and Need Statement. March 2005 Final Report

Don Craig suggested holding an open forum type meeting.

56

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Notes

Action Items Post future traffic volume graphics on ATRC website Revise evaluation matrix to include capital and operating costs Consider open forum type meeting format for the April 30th Public Meeting Action Items From March 4, 2003 meeting Edit February 4, 2003 Meeting Minutes to correct Rebecca Swanson Conrad’s attendance. (Done) Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for truck routing. (Done) Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for Emergency Access to the Turnpike. (Done) Add Main Street traffic volume data to Figure 1. (Done) Add traffic data on South Bridge in Figure 3. (Done) Note closure of South Bridge on Figure 5. (Done) Add deficiencies on Court Street at Mechanic and Main Street to Figure 15. (Done) Add the Town of Minot into the Socio-Economic data. (Done) Provide information on the largest employers in the region. (Pending) Action Items From February 4, 2003 Meeting ATRC will schedule the April Public Meeting date to account for school vacation. (Done) ATRC will schedule the May City Council’s workshop date to avoid the budget review time period. (Pending) ATRC will transmit a draft agenda for the next AC meeting with Meeting Minutes. (Done) ATRC to provide a link between the Study website and the Lewiston and Auburn websites. (Lewiston Done/Auburn Pending) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to include Bicycle and Pedestrian issues. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to indicate the possibility of more than one interchange. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to note both Lewiston and Auburn Downtown’s. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to include Farmland Impacts. (Done) ATRC will add MaineDOT’s ITD Timeline to the Study website. (Done) Action Items From December 12, 2002 Meeting The City of Auburn to provide ATRC/WSA with the development slide presentation. (Done)

Tuesday, May 20, 2003
11:30 AM to 1:00PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Members Present: Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager), Robert Thompson (AVCOG ), Lee Feldman (Auburn Planning Director), Mike Grimmer (St. Mary’s Hospital), Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance), Phil Nedeau (Lewiston), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council), Rebecca Swanson Conrad (LA Excels) Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Beckie Conrad (Bates College), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), John White (Town of Durham), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Steve Garett (LePage Bakeries), Wesley Bennett, Jr. (Durham Selectman), Judy Marden (Greene), Les Griswold (Auburn), Kurt Youland (K&K Excavation), Glenn Gordon (Western Maine Transportation Services), Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Greg Mitchell (City of Lewiston), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce), Interested Parties: Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Whitney Libby (Maine Turnpike Authority) Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Randy Bumps (Senator Collins), Buddy Secord, Diane Jackson (US Senator Snowe) ATRC Policy Committee: Chris Branch (Lewiston) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC) Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates), Joan Walton (AVCOG)

1. Approve April 8, 2003 Study Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Don Craig Upon review the minutes were approved unanimously. 2. Revised Project Status – Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized the project schedule using the project timeline graphic. The project is on schedule with completion at the end of summer. 3. Review of April 30th Public Meeting – Bruce Hyman Bruce noted that it was a well attended meeting that generated a lot of constructive comments and input regarding the land use-transportation issues and the preliminary interchange strategies that were presented. He summarized the results of the public meeting and breakout group discussion (a handout was distributed). 4. Review Draft Purpose and Need Statement – Bruce Hyman

March 2005 Final Report

57

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
Bruce again noted the importance of the Purpose and Need statement and reviewed the proposed revisions (a handout was distributed). Bob Thompson noted that for emergency vehicles it is not only access to the Maine Turnpike but also improving access to medical facilities in the region. Phil Nedeau asked if comments could be provided later, and it was noted that comments could be provided at any time. 5. Project Screening and Evaluation – Bruce Hyman Bruce summarized the initial screening process to be used to determine whether an improvement strategy should continue in the evaluation process (a handout was transmitted). Phil Nadeau asked when will the screening be finalized? He noted that a bridge option should be included on the evaluation. Chris Branch asked where should the bridge be located. Most traffic to the twin cities is not coming from the Maine Turnpike, it comes from surrounding communities. Maybe a bridge needs to be somewhere other than south of the downtowns. Maybe the study needs to consider a larger area. Bob Thompson noted that two aspects need to be considered. If broader needs are necessary than it is appropriate to consider those issues separately. Additionally, we need to focus on and connect to the Purpose and Need statement. Chris again asked if that is the best location for a bridge. Phil noted if a bridge is problematic then an alternative will be needed. He suggested adding a bridge strategy to the matrix. Chris Branch asked if an alternative could be added that includes interchanges in both Auburn and Lewiston. Bob Thompson noted that significant discussion did take place including: full interchange in Auburn and half interchange in Lewiston; half interchanges in Auburn and Lewiston, both with and without a new river crossing. Ray Faucher asked why the Hackett Road strategy had a “no” for the Bicycle-Pedestrian purpose. Bruce explained that the roads feeding that particular interchange are not in the regional bicycle plan. Ray asked when will it be determined what strategies should be included for evaluation. Project staff responded that it would be at t today’s meeting. Chris asked that a full interchange in Auburn and a half interchange in Lewiston at River Road be considered both with and without a new bridge crossing. There was some discussion about this strategy meeting the Purpose and Need. It was noted that a River Road interchange would support economic development in the Exit 13 area and improve congestion at Exit 13. Bob Thompson asked if there was any opposition to eliminating the Hackett Road from further evaluation. All agreed it should not continue in the process and is therefore screened out for further evaluation for not meeting fundamental objectives of the project.

6. Present Revised Traffic Data – Tom Errico. Tom presented a graphic summarizing revised traffic growth between the 2002 Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes to the projected 2025 Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes. 7. Present Traffic Results of Preliminary Interchange Strategy Evaluation – Tom Errico. Several members requested that additional traffic data be added to the figures including: a. Traffic volume/usage data at the existing interchanges and potential interchanges b. Traffic data for Vickery Road, Pleasant Street and Webster Street, as appropriate. 8. Set Next Meeting and Preview Content of Next Meeting Agenda – Don Craig The next Study Advisory Committee meeting will be on June 23, 2003 at 11:30AM. Action Items From May 20, 2003 meeting Revise Purpose and Need to included improving access to medical facilities. Action Items From April 8, 2003 meeting Post future traffic volume graphics on ATRC website (Pending) Revise evaluation matrix to include capital and operating costs (Done) Consider open forum type meeting format for the April 30th Public Meeting (Done) Action Items From March 4, 2003 meeting Edit February 4, 2003 Meeting Minutes to correct Rebecca Swanson Conrad’s attendance. (Done) Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for truck routing. (Done) Add language to the Purpose and Need Statement for Emergency Access to the Turnpike. (Done) Add Main Street traffic volume data to Figure 1. (Done) Add traffic data on South Bridge in Figure 3. (Done) Note closure of South Bridge on Figure 5. (Done) Add deficiencies on Court Street at Mechanic and Main Street to Figure 15. (Done) Add the Town of Minot into the Socio-Economic data. (Done) Provide information on the largest employers in the region. (Pending) Action Items From February 4, 2003 Meeting ATRC will schedule the April Public Meeting date to account for school vacation. (Done) ATRC will schedule the May City Council’s workshop date to avoid the budget review time period. (Pending) ATRC will transmit a draft agenda for the next AC meeting with Meeting Minutes. (Done) ATRC to provide a link between the Study website and the Lewiston and Auburn websites. (Lewiston Done/Auburn Pending) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to include Bicycle and Pedestrian issues. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need statement to indicate the possibility of more than one interchange. (Done) 58

March 2005 Final Report

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to note both Lewiston and Auburn Downtown’s. (Done) WSA/ATRC will revise the Purpose and Need to include Farmland Impacts. (Done) ATRC will add MaineDOT’s ITD Timeline to the Study website. (Done) Action Items From December 12, 2002 Meeting The City of Auburn to provide ATRC/WSA with the development slide presentation. (Done) LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Notes Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:30 AM to 1:00PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Members Present: Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager), Lee Feldman (Auburn Planning Director), Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Greg Mitchell (City of Lewiston), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce) Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Beckie Conrad (Bates College), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), John White (Town of Durham), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Steve Garett (LePage Bakeries), Wesley Bennett, Jr. (Durham Selectman), Judy Marden (Greene), Les Griswold (Auburn), Kurt Youland (K&K Excavation), Glenn Gordon (Western Maine Transportation Services), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Robert Thompson (AVCOG), Mike Grimmer (St. Mary’s Hospital), Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance), Phil Nedeau (Lewiston), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council), Rebecca Swanson Conrad (LA Excels) Interested Parties: Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Mike Morgan (MaineDOT), Conrad Welzel (Maine Turnpike Authority), Paul Godfrey (HNTB), Robert Cavanagh (Auburn Resident), Bruce Merrill (Auburn Housing Authority) ATRC Policy Committee: Chris Branch (Lewiston) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC) Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates), Joan Walton (AVCOG), Marsha Bennett (AVCOG)

1. Welcome and Introductions – Don Craig 2. Project Update – Don Craig Don noted that the project has been idle while refinement and improvement to the ATRC travel demand model was being performed. Two model updates have been incorporated. 3. Proposed Schedule – Tom Errico Tom reviewed the current project schedule (a handout was provided) and noted that completion of the Final Report is expected in late May. He noted the schedule is aggressive and noted that it will move quickly. 4. Revised Downtown Development Forecasts – Don Craig Don reviewed information presented in a handout that summarizes projects/growth that are already in place and financially committed in both Lewiston and Auburn.

March 2005 Final Report

59

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
5. Review of Purpose and Need – Bruce Hyman Bruce H. presented the current version of the Purpose and Need (a handout was provided) and again noted that it is not final and can be revised as appropriate. He also revisited the “Integrated Transportation Decision-Making” Time Line to again revisit the process in particular the number of steps and years before construction begins. Duane further emphasized the importance of the purpose and need in the process. Conrad noted that the purpose and need statement needs to be accurate such that the permitting agency’s do not generate concern relative to the benefits of a project meeting the noted purpose and need. 6. Review of Strategies Under Consideration – Tom Errico. The next Study Advisory Committee meeting will be on January 27, 2004 at 11:30AM. Tom presented graphics summarizing the eight improvement strategies. Bruce M. noted that the Sabattus Interchange will have a big influence on traffic at other Turnpike interchanges due to congestion and the presence of traffic signals entering Lewiston and Auburn from Sabattus Street. Bruce M. suggested the use of the existing rail line right-of-way in Lewiston as a corridor for a new access road into the Cities. He emphasized the lack of good direct access into downtown Lewiston and Auburn. Greg noted that the City of Lewiston has been active in developing rail plans for the rail corridor under discussion and that use of that right-of-way for other transportation purposes is not feasible. Mark noted that the interchange improvement strategies will not be implemented without other supporting transportation facility improvements to ensure overall acceptable mobility is provided. 7. Review of Strategy Evaluation Process – Bruce Hyman Bruce H. discussed the Project Screening and Evaluation process and noted that the project was at Phase 1 where qualitative project screening would take place before a more detailed quantitative evaluation would be undertaken. Bruce also presented the Phase I matrix and the methods used to rate each of the purpose/objectives. Kelly noted that economic development for other areas than just in the Downtowns should be provided. Chris suggested that we don’t identify as “Downtown”. It was suggested that Economic development be separate for both communities and for Downtown and outside of Downtown. Chip asked if a ½ Route 136 and a Full interchange at River Road been considered. Don noted that geometrically it would be difficult, the loss of connectivity between Auburn and Lewiston would be lost, and volumes at River Road to and from the north are low. Kelly asked about creating a Strategy 4 with a new bridge crossing. Don noted that Strategy 2A provides more benefits and therefore consideration of a 4A strategy will not be considered. 8. For Discussion Purposes – Don Craig It was agreed upon that this item should be acted on at the January 27, 2004 meeting 9. Next Steps/Next Meeting – Don Craig

