Vermonters Remain Impoverished in Federal Budget--Sanders, Leahy, Welch Silent

Our Congressional Delegation—Leahy, Sanders and Welch--do an absolutely lousy job educating Vermonters on the federal budget and how we all get fleeced by Trump and the Republicans. The Defense budget is the most obvious, the 2017 federal budget, part-year President Obama compared to the two Trump budgets, the one we operate under right now, 2018, and the “base” budget Congress has agreed to starting October 1 for 2019, total increase is $73.9 billion, over 15% in two years when we had just ended the Iraq War and sharply curtailed troops in Afghanistan.  Based on Vermont's per capita share of $2 million per billion of federal expenditure we undertake an additional $147.8 million share of Defense expenditures, fiscal year 2019 over fiscal year 2017. This truly is “huge.” For example, the 13,000 Vermont renter households (about one in seven statewide) receiving federal “affordable housing assistance” (30% of income max for rent) consumes about $106 million funds. (Federal budget increase in a recent decade of affordable housing assistants units, 1%.)The defense department increase equals about 1 ½ times total affordable housing assistance in Vermont!  The  Which to you prefer, serving the needs of 1,800 households on housing assistance waiting lists alone here in Chittenden County or $148 million for defense? Likely and correctly Leahy, Sanders, and Welch will say if they did not support the $73.9 billion defense increase, the Republican Scrooge Brigade would have gutted housing assistance and most other discretionary social support programs like our community health centers and child services. Fine, Congressional delegation, but tell the truth every day how this year Vermonters anti-up $147.8 million to support more F 35s, the Afghanistan War, etc. Each breath of criticizing a Supreme Court nominee, single payer health, or farmer subsidies, tell us Vermonters where our program increases tax money goes to—more F 35s and military drones. The lack of honesty from our Vermont political leaders helps explains frustration building up since about 1980 over the accelerating maldistribution of economic benefits which mostly accrue to the top 1%. Sad comment on the so-called leaders of Vermont with its town meeting government where town budgets get screened down the the last penny. 

The argument made by Democrats is that since 2000 they controlled the budget only for two years at the beginning of the Obama Administration when getting out of the biggest economic hole since the depression--justifiably--was task one.  But the stagnation of incomes began with Reagan in 1980 as did the almost four decade into economic inequality, a level now seen since the 1920s.   Yet the senior political leadership shuns addressing the class war won by the rich!

More Vermont Roundabout Corridors Arriving!

More Roundabout Corridors Coming to Vermont!

Roundabouts, about 3,500 strong now in the U.S. and Canada, now arrive in bunches, 3, 4, 5, and even more. Three or more roundabouts along a mile or two qualifies as a “roundabout corridor” and Vermont's first in Manchester completed in 2012 soon gets company with two planned and others in the offing. The first five roundabout corridor along Brattleboro's Putney Road corridor now reaches the design stage with VTrans. The commercial retail will include full walk/bike facilities along what amounts to a business strip of retail and food outlets. The business community wanting to compete effectively with nearby Keene, NH pushed for making the corridor an attractive, congestion free environment for all modes.  (Keene, NH boasts five going on six roundabouts in the City including one just outside on the road to the airport.)

Roundabouts cut serious and fatal injuries about 90% according to an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study. And a recent study of over 50 U.S. roundabout corridors in place found little difference in through traffic travel times as reduced delay at intersections overcame the positive result of reduced speeds through the corridor.  Burlington's North Avenue Corridor Plan adopted last October converts at least three signalized intersections to roundabouts along a mixed use corridor. Four intersections comprising all of Montpelier's Main Street in the downtown found roundabout feasible include the oldest roundabout in the northeast, Keck Circle at Main and Spring Streets and a second intersection at Barre Street in pre-design, an intersection which enables final connection of Winooski East and Winooski West transportation paths (bikepaths fully lit and plowed in the winter).

A second three roundabout corridor planed along Depot Street (VT 11) in Manchester has an anchor roundabout at the Main Street over the Batttenkill River. This corridor would complete making Manchester reaching signal-free status.

In Burlington an AARP Vermont workshop report and the Burlington Walk Bike Council supports a roundabout corridor along both Pine Street and the Champlain Parkway overall about ten roundabouts.  

