EVOLUTION OF TRANSPORTATION VIEWS

 My interest in public transport goes back some time, probably inspired like many by Jane Jacobs in "Life and Death of Great American Cities" as part of a master's program slanted to the degree possible toward urban policy, housing, transportation and planning.  For about a decade or so, carried around an economic study by a Bowdoin economist William Shipman who I respected which laid public transport in the foreign land of "public subsidy", that is,  something not worthy of serious consideration because it could ever stand on its own two feet economically.   Only after getting involved in State transportation policy in the 1980s did the epiphany occur that the biggest "subsidy", that foreign idea, was actually going to the family car and the solo driver.  

One example, FHWA's Highway Statistics series published each year shows an astounding amount of capital investment in highways each year--about 40% and growing--comes from non-highway user revenues, mostly in the form of local property taxes and general funds (particularly tax exempt bonding which carries a stiff tax expenditure price).

Remember, starting with the Reagan Administration, no highway bill proposing tax increases in the gas tax passes the Congress without the support of those who support public transportation, and in spite of decades of effort by one party to abolish Amtrak it just finished its 42nd year with two consecutive years of record setting passenger numbers.   While the walker/bicycle interests spearhead the conversion of urban streets to users other than solely for the automobile, and local transit agencies in Vermont through perseverance and careful exploration of new areas (like the Link commuter buses into Burlington), two major laggards remain, mostly because of the contortions of both states and Congressional constraints: intercity and commuter rail, and urban light rail. 

For Vermont this means moving quickly to install commuter rail services along three corridors into Burlington which can now be justified from a number of viewpoints, and reviving the carefully planned light rail service from the Burlington waterfront and Union Station to the Church Street Marketplace and then onto UVM and Fletcher Allen Health Care.

Have always viewed public transport is a form of social justice, but as important it can now be viewed as a necessary cement to the economic viability of urban areas and absolutely essential force for a sustainable society.  This view coincides with our current view of walking and bicycling in urban America as also symbolizing these same values related to a viable economy and a sustainable society.

Consider that with a limited "subsidy" Link commuter buses to Burlington provide a dependable service for about 10 cents a mile versus 51 cents a mile (federal reimbursement rate for a government worker using a personal car) for a solo driver.  So a Montpelier commute each day, 80 miles round trip costs $8 a day by Link and $40 by solo drive.  Anyone who does a monthly household budget can quickly calculate what this does to the monthly and annual family budget.  And employers are quickly picking up on how important shifting employees from expensive solo commuting to public transport means a more stable workforce, a happier more efficient workforce, all of which contributes in a measurable way the bottom line.  

So, suddenly public transport now appears to be gaining a new connotation--transportation for the middle class!

   

ROUNDABOUTS--WALKERS, BICYCLISTS, ETC.

A new study on walkers and bicyclists at roundabouts by the Minnesota Department of Transportation received some attention this week on the roundabout listserv hosted by Kansas State University.


(The study summary and access address to the study itself can be found at:
http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/catalyst/2012/november/roundabouts/

One of the most interesting aspects of the study was the walker delay.  A comparable traffic signal delay to the two roundabouts the authors stated would be 30 seconds while at the two lane roundabout the delay was 9 seconds and at the single lane roundabout 2 seconds.  The one lane roundabout was described as being in a "residential" area with 83 percent of drivers yielding to walkers.  The two-lane roundabout was described as being in a "suburban" area and 45 percent of drivers yielded to walkers.

My comment on the listserv to the study sent today was:


Not sure there are surprises here. What we know about walker--and bicyclist safety for that matter with no walkers and one bicyclist  fatality at a partially roundaboutized Los Altimatos Circle--is that the US/Canada roundies with all their early variations from current practice appear to be hitting the mark set by France with a walker fatality every 15,000 or so roundabout years.

This record so far surpasses signed/traffic signal performance that little regard (Lost Altimatos, again, a good example) can be given to safety at most existing roundabouts, rather it is more important to get more on the ground and access the 30% or so extra reduction in walker crash rates which come in all roundabouts once a certain (unknown) density of roundies occurs.  Of course, again, no one in the world has taken the effort to identify the crash reduction by mode out at incremental distances to a quarter mile from the center of roundabouts, i.e., the point where the traffic calming effect ends. 

The basic rules of roundabout design continue to apply for walkers and bicyclists--the smaller the roundabout the lower the speeds, the safer for non-motorized users. Wallwork ramps at entry/exits [for bicyclists to exit/enter rather than continuing through on the circular roadway.]x
Regarding yielding rates which clearly make little difference in  roundabout safety--roundabouts are by definition safe for walkers and bicyclists versus alternatives--regardless of yielding rates, just look at the overall safety record. 

