Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Chesapeake Bay Green Streets, Green Towns, Green Jobs (G 3 ) Academy From Planning to Design to Action: Three ( 3 ) Years of Success.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Chesapeake Bay Green Streets, Green Towns, Green Jobs (G 3 ) Academy From Planning to Design to Action: Three ( 3 ) Years of Success."— Presentation transcript:

1 Chesapeake Bay Green Streets, Green Towns, Green Jobs (G 3 ) Academy From Planning to Design to Action: Three ( 3 ) Years of Success

2 Contents  Overview of G3 Academy and the G3 Grants Program  G3 Funding Areas and Project Highlights  White Papers  Planning Documents  Concept/Preliminary Designs  Final Designs & Construction  Grantees Reports  Questions 2

3 Overview of G 3 Academy and the G 3 Grant Program

4 History of the G 3 Academy  Initiated by US EPA Region 3 via the Green Highways Partnership (  A virtual resource and collaborative network of stewards, practitioners and sponsors  Unites a town's green vision together with the tools to accelerate local greening efforts Community Livability New Green Economic Opportunities Greater Watershed Protection 4

5 The Chesapeake Bay G 3 Grants Partnership  A result of the President’s 2009 Chesapeake Bay Protection & Restoration Executive Order  A Partnership of:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  Chesapeake Bay Trust (CBT)  Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)  Supports local, grassroots-level greening efforts in urbanized watersheds to reduce stormwater run-off by installing “green streets”, planting trees, and reducing impervious surfaces 5

6 The Chesapeake Bay G 3 Grants Partnership  Launched in 2011  Initial focus: the Anacostia Watershed  Twenty-six (26) grants to date  Has infused a total of $1,027,320 into green initiatives from the partners Year Grants Awarde d EPA FundsMD Funds Total Per Year 20119$220,000$31,320$251,320 201210$170,000$206,000$376,000 20137$200,000 $400,000 Canvas/world light gray base layer ©2014 Esri, DeLorme 6

7 The Chesapeake Bay G 3 Grants Partnership  What it supports:  Design projects, financing strategies, and/or implementation of urban greening projects of several types. White PapersPlanningConcept Designs Final Design Construction 7

8 G 3 Projects: White Papers

9 White Papers: Overview  White papers include:  Analysis of green infrastructure costs relative to traditional gray infrastructure.  Analysis of innovative technologies.  Analysis and/or development of Community Based Public Private Partnerships (P3).  Analyses of the interaction between climate change resiliency and green infrastructure. $25,000 request level 9

10 White Paper Example: Bladensburg Finance Study Location: Bladensburg, MD Restoration Practice: Bioretention, permeable pavement, tree box filters, amended soils Amount Awarded: $20,000 Additional Funding Leveraged: $4 million Status: White paper completed; green street in design Project location Anacostia Watershed Tidal Anacostia Subwatershed Canvas/world light gray base layer ©2014 Esri, DeLorme 10

11 Bladensburg Finance Study: White Paper  Main Objectives:  Evaluate the economic benefits of transforming Route 450 into a green street.  Develop a strategic financing strategy and implementation plan  Background:  In 2007, the county approved a plan to target reinvestment and redevelopment efforts along Route 450 – the town’s main commercial corridor.  In 2010, the Town held a Green Street Design Charrette to collaborate on design and implementation recommendations for the green street revitalization. 11 Street and Sidewalk Views Source: LID Center

12 Bladensburg Finance Study: White Paper  Need for Assistance  identifying how to engage the State in understanding the impact of the road’s redesign on the local economy.  Making a case for how enhancement of the existing transportation network would support economic revitalization.  Identifying, prioritizing, and raising revenue for green infrastructure projects on Town and private property. 12 Green Street Charette Source: LID Center

13 Bladensburg Finance Study: White Paper  Recommendations  Look beyond the green street project itself in order to develop a detailed inventory of priority green infrastructure projects.  Develop a community-based revenue and funding stream to help finance projects.  Leverage other public-based financing from county, state, and federal governments.  Leveraging private investments, primarily through land and economic development projects. 13

