FORCED BUSING—AN UNFAIR COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION PRACTICE

Feel “transportation discrimination”? Well be a commuter in or out of Burlington, VT exercising “commuter choice” by abandoning the car and what do you get?--second-class transportation in the form of a stuffy, jammed and sometimes standing room only bus (and room for only two bicycles). Welcome to the transportation quality of service typically found in less developed nations!

The first paragraph clearly paints a totally unfair picture of the Chittenden County Transportation's (CCTA) spectacularly successful commuter buses, the “Link” services introduced in the last few years--east to Montpelier, north to St. Albans and south to Middlebury. CCTA ranks as one of the best is not the best public transportation services in the nation in a small Metro. But the first paragraph description also indisputably tells us that the regional commuter routes by bus only, the Link services shouldered by CCTA, primarily reflect a State responsibility, a failed responsibility to date marked by clear lack of foresight and policy direction. The commuter environment shows, again, the citizens and their demand for modern transportation finds public leadership either asleep or scrambling to catch up (or both!). As the saying goes, the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT), the Legislative Transportation Committees and northwest Vermont regional planning agencies “just don't get it.”

Every month Burlington bound and Burlington outbound commuter numbers increase with 310 commuters regularly served by Link buses, roughly 20% of the potential commuter market. The three older Link services growth since last July average 26%, not including a fourth Link service between Burlington and Milton begun within the past year.

Regional planners and the VAOT focus goes to all kinds of new “park and ride” investments while ignoring in the first place of providing a quality set of services built around self-propelled, high passenger capacity, rail-diesel passenger equipment. Moreover current Link services leave the State's largest private employer, IBM with its unique railside access, unserved and a skeletal service to downtown Waterbury (from Burlington only) with its major State complex.

Note that free commuter park-and-ride lots and employee parking continue a major subsidy to workers, a subsidy generally discontinued in mature public transportation services, including commuter rail. In the meantime all one needs to know about federal priorities comes from the fact that every type of commuting to work qualifies the commuter for one individual income tax credit or benefit of another except one—walking.

Note that a review of the three Burlington corridors—east, north and south—market potential for commuter rail amounts to about 5,000. Certainly an initial potential use of commuter rail based on Link performance might well reach 30% or 1,500 commuters. The Link services as well as shuttle connections from rail stations would continue as a supplement and feeder for what really becomes an overall integrated rail/bus system. Bicycle and walking modes facilities supporting the integrated network must be a given.

Then there is the larger question of inter-city services enabled by current Link type services today, for examples, connecting Burlington to St. Johnsbury via Montpelier and Burlingon to Rutland via Middelbury. While inter-city and commuter rail services get separate treatments in terms of federal funding, in a small state like Vermont they naturally overlap. The recent Vermont intercity routes built off commuter Link and Link-type services (plus Amtrak) perfectly illustrate how both services connect an re-enforce each other. Extensions of commuter rail to eventually provide intercity links to every major community along with services designed to strengthen the tourist industry also naturally grow out of upgrading tracks and building of commuter rail services. The choices for rail clearly find expression in three major studies dating from 1989—the only thing remaining comes in dusting off the studies and build off the pioneering commuter services CCTA and other public transit agencies have built which show a new reality as more and more Vermonters want out of the unsustainable and uneconomic auto-centric lifestyle.

Time now to catch the growing wave of commuters wanting a quality alternative to car commuting which awaits Legislative, regions, and VAOT leadership. All aboard!

UPON FURTHER REFLECTION....VERMONT COMMUTER RAIL IMMEDIATELY CURES THE “VERMONT STATE OF TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY”, THE PHENOMENON OF CITIZENS ABANDONING CAR COMMUTING IN DROVES

Upon further reflection, the startling growth in numbers of Vermont commuters already using various commuter oriented bus services throughout Vermont reflects a “state of transportation emergency” curable only by undertaking an immediate installation of commuter rail services to handle demand for commuting without a car.

The surging growth of commuters shifting to bus services to get back and forth to work constitutes the proverbial canary in the coal mine signaling needed action now as the automobile as a mechanism of travel no longer serves as the satisfactory core transportation mode in a post-auto age for Vermont. Consider that a commuter rail service starting from the State House complex in Montpelier would include within about an hour stops at Middlesex, downtown Waterbury, Bolton, the center of Richmond, the IBM parking lot, Essex Jct., Winooski and Burlington Union Station. All these stops in a total trip time about the same as the Montpelier Link bus which can only service the outskirts of Richmond along with central Burlington and Montpelier. Overall commuters potentially served by a commuter rail total about 5,000 on the Burlington-Montpelier corridor—another total of 5,000 potential exists for the two other lines ending in Burlington from St. Albans and Middlebury.

