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






 

Convert Most Unsafe Vermont Communuty Street to Safest with Roundabouts

 September 1, 2021 Rev. 3 February 28, 2022

Convert Most Unsafe Vermont Communuty Street to Safest with Roundabouts

Historic Old North End North Street: Low Cost Conversion of the Most Unsafe and DangerouS  Vermont Community Street to Vermont’s Most Safe, Low Speed, Pedestrian Friendly Street!

                                                  Summary 

One thing parents well know, there is no safe route to Sustainability Academy/Barnes Elementary School along North Street in Burlington. 

This policy analysis recommends mini roundabouts along Vermont’s most unsafe and dangerous street right here in Burlington—North Street from North Avenue to the west to North Union to the east with five of six cross intersections on the state’s high crash list of 111 statewide. The roundabout is the only intersection type on the Federal Highway short list of pedestrian safety “proven countermeasures.” A mini roundabout, is the most likely application in most of the North Street intersections meaning about one injury crash per intersection every few years versus 0.6 injuries per year per intersection now in the most recent tabulation. North Street roundabouts might approach the record of the other five downtown roundabouts of one injury per 50 years (half century) per intersection. And injuries at a roundabout are less severe than at signals. Right now the five high crash intersections total expanded to a decade of an estimated 32 injuries compares to one injury per decade tabulated at the five downtown roundabouts!

The five Vermont downtown roundabouts with the 52 years of data in Manchester Center {3}, Middlebury and Montpelier averaged just one injury per decade—0.8 car occupant injury, 0.2 pedestrian injury, 0.0 bike injury—none serious. Roundabouts can be expensive as costly utility work often is involved in a project unrelated to the roundabout itself. However, with mini roundabouts used where there are right-of-way constraints, a factor present on North Street, the mini can often be installed with the same safety performance of the bigger sibling for as little as $50,000.  The mini roundabout cost is in the neighborhood of traffic calming.  It is not far from the cost of three sets of one concrete cylinder flower pot and two white plastic stakes ($17,000) installed at several Burlington intersections. Besides you do not have to tend to the flowers at a mini roundabout! 

 

For the historic Old North End (ONE) dating from the early 19th century, North Street remains the most active community centered street featuring numerous retail, business and institutional land uses. Sustainable Academy (Barnes) Elementary School is just a block from the now Old North End Community Center, formerly Saint Joseph’s Elementary School. A variety of restaurants, convenience stores, residential buildings, ethnic retail markets,Vantage Press, Dion Locksmith and Bissonette Properties, as well as the locked Elmwood Cemetery are all found between along North Street between North Avenue and North Union Street. As well, there are four high crash intersections—all four cross intersections located between North Avenue (west terminus of North Street) and North Union Street to the east. Of the six intersections North Avenue, Park Avenue, North Champlain Street, Elmwood, North Winooski and North Union Street are on the VTrans latest high crash intersection list—the only cross intersection along the stretch not on the State list? Elmwood/Intervale and Park Avenue both considered a problem intersection in the neighborhood. 

North Street Important Demographics A key to understanding the dilemma of North Street lies in great part to the unusual demographics of Burlington. In a state with 71% of households owning their home and 29% renters, Burlington is almost the opposite 36% owning their home, 64% renter households. VT Speaker of the House Jill Krowinski and Rep. Curt McCormack who has headed the House Natural Resources and Transportation Committees represent the poorest in the City including practically all the ONE and some of King Maple neighborhoods which contain the only census tracts with excess of 80% with low and moderate incomes, King Maple with the highest concentration of persons with brown and black skins in the state—and the 30% representative district households have no car access and therefore are pedestrian and transit dependent for their transportation. The safety on streets like North Street is absolutely essential. In fact Burlington overall has 26% of its households with poverty level incomes with King Maple and ONE along with Winooski (29% of households with poverty level incomes) together representing the historic economic engine of Vermont, now a corridor of poverty. (A poor family of four means a weekly income at most of about $500.) North Street—Site of Many Injury and Non-injury Vehicle Crashes The four high crash intersections in a five year period averaged 3.8 injuries a year all four intersections in five years (19 injuries all four intersections over five years) plus 3.2 reportable fender bender crashes (“Property Damage Only” or PDO) (64 all four intersections PDO crashes in five years). See table 1. North Street clearly is a victim of the growth of the New North End (NNE) which sent increasing numbers of vehicles destined for downtown, mostly via North Ave, Park Avenue and North Champlain Street. North Winooski and North Union intersections carry the historic traffic continuing today between downtown Burlington and Winooski, a route dating from the days of Ethan and Ira Allen. 

