Two Year Environmental Justice Rules Application to Parkway Design Results in No a Whisker of Change

Frustration and consternation remains that after 2 years of applying new Environmental Justice regulations to the obvious current Parkway design injustice to low income (26 of Burlington residents have poverty incomes, a population mostly in King Maple and Old North End neighborhoods); and blatant injustice to the community of color (King Maple largest such community in Vermont).   

Frustration and consternation the result of two years was nothing of outreach and hearings, etc., and not one design change!  No recognition even of known degrading of safety, air quality, and livability, particularly along Pine Street part of the Parkway which cuts King Maple in two!  Not even an admission that in King Maple there will be more traffic, higher speeds, and degraded walking conditions and increased pollution are not a bad thing!

Tweets on 2 year Environmental Justice rules application to the Champlain Parkway with unanimous opposition at the one hybrid 2021 hearing and not a whisker changed in the hurtful, obstolete and global heating design!! Here are some recent tweets in this regard.

     "US Transport Boss Pete/VT Fed Highway chief Hake/VTrans Secretary Flynn last Friday after 2-year look leaves untouched Champlain Parkway blatant racial/low-income injustice in King Maple community of color. South Ender Carolyn Bates montage reflects reactions of many. Add Mayor Weinberger to this group! #btv #vtpoli"

      "Champlain Parkway 2-year Environmental (In)Justice work completed a design trifecta of planet heating and upped road injuries. Add Mayor Weinberger to the non-perform list!. #btv #vtpoli"

     "Robust[ed] System of Transportation" says Burlington Public Works director on WCAX. $100 million spent on 2.3 miles Parkway through the South End and not one inch of sidewalk, not one inch of safe bikeway/protected bike lane. That "Robusted!" #btv #vtpoli Go RIGHTway! ]

Red Light for Traffic Signals

The current Champlain Parkway design calls for 6-7 new traffic signal systems, a technology considered pause and dangerous in every way.  Here is a tweet announcing Freakonomics feature on roundabouts replacing signals:

“Traffic signals in most cases belong in recycling bins (highly toxic for pedestrians!). "Should Traffic Signals be Abolished?" on Freakonomics. City of almost no signals left (about 140 roundabouts, a dozen signals) Carmel, IN Mayor Brainard https://freakonomics.com/podcast/roundabouts/ #btv #vtpoli"

Burington—A Pedestrian or Bicycle Injury Weekly

Pedestrian and bicycle injuries are a weekly occurrence in Burlington.  The Champlain RIGHTway reduces bike/ped injuries versus the increase inherent in the current design. 

My recent tweet:  “Numbers in BTV are clear, about one pedestrian or cyclist injury weekly and two car occupants (from recent 5 year data set). BTV has 20 high crash intersections on state list, each 1.5 injuries/year average. City has not addressed any of these. #btv #vtpoli"

 

Roundabouts the Intersetion Standard, RRFBs not a Substitute

Locust Street—Roundabouts on Both Ends of Street? 

Next June we all know a roundabout gets going on the east end of Locust Street, a street home of a church, a church school and a major city playground. Two of the three Three Sisters streets go north from Locust along with another popular residential street, Hayward. The street slopes down slowly from east to west with a rather sharp decline approaching its west end on Pine Street with Parkside Terrace on the north corner and Callahan Park on the southside, a bus shelter on the east side perhaps about 100 feet south of the intersection. Callahan Park also continues a north/south pedestrian way for students who travel to and from Champlain School. 

Somehow, Locust Street either end has intersections with major change in the last decade. But are they the right changes? And what do the changes mean to safety, particularly for pedestrians? Pedestrians remain the "apartheid mode" with few efforts at high quality safety transportation investments to benefit the pedestrian, more often than not in our urban areas a person of color. 

We all walk but few bike!) Also, somehow, the west intersection of Locust, a T junction, is largely untouched by the Champlain Parkway, either in the current controversial design (my personal feelings set aside) or the coalition promoted Champlain RIGHTway (Pine Street Coalition, Vermont Racial Justice Alliance and Fortieth Burlington, LLC [Innovation Center]). (Not to say the RIGHTway coalition of three groups are truly all ears for any grassroots suggestions!!) While most have an opinion about roundabouts or at least know about them, few have given much thought to the City’s Department of Public Works (DPW) increasing use of RRFB’s (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons) installed mostly without even bothering to do much analysis of intersection management choices. So about 2013 or early 2014 during the Mayor Weinberger administration the first RRFBs were installed along Pine Street. I call them fireflies because along Pine Street at night where there are several one sees them light up sporadically like fireflies. In part because there is no clear priority for pedestrian safety in the City (its’s the apartheid mode remember) not much attention has been given to the RRFB versus the acknowledged safest pedestrian intersection which is the all-way-stop, versus the traffic light which is the true enemy of the pedestrian.

Defining the differences, particularly in regard to safety, is important even if one does not care about pedestrian since the City has about a third of its traffic high crash intersections, with our a quarter, 20, on the current VTrans high crash intersection list—those intersections average 1.5 injuries a year. Our five downtown VT roundabouts average one injury a decade (0 bike injuries in 52 years recorded and one pedestrian non-serious injury). Burlington experiences about two car occupants a week and one either a cyclist or a pedestrian injury (2012-2016 data). The RRFB The RRFB started as proprietary product and owed much of its success to a great extent from advertising and public relations activity (something roundabouts and all-way-stops lack!). 

 Traffic engineers for three generations have lived off traffic signals installations and their management—many without much knowledge of RRFB performance have apparently succumbed to their allure—and cheapness, about a tenth the cost of a traffic signal (about $175,000 median price). What do we know about the RRFB? The 2008 first research mostly centered on its first use for mid-block crossings—BTV is doing this too. A more recent study, 2020 is fairly comprehensive but still centers on mid-block or mid-block with a significant private entry: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Programs/ResearchDocuments/SPR814Final.pdf As an aside, it would nice if DPW began to seek research and analytical support in their decision making. Too much of Burlington transportation—Regional Planning too but to a lesser extent, staff as well as consultants—remains cookbook and ignoring major changes, sometimes rapid like bicycle treatments evolution at roundabouts, now proceeding. 

What we should ask and demand is transportation investments based not just on comprehensive cost benefit (sill in its infancy here in Vermont), but also on the “science,” transportation research. In a word we need a Fauci overview, the science, in our transport decisions. The 2020 Racism as a Public Health Emergency and 2019 Climate Change Emergency, both new City policies, must be afforded more than check the box response at DPW and CCRPC. So, privately promoted RRFBs are new, little research is available, particularly on use at intersections. It is true that mid-block crossing use may have benefit cost benefits versus very expensive ($1 million on up) HAWK and Pelican treatments—which do better than RRFBs but not when benefit cost is involved—still a tradeoff of cost for pedestrian injuries which is still involves careful thoughtful decision. RRFBs at the Locust St intersection.   First, the Pine Street RRFB intersection treatments apply mostly to crossing Pine Street but not along Pine crossings themselves—i.e., Marble, Locust, Howard marked crosswalks. Second, we have no thorough research on RRFB versus the normal and equally highest level of safety all-way-stop and roundabout. We must analyze alternatives because single-lane roundabout with central islands can be quite expensive, but mini roundabouts (recommended up and down Pine Street by Dan Burden in the AARP 2014 Pine Street Workshop report with preliminary feasibility designs provided for Pine/Maple Street intersection on page 1) can be quite cheap and obviously superior in safety (and most everything else!). Consider the fact that within the first few months of installation, there was a critical pedestrian injury at the Locust Street/Pine Street RRFB—more serious than any pedestrian injury (the one!) in a half century of downtown VT roundabouts tabulated. One critical injury does not mean we should reject RRFBs, but it jogs the mind and connects the new roundabout at one end of Locust, the mini recommendation of Dan Burden (58th on the list of great urbanists in recorded time) for every intersection south of Main Street, and, yes, the very fact the intersection has been unaddressed in the Champlain Parkway over half a century.

So, first, does an all-way-stop make sense at Locust/Pine as that is the traditional traffic engineer correctly staged most safe for pedestrians. Actually we have an all-way-stop at both Pine/Maple and Pine/King about seven blocks away—it is safe for the many pedestrians (most students using to access school buses a.m. and p.m. are persons of color). And yes, there is no anecdotal of pedestrian crashes there. But for sure anyone who travels, works, or lives along Pine Street knows at traditional drive time p.m. experience regular 4-7 minutes queues to clear the Maple Street intersection northbound. That would likely be duplicated for the downtown bound stream at Locust as well. The alternative roundabout here because of tight space, the mini-roundabout. First, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) lists the roundabout as the only pedestrian safety “proven countermeasure” and is the only intersection type on the list—FHWA might consider adding the all-way-stop to pedestrian proven safety countermeasure list. Yes, Roundabouts at Each End of Locust Street Since an all-way-stop means unacceptable addition at busy intersections of more queuing with vehicle delay and increased climate heating in violation of our 2019 Climate Change Emergency policy—the roundabout becomes the default choice—which in addition to pedestrian safety equal to the all-way-stop (signals FHWA tells us generate a 20% higher pedestrian crash rate than either all way or rounds) also results in sharply lower crash rates for vehicles, reductions in climate change emissions and pollutants, drops in vehicle delay and motor fuel consumption, lower maintenance cost and not eventual replacement costs (signals have a limited lifespan, even RRFBs), improved scenic quality, and certainly some safety benefit for cyclists if only through traffic calming of speeds two-three blocks in all directions. 