My view on those persons with severe visual handicap continues that current street designs for them except in two cases remain unsafe at any speed--roundabouts or no but certainly for signs and signals.  (Remember US fatality rates for walkers and bicyclists are a few hundred percent higher than in urban Germany and the Netherlands--see Jean Pucher study on this).  Those with severe visual handicap can only be provided access in two cases:  (1) shared space and (2) use of a combination of traffic calming techniques (usually with roundabouts) reducing vehicle speeds to about 10 mph and below.  Incidentally, James Kunstler pointed to only three street malls in the U.S.--Burlington, VT Church Street Marketplace (where I am right now), Pearl Street Mall in Boulder and Santa Monica.  One of the first, Sparks Street in Ottawa still struggles, in my view because the lack of sufficient nearby parking and residential housing.

EXPANDING BURLINGTON CHURCH STREET MARKETPLACE ALONG CROSS STREETS

A Seven Days article regarding the desire of merchants adjacent to the Church Street Marketplace evoked my letter below referencing my long held belief that converting adjacent space along cross streets outward from the edge of the Marketplace a great deal of sense--"shared space" with a mix of vehicles and walkers can easily be installed with benefits for all.   The Marketplace businesses themselves are understandably cool to this idea because the side street merchants are not included in the special tax district which funds various activities on the Marketplace.  My suggestion is to seek a middle ground on the issue and move forward with "shared space" where appropriate.  This letter was not published by Seven Days:

Agree with side street merchants push for an enhanced connection from the Marketplace onto College, Bank and Cherry Streets as a natural step economically beneficial to all. This "pushout" approach particularly makes sense on Cherry where constant bus runs flows end with the new transit center. I made a strong comment on the PlanBTV that the “shared space” where vehicles and walkers mix comfortably at Marketplace street crossings can be carefully expanded east and west with similar paving and side area treatments. (Check out “shared space” through a google.) This works for traffic and enhances the fronting businesses. Yes, this will increase economic vitality of side areas but the presence of slow though yielding vehicle traffic means less realistically per square foot sales potential than similar stores on the Marketplace proper. The Marketplace needs to recognize side street businesses cannot be expected to pay the same rate of support they are required to do. A compromise figure can certainly be found. This becomes win-win as the Marketplace overall becomes more attractive to shoppers with enhanced side areas leading into the original--still remarkable after all these years--Marketplace areas.

COMMUTER RAIL MARKET SURPRISE

THE 23 PERCENT SURPRISE...COMMUTER PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES FOR BURLINGTON-MONTPELIER, FIRED UP BY RECENT DATA--READY TO GO?

The evidence nears a mountainous level the auto age already turns toward a surging shift to public transportation, walking and bicycling. Isolating data on journey-to-work shows roughly 23 percent, one of four, of Montpelier, Barre and Berlin workers employed in Burlington traveling to that City on Link commuter buses operated by the Chittenden Country Transportation Authority (CCTA).

The commuting data reflects another aspect of the tectonic move away from carcentric transportation in Vermont in other states as car travel plateaus or even declines, young age driver licensing drops nationally, and public transit agencies, like the Boston area agency face unprecedented use and likely capacity limits by the end of this decade.

While on a travel vacation with Thailand-located son and his wife (both elementary teachers there) to the Philippines, continue as time permitted to process the various data sources which bear on the market for commuter rail services out of Burlington with special look at the natural start service—the Montpelier State House to Union Station Burlington corridor with stops (east to west): Middlesex, Waterbury, Bolton, Richmond, IBM Technology Park, Essex Junction, Fanny Allen/St. Michaels and Winooski.

A flurry of studies over a ten year period 1989-1999 examined commuter rail services. Two of these studies delved into light rail (trolley) serving corridors from Union Station Burlington with considerable public involvement leading to a “first phase” recommendation through the Church Street Marketplace to UVM and Fletcher Allen Health Center (FAHC). The other studies evaluated among other areas commuter services along the three corridors radiating out of Burlington to Montpelier/Barre, St. Albans and Middlebury.

At the turn of the century through the leadership of Governor Howard Dean commuter rail service—the Champlain Flyer--began from Charlotte to Burlington with an intermediate stop at Shelburne.  It operated until early 2002. (I along with many others criticized that service as unjustified by likely use.) The Champlain Flyer now appears prophetic for two reasons. First the track and stations remain ready to host commuter rail service this very moment—and any new service involving Burlington to Montpelier naturally extends the additional 17 miles to Charlotte right from the start. Second, the Champlain flyer with a reported 124 commuters (six months data for October 2001 through March 2002) gives real time information on future passenger rail potential—there is nothing like the real world data to determine demand rather than depending on theoretical models.

A lot changed since the rail studies—the tectonic shift in car transportation starting in the 1990s leading to the 2000-2010 growth New England-wide of only 3% in car travel with a strong likelihood this decade will end up on the negative side, the first since the advent of the auto itself over a century ago.

