VERMONT TRANSPORTATION BOARD
COMMENTS ON TRANSPORTATION-RELATED
TOPICS
TONY REDINGTON
November 29, 2013
Good day. My name is Tony Redington, citizen of
Burlington, Vermont,
20 North Winooski Avenue Apt
2, 05401 Email: TonyRVT99gmail.com, Blog: TonyRVT.blogspot.com.
My background and experience
includes extensive public and private service in housing and rail
transportation policy development, planning, and administration as well as published
research in the fields of the walking mode and various aspects of the modern
roundabout with its manifold aspects of its impacts on ground transportation,
land use, and safety.
Introduction and
Background: the Vermont Transportation Policy Context Today
Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on “transportation-related topics”
as part of your legislative mandate to hold hearing and submit a report to the
Legislature on transportation program related considerations.
First and foremost, transportation
programming and finance takes place in a state of chaos at all levels of
government today, a condition directly related to the wholesale change in the
transportation “marketplace” from dominant car-centric condition dating from
end of World War II to the beginning of this century when a new trend of
reduced car travel paralleling high rates of growth in public transportation,
walking and bicycling modes. This now
undeniable change in the marketplace and a new emergent paradigm recognizes and
responds to: (1) reducing car travel; (2) increasing development densities to
take advantage of non-car travel mode efficiencies; (3) proactively addressing
energy conservation, cutting pollutant emissions, and curbing global warming
gas generation; (4) attacking economic competitiveness issues related to
transportation waste, inefficiencies, and infrastructure deficits involving
movement of both of people and goods; and (5) for the first time employing the
tools of roundabouts and cycle track to create urban infrastructure enabling
freedom of choice for all citizens to walk and bicycle in safety and comfort
regardless of skill levels or age.
The backdrop in transportation change
particularly can be seen today as high single and double digit growth in urban
public transportation and both walking and bicycling modes take place while car
travel car travel stagnates or even declines in slow growth areas of the
nation, like New England, other parts of the Northeast and the North Central
areas of the nation.
Practically all demographic and
economic data nationally as well as Vermont show the chaos and change well
advanced and continuing. For examples,
the Census projects growth of senior 65-and-over age population through
mid-century will be almost 100% while the younger far higher car traveling
population grows only 20%. In Vermont
Census projects 124% 65-and-over population 2000-2030 increase and under-65 age
population up under 2%. Meanwhile in
part because of economic factors and part consideration for the environment
needs to reduce pollution and energy consumption, all population groups travel
by car declines and the young 18-30 age population rate of driving licensing
has declined 10%. Here in Vermont
employment growth and car ownership plateaus and the last decade of New England
car travel change barely edged up 3%.
State Transportation Finance—For the First Time Deserting Car
Based Taxes and Fees for General Fund Sources
Except for Massachusetts and Virginia
which dumped car oriented taxation this year as the driver for transportation
investments, no other states—including Vermont—have responded to the changed
transportation marketplace and the required change in funding sources which
must be made to provide needed the transportation infrastructure and services
of today, much less meet the needs of the future.
The current approach of tinkering
with car-oriented taxes to deal with the State’s transportation finance really
does compare to the boy sticking his finger in a small crack in dyke to stop an
impending flood.
Using Massachusetts as a guide,
Vermont needs to tap general funds for transportation about $90 million a year.
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is in the process of announcing their
first year of $890 million in projects from non-highway oriented revenue source
funding. Using the Massachusetts
appropriation on a pro rata population basis, a Vermont $90 million yearly can
fund within a five year period, for examples: capital costs of commuter rail
services along three corridors (Montpelier, Middlebury and St. Albans); other
intercity services (such as a feeder passenger service from Bennington); capital
costs for one light rail line (such as an east-west and north-south line within
Burlington and a Rutland line north-south connecting the Mall to the downtown
shopping area to the northern edge of the residential areas); a down payment on
the major costs necessary to for the first time provide infrastructure making
downtowns and village center both walkable and bikable (principally through
roundabout and cycle track along corridors, town centers and areas); and,
finally, long—but not least--deferred investments in bridges and other highway
infrastructure.
These examples assume no federal
matching funds and availability of federal funds expands the possible scope of
annual investments.
One additional aside on United States
transportation finance. Of the roughly
$100 billion spent annually on all highway construction and maintenance, the
user pays only 62% with the balance coming from property taxes, general fund
taxes and other non-highway related taxation (see FHWA “Highway Statistics
2010, Table HF 1). (For this reason
Vermont town highway grants supposed to support street maintenance and
improvements needs to be substantially increased and and formulas revised to
take into consideration such factors as lane miles year round cycle track and
sidewalk as well as overall traffic volumes to reflect relative maintenance
costs.) Today there exists little
relationship between the user costs placed on the highway system versus
revenues—whether those user costs on the system are weight related measured by
routine cost allocation updates, maintenance costs at the town level mostly
property tax supported, or social costs at all levels.
Because the majority of states—over
30—restrict use of highway related taxes and fees to highway use only, for
highway finance to change in a way which meets national needs, federal
taxation—particularly of gasoline and related highway imposts—must be expanded. If the States—in this case Vermont—were able
to employ a European level gasoline tax of $4 gallons instead of about
twenty-five cents, a revenue stream of $800 million which mostly would be
allocated for general fund expenditure.
Because of state to state competition enacting a large gas tax is not
possible—and only a federal gas tax re-distributed to the states and easily
bypass states constitutional restrictions of their own auto-oriented taxes to
highway use only.
Specific Recommendations for Immediate
Transportation
Actions
There follows here specific policies,
activities and changes recommended for Vermont transportation programming
today.
I Amtrak
1.