               

Vermont Population/Seniors Growth a Tale of Two Realms

With another year of Census population data now in for 2014, it becomes clear Vermont, Chittenden County, and Burlington trends are best represented by a flat line for population and a continuing senior growth leading to a 2000-2030 doubling from 12% of total population to 24%.   Vermont population grew a grand total estimate of 817 during the four years 2000-2014.  That equates to 17 persons monthly, equal to about 7 households composed of two adults and one child.  Yet during the period 2000-2013 Census estimated an annual increase of 1,946.  One-year growth in the Vermont aging population—1,946—more than doubles the 817 total population growth 2010-2014. 

Burlington—6.8% of Vermont population—grew an estimated mighty one person a month 2010-2014.  Meanwhile senior population—growth of those 65-and-above—grew 14 a month.  On an annual basis: Burlington population up 14 a year, senior up 132 a year.  For Chittenden County (exactly 25% of the Vermont population 2010) grew 4—that is right four!--persons per month on a pro rata basis to the statewide growth during the period 2010-2014.  Meanwhile, senior growth estimated in the same manner grew 40 monthly in the County.

Economic Art Wolf in a January 2014 column in the Free Press using history as a guide concludes Vermont rural populations will decline in the future as the State returns to pre-1960 population trends dating back to the mid-1800s.  Meanwhile one can expect Burlington and other urban areas to increase population as the younger population increasingly chooses urban locations, drives less, owns cars less and get driver licenses less.   Seniors seek housing in built up areas where public transport and services are nearby. 

DEMOCRATIC SCROOGE SENATORS AT WORK

Vermont Digger reports the Vermont Democratic senators talking about priorities for Vermont like the State operates like a bankrupt Detroit or depressed jobless urban center.  Not nice to have a scrooge sighting reported two days before Christmas!

Vermont remains a rather low unemployment state with a high level of social services and a relatively sound financial status.  Getting caught up in austerian talk, thinking it must follow some silly yardstick which says it is not possible to add significantly to public expenditures really does not make sense.  Responded to the Vermont Digger piece this morning, in part: 

"...somehow Quebequers enjoy full nondeductible/no copay health care for all including prescriptions (also $8 a day regulated daycare services). Also, to provide the $90 million needed each year for transportation (commuter rail, intercity rail, light rail for Burlington/Rutland, walking/bicycling infrastructure statewide, increased Town Highway Grants and, yes, funding needed bridge/highway projects) costs $15 per capita per year even without fed help.  (Massachusetts did begin an allocation of about $15 per capita per year earlier this year from general funds for transportation--Vermont would not be the first.)  We do not have to choose to be public service poor, we can do so much more with public funds to support our citizens, improve our cities and towns and help both new and existing businesses. The Legislature/Governor need to stop poor-mouthing our status."

Vermont leaders looked at far bleaker conditions--for examples, Ethan Allen, and Governors like Phil Hoff, Dean Davis, Tom Salmon, Howard Dean and  Richard Snelling.  They each in their own way found a way to change the political dynamic to direct necessary resources to the challenges of the time, just as President Obama dealt with health care which most modern nations resolved over a half century ago.

The challenge today involves finishing the already pre-determined course in health care, addressing homelessness and the cost of housing and attacking the key element in energy use which involves shifting private use of the automobile to publicly supplied public transportation combined with walking and bicycling infrastructure in our downtowns, village centers and built up areas--$90 million worth of investment annually required as a first step.

MORE: CHANGING STATE OF STATES TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

MORE: CHANGING STATE OF STATES TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

     …..applying the Massachusetts general fund transport projects principle to Vermont

The Boston Globe reported the announcement last week by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick of likely first set of transportation investments since his Legislature the first yearly shift of $800 million from general fund revenue for transportation projects.

The $800 shift from general fund revenues to transportation--about half of what Gov. Deval Patrick sought from his Legislature--goes primarily to many years overdue replacement of the subway fleets on two Boston lines, statewide electric tolling and straightening a Turnpike section, and very possibly new commuter rail service to he “South Coast” with services to long economically depressed Cities of Fall River and New Bedford.  Final details of Gov. Patrick’s transportation project list will be released by Thanksgiving.  Gov. Patrick says funding emphasis will be placed on improved transportation outside of Greater Boston.