The North Winooski Avenue-Riverside Avenue was not only the Allen’s era route, it was the route of the first trolley line built in the 1880s and continued in operation until 1929. With North Street featuring four of just 111 high crash intersections in the Vermont list, clearly it is a prime candidate for being the most unsafe and dangerous community street in Vermont! ONE leaders have been concerned about safety along North Street. It was a discussion item act the Arts and Business Network ( https://www.oneabn.org/ ) several years ago but it had to wait in line for the Winooski Corridor study now completed. In 2020 a Department of Public Works draft plan included a demonstration of a mini roundabout at the high crash North St/No. Winooski Ave intersection along with a second at Decatur/No. Union/No. Winooski. That demonstration was cancelled for the current construction year from lack of funds, reportedly, and a Public Works representative said there is no consideration of a North Street corridor study. 

Why Traffic Signals which Generate Crashes, Congestion and Delay? All five cross intersections along the west end of North Street (North Ave, Park Ave, North Champlain and Elmwood/Intervale, and North Winooski) are signalized while North Union is a three-way, all-way stop (North Union is one way northbound). Historically as vehicle traffic surged post World War II urban streets quickly became locations of congestion and the only choice to relieve the congestion which handled more traffic than simple signs: the now ubiquitous traffic signal. Traffic engineers had little choice as traffic increased, the traffic signal or limitless congestion and endless queues. But there was a price to shifting from signs to signals—injury crashes increase, particularly for the vulnerable—those who walk and bike—would increase as would car occupant injuries. 

Prime factors in increased injuries and crashes—signals versus all way stop intersections, for example—include higher speeds of vehicles traveling through on green and vehicle which fail to stop which cause, for example, the deadly T-bone crash. For pedestrians the high speeds at signals contribute to the 20% higher pedestrian casualty rate at signals versus all-way stop control and equally safe roundabouts (source, FHWA). So, careful protocols were established to minimize the tradeoff of safety and mobility, called signal “warrants.” This was the status of traffic management until the advent of the modern roundabout which began to make its appearance in the United States (and Vermont) in the 1990s, getting its start in 1966 in the U.K. While slow to become the standard it is today, NY State Department of Transportation and two Canadian Provincial Ministries of Transport (British Columbia and Alberta), for examples adopted regulatory “roundabouts first” policies between 2005 (NY) and 2010. A U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) definitive study in 2001 determined American roundabouts cut serious and fatal injuries by “about 90%.”

A half century of Vermont downtown roundabouts found a single pedestrian injury (not serious), four non-serious car occupant injuries and 0 bicyclist injuries. Consider the five injuries in a half century of service for downtown Vermont roundabouts versus four North Street intersections generating 3.8 injuries a year! As important the stunning tabulation this year of record of now 9,000 roundabouts in US and Canada has yet to experience a single pedestrian death on a marked roundabout crosswalk!  This compares to Burlington during just the the 1998-2020 period at just 75 signalized intersections, 2 pedestrian hit in crosswalks were killed (Barrett St crossing at Dominos and Shelburne Street crosswalk at Home Ave). 

As important, Burlington, Vermont and the nation have been falling behind in road safety to a terrible degree. When the first roundabout in the US was built in 1990, the US and UK were safest in road fatalities per mile of travel in the world—UK still remains at the top—while the US has dropped to 18th with 21,000 pandemic level of excess road deaths yearly. Even in covid 2020 when travel miles dropped 12%, fatalities per mile of travel increased 8%! As concerning is the trend since 2010 in pedestrian deaths—up 50% with Hispanics 50% more likely to die per population than white, Black people almost twice that of white-non-Hispanic. 

The two Burlington pedestrian deaths during 2010-2021 (and continuing in 2021) contributed to the upturn in national pedestrian deaths—up 46% in the latest reports. The US Congress, states’ transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations like Vermont single one, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) are well aware of the dismal road death pandemic and in 2013 U.S. laws required all federally funded highway projects to reduce fatal and serious injuries, mandating state and CCRPC to adopt five year objectives for reductions, revised during subsequent five year intervals. Unfortunately for Federal Highway Administration as well as most states and metros (including VTrans and CCRPC) with about two years of the first five year reduction targets in face of the surge of deaths and serious injuries in 2020 while vehicle miles declined 13%, most all will likely fail their first five year targets! 