March 2005 Final Report

60

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Notes Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:30 AM to 1:00PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Members Present: Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager), Lee Jay Feldman (Auburn Planning Director), Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Greg Mitchell (City of Lewiston), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council), Bruce Merrill (Auburn Housing Authority), Mike Grimmer (St. Mary’s Hospital), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Chris Branch (Lewiston), Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority) Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Steve Garett (LePage Bakeries, Robert Thompson (AVCOG), Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance), Phil Nedeau (Lewiston). Interested Parties: Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), Mike Morgan (MaineDOT), Paul Godfrey (HNTB), Robert Cavanagh (Auburn Resident), James Williams (Auburn Resident), Joseph Theriault (Auburn Resident), Roger Gauthier (Auburn Resident), Real Roy (Lisbon Resident), Dale Spaulding (Louis Berger), Mike Mercier (Auburn Resident) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates), Robert Jurasin (Wilbur Smith Associates), Joan Walton (AVCOG), Marsha Bennett (AVCOG)

Tom presented several graphics that summarized Area-wide Traffic Growth between 2000 and 2025, Traffic Volume Network changes with implementation of strategies, and key origin and destination data from the Turnpike to/from Lewiston and Auburn. It was asked if the future traffic volumes take into account the traffic growth in the Augusta area and expansion of the Turnpike to three lanes. Tom noted that the ATRC Travel Demand Model accounts for variables outside the immediate area of Lewiston and Auburn including those noted. It was asked if the volume forecasts take into account employment and economic growth. Tom noted that both were accounted in the forecast. A question was asked about the Origin/Destination data and whether we looked at zones west of the South Bridge. Tom noted that yes that was included in the zone designated “New Auburn”. A question was asked about traffic volumes on Route 136 and how Route 136 provides a good connection to I-95 (I-295). Tom noted that the ATRC Model did not forecast high traffic volumes on Route 136 south of the Turnpike, primarily because very little development exists or is expected in that area of Auburn. Tom further noted that a greater level of traffic activity is expected because of the regional connectivity expected with a new interchange at Route 136. It was noted that the population in Lewiston and Auburn is the same as it was in 1975, and does the forecast account for this. Tom noted that the model reflects population forecasts projected by the State and accounts for historical trends in Lewiston and Auburn. 6. Review of Preliminary Phase I Evaluation Matrix – Bruce Hyman Bruce presented the Phase I matrix and the methods used to rate each of the purpose/objectives. Duane asked what was the definition of Density and Intensity for “Level of Local Activity”. Bruce noted that Intensity was related to commercial development while density was related to residential development. Duane asked that for future refinements of the matrix, specific reasons on ratings should be clearly defined. Ray noted for Strategies 3 and 4 only a 50-trip difference exists for Economic Development, yet the rating is different (Low for #3 and Moderate for #4). Bruce noted that Strategy #4 provides a better connection to Downtown via Route 136, which resulted in the higher rating. Duane noted that the distinction between low and moderate for Bicycle/Pedestrian should be included in the matrix. Mark Adams suggested that a map be provided that illustrates the Bicycle/Pedestrian Routes. It was also noted that graphics for other issues might be appropriate.

1. Welcome and Introductions – Don Craig 2. Project Update – Don Craig Don noted that the project will not identify one single improvement strategy and specific design configurations will not be determined at this time. 3. Review Project Schedule – Bruce Hyman Bruce reviewed the current project schedule and proposed meetings. No comments were provided. 4. Review of Purpose and Need – Bruce Hyman Bruce Hyman presented the current version of the Purpose and Need and again noted that it is not final and can be revised as appropriate. No comments were provided

5. Presentation of Traffic Data – Tom Errico.

Chris Branch noted that a benefit of decreasing traffic on Lisbon Street might be a diversion of traffic from residential streets to Lisbon Street, thereby reducing cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods. 61

March 2005 Final Report

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Notes Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:30 AM to 1:00PM Auburn City Hall Auburn, Maine
Members Present: Robert Thompson (AVCOG ), Lee Feldman (Auburn Planning Director), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC) Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Beckie Conrad (Bates College), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), John White (Town of Durham), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Wesley Bennett, Jr. (Durham Selectman), Judy Marden (Greene), Les Griswold (Auburn), Kurt Youland (K&K Excavation), Glenn Gordon (Western Maine Transportation Services), Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Rebecca Swanson Conrad (LA Excels), Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager), Steve Garett (Lepage Bakeries), Mike Grimmer (St. Mary’s Hospital), Phil Nedeau (Lewiston), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce), Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance), Greg Mitchell (City of Lewiston), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council), Bruce Merrill (Auburn Housing) Interested Parties: Dan Stewart (Maine Turnpike Authority), Paul Godfrey (HNTB), Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Mike Morgan (MaineDOT), Pam Wichroski (Bates College), Robert Cavanagh (Auburn Resident), Larry Roberts (Louis Berger), Joseph Theriault (Auburn Resident), Dave Caron (Auburn Resident), Darleen Harris (Auburn Resident), Joseph Poulin (Auburn Resident) ATRC Policy Committee: Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates)

7.

Recommended Committee Action – Don Craig

Don noted that discussion on Committee Action on Strategies 3 and 4 has been postponed due to the extensive data presented. 8. Next Steps/Next Meeting – Don Craig The minutes from the January 13, 2004 meeting was approved. The next Study Advisory Committee meeting will be on February 24, 2004 at 11:30AM

1. Introductions – Bob Thompson 2. Project Update – Don Craig 3. Review of Interchange Strategies Under Consideration – Tom Errico Tom reviewed all eight strategies that are under consideration. 4. Presentation of Evaluation Matrix – Bruce Hyman Bruce reviewed each strategy and the associated pros and cons. It was asked what possible benefit Strategy 1 has on traffic in the region. Tom Errico noted that there are reductions in traffic on Route 202.

March 2005 Final Report

62

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
It was noted that the City has had some discussions about the closing of the South Main Street fire station and the emergency response conclusions may become invalid. Bob Thompson asked about the assumption used in calculating the new bridge cost, particularly how wide. Tom noted that it was assumed the bridge would be 60 feet wide. It was asked whether residential property impact would be considered. Bruce responded yes. It was asked how long before something is constructed. Duane replied that a minimum of 2 years would be needed to complete the environmental process. Someone noted that South Main Street is dangerous. Someone expressed a new strategy idea. Create an express route along the turnpike between Exit 75 and Route 136. It was noted that this option would be reviewed as appropriate. Don noted that the matrix and the slide show would be available on ATRC’s website. 5. Motion to Dismiss Strategies 3 and 4 from further consideration – Don Craig The Study Advisory Committee made a motion to dismiss Strategies 3 and 4 from further consideration. It was approved unanimously. LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Notes Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:30 AM to 1:00PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Members Present: Robert Thompson (AVCOG ), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council), Bruce Merrill (Auburn Housing), Greg Mitchell (City of Lewiston), Mike Grimmer (St. Mary’s Hospital), Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Chip Morrison (Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce) Members Absent: Mike LeCompte (Lewiston), Beckie Conrad (Bates College), Gene Skibitsky (WMTS), Robert Morency (UPS), Normand Guay (Auburn), John White (Town of Durham), Paul Neihoff (City of Auburn), Tom Platz (Platz Associates), Andrew Barolski (LePage Bakeries), Wesley Bennett, Jr. (Durham Selectman), Judy Marden (Greene), Les Griswold (Auburn), Kurt Youland (K&K Excavation), Glenn Gordon (Western Maine Transportation Services), Rebecca Swanson Conrad (LA Excels), Mark Adams (Auburn Assistant City Manager), Steve Garett (Lepage Bakeries), Phil Nedeau (Lewiston), Paul Gosselin (United Ambulance) Interested Parties: Conrad Welzel (MTA), Ray Faucher (MDOT), Mike Morgan (MDOT), Robert Cavanagh (Auburn Resident), Larry Roberts (Louis Berger), Joseph Theriault (Auburn Resident), Robert A. Parent (Auburn Resident), Christopher Carson (Auburn Resident), Paul and Rose Lagasse (Auburn Residents), George and Georgette Morin (Auburn Residents), Real Roy (Auburn Resident) ATRC Policy Committee: Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Joan Walton (AVCOG), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates)

1. Welcome and Introductions – Bob Thompson Lucien Gosselin asked for an assurance of the availability of funds to continue the process, now that it will move to MDOT and MTA. Mike Grimmer followed up by asking if there are any other projects competing for these funds. The response from Conrad Welzel and Ray Faucher was that the money is available to continue the study, with those results ultimately dictating the construction money that will be required. Greg Mitchell then asked for a confirmation of the time frame for completion. Ray Faucher indicated that we should plan on about 18 months from the start of the next phase. 2. Overview of Study – Don Craig 3. Report on Presentation to City Council’s – Bob Thompson 4. Final Draft Report – Q&A Robert Parent stated that he seems to be hearing that a new interchange will happen, it is just a question of where. Bob Thompson replied that this study only shows that a new interchange is feasible; the next phase March 2005 Final Report 63

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
will determine what actually should be done, and where if necessary. As in all studies, the “No Build” alternative will be looked at throughout the remaining process. Kelly Matzen added that there has been a clear policy determination by the two communities that improved access to the Maine Turnpike is needed. Christopher Carson then asked if a needs assessment had ever been done, and if the true impacts to the local roads (such as the need for widening) had been evaluated. The response was that those evaluations all come in the next phase of study. George and Georgette Morin expressed concern about the timing of some traffic signals within the study area. Bob Thompson replied that part of the ongoing process will be to look at the coordination of signals. There were concerns expressed about the potential need to upgrade existing roadways where a potential interchange would be constructed and the potential impact it may have on historic buildings. Don Craig noted that preliminary analyses did not indicate significant widening was necessary on either Route 136 or Lincoln Street. Improvements would likely occur at intersections, and future studies will detail those needs. With no further discussion, Lucien Gosselin made a motion to accept the final report and forward it to the Policy Committee. Kelly Matzen seconded the motion. The motion passed with Belinda Gerry opposing 5. Recommendation – Acceptance of final report and forward onto the ATRC Policy Committee. Lucien Gosselin made a motion to accept the final report and forward it to the ATRC Policy Committee. Kelly Matzen seconded the motion. The motion passed with Belinda Gerry opposing.

March 2005 Final Report

64

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix – A6 Public Informational Meeting Notes and Other Public Comments
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC MEETING Meeting Notes Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:00 PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Study Advisory Committee Members Present: Kelly Matzen (Auburn City Council), Lucien Gosselin (LAEGC), Belinda Gerry (Auburn City Council) Participants Present: Conrad Welzel (Maine Turnpike Authority), Rebecca Grover (Maine Turnpike Authority), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Pat Finnigan (Auburn City Manager) ATRC Policy Committee: Robert Thompson (AVCOG), Chris Branch (Lewiston Public Works) ATRC Technical Committee: Bob Belz (Auburn Public Works), Dennis Emidy (MaineDOT) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates), Dale Spaulding (Louis Berger Group) Public Present: James Williams (58 Olive St., Auburn), Alfred Libby (386 S. Witham Rd., Auburn), Roger Gauthier, Jr. (226 Penley Corner Rd., Auburn), Don Martill (Sun Journal)

1. Introductions and History – Robert Thompson After an introduction of all attendee’s Bob gave an overview of the project, particularly noting that with continued growth within Auburn and Lewiston, transportation improvements will be likely. Bob noted that the project was at the early planning stage and improvement strategies have not been identified, contrary to the recent newspaper article. He further noted the importance of improving access to the Maine Turnpike in an effort to allow motorists to use the underutilized Turnpike for local travel. 2. Public Process and Communications – Bruce Hyman Bruce gave an overview of the study public outreach process. He highlighted that the study Team would be communicating at Study Advisory Committee meetings, Public meetings, City Council meetings. He noted that there would be many opportunities for the public to provide meaningful input.