 At Locust/Pine most of the land, at least on three quadrants of publicly owned (the Park and either City and/or Burlington Electric Department on the westside assure no right-of-way acquisition issues. So, the costs of a mini-roundabout would be low and development time a few weeks of design and public review process followed by construction in the next normal season—usually installing (like at Shelburne Street Roundabout) in June after both elementary schools are closed. Price would be mid-five figures likely. Certainly for costs, comparing mini to RRFB, the roundabout wins easily. So let’s proceed with a scoping of a mini-roundabout at Pine/Locust and provide the safest street in the City with a roundabout at either end?—for a lengthy roundabout dogbone round duo!! RRFBs at Shelburne Street Roundabout? Why? For some reason RRFBs are to be installed at the Shelburne Street Roundabout in spite of the fact that not a single pedestrian has every died on the 9,000 US/Canadian roundabouts on a marked crosswalk through 2020 (two deaths on marked Burlington the roughly 75 traffic signal crosswalks since1998). 

If one were concerned about improving pedestrian safety at a roundabout which cuts serious or fatal injury upwards of 90% there are certainly better, cheaper engineering choices one would be expected to take. First, one could narrow entries/exits to 10 feet (see Keck Circle in Montpelier or Grand Union in Manchester Center) versus the practice of VTrans of 12-15 feet wide entry and exit lanes. In other words, reduce area of pedestrian exposure—a principle often and thankfully employed by our DPW. No costs involved but certainly some resulting reduced speeds beneficial to pedestrian safety. Second, one could employ raised crosswalks which has been done in a few cases elsewhere. Again, no cost. The problem is if you get roughly about a 90% average decline in pedestrian safety, then additional expenditures need to be carefully considered and not controversial. Narrowing entries and raised crosswalks do not engender anything negative. A signal without some scientific support? Raises serious concern the signal could increase ped injury rate. RRFBs which are not the best practice at an intersection and where there is no science to support it, is very questionable at a roundabout (why at a roundabout, for example, but not at an equally performing safe intersection type, the all-way-stop?). I myself avoid where I possibly can ever using an RRFB at an intersection, instead of venture carefully onto a crosswalk, making sure a vehicle driver sees me and yields, then halfway across repeat with traffic in the opposite direction. The reason? Like at a roundabout (sans signals) its safety depends not only by design (medians restricting crossing to one direction of traffic at a time, vehicle speed constraints) but also by making safe crossing include an alert pedestrian self-protecting and a driver yielding—neither with any distraction like a signal. Those are absent at a traffic signal—any traffic signal which interferes with accountability of driver and pedestrian, therefore accounting for the relatively poor signal pedestrian performance and the superior roundabout pedestrian performance. 

     Locust/Pine Roundabout and Bicyclists

Right now the Locust/Pine intersection provides no treatments applicable to the bicyclists. The Locust/Pine roundabout would provide significant safety improvements. First, a standard ramp—off on approach and ramp-on at the outgoing leg would be provided—same as at the Shelburne Street Roundabout. This “choice” of take the roundabout lane or shift to pedestrian mode and benefit from the safer pedestrian crossings is a safety improvement over the current configuration. The cyclist entering Pine Street from Locust clearly gains as a stop is no longer necessary, reduced speed conditions mean easier integration to traffic, etc. For bicyclists traveling south the roundabout offers an easier left turn against slowed northbound traffic and the off-on ramping now absent. 

Final Note 

My TonyRVT.blogspot.com includes a recent monograph application of roundabouts along North Street which is termed the most dangerous community street in Vermont and through adoption of mini roundabouts potentially becoming the safest. In addition there is the archive the monograph and walkability Burlington which first saw the light of day as a six part series here on the BWBC listserv.

Tony Redington September 19, 2021 TonyRVT99@gmail.com TonyRVT.blogspot.com @TonyRVT60

The Equality Street--A Step Up from the Complete Street, Accounting for Racial Bias

The Equality Street: Battle for a Champlain Parkway “RIGHTway,”

                      North Street Burlington, and Beyond

The Pine Street Coalition battle in the South End for a Champlain RGHTway moves to a new level as the City Council may well shortly approve building the Railroad Enterprise Project (REP) before any current pending Parkway is built—this would assure the King Maple neighborhood gets immediate relief from current levels unsafety, traffic, pollution and congestion instead of an additional onslaught of traffic from the City’s’ current obsolete, unsafe Champlain Parkway design. 

The REP was always wanted by the City as the Parkway route through to Main Street (Alternative 1 in the 2009 environmental document) instead of through Pine. REP extends from Kilburn St/Curtis Lumber on Pine Street to Battery Street so the Parkway route effectively bypasses King Maple neighborhood. King Maple has the lowest median income in Burlington, over 80% low and moderate income population and highest Vermont concentration of persons with black and brown skin.

  Pine Street and Two Principal Allies, a Major Victory

    —FHWA Funds Railroad Enterprise Project for $20 million and Likely Moves to the Front Burner 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) promised to walk away from the now $100 million project unless the Parkway cut King Maple in two and increased Pine Street traffic there 22-37% through King Maple to Main Street. The Parkway current design through King Maple degrades pedestrian safety and delay with two traffic signals replacing all-way-stops at Maple and King thereby raising speeds and pedestrian injury rates by 20% (all-way stop or a roundabout equal in their pedestrian safety superiority). 

Mayor Kiss and City Council rather than losing all funding accepted the current route under the duress in 2009 in spite of long time community opposition. The grassroots group Pine Street Coalition began in 2015 and following the leadership of the Burlington Walk Bike Council and undertaking community outreach, adopted a set of Parkway re-design guidelines, little changed to this day. The basics: (1) full sidewalk and separate bikeway along the entire route (none now, not an inch); (2) retaining connectivity between Pine Street and Queen City Park Road Kmart Plaza versus the current design dead ending Pine short of the Parkway; (3) use of engineering “best practices” including safest-for-all modes and climate change prevention champion roundabout (the one and only FHWA pedestrian safety “proven countermeasure” intersection); (4) cutting 1.5 miles of expensive excess lanes miles of roadway; (5) preservation and protection of Englesby Brook, the City’s largest stream entering Lake Champlain which the Parkway would stuff into a long pipe; and (6) accepting the Parkway as an ordinary City street and dropping full controlled access restraint at Pine/I 189 intersection. 

The Pine Street Coalition re-design guidelines and challenge documents issued in April 2018 clearly led to a change of heart by FHWA which suddenly offered the City the REP it rejected in 2009, and later even sweetened the offer with a better financial deal for the City after Pine Street Coalition went to US District Court on D-Day, June 6, 2019. Thanks to Pine Street’s long time partner (they were there before Pine Street) Fortieth Burlington, LLC owner of Innovation Center on Lakeside Avenue and joined by the second Vermont Racial Justice Alliance (VRJA) in summer 2019 during the now ending Environmental Justice two-year-plus outreach—a direct result of the Pine Street lawsuit—REP has now moved from a $20 million initial reluctant offer by FHWA toward front burner status. 

One cannot overstate the importance of the Environmental Justice process for the education it brought to all in detailing the blatant transportation racism and injustice not only in King Maple now acknowledged, but also the special core role the safest pedestrian design plays in avoiding disproportionate negative impact of roadway projects on communities of color and low income. That core safest pedestrian design when twinned with the best accommodation of bicycles is the very definition of an “equality street” in all senses of descriptive—from transportation equity for all modes to racial equity for communities of color with their far higher dependence on the walking mode. 

  Next Challenge—Achieving Champlain RIGHTway "Complete," “Equality Streets” 

Very simply, an equality street is first and foremost a busy street with sidewalks and roundabout intersections which also contain either on-street cycle track (protected bikes lanes) and/or a separate safe two-way bikeway. There now is not a single inch of “equality street” along the existing Champlain Parkway and Rail Enterprise Project design! Quite the contrary the current Parkway and REP design are clearly racially and transportation unjust and discrimination by the inferior treatment of those who walk and bike versus those who travel by motor vehicle. Burlington actually established a landmark “equality” street model in the North Avenue Corridor Plan (2014) which contains three basics—sidewalks and roundabouts at key intersections, and end-to-end cycle track. 

It was the Parkway Environmental Justice process and leadership of VRJA, its director Mark Hughes and their staff, that led over the last two years which led to the expanded and deepened definition of an equality street. Expanded in the sense of applying directly to the lexicon of racist transportation practice where a community of color or low-income neighborhoods are present or affected. Deepened in clearly defining sidewalks and either all-way-stop or roundabout intersections as the minimum standard of pedestrian design of busy streets. It is the Parkway converting of two all-way-stop intersections with many pedestrians to traffic signals which set up the real life conflict which has arisen in the Parkway Environmental Justice process. 

The Parkway environmental document of 2009 and previous public process ended two years before the Vermont Complete Streets Law (2011) enactment which calls for consideration of safe accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle modes in road projects. Even a cursory examination of that law along with Burlington practice and plans shows the use of a shared use path treatment in the Parkway and REP fails the Vermont legal standard and is inconsistent by mixing two modes to the detriment of both as well as in an unsafe manner. Key to understanding the equality street definition, particularly the need for a pedestrian sidewalk treatment, is recognizing that neighborhoods of low income and communities of color are in fact disproportionately dependent on safe walking facilities because they are significantly pedestrian and transit dependent. In Burlington’s King Maple and Old North End neighborhoods fully 30% of residents lack access to a car. Burlington Public Works Commissioner and UVM professor Pablo Bose is not only a researcher in this regard, he is also active in assisting New Americans and others lacking a car obtain necessary transportation services.

Further, the pedestrian mode has always been pretty much ignored in transportation by government. For example there have been incentives and tax breaks for solo commuter drivers to give up their annual $2,000 parking garage spaces and $600 surface parking lot space, incentives for van group participants, incentives for taking transit to work and incentives to bicyclists—but never any formal incentive to the sizable walk-to-work set who cost the employer the least and do so in a healthy way! In a word, the pedestrian mode is the apartheid transportation mode, the right-turn-on red allowed today which kills about 30 pedestrians being the most obvious outrage of transportation discrimination not to mention the 50% increase in pedestrian deaths since 2010 (two such deaths in Burlington). 