Note that all neutral and advocate groups for safety—American Automobile Association (AAA), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and GEICO—have as first on their list or near the top of actions for safety, the installation of roundabouts and conversion of existing traffic signals to roundabouts. The new Vermont road death factor: an estimated 22 deaths per year from long term exposure to allowed tailpipe admissions. While road fatalities in recent years about 60 per year, we have learned recently in University of North Carolina research that there is another set of road deaths directly related to long term exposure to tailpipe emissions. ( https://ie.unc.edu/2021/06/08/new-study-identifies-leading-source-of-health-damages-from-vehicle-pollution-in-12-states-and-washington-d-c ). As a summary of the report states: “states experienced substantial health impacts from vehicle emissions and can gain health benefits from local action.” The recent study involving a number of northeastern US state identified the numbers by state and the annual loss of life in Vermont, 22 deaths, expands the annual Vermont road death number by about a third to about 80 deaths yearly. 

While electric cars, hopefully, will be the dominant vehicle type years from now, certainly for a generation the long term deaths from internal combustion cars will continue to exact a toll on Vermonters. It is very likely that built up urban areas—like Burlington’s ONE and King Maple neighborhoods—with congestion and vehicle delay causes a higher level of long term exposure fatalities than living and/or working in a country setting in Charlotte. Since roundabouts cut intersection emissions from vehicles up to one third, the roundabout aids in reducing the pollution load to residents and workers in our admittedly congested city streets. 

An Affordable Investment Quickly Makes North Street a Model of a Safe Community Street —Applying the lessons learned from the AARP Vermont Pine Street Workshop (2014) and Environmental Justice Process in the Champlain Parkway (2019 to date)

First and foremost the North Street intersections in question are best served by roundabouts, likely a mini roundabout like Vermont’s first and only one in Manchester Center. The mini roundabout has the same, or even better, safety record for all modes. Second, any consideration of roundabouts along North Street needs to have all six intersections evaluated in a reasonably short corridor study—the study is not to make signals better, it is to establish roundabout feasibility and utilize experienced (read national practitioners) as part of the consultant team. Actual design of roundabouts for the corridor could be done in a matter of weeks, certainly within a 12-month period. 

An analysis of 5-year and 1-year injury and "Property Damage Only" (PDO) crashes at the five North Street intersections is instructive. This can be calculated easily from the 5-year recent VTrans High Crash Location Report series, 2012-2016. The cost of a fatality used is $1.5 million, $88,500 for an injury and $11,300 for a PDO. Since mini roundabouts are cheap, crash cuts and injury cuts (72% injury cuts alone) with an overall well over $1 million for all five intersections in a year more than covers the five intersections made walkable and safe!  This ignores the real benefits of tens of thousands of hours of reduced vehicle and pedestrian delay (real dollars for business trip delay), stress on all users, and increased economic activity enabled for nearby businesses. Add to this the traffic signal caused excessive climate heating emissions and the now known 25 yearly estimated Vermont deaths from a lifetime of vehicle exhaust pollutants.   

Table 1: Vermont Agency of Transportation High Crash Location Report 2012-2016 Data on the Five North Street Burlington State High Crash Intersections

#23 [Place on list of 111 Vermont high crash intersection list—1 worst, 111 least worst] North St/North Champlain St 0.220 [intersection name and milepost] 5 years/21 crashes/5 injuries/17 PDO [years of data recorded, total crashes, total injuries, property only crashes {PDO}] ($30,219–estimated cost per crash); Total Crashes (per year): 21(4.25); Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $635,000 ($126,900 per year) 

#40 Park St/North St 0.280 5 years/19 crashes/4 injuries/16 PDO ($28,147\–estimated cost per crash); Total Crashes (per year): 19 (3.8); Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $535,000 ($107,000 per year)

#46 North Winooski (Alternate 7)/North St 1.620 5 years/19 crashes/3 injuries/16 PDO ($23,489–estimated cost per crash); Total Crashes (per year): 19 (3.8); Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $446,000_($89,200 per year) 

#87 North Union St/North St 0.300 5 years/15 crashes/0 injuries/15 PDO (3-way-stop) ($11,300–estimated cost per crash) Total Crashes (per year): 15 (3.0); Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $170,000_($34,000 per year)

#110 North Ave/North St 0.180 5 years/20 crashes/4 injuries/17 PDO ($27,305 estimated cost per crash) Total Crashes (per year): 20 (4.0);  Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $546,100 ($109,220 per year)