Massachusetts and Virginia this year were the first states to disconnect highway, gasoline, and car-related taxes from their past singular role in transportation finance at the state levels.   Translating $800 million a year to Vermont—with a tenth of the population of Massachusetts—leads an $80 million a year equivalent as a minimum starting point.  And, $80 million in Vermont in just two years would enable, for examples: (1) capital and some operating support for commuter rail from Burlington to Montpelier, Middlebury and St. Albans; (2) additional intercity rail service along a circular corridor from Burlington-White River Junction-Bellows Falls-Rutland-Burlington; and (3) a light rail service from the Burlington waterfront to Fletcher Allen Health Care and University of Vermont campus via the Church Street Marketplace.   As important, Vermont could begin the critically needed investments to make downtowns, urban neighborhoods and town centers walkable and bikable for the first time though investments in cycle track (protected bike lanes) and at key intersections pathed roundabouts designed to serve both the walking and bicycle modes. 

At some point, a major gasoline tax at the federal level—in dollars not the nickels and dimes of the past—must be imposed (phased in over several years) to provide the kind of resources to states enabling the U.S. to join the first tier of nations whose transportation systems which are defined by either high-speed rail networks and/or walkable and bikable urban areas.  (Most Western European nations qualify on both criteria.)  Consider the fact that nations like Taiwan, South Korea and China already nations boast a basic network of high-speed rail countrywide.  In the United States and Canada there is not a single walkable or bikable urban area—investing in infrastructure to achieve walkable and bikable urban nodes, corridors and areas poses the greatest urban transportation challenge today.   (A tip of the hat though to Canada where both Montreal and Toronto extensive underground areas and corridors remain the only ones in North America and two of the few of such extensive enclosed car-free environments worldwide.)

THE BURLINGTON TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM

GETTING A WALKABLE, BIKABLE BURLINGTON, VT—THE PATH AHEAD

         ...plus a touch of rail passenger services

 

1.   Burlington traffic decline started 25 years ago—8% to 28% declines on major routes into downtown area—North Avenue, Beltline, Pearl, Main, Shelburne and Pine.  The State projects that traffic decline continues.

2.   Burlington workers travel to work—a third on foot, transit, and bike—is a remarkable statistic, over three times the U.S. urban average of 10%.

3.   Those traveling to downtown and the waterfront will increasingly go by bus, passenger rail, bicycling and walking—it’s been the trend for decades now and will continue into the future.

4.   While walking and bicycling occurs in a “bike and walk friendly” City, the City is mostly neither walkable or bikable along busy streets with two notable exceptions, the Marketplace and Riverside Avenue.

5.   Only through major investments on busy streets of cycle track (protected bike lanes) and intersection roundabouts can a walkable bikable City become a reality.

6.   Bicycle and walker injuries and fatalities—car occupants too—continue on our streets with the costs of poor safety infrastructure outweighing by far the dwindling costs of congestion as car traffic declines.   The tragic deaths of Sam Lapointe on the crosswalk at the Colchester/Barrett intersection last year and Dealer.com employee Karen Borneman while driving through the St. Paul/Main Street intersection two years ago illustrate the need for safe street infrastructure investments.

7.   Most busy City intersections can be served by single lane roundabouts, cutting walker and car occupant serious injuries by about 90%.  First step, analyzing all busy intersections for roundabout conversion, then building five or so yearly, a figure based past Western European rates.

8.   All in Burlington who walk and all who bicycle--regardless of age and skill--deserve walkable and bikable infrastructure on major streets.

9.   Large increases in State funding from general funds must occur for the State’s cities and town walkable and bikable infrastructure as well as for needed rail passenger services (intercity and commuter).

10.        A truly walkable, bikable busy street features sidewalks and cycle track along its sections paired with roundabouts at key intersections.

ONE REGIONAL TRANSIT AGENCY BOARD AND AMTRAK CONNECTIVITY

Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) and Rail Passenger Service—Apparently not a Priority

Visited Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Board meeting and spoke at the beginning of the “public” item on the agenda June 18 where CCTA and many other public boards and commissions allow anyone wishing to speak a chance express their concerns and views.

After introducing myself and explaining I was a member of the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) and concerned about lack of connectivity on Saturday and Sundays to the Amtrak Vermonter service at Essex (Monday through Friday connections are excellent), the overall reaction of the Board could not have been cooler.  No response to my concern or even acknowledgement the problem exists was offered.  Connectivity by Vermont’s regional transit agencies to all Amtrak stations is a major problem at a time when every additional Amtrak rider decreases needed State dollars—now budgeted $7 million a year. 

Even though CCTA receives the majority of its funding from State, federal and local tax dollars, CCTA leaders remain clearly unsympathetic to the overall needs of public transportation which includes rail passenger services, particularly in regard to integrated, coordinated scheduling.

