Final Report

Downtown Waterville Feasibility Study
Waterville, Maine
SUBMITTED TO: CITY OF WATERVILLE

I

SUBMITTED BY: GORRILL PALMER

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

I

DECEMBER 2016

 

's



(3,07: 



 

Table of Contents

Section
I.
II.
III.

Page
Executive Summary
Introduction
Previous Studies
Existing Conditions





IV.

V.

XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.

XV.

32
34
36
37

Existing Parking Conditions
Future Parking Conditions
Parking Recommendations for Downtown

Recommendation


16
17
18
20
22

Minor Front Street Use
Major Front Street Use
Front Street Minor or Major Use
Main Street Overall
Front Street Overall
Concept Combinations
Capacity Analysis

Pedestrian Improvements
Safety Review
Transit Service
Parking Review




10

Intersections
Roadway Segments
Pedestrian Collisions
Bicycle Collisions

Pedestrian and Bicycle Assessment
2037 Traffic Volumes Prior to Downtown Development
Potential Downtown Development
2037 Traffic Volumes Post Downtown Development
Conceptual Alternatives








7

Intersections
Roadway Segments
Conclusion

Crash History





VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.

Study Area Intersections
Traffic Volumes
Seasonal Adjustment and Annual Growth
Capacity Analysis

Assessment of Restriping Existing Geometry




1
2
2

Choosing the Recommended Alternative

51

 


Recommended Alternative Capacity Analysis
Traffic Signal Evaluation

XVI. Opinion of Construction Cost
XVII. Meeting / Public Outreach Summary

57
58

Appendix
A. Turning Movement Figures
B. Capacity Analysis: Existing Conditions
C. Crash History, Collision Diagrams, Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Locations Figure
D. Sidewalk and Bicycle Path Figure
E. Potential Development Figure, Trip Generation Calculations, NCHRP 684 Spreadsheet
F. Capacity Analysis: Postdevelopment Existing Geometry
G. Concept Plans, AADT Figure, Trip Assignment, Capacity Analyses
H. Pedestrian Improvements Figure
I.

Safety Analysis

J.

Transit Route Figure

K. Selected Alternatives, Trip Assignment, Capacity Analyses
L. Trip Assignment, Figure 4C-3, Capacity Analyses
M. Opinions of Construction Cost
N. Meeting Minutes

 Acknowledgements
The GP Team would like to thank the City of Waterville, Colby College, the Maine
Department of Transportation, and the General Public for their tremendous
contributions and assistance in the completion of this study.

Purpose and Need
The GP Team and stakeholders identified a Purpose and Need as a first step in the
study. This step is critical in that it is the benchmark in which the alternatives are
measured against. The Purpose and Need for this project is as follows:

“Revitalize the Downtown to improve the aesthetics, support existing businesses
and encourage economic growth, improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations
and provide adequate parking while maintaining vehicular capacity in the overall
area.”

 Executive Summary
The following executive summary was developed with assistance from the City of
Waterville and Colby College, in a true collaboration as a Team Effort on this project.
The City of Waterville is eager to revitalize its downtown. Beginning in 2015, the City, in
partnership with Colby College, businesses, arts organizations, and community members,
initiated a significant planning process aimed at revitalizing the downtown core of the City.
A series of public meetings led to the development of a downtown revitalization
framework that identified a set of interconnected strategies for bringing new vitality and
economic growth to Main Street and, ultimately, the entire City. Adopted by City Council
in February 2016, the revitalization framework identified the need to evaluate and
consider improvements to traffic circulation, pedestrian accessibility, and parking as a
priority to ensure downtown Waterville is a place where people want to live, work, walk,
shop, explore, and enjoy. With significant investment already underway, the Waterville
downtown traffic and parking study explored how improvements to the overall
transportation system could enhance the overall revitalization efforts, create a pedestrianfriendly downtown, and help to encourage economic growth.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, urban renewal transformed Waterville’s downtown,
including the conversion of Main Street from two-way traffic to the one-way system that
exists today, with Main Street one-way southbound and Front Street one-way
northbound. Current traffic patterns push traffic through and around the downtown
rather than invite customers to the shops, restaurants, cultural venues, and businesses
that are its lifeblood. The City, in collaboration with MaineDOT and Colby College,
commissioned this study to identify traffic and parking options that, alongside significant
development by Colby and private investors, would help to create a vibrant downtown
for residents, businesses, and visitors.
The study identifies a viable option for converting Main and Front Streets from one-way
circulation to two-way circulation while allowing commuter traffic on U.S. 201 to pass
through Waterville by shifting thru traffic from Main Street to Front Street, creating a
destination environment on Main Street. The analysis incorporates projections for
planned and future development downtown and how those developments will impact
traffic and parking demand over time; examines existing safety issues that might be
improved by traffic modifications; ensures access for emergency vehicles; incorporates
delivery and service zones; and considers how the new system will support pedestrian
and bicycle movements. Prior to proposing changing traffic patterns as identified in this
study, extensive analysis was provided to the MaineDOT for their review and approval.
The full technical report, including backup material, essential data, and various options
considered and evaluated, contains over 260 pages. This Executive Summary focuses on
the end results: the final option for a modified Main Street, the need for a parking
management strategy, the effect the plan will have on alternate modes of transportation,
and the cost to move the project forward.

 Included in this study are plans depicting the new north end intersection of Front Street
and a new south end intersection at Spring Street. Two-way Front and Main Street layouts
are also presented. Listed below are brief discussions of essential modifications:


The proposed Spring Street intersection supports two-way Main Street and two-way
Front Street. A number of other options, including roundabout options, were
considered and eliminated, after full evaluation. The proposed option creates a
pedestrian accessible green space at this new city gateway, welcoming residents and
visitors to Waterville’s downtown.



The proposed northern intersections at College Avenue and near the Police station
open up a new route for both north and south bound U.S. 201 traffic, with direct
access to the Waterville-Winslow Bridge, and to the northern end of Main Street and
I-95.



With two-way traffic, both Main Street and Front Street will require significant
modifications to existing lane geometry. Every effort was made to keep all
improvements within the existing Right of Way and within the existing curb-to-curb
width. There is one area at the intersection of Front Street and Temple Street that
will require Right of Way modifications and must be addressed to move the project
forward.



Two-way Front Street cannot support any on-street parking. All available street width
is required to provide a center turn lane to keep traffic moving at an acceptable level.
Converting Main Street to two-way will reduce parking on Main Street. Elimination of
a number of angle parking stalls, the inclusion of delivery vehicle areas, and prohibition
of parking at intersections and crosswalks to assure adequate sight distance, will all
contribute to modified parking on Main Street. All these modifications should improve
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety of both Front and Main Streets.



One of downtown Waterville’s greatest assets is its supply of municipal parking. The
study indicates that with more efficient parking management by the City, the existing
parking supply can be managed to support the planned developments and a parking
garage is not needed at this time.



Left turn lanes on Main Street were purposely not included, to retain as much parking
as possible. Left turning traffic will create slow and congested traffic on Main Street
helping to ensure that Main Street travel speeds will be kept to a minimum.



Pedestrian access and safety will be improved throughout the downtown area due to
the reduced pace, improved crosswalk definition, and improved upgraded intersection

 design. This includes the intersection of Main / Front / Spring / Water where reducing
the size of the intersection and reducing pedestrian-vehicular conflicts was critical.


Bicycle traffic will not have exclusive lanes because of limited Right-of-Way. Bicycle
traffic on Main Street will share the travel way.

The preliminary opinion of construction cost estimate for road and intersection
improvements is $4.4M in 2016 dollars. Significant additional design work will be required
to develop a construction plan acceptable to the MaineDOT and Federal Highway
Administration. This preliminary opinion of construction cost does not include the cost
of final design, Right-of-Way acquisition, landscaping, or streetscape features.
The City of Waterville is thankful to Colby College and the MaineDOT for sharing in the
cost of this study. We also want to thank our consultants, Gorrill-Palmer, BFJ Planning,
and Mitchell & Associates who far exceeded the effort estimated to complete this study.

 I.

Introduction
The downtown of a City is the heart and soul that keeps the rest of the City vibrant. That
especially holds true for the City of Waterville. The City and significant stakeholders such
as Colby College, MaineDOT and the Hathaway Creative Center, have an unprecedented
opportunity to reimagine their City and to refresh and revitalize the downtown area,
promoting livability and economic growth. The opportunity is there to repurpose
underutilized buildings and expand on unused property. The opportunity is there to
change traffic patterns to invite those who want to be in the downtown and reroute those
who just want to pass through. The opportunity is there to make the downtown a place
where people want to live, work, walk, shop in, explore and enjoy. The opportunity is
there.
The core of the downtown is currently bisected by a state arterial which draws both the
customers and visitors that help the City grow, but also carries cut-through commuter
traffic that only serves to increase congestion, frustrate pedestrians and bicyclists, and
decreases the livability of the area. You will never completely separate the two.
However, given the existing network of streets that are in place, combined with inefficient
underutilized areas in the downtown, there is definitely room to improve. This study
takes steps such as the conversion of one-way streets to two-way streets, improving
roadways and intersections to promote one route over another, discouraging other
routes by making them more time consuming to travel, and the reallocation of driveways
or parking spaces to improve safety.
There are currently unutilized and underutilized areas in the downtown that are just
waiting to reach their full potential. This however adds a twist to the factors that needed
to be considered for the downtown, since increasing utilization also generates additional
traffic demand on the adjacent roadway network and potentially increases parking
demands. This study estimates how much traffic may be generated and recommends how
to accommodate it on the adjacent roadway network, as well as identifying additional
parking demands and placement. This study identifies improvements to the roadways and
intersections to improve capacity, additional parking areas, introduction and better
utilization of other modes of traffic to reduce both traffic and parking, restrictions on
existing parking spaces.
Anything this worthwhile takes effort and money. Fortunately, the City, MaineDOT and
Colby College have already made a significant effort in evaluating the downtown and its
issues. These efforts were used as the building blocks in moving forward with this study.
Critical items that were considered were: safety for all modes of transportation, number
and location of parking spaces, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and accommodations,
maintaining adequate capacity of the roads / intersections, and making sure businesses can
still receive necessary supplies and goods. These are all factors that were balanced and
weighed against each other.
1

 II.

Previous Studies
Several studies have been completed in recent years for the downtown Waterville area
to plan for growth and development. To collect as much background information as
possible and identify previous recommendations that should be carried forward, the GP
Team reviewed the studies at the start of this project. Members of the Team were
authors or contributors to the most recent studies for the downtown, so the Team was
already familiar with several of the studies. The following studies were reviewed:


2015 Spring Street intersection Study – a planning level feasibility study for
improvements to the intersection of Spring Street with Main Street, Front Street,
Water Street, and Bridge Street. The study assessed several different layout
options for the intersection.



Colby Downtown Vision Report – this report summarizes the Main Street
revitalization process up to December 2015. It discusses the vision for the
downtown, parking and traffic goals, and ideas for the streetscape.



Pedestrian Connection Feasibility Study – this study explored the feasibility of
providing different types of pedestrian connection from the Hathaway Creative
Center to Main Street. Alternatives included, an overhead pedestrian bridge,
intersection reconfiguration, a grade separated path, and a catwalk under the
bridge.

These studies contain valuable information on traffic data, the vision for the downtown,
and pedestrian facilities, which was considered in the completion of this study.

III.

Existing Conditions
Study Area Intersections:
The study area for this project includes numerous signalized and unsignalized
intersections. Although side streets entering onto a major roadway at an unsignalized
intersection can experience some delays, this is not uncommon for a downtown area. It
is generally the signalized intersections that create the most delays and bottlenecks,
especially for the major roadways and significant flow within the downtown. Therefore,
the GP team focused on the signalized intersections within the study area. There are
seven signalized intersections within the study area that were identified. Those signalized
intersections are as follows:

2

 







Park Street / Appleton Street / Elm Street
Main Street / Concourse W / Temple Street
Main Street / Elm Street / College Avenue / Center Street
Main Street / Eustis Parkway / Oak Street
Spring Street / Elm Street
Spring Street / Silver Street
Spring Street / Water Street / Bridge Street / Main Street

Other notable intersections include the intersection of Front Street / Temple Street, the
intersection of Pleasant Street / Main Street / Railroad Square / Main Place, and the
intersection of College Avenue / Chaplin Street / Colby Street. The intersections of Front
Street / Temple Street and College Avenue / Chaplin Street / Front Street were included
in the traffic volumes. The intersection of Front Street / Temple Street was included in
the capacity analysis. All three unsignalized intersections were considered when
completing this study.
Traffic Volumes:
To keep the study as efficient as possible, the GP team coordinated with the City and
MaineDOT to identify which of the study area intersections have been counted in the
recent past and have traffic volumes available, and which intersections would need new
traffic counts performed. Based on that review; three of the intersections had traffic
volumes available from MaineDOT that could be used, one intersection Gorrill Palmer
had counted in 2014 that could be used, and the remaining three intersections needed to
be counted. The following summarizes the sources of the traffic volumes that were
utilized for the existing conditions:









Park Street / Appleton Street / Elm Street – February 11, 2016 from 10:30 AM – 1:00 PM
and 3:30 PM – 5:30 PM by Gorrill Palmer
Main Street / Concourse W / Temple Street – November 18, 2015 from 6:00 AM – 6:00
PM by MaineDOT
Main Street / Elm Street / College Avenue / Center Street – November 18, 2015 from
6:00 AM – 6:00 PM by MaineDOT
Main Street / Eustis Parkway / Oak Street – February 11, 2016 from 10:30 AM – 1:00 PM
and 3:30 PM – 5:30 PM by Gorrill Palmer
Spring Street / Elm Street – February 11, 2016 from 10:30 AM – 1:00 PM and 3:30 PM –
5:30 PM by Gorrill Palmer
Spring Street / Silver Street – October 21, 2014 from 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 3:30 PM –
6:00 PM by Gorrill Palmer
Spring Street / Water Street / Bridge Street / Main Street – October 4, 2013 from 6:00
AM – 6:00 PM by MaineDOT.
College Avenue / Chaplin Street / Front Street – May 9, 2016 from 3:45 PM – 5:45 PM by
Gorrill Palmer
3