Cost really is not a significant factor as roundabouts at the five high crash intersections would certainly reduce crash/injury costs by about half in a five year period, a $2,177,000 value based on half the total cost estimates, above. A set of roundabouts would likely cost as little as $50,000 each, certainly far less than $2,177,000 million. As analyzed elsewhere a roundabout replacing a high crash intersection on the 20 Burlington intersections in the VTrans list would conservatively result in one less injury per year, a saving of $88,500 and two less PDO crashes, a saving of $22,600—or $111,100 per converted intersection per year. An installation of a mini roundabout on a high crash North Street intersection would easily be paid for in savings in about a year, assuming about $50,000 base cost for a roundabout. Some of those savings are to police department costs of incident management, reports, etc., and other City savings include the trips by emergency equipment and personnel to crashes and then to UVMMC. 

Table 2: Summary Data on All Five North Street High Crash intersections (2012-2016) 

Total Crashes 90 total all five intersections:

18.0 crashes per year all five intersections

3.6 crashes per intersection per year —16 injuries in five years, 3.2 injuries per year all five intersections, 0.64 injuries per year per intersection

84 property damage only (PDO) crashes, 16.8 PDO crashes per year all five intersection, 3.4 per PDO crash per intersection per year

Total estimated crash cost for 5 years all four intersections: $2,177,000 ($435,000 per year), $87,000 per intersection per year

Note: There are many crashes involving no injury which never “reportable,” i.e., never enter the crash counts by police departments and the state.  If estimated total crash is $3,000 or below, no reports are necessary. 

  

Tony Redington February 28, 2022 TonyRVT99@gmail.com

Vote No March 1 Ballot Item 4, Burlington Main St: Steve Goodkind, Michael Long and Tony Redington Weigh In

 2/22/2022


Now added February 22, Steve Goodkind, P.E., Decades Long City Engineer, Joins Michael Long’s and My Front Page Forum submission on $30 million Main Street Ballot Item 4 March Town Meeting, March 1 for copying and pasting on your local FPF (about 20 separate areas in Burlington)

The CH 17 Forum on Ballot item 4 featuring Michael and Tony Redington:
https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/burlington-article-4-borrow-259m-downtown-tif-district-forum

January 2022 new National Roadway Safety Strategy based on safety with twin additional objectives of racial and income equity as well as addressing climate change.  Approach to roadway investments “Safe System Approach”: https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS  

City Website with 12-word transportation Great Streets “standard” ( Walkable and bikeable — safe for all modes and all levels of accessibility ): http://greatstreetsbtv.com/downtown-standards

Note the key chasm in Great Streets so-called standards is assumption of traffic signals along Main Street—the now obsolete and dangerous technology as traffic lights kill, injure, delay, heat the planet, implement racial injustice/low-income discrimination, and degrade scenic quality.  The now standard roundabout (AARP, AAA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Federal Highway Administration advocate them) since 2005 in NY State Department of Transportation is primarily for its superior safety for all modes, but the roundabout also addresses each and every signal defect in a superior fashion! Nineteen of Burlington’s 20 high crash intersections are signalized recording 1.4 injuries a year while five downtown Vermont roundabouts average an injury a decade. The engineer presenting Feb 1 on Great Streets was clearly unaware of the high crash intersections on Main Street and also unaware that roundabouts were the main recommendation of the City’s North Avenue Plan (2014) and Winooski Corridor Plan (2020) for Main/South Winooski, the highest crash intersection in Vermont.

North Avenue Corridor Plan (2014) first corridor goal in part: “Achieve a world class transportation corridor that offers quality of service and highest safety for those who walk, bicycle, and travel by motor vehicle or transit.”  Landmark plan calls for corridor length sidewalk, protected bike lanes (cycle track) and roundabouts at key intersections.  https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FINAL-NorthAve_CorridorReport.pdf
                                        ———
             2/19/22
 
Steve Goodkind, P.E. Decades Long Former City Engineer Statement on Town Meeting Main Street Ballot Item 4—Public Expense of Addressing Ravine Sewer Not Warranted
 
Having recently read the minutes of the Jan. 10 “public hearing” regarding the proposed TIF authorization vote for March, I am concerned about the information being offered by DPW Director Spencer and his engineers.
 
