Burlington Sidewalks are "Shared Paths"

 
Burlington Sidewalks are “Shared Paths”—Aim for Ped Only
                                Sidewalks!

    —The differences: North Ave Plan, Champlain Parkway and
     Parkway RIGHTway

Confusion exists on what is a sidewalk, a bikeway and a shared-use path here in Burlington.

Actually with only one exception all Burlington sidewalks are shared-use paths as bikes are allowed to travel there along with pedestrians.  As a senior most of my bike riding has been on sidewalks as there are practically no protected bike lanes (cycle track) yet in the City.  Streets with painted bike lanes are not safe in general, and prohibitively unsafe for less skilled and older/younger cyclist who all are consigned to the sidewalk system.

Note we can exclude here any discussion of the Burlington Bikepath and similar pathways.  The Bikepath is a recreation path—it is not a transportation facility, a facility marked by being lit and maintained year round.

The one exception in the City to bicyclist use of sidewalks technically are the adjacent streets of the Marketplace, South Winooski Ave from Pearl to Main Streets, Main St from South Winooski Ave to Saint Paul St, Saint Paul St from Main St to Bank St, Pearl St from Saint Paul St to South Winooski Ave. Add to this the Marketplace itself, though cyclists do use the Marketplace in the early a.m. when service vehicles and trucks are allowed from Pearl St to Main St.




      North Avenue Plan (2014) Creates the Mold

While not intended, the North Avenue Plan (North St to Plattsburgh Ave) created the mold of how to define the role of sidewalks and bike accommodations on our City streets. With a goal of “highest safety for all modes” the Plan calls for cycle track end-end-to-end along with a separate sidewalk while employing safest-for-all-modes roundabouts at key intersections.  Cycle track would be in the form of a 5 foot wide lane on each side of the Avenue with either a curb or other physical separation from the vehicle lanes.  

What was not discussed by the Advisory Committee in the North Avenue plan process or the plan document was the implication that cyclists would with few exceptions would be expected to use the cycle track and the sidewalk—instead of being shared-use—becomes a dedicated pedestrian sidewalk.  The term used in addition to “complete” street in accordance to the Vermont complete streets statute during the North Ave plan was “equality street.”  Equality street described each mode—pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle—being provided its own dedicated, safe, mobility space.  

So when the cycle track and roundabouts complete the renewal, nay transformation, of North Avenue the sidewalk there is no longer “shared-use” but dedicated pedestrian space with cycling mostly prohibited.

    Champlain Parkway/Champlain RIGHTway and Shared-use

The grassroots Pine Street Coalition arose in 2015 while the Burlington Walk Bike Council reviewed reviewed the complete lack of basic walk and bicycle accommodation in the Champlain Parkway design.  Pine Street adopted the reasoning of the Walk Bike Council and in 2016 the Walk Bike Council endorsed the Pine Street “Redesign Guidelines.”  

The Pine Street design, now its “Champlain RIGHTway” (RIGHTway) design features a dedicated two-way bikeway and sidewalk from Queen City Park Rd through to Kilburn Street/Curtis Lumber, about two miles.  Pine Street and the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance (VRJA) position on the current design of the Parkway is leave Pine Street from Kilburn Street to Main Street alone, and instead bypass King Maple via the railyard to Battery Street Extension, now the $20 million federally funded Rail Enterprise Project (REP).  Pine Street and VJRA RIGHTway extends the sidewalk and dedicated bikeway along the REP to connect to the Bikepath at Maple St.

In addition to the dedicated bikeway, RIGHTway recommends additionally cycle track along the Parkway route.

What has not generally recognized is the RIGHTway dedicated two-way bikeway means no pedestrians!  And the RIGHTway sidewalk adjacent the bikeway does not allow cyclists!  This design approach copies the mold first set in the 2014 North Avenue Plan.

The RIGHTway approach follows the highest level of safety approach in the North Avenue Plan, a “complete” and “equality” for all modes street.  This mirrors the new US Department of Transportation Roadway Safety System Strategy, our national Vision 0 approach to no serious and fatal injuries.  The national strategy requires addressing racial and low income equity and climate change as part and parcel of safety infrastructure investments. The strategy includes a “Safe System Approach” and “Safe System Intersections” when investing in roads and streets.  The point here is that the current Parkway “shared-use path” pales in comparison to a dedicated sidewalk and dedicated two-way bikeway in RIGHTway.  

         Pedestrian and Bicycle Classification

There is no readily available pedestrian and bicycle facility classification in general use today.

A sidewalk classification might be: Class 1—Pedestrian Only and Class 2—Pedestrian Shared Use.  For cycling: Class 1—Bicyclist Only (bikeway or cycle track) and Class 2—Bicyclist Shared with pedestrians.

Intersections are critical for safety, the roundabout being the standard as it cuts serious and fatal injuries by about 90%.  The only other intersection which provides equivalent safety is the all-way stop.  Signals are to be considered only where a roundabout is unfeasible.


Tony Redington
Walk Safety Advocate
TonyRVT99@gmail.com






 

VERMONT TRANSPORTATION--A DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT

DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT—THE CURRENT YEAR VERMONT TRANSPORTATION BUDGET

May appear strange, but the Vermont‘s $653 million State transportation budget with more than half federally funded remains a day late and dollar short.

Adding a $1 tax on gasoline or a general fund equivalent raises enough money—about $200 million yearly--enabling commuter rail services along three corridors out of Burlington, an intercity “circle train”, a head start on roundabouts and cycle track needed to make downtowns and town centers truly walkable and bikable, and a major boost to the Town Highway grants helping to relieve the local property tax burden.  And the only practical choice, raising transportation taxes of this magnitude from the State general fund mostly though the income tax, also allows for some funding of additional needed social service programs.