The advent of service by Amtrak to Burlington now set for 2017 through extension of the Ethan Allen service from Rutland to Burlington also was stated to the CCTA Board and a flyer on a study of commuter rail feasibility which builds off the success of CCCTA Link, a ten year old commuter service from Burlington to Montpelier, Middlebury and St. Albans now serving about 500 commuters on 50 buses each workday—a clear indication that commuter rail service can be marketed to and from Burlington.  The Board reaction was that commuter rail would be good if it can be shown to be economic, an interesting thought in view of the fact that two-thirds of the CCTA budget comes from governmental sources and its stated mission is support of quality public transportation services.  The Board suggested that ideas about commuter rail be brought to the attention of the CCTA “management.”

It appears clear that federal and State agencies which fund public transit agencies in Vermont represent the only realistic avenue to assure coordination and integration of rail and bus transport services.  However a 2013 comprehensive statewide intercity bus service plan also contains no consideration of rail passenger services much less coordination of existing regional transit to access Amtrak intercity services.   So much for the multi-modal, integrated transportation system first called for at the beginning of the 1990s in both State and federal transportation law.

UNLEASHING THE NEW ERA OF VERMONT AND U.S. TRANSPORTATION

A SURGE IN WALKING, BICYCLING AND PUBLIC TRANSIT TO NATURAL LEVELS AWAITS MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ENABLING FOR THE FIRST TIME WALKABLE, BIKABLE, AND YES, DRIVABLE COMMUNITIES

         --MOVING ABOUT VERMONT DOWNTOWNS, VILLAGE CENTERS AND BUILT UP AREAS, A DEFINING OF QUALITY TRANSPORTATION FOR THOSE WHO WALK, BICYCLE, DRIVE AND USE PUBLIC TRANSIT

The sudden and unprecedented shift of Vermonters from traveling to work in cars to other modes between 2000-2010—about 9,000 workers or three percent of the workforce—demands attention and demonstrates the changed face of transportation needs today in all builtup areas, from small village centers to Vermont’s one metropolitan area centered in Burlington.

Vermont—and national—lack of infrastructure for walking and bicycling modes smothers these modes and in turn depresses public transit usage.  Vermonters quitting car use (nationally driver licensing among the under-30 crowd dropped ten percent in the last decade or so) unmasks the huge deficit in walking and bicycling infrastructure and indirectly public transit demand, particularly for intercity and commuter rail passenger services.

While most developed nations urban modal share for bicycle trips tops ten percent, Vermont and the U.S. even with substantial growth over the past decade remains at slightly over one percent.  While U.S. and Canada walker and bicycle mode shares of about 9 percent and 1 percent respectively, Canadian urban dwellers public transit trips top 12 percent compared to the U.S. 3 percent.  Total U.S. walking, bicycle, and public transit share of urban travel amounts to 13 percent, a little more than half that of Canada and about a third of the typical Western European nation. 

But with Vermont and the nation now experiencing a revolution in urban travel a substantial, inevitable move toward European modal shares bubbles just below the surface.  A harbinger of Vermont change comes not just from the 50 workday bus commuter runs started since 2003-2004 between Burlington and three other job centers—Middlebury, Montpelier and St. Albans—now serving almost over 400 commuters, but also from the fact three of the largest Burlington employers also started providing reduced or no cost bus access as part of a program to reduce solo commuting.    Employers taking a lead in encouraging non-car travel reflects the economic benefits which accrue to their workers, better health which arises from use of the “active modes” of bicycling and walking, and direct economic benefit to the employer as well through reduced need for allocating resources to expensive employee parking spaces.

The trends from a flat or declining statewide car travel (for example year-to-year Vermont total registered cars and pickups declined 0.1 as of February 2013) suggesting the real potential for commuter rail along the commuter corridors out of Burlington are matched by consistent statewide public opinion surveys for decades showing low support for more highways and strong support for more bicycling, walking, public transit, and passenger rail investments.  The drop in car traffic along major entry streets to downtown Burlington is instructive as declines date from about 1990 with decreases of 8 to 28 in daily traffic along representative points of Main Street, the Northern Connector (VT 127), Pearl Street and Pine Street—trends continuing based on traffic data reports in recent years.

Meanwhile an unusual convergence of the interests favoring walkable, bikable and drivable communities as well as public transit suggests there exists a simple nexus meeting the needs of all four groups.  Note urbanologist  Peter Calthorpe stresses for successful transit there first must be a “walkable” community.