Lots of planning and transportation money now goes to investing in park-and-ride lots which would be much better diverted to starting up the long term future of Vermont transportation—a network of commuter and intercity rail services connecting all the State's urban areas and many of its tourist destinations. These services would utilize mostly self-propelled single and two car sets with seating capacities of 80-150. The same equipment was proposed as a cost-saving demonstration in place of Amtrak services from St. Albans to New Haven, CN.

Yes the auto industry will fight the return of the rail car based service just as it funded the demise of urban rail a century ago, but continuing to fund and subsidize an auto mode no longer sustainable as the core network of transportation no longer remains economic (if it ever was) and can no longer be afforded.

Meanwhile, New England car travel numbers now trend negative, Vermont population under-65 population growth level flat lines for the foreseeable future, and three decades of stagnant wages with no end in sight—all contribute to the high growth of bus and Amtrak numbers which yearly hit new highs. And those same factors provide the underpinning for a shift of the Vermont transportation core network from one centered on cars to one centered on sustainable rail passenger and freight services.

Let's recognize that the bus trip represents a lower tier level of comfort and ease for commuters and travelers in general versus commuter rail. People only put up with buses if rail is unavailable. Besides, practical commuter bus capacities are about 30-50 while a two-car self-propelled rail car set capacity easily amounts to 150, expandable to several hundred by just adding more passenger cars.

For years many argued that we will not abandon our cars for a bus—but more and more Vermonters are abandon the solo car or carpooling for the bus every month—the three commuter “Link” bus services out of Burlington have increased about 20% each year for the past for two years.

The three musty Vermont commuter rail studies already provide the basic blueprints—the only elements missing now are leadership from Governor Shumlin, at least one member of the Vermont Congressional delegation, and the municipal leaders of affected communities—to the north along the line to St. Albans, to the east Montpelier and Barre, and to the south Vergennes and Middlebury. Add two other initial potential lines: (1) a Connecticut River Valley line connecting White River Jct., Windsor, Bellows Falls and Brattleboro; and (2) West Route—Bennington, Manchester, Rutland and Middlebury.

An initial service, say either of the three Burlington routes (IBM expressed a preference for a St. Albans/IBM/Burlington service) might take two years at most. Note while the entire core Montreal Metro system construction took about a year, Vermont rail lines for service are in place, the St. Albans-Brattleboro line with a 60 mph service level now serves Amtrak daily, and the desired rail equipment already operates on two commuter lines, one in Portland, OR.

Cost? Well federal law requires Chittenden County and the Governor directly command $50 million annually in capital and public transportation investments which involve federal funding. A first commuter rail service line could easily be handled with about $5-$6 million for the first year or two, affordable with current funding streams. The rail equipment and costs for service were thoroughly examined in 2008-2009 when the Amtrak demonstration of the same equipment to reduce Vermont subsidies (still a good idea!!).

The tide in transportation began to turn about two decades ago away from an auto-based dominance and now that same tide can be seen clearly—it is time now to respond to the “state of transportation emergency” and begin the welcome task of establishing a core of commuter and intercity rail passengers in Vermont as part of a workable, sustainable, and economy supporting backbone for the transportation system.

"VERMONT TRAINS" OVERDUE

VERMONT LEADERS BEHIND THE TIMES SITTING ON THEIR HANDS WHILE RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE COULD HANDLE WORKERS COMMUTING TO AND FROM MAJOR EMPLOYERS, INSULATE THE TOURIST INDUSTRY FROM HIGH GAS PRICES, AND IN TIME CONNECT ALL LARGE CITY AND TOWN CENTERS...

Three studies of Vermont commuter rail services dating from 1989 continue gathering dust while the recent raging success of commuter bus services radiating from Burlington demonstrates installing in-state inter-city and commuter rail passenger services continues long overdue. In-state rail passenger operations enable citizens and visitors alike an alternative to cars bringing needed support to Vermont city and town centers, the tourist industry as well as to workers and major employers like IBM, State complexes, Fletcher Allen Hospital and several colleges.