Forty years ago, as city engineer, I began efforts to deal with problems with our combined sewer system. At the top of the list was the Ravine Sewer. Installing an alternate large diameter pipe in the city's ROW to divert stormwater flow from the Ravine Sewer was the first project of the overall $52 million upgrades we made to our wastewater systems during the late eighties through the mid nineties. Because of it's location and depth it was not practical or cost effective to entirely eliminate the Ravine Sewer and doing so would not have furthered our goal of dealing with the combined sewer problem. The Ravine Sewer was left in place to continue its' function as a sanitary sewer.
 
We were well aware that portions of the Ravine Sewer had buildings constructed over it
and this could present problems in the future. However, the line appeared to be in good shape and technologies were coming along to rehabilitate buried pipes in place. In the specific case of the former site of the county jail, now a parking lot at the corner of Main and Winooski, future developers would and could design to accommodate it.
 
The lack of any cost effective options for relocating the Ravine Sewer have not changed. The public benefit is very small and the costs will be extremely high. Rehabilitating in place is by far the best option. This, however, would not help developers.
 
Relocation solely benefits future developers at great expense to the public, be it local or state education funds paying the tab. Managing the Ravine Sewer within their project is probably much more cost effective overall. We will not have to use public money that could fall on the taxpayers if sufficient development does not occur to pay for the TIF bonds.

                   ————————————————-

          Text of January 10, 2022 City Council meeting
                public hearing on Ballot Item Four


Minutes
(omitted minutes text before this item)
 
6.02 Public Hearing Regarding Downtown Tax Financing District (TIF) Great Streets Project
 
Director Pine began the presentation by saying that this is a rare opportunity to make a $30 million investment in Burlington’s downtown without impacting taxpayers. He said that this funding opportunity expires if the City is unable to bond for it by next March (of 2023). He said that the improvements would meet the needs of a diverse group of users. He said that the project’s proposed stormwater investments would reduce pollution of Lake Champlain. He said that the project’s proposed utilities investments would be more significant than any other upgrades in the last 50 years.
 
Senior Engineer Wheelock noted that the project would include 6 blocks of Main Street between Battery and Union Streets. She said that the improvements would provide amenities for all users of the streets, including pedestrians, motorists, cyclists, and businesses. She also noted that improvements would occur for water, sewer, electrical, and communications infrastructure.
 
Mr. White spoke about the financing of the TIF District project. He noted that Burlington has two TIF Districts—the Waterfront TIF District and the Downtown TIF District. He explained the concept of tax increment financing and how it ties public and private investments together to create value and use new taxes to pay for upgrades. He provided a brief overview of the Downtown TIF District’s history, noting that the district was established in 2011, its final date for new debt is March 31, 2023, and its final year to retain the education increment is 2036. He outlined the current finances, noting that $5,420,000 in debt has already been incurred pf the previously-approved $10 million, and $4,580,000 in remaining debt authority still exists. He briefly outlined the private projects that would occur in the district. He noted the district’s projected cash flow, saying that a positive balance is anticipated for the district.
 
Director Spencer spoke about the public process around the TIF and associated bond vote. He noted that there will be public engagement through March, after which the bond vote will occur. He said that concept development will occur between February and May. He noted the public bodies that will need to be engaged throughout the process.
 
 Councilor Barlow asked if the sewer is being upgraded or replaced, and asked how the associated costs were determined. Senior Engineer Wheelock replied that they conducted an engineering estimate of the worst case scenario, but said that they need to continue investigating the condition of the pipes and sewer in the spring. Councilor Barlow asked about the education tax increment and its effect on education tax rates. Mr. White replied that the taxes generated by the district would not have been generated but for the public investments in the district (which then lead to private investments and additional tax generation).
 
 Councilor Mason asked about the ravine sewer and whether it was always anticipated to need to be worked on significantly. Senior Engineer Wheelock said that the ravine sewer is not in active failure, but said that the TIF district has capacity to conduct work to improve it, which would make it possible to develop the surface parking lot that it sits on. Director Spencer noted that in the past there wasn’t the awareness of the ravine and the risks of developing on it that there are now.
 
 Councilor Carpenter asked about how the ravine could be impacting the fire station on South Winooski Avenue. Senior Engineer Wheelock replied that part of the project would entail looking at how surrounding properties are connected to the ravine sewer. Mr. White added that that fire facility does not meet current Fire Department needs and standards and that dealing with the ravine sewer becomes an important piece of future work on the fire station facility.
 
 City Council President Tracy opened the public hearing.
 