 The raw AM and PM peak hour volumes for each of the study area intersections are
shown on the attached Figure 2 in Appendix A. The counts collected on February 11,
2016 by GP were counted at the stated times based on a review of the previous AM and
PM peak hours identified from the MaineDOT traffic counts. The counts collected on
May 9, 2016 by GP do not include an AM peak hour since the previous counts show that
the PM peak hour volumes are greater than the AM peak hour.
Seasonal Adjustment and Annual Growth:
Typically, design hour volumes for a study are based on traffic volumes that occur in the
30th highest hour of the year, which tends to be in the summer. Since none of the traffic
volumes were collected during the ideal time of year, they needed to be seasonally
adjusted. The signal equipment at the intersections currently have the capability of
collecting traffic volume data throughout the year. Therefore, the seasonal adjustments
for the signalized intersections were made using traffic volume data for each intersection
provided from John Lombardi, Assistant City Engineer. The total entering volume of the
intersection for the 2015 peak hour of the count was compared to the total entering
volume of the intersection for the same time period and day of the week for the week of
July 20, 2015. This is the week the 30th highest hour of the year is expected to occur.
The comparison of volumes described above resulted in adjustments varying from 0% to
12%. The intersection of Oak Street / Main Street / Eustis Parkway was not seasonally
adjusted because it is a main access to Colby College and the counts were conducted at
the intersection while classes were in session. During the peak summer conditions, the
traffic volumes would be expected to be lower. The traffic volumes at the intersection
of Front Street / Temple Street were previously seasonally adjusted by VHB, so no
seasonal adjustment was required. The traffic volumes at the intersection of College
Avenue / Chaplin Street / Front Street were adjusted using MaineDOT Weekly Group
Mean Factors.
Additionally, since the counts were collected in different years, they must be increased by
an annual growth rate to represent existing conditions. MaineDOT Planning Staff, advised
using a straight-line growth rate of 0.5% per year based on the Statewide Model forecast
for the Waterville area.
The resulting design hour volumes based on the seasonal and annual adjustments are
shown on the attached Figure 3 in Appendix A.
Capacity Analysis:
To assess the existing operation of the study area intersections, a capacity analysis for the
seven signalized intersections was completed using the Synchro/SimTraffic computer
analysis software. The intersections are evaluated on a Level of Service scale ‘A’ through
‘F’. Levels of service are ranked from A to F where an ‘A’ is very short control delays
4

 and an ‘F’ represents very poor traffic conditions. If the level of service falls below a ‘D’,
an evaluation should be made to determine if mitigation is warranted. The Level of Service
for this evaluation represents the average of five SimTraffic runs.
The capacity analysis is based on intersection geometry from field observations and
Google Earth imagery and the signal timing and phasing from VHB Signal Plans dated
9/10/10 as provided by the City.
The following tables summarize the relationship between control delay and level of service
for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F

Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds)
Less than 10.0
10.1 to 20.0
20.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 55.0
55.1 to 80.0
Greater than 80.0

Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F

Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds)
Less than 10.0
10.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 50.0
Greater than 50.0

The results of the capacity analyses are summarized as follows. Printouts of the detailed
analyses are attached in Appendix B.

5

 Level of Service Summary – 2016 Conditions
Approach

Level of Service
AM Existing
PM Existing
Main / Eustis / Oak (signalized)

B
B
B
A
B
Main / Center / Elm / College
(signalized)
E
Rite-Aid EB
D
Elm NB
C
Main SB
D
College SW
D
Overall
Elm / Park / Appleton (signalized)
A
Park EB
A
Appleton WB
A
Elm NB
A
Elm SB
A
Overall
Elm / Spring / Percival (signalized)
B
Percival EB
B
Spring WB
B
Elm NB
A
Elm SB
B
Overall
Spring / Silver / Concourse (signalized)
B
Spring EB
B
Spring WB
B
Silver NB
B
Concourse SB
B
Overall
Water / Main / Spring / Bridge
(signalized)
C
Spring EB
B
Bridge WB
C
Water NB
B
Main SB
B
Overall
Eustis EB
Oak WB
Main NB
Main SB
Overall

6

C
B
C
B
B

E
D
C
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
B
B

C
B
C
C
C

 Level of Service Summary – 2016 Conditions
Level of Service
AM Existing
PM Existing

Approach

Main / Temple / Concourse (signalized)
A
Concourse EB
B
Temple WB
A
Main SB
A
Overall
Front / Temple / Concourse (unsignalized)
Temple EB
A
Head of Falls WB
A
Front NB
A
Overall
A

A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A

As shown in the table, the study area intersections function at good levels of service for
the 2016 conditions, with the exception of the intersection of Main Street / Elm Street /
College Avenue. The longer delays can be attributed to the multiple phases of the
intersection.

IV.

Assessment of Restriping Existing Geometry
Currently the downtown Waterville area is designed as a one-way pair with Main Street
one-way southbound (Route 201 South) from Elm Street toward Spring Street and Front
Street one-way northbound (Route 201 North) from Spring Street toward College
Avenue. Both Main Street and Front Street include two travel lanes. This study is
exploring the potential of converting Main Street and Front Street from a one-way pair
to each street allowing two-way traffic with a single lane in each direction. The Gorrill
Palmer Team has evaluated what the issues and opportunities may be if the roadways
were to be restriped today to include two-way traffic with no geometric changes (This
approach was rejected). There are three primary intersections that would be significantly
impacted as well as Main Street and Front Street themselves. The following describes the
potential opportunities and questions for each of the areas anticipated to be impacted the
most.
Intersections:

Water St / Main St / Front St / Spring St / Bridge St:


Capacity – This is a large intersection that currently operates at a relatively good
level of service “B” in the AM peak hour and “B” in the PM peak hour. Front
Street would now require a southbound movement, and an additional signal phase
7

 would be required which would decrease the capacity of the intersection, most
likely requiring several “split” phases, which are the least efficient ways in which
to operate a traffic signal.


Pedestrian & Bicycle – Based on the previous study for this intersection completed
by Gorrill Palmer in 2015, one of the primary complaints was the difficulty in
crossing the intersection as a pedestrian or bicycle. Because of the way
pedestrians cross with the traffic, revising Main Street and Front Street to twoway traffic with the current configuration and just restriping could result in
additional pedestrian conflicts.



Geometrics – In addition to restriping Main Street and Front Street, the
intersections need to be reevaluated to determine if alignment between approach
lanes and receiving lanes are still appropriate. Based on the existing geometry of
the intersection, it appears that the two most significant misalignments are
traveling from Front Street to Water Street and from Water Street to Main Street.
The current alignments would not work.

Another less significant movement that would need to be addressed is the left turn
movement from Front Street onto Bridge Street. This left turn movement may be
difficult due to the existing median on the Bridge Street approach.

Main St / Center St / Elm St / College Ave (Post Office Square)


Capacity – This wide intersection currently operates at a low level of service “D”
in both the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. The high delays observed are not
necessarily caused so much by high volumes of traffic but the required phasing due
to the size and odd configuration of the intersection. It may be possible to prohibit
left turns from northbound Main Street and from southbound Main Street so that
the additional northbound traffic created by allowing a two-way Main Street would
not add an additional phase. We would also recommend prohibiting larger right
turning vehicles from Elm St onto Main St since they may encroach in oncoming
traffic. Based on the traffic counts the truck percentage of this movement is 7.1%.



Pedestrian & Bicyclists – The addition of a northbound Main Street movement may
increase additional pedestrian conflicts for pedestrians crossing College Ave.
Otherwise, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations are not expected to
significantly change, either negatively or positively.



Geometrics – Other than some minor geometric improvements to improve
channelization, significant modifications to the existing geometrics would not be

8

 expected to be required provided the movement restrictions identified above are
implemented.

Front St / College Ave
This location is unique in that Front Street is currently configured as a northbound ramp
onto College Ave. Since Front Street is currently one-way northbound, southbound
College Avenue traffic continues with most traffic onto Elm Street or taking a left onto
Main Street. In its current configuration, it would not be feasible operationally to just
restripe Front Street as two-way. In the future assessment section of this study, we will
ask; what changes could be made to this intersection to convert this location such that
Front Street would operate as a two-way roadway; should southbound Front Street
become the southbound Route 201 or should it operate as a southbound collector
primarily serving Downtown Waterville? This intersection and potential alternatives for
the study area will be explored in detail in the future scenario portion of this study.
Roadway Segments:

Overall Main Street
Main Street is a two lane one-way roadway southbound from the signalized Elm Street /
College Avenue intersection to the signalized Spring Street intersection. The width of
Main Street varies throughout the length, leaving inconsistent travel lane widths and offsets to parked vehicles. Based on the MaineDOT crash history described in Section V,
almost the entire section is either a high crash location or meets at least one of the two
criteria for being a high crash location. Currently, delivery vehicles stop in one of the two
travel lanes to make their deliveries to stores and restaurants along Main Street, since
there is the second travel lane for vehicles to pass the stopped delivery vehicles. If Main
Street is converted to two-way traffic, then there will not be an additional lane for vehicles
to load or unload and mitigation measures would need to be considered. A number of
buildings have loading access from the side streets and concourse. Loading zones would
be needed at a few locations on Main Street which could require the removal of parking
spaces.

Overall Front Street
It is anticipated that the most significant impact on Front Street would be the decreased
northbound capacity due to the reduction in northbound lanes. Capacity would be
decreased not only by the reduction in the number of lanes that carry traffic, but also the
inability for through traffic to maneuver around left turning vehicles. This decrease would
not be as detrimental to the overall traffic network if Main Street was also converted to
two-way traffic because some of the existing northbound traffic using Front Street would
be expected to use Main Street as well.
9

 State Highway Designation
Today Main Street is designated as the southbound Route 201 and Front Street is
designated as northbound Route 201. Should Front Street and Main Street each become
two-way, the existing designation of each of the streets could be re-evaluated and
potentially reclassified.
Conclusion:
Based on the evaluation in this section as well as conclusions reached in other sections of
this study, it is our recommendation that Front Street and Main Street should not / could
not simply be restriped as two-way traffic. However; Section X, Conceptual Alternatives
of this study examines in more detail how a potential conversion of the adjacent roadway
network is possible to achieve while maintaining capacity in the area and achieving the
goals for the downtown.
Based on discussions with MaineDOT, it should be noted that “any modification to the
State Highway System, particularly from one-way to two-way, needs MaineDOT approval
and such consideration will be site specific based on how individual roadways function.”
“MaineDOT’s review of the Waterville Downtown Study reflects MaineDOT Highway
Corridor Priorities and Practical Design Guidance in that both Main and Front Street are
HCPs (Highway Corridor Priority) 3s.” MaineDOT’s conceptual approval of changes in
Waterville took place through a collaborative significant study effort over several months
with significant public input.

V.

Crash History
Gorrill Palmer obtained the most recent three year collision data for the study area from
MaineDOT. At the beginning of this study, the period of 2012-2014 was obtained because
it was the most recent period available. However, later in the study the collision data for
2013-2015 was obtained (Appendix C) and the crash information was updated. In order
to determine whether a location has a high incidence of crashes, MaineDOT uses two
criteria to define a High Crash Location (HCL). Both criteria must be met in order to be
classified as an HCL.
1. A critical rate factor of 1.00 or more for a three year period. (A Critical Rate Factor
{CRF} compares the actual crash rate to the crash rate for similar intersections in the
state.) A CRF of less than 1.00 indicates a crash rate that is not significantly above
average and:
2. A minimum of eight crashes over the same three year period.
10

 Based on the crash data provided by MaineDOT, the following table lists all intersections
and roadway segments in the study area that meet at least one of the two HCL criteria:
HCL Criteria Locations
Location
CRF
Intersections
High / Drummond
5.71
High / May
3.13
Appleton / Elm / Park
0.75
College / Elm / Main
0.85
Main / North
2.28
Main / Kelsey
1.01
Main / Eustis / Oak
0.81
Front / Main Connector
2.85
Front / Temple
0.60
Front / Union
1.46
Front / Colby EB (from College)
1.72
College / Oak
1.58
Main / Appleton
1.64
Main / Common
1.19
Front / Main / Spring / Water
0.54
Hathaway / Leighton
3.27
Center / Pleasant
2.80
North / Pleasant
1.00
Ticonic / Butler
2.16
Ticonic / Edwards
1.93
Drummond / Oak
1.63
Oak / Ticonic
1.15
Roadway Segments
Elm Street from Park to Elm Terrace
2.58
Main Street from Sanger to Pleasant
3.80
Front Street from Common to Temple
1.35
Front Street from Temple to Appleton
1.38
College Avenue from High to Oak
1.01
College Avenue from Colby EB to Chaplin SB
3.11
College Avenue from Main Pl to Getchell
1.20
Main Street from Hathaway to Appleton
3.24
Main Street from Appleton to Temple
1.20
Main Street from Temple to Common
3.99
Main Street from Common to Silver
4.66
Appleton Street from Elm to Main
3.97
Deeb Street from Hathaway to Front
3.86
Union Street from College to Union Pl
2.89
College Avenue SB Ramp to Chaplin WB
1.66
Ticonic Street from Chaplin to Butler
1.27
Ticonic Street from Brook to Edwards
1.47
11

Crashes

HCL?