Start an Ambus
between St. Albans and Montreal connecting with the Vermonter which will
immediately reduce overall State support costs to Amtrak and add back the
10,000 annual passengers per year lost when the bus connection ended. Impact:
reduce State annual support requirements for the two Amtrak services initially
by about $400,000.
2.
Accelerate the
schedule of extending the Ethan Allen service from Rutland to
Burlington—immediately preferred by 2016 at the latest—the 2017 schedule now
represents a two-decade timeline to extend the service the 80 miles between the
two Vermont cities. Impact: While little change
in annual State support costs would likely occur, numbers of annual passengers
would increase and overall economic benefits to the Rutland, Addison, and
Chittenden Counties would be significant.
3.
Immediately
revise current regional public transportation providers routes and schedules to
provide connectivity to Amtrak passenger train stations throughout the State. Impact: Coordinating public transit connections with
Amtrak trains would increase slightly the passengers numbers on Amtrak trains
with resulting economic benefits to the regions surrounding the stations and a
slight reduction in the State’s annual Amtrak support costs.
II Commuter Rail and Intercity Rail Passenger
Services
As
part of a “Vermont All-Mode Transportation Initiative of General Fund revenues
annually dedicated to transportation: (1) initiate commuter rail service
between Burlington and Middlebury, Montpelier and St. Albans; (2) initiate a
“circuit train”, Burlington-Rutland-Bellows Falls—White River
Junction—Montpelier-Burlington designed as the foundation for a full intercity
rail passenger service with connections along all existing rail corridors; (3)
a north-south light rail line in Rutland from the south end Mall via the City
center area through the upper residential area; and (4) create full
connectivity between rail services and the routes and services of regional
transportation service providers. Impact:
Each worker using these services on a 20 mile one-way commute in
place of solo driving increases after tax income (between Burlington and St.
Albans, for example), a 40 mile commute $7,000 (between Burlington and
Montpelier, for example). Note a study I
authored earlier this year, “An Action Outline for Commuter Rail Passenger
Service along Three Burlington Corridors” provides a complete market, capital
cost, and operating cost analysis for Chittenden County-Washington County,
Chittenden County-Franklin County and Addison County-Chittenden County commuter
rail service.
III Vermont
All-Mode Transportation Initiative (VAMTI)
Establish a “Vermont
All-Mode Transportation Initiative (VAMTI), a yearly appropriation starting at
a $90 million level from General Fund revenues dedicated to transportation with
a multi-purpose approach including: (1)
economic development; (2) transportation sustainability (with emphasis on land
use transportation relationships); (3) energy conservation and pollution
reduction; (4) downtown, town center, and urban investments in walkable and
bikable infrastructure, particularly roundabouts and cycle track; (4) reduction
motor vehicle travel through investments in demand management; and (5)
transportation safety upgrades.
IV Urban and Town Center Walking and Bicycling
Infrastructure: Cycle Track and Roundabouts to Move Busy Vermont Streets to
Walkable and/or Bikable Status
Vermont city downtowns, town
centers generally show the same pattern of lack of walkability and bikability
found throughout North America. Notable
Vermont exceptions include: (1) Church Street Marketplace, Burlington’s
four-block walkable mall dating from 1981 with shared space intersection areas
for all modes; (2) walkable town center roundabout nodes in Montpelier and
Middlebury; (3) bikable and walkable cycle tracked Dorset Street between
Williston Road and Kennedy Drive in South Burlington (though not served by any
roundabout intersections); (4) Vermont’s first walkable street, Main Street
along the corridor of three roundabouts in Manchester Center completed in 2012;
and (5) arguably, walkable/bikable shared paths along Stone Cutter’s Way in
Montpelier, Riverside Avenue in Burlington and Kennedy Drive in South
Burlington—again several street segments without any roundabouts at key intersections.
Walkable and bikable streets
provide for all users regardless of age, skill or disability safe and
comfortable accommodation for both modes along street segments and at
intersections. Street segments attain
walkable and bikable status through presence of separate cycle track and
sidewalk, or in combination which can include accommodation on a side path. Generally, to attain walkable and/or bikable
status each key intersection accommodation is supplied by a pathed roundabout
for both modes or through traffic calming. Generally, signalized busy intersections,
lack of sidewalks, and unprotected bike lanes signify the type of busy streets
which a minimum standard of walkability or bikability.
Address the almost complete
lack of bikable and walkable urban, downtown and village center busy streets
through: (1) initiation immediately of a roundabout/cycle track program as a
the major thrust of the “bicycle pedestrian” program along with an initial
allocation of $10 million annually from the Vermont All-Mode Transportation
Initiative (VAMTI); (2) initiate
regional planning projects identifying all urban and town center streets and
corridors to be sidewalked/cycle tracked/roundabouted into walkable and bikable
status and prioritizing projects the corridors, areas and nodes so identified;
and (3) since pathed roundabouts and cycle track when installed along with
sidewalks comprises the very definition of a “complete street”, incorporate
these three elements through revisions to existing projects where appropriate
as well as in all new urban, town center, and downtown projects with priorities
for funding guided by town and regional plans.
Comparing the cycle track, about two miles in Vermont, versus the
Netherlands on a per capita basis the Dutch have 670 miles of cycle track
versus Vermont’s 2 miles.
Finally, state
transportation agency policies and regulations need to be revised to reflect
the superior safety and service of roundabouts and provision of
walkable/bikable busy urban street treatments in all projects. Note three state transportation departments
(New York State DOT since 2005) and two Canadian province departments operate
on a “roundabouts first policy” and a similar approach needs to be adopted in law
and Vermont state agency policies and regulations. It is noteworthy that a search of the Vermont
Agency of Transportation website of “roundabout” response is the site lacks any
information at all.
Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on Vermont’s transportation-related topics.
No comments:
Post a Comment