Vermonters for decades supported and continue to voice support for a post-auto transportation system built around Amtrak and other rail passenger services, a network of urban and rural public transit services, and bicycle and walking facilities.

For the better part of a decade the Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Burlington-Montpelier commuter “Link” services between Burlington and Montpelier surged. Expanded peak commuter runs and a mid-day run serve both cities. Today Montpelier Link totals sixteen buses each workday carrying about 200 commuters between the two cities with over 20 passengers per bus. Based on Census data the Montpelier Link handles about a third of all commuter trips between Montpelier and Burlington. These Burlington-Montpelier commuters equal about 3.1 million vehicle miles of solo driving off the highways. The overall Link services which include Burlington to St. Albans, Middlebury, and Milton plus Montpelier easily represent a shift of over 1% of annual vehicle miles in Vermont from cars to buses, even taking into consideration that without the Links considerable car pooling would be the alternative for many of these commuters.

Providing year-round rail passenger service can be accomplished by utilizing available single or double unit self-propelled rail-diesel cars which obtain about five miles per gallon. With new train control technology which utilizes radio and satellite connections desired service frequency can be attained. Consider the prime Montpelier-Burlington route, for example. The New England Central rail line from the Massachusetts border to St. Albans via Brattleboro, Bellows Falls, White River Jct., Randolph, Northfield, Montpelier Jct., and Essex Jct. supports the 60 mph rail speeds for current Amtrak services. The Montpelier-Burlington run which would probably start from Barre also enables a stop at the parking lot of the State's largest private employer, IBM, just before Essex Jct. Upgrade of the five mile line from Essex Jct. to Burlington's Union Station is a must. At some future point even a spur connection to Burlngton International Airport becomes possible.

All three rail studies employ self-propelled rail vehicles for basic services. One study almost mirrors the radiating Link services out of Burlington. A second study focuses on a rectangular intercity service—Rutland-Bellows Falls-White River Jct.-Montpelier-Burlington-Rutland—all of this rail in place is either owned by the State or New England Central Railroad. This study emphasizes services to the tourist industry and inter-city trains as well as commuters. Any in-State rail services can also spur additional use of the Amtrak interstate trains from New York and southern New England which continue to experience yearly passenger numbers growth to new records, often at a double digit pace.

It is time for “Vermont trains” to start. Over time rail passenger and commuter services can extend connections to all major towns and cities re-establishing a network which becomes a safe, sustainable, backbone transportation network for the State.

"DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION" TO "FUNCTION JUNCTION"

CONVERTING “DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION” TO “FUNCTION JUNCTION” NOW UNDEWAY IN MANCHESTER CENTER (VT), 17 YEARS AFTER COMPLETION OF A LANDMARK FIRST IN THE NATION ALL-ROUNDABOUT TOWN CENTER PLAN

     --forming Vermont's first “roundabout corridor”

Vermont Public Radio this week reported the construction start of two roundabouts in the “5th Avenue in the Mountains,” Manchester Center, VT which includes converting an intersection (VT 7A/30) popularly known as “dysfunction junction” to just the opposite, “function junction.”

It took a couple of decades and perseverance but the two intersections involved ensure the far easier followup signal conversion tasks which when completed establishes a walker and bicycle friendly shopping and living environment without a single signal to mar what essentially is a pristine Vermont mountain valley featuring mostly 18th and 19th century style “our town” New England architecture. Manchester's Planner Lee Krohn deserves an award for persistence!  So too do the other leaders of Manchester over many years.  Credit the Town which commissioned now renowned landscape architect Robert A. White of Norwich who guided the Manchester Center plan for walking circulation issued in 1995, the first all-roundabout town center circulation study in the U.S.  (Keene, NH eight years later became the first urban city to study conversion of all its major signalized [and non-signalized] intersections to roundabouts, Missoula, MT the first metro to do the same, and "U.S. roundabout capital" Carmel, IN with a population of about 80,000 already two-thirds of the way towards being in the words of its Mayor a one-traffic signal town with 100 roundabouts).

One cannot forget former VT Senator Jim Jeffords who helped put the word "roundabout" for for the first time in federal transportation law and got funding for undergrounding of the Manchester Center project utilities.  Yes, second roundabout a the “center” of the Center, the upper mini roundabout, will be the first official Vermont mini, a roundabout with a traversable central area (VT 7A/11/30).  With the completion of the two new roundabouts Manchester Center becomes home of the first Vermont “roundabout corridor” as they join the other VT 7A roundabout dating from 1997, Grand Union Roundabout about three blocks south of soon to be “function junction.” The first U.S. roundabout corridor plan belongs to the Brattleboro (VT) Putney Road.