14 Bladensburg Finance Study: White Paper  Leveraging Resources  The State Highway Administration is now a key partner in the Town’s green infrastructure implementation process.  Currently, the State has approved $4 million in funding.  Approximately $1.3 million was generated from various partners for in-kind services. 14

15 G 3 Projects: Planning Documents

16 Planning Documents: Overview $35,000 – $50,000 request level  Planning documents include:  Conceptual plans for a large-scale, high-performing green street/green infrastructure projects.  Integration of multiple Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs).  Reference to a broader, integrated community watershed plan. 16

17 Capitol Heights: Master Plan Location: Capitol Heights, MD Restoration Practice: Bioretention, lane diet, street trees, permeable pavement Amount Awarded: $30,000 Additional Funding Leveraged: $1.03 million Status: G3 project complete; construction pending Project location Anacostia Watershed Watts Branch Subwatershed Canvas/world light gray base layer ©2014 Esri, DeLorme 17

18 Capitol Heights: Master Plan Green Street Concept Source: LID Center Metro Old Central Ave Chamber Ave Capitol Heights Blvd  Main Objectives  Focus on the role of public roads in improving the health of the waterways, encouraging multimodal transportation, enhancing connectivity, and other factors of importance to the community.  Background  Town officials have placed more concerted effort on cleaning up Watts Branch and surrounding area.  In 2011, the Town produced a Community Sustainability Plan to focus revitalization efforts on transforming the area into a sustainable community. 18

19 Capitol Heights: Master Plan  Background (continued)  Officials have struggled with how to best provide community services, fix roads, and revitalize the area.  In spite of the Capitol Heights Metro station opening in 1980, little redevelopment has occurred.  The Green Street Master Plan  Identifies implementation tools for revitalizing the Town’s roads.  Consists of five parts to help community members and stakeholders visualize the potential for a green street.  Serves as a reference to future streetscape projects in Capitol Heights and surrounding communities. 19

20 Capitol Heights: Master Plan  Community input was solicited using a variety of techniques:  Providing information and soliciting feedback at community events  Coordinating with the Town’s Green Team  Participation at Town Council meetings  In-person and online surveys  Lessons Learned  Community outreach takes time and similar efforts in the future should include a longer timeline for community events.  Technical advisory group should lead the final design process with stakeholders to identify funding sources. 20

21 G 3 Projects: Concept/Preliminary Designs

22 Concept/Preliminary Designs: Overview  Concept/Preliminary Designs include:  Connection to a larger vision for a Green Town  Re-design and/or repair projects  Innovative green infrastructure technologies  Cost projections $50,000 request level 22

23 Capitol Heights: Concept Design  A green street concept design was prepared for Chamber Ave/Capitol Heights Blvd – which serves as an entryway to the Capitol Heights Metro. 23 Metro Core Concept Source: LID Center

24 Capitol Heights: Concept Design  Need for Assistance  Road does not have stormwater treatment or flood controls.  Road is too wide; sidewalks are narrow/not continuous and unsafe.  Pedestrian access to the Metro Station is inadequate with little shade and poor lighting.  Significant speeding of automobiles makes crossing the street a pedestrian safety issue. 24 Concrete Channel Source: Capitol Heights Metro Access Source: Capitol Heights

25 Capitol Heights: Concept Design The Park Source: LID Center Metro Core Source: LID Center  Design elements:  Reduced lane widths  Pavement resurfacing  Curb bump-outs  Bicycle lanes  Sidewalk replacement  Lighting  Site furnishings  Gateway features  Plantings 25

26 Capitol Heights: Concept Design  Secured Funding:  $45,000 from Maryland Bikeways Program grant to focus on refining the design’s bikeways concept.  $75,000 from the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development for the roadway’s final design and construction.  $900,000 from Maryland’s Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund for final design and construction.  $40,000 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for a concept sustainability design. 26