8
3
11
14
11
6
20
10
8
5
5
9
7
4
11
1
6
3
2
2
3
2

Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

11
8
6
5
5
6
5
11
4
14
11
4
2
2
1
2
1

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No

 HCL Criteria Locations
Location
CRF
May Street from High to Oak
3.18
Edwards Street from Main to Ticonic
1.87
Brook Street from Main to Hillside
2.30

Crashes
2
2
1

HCL?
No
No
No

As shown in the table above, there are nine high crash locations in the study area, four
are located at intersections and five are roadway segments. The intersections are High
Street with Drummond Avenue, Main Street with North Street, Front Street with the
Main Street and Bridge Street connectors, and College Avenue with Oak Street. The
roadway segments are Elm Street from Park Street to Elm Terrace, Main Street from
Sanger Avenue to Pleasant Street, Main Street from Hathaway Street to Appleton Street,
Main Street from Temple Street to Common Street, and Main Street from Common
Street to Silver Street. To better evaluate these high crash locations and identify any
correctable crash patterns, the police reports for these locations were requested from
MaineDOT and collision diagrams were created (attached in Appendix C). Since the
collision data was updated from 2012-2014 to 2013-2015, four of the collision diagrams
include collisions for 2012-2015; the intersections of College Avenue with Oak Street and
Main Street with North Street, and the roadway segments of Main Street from Hathaway
Street to Appleton Street and Main Street from Temple Street to Common Street. For
the purposes of this evaluation, three similar crashes from 2013-2015 are considered a
pattern. In addition to the nine high crash locations, the police reports for all reported
pedestrian and bicycle crashes within the study area from 2013-2015 were obtained and
reviewed. The following is a more detailed description of the crashes reviewed:
Intersections:

Drummond / High
This intersection has a CRF of 5.71 and experienced eight crashes over the three year
period. This intersection is unsignalized. Drummond Street at this location has the right
of way with High Street being STOP controlled. The collision diagram identified one crash
pattern of vehicles traveling westbound on High Street failing to yield to southbound
vehicles on Drummond Avenue. Based on a review of the police reports there is no
apparent contributing factor for the crash pattern. The roadway appears to be relatively
straight with no horizontal curves and the police reports state that the drivers did stop
prior to the collisions. Potential alternatives could include; oversized STOP signs,
reevaluation of existing sign locations, striping of stop bars.

12

 College / Oak
This “T” intersection has a CRF of 1.58 and experienced nine crashes over the three year
period. College Avenue at this location has the right of way with Oak Street being STOP
controlled. The collision diagram (showing 2012-2015 crashes) showed two crash
patterns at the intersection for 2013-2015; vehicles turning left onto Oak Street from
College Avenue failing to yield to southbound vehicles on College Avenue and vehicles
exiting Oak Street failing to yield to southbound vehicles on College Avenue. Based on
the police reports and field observations, there is no apparent contributing factor for the
left turning vehicles from College Avenue failing to yield to the southbound College
Avenue traffic. The sight distances appear to be acceptable and the roadway is relatively
straight with no horizontal or vertical curves. For the second pattern, the vehicles exiting
Oak Street may be unable to see the southbound traffic due to signage, and vehicles (cars
/ motorcycles) parked in the parking lot to the left. If the parked vehicles are close to the
sidewalk, the sight distance for the Oak Street traffic is blocked.

Main / North
This “T” intersection has a CRF of 2.28 and experienced eleven crashes over the three
year period. Main Street at this location has the right of way with North Street being
STOP controlled. The collision diagram shows crashes from 2012-2015 and does not
show any clear, correctable crash patterns for the 2013-2015 period. Of note, five of the
six crashes on Main Street were rear end collisions that occurred due to distracted driving
and two of those involved vehicles stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk. This area
may benefit from the installation of pedestrian crossing signs or Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs) at the crosswalks on Main Street.

Front / Main Connector
This intersection has a CRF of 2.85 and experienced ten crashes over the three year
period. Front Street at this location has the right of way while both the connector to
Main Street and the right turn bypass lane from Bridge Street are yield controlled. As
shown on the collision diagram, eight of the ten collisions were rear end crashes; seven
occurred on the right turn bypass lane from Bridge Street and one occurred on the
connector street from Main Street. The Bridge Street bypass lane may benefit from the
installation of a “Yield Ahead” sign, to warn drivers that traffic may be slowing or stopped
when approaching Front Street. The remaining two collisions were sideswipes, both of
which involved vehicles in the right turn bypass lane from Bridge Street colliding with
vehicles traveling on Front Street.

13

 Roadway Segments:

Elm from Appleton to Elm Terrace
This roadway segment has a CRF of 2.58 and experienced eleven crashes over the three
year period. The collision diagram identified one crash pattern of northbound rear end
crashes. There were six rear end collisions on Elm Street northbound, one of which was
caused by malfunctioning brakes. The crashes occurred when vehicles that were slowing
down were struck from behind. This location is close in proximity to the signalized
intersection of Main Street / Elm Street / College Avenue and vehicles may be slowing to
stop for the signal.

Main from Pleasant to Sanger
This roadway segment has a CRF of 3.80 and experienced eight crashes over the three
year period. Based on the collision diagram, there are no clear correctable crash patterns,
however most of the collisions involved vehicles turning onto or off of Main Street. This
roadway segment has several side streets connecting to Main Street and a railroad
crossing in a short length, which could be a contributing factor to the collisions. The
number of side roads may lead to driver confusion as to who has the right of way. This
section of roadway would benefit to improved access management. The City and
landowners may wish to pursue driveway / roadway consolidation and / or relocation.

Main from Hathaway to Appleton
This roadway segment has a CRF of 3.24 and experienced eleven crashes over the three
year period. As shown on the collision diagram (showing 2012-2015 crashes), of the
eleven crashes that occurred from 2013-2015, seven involved angled parking spaces along
Main Street, and two involved the parallel parking spaces along Main Street. Additionally,
of the 2013-2015 crashes, five of the collisions were caused by vehicles entering or exiting
parking spaces, four were caused by vehicles traveling south on Main Street hitting a
parked vehicle, one was improper passing, and one was a vehicle exiting a driveway onto
Main Street. Possible solutions may include reducing parking spaces, or providing a buffer
between the parked cars and the travel lane.

Main from Temple to Common
This roadway segment has a CRF of 3.99 and experienced fourteen crashes over the three
year period. As shown on the collision diagram (showing 2012-2015 crashes), of the
collisions that occurred from 2013-2015, nine involved the angled parking spaces on the
east side of Main Street. Additionally, of the fourteen crashes, seven involved vehicles
entering or exiting parking spaces, four were caused by vehicles traveling south on Main
Street hitting a parked vehicle, two were rear end collisions on Main Street, and one
14

 involved a pedestrian crossing Main Street. Possible solutions may include reducing
parking spaces or providing a buffer between the parked cars and the travel lane.

Main from Common to Silver
This roadway segment has a CRF of 4.66 and experienced eleven crashes over the three
year period. Of the collisions, ten involved the angled parking spaces on the east side of
Main Street. Of those ten crashes, four were caused by vehicles backing out of parking
spaces, six were caused by vehicles traveling south of Main Street hitting a parked vehicle.
The remaining collision involved a vehicle exiting a parallel parking space on the west side
of Main Street. Possible solutions may be reducing parking spaces or providing a buffer
between the parked cars and the travel lane.
Pedestrian Collisions:
There were seven collisions involving pedestrians across the study area, one of which
occurred at a high crash location (Main at Appleton). All seven resulted in injury to the
pedestrian struck by the vehicle. Of the seven collisions, pedestrians were using
crosswalks and sidewalks in four and were not using crosswalks or sidewalks in the
remaining three. One collision occurred at the signalized intersection of Main Street with
Spring Street, Bridge Street, and Water Street, in which the pedestrian entered the
crosswalk against the signal. Additionally, in two collisions, the pedestrians were struck
by a vehicle and the vehicle left the scene before authorities arrived. One pedestrian
collision involved a pedestrian using a shopping cart like a scooter in the roadway and
failing to stop at a STOP sign.
Bicycle Collisions:
There were seven collisions involving bicycles across the study area, one of which
occurred at high crash locations (Main Street at North Street). Six of the seven collisions
resulted in injury to the bicyclist involved. The Waterville Bicycle Ordinance states that
bicycles are not permitted to ride on the sidewalks in the Congested Business Area, as
defined in the ordinance governing Licenses, Permits, and Business Regulations. Four
bicycle collisions occurred in the Congested Business Area and of those one involved a
bicycle that had been riding on the sidewalk and two involved bicycles riding in crosswalks.
The other one was due to a driver failing to yield the right of way to the bicyclist. Outside
of the Congested Business Area, one collision involved a bicyclist that had been riding on
the sidewalk and two involved bicyclists riding against traffic.

15

 VI.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Assessment
One of the goals of this study is to identify deficiencies in the existing pedestrian and
bicycle network in the downtown area and recommend improvements that can be made.
Downtown areas often have high volumes of pedestrian and bicycle traffic since parking
is spread out and building are closely spaced. Since the revitalization of the downtown
area will encourage more visitors to walk or ride a bicycle in the area, sufficient bicycle
and pedestrian accommodations need to be a consideration in the design. GP assessed
the existing bicycle / pedestrian network to identify deficiencies, opportunities for
expansion, and connections with Colby College. The following is a summary of the
findings.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks
The existing sidewalks and bicycle paths in the downtown area are shown on the attached
Figure in Appendix D. The downtown area has sidewalks on both sides of most major
downtown streets. There is only one marked bicycle lane in the downtown and it is on
Appleton Street. The bicycle lane is part of the Waterville Connector Trail that starts in
the Quarry Road Park and goes to the Head of Falls. This is the only pedestrian and
bicycle trail that goes through Downtown Waterville.
Many of the existing sidewalks are in poor condition. They have large cracks and
vegetation is growing through the cracks. In addition, at several unsignalized intersections,
the crosswalks do not meet ADA standards.
Pedestrian Crashes
There were a total of seven collisions involving pedestrians in the study area from 2012
to 2014, shown on the Figure in Appendix C. All seven crashes resulted in injury to the
pedestrians. These collisions are discussed in detail in Section V.
Bicycle Crashes
There were a total of eight collisions involving bicyclists in the study area from 2012 to
2014, shown on the Figure in Appendix C. Of the eight crashes, seven resulted in injury
to the bicyclists. These collisions are discussed in detail in Section V.
Colby College Access
Although Colby College is not within the immediate study area, pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations between the downtown area and Colby College are an important part
of the revitalization of the Downtown. Colby College is located on Mayflower Hill Drive,
which is accessed by North Street and Gilman Street. Mayflower Hill Drive has sidewalks
16

 on at least one side of the road from the downtown area to Bixler Drive and from County
Road to all the way down North Street. There are no sidewalks from Bixler Drive to
County Road.
Pedestrians and bicyclists travelling between the downtown area and Colby College will
most likely use Center Street and North Street as access to the downtown. Since the
intersection of North Street with Main Street is a high crash location, and two of the
collisions that occurred were due to vehicles stopped for pedestrians in the crosswalk,
pedestrian accommodations at the intersection should be considered. Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons would be a benefit to this intersection and increase the pedestrian safety.
There have been no pedestrian or bicycle crashes at the intersection of Center Street
with Main Street, Elm Street, and College Avenue within the last three years. Additionally,
it is a signalized intersection, so safety for pedestrians is adequate.
There are several improvements that could invite more pedestrian and bicycle use
between the Colby College campus and Downtown. These improvements include:





Installation of sidewalks on Mayflower Hill Drive from Bixler Drive to County
Road
Addition of bicycle lanes to the existing roadways between the Colby College
campus and Downtown. Widening may be required in some locations if the
existing width is not sufficient. Otherwise, “sharrows” could be striped on the
existing roadway and additional share the road signs could be erected.
Repair of sidewalks in poor condition

The listed improvements could make pedestrian and bicycle travel safer, easier, and more
enjoyable for people traveling between Colby College and the Downtown. It should be
noted that these items are not included in the Preliminary Opinion of Construction Cost
identified in Section XVI of this study.

VII.

2037 Traffic Volumes Prior to Downtown Development
For the purposes of this study, the traffic was forecast to a 20 year horizon. Assuming
that improvements would start in 2017 that yields a design year of 2037. To forecast
traffic volumes in 2037, the GP Team adjusted the 2016 Existing Conditions traffic
volumes using the straight-line growth of 0.5% per year based on the Statewide Model
forecast for the Waterville area previously used to adjust the raw volumes to the 2016
Existing Conditions. The 2037 Predevelopment traffic volumes are shown on the attached
Figure 5 in Appendix A.

17

 VIII. Potential Downtown Development
The downtown area is poised for revitalization with numerous locations either not utilized
at all or to their highest and best use. There are numerous opportunities for growth of
new commercial, recreational, or residential spaces within the downtown. A goal of the
City and local stakeholders is to find occupants for those existing spaces, create new
spaces, or renovate and occupy the space themselves. It is critical that as the City goes
through their revitalization and decide on which improvements to invest in that they
consider this potential growth in possible pedestrian / bicycle activity, additional vehicles
on the system, and additional need for parking in the area. The GP Team, with significant
contributions from the City and the stakeholders, assessed this potential development.
The GP team met with the City, Colby College, and other stakeholders to identify the
location and size of potential future uses. The location, sizes, and uses that were identified
are shown on the attached Figure in Appendix E. The following buildings were unknown
at the time the potential future uses were assumed, so the following assumptions were
made:










Building 5:
o 9 apartment units
o 4,800 sf of specialty retail
o 4,800 sf restaurant
Building 6:
o 9 apartment units
o 4,800 sf of specialty retail
o 4,800 sf restaurant
Building 19:
o 123 apartment units
o 15,000 sf of specialty retail
o 5,000 sf restaurant
Building 20:
o 20 apartment units
o 5,750 sf of specialty retail
o 5,750 sf of office space
Building 21:
o 50,000 sf of office space

It should be noted that the locations, uses and sizes for all future uses are a best
approximation and are subject to change. However, what this approximation does do is
acknowledge that there are unutilized or underutilized areas within the downtown and
factors in potential growth in the area. The trip generation for these potential uses was
estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip
18

 Generation for the PM Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street Traffic, since that is expected
to be the busiest time period (based on evaluating total entering volumes for AM and PM
conditions). The results of these trip generation calculations are shown on the attached
Figure 6 (Appendix A) and are summarized in the following table (a detailed table is
provided in Appendix E):
Potential Development Trip Generation Summary
Land Use

Land Use Code

Office
Retail

710 – General Office
814 – Specialty Retail
932 – High Turnover
Sit Down Restaurant

Restaurant
Cinema /
Entertainment
Residential
Hotel
Total

Total
Total
Entering Exiting
Potential Size
Trip Ends
114,907 sf
24
146
170
94,296 sf
115
141
256
14,600 sf

95

64

159

N/A

0 sf

0

0

0

220 – Apartment
310 – Hotel

253 Units
50 Rooms

101
17
352

56
13
420

157
30
772

Due to the walkability and close proximity of all the uses in a downtown, and the
interaction of people between the uses, simply adding the trip generation from individual
uses results in overestimating trip generation for the area. The GP Team utilized the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 684 Internal Trip Capture
Estimation Tool (Appendix E) to estimate the traffic that will visit more than one
destination. The NCHRP spreadsheet uses the ITE forecast trip generation for each type
of land use (office, retail, restaurant, cinema/entertainment, residential, hotel, and other)
and estimates the trips that will travel between two uses without leaving the site. This
gives the internal trip capture percentage, which is the percent of generated trip ends that
will travel between two uses. The trip generation is adjusted by subtracting the internal
capture trip ends from the ITE forecast trip generation. The following table summarizes
the internal trip capture percentages and adjusted trip generation for each land use:
Internal Capture Adjusted Trip Generation Summary
Land Use
Office
Retail
Restaurant
Cinema / Entertainment
Residential
Hotel
Total

Internal Capture %
Entering
Exiting
29%
10%
43%
50%
49%
69%
N/A
N/A
51%
50%
53%
54%
47%
39%
19

Adjusted Trip Generation
Entering
Exiting
Total
17
132
149
66
70
136
48
20
68
0
0
0
49
28
77
8
6
14
188
256
444

 The adjusted trip generation was then proportionally assigned to an existing or proposed
public parking lot. Some traffic is anticipated to use small private parking lots; however
this would have very little effect on the overall operation of the downtown traffic. Next,
the trip generation for each parking lot was assigned based on the proposed traffic
patterns. This total trip assignment is shown on the attached Figure 6 (Appendix A).