Brian Cina expressed support for the Great Streets Project. He spoke about how behavior shapes the environment and vice versa and said that the Great Streets Project would positively impact the community. He said that the current environment on Main Street negatively impacts behavior. He expressed concern that the TIF District could cause rent increases that displace local businesses. Director Pine said that the goal isn’t to increase taxes but to spur private investment in certain properties that may not have otherwise had those investments in them.
 
Caryn Long expressed concern about parking being taken away in the Great Streets Project. She asked how many parking spaces would be removed. Mr. White replied that some studies have shown that the City actually has more parking than it needs and that it has a parking management problem, not a parking shortage. Senior Engineer Wheelock noted that the concept is not final and that there will be months of public engagement and opportunity for input prior to finalizing the concept. She said that they need to seek funding approval from voters prior to having a finalized concept.
 
 City Council President Tracy closed the public hearing.

                      ——————————-
 

Michael Long Front Page Forum Submission

TIF: Free Money Is a False & Dangerous Fantasy

Gene Bergman’s intentions may be pure, but his thinking is flawed.  His ALL CAPS insistence that we must invest immediately in long neglected infrastructure is almost frantic. His support for TIF funding does not add up. When he says, “Property taxes don’t increase to pay the debt,” he may be fooling himself, but we should not let him fool us.

To his credit, Bergman does not claim, as the mayor and other city officials do, that TIF debt is paid exclusively by taxes on new, TIF-inspired development. That claim is false through and through.
Gene claims instead that TIF debt “is paid by the revenues generated by the increase in TIF district property value as measured from its 2011 creation.”  This is closer to the truth if by “property value” he means tax revenue. 
The Downtown TIF feeds off the difference between its tax bill in 2011 and its tax bill in 2022 — for every property in the Downtown TIF district.  If the TIF district tax bill has increased by 85% — as mine has in Ward 2 — the bulk of that “tax increment” (minus 25% of the school portion) is diverted to pay off TIF debt and interest. Most of these “tax increment” dollars come from routine increases or reappraisals unrelated to TIF inspired development.  

And every tax dollar from previously tax exempt properties like the former YMCA (more than $80,000) goes to TIF, aggravating shortfalls. This leaves TIF district revenue for schools and city services far below the levels needed in 2022.  The millions lost to TIF — even if the projects funded are worthy — increase property taxes substantially above what they would otherwise be. 

And when taxes are increased in response to unacknowledged TIF diversions or for any reason — as they will be if the 5.5% increase in Question 2 is approved — all of those additional dollars in TIF districts are allocated to TIF, further fueling the magnitude of the increase required.

We’ve spent $4.4 million borrowed TIF dollars to “transform” St Paul.  Now the City speculates we “need”  $31.5 million more (Question 4) for a stretch of Main and a sewer ravine that may turn out to be a black hole of abysmal dimensions.  

City officials do not even mention the $22 million in TIF funding previously approved for the stalled mall redevelopment project.

If we really need this money for Main Street before we plan and fund the new high school, we should borrow it directly and honestly — not through a TIF back door.
Even when TIF “works” because the funds diverted are sufficient to pay the debt and interest incurred, TIF does not work because it diminishes the dollars available for the Education Fund and city services. 
That is the simple truth arithmetic reveals.  Free money is a  false and dangerous fantasy.

                          ---------------------------------------------------------------

     Tony Redington Front Page Forum Submission

Main Street—Vague Ballot item Ignores Safety

Vote No at Town Meeting on $30 million Ballot Item 4 for Main Street, a boondoggle proposal where the last public meetings were six years ago!

In a statement in Front Porch Forum ONE Central community leader Gene Bergman writes:

"Our transition to a bike/walk friendly, safer, and carbon neutral transportation system doesn't get cheaper through delay. VTrans data shows Main Street intersections need improvement."

Gene Bergman is a leader who supports racial and economic justice. But not here where Mr. Bergman supports a project which does just the opposite, a clear decade long record of the City pursuit of transportation racism and injustice with no signs the Main Street will change the City's pattern. Each week a pedestrian or cyclist is injured and each week two car occupants are injured in Burlington crashes using 2012-2016 averages.

Unfortunately Gene Bergman remains dead wrong on the vague Public Works concept for Main Street where 78 injuries per decade occur on just the four high crash intersections (including Edmunds School crossing) without a single word of public discussion of safety, not single word of discussion of climate change impacts, not a single word of the equity for the poverty and persons of color who dominate the 32% of residents of Old North End, Downtown and King Maple neighborhoods without access to a car.