27 Northumberland: Concept Design Location: Northumberland, PA Restoration Practice: Bioretention, bioswale, permeable pavement, rain barrel, green roof Amount Awarded: $30,000 Status: In process Project location Upper Susquehanna- Lackawanna River Subwatershed Lower Susquehanna River Subwatershed 60 mi to Harrisburg, PA Canvas/world light gray base layer ©2014 Esri, DeLorme 27

28 Northumberland: Concept Design  Main Objectives  To identify green alternatives to help alleviate the intense flooding, storm drain collapses, erosion, and other issues along Liberty Hollow Run, a tributary to the Lower Susquehanna River  Background  Liberty Hollow Run can breach its low banks, causing flooding, erosion, and other significant water damages to more than 250 residential properties.  Upper portion is > 65% developed. A high percentage of clay and shale soils exist where the hollow begins. 28 Flooding in 2011 Source: Railyn Mest Flooding in 2011 Source: Northumberland

29 Northumberland: Concept Design  Liberty Hollow Stormwater Improvement Project:  Identified a list of alternatives that, if fully implemented, would reduce peak flows for the 1 inch storm event by a minimum of 20% and total flow by at least 20% at a cost of $470,000.  Green Infrastructure Practices assessed include:  Rain gardens  Bioswales  Planter boxes  Green/blue roofs  Permeable pavement  Infiltration trenches  Tree plantings  Rain barrels  Downspout disconnection  Detention ponds 29

30 Northumberland: Concept Design  Project Progress:  Efforts to obtain implementation funds have just begun.  The Borough will soon post a permanent sign to educate residents on the problem, potential green infrastructure solutions, and ways to become involved.  Local nonprofits have been chosen to help with education, outreach, and implementation efforts. 30 Source: Hazen and Sawyer

31 G 3 Projects: Final Designs & Construction

32 Final Designs: Overview  Final designs include:  100% designs for elements of innovative green street/stormwater management projects.  Costs associated with operation and maintenance.  Detailed earthwork volumes  Planting plan  Applicants must have completed or sought a permit pre- application meeting prior to submitting a proposal to this program. Final Designs: $50,000 request level 32

33 Construction: Overview  The most competitive construction proposals leverage funding from other sources for gray infrastructure redesign, repaving, or reconfiguration.  Proposals must include a completed conceptual plan which includes:  A calculation of total drainage area treated  Calculation of impervious acreage treated  Estimated cost per acre treated  Formulas used to calculate treatment area Construction: $250,000 request level 33

34 Ashland Town Hall Lot: Final Design + Construction Location: Ashland, VA Restoration Practice: Bioretention, permeable pavement, underground storage Amount Awarded: $25,000 Additional Funding Leveraged: $250,000 Status: Completed Project Location Lower James Watershed Upper Chickahominy River Subwatershed Canvas/world light gray base layer ©2014 Esri, DeLorme 34

35 Ashland Town Hall Lot: Final Design + Construction  Main Objectives  Design and retrofit the Town of Ashland’s municipal parking lot.  Background  The Town Hall municipal parking lot serves as a multi-functional space for residents and visitors.  In 2010, much of it was torn up for subsurface utility repairs.  In 2011, the Town Council began to set aside money from its capital improvement fund. The Retrofit Source: Chuck Epes, Chesapeake Bay Foundation 35

36 Ashland Town Hall Lot: Final Design + Construction  Innovative Green Infrastructure Retrofit Design  Water drains into the voids of a permeable interlocking concrete pavement system through loose stones.  It soaks into the ground below, or drains into a catch basin.  The bioretention media helps remove the pollutants from runoff.  The entire system is designed to capture and treat more than 91,000 gallons of rain water. Multipurpose Lot Source: Chuck Epes, CBF Permeable Pavement Source: AMT Engineering 36