March 2005 Final Report

65

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
3. Study Area – Tom Errico Tom noted that the study area being presented was preliminary and that refinement would take place later. The preliminary study area includes: Route 202 from the Turnpike to Court Street between Route 202 and Lewiston; South Main Street from the Turnpike to Court Street; Route 136 from Durham to South Main Street; Court Street; Broad Street; Lincoln Street; Main Street between Auburn and Sabattus Street; River Road between A. Plourde Parkway and Lincoln Street; Lincoln Street; Cedar Street; Sabattus Street from Main Street to the Turnpike; and the Turnpike form Exit 12 to Route 9. 4. Scope of Work – Tom Errico Tom gave a brief overview of the study scope of work including: Data Collection, Study Area Definition, Existing Conditions Analysis, Future Condition Analysis, and Preliminary Identification and Evaluation of Improvement Strategies. He specifically noted the importance of the developing a detailed Purpose and Need statement for further steps in the process. 5. Schedule and Deliverables – Bruce Hyman Bruce briefly noted the project duration of the study, approximately 9 months with completion in late summer of 2003. He further highlighted the intense public outreach component including Study Advisory Committee monthly meetings, public meetings, and continual contact with interest groups and City Council. 6. MaineDOT Integrated Transportation Decision-making – Duane Scott Duane gave a review of MaineDOT’s Integrated Transportation Decision-making process. Duane primarily summarized the “Ten Steps” from planning to project implementation as explained in a handout provided. He then went into how important the process was to insure that it did not have to be repeated. He emphasized that Maine’s Sensible Transportation Policy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Army Corp’s process were integrated under this process and each had its requirements. 7. Public Questions and Comment Jim Williams noted that a new Maine Turnpike exit was a necessity. Traffic is significant and with new projects like CMMC and Wal-Mart and a general increase in population, very soon it will be an urgent necessity. Lisbon Street, Washington Street, and Court Street are very congested and relief is needed. Additionally, a new interchange will be needed from a disaster perspective. With limited existing river crossings improved access to a new interchange will provide another alternative. Lucien Gosselin noted that both Lewiston and Auburn were in a traffic gridlock because there was an incident on the Veteran’s Bridge and the south bridge was closed. Providing another access is very March 2005 Final Report 66 important. Lucien also noted that with the development potential at Bates Mill improved traffic access is important. Lucien Gosselin asked how much effort would be directed at the Route 136 corridor in Durham and toward the east. Tom Errico responded that the study would primarily focus from the Turnpike toward Lewiston and Auburn, but would also include some assessment of traffic impacts from any improvement strategy on the major corridors east of the Turnpike. Alfred Libby noted that a new interchange, similar to one previously proposed, near “Rose Corner” would destroy 5 to 6 houses. He requested that Whitham Road not be impacted. Put the traffic on a parallel road to the Turnpike. Would zoning changes occur if a new interchange were built? Kelly Matzen noted that it would be likely that pressure and the market may result in a zone change. It was noted that it would make sense to develop as industrial. It was further noted that an interchange could put some farming operations out of business. Jim Williams noted that he would like a Route 136 connection. Pat Finnigan noted that from the Auburn City Council perspective, the South Main Street Connector alternative is dead. A Route 136 connection is preferred. Bob Thompson did note that even though the City may not support an alternative the NEPA process requires that all options be considered and reviewed. Belinda Gerry requested that ATRC prepare a handout packet of meeting schedule for distribution to her constituents in Ward 5. It was noted that information will be posted on the ATRC website. Additionally, Bob Thompson said ATRC would notify her of meetings. Duane Scott did want to note in reply to comments about declining farmland, that there is a federal prime farmland law that must be considered relative to impacts to farm land. Bob Thompson provided closing remarks and again emphasized that the public process will be comprehensive including other communities like the Town of Durham.

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC MEETING Meeting Notes Wednesday, April 30, 2003 7:00 PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Public Attendance: James Williams, Auburn; Buddy Secord, Auburn; Phil Lebel, Auburn; Christos Gianopoulos, Greene; Gerard Picard, Lewiston; David Mireault, Auburn; Ben Gautier, Auburn; Edgar H. Thompson, Auburn; Joseph and Margaret Theriault, Auburn; Robert Cavanagh, Auburn; Emile Caron, Auburn; Ronald and Beverly Vailancourt, Auburn; Denis Bergeron, Auburn; Mike Mercier, Auburn; Bruce R. Merrill, Sabattus; Read Roy, Auburn. Submitting comments via email: Geri Crane, Auburn. Study Advisory & Steering Committee Members: Councilor Belinda Gerry, Auburn; Greg Mitchell, Lewiston; Duane Scott, MaineDOT; Bob Thompson, AVCOG; Mark Adams, Auburn; Rebecca Grover, Maine Turnpike Authority. Project Staff: Don Craig, ATRC; Jennifer Williams, ATRC; Bob Jurasin, WSA; Tom Errico, WSA; Bruce Hyman, WSA

The meeting began shortly after 7 pm. Project staff from ATRC and Wilbur Smith Associates made short presentations regarding: • Status of the Project • Schedule for the Project • Brief Overview of Existing Transportation Issues (traffic, bicycle/pedestrian, transit) • Brief Overview of Socio-Economic/Land Use Issues. The members of the public were then divided into two groups to participate in 40 minute facilitated discussions regarding: • Transportation Issues • Preliminary Interchange Strategies • Other Ideas for Strategies • Other Issues. Study Advisory and Steering Committee members observed and were resources for the discussions. Responses to questions/comments by Project Staff and Study Advisory/Steering Committee members are in brackets and in italics. Lewiston-Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study DRAFT Public Meeting #2 Notes: April 30, 2003 Breakout Group Summary General Safety Issues Exit 12 area is dangerous (Group #1) Exit 13/Plourde Parkway ramp to Lisbon St (westbound) – combination of poor sight distance and grade change (Group #1) Main St (Auburn) near Florian’s Market – conflicts with pedestrians, on-street parking, many turning movements (Group #1) Drivers are untrainable, aggressive and have bad habits (Group #2) Pedestrian Issues Florian’s Market, Auburn (as described above) (Group #1) Intersection of Lisbon St & Main St (Lewiston) – difficulty crossing Main St due to right turning; March 2005 Final Report

conflicts between pedestrians and on-street parking (Group #1) Main St (Auburn) from Florian’s Market to Court St – in general, very difficult for pedestrians (Group #1) What is the expected impact of the new hotel on pedestrian traffic crossing Court St? (Group #1) Longley Bridge underpass will help the issue of crossing Court St (Group #1) Transit Issues The local bus system is “grossly underused” – most likely due to people’s connection to their vehicles (Group #1) Is there the potential for a smaller “shuttle type” bus between the downtowns? [The Downtown Circulator should be starting this fall.] (Group #1) The city could save money by paying for a new car for everyone that rides the bus, no one uses it. (Group #2) Local bus system is a sham (Group #2) Do not expand the transit system unless we get more money from the federal government! (Group #2) Truck Issues in general, trucks are an issue throughout the study area – speed, noise, volume -- all issues. (Group #1) General Questions/Comments has the type of traffic expected to use the new interchange been analyzed/forecast? [Not yet, but that is part of the next phases of the study.] (Group #1) Is there a plan for a new bridge between the South Bridge and the turnpike bridge? (Group #1) Concerns regarding increased traffic on the South Bridge…..Can it handle a large increase? (Group #1) A new bridge is really needed to help ease congestion in New Auburn and Little Canada areas. (Group #1) Why are we doing this study? Is this new interchange really necessary? Are there real congestion problems now or forecasted for either existing interchange that warrant an additional interchange? Would a new interchange really provide any better travel time, balancing speeds and distance? Based on data provided, the majority of the safety and congestion problems appear to be in the Downtowns. Will increasing better access only exacerbate the existing problems? [Any Lewiston-Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study DRAFT Public Meeting #2 Notes: April 30, 2003 recommendations from this study will involve a host of strategies/improvements to address the safety and congestion issues.] (Group #1) There is a general concern that any “solution” will only make a bad situation even worse (Main St, Auburn; downtowns in general) (Group #1) It seems that the decision to construct this interchange has already been made, and that we will just have to deal with the outcome? [No decision has been made. This study will be looking at TSM strategies and a No-Build strategy also.] (Group #1) MTA wants to serve both Lewiston and Auburn, where would that be? Paper said they want access to downtowns [The municipalities are asking for this interchange and that the purpose of tonight’s’ meeting is to get input on possible locations] (Group #2) Are there any specific designs for these interchanges? It is hard to react to something when we don’t know what it will be. (Group #2) The Golf Course has 200 acres on South Main Street. No matter if it’s on South Main or Riverside Drive it will add to the congestion in the downtowns (Group #2) Is the purpose of this to get people from Auburn to Lewiston or vice versa? [The strategies will take many things into account, residents, commercial and industrial travel] (Group #2) What is the projected traffic growth attributed to? [It is a combination of projected employment and housing. Background growth is important; there are only 3 places to cross the river and it requires people to go through the downtowns.] Comments on Preliminary Strategies

67

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
River Road, Lewiston Too close to Exit 13 (Group #1) No real benefit seen (Group #1) Topographic problems (Group #1) Route 136 May decrease some traffic from Exit 12 heading to the north Auburn area (Group #1) Can reduce a lot of the traffic in the downtown area (Group #1) Less residential impact -- however, still have a narrower, residential strip of Rte 136 thru New Auburn (Group #1) Interchange would have community impact and travel time impacts -- therefore, if located at Rte 136, good, easy, efficient access must be provided as well (Group #1) Riverside Drive heading towards Durham has heavy traffic especially at commuter times, because of BIW (Group #2) Bowie farm, south of the Turnpike on Riverside Drive is vacant, that’s where it will have to go. (Group #2) The best place to put it is at 136, but there are lots of homes there (Group #2) The only place that makes sense is 136, but that’s where my house is, so I don’t like it. (Group #2) 136 is a state highway so State funding could be used to make improvements. (Group #2) 136 would help Durham, it is centrally located (Group #2) South Main St Greater residential impact (Group #1) Elementary school impacts (Group #1) LewistonAuburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study DRAFT Public Meeting #2 Notes: April 30, 2003 Currently from MTA Exit 12 to Old Danville Rd and South Main St into the downtown is a “death trap” with high speeds (Group #1) Regardless of a potential new interchange, South Main St. needs substantial improvements -dangerous conflicts between tractor trailer trucks and children (Group #1) Intersection with Broad St is a problem spot for trucks (Group #1) General concerns of South Main St location -- high volume of traffic, trucks, kids, speeds, poor condition/maintenance of road (Group #1) Based on existing zoning, a South Main St interchange would probably provide a better connection for the industrial areas (Group #1) Last time “they” looked at this they said South Main Street was dead (Group #2) There would be a tremendous amount of roadwork needed if the Exit was on South Main. (Group #2) South Main has a lot of topography issues and schools, churches and parks. (Group #2) New Auburn is very hilly, hard to travel in bad weather (Group #2) Route 136/South Main St combination Negative impact to existing farmlands (Group #1) Construction of long access roads, why??? [Divide traffic between two roads.] (Group #1) Still pushing traffic onto South Main St (Group #1) Higher costs (Group #1) Land use impacts -- besides, if located on Route 136, possibly result in less local dollars and more state dollars for improvement (?) (Group #1) Other Locations/Strategies to Consider Hackett Rd should not be used for an industrial type route, it is too narrow, and there are cemeteries on either side of the intersection with Old Danville Rd (Group #1) 4 years ago I asked them to look at Lincoln St, “they” said it was too close to Exit 13. (BG explained that we aren’t concerned about what happened in the past and to mention any ideas that are appropriate even if they have been dismissed before) (Group #2) Must have another bridge crossing, and must repair what is there already. (Group #2) Without a new bridge, an exit would not help. (Group #2) Exit on Broad Street, maybe using Hackett Rd, not sure what the neighborhood impacts would be there. (Group #2) Wetlands would be an issue for Broad St location and topography too. (Group #2) Businesses are moving away from the downtowns A long term solution would be to build a ring road around the cities, have an exit before exit 12, with branches coming into the city. (Group #2) Other Issues A new interchange could possible lead to new industry in the overall airport area (Group #1) Regardless of an interchange, could access be improved from Exit 12 to the industrial areas east of Washington St? (Group #1) No matter how nice the exit is there is still congestion in town (Group #2) Mill and Broad Street intersection is bad (Group #2) How will people cross the river to Lewiston if this is built? (Group #2) Understand that Auburn wants to connect to the downtown (new hotel) (Group #2) If you put an exit in Lewiston it would not help Auburn (Group #2) In New Auburn, when the South Bridge goes down again, New Auburn will be isolated. (Group #2) Lewiston-Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study DRAFT Public Meeting #2 Notes: April 30, 2003 In Auburn Zoning controls everything, no land use changes will happen unless the zoning is changes (Group #2) Site-specific and Other Notations on Map (not referenced above) Exit 13 -- dangerous merges at Lisbon Street (Group #1) Pedestrian crossing issue -- Main Street at Lisbon Street (Group #1) Main Street Lewiston -- on-street parking causes safety issue (Group #1) Exit 12 safety issue (Group #1) Lisbon Street Corridor -- big safety issue (Group #1) Main Street, Downtown Auburn -- traffic, pedestrian and parking issues (Group #1) Concern about crossing of Court Street between Hotel and Main Street (Group #1) Heavy development in So. Main Street corridor neighborhood (Group #2) High safety concerns on So. Main Street near Turnpike (Group #2) Wetlands a potential issue in Broad Street/Hackett Street Strategy (Group #2) Many sensitive land uses along So. Main Street corridor (schools, parks, churches (Group #2) Potential impacts to Vickery Road neighborhood need to be considered (Group #2) Accident problems at Mill Street and Broad Street intersection now -- concern if traffic increased more due to interchange (Group #2) New bridge crossing in New Auburn could be a big help in New Auburn (Group #2) None of the four preliminary strategies lend themselves to a new bridge crossing (Group #2) How do combine/connect Riverside Street with Lincoln Street to get the most effective strategy? (Group #2) Provide connections to industrial land along Route 202 with Hackett Road area industrial land (Group #1) Existing Broad Street bridge old and narrow (Group #1) Need new bridge south of Broad Street Bridge (Group #1) River Road strategy too close to Exit 13 in Lewiston (Group #1) After the breakout sessions, the groups reconvened and each group reported back to the whole group the main issues and comments raised. At the end, there was an opportunity for additional comments. These comments were made: • Who will maintain the roads like South Main Street? 68