For walkability two infrastructure forms are sufficient—sidewalks which in most cases are already in place along street segments and roundabouts at intersections which assure comfort and ease of crossing and a reduction of up to 90 percent in injury rates.  The roundabout also reduces delay and improves safety for all users, particularly for car occupants.  Drivability absolutely depends on the presence of roundabout infrastructure in downtowns as well as along commercial and retail corridors.  Middlebury’s Adirondack Circle, Montpelier’s Keck Circle and the new three-roundabout corridor in Manchester Center (slated to be Vermont’s first “all roundabouts and no signals” community)—are town center roundabouts reducing traffic speeds and delay over a distance of three to four blocks.  These roundabouts reduce delays for all users and have greater capacity to move vehicles.

For bicycles the needs are somewhat similar to those of walkers.  First along busy streets a grade separated “cycle track”, protected lanes, providing safety and enabling higher speeds comprises the key to urban bicycling.  Cycle track can be described as a one or two-way “bicycle highway” on a roadway employing curbing or bollards where no parallel bikepath or multi-user path is available.  (A route comprised of a mix of cycle track and bikepaths is a common treatment in Europe.)  Second, where possible, intersections with roundabouts feature a separate bikepath side by side with crosswalks or a multi-user path as the crosswalk.  With cycle track and intersection provisions, the bicycle gains equality as a mode with walking and car travel.  Cycle track also protects drivers from bicycles.  For motor vehicles, roundabouts at busy intersections mostly improve safety, reduce travel times, and provide greater capacity.  In sum, for a walkable, bikable and drivable town and village centers as well as all built up areas, cycle track and roundabouts offers a ready solution to the current infrastructure deficit.   

A European import, cycle track is new in North America with one extensive set of corridors already in place in Montreal. But where to get the five to ten feet for cycle track remains difficult even with allocated parking for the purpose on one side of a busy street.  However, since roundabouts handle traffic quite easily compared to signals, many turn lanes can be eliminated in part or altogether enabling cycle track along approaches to an intersection.  Some tradeoff of parallel parking along one side of a street may be made to accommodate cycle track.

The safest environment for bicycling and walking can be found in “shared space” at the heart of retail districts—like the cross street intersections in Burlington’s Church Street Marketplace The new Burlington Marketplace/waterfront plan—PlanBTV—proposes a cycle track along Main Street connecting the Marketplace to the waterfront.  Shared space can be applied in a few areas and one of its features is providing safe access to all persons with a handicap.  

         The need today: “CPR” to revive downtowns as well as town and village centers

“CPR”—cycle track, passenger rail and transit, and roundabouts represent the three infrastructure and service challenges in Vermont requiring substantial investments so community transportation in all aspects can be brought to life.  These infrastructure needs require tens of millions of investments each year over a decade or so to begin to meet the needs throughout Vermont.  Yet the benefits of the first investments can be observed and measured from the completion of each project with the roundabouts in downtowns and village centers living proof of both the transportation and economic benefits.  Consider these investments—including intercity and commuter passenger rail—as bringing to the builtup areas of Vermont towns and cities the same scale of transportation change as engendered by the interstate highway system completed at the end of the 1970s.  Unlike the interstate system CPR leads to a sustainable transportation system and the substantial reduction in the role and usefulness of motor vehicles in the builtup areas and between population centers served by passenger rail. 

Each mode—walking, bicycling, motor vehicle and public transit—must be treated equally and each must be provided for—a community with equal treatment of all modes becomes one with cycle track on most of its busy streets, roundabouts at almost all its intersections, and commuter and/or intercity rail at either traditional and/or new station locations.  Passenger rail services fully integrate into an overall bus and rail based public transit network.  This completes a public transit system where the basic regional bus networks in great part already exist.

In sum, quality transportation in builtup areas in Vermont and throughout North America  (with some noticeable exceptions in isolated nodes, intersections, and areas) does not currently exist, mostly due to large deficit in infrastructure in one or more of the modes, primarily bicycle, walking, and rail passenger transit.   

Up to the advent of the roundabout and cycle track there existed appeals for integrated and balanced transportation in U.S. law and transportation policies—but just what integrated and balanced transportation looked like in real life was unclear.  With the magic of CPR—cycle track, passenger rail, and roundabouts--the vision of quality transportation for all modes becomes a reality.  The next steps involve using CPR to bring the current critically ill patient--transportation in built up areas--back to a renewed and vibrant life at a far higher level than ever achieved in the past.  