In the larger picture of discrimination, people of color die at 50-90% higher rates per population than white-non-hispanic (Native Americans 2 to 3 times the lower "white" rate). We must assure the highest level of quality and safe pedestrian facilities in our urban neighborhoods, particularly where there are numbers of low income and persons of color—something totally lacking in the current Parkway and REP. With tabulations showing a bicycle or pedestrian injury weekly in Burlington (plus two car occupant injuries) and a bicycle or pedestrian death every five years, safety on our streets is major concern.

  Parkway/Railyard Enterprise and the Controlled Access Versus a Complete, Equality Street Standard

The Parkway and Railyard Enterprise Project are a vestige of 80 year old ring-road around Burlington concept with the circle to be closed from I 189 by the Parkway through the South End, through the waterfront and Old North End to the VT 127 Beltline which dates from the 1980s— finally the completed circle via the Circumferential Highway from Colchester through Essex to VT 289 and interchange with I 89. The Circumferential Highway was effectively canceled by Governor Shumlin in 2011 and the waterfront/Old North End section of the ring road was discarded decades before. 

Pine Street Coalition has assumed from a the start the “controlled access” of the interstate is relaxed, ending at the I 189/Pine Street/Queen City Park Rd/RIGHTway interchange intersection. From that intersection pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as additional intersections (like one at the City Market South End parking access, for example) could be installed as the RIGHTway onward becomes an ordinary busy street following the Vermont Complete Streets Law (2011) which calls for safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists, a step now better described as employing the “equality street” model contained in the City’s North Avenue Corridor Plan or the Pine Street/VRJA/Fortieth Burlington, Champlain RIGHTway design guidelines necessitated by the presence of a community of color and a number of safety considerations, pedestrian safety paramount. 

  The “Shared Use” Pedestrian/Bicycle Facility—Second Class, Racial and Low Income Discriminatory

    Accommodation for Bicyclists and Especially Pedestrians

The current design of the Parkway and REP both utilize either nothing or a shared use path (REP) exclusively thereby mixing high speed bicycles and e-bikes with on foot children, families, and those who move either temporarily or permanently by cane and walker. In a rural setting this might be satisfactory but in a busy metropolitan center like the South End of Burlington with practically unlimited space for a sidewalk and separate 2-way bike lane through out the REP and Parkway use of a shared use path considering the community of color is nothing but straight, blatant racial discrimination and injustice! 

It can be expected the REP/Parkway which connects at either end with the Burlington Bikepath (a recreation path) will bring a large number of visitors and City residents making a “circle” tour—Bikepath and "South End Bikeway”—as Pine Street supporters envision thereby aiding the South End economy. Further the longer term promise of a full service bikeway from the north tip of ONE south to Queen City Park Road is moved ahead with the “South End Bikeway.” South End residents during public meetings on the REP expressed the importance of their using the REP to access the Bikepath—now with only two South End at grade connections—one via Austin Drive/Oakledge Park and the other at Harrison Street opposite Sears Lane. Note the “new” Parkway roadway sections with right-of-way acquired decades ago (including Road to Nowhere) are about 100 feet in width to accommodate the early planned four lane divided highway, now to be two lanes requiring less than half the 100 foot width. Spending $100 million where there is more than sufficient right-of-way and getting not a single inch of sidewalk or separate bikeway is pathological and discriminating street design! 

  North Street and Beyond 

Burlington has a major task before it addressing the 20—all but one signalized—intersections on the State high crash list, 18% of the 111 statewide and averaging 1.5 injuries a year. The 19 signalized intersections (not all were tabulated in the statewide report) represent over one in four of Burlington’s traffic signals which total about 75. Not surprisingly many of the high crash signalized intersections are in the Old North End (ONE), including four of the six on North Street between North Avenue and North Union. North Street with its many commercial businesses is truly a “community street” and it can easily and cheaply be converted from perhaps the least safe Vermont community street to the most safe using the knowledge developed in the South End RIGHTway, the Environmental Justice process now ending, and the North Avenue Corridor Plan endeavors. The inexpensive mini roundabout first suggested in the AARP Vermont Pine Street Workshop (2014) is particularly adapted to the narrow right of way along North Street. So, the many lessons learned during the past several years can be applied to problem streets and intersections throughout Burlington. 

Tony Redington 

onyRVT99@gmail.com

Easy Converting Burlington's Most Unsafe and Dangerous VT Community Street to Safest!

Burlington High Crash Intersecitons "BTV Crash-20"