March 2005 Final Report

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
• In the long-term, a circumferential highway makes sense. • What alternative will provide the quickest route to the Auburn CBD? Comments submitted by a citizen not able to attend the public meeting. Route 136 – Auburn (a.k.a. – Riverside Drive) 1. 2. 3. 4. Is already a state highway: Route 136. Will provide direct access to ALL the surrounding areas. Will have NO cross traffic- hence safer, due to river on one side of Route 136. In case of emergency or other reasons, will provide access to residents of New Auburn, in the event the current bridge again becomes unusable. 5. Already has a nice wide road traveling in all directions. 6. Will cause very little environmental impact. 7. Will cause very little disruption to the people in the surrounding proposed exit area; as area has only a light population. 8. Will not disrupt the lives of others in the expected areas of travelers using this proposed exit— indeed will enhance their ability to traverse the surrounding areas. 9. Costs associated with this exit will be substantially less than any other proposal. 10. Benefits of an exit here far outweigh any and all proposals, including both short and long term benefits. 11. Industrial development will probably follow in the area; hence economic development. 12. Better traffic movement and safety will surely be the end result of this exit. 13. Will benefit all the people in the surrounding areas substantially, as shown herein. Also very important, an exit on Route 136 will provide an excellent alternative exit to Lewiston, Auburn, and all the surrounding communities the turnpike serves in the event either Exit 12 (Auburn) or Exit 13 (Lewiston) are closed for repairs or for whatever other reasons; it would serve the community well. South Main Street- Auburn Does provide a good access to downtown Auburn, New Auburn, and surrounding areas, but— 1. Will dangerously increase traffic along South Main Street into downtown New Auburn. 2. Current and only exits from Reginald, Paul, Louise, Lucille, Olive, and Vivian Streets are all UP very steep incline hills; and subsequently quite dangerous in the wintertime, as with snow and ice on the streets, climbing these streets to exit is sometimes almost impossible. Also the snow banks on the South Main Street corners of these streets make visibility for oncoming cars from the direction of your proposed interchange impossible, until you are already into the flow of traffic. 3. Then come Bolster Street with its nursing home. 4. Then you pass Seventh Street—the traffic of Walton School. 5. Then is the intersection of Sixth Street and Dunn Street with South Main Street. This fork in the road has a children’s playground and a church right on the corner. It is already a very tough access at times. Fifth Street crossings in this area are also hazardous even currently. 6. Next is the 4-way stop at the intersections of Broad Street and South Main Street. It is currently very heavily used, as well as having traffic problems. These problems increase dramatically in the winter time. 7. Broad Street at this point already has very heavy traffic and use to the bridge. 8. South Main Street cannot adequately or safely handle any increase in traffic that an exit would surely bring. Such an increase would only bring about accidents, increased traffic problems, and probably unnecessary injuries and deaths. 9. The proximity of an exit on outer Main Street to the current one on Washington Avenue would also serve to negate its necessity; and would further serve to lose its full utilization and its real values to the surrounding communities.

March 2005 Final Report

69

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC MEETING Meeting Notes Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:00 PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Public Attendance: Robert Cavanaugh (Auburn Resident), Real Roy (Lisbon Resident), Mike Mercier (Auburn Resident), Roland Madore(Auburn Resident), Paul & Rose Lagasse (Auburn Resident), Allen Milburn (Auburn Resident), Elizabeth Snowman (Auburn Resident), Roland Petterson (Auburn Resident), Dave Caron (Auburn Resident),Maurice Fournier (Auburn Resident), Roland & Doreen Jordon (Auburn Resident),Gerand Picard(Auburn Resident),Roger LaRoche(Auburn Resident),Scott Tyler (??), Bob & Cathy Thorpe(Auburn Resident), Peter Cyr (New Auburn), David & Miriam Thiboudeau (New Auburn), Emile Caron (Auburn Resident),Kevin Deschambeault (Lewiston Resident), Julie Williams (Lewiston Resident), David Teich (Lewiston Resident), Jeff Preble (Auburn Resident), Dennis Bergeron (Auburn Resident), Al & Glenda Marquis (Auburn Resident), Athee Marssew (Auburn Resident),Francis Moussen (Lewiston Resident), Peter Grenier (Lewiston Resident), Greg Nadean (Lewiston Resident), Roger Ruberge (Lewiston Resident), Lorraine Roberge (Lewiston Resident), Bruce Hall (Lewiston Resident), Leroy Fournier (Lewiston Resident), Mark Terrio (Lewiston Resident), Edward Desgrosseilliers (Auburn Resident), David Adams (Auburn Resident), Laurent Gilbert, Sr. (Lewiston Resident), Rep. O’Brien (State House) Study Advisory & Steering Committee Members: Mark Adams, Auburn Assistant City Manager; Robert Thompson, AVCOG; Greg Mitchell, City of Lewiston; Chip Morrison, Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce; Councilor Belinda Gerry, Auburn; Duane Scott, MaineDOT; Ray Faucher, MaineDOT; Mike Morgan, MaineDOT; Project Staff: Don Craig, ATRC; Tom Errico, Wilbur Smith Associates; Bruce Hyman, Wilbur Smith Associates.

Strategies 1 & 1A Comment Summary
This strategy will result in decrease in traffic along Lisbon Street (Route 196) between downtown and Exit 80. What impacts will that decrease have on Lisbon Street businesses that rely on “drive by” traffic? Maybe this location should only have a Southbound on ramp, so that all traffic exiting will have to use Exit 80 and most of the traffic will stay on Lisbon Street. Lisbon Street will see a decrease in traffic with an interchange (even a “half-interchange”) on River Road, but is that a bad thing? Yes, some businesses may see a slight impact, but the good of the community needs to be the focus. Some concern about the distribution of traffic that will utilize this interchange. What type of increase will South Avenue see? The portion of South Avenue between River Road and Lisbon Street is already getting beat up by construction vehicles/dump trucks. This strategy is the only way to go. It will serve the new Wal-Mart Distribution Center and provide downtown access. The Wal-Mart trucks should be made to use this new interchange, rather than Exit 80. There is an urgent need for this new interchange due to the Wal-Mart facility. Trucks attempting left turns at Exit 80 create a un–safe situation. Due to the geometrics of Exit 80, all Wal-Mart trucks may be more apt to use a River Road interchange. Exit 80 needs help regardless of the outcome of this study. March 2005 Final Report

The South Bridge will not last. It needs to be replaced. It is overcrowded as it is; funneling more traffic to it will only worsen the situation. Something needs to be done to South Bridge and Cedar Street. A new bridge is a must for a new interchange to really work. The River Road location provides easy truck access. There is also minimal impact to residential properties. A River Road interchange will ease congestion at Exit 80. A River Road interchange will open up more land for commercial and/or industrial development. The addition of a new bridge, along with a River Road interchange will open up the Route 136 corridor, maybe easing the congestion along Route 196, especially through Lisbon. We pretty much have the North-South movements covered; we need to improve the East-West movement. Strategy 1A seems to make the most sense. Based on the model numbers, it gets the most use and seems to yield the best results for probably the lowest cost of any of the other strategies. (The bridge would cost the same for any strategy, but this interchange would probably be the cheapest/easiest to construct.) Strategy 1A would serve the most people for the least amount of money. The model output clearly demonstrates the demand/need for this new interchange. Strategy 1A would be the best, but is a new bridge realistic? It will be expensive. Should we be considering phasing for this project? Build the interchange first, then a new bridge. This way, the bridge can be located to ultimately replace the South Bridge (which should need replacement within the next 25 years). Should a new bridge actually be built south of the Turnpike Bridge, instead of between South Bridge and the Turnpike? There is a lot of traffic that is not destined for the downtowns, but rather just passing through. Would a more southerly bridge help to remove that “pass-through” traffic from the downtowns completely, since they do not want to be there? That way there is more room for downtown traffic that actually does want to be downtown.

Strategies 2 & 2A Comment Summary
Suggested Negatives of the Strategy Potential traffic impacts to the Vickery Road neighborhood Strategy could worsen existing traffic problems at South Bridge and in/through New Auburn Potential issues related to Route 136, portions of which are in the floodplain Strategy could be more costly because of slopes in the vicinity of the Route 136 at the Maine Turnpike Potential for low demand for/traffic usage at a new interchange at Route 136 Suggested Positives of the Strategy Provides access to areas for potential new development; more commercial land is needed Provides good access to downtown Auburn Provides good access to Freeport and regional connectivity Provides good emergency access to Route 136.