DO YOU GIVE TWO CENTS FOR A TRANSPORTATION FUTURE NOW?

GAS TAX REVISITED—OK TO RAISE ABOUT 8 CENTS—BUT WHY NOT GIVE TWO CENTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION FUTURE NOW?

The blinders remain on regarding the decline of car travel in Vermont and attempts to repair leaking transportation revenue bucket with more gas taxes.

Instead of serving the transportation needs of the State or even talking about those needs, the political leadership acts like the 9,000-plus workers in recent years ditching the car as a way to work, the decline of traffic along key urban roadways dating back more than two decades, and the surge of Link bus commuters nearing 500 daily—all this did not happen or suddenly will reverse magically and we’ll return to the world of Sunday drives and cruising symbolized by the iconic 1950s lifestyle found in the old TV show “Happy Days.”

The central element in shoring up the Transportation Fund for two years comes in the form of a gas tax which amounts to a 7.6 cent increase, according to press reports, which raises $25.8 million each year when fully in place.  Each penny in the gas tax raises about $3.3 million.  Vermont and New England states consumption of gasoline remained little changed 2000-2010 with three states reporting declines led by Vermont's -8.0%.  The year 2011 brought another 2.5% decline in Vermont gas consumption.   The State is well on its way to the level of consumption in 1990. 

Virginia last month and very likely Massachusetts within the next month or so drop the fantasy of drilling for revenues from a depleted gas tax well by switching to broad base taxes in order to meet the backlog of transportation needs—highway, bridges, public transit, bicycling and walking—and recognize these needs must be fairly shared through broad base sales and income taxes, taxes shared by everyone not just the car travelers. 

To give a sense of how little it would take to change, consider commuter rail services from Burlington along the three corridors served by 50 Link commuter buses each workday—Middlebury, Montpelier and St. Albans.  Other needs include shoring up and expanding public transit, an intercity rail network, and supporting employer-based commuter choice programing to encourage home to work trips by means other than the solo drive.  Commuter rail represents an easy change to visualize.  If you gave two cents (gas tax or its equivalent) for commuter rail then two corridors get served with 14 trains a day each serving a dozen downtowns and village centers--for another penny, you get rail service on all three corridors.  This gives one a view of the future.  No need to carry on the car fantasy transportation of the past—time to give your two cents (or three) for the transportation future now. 

VT GAS TAX INCREASE NO SOLUTION!

VT Representative Kesha Ram posting on the Burlington Front Porch Forum this month the following regarding plugging the leak in transportation funding:

"TRANSPORTATION 
Vermont's transportation system has faced some extraordinary challenges in recent years, with four federally declared disasters in 2011, including spring floods followed by Tropical Storm Irene. This year we face a different transportation challenge – fully funding our transportation needs. An additional $36.53 million in state funds are required to fully fund the proposed FY2014 transportation budget. Without action, we risk our ability to match significant available federal transportation dollars. The Governor has proposed the following to fill the immediate funding gap: 1) Transportation Infrastructure Bond proceeds of $9 million; 2) a decrease in the current per gallon gas tax by 4.7 cents per gallon with a 4% assessment on the retail sales price; and 3) indexing the per gallon gas tax to inflation, which partially assists with long term structural funding…"

 This was my response to Rep. Ram's posting:

No to Tripling 4.7¢ Gas Tax "Adjustment" - Use Income/Progressive Taxes

TONY REDINGTON – NORTH WINOOSKI AVENUE

Switching a 4.7 cent gas tax to a 4% sales tax on retail tax means--for gas at $4--a 16 cent per gallon tax, more than tripling the 4.7 cent tax "reduction." For what? For whom? Virginia (not progressive) repealed their gas tax last month and went to an across the board sales tax (0.8%) dedicated for all transportation needs (food exempted). Massachusetts the second state in the revolt against gas taxes this year as the base for transportation funding moves, as proposed, to the progressive income tax. The car age is over. Car travel likely declines this decade in Vermont. We need commuter rail and public transit (not a single person added to those using a car to get to work 2000-2010--9,000 added in Vermont to those using public transit, walking, bicycling and working at home--not a single additional commuter by car). Transportation needs to be viewed now as a necessary human service and added to the those unmet needs the legislature is grappling with--no more regressive taxes like gas and license fees which hit those least able to afford it. 
Tony Redington Blog; TonyRVT.blogspot.com