While Bergman refers to VTrans he is unaware there are no Main Street detailed scoping studies and analytics which remain a mainstay of roadway projects at VTrans. The new federal Safe System Approach to address the horrific US pandemic death toll contained in the strategy released just last month was never applied to Main Street. ( https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS )

Our City Council has strong forward looking policies on Racism as a Public Health Emergency and Climate Change as a Public Health Emergency--and these were never applied or considered on Main Street. 

No commitment to safety, no commitment to climate change, no commitment to racial justice (just the opposite) means please Vote "No" on Main Street Ballot Item 4 on March 1.

Tony Redington
Walk Safety Advocate

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

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

What if We Had a Pandemic and No One Cared--No Lives Matter, mostly, in the US Highway Fatalities Pandemic

What if We Had a Pandemic and No One Cared--No Lives Matter, in US Highway

                                       Fatalities Pandemic

  “Yes, ’n’ and how many deaths will it take’ till he [a man] knows that

  too many people have died.”

—“Blowing in the Wind” 1963 

The analysis that follows this introduction outlines the Burlington and Chittenden County huge proportion statewide of high crash intersections and the lack of addressing those intersections with even a single roundabout built to date.  But this data takes place in a nation which itself is in a pandemic of highway fatalities.  Here are some of my thoughts on the larger question followed by the high crash intersection analysis.

There is a wholesale breakdown in our US highway fatality pandemic with its 21,000 yearly excess deaths extending from from top to bottom—the fed level, state (note a few states/provinces make the roundabout the standard, NY did it in 2005), metro planning (CCRPC) and our particular Burlington Department of Public Works.  (My home town, Keene, NH has five going on seven roundabouts, including one on Main Street at the Keene State College/Post Office gateway to downtown paid for with $4 million property tax monies.)  When it comes to highway safety in the United States a policy of “no lives matter” mostly prevails.  I have come to the conclusion a mix of factors is involved including but limited to: simple resistance to change, lack of leadership at every level, malign and benign neglect, a black hole in highway engineering education in regard to systemic safety, publicly employed traffic engineers too often diverted from any safety concerns for those who walk, lack of a "transportation safety" Fauci--all a reflection of systemic failure.  We all know now what systemic failure is, we are daily living or dying with it in the form of Covid-19.     

Norway seems to have broken away from #s 2, 3, and 4 nations where in 1990 we stood at #1 (and Sweden dropped to 5th in the most recent numbers).  Even admitting variance in national collection data, Norway latest year, 108 highway deaths versus Vermont average of about 70 now.  They did not record a single "child" death--US 15 and under highway deaths top 2,000.  Norway is now putting in median treatments on two lane rural roadways to prevent head on crashes and it has gotten measurable positive results.  We cannot get protected bike lanes yet much less roundabouts.  

            Chittenden County—26% of State Population, 42% of 111 High Crash 

               Vermont Intersections (Burlington Even Worse!)

Chittenden County (County) and Burlington streets and roadways hold a disproportionate number of Vermont high crash intersections.  

High crash intersections are those on major roads and streets averaging at least one injury a year in the most recent Vermont Agency of Transportation tabulation of 111.  A large majority of high crash intersections (all but one in the case of Burlington) are signalized, a now mostly obsolete and dangerous technology.  Most concerning is the apparent lack of any effort in either Burlington or Chittenden County to replace injury prone traffic signals with “best practices” roundabouts proven in Vermont downtowns averaging about one injury a decade.  Roundabouts cut serious and fatal injuries by about 90%.  (See Vermont high crash locations report here: https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/highway/Formal%202012-2016%20High%20Crash%20Location%20Report.pdf  )

America itself has suffered three decade collapse of highway safety in fatalities per mile of travel, slipping from 1st to 15th among nations since 1990, the first year a roundabout was built in the US.  US now records 21,000 excess deaths compared to the performance of the top four nations.  This is the very definition of a “highway fatality pandemic.”  Add to this the 50% increase in pedestrian fatalities over the last decade which disproportionately affects African Americans and Hispanics. US excess deaths exemplify real carnage and permanent mark on the Federal Highway Administration whose funds traditionally drive all Vermont roadway capital investments.