Unfortunately the U.S. lags several developed nations in roundabout adoption even though roundies cut injuries for walkers up to 90% (same for car occupants), cut emissions and gasoline consumption by about a third at busy intersections, increase business vitality in the immediate area, and--like soon to be "function junction"--increase access to and development of nearby land, thereby enabling denser land development which by definition curbs sprawl. Vermont and other states need to join New York and Virginia Departments of Transportation by adopting “roundabouts only” policies. (Two of ten Canadian provinces already boast such policies.)

Now there remains the easiest task of all, completing the 1995 White plan by converting the few signals left along VT 11 to the US 7 interchange.  Then Manchester Center can become a no-signal shopping mecca with completely comfortable and safe walking conditions!

DECLINE IN DRIVING A DEEP AND PERVASIVE PHENOMENON?

THE DECLINE OF CAR TRAVEL IN VERMONT, NEW ENGLAND: IT IS NOT JUST DEMOGRAPHICS AND GAS PRICES AS SURVEYS SHOW IT INVOLVES LOTS OF FACTORS INCLUDING THE APPARENT YOUNGER CONSUMER CHOOSING THE “APPLE-ING” OF LIFE OVER CARCENTRICITY A historic upheaval in U.S. car use and travel trends suggests that the changing curve from ever upward to flat and declining in car comes from some surprising sources, sources unconnected to the easy to point to elements like population growth, gas prices and income stagnation. In slow population growth states--like  five of the six in New England states—these new factors practically assures negative car travel numbers this decade. A study released this month reported in the Financial Times  (April 19, 2012) helps amplify the historic low of New England car travel growth of 3 percent 2000-2010, and this reporting adds to the mounting evidence other New England states will soon join Rhode Island which recorded an unprecedented auto age decade to decade negative 2000-2010, -0.3, in annual vehicle miles of travel. The Financial Times reported U.S. study showing a five percent decline in those ages 14-34 with a drivers license during th last decade. And those aged16-33 with incomes over $70,000 from 2000 to 2009 doubled their use of public transit and cycling. (Nationally all urban trips by bicycle modal share has hung around one percent, but still, doubling any bicycle modal share stands out.) And for that same age group miles driven actually decreased.  Note All these trends do not take full account of the impacts of the 2008 economic collapse and continued gas prices rising faster than general inflation. The Financial Times piece says Detroit carmakers worrying about this trend which hits directly on existing and future car sales potentials. These national trends simply add to the New England demographic typified by Vermont which the U.S. census projects 2000-2030 no increase in 65-and-under population while the the older population will more than double, the latter characterized by historically driving about 40 percent less miles per year than the prime aged drivers, 25-55. My immediate family—myself, three 30-something sons with two married and no children—may be unusual but among seven adults in three households there are two vehicles and three of the seven adults without a drivers license. All live in urban areas and the two cars, both in one household, get used for job commutes of about five miles. Three of our four households depend entirely on walking, bicycling and public transit. Recall the New England numbers from the past decade—3.7% population growth, 3.1% growth in annual vehicle miles of travel 2010 versus 2000, and 0.6% increase in gasoline use. With Vermont leading the three states with negative gas consumption during 2000-2010 with a 8% drop, New England may move very close to 1990 gas consumption by the end of this decade. If the coming generation banks on giving up the car for an Apple-centric, social networking, urban car-free culture, the car travel numbers for this decade may not only decline but continue to decline at a rate not far from the New England 16% 1990s decrease to 3% in the last decade. This could mean a double digit decline this decade, more than my own estimate of -3 to -8% for 2010-2020. My own estimate takes into account the changing age demographic, gas prices increasing faster than incomes and increasing initiatives in tamping down driving mostly through encouraging and improving alternative modes—but that estimate does not contemplate wholesale abandonment of the younger generation of car travel altogether or in the case of the well-to-do dropping their car annual miles of travel. Finally, the New England numbers would be similar to those in other slower growing parts of the nation, primarily the other northeast and north central states and signal a rapid change in travel habits in the faster growing population regions. Finally for Vermont, other New England States, and those with slow growing states which will see mostly 65-and-over population growth consider the mountain to climb even to consider any vehicle miles of travel growth from now until 2030. First, you have to keep all the following factors equal to conditions today: (1) no change in the price of gasoline; (2) no investment in reducing solo commuting or car use in general; (3) no increase relative to vehicle travel of any public transportation from trains to buses; and (4) no efforts at increasing walking trips, bicycle trips or densification of urban land uses. Second, the trend towards less driver licensing and car use by the coming generation—particularly by the well-to-do, must return to turn of the century status. Given these two conditions then—and Vermont is the best example—the only growth which can occur in car travel primarily comes from the increase in the 65-and-over population, the only population segment which is projected to increase in the next 20 years. Moreover, the 65-and-over drivers vehicle miles of travel are 40% less than the average for all drivers. At best one gets—given these assumption—the potential of 0.2-03% growth yearly, 2-3% growth per decade. Perhaps this scenario gives a picture of why the “car travel bears” continue to see negative growth for some time to come.