In addition several years ago, another real world of Burlington area public transit commuter services began and, surprisingly, grew and continues to grow like topsy—those services out of Burlngton along three corridors to Montpelier, St. Albans and Middlebury, called “Link” by the operator, CCTA, provide the most important data on the commuter rail potential. Besides, with more 40 buses daily (about half in the Montpelier corridor alone) the maximum of bus efficiency may already be past.

The number that sticks out in looking at journey-to-work data from the Census and actual commuter numbers come from the 142 who commute regularly by Link into Burlington from Montpelier. This number commuting inbound on CCTA Link buses projected for this year, represents according to Census 23% of all commuters to Burlington from Montpelier, Barre and Berlin to Burlington. 

 

Because a number of Link passengers to Montpelier come from both Burlington and the Richmond park-and-ride, a number of those riders surely come from towns outside of Burlington (time for a survey!). Overall, Link buses serve 2 ½ stations (Montpelier, Burlngton and eastbound only at Richmond park-and-ride).

23% is an important number

The importance of 23% resides in the fact that up to recently, as in the Vermont rail studies, modeling assumed a maximum of about 10% modal share for commuter rail in the immediate areas near stations. The 23% of Montpelier area commuters choosing a bus—far inferior in terms of a commuter preference—reveals the reflection of tectonic shift in still another now obsolete yardstick—the willingness of consumers to choose rail travel from home to work versus the car.

In determining the potential use of commuter rail by Vermonters, the clear evidence now suggests that commuter rail passenger service may well be viable now and may need to be added to the transportation mix now—more to come.

RASH OF WALKER FATALS/INJURIES IN VERMONT--WHAT TO DO

WHAT TO DO—THE RASH OF WALKER INJURIES AND FATALITIES IN VERMONT URBAN AREAS

The Vermont AARP office this year continues to work with Brattleboro and others on the recent rash of walker fatalities and serious injuries which leads to the following thoughts....

Burlington, Rutland and Brattleboro all seek answers to a sudden apparent increase of serious walker injuries and fatalities in their community. In one week this year in Burlington a walker was killed and another seriously injured at busy signalized intersections. Rutland deaths occurred south Main Street and Brattleboro deaths and injuries occurred in various contexts.

There are no common clearly common elements. The Brattleboro walker crashes involved mostly drivers 50 or over with most of those involved off sidewalks. Both Burlington crashes occurred with the walker on a marked crosswalk. A fatality this week involved a young driver who careened at high speed in a parking lot, hitting two cars, then a teen-aged worker killing her in front of the store she was employed as she left at the end of her shift. Note the Federal Highway Administration figure for a fatality based on “value of life” research is (2009 $) $6.1 million and for an injury, $126,000. These figures include lost wages, family economic impacts, etc. A AAA study last fall using this data along with crash statistics and metropolitan congestion costs found, overall, the costs from injuries and fatalities, i.e., safety, were more than double the costs of congestion in larger metro areas and greater than congestion in all metro areas.

First and foremost, a key problem in the U. S. and Vermont comes in the form of a lack of comprehensive, programmed in all phases (education, engineering and enforcement) and readily accessible in document all can see: a highway safety program. The French integrated and comprehensive program reviewed annually for performance came about as a necessity to address human carnage on the streets and highways.

With that understanding at a minimum engineering, i.e., street infrastructure, can be examined in Vermont for providing the safest—though still not satisfactory overall safety—street environment for walkers.

Infrastructure

For walkers only two basic safety infrastructure measures exist for streets and intersections-sidewalks along street segments and roundabouts at the intersections. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) posts on its website that sidewalks cut walker injuries and fatalities by 88% and several studies indicate that on average single lane roundabouts (and mini ones too) cut walker injuries and fatalities by about a similar amount. Not other infrastructure treatments attain the performance of sidewalks along street segments or roundabouts at intersections in terms of walker safety. It is no surprise, then, that France leads the world in the number of roundabouts (over 30,000) and that with about 12,000 “roundabout years” under our belts in the U.S. and Canada not a single walker fatality has occurred—and in France only about one walker fatal occurs per 15,000 roundabouts (or “roundabout years”). As the number of roundabouts increased in 1993 in France from 10,000 to 24,000 in 2003, the number of walker fatalities remained constant, about two, where it remains today. The presence of more roundabouts alone appeared to have significant impact on improving the safety of existing roundabouts, i.e., the more roundabout you install the lower the walker fatality rate at roundabout intersections.