“BTV Crash-20”: Burlington's 20 Intersections in the Vermont High Crash Location Report 2012-2016 Note: This paper is a substantial expansion of a paper developed earlier. Twenty of Vermont's high crash intersections reside within Burlington—20 or 18% of the 111 tabulated high crash intersections statewide in the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) 2012-2016 report containing five years of data. They are the “BTV Crash-20” in Burlington averaging at least one injury a year. These 20 intersections on average generated $3.2 million cost per year in injury and property damage as well as assumed police, emergency and other related costs. The cost of a roundabout—the one proven safety countermeasure type intersection—to prevent or cure a high majority of serious and fatal injuries as well as overall crash reductions—can be as little as a few as $20-$50,000 in the case of mini-roundabouts. Roundabouts can be design and built in the case of mini roundabouts in a matter of weeks. Burlington's BTV Crash-20 averaged 1.5 injuries each per year—and received an overall rating taking into account injury severity and other factors. A roadway fatality occurs in Burlington about every three years. Four of seven recent Burlington fatalities were a pedestrian or bicyclist and all but one occurred at a signalized intersection (never the standard for safe intersection traffic management). Not only did Burlington hold six of the top 20 high crash slots (30%) on the statewide list, the BTV Crash-20 list did not include the Shelburne/St. Paul/Locust/S. Willard intersection, locally known as the “intersection of death” because it is scheduled to be a roundabout in 2022 under a 100% federal highway funding program for safety investments. In addition there are likely several more high crash intersections but only intersections on the State’s “federal aid system” are tabulated in the state report. Note the average cost per crash per year provided in the State report ranged in 2014 dollars from a low of $11,300 to a high of $110,720. The bulk of the 20 cost per crash were in the range of $20,000 to $30,000, a total of 12 of the 20. So, for example, where an inexpensive mini roundabout the payback in reduced crash costs would be about two years. The AARP Vermont Pine Street Corridor report (2014) recommended minis along Pine Street where ages old development precludes larger roundabouts, quite similar to the North Street corridor containing four high crash intersections. Based on four of recent intersection fatalities a pedestrian (3) or bicyclist (1), a pedestrian or bicyclist occurs about every five years here. Nationwide the growth of pedestrian fatalities, over 45% since 2010, led to the highest number of pedestrian deaths in 2018, over 6,000, since 1990. Note that six of the last seven Burlington fatalities were at signalized intersections—the two 2018 fatalities were a pedestrian at an unmarked crossing at North Avenue/Poirier Place and a car occupant at Shelburne Street/Home Avenue, site of a pedestrian fatal in 1998. Roundabouts according to an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 2001 report reduce serious and fatal injury crashes by about 90%. While the “Burlington Transportation Plan” issued in 2011 states safety as a “critical” element for transportation improvement there remains not a single “safe” intersection, aka roundabout, built on a busy public street in the City or in the County. Note the $47 million Champlain Parkway project will introduce six new obsolete and unsafe traffic signal installations which promise a backward step in Burlington safety by increasing injuries and crashes in Burlington's South End. (It must be noted in view of the climate emergency a roundabout instead of a signal reduces global warming emissions 22- 29% amounting to from 3,000 to over 10,000 gallons of gasoline reduction along with associated global warming emissions compared to a signalized intersection—the higher the traffic volume the higher the reduction in gasoline use and global warming emissions.) Federal Highway Administration safety website for “Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ This one page summary in turn refers to “Proven Safety Countermeasures”: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ The four paragraph “Proven Safety Countermeasures” lists 20 treatments in graphic form and states in part: “This list of Proven Safety Countermeasures has now reached a total of 20 treatments and strategies that practitioners can implement to successfully address roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Among the 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures are several crosscutting strategies that address multiple safety focus areas.” 20 measures Only intersection “traffic management system” “proven safety countermeasure”: Roundabouts. Another proven safety countermeasure are “Medians and Pedestrian Crossing Islands” are an integral part of any roundabout design. Burlington High Crash Intersections—Mostly Signalized All but one of the BTV Crash-20 intersections are signalized—the one sign controlled high crash intersection is North Street/North Union with three-way stop sign control. The BTV Crash-20 are about a quarter of Burlington's total of about 75 signalized intersections. Burlington's share of high crash locations has been going up over the last three reports, from 14.5% in 2006-2010 to 18% of high crash locations 2012-2016. Burlington also features the number one highest crash rate in Vermont, the intersection of Main Street and South Winooski Avenue. Main/South Winooski in the five year period experienced 11 injuries—over two a year—98 crashes total with 90 crashes property damage only (PDO) (no injuries resulting). Based on frequency, just about every household has a member involved in a roadway crash every decade in Burlington or elsewhere. With about 150 injuries a year in the City and 1,400 property damage only crashes--about 16,000 crashes each decade mostly involving two vehicles or the equivalent of 30,000 affected households in a City of 16,000 households. Those fortunate not to be affected by a highway crash certainly observe a crash each decade or know those affected by a roadway crash. The BTV Crash-20 costs can be calculated from value of types of crashes provided in the State report—it comes to $2.5 million a year, $12.4 million for the five years of data tabulated. These costs go into the costs of auto insurance policies for vehicle owners. The BTV Crash-20 represent about 10% of all injuries each year and a similar proportion of property damage only crashes. Finally, note the Vermont report uses a fairly conservative estimate for the economic cost of a fatality and injury. The $1.5 million for a fatality Burlington High Crash Location Intersections Data 2012-2016 Base Data from Current Vermont High Crash Report Data from“High Crash Location Report: Sections and Intersections 2012-2016” Vermont Agency of Transportation --6,840 PDO 2013-2017. 1,368 per year Citywide. 696 PDO 2012-2016 at 20 high crash locations, each year 139—10% of all PDO citywide! --per decade approximately Citywide: 13,700 PDO crashes, 1,500 injury crashes; about 15,000 crashes overall Citywide per decade—equivalent to about one crash per decade per household in Burlington. About one third of all annual injuries or 50 injuries are a bicyclist or pedestrian, about equally divided. 2012-2016 High Crash Location Report --“The average economic costs in 2014 as used in the report are: Fatality (Death) $1,500,000; Injury (Disabling Injury) $88,500; No Injury Observed $ 11,300 [property damage only, PDO]. P 6 [Note the U.S. Department of Transportation uses a value of life method, right now a life is valued in excess of $10 million.] --20 BTV Intersections: 1 fatality, 147 injuries [1.47 injuries per intersection per year], 29.4 injuries/ 20 intersections per year--equals 19.6 of all roadway injuries recorded yearly (~150 based on recent survey) --All are signalized except North Street/North Union --111 Intersections reached threshold for high crash status, then are ranked --the 20 BTV intersections are 18.0% of the 111 high crash intersections tabulated; 21.8% of the highest 87 crash ranked intersections --696 property damage only (PDO), 139 PDO crashes per year, 7.0 PDO crashes per intersection per year —cost of Burlington High Crash intersections (2014 dollars) Fatality $1,500,000 (1) Injuries 3,000,010 (147) Property Damage Only (PDO) $7,864,800 (696) Total: 5 Years: $12,364,810 Cost per Year: $2,472,962 Source: “Vermont High Crash Location Report: Sections and Intersections 2012-2016.” 2017 VTrans https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/highway/Formal %202012-2016%20High%20Crash%20Location%20Report.pdf Since the 20 Burlington high crash intersections are about 10% of all crashes and injuries recorded a rough approximation of the cost per year of highway crashes and injuries is ten times the cost per year figure of the high crash intersection, $2,472,692 or $24,700,000 annually in 2014 dollars, $31,616,000 in 2021 dollars. The costs developed for individual crashes by type include public costs for emergency, medical, police, etc., costs but not intangibles like pain and suffering, effects on neighborhood quality of life, etc. 2010-2014 High Crash Location Report --19 of 132 intersections tabulated or 14.4% --169 injuries 33.8 injuries per year, 1.8 injuries per intersection per year 2012-2016 High Crash Location Report Tabulated Burlington Intersections—19 signalized, 1 3-way stop control (dollars per crash) #1 S. Winooski/Main (Alternate US 7) 0.990 5 years/98 crashes/11 injuries/90 PDO ($20,311/crash) Total Crashes (per year): 98 (19.6) #5 Colchester/Barrett 0.990 5 years/34 crashes/7 injuries/1fatality/26 PDO ($71,312/crash) Total Crashes (per year): 34 (6.8) #11 South Prospect/Main (US 2) 0.220 5 years/72 crashes/9 injuries/65PDO ($21,264) Total Crashes (per year): 72 (14.4) #14 South Willard-US 7/Main 2.110 5 years/65 crashes/9 injuries/58 PDO ($22,337/crash) Total Crashes (per year): 65 (5.4) #15 Colchester/East Ave 0.430 5 years/44 crashes/9 injuries/35 PDO ($27,091) Total Crashes (per year): 44 (8.8) #20 North Union/South Union/Pearl 0.000 5 years/19 crashes/5 injuries/15 PDO ($32,211) Total Crashes (per year): 19 (3.8) #23 North/North Champlain 0.220 5 years/43 crashes/12 injuries/17 PDO ($30,219) Total Crashes (per year): 45 (8.6) #24 Main/St. Paul 0.250 5 years/39 crashes/7 injuries/32 PDO ($25,156) Total Crashes (per year): 39 (7.8) #25 Pearl/South Prospect/Colchester 0.930 5 years/40 crashes/12 injuries/34 PDO ($33,633) Total Crashes (per year): 40 (8.0) #31 Battery/Main 0.220 5 years/45 crashes/8 injuries/38 PDO ($25,276) Total Crashes (per year): 45 (9.0) #32 VT 127 Beltline 1.340 5 years/5 crashes/6 injuries (Location ?)/2 PDO (110,720) Total Crashes (per year): 5 (1.0) #38 North Winooski (Alternative US 7)/Pearl 1.310 5 years/61 crashes/13 injuries/51 PDO 
($23,489) Total Crashes (per year): 61 (12.2) #40 Park/North 0.280 5 years/19 crashes/4 injuries/16 PDO ($28,147) Total Crashes (per year): 19 (3.8) #46 North Winooski (Alternate 7)/North 1.620 5 years/19 crashes/3 injuries/16 PDO ($23,489) Total Crashes (per year): 19 (3.8) #47 US 7 North Willard/Pearl 2.420 5 years/57 crashes/13 injuries/47 PDO ($29,502) Total Crashes (per year): 57 (11.4) #52 Main/South Union 0.520 5 years/37 crashes/9 injuries/30 PDO ($30,689) Total Crashes (per year): 37 (7.4) #64 US 7 North Willard/Riverside Alternative 7 3.050 5 years/27 crashes/5 injuries/23 PDO ($22,337) Total Crashes (per year): 27 (5.4) #76 Swift/Shelburne Rd. (S. Burlington/Burlington) 1.720 5 years/60 crashes/1 injuries/59 PDO ($12,587) Total Crashes (per year): 60 (12.0) #87 North Union/North 0.300 5 years/15 crashes/0 injuries/15 PDO (3-way stop) ($11,300) Total Crashes (per year): 15 (3.0) #110 North Avenue/North 0.180 5 years/20 crashes/4 injuries/17 PDO ($27,305) Total Crashes (per year): 20 (4.0) Tony Redington Safe Streets Burlington ( SafeStreetsBurlington.com ) TonyRVT99@gmai.com @TonyRVT60 TonyRVT.blogspot.com June 10, 2021

Pine Street/VT Racial Justice Call for Railyard First, then RIGHTWAY to cut King Maple up to 59%!!

Pine Street Fights for Environmental Justice, Safe Walk and Bike Accommodation, and Economic Growth in a Champlain “RIGHTway Street and Street Design Pine Street Wins Key Change in Parkway: Still Miles to Go! …first build Railyard connection to Battery Street slicing current traffic in King Maple by 59%, then build a redesigned the Parkway to a complete “RIGHTway” by safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists, employing “best practices” for minimizing injuries for all, preserving Englesby Brook and slashing 1.5 lane- miles of excess roadway. “Stop it! Stop it Now!…We’ll be back!” Mark Hughes, Vermont Racial Justice Alliance Parkway Hearing, July 29, 2020 Two years ago—June 6, 2019—the grassroots Pine Street Coalition stopped the 1950s South End still gargantuan highway proposal in its tracks by filing a lawsuit in federal court. That lawsuit caused the feds to apply new Environmental Justice regulations to the 2009 Parkway route which today cuts in half the King Maple community of color and 26% residents with poverty incomes! Lower upscale Pine Street traffic drops 76% while stressed King Maple gets flooded with 37% more cars and trucks! Suddenly after lawsuit federal officials who in 2006 dismissed the City fight against the King Maple routing retreated saying OK, you can bypass King Maple as originally advocated by our Mayor and Council with a connection between Battery Street and Pine Street adjacent to Curtis Lumber. The “Railyard” project now in planning cuts King Maple traffic by upwards of 59% while still cutting the majority of traffic along Pine below Flynn Avenue. Still, federal and Vermont officials want to build the current design first with its full bore devastation on King Maple only to come back at some as yet unknown future year “cure” the Parkway harms. Bypass King Maple now! Kill the Parkway through King Maple! A “RIGHTway” design saves millions in cost in a project now topping $100 million! Our all volunteer Pine Street Coalition, now about six years old, is composed of about 200 citizens.  Pine Street is an outgrowth of Burlington Walk Bike Council analysis and concerns 2014-2016 over lack of safe, separate walk and bike accommodations  anywhere along the Parkway base route, and a larger community opposition which caused a complete rewrite of the planBTV South End to include a future vision of the South End with and without the Parkway as then designed.  Add the numerous laws, policies and plans now in place since the 2009 now rescinded environmental document--plus the one the ground changes like the South End City Market Coop Store, Blodgett Oven moving out being replaced by a generator space type development, etc.  Those laws, policies and plans include, among others: Vermont Complete Streets Law (2011), new Environmental Justice regulations, federal requirements that highway funds decrease serious and fatal injuries, and our own City plans and policies which include our the Climate Change Emergency (2019), Transportation Plan (2011), Racism as a Public Health Emergency (2020), and our landmark and regularly revised Climate Action Plan which dates back to the 1990s. Vermont Racial Justice Alliance and Fortieth Burlington (Innovation Center) Pine Street expanded last fall by joining with the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance (VRJA) which together with a long standing association with Fortieth Burlington, LLC (Fortieth) creates a larger group in a common cause. Fortieth owns the former 1800s manufacturing complex now reborn as a modern office complex, Innovation Center on Lakeside Avenue. Without the appeal of the Act 250 permit to the Vermont Supreme Court by Fortieth, the current atrocious and harmful Parkway design would be in place today with devastating impacts on the King Maple community of color and a harmful bubble covering the entire South End! So, our Pine Street Coalition formed a joint effort with VRJA and Fortieth last fall and individually and jointly continue initiatives along a common set of accepted re-design guidelines originally developed in a community process years ago which continues today with little change--see the new "one-pager" which describes our common design elements we seek in a re-designed, Railyard first built modern transportation facility.  It is this "Railyard first" which means an immediate and permanent reduction in traffic, stress and pollution in King Maple which has come to the fore in our thinking and advocacy over the past three months!  Our common cause separate, parallel and joint actions. Both VRJA and ourselves are proud of the Vermont Sierra Club inaugural Transit Equity day award early this year, a joint award which recognizes our common cause efforts to address racial equity in the King Maple neighborhood as well as a quality, safe, “equality” streets Parkway design.    We here at Pine Street mark with sadness the recent passing of a founding member of our "presentation team", Charles Simpson, also a long time member of Neighborhood Planning Assembly 6 Steering Committee, and retired SUNNY Plattsburgh professor, expert in community land use and urban development!  