TO ROUNDABOUT OR NOT TO ROUNDABOUT, THAT IS THE QUESTION

TO ROUNDABOUT OR NOT TO ROUNDABOUT? THAT IS THE QUESTION IN THE UNDERHILL (VT) SIDEWALK PROJECT

A question about considering roundabouts at the two intersections involved in a sidewalk project along the Underhill (VT) village section of VT 15 arose during a presentation at the recent Walk/Bike Summit in Burlington. Good question!

The approach taken today for current “roundabouts only” policies at first glance applies to existing and new busy urban intersections serving walkers, including practically all signalized intersections which by nature are “busy.” But installing a first up-to-date sidewalk in the Underhill in a typical rural village center area and also addressing associated intersections with roundabouts at affected intersections? With a series of bicycle and walker projects installing new or major upgrades of existing sidewalks for safety the question of insuring walker safety at associated intersections largely has been ignored.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) points to sidewalks as a high level safety treatment which reduces walker injuries by almost 90%--and separately we know single lane roundabouts also reduce walker injuries by a similar 90%. In fact with about 2,500 roundabouts in the U.S. now and “roundabout years” about 13,000 not a single walker fatality has yet occurred.

The Underhill sidewalk project extends about a quarter mile along VT 15 starting at the Park Street intersection and extends just past another busy intersection, Meadow Lane. The sidewalk clearly makes sense and fits the Underhill needs in the rural built up community area and in part replaces an old rundown sidewalk.

Clearly the two intersections in question meet the “busy” category with entering traffic numbers somewhat below the first Vermont roundabout, Keck Circle in downtown Montpelier. Just as clear roundabouts at the two intersections would bring a substantial safety benefit to the sidewalk users. At least one of the Underhill intersections appears to offer no serious right-of-way issues for a roundabout. It should be noted that roundabouts traffic calm by reducing speeds up to 900 feet away along each leg. And for car occupants the single laner also reduces serious injuries by 90%. The VT 15 roadway in question current speed limit of 35 mph also suggests needs to moderate speeds at crossings used by walkers which a roundabout can offer. Across the Lake Champlain the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) installs only roundabouts at new or existing intersections since that policy policy took effect in 2005.

The landmark U.S. roundabout study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found anything but a roundabout generates on average a 900% greater rates of serious injuries and fatalities. The American Automobile Association (AAA) last November calls for creating a national highway safety policy starting with a goal of a “zero fatality rate.”

One question we need to ask is should we be building new sidewalks whose goal is safety for walkers without building “safe” intersections, i.e., the roundabout, for those same walkers to use? The Underhill sidewalk project cost estimated in 1997 at $360,000. Two roundabouts would more than triple that cost but also provide increased safety to car occupants as well as walkers. Obviously one can argue that the best use of scarce transportation dollars is to invest in converting busy urban signalized intersections to roundabouts—and certainly prioritization of intersections investments would tend in that direction, i.e., the more walkers and vehicles the higher on the list for converting the intersection to a roundabout. On the other hand a roundabout project is “one and done” generally never requiring expensive maintenance and periodic updating typical of the now obsolete signal treatments.