70

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
Strategies 3 & 4 Comment Summary
On Strategy 4, the traffic will be greater on South Main St. than on Rte 136 and we don’t want that. We need a beltway around the two cities The downtowns are too congested and what is needed is a new bridge. Both strategies will put too much more traffic on local roads and through local neighborhoods. Between the two choices I prefer Strategy 4 to 3 because the amount of traffic would be split between Rte 136 and South Main St. Why would you put an interchange on South Main Street, too much traffic for the neighborhoods. Strategy 4 could be fine if a new bridge was built south of the Turnpike to get the traffic to Lewiston faster and away from the downtown. Having only the full interchange on the Auburn side of the river does not avoid the chokepoint of traffic up in Auburn proper where Highways 136 and 4 converge within the tangle of neighborhood arterials. Rush hour traffic there is now nearly grid lock, so adding flow from an additional interchange will make matters only worse. On the Lewiston side, Lincoln Street/River Road is a cleaner shot up from the turnpike, and is a bona fide business arterial to boot. But, neglecting Auburn's need for an interchange on their side of the river is probably not feasible politically, especially since it's so close to Exit 80. However, the resulting dual access along the river from a Strategy 5 should encourage development southwards for both cities. So, Strategy 5 seems to be both a good compromise and solution. Thank you. David Norburg Chief Marketing Officer Voice: (207) 784-9164 Fax: (207) 786-4782 Email #2: Hello. My name is Karl Lalemand. I can't make tonight's meeting, but do have some thoughts on it. My thoughts on the "New Auburn" Turnpike exchange is South Main Street. • It seems like the most land available for this project. • Looks like it would be the easiest and least expensive way out. It's flat, and shouldn't cost much, or take as long to build. • Fewest number of homes involved if they had to be dealt with for this project • Greatest area available for development. With all of the current hype saying that malls and stuff, do better near an exchange, this has the most open space available. • Yes, me and my family live near here, and I still would like to have it here. yes any of the Auburn locations work fine for us, but for future growth… • Now if on the other hand, your not looking for future growth, then #136 is the answer… there's no land or not much land there. • A Lewiston exit ONLY makes sense to me, if it's going to make life easier for the folks in the area of the new (Whenever it comes) Wal-Mart warehouse. If this would keep traffic from the homes in this area, then I say Lewiston… but if this isn't going to be the issue, then we're back to Auburn 71

Strategies 5 & 5A Comment Summary
Wal-Mart is missing the boat. A turnpike exit should be provided for trucks. Exit 13 is not designed for purposes of heavy truck traffic. Get trucks out of Exit 13!!!! Trucks should be required to use new Interchange at River Road. Location of Route 136 interchange makes the trip to Downtown longer. Volumes should take into account Wal-Mart. Vickery Road should not be impacted Positive comments about Strategies 5 and 5A because it will help to relieve Wal-Mart traffic. The group questioned the users of an interchange at Route 136. It was suggested that an alternative that comprises of a new interchange between Route 136 and South Main Street with a new connector road to downtown Auburn be considered. Route 136 does not help traffic at Exit 80. Strategies 5 and 5A are the best. Increased traffic on South Bridge may be problematic. Flooding of the Androscoggin is an issue and should be considered. Strategy 5A is very expensive. If there are no problems on the Auburn side, then why do it. You can fix traffic problems at Exit 12 without building a new interchange. Would like to see full access at River Road because of Exit 80 traffic problems. The new bridge should be located south of the Maine Turnpike and connect to Cottage Road. Having a bridge north of the Turnpike leads to traffic congestions. Two emails were received at ATRC by members of the public unable to attend the meeting. These emails follow. Email #1: Don, Jennifer, As a daily user of the Exit 75 (12) and Exit 80 (13) interchanges, I appreciate the opportunity to wade in on this discussion. My vote is for Strategy 5.

March 2005 Final Report

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
LEWISTON-AUBURN DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR/TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC MEETING Meeting Notes Tuesday, October 5, 2004 7:00 PM Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) Auburn, Maine
Participants Present: Conrad Welzel (Maine Turnpike Authority), Dan Stewart (Maine Turnpike Authority), Duane Scott (MaineDOT), Mike Morgan (MaineDOT), Ray Faucher (MaineDOT), John Perry (FHWA), Robert Belz (City of Auburn) ATRC Policy Committee: Robert Thompson (AVCOG) Staff: Don Craig (ATRC), Jennifer Williams (ATRC), Bruce Hyman (Wilbur Smith Associates), Tom Errico (Wilbur Smith Associates) Public Present: Darlene Harris (841 Riverside Drive, Auburn), Debbie Pelletier (Riverside Drive, Auburn), Larry Roberts (Louis Berger Group), Real Roy (Lisbon), Mark Schlotterbeck (59 Sabattus Street, Lewiston), Tina Gilbert (66 Constellation Drive, Auburn), Dot Treadwell (Lewiston), Robert Cavanagh (127 Field Avenue, Auburn)

• I believe more people currently live in and or around the South Main Street area. I also believe that area has the most likelihood of growth, which would make it the best location as well. More homes built, more promoting LA as a Great Live-in community within easy commute to Portland and Augusta. • Now a plan, that takes longer, and in fact, gets the Turnpike within seeing distance of the Auburn Mall area, would be the best of both worlds. Another exchange, and one near the center of development. I guess it could be the in-town exchange. The ONLY real benefit is to get folks closer to the Malls without having to drive through town. Of course some won't like that, as this will take away some customers. Now is that area built up enough for this type of exchange… no. Might it get bigger if there was an exchange there… yes. Is this what we need… can't answer that. If an exchange can't be built that brings traffic around or by the Auburn Mall area, then the South Main Street exit seems to make the most sense to me. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Karl Lalemand Home address. 49 Fulton Street Auburn, Maine 04210

1. Introductions and Status of Project – Don Craig 2. Study Objectives/Evaluation Matrix – Bruce Hyman Bruce reviewed the information contained in the evaluation matrix. Generally, he discussed the content and expectation. He also presented the condensed version (+/-). Bruce reviewed each strategy and noted that maps are available on ATRC’s website. 3. Public Questions and Comment It was asked whether upgrades to the downtown’s from the new interchange will be necessary. Bruce noted that upgrades will be required and determined in future studies. It was suggested that a strategy with only a new river bridge should be considered. Someone noted that the local newspaper indicated that the South Main Street Strategy has been eliminated. It was clarified that it has not been eliminated. Someone noted that in their opinion Strategies 1 and 5 are the best. Someone expressed concern about the impact to Lincoln Street. It was noted that these impacts would be evaluated in future studies.

March 2005 Final Report

72

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
Other Public Comments December 4, 2004 To Don Craig, ATRC Director, I am writing to express my concern over a proposed Lewiston-Auburn Downtown Connector on Route 136. I do not believe that it would give motorists an easy way to get into Lewiston and Auburn, and I think that it would cause greater congestion on Route 136. I have read the website concerning this proposed connector and I have also read the study that was distributed at the October 25th meeting. With over 8,000 cars currently traveling on Rt 136 daily (I derived that number from the last tally your office did years ago plus the projected increase in traffic that I found on another page of your website), I don't see how a SINGLE LANE road can handle any more traffic. The Auburn exit dumps cars out onto a TWO LANE road that only 1,000 more cars travel on each day. How can a one-lane road solve your "congestion" problems? There are numerous bus stops on Rt. 136. There are none around the Auburn and Lewiston exits. Our children will be in great danger with an increase in traffic, and traffic will slow down tremendously when buses travel Rt 136 in the mornings and afternoons, the busiest commuting times too. As a former teacher in Auburn, I feel that your feasibility study was greatly flawed in that it did not address this issue. I would encourage your office to contact the school department to see exactly how school bus stopages would affect the feasibility of your proposal. I live a mile off of Rt 136. The areas that you are proposing to build your connector are agriculturally zoned. I did not move to an agriculturally-zoned area to have a freeway exit in my backyard. Auburn does not have much open natural space left, and you are trying to take more of it away with a connector. Have you ever traveled into Auburn or Lewiston on Rt 136? I do it daily. If I plan on going into Lewiston, I have to stop at a stop sign and wait for the endless traffic to stop so that I can cross the bridge into Lewiston. If I plan on going into Auburn, I have to wait at two long lights, one at Norm's Quik Stop and one at Rolly's Diner, to get into town. These areas are already packed at all times of the day, and your proposal will just increase traffic in there. Just because the government will help fund the majority of this projected connector, doesn't mean that it has to be built. We have not reached the critical threshold at either the Lewiston or Auburn exits, and we won't for at least another 15-20 years. A connector on 136 won't make entering the L/A area any easier - it will only cause more problems for the residents of New Auburn. I expect that since this project is only in its initial stages, many more public meetings will be held and the public will be notified accordingly. There were a lot of dissenting voices at the October 25th meeting. I hope that you have heard them loud and clear. Thank you for your time. I expect that you will follow through with a call to the Auburn school department to check on the number of school bus stops along Rt 136 and the times of day that these occur; this should March 2005 Final Report 73 be added to your feasibility study. I will be checking your website to see that our children's welfare will be taken into account. If necessary, I am prepared to go door-to-door with a petition concerning an exit onto Rt 136. Sincerely, Diana Iwaszkiewicz Carson 110 Jacques Rd. Auburn

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix – A7 Detailed Evaluation Matrix
Detailed Evaluation Matrix: Introduction & Purpose The Matrix is formatted to present the nine interchange strategies under consideration by the study at this time and they are arrayed across the top row (No Build, Strategy #1, Strategy #2, etc). The Objectives and Criteria against which the strategies are being evaluated are in the leftmost column in five major groupings: 1) Transportation, 2) Land Use, 3) Socio-Economic Development, 4) Natural Environment, and 5) Cost. Transportation. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Transportation. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Total New Interchange Usage – This presents the total daily traffic volume projected to use the proposed interchange strategies in the year 2025. Improves Access to Downtown Lewiston or Auburn From the Maine Turnpike – This evaluates how each proposed interchange strategy increases traffic usage at each interchange and into the downtown’s. Reduces Traffic Congestion in Lewiston or Auburn – This evaluates the anticipated improvement or worsening of congestion at a select number of intersections in the study area. Potential to Improve Safety at High Crash Locations – This evaluates the anticipated improvement or worsening of accident history at existing High Crash Locations in the study area. Improves Truck Traffic Flow/Circulation – This evaluates how each strategy reduces truck traffic in neighborhoods and improves truck routings. Compatibility with New/Enhanced Bridge Crossings – This evaluates the level of roadway connectivity from proposed interchange strategies and traffic levels on a proposed bridge. Level of Potential Upgrade Needs – This reviews the need to upgrade existing roadway facilities as a result of constructing a new interchange. Compatibility with Bicycle-Pedestrian Plans and Opportunities – This evaluates how each strategy improves bicycle-pedestrian connectivity and their relationship with existing regional bicycle routes. Improves Emergency Access to the Maine Turnpike – This evaluates each strategy with respect to existing public safety facilities and improved access to the Maine Turnpike. Improves Local Traffic Connectivity – This evaluates improved local connections between Lewiston and Auburn and within each of those communities. Improves Regional Traffic Connectivity – This evaluates how each strategy enhances regional connectivity. Improves Access to/Enhances Opportunities for Alternative Modes – This evaluates the opportunity for park and ride enhancements and the quality of destinations for transit service. Construction Issues – This reviewed issues like site conditions and likelihood of permitting. Adherence to Design Issues – This evaluates interchange spacing and weaving criteria. Land Use. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Land Use. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Compatibility with Lewiston or Auburn Comprehensive Plans – This evaluates how compatible the strategy is with goals and objectives as stated in adopted municipal comprehensive plans. The Lewiston and Auburn Comprehensive Plans were reviewed. Potential for Farmland Impacts – This evaluates the potential impacts of the strategies in terms of soil suitability (are there prime or significant farmland soils in the vicinity), agricultural zoning (is land in the vicinity zoned for agricultural uses), and proximity to active farmland (are there active farms in the vicinity and what are the principal current land uses). Information is derived from a windshield survey of the area and county level digital soil data from the Soil Conservation Service. Potential for Parks and Recreation Land Impacts – This evaluates the potential for impacts to public or private park or recreation lands in the vicinity of the interchange strategies. Information is derived from review of Comprehensive Plans, digital data of conservation lands and review of USGS maps. Potential for Direct Residential Impacts – This evaluates the potential for direct impacts to residences in the immediate vicinity of where an interchange may be located. Information is derived from review of aerial photographs and windshield survey of the study area. Potential for Direct Business Impacts – This evaluates the potential for direct impacts to businesses in the immediate vicinity of where an interchange may be located. Information is derived from review of aerial photographs and windshield survey of the study area. Socio-Economic. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to Socio-Economic Development. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Enhances Economic Development in Downtown Lewiston or Auburn, or in areas Outside of the Downtowns in each Community near the Interchange Locations – This is based upon two criteria: the level of traffic that uses the proposed interchange that is destined to or originates from the downtowns or districts outside the downtowns; and, the relative improvement in connectivity to the district and the ‘desirability’ of the route (desirability is rated by how direct the route is and how compatible the roadway and adjacent land uses are for an increase in automobile and truck traffic). Minimizes Potential for Historic/Cultural Impacts – This evaluates the proximity of historic and cultural resources (cemeteries, historic buildings, churches, etc) to the general vicinity of the interchange strategies. Information is derived from the windshield survey of the study area, review of USGS maps, and review of National Register listings from the National Park Service. Potential for Neighborhood Impacts/Benefits – This evaluates the potential indirect impacts or benefits to a neighborhood. If additional traffic will be directed to a neighborhood area or an already congested area, this was deemed a negative impact. If a strategy removed traffic from a congested area, it was deemed more positive. The information is derived from a windshield survey of the area.