Pine Street and Vermont Racial Justice Call for Champlain RIGHTway cutting King Maple Traffic 59%!

Pine Street Fights for Environmental Justice, Safe Walk and Bike Accommodation, and Economic Growth in a Champlain “RIGHTway Street and Street Design Pine Street Wins Key Change in Parkway: Still Miles to Go! …first build Railyard connection to Battery Street slicing current traffic in King Maple by 59%, then build a redesigned the Parkway to a complete “RIGHTway” by safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists, employing “best practices” for minimizing injuries for all, preserving Englesby Brook and slashing 1.5 lane- miles of excess roadway. “Stop it! Stop it Now!…We’ll be back!” Mark Hughes, Vermont Racial Justice Alliance Parkway Hearing, July 29, 2020 Two years ago—June 6, 2019—the grassroots Pine Street Coalition stopped the 1950s South End still gargantuan highway proposal in its tracks by filing a lawsuit in federal court. That lawsuit caused the feds to apply new Environmental Justice regulations to the 2009 Parkway route which today cuts in half the King Maple community of color and 26% residents with poverty incomes! Lower upscale Pine Street traffic drops 76% while stressed King Maple gets flooded with 37% more cars and trucks! Suddenly after lawsuit federal officials who in 2006 dismissed the City fight against the King Maple routing retreated saying OK, you can bypass King Maple as originally advocated by our Mayor and Council with a connection between Battery Street and Pine Street adjacent to Curtis Lumber. The “Railyard” project now in planning cuts King Maple traffic by upwards of 59% while still cutting the majority of traffic along Pine below Flynn Avenue. Still, federal and Vermont officials want to build the current design first with its full bore devastation on King Maple only to come back at some as yet unknown future year “cure” the Parkway harms. Bypass King Maple now! Kill the Parkway through King Maple! A “RIGHTway” design saves millions in cost in a project now topping $100 million! Our all volunteer Pine Street Coalition, now about six years old, is composed of about 200 citizens.  Pine Street is an outgrowth of Burlington Walk Bike Council analysis and concerns 2014-2016 over lack of safe, separate walk and bike accommodations  anywhere along the Parkway base route, and a larger community opposition which caused a complete rewrite of the planBTV South End to include a future vision of the South End with and without the Parkway as then designed.  Add the numerous laws, policies and plans now in place since the 2009 now rescinded environmental document--plus the one the ground changes like the South End City Market Coop Store, Blodgett Oven moving out being replaced by a generator space type development, etc.  Those laws, policies and plans include, among others: Vermont Complete Streets Law (2011), new Environmental Justice regulations, federal requirements that highway funds decrease serious and fatal injuries, and our own City plans and policies which include our the Climate Change Emergency (2019), Transportation Plan (2011), Racism as a Public Health Emergency (2020), and our landmark and regularly revised Climate Action Plan which dates back to the 1990s. Vermont Racial Justice Alliance and Fortieth Burlington (Innovation Center) Pine Street expanded last fall by joining with the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance (VRJA) which together with a long standing association with Fortieth Burlington, LLC (Fortieth) creates a larger group in a common cause. Fortieth owns the former 1800s manufacturing complex now reborn as a modern office complex, Innovation Center on Lakeside Avenue. Without the appeal of the Act 250 permit to the Vermont Supreme Court by Fortieth, the current atrocious and harmful Parkway design would be in place today with devastating impacts on the King Maple community of color and a harmful bubble covering the entire South End! So, our Pine Street Coalition formed a joint effort with VRJA and Fortieth last fall and individually and jointly continue initiatives along a common set of accepted re-design guidelines originally developed in a community process years ago which continues today with little change--see the new "one-pager" which describes our common design elements we seek in a re-designed, Railyard first built modern transportation facility.  It is this "Railyard first" which means an immediate and permanent reduction in traffic, stress and pollution in King Maple which has come to the fore in our thinking and advocacy over the past three months!  Our common cause separate, parallel and joint actions. Both VRJA and ourselves are proud of the Vermont Sierra Club inaugural Transit Equity day award early this year, a joint award which recognizes our common cause efforts to address racial equity in the King Maple neighborhood as well as a quality, safe, “equality” streets Parkway design.    We here at Pine Street mark with sadness the recent passing of a founding member of our "presentation team", Charles Simpson, also a long time member of Neighborhood Planning Assembly 6 Steering Committee, and retired SUNNY Plattsburgh professor, expert in community land use and urban development!  

What if Burlington City Council Does What NYC City Council did with Veto Proof Vote to Suddenly Spend 6% of Budget for Fed Housing Vouchers

The VT Housing Finance Agency vhfa.com seeks comments on $1.5 million to be spent on covid relief without addressing the underlying income gap. Below are my comments submitted today, May 29, and the address for anyone to submit comments, etc. https://www.vhfa.org/news/blog/dhcd-seeks-public-comment-recovery-housing-plan COMMENTS: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan for use of federal recovery funds received by Vermont. This opportunity to comment was provided by a VHFA tweet in the last day. First and foremost as anyone knows who even takes a cursory look at Vermont governmental activity in the area of housing, there is no comprehensive housing plan and the pandemic has held up a Agency of Human Services doing even a plan for older Vermonters. The housing "problem" is summed by the Center for Budget Priorities as a need for an additional 16,000 fed type "affordable housing assistance" (shelter security at 30% income max rent) for Vermont (not including homeowners and mobile homes on rental sites) with 14,000 units in place serving on in five renters. Vermont so-called "affordable housing" (tax credit non-profit and Burlington "inclusionary zoning') is best described in the annual HUD report of tax credit housing where 24% of households pay in excess of 30% of income and 6% pay over half their income for rent. So, no plan for Vermont and a need which is clearly not addressed. The use of any public for funds for homeownership makes no sense while the 1,000 households, for example, sit on the Burlington Housing Authority waitlist, for example. New York City's City Council remarkably this week passed a veto proof budget with 6%--for the first time--set for affordable fed type Section 8 assistance vouchers (30% income max rent). There really are no such City budgeted units like this today! Vermont and BTV also do zilch here while doing "pretend" short term treatments, sort of like having an emergency room of housing with no wards for longer term treatment. If Burlington employed 6% of their general fund for fed type vouchers it would create about 600 vouchers, end homelessness overnight and address a good chunk of our Housing Authority waitlist. It is also time for Vermont state government to stand up and act like an adult in the room. The 30% requirement for a household income needs to be dropped to 25% as it was until the Reagan administration--30% if frankly confiscatory and exploitive of the lower income classes. The entire are of providing transitional assistance where there is no promise of longer term assistance is in itself cruel and unusual aid--depressing to those who administer the funds and those who received them. We must--as then Sen. Harris' Rent Relief Act called for--make Section 8 type aid as universal and not dependent on the drugs you do or do not consume. Drug addiction is a health issue not a housing issue. Finally I would refer you to Mathew Desmond's book "Eviction" and particularly the 60 or so pages of notes which comprise a graduate course in housing policy--and note that he like myself subscribe to universal vouchers--when we reach that point the behavior issues can be handed off where they belong--in the human services and health fields! Thank you for the opportunity to comment and this program design--it is not a plan. There is no housing plan for Vermont or the City of Burlington. That must also be addressed! Yours truly, Tony Redington

Some Comments on Transportation, etc. to the VT Climate Council--Motor Fuels, Walk, Transit, Rail