IX.

2037 Traffic Volumes Post Downtown Development
To forecast the 2037 Postdevelopment traffic volumes, the trip assignment for the
potential future development shown on Figure 6 was added to the 2037 Predevelopment
traffic volumes on Figure 5 to yield the 2037 Postdevelopment traffic shown on the
attached Figure 7 (Appendix A).
Capacity Analysis
Using the 2037 Postdevelopment traffic volumes, the downtown study area intersections
were reevaluated with the existing intersection configurations. This reevaluation was
completed using the same Synchro/SimTraffic computer software and methodology that
was used for the 2016 Existing Conditions capacity analysis. The GP Team also utilized
the same Level of Service scale ‘A’ through ‘F’ to evaluate the intersections. The following
table summarizes the results of the model (detailed reports in Appendix F):
Level of Service Summary
Level of Service
Approach

2037 PM
Predevelopment
Main / Eustis / Oak
(signalized)
C
Eustis EB
B
Oak WB
C
Main NB
B
Main SB
B
Overall
Main / Center / Elm / College
(signalized)
E
Rite-Aid EB
D
Elm NB
C
Main SB
D
College SW
D
Overall
20

2037 PM
Postdevelopment

C
B
C
B
B

E
E
D
D
D

 Level of Service Summary
Level of Service
Approach

2037 PM
2037 PM
Predevelopment
Postdevelopment
Elm / Park / Appleton (signalized)
B
B
Park EB
A
A
Appleton WB
A
B
Elm NB
A
A
Elm SB
A
B
Overall
Elm / Spring / Percival (signalized)
B
B
Percival EB
B
B
Spring WB
B
B
Elm NB
A
A
Elm SB
B
B
Overall
Spring / Silver / Concourse (signalized)
B
C
Spring EB
B
B
Spring WB
A
A
Silver NB
B
B
Concourse SB
B
B
Overall
Water / Main / Spring / Bridge (signalized)
C
C
Spring EB
B
C
Bridge WB
C
C
Water NB
C
C
Main SB
C
C
Overall
Main / Temple / Concourse (signalized)
A
A
Concourse EB
B
B
Temple WB
A
A
Main SB
A
A
Overall
Front / Temple / Head of Falls (unsignalized)
Temple EB
A
B
Head of Falls WB
A
A
Front NB
B
B
Overall
A
B

21

 As shown in the previous table, although some intersections are forecast to have a
decreased level of service after the potential development is completed, all but one
intersection are forecast to operate at good levels of service. As in the existing
conditions, the only exception is the intersection of Elm Street / Main Street / College
Avenue / Center Street, which does have two approaches that are forecast to operate at
a level of service ‘E’ after the potential development is completed. Similar to the existing
conditions, the longer delays are due to the multiple phases and large width of the
intersection.

X.

Conceptual Alternatives
The following section identifies efforts made to evaluate potential alternatives for
converting one-way streets to two-way streets. Many of the alternatives were eventually
eliminated; however, they are included here to provide the reader with an understanding
of the effort that was made. As discussed in the Assessment of Restriping Existing
Geometry section, this study evaluates the impacts of converting both Main Street and
Front Street from one-way traffic flow to two-way traffic flow. The greatest obstacle in
converting the streets to two-way traffic flow is ensuring that the adjacent intersections
will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. The most critical decision that
had to be made in identifying which alternatives may be an option in making the
conversion, was to identify to what level Front Street would be used. As a “Minor”
connector, Front Street would remain a major south to north connector, but north to
south traffic would primarily remain on Main Street with some using Elm & Spring Streets.
A significant benefit over today if Front Street were to allow southbound traffic but remain
as a “minor” connector, would be the additional access to the Head of Falls parking area
as well as a potential reduction of recirculating traffic onto Main Street. Front Street
would maintain the Route 201 northbound designation while Main Street would maintain
the Route 201 southbound designation.
If Front Street were to be used as a “Major” connector, it is expected that more
commuter traffic currently using Main Street, would now use Front Street, since it would
be perceived as quicker, especially for the north to south traffic. It is expected that this
would allow the Route 201 designation to be shifted to Front Street such that it would
be Route 201 both northbound and southbound. This partial re-designation would need
to be approved by MaineDOT and Federal Highway.
Consistent with the descriptions above, the conceptual alternatives for each of the major
affected intersections are presented as “Minor” Front Street Use or “Major” Front Street
Use, unless the alternative could accommodate both. The following is a more detailed
description of the conceptual alternatives for both the intersections as well as the overall
Main Street and Front Street. A visual representation of each concept is included in
Appendix G. Benefits as well as challenges are identified for each. Opinions of cost are
22

 included in a separate section and are not identified in this section as either a benefit or
challenge:
“Minor” Front Street Use

Water / Main / Spring / Bridge
Concept A – Signalized Intersection
This concept is a signalized intersection that assumes Front Street has less traffic than
Main Street in the southbound direction and Front Street southbound does not have
direct access to the intersection. Traffic can turn onto Front Street from any approach,
but cannot turn from Front Street to any other intersection approaches other than a right
turn lane onto Main Street.
Benefits:
 Simplifies intersection and reduces confusion for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles
 Provides more green space that could be used as park, garden area
 Provides a nice gateway treatment
 Straight forward implementation using much of the existing intersection
configuration
Challenges:
 Pedestrians will need to cross more than one approach to get across the
intersection

College / Chaplin / Colby / Front
Concept D - Signalized / Unsignalized Intersections
This concept is a network of primarily two intersections; one signalized and one
unsignalized. Although this concept would work if Front Street were to be a “Major” use,
by design southbound traffic is encouraged to stay straight and remain on College Avenue.
If traffic wants to go southbound on Front Street, they can do so by taking a left at the
signalized intersection with Chaplin Street. Front Street northbound maintains a slip ramp
for all the alternatives presented. With this alternative, the vehicular bridge over College
Avenue could potentially be removed, or converted to pedestrian / bicycle bridge.
Benefits:
 Provides a simple roadway network allowing all movements while still maintaining
access to adjacent businesses and good pedestrian access
 Keeps intersections smaller and more manageable
23

 






Potentially allows for removal of a bridge over College Avenue, reducing long term
maintenance
Reduces potential confusion and conflict points near RR tracks on Chaplin Street
Encourages use of Front Street as a “Minor” roadway but can accommodate it as
a medium or potentially even “Major” roadway in the future
Allows more direct connection between Front Street and Chaplin Street
Potential to reduce vehicle speeds traveling into and out of the downtown area by
breaking up a long straight section of College Avenue
Straight forward implementation using much of the existing intersection
configuration

Challenges:
 Adds a traffic signal, which will need to be maintained
“Major” Front Street Use

Water / Main / Spring / Bridge
Concept B – Signalized Intersection
This concept is a signalized intersection that assumes Front Street and Main Street will
have approximately the same volume of traffic. In this concept, Front Street maintains its
northbound direction but adds southbound access into the intersection. Main Street
maintains its southbound access to the intersection but adds a northbound direction from
the intersection.
Benefits:
 Provides Front Street direct two way access
 Allows more commuter and larger vehicle traffic to shift from Main Street
 Straight forward implementation using much of the existing intersection
configuration
Challenges:
 Increases pedestrian crossings exposing them to more potential conflicts
 Concern with Main Street and Front Street approaches so close, could lead to
driver confusion
 Because of required geometry, timing and phasing of the signal is not ideal for
operations
 Close proximity of signal heads could create driver confusion
 Does not create considerable useable green space or aesthetically pleasing
gateway for downtown

24

 College / Chaplin / Colby / Front
Concept E – Signalized / Unsignalized Intersections
This concept is a similar network to the “Minor” described previously including primarily
two intersections; one signalized and one unsignalized. Similar to the “Minor” intersection
network, this concept would work if Front Street were to be a minor use; however, it
differs in that by design southbound traffic is encouraged to use Front Street and therefore
this configuration encourages Front Street as a “Major” roadway that would carry more
significant southbound traffic. If traffic wants to go southbound on College Avenue, they
can do so by taking a right at the signalized intersection. With this alternative, the
vehicular bridge over College Avenue could potentially be removed, or converted to
pedestrian / bicycle bridge.
Benefits:
 Provides a simple roadway network allowing all movements while still maintaining
access to adjacent businesses and good pedestrian access
 Potentially allows for removal of a bridge over College Avenue, reducing long term
maintenance
 Reduces potential confusion and conflict points near RR tracks on Chaplin Street
 Encourages use of Front Street as a “Major” roadway but can accommodate it as
a medium or potentially “Minor” roadway in the future
 Allows more reasonable connection between Front Street and Chaplin Street
 Potential to reduce vehicle speeds traveling into and out of the downtown area by
breaking up a long straight section of College Avenue
 Allows more commuter and larger vehicle traffic to shift from Main Street
 Straight forward implementation using much of the existing intersection
configuration
Challenges:
 Access is more awkward for businesses located where Chaplin Street ramp
intersects with College Avenue
 Adds a traffic signal, which will need to be maintained
 Not as straight forward to implement as Concept D

25

 Front Street is equally “Minor” OR “Major” Use

Water / Main / Spring / Bridge
Concept C-2 - Roundabout
Concept C-2 is a multi-lane roundabout that includes a Front Street approach. The
roundabout is two-lanes for four approaches and one lane for the Bridge Street approach
with a slip ramp for northbound Front Street vehicles. The concept also includes right
turn bypass lane from Bridge Street to Front Street and from Front Street to Main Street.
It should be noted that this roundabout was originally designed with two lanes from Spring
Street to Bridge Street (Concept C-1). That design was analyzed with the 2037
Predevelopment volumes and was able to accommodate the traffic, but was close to
capacity. Once the potential development traffic was added to the roundabout, it was no
longer able to meet the necessary level of service requirements.
Benefits:
 Eliminates the need for traffic signals, thus potentially reducing long term
maintenance
 Allows Front Street to be Major or Minor use, allowing flexibility for the City
 Roundabouts typically operate at higher levels of service than similar signalized
intersections
Challenges:
 Pedestrians would need to cross two lanes of traffic at five locations. Crossing
two lanes of traffic at a roundabout can be more challenging than at a signalized
intersection
 Pedestrian desire lines are more circuitous requiring walking around the
roundabout
 Because there are so many approaches with some being closely spaced, the size
of the roundabout is relatively large (approximately 220 feet in diameter)
 May be difficult to erect proper advance directional roundabout signage, especially
on the Front Street and Main Street approaches
 Does not create significant useable green space
 Not as straight forward to implement, requiring full reconstruction of the
intersection

26

 College / Chaplin / Colby / Front
Concept F - Roundabout
This concept is a single lane roundabout that can accommodate Front Street as either
Minor or Major. How much traffic uses Front Street in this alternative is more dependent
on the advance directional and way-finding signage. The roundabout has two right turn
bypass lanes; one from College Avenue northbound to Front Street southbound and the
other from Front Street northbound to College Avenue northbound.
Benefits:
 Provides an alternative without a traffic signal, thus avoiding long term
maintenance
 The network can operate as a single lane roundabout, which tends to operate
safer than a signalized intersection or multi lane roundabout
 Allows Front Street to be Major or Minor use, allowing flexibility for the City
 Roundabouts typically operate at higher levels of service than similar signalized
intersections
Challenges:
 Pedestrian desire lines are more circuitous requiring walking around the
roundabout or across many lanes
 Because there are so many approaches (four on one side of the roundabout) with
some being closely spaced, the size of the roundabout is relatively large
(approximately 220 feet in diameter)
 Not as straight forward to implement, requiring full reconstruction of the
intersection

Post Office Square (Elm / Main / College)
Concept G – Maintain Overall General Geometry
One concept was created for this intersection that accommodates Main Street as twoway and Front Street as two-way with either “Minor” or “Major” traffic volumes. The
existing overall intersection layout remains primarily unchanged, but one of the two Main
Street southbound lanes is converted to a northbound approach. Left turns are restricted
on Main Street, and right turns are restricted on Elm Street and College Avenue. These
restrictions are either because the movements are not physically possible without
encroaching into opposing traffic, or to improve the operations of the intersection and
provide an acceptable level of service. A special connector with supplemental preemption signal is provided for emergency vehicles from the Fire Station that allows them
quicker and easier access out of the Fire Station as well as access northbound onto Main
27