Interestingly, Brattleboro was the first town in the U.S. and Canada where an entire corridor was evaluated for roundabout conversion and it probably shares with Keene, NH the title of the first downtown area with all its key busy intersections evaluated for roundabouts. The 1994 Brattleboro study evaluated all intersections from the now Keene Turn Roundabout (built in 1999) to the north on Putney Road to the shopping center area south of the town on US 5. A troika of roundabouts was sketched in the 1994 study where the one-way circular traffic continues through and around the municipal complex at the north end of the commercial downtown. A roundabout almost went forward at the complex intersection adjacent and over the Wellstone Brook where the greatest congestion occurs, exacerbated as traffic backs up and through during rail crossing activation less than a 100 yards to the east.

A fatal near the intersection of Strongs Avenue and South Main Street which occurred late last year is about a block from a busy intersection with a McDonalds on the southeast corner—an intersection where a roundabout was suggested by some about a decade ago, a roundabout which might have traffic calmed the area of Strongs and South Main which itself continues to be a good candidate for a roundabout. Overall, about 95% of busy Vermont intersections can be converted to roundabouts—and moving into a comprehensive, prioritized conversion program certainly must be the keystone to any comprehensive approach to dealing with the problem of walker safety.

Getting back to Brattleboro, the central area can be examined seriously for roundabout (“normal” and “minis”) to improve safety for walkers and car occupants, reduce congestion, traffic calm, reduce air pollution. One fatality occurred along Canal Street. The use of a simple median to cross near the Transit Center in line with the walker bridge crossing might improve safety and access at the mid point of the “level” part of the street. A “median diverter” which forces a movement of vehicles from a straight path at the median would add traffic calming to the median treatment.

On Western Avenue in Brattleboro, busy VT 9, roundabouts at the I 91 interchange would improve safety and access for walkers. Other significant intersections along sidewalked road segments also could be evaluated for roundabouts.

In view of the lack of State and Federal commitment to comprehensive highway safety—similar to the lack of action one might point to in another area, climate change—then a “do it yourself” “town comprehensive street safety plan” with emphasis on walking and bicycle modes could be undertaken. These local plans would continue to face lack of state and federal lagging in the areas of law, enforcement and education, but a local plan could heavily influence highway investments in a particular community and with cooperative efforts with other region towns at regional planning commissions impact regional highway expenditure—including funding local safety plans!

VEFRMONT DIGGER GETS IT RIGHT--YES ON BATTERY STREET EXTENSION

 Vermont Digger gets the story right (including a map) regarding the excellent City proposal nn

http://vtdigger.org/2012/09/25/weinberger-unveils-plan-for-champlain-parkway-and-railyard-district/#comment-41064

Extending Battery Street a block or so south then hanging a left to connect to Pine Street, called an “urban grid,” represents the most sensible idea for Burlington since the City Council had the foresight to take a position against the Circumferential Highway. The proposal takes a lot of pressure off the residential areas along and adjacent to lower Maple Street and north on Piece from Maple.

Congratulations to Mayor Weinburger and Councilors Shannon and Seigel for showing us all how to work together. The “street” approach rather than the”Parkway” mindset makes sense for the neighborhoods and development needs involved. The City would be advised to take the same approach to the other end of the Parkway route. Why not, Phase i, just open up the I 189 stub at the south end of Pine Street for traffic. Then if one must extend the “Parkway” then do a Phase II simple true parkway–a single lane street with a median–two blocks and end it at Flynn Avenue. Then if one must in the future extend further to Lakeside Avenue, do a Phase III, extending the simple true Parkway to that point. One step at a time by working in cooperation with the VAOT.

The first priority after Battery Street Extension and connecting at the end of Pine Street to the I 189 stub (“Parkway Phase I) is addressing safety and service for Pine Street intersections by installing mini- and regular roundabouts. Cure the delay, cure the safety! All phases of any Parkway work needs to employ roundabout only intersections–just like the value engineering recommendations in the Parkway design documents.

FREE PRESS EDITORIAL TAKES A STRIKE...

The Burlington Free Press comes out for a new streets investments in the City's South End rather than providing needed safety existing intersections which constrain traffic movement and generate delay and needless traffic crashes and injuries.  This comment entered online today:

If only the Free Press and our new contractor-friendly Mayor were as concerned with safety for walkers and drivers as for laying down more pavement. The safety and delay for all users of south end intersections except Home Avenue at Shelburne Road get quantum leaps in performance with single lane and mini roundabouts like the one nearing a start at the rotary on Shelburne Street. Why not allow traffic access right away to I 189 at the end of Pine Street? AAA tells us safety costs overwhelm congestion costs in metro areas--but is anyone listening? Oh yes, put roundabouts at the south end and congestion disappears too--its just a collateral benefit. Traffic in the few places it grows in Vermont (its mostly declining) now is slow and manageable without new streets and roadways. Let's welcome the post-auto age! First things first--first roundabouts, incentives for less driving, and money for public transport alternatives--after that and only after that look at new street investments.