But what of Underhill and a new sidewalk and two busy rural but busy intersections? Can one neatly divide the issue of safety for walkers provided by the sidewalk from the relative unsafety of the two signed controlled intersections which are part and parcel of the Underhill sidewalk route? Do we want to build new infrastructure unsafe for our children? Because there are lots benefits to a roundabout from increasing business access to car occupant safety, then installing roundabouts make sense as part of any new walking facility which connect with or passes through busy intersections The Federal Highway Administration in safety investments values a life saved at $6.0 million (2009 dollars) and $126,000 for an injury.

Vermont's roadway and street policy became muddled last year as it adopted a mis-named “complete streets” law, better described as an “incomplete streets law” which may fairly deal with street sections but totally ignores safety at intersections. The intersection issue in the law can be addressed by adding a policy similar to the NYSDOT “roundabouts only” regulation, and providing guidance regarding new sidewalk projects—such as Underhill—by addressing associated intersections at the same time for “safety” for walkers (and by default car occupants).

Snow plowing and large truck movements often get attention as reasons not to build roundabouts even though neither has any basis in fact. The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) regularly plows roundabouts, a single laner in East Barre on US 302 and a two laner at the I 91/US 5/VT Brattleboro interchange built more than a dozen years ago. As for trucks 42 daily pass through Keck Circle in Montpelier and 84 tractor trailers through the other Montpelier roundabout at the US 2/302 intersection. The Brattleboro two-laner handles over 900 tractor-trailer trucks daily.

The citizens of Underhill deserve a walker-safe facility and that means the new sidewalk and roundabouts at one or both of the two busy intersections. In this case of walker safety half-a-loaf is not better than one.

ROUNDLY DISAPPOINTING BURLINGTON WALK/BIKE SUMMIT

ROUNDLY DISAPPOINTING BURLINGTON WALK-BIKE SUMMIT

About 100 attendees, mostly biking enthusiasts, gathered at the Main Street Landing “Lake and College Building” in Burlington Saturday (March 31) though nary a discussion occurred at the joint sessions about the treatment critical to walker safety: the roundabout.

Even the keynote speaker who also presented, Jeff Olson, the former New York State Department of Transportation bicycle pedestrian coordinator failed to mention that across the lake the roundabout became his former employer's policy standard seven years ago. While Vermont already has six walker fatalities this year compared to an average of four annually in the recent past, nothing about walker safety creeped into discussions. Burlington itself experienced a fatal and a serious injury at signalized intersections in a recent week.

The nation with an impressive comprehensive highway safety plan—France—leads the world in the number of roundabouts, about 31,000 at the end of 2010 building with 1,400 built yearly 1993-2003. The U.S.? A construction of 750 would be good for this year, about a $1.5 billion investment—if the U.S. invested at the rate of the French in the 1990s we would be building about ten times the current rate, about 7,000 roundabouts annually at a cost of about $15 billion--more than twice the amount built in the 21 years 1990-2011, about 2,500 roundabouts built. One cannot begin the policy of a “zero fatality rate” challenge posed for the first time by AAA without an aggressive investment in roundabouts. The U.S.--and Canada—remain two nations completely lacking even a hint of a comprehensive highway and street safety program, one with measurable goals by mode and ongoing monitoring of performance.

Vermont with eight roundabouts since the first in 1995 will have at least ten by the end of the year as two begin construction in Manchester Center this spring—a “French production rates” would be about 15-20 a year with at least a third in the Burlington metro area.

While roundabouts at busy intersections cut gasoline and emissions (including greenhouse gases) by about a third, reduce delay for all users, traffic calm in all directions to nearly 900 feet, and enable more walking and bicycling, their most important user impact is on average a reduction of serious injuries and fatalities by 90%. Car occupants and walkers get the bulk of the safety benefit and no modes receive a penalty.

Vermont boasts the first state or province policy in law to employ roundabouts at dangerous intersections, but Vermont has fallen behind as New York, Virginia and two western Canadian provinces which adopted “roundabouts only” policies.

Ironically, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the August 1992 three day walking/bicycling workshop in Montpelier where roundabouts were first introduced to community leaders and officials—and Montpelier home to the first northeastern roundabout in 1995, Brattleboro which led the northeast with the first interstate interchange roundabout in 1999 and Manchester Center in 1997 led the construction of the first Vermont roundabouts.

Perhaps next year the Chittenden Walk/Bike Summit will hear about the intersection which is standard in the land across the waters of Lake Champlain. Then perhaps advocacy can nudge the building of more roundabouts thereby bringing improved walker safety not only for the Burlington area but for the State as well.