 Street. Note that without closing the Rite-Aid approach into the signalized intersection,
this intersection can only accommodate Front Street being a “Major” use. Otherwise,
Front Street “Minor” use is forecast to maintain too much traffic through this intersection
to provide an acceptable level of service.
Benefits:
 Reduces the size of the intersection by shifting STOP bars closer. This typically
improves the overall safety and capacity of the intersection
 Allows for Main Street to be converted to a two way roadway
 Restricts some turning movements which typically improves the overall safety and
capacity of the intersection. The movements being restricted are low volume
movements so the impact to the roadway network should be minimal
 Provides for emergency pre-emption accommodations for the adjacent Fire
Station
 Straight forward implementation using much of the existing intersection
configuration
Challenges:
 Requires the closing of the Rite Aid access to the signalized intersection
 Restricts some low volume movements
 Requires emergency vehicles to use a designated connector

Main Street Overall
Concept H
This concept converts Main Street from a two-lane one-way roadway to a two-way
roadway with a single lane in each direction, with select turn lanes at certain intersections.
This concept is independent of whether Front Street services “Minor” or “Major” traffic
volumes.
Benefits:
 Provides two-way traffic on Main Street. This reduces vehicle miles traveled and
improves the ease of using the adjacent roadway network
 Potentially reduces vehicular speeds along the corridor by creating two-way traffic,
pedestrian bumpouts, and consistent narrower lane widths
 Striped edge lines provide consistent travel lane width throughout the corridor
 Turn lanes are provided at the major intersections to accommodate turning traffic
 Pedestrian bumpouts are provided at key intersections that improve visibility of
crossing pedestrians
 Removal of angled parking which was identified in a previous section as
contributing to crashes along the corridor
28

 



Bicycles can now travel both directions on the corridor whereas before they could
only travel the same one-way direction of vehicular traffic
Potential increased exposure to businesses along the corridor due to two-way
traffic
Straight forward to implement since minor physical improvements are being
proposed

Challenges:
 Reduces the overall number of parking spaces on Main Street. On the west side,
the existing parking is reduced from approximately 103 parking spaces to 37
passenger car parking spaces plus three delivery and one transit stop. On the east
side, the existing parking is approximately 46 parking spaces and will be reduced
to 37 passenger car parking spaces. In addition, 8 parking spaces total on Appleton
Street may need to be removed to accommodate vehicle turning movements.
However, the parking study shows adequate parking is available in the area to
absorb relocated parking demand.
 Reducing the travel lanes from two to one eliminates the ability for deliveries to
stop in one of the two lanes and allow through traffic to bypass in the second lane.
Delivery spaces are being provided along the length of Main Street to
accommodate deliveries. Plan “H” is conceptual only and the location and number
of delivery spaces is subject to change as the plan is refined. Many deliveries can
also take place in the rear of the businesses.

Front Street Overall
Concept I
Similar to the Main Street concept, this concept converts Front Street from a two-lane
one-way roadway to a two-way roadway with a single lane in each direction with a
northbound left turn lane provided from Temple Street up to the Colby Circle area.
Currently, Front Street has two northbound through lanes, so left turning vehicles can be
bypassed in the second lane without significantly reducing the capacity of the corridor.
With only a single travel lane in each direction as currently proposed, any left turning
vehicle would potentially stop northbound through traffic potentially significantly reducing
the capacity of the corridor. Therefore, the northbound left turn lane was added.
Typically, this would be a two way left turn lane; however, because a RR runs along Front
Street on the easterly side, the only southbound left turning vehicles would occur at the
Head of Falls driveway. This concept is independent of whether Front Street services
“Minor” or “Major” traffic volumes.
Benefits:

29

 









Provides two-way traffic on Front Street. This reduces vehicle miles traveled and
improves the ease of using the adjacent roadway network
Potentially reduces vehicular speeds along the corridor by creating two-way traffic
and consistent narrower lane widths
Striped edge lines provide consistent travel lane width throughout the corridor
A northbound left turn lane is provided for most of the corridor. This will allow
left turning traffic to pull out of the through traffic stream
Provides a new significant pedestrian crossing to / from the Head of Falls parking
area. This crossing will incorporate pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing
beacons (RRFB).
A potential signal at the Temple Street / Head of Falls intersection will allow for
safer and more convenient pedestrian crossing. This is particularly important if
the City is to promote parking at the Head of Falls
Straight forward to implement since minor physical improvements are being
proposed

Challenges:
 To maintain capacity of the southerly end of the corridor where right-of-way
width is limited and a left turn lane cannot be provided, a raised center median is
proposed on Front Street between the Spring Street intersection and Temple
Street. This would result in all the driveways along that section becoming right-in
/ right-out only.
 With Front Street becoming two-way and a potential traffic signal at the Temple
Street intersection, access management near the intersection is critical. In our
opinion, to safely implement two-way traffic on Front Street and provide for a
signal, the wide open curb cut for the property in the northwest corner of the
intersection needs to be eliminated.
 All parking along Front Street should be eliminated. There are currently no
marked spaces.
Concept Combinations
There were a lot of concepts and decisions that had to be made. The choices can be
reduced by either 1) choosing up front if you have a strong preference for Front Street
being a “Minor” Street or a “Major” Street or 2) deciding if there is a preferred concept.
Choosing 1 or 2 initially would eliminate several other choices. The following table was
used to assist in the decision making process.

30

 Decision Table
Available Concepts

Front Street “Minor” or
“Major”

Spring Street Intersection

Colby Circle

Front Street “Minor”
Front Street “Major”

A,B,C-2
B,C-2

D,F
E,F

In using the table, one can pick Front Street as “Minor” or “Major” and then pick the
preferred Concept for each intersection, or they can start by going into the table and
picking out the preferred Concept at a specific location and then choosing from the
Concepts on that same line for the other intersections. Note that there is only one Front
Street Concept, Main Street Concept and Post Office Square Concept so those are not
included in the Table.
Capacity Analysis
The GP Team redistributed the 2037 Postdevelopment traffic, which includes the
potential development trip generation, at each area of interest to reflect the proposed
design. These redistributed volumes are shown on the attached Figures in Appendix G.
Since counted traffic volumes were not available for every intersection movement,
specifically in the Colby Circle area, the GP Team utilized available Annual Average Daily
Traffic volumes (AADT) from MaineDOT to estimate the traffic volumes during peak
hours. The peak hour traffic volume is typically approximately 9%-12% of the AADT, so
to be conservative the GP Team used 12%. The estimated peak hour volumes based on
the AADT are shown on the attached Figure in Appendix G. After the traffic volumes
were redistributed, the GP Team completed capacity analyses for each of the
intersections listed above. In the capacity analyses, the GP Team used a peak hour factor
(PHF) of 0.92 and assumed a truck percentage of 1% for each movement. The signalized
and unsignalized intersections and the single lane roundabout were evaluated using the
same Synchro/SimTraffic computer software and methodology that was used for the 2016
Existing Conditions and 2037 Future Conditions capacity analyses. Additionally, the
roundabouts were evaluated using the methodology found in the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM). The GP Team also utilized the same Level of Service scale ‘A’ through ‘F’
to evaluate the intersections. The following table summarizes the results of the capacity
analyses and the detailed reports are included in Appendix G.

31

 Level of Service Summary
Intersection

2037 PM Postdevelopment Level of Service
Proposed Geometry
Existing
Geometry
Front Minor Front Major Roundabout*

Water / Main / Spring /
Bridge
Main / Center / Elm /
College
Colby Circle
Front / Colby
Chaplin / Front
Chaplin / College
College / Front
Front / College / Colby /
Chaplin

C

C

D

(C)

D

F

D

---

---------

A
--A
A

--A
A
A

---------

---

---

---

A (C)

*Results in parentheses were calculated using HCM methodology. The single lane roundabout was also
analyzed in Synchro/SimTraffic.

As shown in the table, all concepts are forecast to operate at a level of service ‘D’ or
better with the exception of the signalized intersection of Main Street / Center Street /
Elm Street / College Avenue, which is forecast to operate at a level of service ‘F’ in the
Front Street Minor scenario. This is due to the removal of a Main Street southbound
through lane, but not reducing the volume of Main Street southbound traffic
proportionally. In the Front Street Major scenario, Main Street southbound is also
reduced to one lane; however, it was assumed that approximately half of the Main Street
southbound through traffic would use Chaplin Street to access Front Street southbound,
which allows the intersection to accommodate the traffic. If the Rite-Aid driveway at the
intersection is closed for the Front Street Minor scenario (as shown in Concept G), then
the intersection is forecast to operate at a level of service ‘D’.

XI.

Pedestrian Improvements
The major goal underlying the planning and transportation studies for downtown
Waterville is the revitalization of the area and bringing more activity back to downtown.
Whereas over that last 50 to 70 years the emphasis was on improving traffic flow
(reducing delays and increasing operating speeds), the current efforts aim to make
downtown more pedestrian friendly, to improve pedestrian safety and to encourage
downtown visitors to walk longer distances. These enhancements are also needed to
support the park-and-walk habit that is recommended as part of the parking management
program. Figure Y1 (Appendix H) summarizes the recommended pedestrian
improvements.
32

 As discussed in the parking plan, a key goal will be to shift long-term parkers (and
potentially short-term parkers who do not want to pay for parking) to the Head of Falls
lot and to eventually expand that lot towards the north. This strategy also requires the
enhancement of the walking conditions for the persons parking in this lot. This includes
the following:


Improve lighting in the Head of Falls lot



Possibly add activities in that area, that bring more “eyes on the street”



As the lot may expand in the future towards the North, reactivate and enhance
the underpass that connects towards Union Street and build a short sidewalk
connection along the east side of Front Street connecting the underpass to the
Front/Union Street intersection. To provide for a safe pedestrian crossing at the
Front/Union Street intersection consideration should be given to installing a
rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at that location.



Consider the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Front/Temple
Street. This signal should include pedestrian count-down displays, and if the
capacity allows, the provision of an exclusive pedestrian phase or, if the capacity
does not allow an exclusive pedestrian phase, the introduction of a leading
pedestrian interval. This intersection constitutes an important link between the
downtown area and the parking reservoir along the riverfront area.

There are four major signalized intersections that surround the downtown area and
constitute the major pedestrian entry points (Elm/Main/College, Elm/Park/Appleton;
Spring/Silver/Concourse East; Spring/Main/Water/Bridge). These intersections (plus the
intersection of Main/Concourse/Temple) should be assessed in terms of potential
upgrades of their pedestrian features, (count-down timers, neckdowns, addition of
pedestrian crossings, narrowing lanes to 11 feet…) to make pedestrian access to
downtown more convenient and attractive.
The Concourse area is designed primarily for car circulation and lacks a comprehensive
pedestrian circulation system. For instance pedestrians walking from Silver Street south
of the Concourse do not have a convenient way to get to the parking in the center of the
Concourse. Colby College will be constructing a new building on Main Street. The
pedestrian paths proposed at the new site may require additional sidewalk improvements
within the remainder of the Concourse.

33

 The last major pedestrian element to be considered for improvement are the sidewalks
along Main Street. Among the improvements to be considered are improved walkability,
more trees, the potential addition of seating opportunities, and outside terraces.

XII.

Safety Review
One of the goals of this study is to recommend alternatives to increase safety in the
downtown area for all modes of travel. As discussed previously, the project study area
has nine high crash locations (HCLs) and 33 locations that meet one of the two HCL
criteria. A safety analysis was completed to estimate the safety benefits for vehicular
traffic from the proposed alternatives. To assist the GP study team, MaineDOT
conducted a safety analysis of the proposed change in traffic circulation on downtown
streets. The focus of this safety analysis is the facilities most affected by a conversion of
Main Street and Front Street to two-way traffic: (1) the two one-way segments of Main
Street and Front Street, (2) the intersection of Main Street / Elm Street / College Avenue,
and (3) the proposed, signalized four-leg intersection of Front Street / Chaplin Street /
College Avenue.
Some potential changes in design include the following:






Change two lane one-way traffic flows on Main Street and Front Street to twoway traffic flow with a single lane in each direction.
Change angled on-street parking spaces on Main Street to parallel on-street
parking. Some isolated locations may remain angled parking but the majority
would be converted to parallel.
Create a buffer between the travel lane and on-street parking along Main Street.
Create a new at-grade intersection of Front Street / Chaplin Street / College
Avenue.

AASHTO’s Highway Safety Manual (HSM), 1st Edition, Volume 2 was used to quantify the
potential changes in the expected average crash frequency of these facilities for both the
existing and proposed conditions.
Figure 1 shows the results of the HSM analysis of the existing conditions of Main Street,
Front Street, and the intersection of Main Street / Elm Street / College Avenue. The
analysis accounted for the combination of both angle and parallel parking along Main
Street, reflecting the existing proportions of roadway associated with each type of parking.
The analysis shows that approximately 26 crashes could be expected per year on Front
Street and Main Street, combined, and approximately four crashes per year could be
expected at the intersection of Main Street / Elm Street / College Avenue. In total,

34

 approximately 30 crashes could be expected at these facilities, with 11 of these crashes
being injury crashes and 19 being property-damage-only.
Figure 1. Expected Crashes Per Year - Existing Conditions
Expected Crashes Per Year – Existing Conditions
Expected Crashes Per Year
Facility
Type
Property
Total
Injury
Damage Only
Main Street
Pair of one-way
25.82
9.12
16.70
Streets
Front Street
Main / Elm /
4-leg signalized
4.14
1.71
2.42
College
intersection
Combined Total
29.96
10.83
19.12
The proposed conditions were also analyzed via the HSM. The changes analyzed include:
(1) changing Main Street and Front Street from one-way traffic flow to two-way traffic
flow, (2) changing angled on-street parking on Main Street to parallel on-street parking
with the exception of some isolate locations, (3) minor changes to the intersection of
Main Street / Elm Street / College Avenue, including converting Main Street from oneway traffic flow to two-way traffic flow and adding a protected left-turn pocket for those
traveling north on Main Street wishing to access the Rite Aid parking lot, and (4) creating
a new, at-grade intersection of Front Street / Chaplin Street / College Avenue. The results
of the analysis are shown in Figure 2. Both Main Street and Front Street would be
expected to have approximately 3 crashes per year. The intersection of Main Street / Elm
Street / College Avenue would be expected to have a decrease in crashes from 4.14
crashes per year with existing conditions to 3.72 crashes per year with the proposed
conditions. The new signalized intersection of Front Street / Chaplin Street / College
Avenue would be expected to have approximately 4 crashes per year. In total, nearly 14
crashes per year would be expected with the proposed changes, with 5 being injury
crashes and 9 being property-damage-only crashes.