March 2005 Final Report

74

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study
Natural Environment. The interchange strategies were evaluated with regard to their potential benefits and impact relative to the Natural Environment. The strategies were evaluated based upon the following objectives and criteria. Minimizes Potential for Wetlands Impacts – This criteria evaluates the relative order of magnitude of wetlands and its functionality in the immediate vicinity of a potential interchange location. Wetlands inventoried were from the National Wetlands Inventory. Potential wetland functionality was determined based upon the ‘Beginning with Habitat’ assessment of wetland functions developed by the State Planning Office. Minimizes Potential for Stream/Waterbody Impacts – This evaluates the proximity of the interchange strategies to USGS ponds, streams, lakes and rivers as contained in digital data from the Maine Office of GIS. Minimizes Potential for Habitat Impacts – This criteria evaluates the relative order of magnitude and quality of wildlife habitat in the immediate vicinity of a potential interchange strategy according to the ‘Beginning with Wildlife’ methodology of the State Planning Office. (See http://www.beginningwithhabitat.org/ for more information on this methodology.) Project Cost. These criteria evaluate a strategy by its order of magnitude cost and benefit-cost ratio. Order of Magnitude Project Cost – An estimate of project costs. Benefit-Cost Analysis – A comparison of time value and operating cost benefit compared to project costs. Guide to Objectives, the Criteria the Ratings, and the Documentation The Objectives, Criteria and Documentation The Objectives are primarily derived from the Draft Purpose and Need Statement. They are Objectives that the project seeks to further or advance (“Reduce Congestion” or “Improve Safety”) or desirable qualities of an Interchange Strategy (“Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan” or “Minimize Potential Impacts to Farmland”). Each Objective is rated using the +5 to -5 scale. The Criteria (in italics in the table under each Objective) provide information for how the ratings for the Objectives were derived. For instance, for the first Objective, “Improves Access to Downtown Lewiston to/from the Turnpike”, the Criteria is “Relative Interchange Usage (# & % Total)”. This criterion uses the Origin and Destination data presented at the January 27, 2004 meeting to rate the number of vehicles that use the new interchange to get to or from the Lewiston Downtown. The documentation for this criterion lists the number of vehicles per day for this interchange strategy and the percentage of total interchange usage originating from or destined to the Lewiston Downtown. For several of the criteria, (+) and (-) have been added to identify whether factors or issues are positive (+) or negative (-) with respective to a criterion. The Rating Scale The ratings are based on a scale of +5 to -5. The possible ratings for an Objective are: +5, Strong Positive relative to the Objective, +3, Moderate Positive relative to the Objective, +1, Weak Positive relative to the Objective, 0, Neutral or No Change expected relative to the Objective, -1, Weak Negative relative to the Objective, -3, Moderate Negative relative to the Objective, -5, Strong Negative relative to the Objective, n/a if the objective doesn’t apply to the strategy, No/None for the No Build Strategy only. It is very important to note that the ratings for each objective, while numerical (+5 to -5), should not be summed or added together to create a ‘total score’ for a strategy.

March 2005 Final Report

75

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build

Table A4
3. So. Main Street 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo. 5. Route 136 / Half River Road 1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge

March 2005 2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge 5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge

1. River Road

2. Route 136

TRANSPORTATION
Total New Interchange Usage
Total Interchange Daily Usage

n/a n/a

+3
18,750 veh./day

+1
8200 veh./day

+1
6500 veh./day

+1
5550 veh./day

+5
27,200 veh./day

+3
18,300 veh./day

+1
8550 veh./day

+5
27,100 veh./day

Improves Access to Downtown Lewiston to/from Turnpike
Relative Interchange Usage (# & % of total)

No
n/a

+3
3200 veh./day 17% of new I/C usage

+3
3100 veh./day 38% of new I/C usage

+1
2200 veh./day 34% of new I/C usage

+1
2275 veh./day 41% of new I/C usage

+5
4080 veh./day 15% of new I/C usage

+3
3100 veh./day 17% of new I/C usage

+3
2575 veh./day 30% of new I/C usage

+5
4060 veh./day 15% of new I/C usage

Improves Access to Downtown Auburn to/from Turnpike
Relative Interchange Usage (# & % of total)

No
n/a

0
<200 veh./day 1% of new I/C usage

+1
575 veh./day 7% of new I/C usage

+1
390 veh./day 6% of new I/C usage

+1
390 veh./day 7% of new I/C usage

+5
820 veh./day 3% of new I/C usage

+3
730 veh./day 4% of new I/C usage

+1
430 veh./day 5% of new I/C usage

+5
815 veh./day 3% of new I/C usage

Reduces Traffic Congestion in Auburn
Magnitude of Change (total entering vehicles) in Key Intersection Volumes

No
(worsens) n/a

+3
6 locations improve 2 locations worsen

+1
5 locations improve 3 locations worsen

-1
3 locations improve 5 locations worsen

+3
6 locations improve 2 locations worsen

+3
6 locations improve 2 locations worsen

+5
7 locations improve 1 locations worsen

0
4 locations improve 4 locations worsen

+1
5 locations improve 3 locations worsen

Reduces Traffic Congestion in Lewiston
Magnitude of Change (total entering vehicles) in Key Intersection Volumes

No
(worsens) n/a

+5
7 locations improve 3 locations worsen

+3
6 locations improve 4 locations worsen

0
5 locations improve 5 locations worsen

0
5 locations improve 5 locations worsen

+5
7 locations improve 3 locations worsen

+5
7 locations improve 3 locations worsen

+5
7 locations improve 2 locations worsen 1 no change

+5
7 locations improve 3 locations worsen

Potential to Improve Safety at High Crash Locations
Decreases (+)/Increases (-) Traffic (>1000) at HCL

No
(worsens) n/a

+3
6 HCL improve 5 HCL worsen

+3
7 HCL improve 5 HCL worsen

+1
4 HCL improve 2 HCL worsen

0
1 HCL improves 1 HCL worsens

+3
7 HCL improve 4 HCL worsen

+3
7 HCL improve 4 HCL worsen

+1
5 HCL improve 3 HCL worsen

+5
8 HCL improve 3 HCL worsen

Improves Truck Traffic Flow/Circulation
Reduces Trucks in Neighborhoods

No
n/a

+3
Trucks may use Lincoln Street to downtown rather than Lisbon Street

+3
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 connection to Turnpike

-3
Directs new Interchange truck traffic into/thru So. Main Street/New Auburn neighborhood

+1
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 Possible trucks thru neighborhood

+3
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 connection to Turnpike

+3
Trucks may use Lincoln Street to downtown rather than Lisbon Street Little additional benefit due to bridge

+3
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 Little additional benefit due to bridge

+5
Some regional truck traffic removed from New Auburn/So. Bridge via Rt. 136 Little additional benefit due to bridge

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

76

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Provides Improved Truck n/a
Routing

Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Geometric issues with So. Main Street

March 2005 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo.
Possibly less direct than Strategy 2

1. River Road
Possible alternate route to Exit 80 to access Lisbon Street

2. Route 136
Trucks can avoid So. Bridge/Longley Bridge to access Lewiston and Turnpike

5. Route 136 / Half River Road
Creates ‘fourth bridge’ in LewistonAuburn Efficient routing to Lewiston industrial area

1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
Possible alternate route to Exit 80 to Lisbon Street

2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge
Trucks can avoid So. Bridge/Longley Bridge to Lewiston and Turnpike

5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
Trucks can avoid So. Bridge/Longley Bridge to Lewiston and Turnpike Possible alternate route to Exit 80 to Lisbon Street Creates ‘fourth and fifth bridge’ in Lewiston-Auburn

Compatibility with New/Enhanced Bridge Crossings
Level of New Bridge Usage Level of /Directness of Connectivity to New Bridge

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

+3
5750 veh./day Direct connection to bridge via Lincoln Street Moderate connectivity

+3
6500 veh./day Higher connectivity to new bridge Direct connection Creates new bridge crossing with Exit 80 via Turnpike

+1
3650 veh./day See Strategy 1A and 2A descriptions Lower new bridge use due to access provided via Rt 136 & River Rd/Turnpike

Level of Potential Roadway Upgrade Needs (Interchange
Location to So. Bridge) Potential Impacts (Assumes 12’ travel lanes and 5’ shoulders; Intersections)

n/a

+1
Potential intersection issues at Goddard/ River and Lincoln/ South Ave

+3
Potential roadway issues at Route 136/ Vickery Rd (on-street parking)

-3
Horizontal and vertical curves On-street parking Reconstruction

-1
Assumes less intensive improvements needed at So. Main ( so easier)

+1
Potential roadway issues at Route 136/ Vickery Rd (on-street parking) Potential intersection issues at Goddard/ River and Lincoln/ South Ave

+1
Potential intersection issues at Goddard/ River and Lincoln/ South Ave

+3
Potential roadway issues at Route 136/ Vickery Rd (on-street parking)

+1
Potential roadway issues at Route 136/ Vickery Rd (on-street parking) Potential intersection issues at Goddard/ River and Lincoln/ South Ave

n/a

Compatibility with/Enhances BicyclePedestrian Plans & Opportunities
Relationship with Regional Bike Routes Improves Bicycle-Pedestrian Connectivity

n/a
n/a n/a

+3
Lincoln St regional routes No improved connectivity Accompanying improvements likely enhance Lincoln St

+3
Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136

+1
Not on regional routes No improved connectivity Accompanying improvements likely enhance So. Main St

+3
Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136

+5
Lincoln St &Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136 and Lincoln St

+3
Route 136 on regional bike route New bridge provides regional and local connectivity Accompanying improvements likely enhance Lincoln St

+5
Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136 New bridge provides regional and local connectivity

+5
Route 136 on regional bike route Accompanying improvements likely enhance Route 136 and Lincoln St New bridge provides regional and local connectivity

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

77

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Improves Emergency Access to Maine No Turnpike Proximity to Public Safety n/a
Facilities

Table A4
3. So. Main Street 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo. 5. Route 136 / Half River Road 1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge

March 2005 2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge 5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge

1. River Road

2. Route 136

+1
Marginal improvement via Lisbon Street facility Adds to existing Turnpike access options(+)

+3
Improved access via So. Main Street facility Interchange provides emergency response connection/ redundancy via Route 136 Creates ‘fourth bridge’

+5
Improved, direct access via So. Main Street facility Moderate level of quality connections provided (less accessible ‘fourth bridge’)

+5
Improved, direct access via So. Main Street facility Interchange provides emergency response connection/ redundancy

+5
Improved access via So. Main Street facility Lisbon Street Interchanges provide emergency response connection/ redundancy

+3
Lisbon Street closest

+5
Improved access via So. Main Street facility Bridge provides emergency response connection

+5
Improved access via So. Main Street facility Lisbon Street Bridge provides emergency response connection Interchange provides emergency response connection/ redundancy

Redundancy of Connections Created

n/a

Bridge provides emergency response connection

Improves Local Traffic Connectivity
Level of Local Activity (Housing and Jobs) (Higher level of activity is better (+) from a Local Connectivity basis) Level of Local Connectivity Provided

No
n/a

+3
Moderate intensity industrial/commercial

+3
Low intensity residential/farm

+1
Low intensity residential/golf

+3
Low intensity residential/farm/golf

+5
Moderate intensity industrial/commercial (Lewiston) Low intensity residential/farm (Auburn) High connectivity with Route 136-River Rd

+3
Moderate intensity industrial/commercial

+5
Low intensity residential/farm (Auburn) Moderate intensity industrial/commercial (Lewiston) Moderate connectivity with Route 136-Exit 80 Moderate connectivity via new bridge

+5
Low intensity residential/farm (Auburn) Moderate intensity industrial/commercial (Lewiston) Moderate connectivity with Route 136-Exit 80 Moderate via new bridge Moderate relief/ connectivity with Exit 80-River Rd

n/a

Moderate relief/ connectivity with Exit 80-River Rd

Moderate connectivity with Route 136-Exit 80

Low connectivity with So. Main St-Exit 80

Moderate connectivity with Route 136-Exit 80

Moderate connectivity via new bridge Moderate relief/ connectivity with Exit 80-River Rd