37 Ashland Town Hall Lot: Final Design + Construction  Project Success  The Town has launched an outreach program to demonstrate how permeable pavement and bioretention work in series.  In 2013, Ashland received the Dave Pearson Watershed Excellence Award from the Virginia Lakes and Watersheds Association.  The project was also awarded a Vision Award from the Urban Land Institute of Richmond.  It has been recognized by the Ashland Main Street Association with a “You’ve Been Noticed” Award for improving Ashland’s central business district streetscape. 37

38 Flower Avenue Green Street: Final Design + Construction Location: Takoma Park, MD Restoration Practice: Bioretention, swales, curb extension, Amount Awarded: $20,000 Additional Funding Leveraged: $1,940,330 Status: In process Project location Anacostia Watershed Sligo Creek Subwatershed Canvas/world light gray base layer ©2014 Esri, DeLorme 38

39  Main Objectives  To redesign and retrofit Flower Avenue into a green/complete street.  To reduce the runoff of polluted water into the nearby creek system while promoting safe pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular use.  Background  The project was spearheaded by a conversation between the City and the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) to transfer ownership of the road, along with $696,000 in reconstruction funds. 39 Source: Takoma Park Flower Avenue Green Street: Final Design + Construction

40  Need for Assistance  Lack of continuous sidewalks on the road’s eastern side  Lack of American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant sidewalks on both sides  Speeding traffic  Lack of stormwater infrastructure Flower Avenue, looking north Source: Google Maps Direction of stormwater runoff Flower Avenue 40

41 Flower Avenue Green Street: Final Design + Construction  Flower Avenue Green Street Project Goals  ADA compliant sidewalks  Improved pedestrian crossings and bus stop locations  Low Impact Development (LID) facilities  Energy efficient lighting  Challenges  Extensive system of underground utilities  narrow right-of-ways  Speed and direction of water flow  limited curb and gutter Community Meeting Source: Takoma Park 41

42 Flower Avenue Green Street: Final Design + Construction Flower Avenue Improvements Source: Takoma Park 42

43 Importance of Piloting Projects Why are pilot projects important? They serve as a catalyst for broader community revitalization and green infrastructure implementation efforts. They encourage a wider understanding and use of LID technologies. They demonstrate the success and positive impacts of green stormwater management on site. They provide insight on highlights, challenges, and lessons learned for similar future projects. They provide meaningful engagement with public users and private property owners 43

44 The Green Street + Complete Street Connection  Green streets manage stormwater runoff in order to slow down runoff, treat pollutants, and recharge groundwater.  Raised medians, lane diets, bicycle lanes and energy-efficient lighting  Complete streets enable safe and convenient access for users of all ages and abilities.  Raised medians, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, street lights, and traffic calming measures  Both Green Streets and Complete Streets  Increase quality of life and create a sense of place  Increase safety for pedestrians and motorists  Increase adjacent property values 44

45 G 3 Projects to Date

46 Street Types Targeted 46

47 Issues Addressed 47

48 Plans Addressed 48

49 Types of Professionals Involved in Projects 49

50 Grantees Reports

51 Project Transferability  Numerous projects from the G3 grant has led to the preparation of similar projects.  64% have been transferable.  13% have not been transferable.  28% predict that it will be transferable once the project is completed. 51

52 Technical Assistance Needs 52

53 Project Success  Percentage of projects that have been successful in securing funding for future steps:  57% have been successful.  7% have not been successful.  36% is in the process of securing funding.  Grant funding from the G3 program can help better position projects for success.  For Ashville, Bladensburg, Capitol Heights, Takoma Park, Northumberland: $125,000 in G3 funds -> $7.2 million leveraged 53

54 Lessons Learned  Create a schedule that assumes significant delays.  Enlist outside expertise for providing the bandwidth needed to execute the project.  Include designated access points to the bioretention area.  Organize multiple webinars and workshops to reach a large number of audience.  Hold extensive public meetings to provide comprehensive understanding of project benefits to community members. 54

55 Questions? 55

Download ppt "Chesapeake Bay Green Streets, Green Towns, Green Jobs (G 3 ) Academy From Planning to Design to Action: Three ( 3 ) Years of Success."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google