35

 Figure 2. Expected Crashes Per Year - Proposed Conditions
Expected Crashes Per Year – Proposed Conditions
Expected Crashes Per Year
Facility
Type
Property
Total
Injury
Damage Only
Main Street
2-lane, 2-way
3.16
1.13
2.03
Street
Front Street
2-lane, 2-way
3.01
1.01
2.01
Street
Main / Elm /
4-leg signalized
3.72
1.58
2.14
College
intersection
Front / Chaplin
New 4-leg
/ College
signalized
3.80
1.26
2.53
intersection
Combined Total
13.69
4.98
8.71
Overall, the analysis shows that, with the proposed changes, the frequency of crashes on
these facilities could be reduced from 30 crashes per year to 14 crashes per year. Both
injury and property-damage-only crashes could decrease by more than half, even with the
creation of a new intersection at Front Street / Chaplin Street / College Avenue. The
proposed changes are expected to provide significant safety improvements at these
facilities.

XIII. Transit Service
Kennebec Valley Transit (KV Transit) currently serves the City of Waterville with one
bus on an hourly headway and operates two routes between 8:20 am and 3:45 pm. The
service operates on a schedule and a flexible route system that allows deviations for
requested pick-ups and drop-offs. Both routes meet at the Concourse. One route serves
the South Waterville area and Kennedy Memorial Drive and the other route serves North
Waterville and Fairfield with occasional deviations to the Boys and Girls Club and the
Thayer Unit of Maine General Hospital. KV Transit service is designed primarily to serve
elderly riders and other transit dependent groups.
The 2009 Transit Evaluation and Plan for Waterville, Augusta and Gardiner prepared by
Tom Crikelair Associates outlines potential expansions of the existing service, but none
of these plans were implemented due to a lack of funding. One of the 2009
recommendations was a more regular shuttle service between Colby College and
Downtown Waterville.

36

 The new developments proposed in Downtown Waterville will increase the demand for
transit services to a small degree. The increased activities of Colby College and the new
Colby apartments that will be built in downtown will increase the need for more regular
shuttle services between Colby College and downtown. It is suggested that Colby College
operate a regular shuttle bus to transport students, faculty and staff on a continuous basis
between these two nodes. This shuttle service should be advertised to the incoming
students (possibly together with car sharing services, i.e. zip cars) with the message that
Colby students can have mobility without bringing a car to campus. To the extent possible,
Colby would make the shuttle bus available for members of the Waterville community to
encourage the general public to attend performances, lectures athletic events, the Colby
Museum of Art, and other campus resources.
Figure ZZ included in Appendix J shows a potential route for the Colby – Downtown
Shuttle. The shuttle should operate in a very direct manner between the two nodes so
that the service is efficient and rapid. We do not recommend that larger loops be
operated since these tend to not be very efficient, nor user friendly since user see buses
operating in only one direction. With further study, the shuttle service shown in Figure
ZZ could also provide direct service to the Thayer Hospital and the Boys and Girls Club.
This will alleviate to some degree the service requests for these connections by KV
Transit.
Note that the exact routing on the Colby Campus and in downtown can be amended in
the future depending on local conditions and operating characteristics.

XIV. Parking Review
Parking in downtown Waterville largely functions as a municipal parking system where
local employees, merchants and customers park in municipal lots or on-street. The
principal parking lot used by most parkers is the Concourse located in the middle of the
large lots surrounded by Main Street, Spring Street and Elm Street.
Existing Parking Conditions:
The table below summarizes the current municipal/public parking supply in downtown
Waterville. Existing parking on Front Street is not included in these numbers. It can be
seen that there is a total of 1093 parking spaces available. Note that for purposes of
parking planning we generally use a practical or ideal use capacity of 85% of the total
parking spaces. This 85% is equivalent to 1 space in 7 still being available. This takes into
consideration the fact that it is generally difficult to reach a 100% occupancy, especially in
parking lots and parking garages that have complicated circulation systems. For on-street
parking it is common to reach the 100%-occupancy levels. The parking demand and supply

37

 calculations will be based on the theoretical capacity, however, we will refer to the
practical capacity at critical conclusion points and also when we project future shortages.
Existing Parking Capacity
Parking Area
Concourse
Main Street
Upper Main St.
Lower Main St.
Side Streets
Front St. Lot
Head of Falls South
Head of Falls North
Total
Practical Capacity (85%)

Current Capacity
610
148
67
81
68
60
66
141
1093
929

BFJ undertook detailed parking occupancy surveys in June of 2015 to determine the current
parking demand. These surveys were undertaken during the peak season of the year: Friday
June 26 and Saturday June 27, 2015. Table X1 shows the results of the Friday survey.

38

 Table X1
Parking Occupancies Friday June 26, 2015
Occupied Spaces (# and %)
Parking Area

Capacity

11AM

12PM

1PM

2PM

3PM

4PM

5PM

6PM

7PM

11PM Average

Concourse
Short Term

610
445

355 58% 376 62% 360 59% 344 56% 312 51% 319 52% 270 44% 294 48% 365 60%
246 55% 265 60% 254 57% 243 55% 213 48% 232 52% 222 50% 238 53% 274 62%

333 55%
243 55%

Long Term
Main Street
Upper Main St

165
148
67

109 66% 111 67% 106 64% 101 61% 99 60% 87 53% 48 29% 56 34% 91 55%
81 55% 93 63% 80 54% 78 53% 68 46% 56 38% 78 53% 100 68% 134 91%
30 45% 37 55% 33 49% 20 30% 27 40% 21 31% 40 60% 47 70% 59 88%

90 54%
85 58%
35 52%

Lower Main St

81

51 63% 56 69% 47 58% 58 72% 41 51% 35 43% 38 47% 53 65% 75 93%

50 62%

68
60

25 37% 27 40% 22 32% 28 41% 22 32% 29 43% 25 37% 26 38% 36 53%
18 30% 18 30% 19 32% 19 32% 21 35% 17 28% 10 17% 3 5% 8 13%

27 39%
15 25%

Total

886

479 54% 514 58% 481 54% 469 53% 423 48% 421 48% 383 43% 423 48% 543 61% 270 460 52%

Short Term
Long Term

661
225

352 53% 385 58% 356 54% 349 53% 303 46% 317 48% 325 49% 364 55% 444 67%
127 56% 129 57% 125 56% 120 53% 120 53% 104 46% 58 26% 59 26% 99 44%

Side Streets
Front St. Lot

Greater than 85% Occupancy

Between 50% and 85% Occupancy

39

355 54%
105 46%

Less than 50% Occupancy

 The cells marked in red are at or above practical capacity. It should be noted that on
Friday evening (7 pm) there was a performance at the Opera House with full occupancy.
The charts below show the occupancies graphically. The June 2015 surveys did not include
the Head of Falls lots (66 & 141 spaces). The capacity in the charts below (886 =1093 66 -141) does not include those lots.
Maximum parking occupancy in downtown occurred at 7 PM on Friday June 26 due to
the large event at the Opera house. Even during that peak period there were still 343
parking spaces available (plus the parking at the Head of Falls Lots). The only parking areas
that were fully occupied in the evening was the on-street parking along Main Street.
Besides the peak Opera House occupancy period, parking peaks around lunch time with
a total parking demand of 514 parked cars and a reserve 372 vacant spaces (plus the
parking at Head of Falls).
Downtown Waterville Parking Demand & Supply
Summer Friday
1000
900

886

800
700
600
500

479

514

543
481

469

423

421

400

383

423
270

300
200
100
0

11AM

12PM

1PM

2PM

3PM

Occupied Spaces

4PM

5PM

6PM

7PM Evening

Supply (excluding Head Of Falls lot)

Table X2 shows the same occupancy data by parking facility and time period for Saturday
June 27.

40

 Table X2
Parking Occupancies Saturday June 27, 2015
Parking Area

Capacity

Occupied Spaces (# and %)

Concourse
Short Term

610
475

11AM
12PM
1PM
2PM
3PM
4PM
5PM
6PM
7PM
Average
183 30% 198 32% 204 33% 192 31% 177 29% 148 24% 131 21% 222 36% 198 32% 184 30%
156 33% 163 34% 144 30% 157 33% 144 30% 117 25% 109 23% 193 41% 169 36% 150 32%

Long Term
Main Street
Upper Main St

135
148
67

27 20% 35 26% 60 44% 35 26% 33 24% 31 23% 22 16% 29 21% 30 22% 34 25%
58 39% 59 40% 54 36% 49 33% 45 30% 48 32% 45 30% 57 39% 58 39% 53 36%
19 28% 29 43% 32 48% 17 25% 18 27% 14 21% 13 19% 25 37% 28 42% 22 32%

Lower Main St

81

39 48% 30 37% 22 27% 32 40% 27 33% 34 42% 32 40% 32 40% 30 37% 31 38%

Side Streets
Front St. Lot

68
60

18 26% 10 15%
1 2% 0 0%

Total

886

260 29% 267 30% 262 30% 252 28% 232 26% 219 25% 203 23% 293 33% 267 30% 251 28%

661
225

232 35% 232 35% 202 31% 217 33% 199 30% 236 36% 181 27% 264 40% 238 36% 222 34%
28 12% 35 16% 60 27% 35 16% 33 15% 24 11% 22 10% 29 13% 30 13% 33 15%

Short Term
Long Term

Greater than 85% Occupancy

4
0

6%
0%

11 16% 10 15% 23 34% 27 40% 14 21% 11 16% 14 21%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Between 50% and 85% Occupancy

41

Less than 50% Occupancy

 Parking occupancies on Saturday peaked at 6 pm with an overall occupancy of 33% of the
886 spaces (excluding the Head of Falls lots). The bar chart below shows the occupancy
data for Saturday. As can be seen, Saturday has very low parking occupancies.
Downtown Waterville Parking Demand & Supply
Summer Saturday
1000
900

886

800
700
600
500
400
300

260

267

262

293

252

232

219

203

2PM

3PM

4PM

5PM

267

200
100
0

11AM

12PM

1PM

Occupied Spaces

6PM

7PM

Supply (excluding Head Of Falls lot)

Parking duration surveys showed that on Friday 31% of the vehicles parked in the 2-hour
spaces in the Concourse parked for more than 2 hours and that 11% of the vehicles
parked on Main Street exceeded the 2-hour limitation.
We conclude that downtown Waterville currently has a substantial amount of vacant
parking spaces, even during peak annual events. Even if we use the practical capacity
(meaning 1 in 7 spaces is available) of all parking spaces surveyed, the busiest peak hour
on Friday at 7 PM, when the opera house was full, reached an occupancy of only 72%, plus
the available parking in the Head of Falls lot. An excessive amount of acreage in the
downtown area has been provided for parking.
Future Parking Conditions:
The focus of this parking study is to plan for the future municipal / shared parking system
in downtown Waterville, since most new uses will use the municipal parking system (as
opposed to providing for parking on their own lot, a more suburban practice). The first
step in this analysis is to determine the future capacity. To take into consideration the
Colby plan to build an apartment building on Main Street in a portion of the Concourse,
we subtracted 90 parking spaces from the current Concourse capacity. For the purposes
42

 of this analysis we assume that the City can expand the capacity of the Head of Falls lot
by paving the gravel portion of the lot all the way up to the underpass that exists near
Union Street to gain 45 spaces. In addition, we foresee that the conversion of Main Street
will generate a total loss of 65 on-street spaces (as shown on the drawings for the
recommended redesign discussed in Section XV) due to the following:






Conversion of some diagonal spaces to parallel spaces
New loading zones
Shuttle bus stop
Pedestrian bump outs
Conversion of some spaces to ADA van sized spaces

Note that the above changes will improve traffic safety along Main Street as well as
pedestrian safety and convenience. The following summarizes the future parking capacity
and compares it to the existing parking supply.
Current and Future Parking Capacity
Parking Area
Concourse
Main Street
Upper Main St.
Lower Main St.
Side Streets
Front St. Lot
Head of Falls South
Head of Falls North
Total
Practical Capacity
(85%)

Current Capacity
610
148
67
81
68
60
66
141
1093

Future Capacity
520
83
32
51
64
60
66
186
979

Change
-90
-65
-35
-30
-4
0
0
45
-114

929

832

-97

The parking spaces listed in the table above do not include privately owned parking areas
that currently exist in Downtown. This private parking capacity, as well as the
corresponding parking demand are excluded from the parking analysis. As identified
previously, the “practical capacity” of 85% is equivalent to 1 in 7 parking spaces still being
available.
To analyze future parking demands, the GP team considered the parking demands added
by the full occupancies of the vacant spaces that currently exist in downtown, and then
added the demands from new developments. It should be noted that this process is based
on the best information currently available regarding any future changes and that these

43

 projections are likely to change as plans get refined. The projections developed as part
of this assignment will therefore need to be monitored and adjusted as necessary.
With the assistance of City staff and the planning consultants who worked on the
Downtown Revitalization Plan, the team developed a detailed list of the current vacant
properties in downtown. These vacancies were then translated into additional floor area
of retail uses, restaurant uses, office uses, apartments or other cultural/entertainment
uses. In some cases the team had the benefit of specific plans for these vacancies, in others
the team had to use its judgement regarding the future use.
It should be noted that only the properties that would use the municipal parking facilities
were considered in these projections and those uses that provide their own parking on
their lot were excluded. In some cases (14-20 Main Street, 173 Main Street and the DePre
projects) where some on-site parking is provided we included only a portion of their
parking demand in the municipal system. It is also assumed that all of the Hathaway
projects satisfy their parking demand south of Spring Street (this does not preclude the
healthy interaction between these two nodes of activity and the need to improve
pedestrian friendliness of the Spring Street crossings). The following summarizes the
vacant uses added to the existing parking demand:






Retail space: 35,746 square feet of gross floor area
Restaurant: 8,800 square feet of gross floor area
Office space: 34,157 Square feet of gross floor area
Live entertainment: 100 seats
Apartments: 28

For the new developments we added the following uses:








Retail space: 25,000 square feet of gross floor area
Restaurant: 3,800 square feet of gross floor area
Office space: 31,667 square feet of gross floor area
Cultural/entertainment: 350 seats
Apartments: 64
Hotel: 50 rooms
Meeting Rooms: 2,500 square feet

Table X3 shows the detailed shared parking calculation for a summer Friday. The table
shows the parking demand numbers for existing conditions, for the vacant spaces and for
new developments, and adds them to estimate future parking demands by time period.