Improves Regional Traffic Connectivity
Enhances Regional Movements/Connectivity

No
n/a

+1
Marginal improvement only due to Exit 80 proximity

+5
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Turnpike (+) Allows regional movements to Lewiston (+)

+1
Low connectivity to State Highway Network (-) Connection to Maine Turnpike (+)

+3
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Turnpike (+) Possibly less direct (-) Allows regional movements to Lewiston via Turnpike (+)

+5
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Turnpike (+) Allows multiple regional movements to Lewiston (+)

+3
Marginal improvement only due to Exit 80 proximity Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Lewiston via new bridge (+)

+5
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Lewiston via Turnpike and new bridge (+) Allows multiple regional movements to Lewiston (+)

+5
Connects State Highway (Route 136) to Lewiston via Turnpike and new bridge (+) Allows multiple regional movements to Lewiston (+)

Improves Access to/ Enhances Opportunities for Alternative Modes

No

+1
(all fairly weak)

+1
(all fairly weak)

+1
(all fairly weak)

+1
(all fairly weak)

+1
(all fairly weak)

+1
(all fairly weak)

+1
(all fairly weak)

+1
(all fairly weak)

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

78

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Opportunity for Park and n/a
Ride; Quality of Destination for Transit Service

Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Good opportunity for Park and Ride(+) More of a destination for Transit (+)

March 2005 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo.
Good opportunity for Park and Ride(+) Less of a destination for Transit (-)

1. River Road
Less opportunity for Park and Ride (-) More of a destination for Transit (+)

2. Route 136
Good opportunity for Park and Ride(+) Less of a destination for Transit (-)

5. Route 136 / Half River Road
Opportunity for Park and Ride at Route 136(+) More of a destination for Transit at River Rd (+)

1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
Less opportunity for Park and Ride (-) More of a destination for Transit (+)

2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge
Opportunity for Park and Ride at Route 136(+) Less of a destination for Transit (-)

5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
Opportunity for Park and Ride at Route 136(+) More of a destination for Transit at River Rd (+)

Construction Issues **
Site Conditions

**Numerical rating not made due to feasibility level screening focus of this study. Gravel pit Poor topography Generally good site Generally good site n/a
Stream Topography issues Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to River Rd interchange location Moderate level of permitting anticipated Potential site distance issues on Route 136 Some residences in close proximity conditions Some residences in close proximity

Level of Likely Permitting Required

n/a

Lower level of permitting anticipated

Lower level of permitting anticipated

conditions Bridge over Turnpike needed Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to interchange location Lower level of permitting anticipated

Poor topography at Route 136 Potential site distance issues on Route 136 Half interchange at River Rd reduces site issues Moderate level of permitting anticipated

Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to River Rd interchange location and new bridge

New bridge likely to require higher permitting effort Potential wetland/ waterbody impact with new bridge

Poor topography near Route 136 Potential site distance issues on Route 136 Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to interchange and bridge New bridge likely to require higher permitting effort Potential wetland/ waterbody impact with new bridge

Poor topography near Route 136 Potential site distance issues on Route 136 Wetlands and waterbodies in proximity to interchange and bridge New bridge likely to require higher permitting effort Potential wetland/ waterbody impact with new bridge

Adherence to Design Standards
Interchange Spacing/ Weaving

n/a
n/a

+1
Possible weaving issues with close proximity to Exit 80 and full interchange Difficulty improving River Rd to accommodate likely turn lanes

+5
No interchange spacing issues

+5
No interchange spacing issues

+5
No interchange spacing issues

+3
Less weaving issues due to half interchange at River Road Difficulty improving River Rd to accommodate likely turn lanes Potential interchange spacing issues between River Road and Route 136

+1
Possible weaving issues at River Rd with close proximity to Exit 80 and full interchange Difficulty improving River Rd to accommodate likely turn lanes

+5
No interchange spacing issues

+3
Less weaving issues due to half interchange at River Road Difficulty improving River Rd to accommodate likely turn lanes Potential interchange spacing issues between River Road and Route 136

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

79

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build

Table A4
3. So. Main Street 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo. 5. Route 136 / Half River Road 1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge

March 2005 2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge 5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge

1. River Road

2. Route 136

LAND USE
Compatibility with Auburn Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Plans
Primary relevant elements

n/a n/a

n/a n/a

+3
Future Land Use map calls for AG/RP & LDR (-) ; Likely pressure for nonAG/RP devel. (-) “.. consider a new Turnpike exit..” (+) “Cluster commercial growth around existing….” (-) “...evaluations of potential new..exits and connectors.” (+) “Maintain rural nature of outlying areas” (-) Avoids major natural resources (+) “If a Tpk exit or connector [built], consider other areas for I/C develop. … [incl.] south of the Turnpike and west of Riverside..” (+)

-1
“Protect residential neighborhoods from inappropriate traffic.” (-) Future Land Use Map calls for industrial development near So. Main St/Turnpike “…evaluations of potential new..exits and connectors.” (+) “Maintain rural nature of outlying areas” (-) Avoids major natural resources (+)

-1
See Strategy 2 & 3

+3
See Strategy 2 Related to River Rd: “Improve the downtown gateways and corridors” (+) “Promote the conversion of Lincoln St. as an entrance to the Downtown and especially .. the Maine Turnpike” (+) Urban Enterprise and Industrial zoning (+)

+1
New Bridge: Auburn: Likely in vicinity of Medium/High Density & Commercial Area in Future Land Use Map Lewiston: Urban Enterprise Related to River Rd: “Improve the downtown gateways and corridors” (+) “Promote the conversion of Lincoln St. as an entrance to the Downtown and especially .. the Maine Turnpike” (+) Urban Enterprise and Industrial zoning (+)

+3
See Strategy 2 New Bridge: Auburn: Likely in vicinity of Medium/High Density & Commercial Area in Future Land Use Map Lewiston: Urban Enterprise

+3
See Strategy 2 New Bridge: Auburn: Likely in vicinity of Medium/High Density & Commercial Area in Future Land Use Map Lewiston: Urban Enterprise Related to River Rd: “Improve the downtown gateways and corridors” (+) “Promote the conversion of Lincoln St. as an entrance to the Downtown and especially .. the Maine Turnpike” (+) Urban Enterprise and Industrial zoning (+)

Compatibility with Lewiston Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Plans

n/a

+3

n/a

n/a

n/a

+3

+3

+1

+3

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

80

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Primary relevant elements n/a

Table A4
3. So. Main Street n/a 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo. n/a 5. Route 136 / Half River Road
See Strategy 1 Related to Route 136: Future Land Use map calls for AG/RP & LDR (-) ; Likely pressure for nonAG/RP devel. (-) “.. consider a new Turnpike exit..” (+) “Cluster commercial growth around existing….” (-) “...evaluations of potential new..exits and connectors.” (+) “Maintain rural nature of outlying areas” (-) Avoids major natural resources (+) “If a Tpk exit or connector [built], consider other areas for I/C develop. … [incl.] south of the Turnpike and west of Riverside..” (+)

March 2005 1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
See Strategy 1 New Bridge: Auburn: Likely in vicinity of Medium/High Density & Commercial Area in Future Land Use Map Lewiston: Urban Enterprise

1. River Road

2. Route 136 n/a

2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge
Related to Route 136: Future Land Use map calls for AG/RP & LDR (-) ; Likely pressure for nonAG/RP devel. (-) “.. consider a new Turnpike exit..” (+) “Cluster commercial growth around existing….” (-) “...evaluations of potential new..exits and connectors.” (+) “Maintain rural nature of outlying areas” (-) Avoids major natural resources (+) “If a Tpk exit or connector [built], consider other areas for I/C develop. … [incl.] south of the Turnpike and west of Riverside..” (+) New Bridge: Auburn: Likely in vicinity of Medium/High Density & Commercial Area in Future Land Use Map Lewiston: Urban Enterprise

5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
See Strategy 1 New Bridge: Auburn: Likely in vicinity of Medium/High Density & Commercial Area in Future Land Use Map Lewiston: Urban Enterprise Related to Route 136: Future Land Use map calls for AG/RP & LDR (-) ; Likely pressure for nonAG/RP devel. (-) “.. consider a new Turnpike exit..” (+) “Cluster commercial growth around existing….” (-) “...evaluations of potential new..exits and connectors.” (+) “Maintain rural nature of outlying areas” (-) Avoids major natural resources (+) “If a Tpk exit or connector [built], consider other areas for I/C develop. … [incl.] south of the Turnpike and west of Riverside..” (+)

“Improve the downtown gateways and corridors” (+) “Promote the conversion of Lincoln St. as an entrance to the Downtown and especially .. the Maine Turnpike” (+) Urban Enterprise and Industrial zoning (+)

Potential For Farmland Impacts
Soil Suitability

n/a n/a

+1
Prime/Significant farmland soils in immed vicinity None zoned AG in immed. vicinity

-1
Lesser amounts of Prime/Significant soils in immed. vicinity Immed. area zoned AG/RP

-3
Prime/Significant farmland soils in immed vicinity Immed. area zoned AG/RP

-3
Prime/Significant farmland soils in immed vicinity Immed. area zoned AG/RP

+1
See Strategy 1 & 2 See Strategy 1 & 2

+1
See Strategy 1

-1
See Strategy 2

-1
See Strategy 1 & 2

Zoned Farmland(/Resource Protection)

n/a

See Strategy 1

See Strategy 2

See Strategy 1 & 2

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

81

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Proximity to Active n/a
Farmland

Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Active farmland in immediate vicinity Principally Residential, Golf Course & Farm uses

March 2005 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo.
Active farmland in immediate vicinity Principally Residential, Golf Course & Farm uses

1. River Road
No active farmland in immediate vicinity Principally Industrial & Commercial uses

2. Route 136
Active farmland in immediate vicinity Principally Residential and Farm uses

5. Route 136 / Half River Road
No active farmland in immediate vicinity (Lewiston) Active farmland in immediate vicinity (Auburn) Principally Industrial & Commercial uses (Lewiston) Principally Residential and Farm uses (Auburn)

1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
No active farmland in immediate vicinity (Lewiston)

2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge
Active farmland in immediate vicinity (Auburn)

5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
Active farmland in immediate vicinity (Auburn) No active farmland in immediate vicinity (Lewiston)

Potential for Parks and Recreation Land Impacts Potential for Direct Residential Impacts
Number of Residences in Immediate Area

n/a

+5 +3
Small subdivision near likely ramp location (noise only)

+3 +1
Few residences

0
(Potential Golf Course Impacts)

0
(Potential Golf Course Impacts)

+3 +3
Few residences at Route 136 Small subdivision near likely ramp location at River Rd (noise only)

+5 +3
Small subdivision near likely ramp location at River Rd (noise only) No impacts expected near new bridge

+3 +3
Few residences at Route 136 No impacts expected near new bridge

+3 +3
Few residences at Route 136 Small subdivision near likely ramp location at River Rd (noise only) No impacts expected near new bridge

n/a
n/a

-3
Residences near likely ramp locations

-3
Residences near likely ramp locations at So. Main St

Potential for Direct Business Impacts Number of Businesses in Immediate Area

n/a
n/a

-1
City-owned gravel pit at/near interchange

-1
Potential active farm impacts

-1
Potential business impacts

-1
Potential active farm impacts at Route 136 Potential business impacts at So. Main

-1
Potential active farm impacts at Route 136 City-owned gravel pit at/near interchange at River Rd

-1
City-owned gravel pit at/near interchange at River Rd Little/no impacts expected by bridge

-1
Potential active farm impacts at Route 136 Little/no impacts expected by bridge

-1
Potential active farm impacts at Route 136 City-owned gravel pit at/near interchange at River Rd Little/no impacts expected by bridge

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Enhances Economic Development in Downtown Auburn
Level of I/C usage to Auburn Downtown

No
n/a

+1
<200 veh./day (low usage) 1% of new I/C usage

+3
575 veh./day (moderate usage) 7% of new I/C usage

-1
390 veh./day (moderate usage) 6% of new I/C usage

+1
390 veh./day (moderate usage) 7% of new I/C usage

+5
820 veh./day (moderate usage) 3% of new I/C usage

+3
730 veh./day (high usage) 4% of new I/C usage

+3
430 veh./day (moderate usage) 5% of new I/C usage

+5
815 veh./day (high usage) 3% of new I/C usage

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

82

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Downtown Network n/a
Connectivity/ Desirability of Route to Downtown

Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Moderate connectivity to Auburn downtown Low route desirability (-)

March 2005 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo.
Moderate connectivity to Auburn downtown Less direct route via Route 136 (-)

1. River Road
Low connectivity to Auburn downtown Low route desirability (-)

2. Route 136
Alternative to Exit 75 to access downtown (+) Route 136 could be enhanced to be preferred gateway to downtown (+)

5. Route 136 / Half River Road
Moderate connectivity to Auburn downtown via Route 136 Route 136 could be preferred gateway to Auburn downtown (+)

1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
Moderate connectivity from Lewiston to Auburn downtown via new bridge

2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge
Alternative to Exit 75 Route 136 could be preferred gateway to downtown (+) Moderate connectivity from Lewiston to Auburn downtown via new bridge

5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
Alternative to Exit 75 Route 136 could be preferred gateway to downtown (+) Moderate connectivity from Lewiston to Auburn downtown via new bridge

Enhances Economic Development in Downtown Lewiston
Level of I/C usage to Lewiston Downtown Downtown Network Connectivity/ Desirability of Route to Downtown

No
n/a n/a

+3
3200 veh./day (high usage) 17% of new I/C usage Moderate benefits Close to Exit 80 (-)

+3
3100 veh./day (high usage) 38% of new I/C usage Moderate new connectivity

0
2200 veh./day (moderate usage) 34% of new I/C usage Low desirability of route via So. Main St (-)

+1
2275 veh./day (moderate usage) 41% of new I/C usage Low desirability of route via So. Main St (-) Likely less direct via Route 136 than Strategy 2 (-)

+5
4080 veh./day (high usage) 15% of new I/C usage Moderate new connectivity to downtown

+5
3100 veh./day (high usage) 17% of new I/C usage Moderate new connectivity to downtown New bridge provides potential relief to existing bridges (+)

+3
2575 veh./day (moderate usage) 30% of new I/C usage Moderate new connectivity to downtown New bridge provides potential relief to existing bridges (+)

+5
4060 veh./day (high usage) 15% of new I/C usage Higher connectivity to downtown New bridge provides potential relief to existing bridges (+)

Enhances Economic Development Outside of Auburn Downtown
Level of I/C usage to Auburn, Outside Downtown New Network Connectivity/ Desirability of Route to Area

No
n/a n/a

0
< 100 veh./day (low) Low new connectivity (-) Low desirability of route to Auburn (-)

+5
900 veh./day (high) High level of connectivity to area (+) New access from Lewiston via Exit 80 and Turnpike

+1
440 veh./day (mid) Low connectivity to state highway system (-) Moderate connectivity to areas for new development

+3
675 veh./day (mid) Moderate new connectivity

+5
1100 veh./day (high) Moderate new connectivity New access from Lewiston via River Rd/Exit 80 and Turnpike (+)

+1
275 veh./day (low) Moderate new connectivity via new bridge Moderate desirability of route to Auburn from Lewiston

+5
770 veh./day (mid) High level of connectivity to area (+) New access from Lewiston via Exit 80, Turnpike and new bridge

+5
1080 veh./day (high) High level of connectivity to area (+) New access from Lewiston via Exit 80/River Rd, Turnpike and new bridge

Enhances Economic Development Outside of Lewiston Downtown
Level of I/C usage to Lewiston, Outside Downtown New Network Connectivity/ Desirability of Route to Area

No
n/a n/a

+3
14,400 veh./day (high) Low connectivity to state highway system Moderate connectivity to areas for new development

0
240 veh./day (negligible) Low new connectivity Low desirability of route to Lewiston outside downtown (-)

0
140 veh./day (negligible) Low new connectivity Low desirability of route to Lewiston outside downtown (-)

0
140 veh./day (negligible) Low new connectivity Low desirability of route to Lewiston outside downtown (-)

+5
14,950 veh./day (high) High level of connectivity New access from Auburn via Route 136

+5
12,810 veh./day (high) Moderate level of connectivity New access from Auburn via new bridge

+3
2200 veh./day (low) High level of connectivity New access from Auburn via Route 136 and new bridge

+5
15,200 veh./day (high) New access from Auburn via Route 136 and new bridge

Minimizes Potential for Historic/Cultural

n/a

+3

+1

+3

+1

+1

+3

+1

+1
83

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Impacts Known Resources & n/a
Proximity

Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Beth Abraham & Pine Street Cemeteries sw/o So. Main St/Turnpike, 0.8 mi.

March 2005 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo.
See Strategy 2 and 3

1. River Road
Mt. Hope Cemetery – n/o Turnpike on River Rd., 0.2 mi. Two cemeteries s/o Turnpike on River Rd, 0.6 mi & 1.2 mi.

2. Route 136
Penley Corner Baptist Church – National Register, 0.8 mi. s/o Turnpike on Rt 136; cemetery on site Davis Cemetery n/o Turnpike, 0.4 mi. on Rt 136

5. Route 136 / Half River Road
See Strategy 1 and 2

1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
Mt. Hope Cemetery – vicinity/Lincoln St. n/o Turnpike, 0.2 mi. Two cemeteries s/o Turnpike on River Rd, 0.6 mi & 1.2 mi. Bridge not eval’d

2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge
Penley Corner Baptist Church – National Register, 0.8 mi. s/o Turnpike on Rt 136; cemetery on site Davis Cemetery n/o Turnpike, 0.4 mi. on Rt 136 Bridge not eval’d

5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
See Strategy 1A & 2A

Potential for Neighborhoods Impacts (-)/ Benefits (+)
Neighborhood Traffic Relief (+)/ Additional (-)

n/a n/a

0
(neutral on balance)
Directs high volume of traffic thru Lincoln Street neighborhood (-) Traffic uses South Avenue (-) So. Bridge traffic relief of 2150 veh./day (+) Potential for relief to Lisbon Street (2300 veh./day) to reduce cut-thru neighborhood traffic (+)

+1
Directs traffic to State Highway (+) Increases traffic in New Auburn via Rt 136 (-)

-5
Directs traffic through moderate density residential neighborhood on poor roadway (-)

-3
Directs traffic to State Highway (+) Increases in New Auburn via 136 and So. Main St (-) Directs (less) traffic through moderate density residential neighborhood on poor roadway, So. Main St (-)

+1
Directs traffic to State Highway (+) Increases in New Auburn via 136 (-) Directs traffic to Lincoln Street thru urban neighborhood (-) So. Bridge traffic relief of 3000 veh./day (+) Potential for relief to Lisbon Street (3300 veh./day) to reduce cut-thru neighborhood traffic (+)

+3
Directs traffic to Lincoln Street (-) Traffic uses South Avenue (-) So. Bridge traffic relief of 6500 veh./day (+) Potential for relief to Lisbon Street (2500 veh./day) to reduce cut-thru neighborhood traffic (+)

+3
So. Bridge traffic relief of 4500 veh./day (+) Directs traffic to State Highway (+) Increases in New Auburn via 136 (-) Directs traffic to Lincoln Street (-) Traffic uses South Avenue (-)

+3
So. Bridge traffic relief of 5600 veh./day (+) Potential for relief to Lisbon Street (2800 veh./day) to reduce cut-thru neighborhood traffic (+) Directs traffic to Lincoln Street (-) Traffic uses South Avenue (-)

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Minimizes Potential for Wetlands Impacts (Build Strategies)
Order of Magnitude Amount of Wetlands & Potential Functionality in Immediate Vicinity

n/a n/a

-1
One small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity with pot. low functionality

-1
One small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity with pot. mod. functionality

-1
One small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity with pot. low functionality

-1
Two small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity with pot. low & mod. functionality

-1
River Rd & Rt 136: One small NWI wetland in immed. vicinity each with pot. low functionality

-1
See Strategy 1

-1
See Strategy 2

-1
See Strategy 1 & 2

Minimizes Potential for Stream/Waterbody Impacts (Build Strategies)

n/a

-1

-3

+1

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

84

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Detailed (Phase II) Evaluation Matrix Strategy Purpose/Objectives/ Measures No-Build Streams/Rivers n/a

Table A4
3. So. Main Street
Intermittent streams in vicinity Farthest location from Androscoggin R.

March 2005 4. Route 136 / So. Main St. Combo.
Route 136: Close proximity to Androscoggin R. Perennial stream in close proximity So. Main: Intermittent streams in vicinity (So. Main)

1. River Road
Perennial stream in immediate vicinity River Rd 0.5 mi. from Androscoggin R.

2. Route 136
Close proximity to Androscoggin R. Perennial stream in close proximity

5. Route 136 / Half River Road
Route 136: Close proximity to Androscoggin R. Perennial stream in close proximity River Road: Perennial stream in immediate vicinity River Rd 0.5 mi. from Androscoggin R. Auburn: One pond in general vicinity of Turnpike/Riverside

1A. River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
See Strategy 1

2A. Route 136 w/ Proposed Bridge
See Strategy 2

5A. Route 136 / Half River Road w/ Proposed Bridge
See Strategy 1 & 2

New Bridge:
New crossing of Androscoggin R.

New Bridge:
New crossing of Androscoggin R.

New Bridge:
New crossing of Androscoggin R.

Ponds/Lakes

n/a

No ponds/lakes in immediate vicinity

One pond in general vicinity of Turnpike/ Riverside

No ponds/lakes in general vicinity

One pond in general vicinity of Turnpike/ Riverside

No ponds/lakes in immediate vicinity

Auburn: One pond in general vicinity of Turnpike/Riverside

Auburn: One pond in general vicinity of Turnpike/Riverside

Minimizes Potential for Habitat Impacts (Build Strategies)
Amount/Quality of Habitat in Immediate Vicinity

n/a
n/a

+3
No ME Natural Areas Program land No Deer Wintering Area

-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Deer Wintering Area in vicinity

-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Deer Wintering Area in vicinity

-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Deer Wintering Area in vicinity

-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Auburn: Deer Wintering Area in vicinity

+3
No ME Natural Areas Program land No Deer Wintering Area

-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Deer Wintering Area in vicinity

-1
No ME Natural Areas Program land Auburn: Deer Wintering Area in vicinity

COST
*** Project Costs (Order of Magnitude)
Amount ($M)

n/a n/a n/a

-3 $14.5 +5

-1 $12.8 +5

-1 $10.125 +3

-3 $14.7 -3

-3 $18.9 +5 +$70.3 3.7

-5 $25.1 +3 +$70.5 2.8

-5 $23.3 +3 +$48.5 2.1

-5 $29.4 +3 $81.6 2.8

Benefit-Cost Analysis ( Time Value Savings + Operating Costs Savings: Project Cost)

Time Value Benefits ($M) n/a +$65.1 +$49.0 +$34.4 -$1.0 B:C Ratio n/a 4.5 3.8 3.4 -0.1 *** Note: Project costs do not include costs associated with potential improvement needs on roads leading to or impacted by the interchange strategies.

Notes: The Hackett Road Interchange Strategy was dismissed from further consideration in May 2003 by vote of the Study Advisory Committee due to its much lower transportation benefits than other interchange strategies, thereby not meeting the lowest threshold test for Purpose and Need. The numerical ratings (+5 to -5) should not be summed to make a total score. The matrix is a tool to inform the decision-making process regarding which interchange strategies should be advanced to the next phase of study and which should be dismissed from further consideration.

Ratings: +5 (Strong Positive), +3 (Moderate Positive), +1 (Weak Positive), 0 (Neutral/No Change), -1 (Weak Negative), -3 (Moderate Negative), -5 (Strong Negative) Ratings are relative between the strategies. Wilbur Smith Associates

85

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix – A8 Resolutions from the Joint Council Workshop

March 2005 Final Report

86

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study

March 2005 Final Report

87

Lewiston – Auburn Downtown Connector/Turnpike Interchange Feasibility Study Appendix – A9 Maine DOT/ MTA Model Acceptance Letter

March 2005 Final Report

88