VERMONT CLIMATE COUNCIL PUBLIC INPUT FORM https://anrweb.vt.gov/ANR/ClimateCouncil/PublicInputForm.aspx?PKID=2633 Below are comments submitted today, May 20, 2021 Good Day All: My comments--as former transportation policy development chief for VAOT writing its first two policy plans incuding Act 200--centers on transportation but also from my experience as a statewide housing and rail planner in NH as well as a director of the NH Housing Commission there. VT in transportation is really in an enviable position compared to our northern NE neighbors even considering we had an unexpected growth of population 2010-2020 according to first Census reporting. Immediately below note that going into 2020 when we know there was a sharp drop in vehicle miles (13% nationwide while road deaths increased 8%) we only needed to drop motor fuel consumption 16% to each a goal of 1990 motor fuel consumption. We likely came within a percent above or below motor fuel consumption of 1990 this past year--though this creates a lot of pressure to maintain that in 2021! https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019/mf202.cfm (FHWA, Highway Statistics, Series) Net Motor Fuel Taxed (000 gallons) State Vermont Maine New Hampshire Year 1990 329,543 709,799 550,014 1995 391,512 732,829 626,638 2000 411,065 856,796 770,059 2005 415,386 895,578 812,635 2010 388,988 850,450 803,334 2015 379,108 974,479 808,211 2019 381,931 914,922 835,032 NH: 2019 versus 1990 +51.8% Maine : + 28.9% VT: +15.9% No reason to jump for joy, but an clear indication that CAFE standards and beginning efforts at demand management and other actions to reduce driving have had a substantial impact creating a downtrend in motor fuel usage for a decade in Vermont! The major cause of Vermont and national sprawl has been federal and state subsidies of car use and homeownership--yes, we have such subsidies, Canada does not have federal housing and transport programs and has half again urban densities as a result. Electric cars will not overcome Vermont sprawl, only a stop to federal and state subsidies for auto ownership and operation, and misguided tax homeownership policies. This must be part of any climate solution policy set!! We live in a period of a highway fatality and serious injury pandemic---now 21,000 excess deaths in America (30 in Vermont) yearly versus the top four nations average (Norway, Ireland, Switzerland and UK now on top, US now number 18, we being with UK number 1 in road safety in 1990!). Vermont needs to adopt a program of replacing hundred of the approximately 400 traffic signal systems with modern roundabouts. Each roundabout will aid in reducing sprawl, reduce engird consumption the equivalent of 3,000 to 20,000 gallons of motor fuel use, and enable safety walking and bicycling in our downtowns and urban centers, the exception not the rule (think Middlebury and Manchester Center) today. AARP, Geico, AAA, and Insurance institute for Highway Safety--all advocate converting signals to roundabouts for safety. There is an equal reason, cutting climate change emissions! Vermont has no transport policy in the area of safety or climate change. This vacuum must end. Evidence of change toward walkability and bikeability can only be measured by the number of roundabouts found in downtown, mixed urban areas, etc.--and miles of cycle track installed. Note that our Vermont downtown roundabouts in 52 years of data did not record a single bike injury, just one non-serious pedestrian injury and average one injury a decade versus, for example, 20 Burlington high crash intersections which avenge 1.5 injuries per year! There is an equity issue at play which has been ignored as walkability remained in the vineyard of apartheid transportation. Those living in poverty including much of the population of Vermonters with black and brown skin are disproportionately dependent on walking and transit as 30% of residents of Burlington's Old North End and King Maple neighborhoods lack access to a car. Nationally pedestrians with Black skin die at almost twice the rate of white, Hispanic persons about 50% higher and Native Americans at two-three times of white pedestrian fatality rates. When spending to help well-to-do to own e-vehicles, we must also invest heavily in walkable urban and near town centers, particularly along transit routes (safe routes to the bus stop!) and locations with multi-use land development. National and Vermont transportation investments can be characterized as malign neglect and if we make safety the first consideration--as USDOT Peter Buttigieg espouses--the walking and bicycling investments will be made so incentives to use transit, walk and bike, will have a fertile context rather the lumps of coal now mostly in place. You will find my commentary on the role of light rail and commuter rail at my blog, TonyRVT.blogpost.com In short, we need to install a light rail network in Chittenden County (about 3 years to do as the $6.3 billion Cdn. begins operation next spring to be supplemented already another $10 billion Cdn. being pumped in on Montreal island. We could do a light rail system here in three years too. Intercity and commuter rail should also be on the table which when connected to Greyhound and VT Translines and our regional transit operators brings an entirely new system, lower levels at low fare and fare free, for moving around Vermont in our daily car-free! Yours truly, Tony Redington Walk Safety Advocate 125 Saint Paul St Apt 3-03 Burlington Also cited SafeStreetsBurlington.com website

Fritz Mondale, Some New Hampshire Politics, and Start with Dwight Eisenhower

4/20/2021 Some Personal History of Fritz Mondale, Presidential Politics, and New Hampshire Walter “Fritz” Mondale and his family represented the kind of caring and community committed politics we see (for many including myself surprisingly) embodied in Joe Biden this year. First saw Mondale at a Democratic state convention about 1968 in Maine a the “Democratic” noontime reception in the downtown hotel, the Sheraton Eastland, owned by the Dunfey family which would also would own the Sheraton in Bedford, NH which for many years also was the home of all would be presidential contenders from the 1970s through the end of the century—you would even see at lunch the likes of Pat Robertson who ran in the Republican primaries once. At the Sheraton in Bedford, NH experienced locals would shun the presidential parade which always seems a sideshow except, of course, for the candidate you and your family supported! Fritz was a young looking 40ish at that point with a crewcut and relaxed manner (did Mondale every have a different look?) as moved around with fellow and far more senior Senator Ed Muskie of Maine who was moving towards a presidential candidacy of his own. This immediate post-Great Society period had shifted to the Vietnam War as an increasingly dominant issue—and Muskie’s campaign lost the anti-Vietnam college fuel ultimately causing his campaign to hit the rocks. Muskie’s plan for the 1972 presidential nomination was derailed, a victim of the anti-Vietnam insurgency and Democratic Party structure upheaval which hit the simultaneous ceiling and rock bottom with Nixon landsliding into re-election followed by a first ever resignation of the presidency from massive personal and White House staffers lawbreaking. Senator George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic candidate, was as honest and forthright as Nixon was the opposite. Mondale went on to be vice-president under Carter who lost to Reagan in 1980. During the 1980-1984 period my encounter with Mondale shifted to my home state of New Hampshire. I saw Mondale, by then a former vice-president, in a noontime speech to a social service event in Washington, DC while on a conference. Living in Concord, NH then 7 miles away in Allenstown from 1976-1988, was active in Democratic politics. Allenstown located mid-way between Manchester and Concord was a mix of the two communities, half with roots from Concord’s English population heritage and the half Franco-Canadian which dominates Manchester. Not only was Allenstown the poorest in the state in terms of property valuation per student in the schools, it was considered a bellwether in politics, as Allenstown went in elections so would the State of New Hampshire as it contained a cross section of the State’s population—particularly that of the Democratic Party! My one elective office, a ten-year term representing Allenstown in the mandated NH Constitutional Convention was of note for my initiative on behalf of Allenstown to have the Constitution require the State to fund half of all local public education and half of the cost of state colleges. It lost, of course, but garnered a significant vote of about 40%. It would be years after that the NH Supreme Court required equal funding for each public school student—still a difficult task to carry out by the legislature. In the 1984 primary campaign I was involved in what was then a questionable role in unions from several states providing funds aiding the election of Mondale delegates—it is chronicled in the Germond and Witcover book “Wake Us When It’s Over.” Even as a life-long union person, it is my least proud actions in politics before or since. At the Democratic State Convention in 1982 to the best of my recollection Mondale was in full steam ahead mode for the 1984 nomination. I distinctly recall approaching him on behalf of a petition group seeking support for a state issue. To my surprise, Mondale took the petition placed on the adjacent table and carefully read it in its entirety leaving me quite nervous thinking it meant I would fail my appointed task. At that time I certainly was naive to think a former vice-president would simply sign any ordinary petition! Suffice to say the petition language satisfied the vice-president and he added his John Hancock. To say in those days seeing dozens of candidates for the Democratic nomination in the proverbial living room chats at the home of Mary Louise Hancock in Concord, former state planning director and state senator from Merrimack County, candidates for president were considered ordinary acquaintances and approachable and wanting to be approached like a super friendly young dog. New Hampshire voters were the candy they sought—everyone had their presidential candidate run in and story to tell. My Mom would often relate the time when she was a teacher in Colebrook, NH—she was as lifelong Republican—meeting as she was walking along Main Street Ronald Reagan and saying that she was not very much impressed by him. In fact my first in-person presidential contact came when during Boys State in 1955 we were bused to Concord from UNH to see President Eisenhower. We know now that was a campaign visit in preparation for the primary election election in early 1956. Eisenhower won the New Hampshire Republican Primary—the first ever— beating the party leader Robert Taft, himself the son of President William Howard Taft. That Eisenhower victory was crucial in his getting the Republican nomination in a process still strongly controlled by party leaders in most states. Of course I was only 17 at the time and would not be voting in the 1956 elections—21 was the voting age at that time. As an aside, I did receive an autograph on a Norwich University commencement luncheon program about 1950—my Grandfather George Lovell got it, perhaps I was there I do not recall—the General wrote, “Good Luck Tony, Dwight Eisenhower.” Must admit his autograph may have been clairvoyant. But, of course, Mondale did not win the New Hampshire primary—but he did carry Allenstown by about seven votes including two from my household. Supporting Mondale also meant phone banking in Allenstown and that brought both Mondale’s wonderful wife Joan and her daughter Eleanor to a long time community leader for a weekend of calling. I met them and their commitment to him helped energize us all. And on election day it was driving snow and sleet which by late afternoon was 2-3 inches deep as our volunteer crew went door to door in the February dark to pull voters who had not been tallied out to vote by our “poll watchers.” And, of course, some of us had gone to the speech by Gary Hart on the Friday night before the election in Concord, outside across from the State House on an unusually warm evening. We saw first hand the charisma and strength of Hart and could feel the momentum sufficient to carry over the finish line—he would likely and did upset Mondale. Even in those days the last weekend of a presidential primary were well known to result in shifts of 20-30 points and more from poll predictions. So, while I was on the Mondale slate of delegates to the national convention I would have gone only if he won by a large margin. Then came 1988 with work for Michael Dukakis in Allenstown and Jerry Brown in Montpelier, VT—but that is a story for another time, and Ted Kennedy, and Jimmy Carter and being key in winning a Maine governorship. All in all, Walter Mondale contributed a sense that one could be for all that is good, all that can benefit all of society and also do so with integrity and honesty.