44

 Table X3
Downtown Waterville Parking Projections for a Summer Friday
11:00 AM
12 NOON
3:00 PM
7:00 PM
Existing Parking Demand (Friday June 26, 2015)
479 Vehicles
514 Vehicles
423 Vehicles
543 Vehicles
Max
Peak Peak
%
%
%
%
Use
Size
Cars
Cars
Cars
Cars
Occupancy Ratio Spaces Present
Present
Present
Present
Future Demand from Vacant Properties
Retail
35,746 SF
80%
3
86
40%
34
60%
51
80%
69
15%
13
Restaurant
8,800 SF
80%
10
70
40%
28
75%
53
60%
42
100%
70
Office
34,157 SF
80%
3.3
90
100%
90
90%
81
90%
81
5%
5
Entertainment
100 Seats
90%
0.33
30
0%
0
0%
0
10%
3
80%
24
Apartments
28 Units
90%
1.5
38
40%
15
40%
15
40%
15
75%
28
Subtotal for Vacant Properties
168
201
210
140
Future Demand from New Development
Apartments
64 Units
90%
1.5
86
40%
35
40%
35
40%
35
75%
65
Cultural
350 Seats
80%
0.26
73
0%
0
10%
7
50%
36
100%
73
Retail
25,000 SF
80%
3
60
40%
24
60%
36
80%
48
15%
9
Office
31,667 SF
80%
3.3
84
100%
84
90%
75
90%
75
5%
4
Restaurant
3,800 SF
80%
10
30
40%
12
75%
23
60%
18
100%
30
Hotel
50 Rooms
90%
1
45
65%
29
65%
29
60%
27
70%
32
Meeting Rooms 2,500 SF
10
100%
10
100%
10
100%
10
100%
10
Subtotal for New Development
194
215
249
223
Total Future Parking Demand in Study Area:
840
930
883
906
Maximum Capacity:
979 spaces
Practical Capacity (85%):
832 spaces
832
832
832
832
Parking Excess (+) or shortage (-)
-8
-98
-50
-73
1.

11:00 PM
65 Vehicles
%
Cars
Present
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%

0
0
0
30
38
68

100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%

86
0
0
0
0
45
0
131
264
832
568

The existing parking demand was surveyed on Friday June 26, 2015, when the Opera House had an 802-person attendance. This is reflected in the 543 peak
occupancy for 7 PM. The 11 PM occupancy is based on a count performed on Tuesday August 18, 2016 between 11 pm and midnight.
2. Future parking demands take into consideration all buildings that use the public parking system. Sites with their own private parking are excluded from this
calculation.
3. The 979 capacity includes all public on-street and off-street parking within the boundaries of Front, Elm and Spring Streets. This includes the Concourse,
Main Street, side streets, and the lower Front Street lot and takes into consideration the loss of 90 spaces in the Concourse due to the Colby Apartment
building and the loss of 65 spaces along Main Street due to its reconfiguration. It also assumes an expansion of the Head of Falls lot.

45

 It can be seen that with all projected changes the Friday parking demand exceeds the
practical capacity between the hours of 11 AM and 7 pm by 8 to 98 spaces. The maximum
demand (930 cars at lunch time) is not projected to exceed the maximum capacity (979
spaces). It should be noted that the convenience of parking will change as a result of the
alternatives and that long term parkers may be required to walk a little further than they
currently do, leaving short term parkers more access to the parking spaces nearer the
businesses.
The following exhibit shows the parking projections for a summer Friday graphically.
Please note that these projections assume a full opera house at 7 PM.
Downtown Waterville Parking Projections
for a Summer Friday
1000
900

930
840

800
700
600

883

194
168

215

249

201

979

906

832

223

140
210

500
400
300
200

479

543

514

423

264
131

100

68
65

0
11:00 AM
Existing Parking
Practical Capacity

NOON

3:00 PM
Vacant Properties
Maximum Capacity

7:00 PM

11:00 PM
New Developments

Table X4 shows the same projections for a summer Saturday. It should be noted that
although the above figure shows the bar charts above the 832 practical capacity, they
include parking for vacant properties that may require parking in the future, and no
actual parking deficiency currently exists.

46

 Table X4
Downtown Waterville Parking Projections for a Summer Saturday
11:00 AM
12 NOON
3:00 PM
7:00 PM
Existing Parking Demand (Saturday June 27, 2015)
260 Vehicles
267 Vehicles
231 Vehicles
293 Vehicles
Max
Peak Peak
%
%
%
%
Use
Number
Cars
Cars
Cars
Cars
Occupancy Ratio Spaces Present
Present
Present
Present
Future Demand from Vacant Properties
Retail
35,746 SF
80%
3
86
60%
51
70%
60
100%
86
40%
34
Restaurant
8,800 SF
80%
10
70
70%
49
100%
70
60%
42
100%
70
Office
34,157 SF
80%
3.3
90
15%
14
15%
14
15%
14
5%
5
Entertainment
100 Seats
90%
0.33
30
0%
0
0%
0
10%
3
90%
27
Apartments
28 Units
90%
1.5
38
40%
15
40%
15
40%
15
75%
28
Subtotal for Vacant Properties
129
159
160
164
Future Demand from New Development
Apartments
64 Units
90%
1.5
86
40%
35
40%
35
40%
35
75%
65
Cultural
350 Seats
80%
0.26
73
0%
0
10%
7
70%
51
100%
73
Retail
25,000 SF
80%
3
60
60%
36
70%
42
100%
60
40%
24
Office
31,667 SF
80%
3.3
84
15%
13
15%
13
15%
13
5%
4
Restaurant
3,800 SF
80%
10
30
70%
21
100%
30
60%
18
100%
30
Hotel
50 Rooms
90%
1
45
65%
29
65%
29
80%
36
80%
36
Meeting Rooms 2,500 SF
10
100%
10
100%
10
100%
10
100%
10
Subtotal for New Development
144
166
222
242
Total Future Parking Demand in Study Area
533
592
613
699
Maximum Capacity:
979 spaces
Practical Capacity (85%):
832 spaces
832
832
832
832
Parking Excess (+) or shortage (-)
299
240
219
133

11:00 PM
100 Vehicles
%
Cars
Present
0%
20%
0%
100%
100%

0
14
0
30
38
82

100%
0%
0%
0%
20%
100%
0%

86
0
0
0
6
45
0
137
319
832
513

1. The existing parking demand was surveyed on Friday June 26, 2015, when the Opera House had an 802-person attendance. This is reflected in the 543 peak
occupancy for 7 PM. The 11 PM occupancy is based on a count performed on Tuesday August 18, 2016 between 11 pm and midnight.
2. Future parking demands consider all buildings using the public parking system. Sites with their own private parking are excluded from this calculation.
3. The 979 capacity includes all public on-street and off-street parking within the boundaries of Front, Elm and Spring Streets. This includes the Concourse, Main
Street, side streets, and the lower Front Street lot and considers the loss of 90 spaces in the Concourse due to the Colby Apartment building
4. The 100 vehicle occupancy for 11 PM is based on the Friday evening occupancy count

47

 It can be seen that on Saturdays there will be plenty of reserve parking, primarily because
most office spaces will be vacant on Saturdays. The exhibit below shows these projections
graphically.
Downtown Waterville Parking Projections
for a Summer Saturday

1000

979

900
832

800

699

700
600
500

533

613

592

242

144

166

129

159

222

400
300

164
160

137

200
100

319

260

267

231

293

82
100

0
11:00 AM
NOON
Existing Parking
Practical Capacity

3:00 PM
Vacant Properties
Maximum Capacity

7:00 PM

11:00 PM
New Developments

This analysis shows that if all vacant building spaces in downtown Waterville are occupied,
and all new developments occur as planned, the cumulative parking demand will exceed
the practical parking capacity (meaning 1 in 7 spaces is available) by about 8 to 98 cars on
a Summer Friday between the hours of 11 am and 7 pm. As noted previously, the
convenience of parking will change as a result of the alternatives and that long term
parkers may be required to walk a little further than they currently do, leaving short term
parkers more access to the parking spaces nearer the businesses. The peak demand is
not expected to increase above the maximum capacity. It should be noted that these
projections are optimistic (worst-case projections) and all potential developments may
not reach fruition. However, this analysis indicates that the City should monitor these
changes and plan for additional parking capacities accordingly. The projections do not
assume increases in parking supply other than an expansion of the Head of Falls lot by
approximately 45 spaces.
Parking Recommendations for Downtown:
Some of the land dedicated to parking in downtown Waterville will be converted to
residential and commercial uses, adding to the economic well-being of the City. The
downtown is experiencing a revival that will enhance its livelihood and attractiveness. This
means that the City of Waterville will have to manage its parking resources more
efficiently and, if the growth occurs as projected and potential developments reach
48

 fruition, the City may eventually need to add to the parking capacity downtown. The City
should consider implementation of the following strategies to manage the parking:


Continue the practice of municipal / shared parking: Municipal parking is the most
appropriate parking strategy for downtown Waterville because it satisfies the
parking demand in the most efficient manner. The shared parking pattern
underlying the municipal system takes advantage of the fact that not all parkers
will be downtown at the same time and each parking space can be used by several
parkers throughout the day.



The municipal parking system also encourages park-and-walk behavior, thus adding
to the levels of pedestrian activities. This also means that the walking environment
has to become more attractive and convenient.



Designate the most attractive parking spaces for short-term (2-hour) parking and
enforce the parking duration limit. Paid parking should be considered for the most
central and convenient parking spaces, starting with on-street parking along Main
Street. Muni-meters (multi-space meters) should be installed thus allowing multiple
payment modes and more efficient management of the parking rates and revenues.
The muni-meters could either be “pay-and-display” type meters (most appropriate
for parallel on-street parking), or “pay-by-space” (most appropriate for parking
lots or diagonal parking) or “pay-by -license-plate”. The muni-meter system could
be combined with the possibility of paying for parking with an app such as
Parkmobile, thus allowing parkers to pay with a few clicks from their smart phone.



Parkers who don’t want to pay for parking, in particular employees and merchants,
can park for free in more remote lots, such as the Head of Falls lots. For this to
be practical and implemented, lighting and security will also have to be improved
in the Head of Falls lots and along the paths to that lot. This would be an individual
decision based on comfort of walking further to park.



Enforce parking regulations using modern technologies such as license plate
readers and automated ticket writing devices.



Improve bicycle infrastructure in Downtown (bike racks, sharrows on Main
Street). There is not sufficient width on either Main Street or Front Street to
provide for bicycle lanes. Bicycles will be encouraged to use the slower paced
Main Street where sharrows could be striped and share the road signs can be
erected.



Adjust zoning regulations in conformance with actual behavior and principles
discussed above
49

 The advantage of paid parking is two-fold: 1) paid parking is an effective parking
management tool discouraging unnecessary parking and generating turn over. What is
important for local merchants is not free parking, but parking turnover. 2) Paid parking
could provide a financial base for downtown infrastructure investments including bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, parking improvements, streetscape amenities, etc... In
conjunction with the paid parking the City may also consider creating a downtown
improvement district with a small property tax increment to pay for parking and related
improvements.
The City also needs to monitor future parking demands and new developments to gauge
the need for increased parking supplies. The list of assumptions used for the parking
projections can be compared against future land-use changes to adjust future projections.

Adjust Parking Regulations for Downtown Waterville:
The City may want to consider one or more of the following management strategies.


Extend the area for potential parking waiver from 300 to 500 feet and designate
that area as downtown overlay district. Currently the City’s zoning code allows a
parking waiver by the Planning Board or the Code Enforcement Officer if the
parcel is located within 300 feet of an existing public parking area (Section
4.3.21.B(1) of the code).



Eliminate requirement for exclusive use of parking space by apartment occupants,
since that requirement precludes shared parking



Consider reasonable in-lieu parking fee for new developments ($2,500 to $4,000
per space) based on the fact that the City takes on the responsibility for parking
supply in downtown district. The in-lieu fee can be less than the cost of providing
one parking space, since each space in the municipal parking system can be used
by multiple users.



Adjust parking ratios for downtown to reflect downtown behavior, i.e. a certain
proportion of downtown customers or employees may walk or bicycle
downtown, and a certain number of shoppers and restaurant patrons are people
that are already downtown for other purposes (work or residents). Downtown
parking rates are therefore lower than typical suburban rates. The following are
suggested parking ratios for downtown. It should be noted that these changes
were already assumed in the parking calculations:

50

 o
o
o
o
o

XV.