  

Applying the national numbers to Vermont, about 30 of our 70 road fatalities per year are excess stemming from lack of “systematic safety” which begins with safe infrastructure investing.  Unfortunately Chittenden County and Burlington high crash intersection data show them worst of the worst.  Even more disturbing is not only the lack of attention to safety in investments in the County and Burlington but the specific inattention to dealing with high crash intersections—the “BTV Crash 20” high crash intersections injuries record of 28 injuries per year represents 18% of all injuries (including one fatal) tabulated in the 2012-2016 period.   And those roughly 150 injuries a year are composed of about one bicyclist/pedestrian injury weekly and two car occupants weekly.

For the County—using the 1.4 injuries per year per BTV Crash 20 intersection—the frequency of injury (66 total) at the County’s 47 high crash intersections is above one per week!   

There is a systemic failure to address unsafe intersections in the City and County.  As the third 3-year term—9 years—of Mayor Weinberger administration nears it end, not a single one of the BTV Crash 20 intersections is scheduled for a roundabout.  In fact there are no roundabouts in the County—a “metro area” and likely one of a handful in the nation without a single roundie.  While a roundabout is on the drawing board in Colchester, Mayor Weinberger was handed ready to design/build with 100% federal funds a roundabout at the “rotary” on Shelburne Street bordering Christ the King Elementary School—and after nine years could not move to construction!!   This intersection, known in the neighborhood as the “intersection of death,” is desperately wanted by those who live in the area.  Now the target date for that roundabout has slipped to 2022.  (Note the Burlington “intersection of death” was previously in the top five statewide but was taken off the list since the project was ticketed and programmed for final design and construction back about 2010.)  Just this summer a demonstration of a roundabout at a BTV Crash 20 intersection was dropped by the Department of Public Works and now will be done in 2021—the first roundabout presence at any busy public intersection in the County.  The roundabout situation in the County and City brings into question what the use of the term that safety is “critical” in highway investments (Burlington Transportation Plan, 2011) means in actual practice.  

Vermont was an early leaders in US roundabouts in the mid and late 1990s, then faded.  The first roundabout east of Vail, CO and north of Maryland was built in Montpelier in 1995 (19th in US) followed shortly by the first Manchester Center in 1997 and first 2-lane roundabout as well as interstate interchange in the northeast in 1999 (Brattleboro Keene-Turn).  But by 2005 when NY State Department of Transportation adopted the “roundabouts first” regulations a few other states undertook significant roundabout installations (over 7,000 today in North America).  The New Hampshire Department of Transportation leads now in New England, 

         State Numbers

Overall 41 of 255 Vermont municipalities recorded at least one high crash intersection 2012-2016.  But only eight municipalities recorded more than three high crash intersections: Burlington 20; Bennington 9; Brattleboro and South Burlington 7 each;  Colchester 5; and Essex, Williston and Winooski 4 each.  

Obviously Burlington sticks out like a sore thumb with more than twice the high crash intersections of any town in the state.  And the County towns listed (plus Richmond with 3) total of 47 amounts to 42% of the State total. 

Since Chittenden County is the only “metro” in Vermont and its Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) has a yearly Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) planning funds entitlement of about $550,000 (2018).  It is well known that Governor Phil Scott has been supportive of roundabouts in the past, recognizing their safety aspects as a race driver.  The Winooski traffic circle often is referred to as a roundabout—it is not one and about five of the Montpelier sized roundabouts would fit in what is really an old traffic circle design and still leave plenty of room!  The Winooski circle is in fact about the same size—500 feet by 200 feet—as the quarter mile oval at Thunder Road in Barre Town where many of Governor Scott’s racing victories occurred.  It is also noteworthy that the former CCRPC transportation policy director has for more than five years has been director of VTrans Policy and Planning Division including during the time when the VTrans secretary retained and imposed six injury generating and global heating signalized intersections on Burlington when the issue of “best practices” roundabouts came up in 2015 revisions decisions on the Champlain Parkway design.

                                          ---------------------

Finally, AAA has been a recent Paul Revere in US highway safety (see their 2017 report https://aaafoundation.org/safety-benefits-of-highway-infrastructure-investments/ ) and the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety have led in providing data and sounding the alarm starting with their 2001 research showing roundabouts reduce serious and fatal injuries about 90%.  And we must be thankful for the Organization for Economic and Community Development which hosts the International Transport Forum which produces an annual report enabling us to understand the American road safety plight within modern nations as we have plummeted to the lower depths.   https://www.itf-oecd.org/road-safety-annual-report-2019