Bringing Renewal to the Historic Burlington-Winooski Axis, Now Vermont's Povertyville Section

4/9/2021 Draft Burlington-Winooski, the Two Centuries Old Historic Economic Axis Engine Declines to Vermont’s Povertyville Section—Ready for Renewal from the 1980-to-Date Devolution towards a String of Urban Pearls for the 21st Century? …A future Burlington-Winooski as a Shining 15-Minute Shangri-La Urban Corridor “The gods of the valleys are not the gods of the hills” Ethan Allen 1770 “There must be a radical redistribution of political and economic power in this nation and in this town” Mark Hughes, director of the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance speaks as Burlington officials and 30 organizations declare “Racism a Public Health Emergency” July 2020 The Current Burlington-Winooski Axis Decline Extends Back Decades Since the early 1980s about every Vermont major economic indicator save the education export economy crept slowly down or stagnated in Vermont. This mirrored the trends of loss of good paying manufacturing jobs which spurred the post-World Ward II economy upward ending about 1980 then moving to decline—what significant real growth incomes occurred in the last four decades in the slow-growth states of the northeast and mid-west rust belts tilted to the well-to-do. This recent trend impact on the historic economic centuries old engine of Vermont represented by the Burlington waterfront to Winooski City riverside “axis” has been most pronounced and profound. During both the post-World War economic boom ending about 1980, subsequent decline population and wealth shifted away from built-up Burlington and Winooski to the suburbs and rural Chittenden County towns. For almost two centuries the two cities remained the economic engine of Vermont but since the 1980s their role faded. For Vermont, the 1960s investments by then Governor Hoff in being the first state in the nation to buy their critical major rail operator (the Rutland Railroad) and literally birthing the ski industry with two unprecedented major speculative public ski road investments—helped the state avoid the empty storefronts and dominating skeletons of former manufacturing facilities as the 1980s and 1990s progressed. Springfield in 1960 was the home of a major portion of the machine tool industry of the nation! A critical player in the manufacturing industry of the day. The Springfield incomes of a unionized workforce were the highest in the state and the slow but sure economic decline as the industry atrophied left the community begging a state prison to rescue its depressed economy. Compared to northeastern New York and all Maine except for the area a two hour drive from the Boston metro, Vermont faired relatively fairly well only because of the ski/tourism and educational economic sectors growth until the plateau of the ski economy in the 1990s followed by education plateau in student numbers beginning in 2010. For Vermont that buffering of economic and social stagnation arose from the baby boom education bulge in its colleges during the 1990s and first decade of this century which plateaued in 2010 and now succumbs to the demographic collapse of college age population. And yes that boomers boomers were the first ski generation. The education industry future seems even more murky as record lows in birth rates in the northeast and nationally continue. Not even mentioning distance learning and the competitive disadvantage of norther New England state universities with the highest tuitions in the nation. Private St. Michael’s College, for example, planned ahead for the student bust and carefully with full participation of the college community managed the 16% decline from 1,900 students a decade ago to the 1,600 today. UVM and the State colleges systems did not plan—as is obvious now—as educational bankruptcy measures are in place for the state colleges and UVM’s modest 3% drop in students in fall 2020 signals the first statistical slight downtrend dating back to the peak year 2010. UVM’s current approach to the future appears unplanned and undirected. The drop of direct employment by IBM in Essex Junction of about 8,000 at its peak in the 1980s to now about 2,300 at successor Global Foundries—still the State’s largest private employer—gives the best evidence of the past and continued manufacturing decline. UVM rates as the largest Vermont employer excepting state government itself. The pandemic has given all a pause to reflect on our economic and social history, and ask the question where do we in Burlington Winooski “axis” go from here in a predominantly rural state where among many challenges is the requirement to sharply reduce non-renewable resources to stop global warming? Of course, Vermont never really possessed non-renewable energy resources in the first place. Note that over half the Vermont non-renewable resource consumption centers on petroleum fuels used to power the motor vehicle dominated transport sector. Longer History View and Recent Arrival of “Povertyville” To ask the question where do we go from here, consider Vermont and most important the driving engine throughout our history being primarily the story of the economy of Burlington and Winooski. Those two communities began with transportation centered along the Burlington waterfront accessing markets by water and Winooski riverside manufacturing production driven by the Winooski River waterpower. The Burlington waterfront where transportation to markets occurred was centered—first just to the lake and northward to Canada, then with the Erie and Champlain Canals accessing markets south the New York City and the west in the 1820s, then amplified by the arrival of the railroads in the mid-1800s, finally redirected into the “modern” highway oriented economy with the completed interstates here in 1982. That original economic engine spread from the Burlington waterfront to the Winooski falls area—more or less defined today by the King Maple neighborhood and Old North End (ONE) in Burlington onto really the entire geographically small Winooski City itself, where former manufacturing along the riverside drew from the immediate residential areas fanning outward to that City’s borders. It is fair to say that Burlington/Winooski with its waterfront as a harbor for exchange and movement of goods along the the manufacturing along its own and adjoining Winooski mills not only became the “economic spine” of the Vermont economy during Ethan Allen era ending about 1800, but also became a permanent dominant economic fixture of the state. First, reflecting the changing economy during the era of waterborne traffic until the railroads came into prominence, then the auto age emergence early last century followed by the interstate. Ironically, the completion of the interstate coincided with the overall crest and shortly thereafter relative stagnation of the Vermont economy which endures today—the Burlington Winooski axis being the primary victim. From the beginning of the interstate era the historical “spine of the Vermont economy,” Burlington and Winooski population and influence declined. Once the majority of Chittenden County population, Burlington now amounts to less than a quarter—both Winooski and Burlington populations outside of Burlington’s New North End have been in decline for decades. Again, a surge of students population growth from 1990 to the present day helped to mask this population downtrend trend. From 2000 to 2010, the Burlington population small population growth was entirely attributable to the increase in the college age numbers along with a small but important immigrant population of New Americans. The slow deterioration in Vermont through suburban carcentricity was mirrored by the decline of historic built-up Burlington and Winooski into a poverty belt. Today Census data shows King Maple/Old North End/Winooski City feature poverty rates of residents of 26-29% compared to under 12% for Chittenden County and Vermont. This poverty belt seems an unlikely candidate for a caterpillar to butterfly transformation—but that is the very opportunity which appears to exist through undertaking some key public investments today. These investments do not differ a great deal from the kind of investments which led to the successful transitions in the past, including those of Ethan and Ira Allen period themselves. And one must not forget the native American population which Ethan himself engaged with in his full lonely winters near Salisbury trapping furs to take back each spring to sell in order to support his family back home in Massachusetts. (Little wonder Allen stood up for his Indian allies when all were captured in the ill-fated foray to capture Montreal and his subsequent imprisonment as an enemy combatant by the British.) Housing The renewal of the historic Burlington-Winooski corridor remains central to this thesis in order to repair, remediate and expedite a natural economic and community potential ignored for decades. That both transportation and housing elements are key to this process can no longer be ignored. The decision to expand bike lanes and shift road space away from parking has been well underway now for years. Those changes are significant and show a change in community viewpoints but still incremental—in the right direction but only point to the larger issue of community renewal requiring a far more extensive change in transportation infrastructure combined with changes in housing. Housing programming must address the low and moderate income. Housing is not a subject here but the raising of the issue nationally and in Vermont to a priority is a clear indicator that transportation change must also be matched by making safe and sanitary housing available to all regardless of income. That President Biden and Vice-President Harris who proposed universal housing vouchers (30% income rent max) is an encouraging sign of kind of movement critical in the housing area. Enter the 15-Minute City Approach to Urban Design, Urban Life Transportation and land use go together—it was the lake as a transportation mode and waterpower of the Winooski River as a power source for manufacture that created with the presence of developable land adjacent the Burlington-Winooski axis in the first place. Consider for a moment past compact community design thinking in town and city planning. Creating complete new towns and idealized city designs became a cottage industry in the late 1800s in England with “Garden Cities of Tomorrow” by UKer Ebenezer Howard the leading proponent and movement leader who actually built more than one “new town.” Several more have been built since in a practice that can be found now scattered across the globe in one form or another. Reston, VA near Washington was one such American “new town” experimental community developed in the 1960s. Howard ’s base design involved a circular community with a one-mile radius featuring a public “white palace” and park in the center with rings outward of retail/commercial, housing, and heavy industry with rail—passenger and freight—at the periphery. All told 30,000 residents would live within the “garden city”—slice off the New North End, compact the rest around the waterfront here in Burlington and that is not so far off from the “garden city” concept and population. What is important is the garden city was accessible to just about everyone on foot, easily accessible when you add provision today for light rail and bicycles. Cars which consume about 25% of urban lands today in satisfying parking and road street needs prevented compact development worldwide. Just the opposite, particularly in America. The car age and pro-car policies and subsidies for homeownership jointly produced American sprawl since World War II. Canada is a perfect counterpoint as their urban areas are at least half again more dense, explained in great part because Canada does not subsidize either homeownership or cars. Canada levies a $1 Cdn per gallon of gasoline, a national tax used for general fund purposes—it has no federal highway program. It has no significant homeownership help. The U.S. has used its under 50 cent gas tax to support the highway system! The U.S. sprawl was created by intentional public policies and expenditures! The garden city from an urban planner perspective really is the pre-cursor to the “15 minute city” ideas advocated by urban planners today—to the extent feasible meet as many human needs within a 15 minute walk/bike/transit trip within a small geographic area (see https://www.15minutecity.com ) Burlington-Winooski: Pedestrians, Environmental Justice, Remediation and Structural Redesign There exists a confluence of forces making the Burlington-Winooski poverty corridor, Povertyville, ripe for a hoped for community transformation and renewal. The corridor already has in place a significant density, an historic rail network radiating in three directions from the Burlington waterfront. Except for re-establishing light rail in a configuration not that dissimilar to that of a past trolley history, a safe walkable/bikable/transitable area is easily installed. The major barriers to transportation the in Burlington and Winooski “poverty corridor” remain like most older urban center lack of walkability, about