Apartments: 1 space / apartment currently required in the downtown district
Retail: reduce from 5 spaces/1000 SF of sales space to 3 spaces/1000 GSF
Restaurant: 5 spaces/1000 GSF currently required in the downtown district
General office: reduce from 5 spaces/1000 GSF to 3.3 spaces/1000 GSF
Medical office: 5 spaces/1000 GSF currently required in the downtown district

Recommendation
After the City, MaineDOT, and Colby College reviewed and discussed the conceptual
alternatives described in Section X. Conceptual Alternatives, and other information
provided in each of the above sections, the overall consensus was that the best way to
accommodate traffic in the downtown area and accomplish the goals of the Purpose and
Need Statement was to design Front Street as a Major route. Therefore, this eliminated
all concepts that did not allow Front Street as a Major street.
Choosing the Recommended Alternative
Once the decision was made to pursue alternatives that only allowed Front Street to
operate as a Major street, the remaining applicable conceptual alternatives were reviewed
and composite alternatives were created by modifying the best aspects of the conceptual
alternatives and incorporating comments from the stakeholders. Those composite
alternatives (Concepts 1-5 in Appendix K) are the recommended alternatives.
The following decision matrix was used to compare the original conceptual alternatives
to the recommended concepts to ensure that the goals of the study were being met. The
items are identified as pass (P), fail (X) or not applicable (NA). Main Street and Front
Street are not listed because the recommended alternatives are a reflection of working
with the original conceptual alternatives and incorporating comments received from the
stakeholders (City, Colby, MaineDOT) to arrive at a concept that met the common goals.
For the intersection of Elm / Main / College, this intersection was extremely difficult to
provide concepts for due to its odd configuration, high volumes, and unique users (such
as the adjacent fire station). The conceptual alternative (Concept G) was considered to
have a fatal flaw for the Fire Station and was therefore eliminated.

51

 P
X
X
P

P
X
X
P

Total

A
B
C-2
3

Improve Regional Mobility

NA

Transit Accommodations

NA

College / Front / Chaplin
P
NA
NA
P
P
NA
NA
P
P
NA
NA
X
P
NA
NA
P
Elm / Main / College
Fatal Flaw
P
P
NA
P
Main / Front / Water / Spring
X
P
P
X
X
P
X
X
P
P
P
X
P
P
P
P

P
P
P
P

NA
NA
NA
NA

P
P
P
P

P
P
X
P

P

P

P

X
P

P
P
P
P

P
P
P
P

P
P
P
P

X
X
X
P

Allows more Direct
Connection Between
Streets

G
2

Less Confusing
Intersections

P
P
P
P

Creates Gateway
Treatment at Spring / Main
/ Front

P
NA
P
P

Encourages Downtown
Growth

Improves Ped / Bicycle
Safety

D
E
F
1

Reduces Commuter
Traffic on Main St.

Location &
Concept

Improves Vehicle Safety

Decision Matrix

Recommended Alternative Capacity Analysis
The GP Team redistributed the 2037 Postdevelopment traffic, which includes the
potential development trip generation, at each area of interest to reflect the selected
designs, shown on the attached Figures 7, 12, and 13 in Appendix K. Using the
redistributed volumes, the GP Team completed capacity analyses for each area of interest.
The analyses were completed using the same Synchro/SimTraffic computer analysis
software that was used for the 2016 Existing Conditions and 2037 Postdevelopment
Conditions capacity analyses. The following table summarizes the levels of service for the
selected alternatives. The detailed reports are included in Appendix K.

52

 Selected Alternatives Level of Service (LOS) Summary
2037 PM Postdevelopment
Area of Interest

Existing
Geometry

Concept 1: Colby Circle
Chaplin / Front / College (signalized)
Chaplin EB
--Front WB
--College NB
--College SB
--Overall
--College / Colby (unsignalized)
College NB
--College SB
--Front / Colby (unsignalized)
Colby EB
--Colby WB
--Front NB
--Front SB
--Concept 2: Main / Center / Elm / College (signalized)
Rite Aid EB
E
Elm NB
E
Main SB
D
Main NW
N/A
College SW
D
Overall
D
Concept 3: Water / Front / Spring / Bridge (signalized)
Spring EB
C
Bridge WB
C
Water NB
C
Front SB
N/A
Main SB
C
Overall
C

Proposed
Geometry

B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D*
D*
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
N/A
C

*The improvement in LOS is not due to improvements, but primarily due to the reduction in traffic volume
by creating a two-way Front Street.

As shown in the table, the Colby Circle intersections are forecast to operate at high levels
of service with the proposed geometry. Additionally, where the predevelopment analysis
is available, the selected alternatives are forecast to maintain or improve the existing
geometry levels of service at each intersection.
53

 Traffic Signal Evaluation
As part of the downtown improvements, the design and implementation of two new traffic
signals is being considered. One signal would be at the proposed intersection of College
Avenue with Front Street shown on Concept 1 and the other would be at the existing
intersection of Temple Street with Front Street shown on Concept 4. The GP Team
redistributed the 2037 PM Postdevelopment design hour volumes (DHV) with Main Street
and Front Street two-way (Figures 14 and 15, attached in Appendix L), based on the
intersection layouts shown on Concepts 1 and 4, to complete a preliminary signal warrant
analysis. Whenever installation of a traffic signal is being considered, a traffic signal
warrant based on methodology in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) is completed. This is a national & State standard for evaluating if a traffic signal
should be installed. The MUTCD signal warrant analysis includes nine signal warrants;
however, because the information available for the two locations is limited to the peak
hours, Warrant 3: Peak Hour was the only warrant fully evaluated. Warrant 3 requires
that one of the two following criteria are met:
A. “If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four
consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day:
1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street
approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4
vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane
approach; and
2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or
exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles
per hour for two moving lanes; and
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650
vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per
hour for intersections with four or more approaches.
B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of
both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume
minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3
for the existing combination of approach lanes.”
The GP Team completed the analyses at the two intersections with both average day
volumes and the DHV, although the MUTCD states that the Warrant should be
completed with volumes for an average day. The average day volumes were calculated
by multiplying the DHV by the MaineDOT weekly group mean factor for the design hour,
which occurs during the 6th highest week and is equal to 0.88. Both the DHV and average

54

 day volumes are shown on the attached Figures 14 and 15 (Appendix L). The following
is a discussion of the Signal Warrant Analysis for each intersection:

Front Street / College Avenue
The traffic volumes shown on the attached Figure 14 (Appendix L) are based on the
redistributed 2037 PM Postdevelopment peak hour traffic volumes for the Colby Circle
intersections on Figure 13 (Appendix G). For this analysis, College Avenue was
considered the major street, while Chaplin Street and Front Street were considered the
minor approaches. It should be noted that the right turn volumes were not included for
any approach that has a separate right turn lane. The following summarizes the signal
warrant analysis for the DHV and the average day volumes.
Design Hour Volumes
Criterion A:
1. The GP Team completed a capacity analysis using the Synchro/SimTraffic
computer software used for other sections of this project to determine the total
stopped time delay on the minor-street approach controlled by a STOP sign. The
attached capacity analysis (Appendix L) shows that Chaplin Street EB has a total
stopped delay of 8.3 hours. This exceeds the minimum of four hours.
2. The volume on the Chaplin Street EB approach is 282 vehicles. This exceeds the
minimum of 100 vehicles.
3. The total entering volume for the intersection is 1281 vehicles. This exceeds the
minimum of 800 vehicles.
Since all three items are met, Criterion A is met.
Criterion B: As shown on the attached Figure 4C-3 (Appendix L), the traffic volumes are
below the line for “2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane”. Since the traffic volumes are below the
required line, Criterion B is not met.
Average Day Volumes
Criterion A:
1. The GP Team completed a capacity analysis using the Synchro/SimTraffic
computer software used for other sections of this project to determine the total
stopped time delay on the minor-street approach controlled by a STOP sign. The
attached capacity analysis (Appendix L) shows that Chaplin Street EB has a total
stopped delay of 1.5 hours. This does not meet the minimum of four hours.
2. The volume on the Chaplin Street EB approach is 248 vehicles. This exceeds the
minimum of 100 vehicles.
55

 3. The total entering volume for the intersection is 1128 vehicles. This exceeds the
minimum of 800 vehicles.
Since all three items must be met to meet Criterion A, and Item 1 is not met, Criterion
A is not met.
Criterion B: As shown on the attached Figure 4C-3 (Appendix L), the traffic volumes are
below the line for “2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane”. Since the traffic volumes are below the
required line, Criterion B is not met.
To meet Warrant 3 either Criterion A or Criterion B must be met. Based on this
evaluation, the intersection meets Warrant 3 based on DHV, but not based on the average
day volumes. Additional analyses may be required to confirm if a traffic control signal is
warranted at this location.

Temple Street / Front Street
The 2037 PM Postdevelopment peak hour volumes for this intersection are based on
2009 Design Hour Volumes from a study completed by VHB. For this analysis, Front
Street was considered the major street and Temple Street was considered the minor
street.
Design Hour Volumes
Criterion A:
1. The GP Team completed a capacity analysis using the Synchro/SimTraffic
computer software used for other sections of this project to determine the total
stopped time delay on the minor-street approach controlled by a STOP sign. The
attached capacity analysis (Appendix L) shows that Temple Street EB has a total
stopped delay of 2.4 hours. This does not meet the minimum of four hours.
2. The volume on the Temple Street EB approach is 198 vehicles. This exceeds the
minimum of 100 vehicles.
3. The total entering volume for the intersection is 1168 vehicles. This exceeds the
minimum of 800 vehicles.
Since all three items must be met to meet Criterion A and Item 1 is not met, Criterion
A is not met.
Criterion B: As shown on the attached Figure 4C-3 (Appendix L), the traffic volumes are
below the line for “2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane”. Since the traffic volumes are below the
required line, Criterion B is not met.

56

 Average Day Volumes
Criterion A:
1. The GP Team completed a capacity analysis using the Synchro/SimTraffic
computer software used for other sections of this project to determine the total
stopped time delay on the minor-street approach controlled by a STOP sign. The
attached capacity analysis (Appendix L) shows that Temple Street EB has a total
stopped delay of 1.0 hours. This does not meet the minimum of four hours.
2. The volume on the Temple Street EB approach is 175 vehicles. This exceeds the
minimum of 100 vehicles.
3. The total entering volume for the intersection is 1028 vehicles. This exceeds the
minimum of 800 vehicles.
Since all three items must be met to meet Criterion A, and Item 1 is not met, Criterion
A is not met.
Criterion B: As shown on the attached Figure 4C-3 (Appendix L), the traffic volumes are
below the line for “2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane. Since the traffic volumes are below the
required line, Criterion B is not met.
To meet Warrant 3 either Criterion A or Criterion B must be met. Based on this
evaluation, the intersection does not meet Warrant 3.
It should be noted that if the Head of Falls parking area is further developed in the future,
this warrant should be reevaluated. In addition, two other warrants; Warrant 4,
Pedestrian Warrant and Warrant 9, Intersection Near a (RR) Grade Crossing will also
need to be evaluated.

XVI. Opinion of Construction Cost
GP calculated the preliminary opinions of construction costs for the three recommended
conceptual intersection configurations and Main Street and Front Street corridor
alternatives identified in the previous “Recommendations” section of this study. The
following is a summary of the opinions of cost (rounded) with more detailed breakdowns
with associated “Notes” provided in Appendix M:

57

 Opinions of Construction Costs
Location

Opinion of
Construction Cost (in
2016 dollars)

Front St / College Ave / Chaplin St (Drawing 1)
Main St / Elm St / College St (Drawing 2)
Main St / Front St / Spring St / Water St / Bridge St (Drawing 3)
Front St Corridor (Drawing 4)
Main St Corridor (Drawing 5)
Total

$1.6 Million
$87,000
$1.3 Million
$1 Million
$360,400
$4.4 Million

As can be seen from the summary, the construction costs vary significantly depending on
location with Colby Circle being the highest and Post Office Square being the lowest. It
should be noted that the above opinion of construction cost does not include right of
way, landscaping, or items such as street furniture or art.

XVII. Meeting / Public Outreach Summary
The GP Team held several meetings throughout the project process. These were held at
key times to ensure the City and other stakeholders could give input and the common
vision for the downtown is upheld. The following summarizes the meetings held:
Kick Off Meeting: February 1, 2016
This meeting was attended by the GP Team, representatives from the City of Waterville,
Colby College, and MaineDOT, as well as various other community members. The goals
of the meeting were as follows:







Develop the Purpose and Need
Identify local issues with pedestrians and bicycles, traffic patterns, and business
issues like deliveries
Discuss the existing available data and previous studies and their recommendations
Identify additional required data
Review and refine the Scope of Work
Discuss land use alternatives and request that the Stakeholders complete a
spreadsheet and map of their land use vision for the downtown

The meeting minutes from the Kick Off Meeting are attached in Appendix N.

58

 Stakeholders Meeting: April 22, 2016
This meeting was attended by the GP Team, representatives from the City of Waterville,
Colby College, and MaineDOT. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the work
completed by the GP Team including the analyses of existing conditions and future
scenarios and to obtain feedback from the project stakeholders on the completed work.
The meeting minutes from the Stakeholders Meeting are attached in Appendix N.
First Public Meeting – May 9, 2016
This meeting was to introduce the public to the study, present the results of the initial
data collection, and to receive input on perceived challenges with the Downtown.
BBB Meeting – June 6, 2016
This meeting was sponsored by Colby College and discussed their vision for contributing
to the revitalization of the Downtown.
Second Stakeholder Meeting – October 19, 2016
This was an informal meeting held at the MaineDOT Augusta Headquarters to discuss the
first version of the recommended alternatives. The plans were previously submitted to
all attendees for review prior to the meeting. Representatives from MaineDOT, Colby
College, the City and Gorrill Palmer were present. The discussions were how to modify
the recommended alternatives. Based on those discussions, the alternatives were
modified to reflect those provided in this study.
Second Public Meeting – December 5, 2016
This meeting was the last public meeting, with a presentation given by Gorrill Palmer, BFJ,
and Mitchell & Associates. The purpose of the meeting was to present the final
recommended alternatives to the public and receive feedback. The meeting had a great
turnout, with over 65 people in attendance that signed the attendance sheet, and
numerous people that for some reason did not sign the attendance sheet. The alternatives
were generally received well with applause at the end of the meeting.

59