A $1 gas tax would probably yield about $200 million, about the same relative amount as Gov. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts sought this year in new income taxes to fully fund needed transportation investments and operations for all modes plus some investment in education.  What does Gov. Patrick know and why did Virginia abolish the gas tax in favor of a broad base dedicated sales tax this February?  Simply both state’s governors recognized the transportation investments can no longer be tagged onto a declining mode, car travel, while the public demands more efficient and sustainable travel modes—public transit, walking and bicycling.  

While New England car travel grew by just 3% the entire decade 2000-2010, public transit, walking and bicycling in many urban area grew in double digits—Burlington’s public transportation authority grew 71% 2000-2010, bicycling to work doubled and travel to work by car dropped about 10%.   Vermont Census data revealed traveling to work by car flat lined from 2000-2010, the numbers walking, bicycling, taking the bus and working at home increased by 9,000.  Overall, the proportion of car travel to work declined about 3% for the period and the trend shows no signs of changing any time soon.

Why the sales and income tax and not gas taxes?  Massachusetts and Vermont both are raising gas taxes this year by modest amounts.  But about 30 states restrict car tax revenues to highways only.  This makes it very difficult for those states without such restrictions—like Vermont—from going out on their own with large gas tax increases as it would only create everyone to gas up at a lower cost in cross border areas.  Besides investments in rail, public transit, walking and bicycling benefits go across the entire population.

Vermont and the U.S. lag behind several Western European nations in many health and economic indices in great part because those nations levy $3-$4 taxes on a gallon of gasoline versus about five dimes federal and state levies combined in the U.S.  Those $3-$4 gas taxes enable major investments in a modern transportation system for all modes placing the U.S. decades behind in walking, bicycling, and rail modes.  And that differential increases today.   A viable economy—particularly the important Vermont tourism sector—depends on a full range of transportation modes for current and future viability and growth.  States cannot wait for a federal gas tax to become available for meeting transportation needs arising from a declining car culture.  Neither can Vermont--the State remains now a day late and a dollar short.  

VERMONT DUMPS THE CAR TO GET TO WORK

VERMONT DUMPS THE CAR TO GET TO WORK 

2000-2010 VERMONT WORKERS QUIT THE CAR DRIVING AND RIDESHARING TRADITION TO TRAVEL TO WORK…INSTEAD THEY CHOSE WALKING, BICYCLING, PUBLIC TRANSIT, AND MOTORCYCLING

PART 1: STATEWIDE JOURNEY-TO-WORK DATA BY MODE

….of over a 1,100 new workers each year 2000-2008 in Vermont, about 10 or less than 1% chose to ride in a car to work and rest--over 1,000--chose the bicycle, walking, public transit, a mode like the taxi or ferry, public transit, or worked at home

Census data shows only part of the change in Vermont worker journey-to-work during the first decade of the century.  The very user-friendly data available online provides national, state, county and city/town tables from the Census of 2000 and from new tabulations which average the data for the 2006-2010 period.  By providing a 2006-2010 period of data, it is fair to estimate the growth represented is 2000 to 2008—this analysis will use 2000 to 2008 as the comparison of data.

While the employed Vermont grew by 9,100 for the period less than 100 growth occurred in workers riding in a car to work, a growth rate of 0.0%. Still for 2008, 271,563 or 84.5% of Vermont workers traveled in a car to work, about one percent less than the national average. 

Meanwhile though the numbers and percents may be small, all other modes to work grew not only in raw numbers, but also in the share of the commuting populations.   Bicycling shows the greatest growth, 2,260 to 3,014 commuters, a 133% increase and a commuter share growth from 0.3% to 0.6%, to just above the national level of 0.5% with cold weather Vermont competing against lots a far warmer states. 

The largest growth in commuting from home comes from walking, a growth of 2,223 to 19,778 and mode share of 6.2% more than double the U.S. 2.8% figure.

All told then, walking to work—often termed the “active modes”—increased their share from 5.9% to 6.8% of all commuters and increased its lead over the U.S. share of 3.3%. 

Public transit recorded the second largest percent gain—72% in riders—to bicycling’s number one, 133%.  Public transit in Vermont trails the U.S. figure of 4.9% of workers using this mode between home and work.  During the 2000-2008 Vermont narrowed this gap a little as the public transit mode increased from 1,825 to 3,140, up 72%, in actual commuters, and increasing its Vermont commuting share from 0.6% to 1.0%.  

The largest growth in commuting behavior occurs in the work at home category which increased 3,774 to 6.7% of commuter share from 5.7%.  Finally, the “other” category which includes taxis, ferry and motorcycle commuting also increased significantly from 2,260 to 3,014, 33%, and commuter mode share increased from 0.7% to 0.9%.

                        Increase in Commuters by Mode Per Year 2000-2008

One way to describe the change occurring in modal choice by the commuter as “consumer” is to simply show the change in commuters per year per mode.  That breakdown from the above data follows for 2000-2008:

                        Change Per Year in Vermont Commuting by Mode 2000-2008

                                    Car                             10

                                    Public Transit           164

                                    Walking                     280

                                    Bicycling                    130

                                    Taxi, Ferry, etc.         94

                                    Work at home           472

                        Total increase in commuters each year 2000-2008    1,150

The next sections will consider Chittenden County commuter data, City of Burlington commuter data, and extrapolation of the 2000-2008 trend to 2010 and 2020.