century removed from trolley service, and presence of numerous, dangerous/delaying new fangled traffic signals. Until this century with the late in the game U.S. use of the modern roundabout technology using stone age materials, little was done to repair the car-ravaged urban environment of modern America. Simply for decades to accommodate the car we wiped out existing urban space, much of it to park cars and build parking garages. Older urban space increasingly became the home of low income and BIPOC populations—symbolized by the traffic signal which when compared to a modern roundabout, especially kills, injures, delays pedestrians and overall pollutes, uglifies and heats the planet. The forces today at work include emergency demands for reductions of non-renewable resources both because they are unavailable in states like Vermont and because of commitments at all governmental levels to reduce consumption of them in order to stop the increasing world temperatures rising with just the continuation of status quo. That half Vermont use of non-renewables sits in the transport sector dominated by the car and clearly reigning in car subsidies—particularly parking and general government funds—means transportation will be a continuing dominant element of public policy in regard to global warming. Cutting car subsidies and homeownership subsidies which promulgated sprawl are not enough. There must also be a commitment to safe, energy efficient transportation—read transit, walking and bicycling which only thrive in relatively dense corridors and communities. The old urban areas and corridors have all the ingredients to respond to the demands and opportunities for a reduced carbon life—in a word the densities already exist there. High densities, transit services such as they are, and potential for walkabilitating through use of roundabouts are obvious. Except for the Church Street Marketplace neither Burlington or Winooski score particularly well on walkability—the 20 high crash state intersections mostly in the Old North and downtown alone testify to that. It was the very threat of cutting King Maple in two with the Champlain Parkway which led to our understanding of how the traffic signal in built up areas becomes a weapon of economic, social, and racial injustice—and the converse principle—how to reverse the historic destruction of livability forced onto the urban fabric by accommodation of the car through traffic signals which in turn literally injures the low income/BIPOC residents at higher rates than whites and embodies the context of both unlivable urban space as well as heightened incentives for use of motor fuels on most to move to lower density areas. In a word transportation inefficiency—read poor walking, biking and transit conditions—worked and works now directly opposite to efficient density and energy/resource use reduction which only density can provide! So the now two-year process of Environmental Justice discussion of the Champlain Parkway leads to an understanding of both the opportunity to renew Povertyville, but also its absolute necessity. That absolute necessity does mean a makeover of transit too, primarily in the form of light rail infrastructure! Without light rail combined with density there can be no successful economic renewal and only a continued shift of population to other northeastern metro areas who will have solved the transportation/energy equation. Nationally in a slow but sure fashion light rail has begun to return to major urban areas. It is the arch enemy of the car! Nearby, when Vermonters are allowed in Montreal again they will see nearly completed light rail line ready for use next year, the current $6 billion project already is set for a $10 billion expansion! Beginning in 2022 one no longer will have to drive onto Montreal island, no longer have to braves the wilds of to get to Trudeau International Airport. Just jump on the automatic light rail line at the large retail complex the Vermont side of the Champlain Bridge and safely, quickly, and comfortably travel to downtown, Trudeau Airport and a dozen other locations. See map and schedule—Brossard southern terminus to downtown set to open in 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_express_m%C3%A9tropolitain Base information: https://rem.info/en/light-rail Already being expanded: https://www.rtands.com/rail-news/extended-light-rail-line-in-montreal-will-be-one-of-the-longest-in-the-world/ Burlington along with adjoining towns went through a light rail study in the 1990s with an agreed on first step a line between the waterfront and UVM/UVMMC via the Marketplace. Extensions to the airport and University Mall and even to Essex Jct. via Winooski were examined. The base cost of the first section from waterfront to UVM/UVMCC was about $80 million—not much different than the current $109 million planned investment in the Champlain Parkway. So, initial studies were undertaken and preferred routes determined for light rail in the 1990s. Has anything changed in the City since? Economically, socially, population, etc. Other than the trends outlined here what have been the changes—(1) increase, plateau then declines in college students; (2) stagnant “povertyville corridor” population and incomes; (3) regular decline in primary tech jobs reflected in transition from IBM to Global Foundries; and (4) Chittenden County population growth almost entirely outside Burlington and Winooski cities boundaries. One other trend is important to note. While senior population remained about 12% of the Vermont population through 2010, the major change in demographics—senior population doubling to 1 in 4 residents by 2030 and non-senior population declines (only in Chittenden County does non-senior population remain relatively constant). The statewide population rapidly slowing growth turned shifted into a slight decline 2010-2020. The implication is quite clear, only bringing in a significant change in direction of public investment can one expect these trends to suddenly change—particularly as far as the historic Burlington-Winooski corridor. Systemic change was demanded at inflection points the 200-plus years of the Burlington/Winooski axis and systemic change is required today. There must be a working with neighboring towns, a collaborative effort to change the economic and community structure of the still dominant economic driver of Vermont, the Burlington-Winooski axis. Some Thoughts on Light Rail Routes A complete background on Burlington trolley services history, the 1990s study and future potential along with exploration of the “bus rapid transit” (BRT) fad, can be found here in a paper prepared at the time of the last City Transportation Plan (dated 2011). https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/Burlington_Streetcar_Briefing_Report_FINAL.pdf (BRT is notoriously expensive, energy inefficient and consumes wide swaths of urban land.) The original trolley routes were, first, Burlington waterfront to Winooski along North Winooski and Riverside which for the first few years in the 1880s were horse drawn then electrified. A line was added out along North Avenue to Ethan Allen Park, a Main Street line to UVM, and the Winooski line eventually extended to the rail connection at Essex Junction. The 1990s study included a connection to the airport as an important potential line. The study was very much in isolation without consideration of economic trends, demographics or the faintest hint of a non-carcentric community design—the idea of light rail was an add-on, a very expensive extravagance. Discussions during both the Railroad Enterprise District, recent Pine Street Coalition outreach on Champlain Parkway design and the North Avenue Corridor Plan process found significant support for a north-south light rail line, something not considered in the 1990s plan. In purely historical and community development, the prime high rail line would repeat the Burlington waterfront to downtown Winooski. That would directly address the Burlington-Winooski axis, i.e., Vermont Povertyville. The “Winooski line” would move through the Marketplace via College, then along North Winooski Ave, Riverside Ave and at Colcheter turn left to Winooski downtown. The natural waterfront to UVM-UVMMC also starts for a block or so with the Winooski line then ascends. The question is whether this line is shifted over to Main Street (a 1990s route suggested) and onto University Mall and new South Burlington “downtown.” The third line would follow the suggested north-south route from Flynn School at the north end to the South Burlington border at Pine street then very likely along Perimeter Road southward through KMart Plaza, Palace Theater, etc. Walkability, Racism and Remediation of ONE, King Maple and Winooski Downtown Light rail for the Burlington-Winooski axis is not an add-on but part of a larger multi-modal redesign starting on walkability and safety on the streets. The pedestrian mode remains the apartheid mode when it comes to street engineering and the task of remediation of this in Povertyille remains very much both a transportation undertaking and one to repair decades of transportation racism still a daily experience for the BIPOC and low income who comprise a large segment of this and other older Vermont urban spaces. Weekly in Burlington a pedestrian or cyclist suffers an injury in a car crash in addition to two crash injuries to car occupants. Nationally the U.S. road fatality pandemic amounts to 21,000 excess deaths in a nation once first, now 18th in highway safety—Burlington experiences one fatality on its streets every three years, the majority since 1998 pedestrians (3) and cyclists (1). Discussed elsewhere, the 20 high crash Burlington intersections, all but one signalized and concentrated in Povertyville each average 1.5 injuries yearly and account for 28 injuries a year while five downtown Vermont roundabouts, the new standard intersection, record about one injury a decade, all non serious in the first 52 years recorded. The point is the renewal of the Burlngton-Winooski corridor depends on both integration of a light rail network but also reparations and remediation to the area which has suffered decades of pollution and high rates of pedestrian, bike and vehicle injuries. And the victims in Povertyville of discrimination in the apartheid mode, walking, continue to be disproportionately people with black and brown skins. Tony Redington TonyRVT99@gmail.com @TonyRVT60 TonyRVT.blogspot.com A walk safety advocate, Redington is a policy development specialist with 20 years experience with the NH and VT state transportation agencies, author of several transportation research papers including some on the subject of modern roundabouts, and five years as a statewide housing planner and director of the New Hampshire Housing Commission. Since moving to Burlington in 2011 has lived car free. An Aside—Mostly Living the 15-Minute City 1976 to Date Except for about four years 1980-1984 when residing in suburb 6 miles from Concord, NH, have lived the 15-Minute City life in Concord, NH, Montpelier, VT, San Francisco (North Beach), Montreal (adjacent Atwater Metro, cycle track network) and now Burlington (within a block of the Marketplace). In all locations shopped within two-three blocks from just about all basic needs ranging from food stores, shopping, schools, employment, etc. In all that time generally never used a car to travel to work, most all vacations from 1990s on via Amtrak and extended public transit (mostly in Canada’s metro areas), and mostly (like today) within a few feet of a bus stop, a few blocks to a transit center. In Burlington, Montpelier, San Francisco and Montreal presence of a major supermarket or two was critical to the 15-minute life along with a job. In all four cities a car was not only no needed, it was relatively useless and not cost effective. Yes, the bicycle fills in the “mobility” need year round except in 0 degree weather. And as important our family learned the 15 minute life experience in Montpelier, how to use public transit, and how to live carless. Living and modeling the 15-minute City life can be inherited! So to me, the 15-minute City has been most of my adult life—it certainly was the bulk of my life growing up in Keene, NH where most years I lived within a few blocks downtown and all schools including high school. My favorite grades 1-2-3 were spent about 2 blocks from two doors north of Union Street to Court Street to School Street. Home to middle school was about six blocks and to high school varied from a couple of blocks to a half mile. All Keene home addresses were less than six blocks from the central shopping district on Main Street. Until college except for one year in the suburbs, the 15-minute life! Interestingly Keene is now home to five going onto seven roundabouts likely the highest concentration of any New England city. The historic traffic circle there—Central Square—is now bounded at the other end of the commercial/retail Main Street by a neat two-lane roundabout which acts as a gateway to the downtown and Keene State College with a the post office on one corner and the College on another—downtown three north south Main Street sidewalks on its way to renewed walkability. Tony Redington