NEW DIRECTIONS--VERMONT TRANSPORTATION POLICIES/PROGRAMMING

VERMONT TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

        COMMENTS ON TRANSPORTATION-RELATED TOPICS 

TONY REDINGTON

  November 29, 2013

 Good day.  My name is Tony Redington, citizen of Burlington, Vermont,

20 North Winooski Avenue Apt 2, 05401 Email: TonyRVT99gmail.com, Blog: TonyRVT.blogspot.com.

My background and experience includes extensive public and private service in housing and rail transportation policy development, planning, and administration as well as published research in the fields of the walking mode and various aspects of the modern roundabout with its manifold aspects of its impacts on ground transportation, land use, and safety.

            Introduction and Background: the Vermont Transportation Policy Context Today

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on “transportation-related topics” as part of your legislative mandate to hold hearing and submit a report to the Legislature on transportation program related considerations.

First and foremost, transportation programming and finance takes place in a state of chaos at all levels of government today, a condition directly related to the wholesale change in the transportation “marketplace” from dominant car-centric condition dating from end of World War II to the beginning of this century when a new trend of reduced car travel paralleling high rates of growth in public transportation, walking and bicycling modes.  This now undeniable change in the marketplace and a new emergent paradigm recognizes and responds to: (1) reducing car travel; (2) increasing development densities to take advantage of non-car travel mode efficiencies; (3) proactively addressing energy conservation, cutting pollutant emissions, and curbing global warming gas generation; (4) attacking economic competitiveness issues related to transportation waste, inefficiencies, and infrastructure deficits involving movement of both of people and goods; and (5) for the first time employing the tools of roundabouts and cycle track to create urban infrastructure enabling freedom of choice for all citizens to walk and bicycle in safety and comfort regardless of skill levels or age.

The backdrop in transportation change particularly can be seen today as high single and double digit growth in urban public transportation and both walking and bicycling modes take place while car travel car travel stagnates or even declines in slow growth areas of the nation, like New England, other parts of the Northeast and the North Central areas of the nation.

Practically all demographic and economic data nationally as well as Vermont show the chaos and change well advanced and continuing.   For examples, the Census projects growth of senior 65-and-over age population through mid-century will be almost 100% while the younger far higher car traveling population grows only 20%.   In Vermont Census projects 124% 65-and-over population 2000-2030 increase and under-65 age population up under 2%.  Meanwhile in part because of economic factors and part consideration for the environment needs to reduce pollution and energy consumption, all population groups travel by car declines and the young 18-30 age population rate of driving licensing has declined 10%.  Here in Vermont employment growth and car ownership plateaus and the last decade of New England car travel change barely edged up 3%.

State Transportation Finance—For the First Time Deserting Car Based Taxes and Fees for General Fund Sources

Except for Massachusetts and Virginia which dumped car oriented taxation this year as the driver for transportation investments, no other states—including Vermont—have responded to the changed transportation marketplace and the required change in funding sources which must be made to provide needed the transportation infrastructure and services of today, much less meet the needs of the future.

The current approach of tinkering with car-oriented taxes to deal with the State’s transportation finance really does compare to the boy sticking his finger in a small crack in dyke to stop an impending flood.

Using Massachusetts as a guide, Vermont needs to tap general funds for transportation about $90 million a year. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is in the process of announcing their first year of $890 million in projects from non-highway oriented revenue source funding.   Using the Massachusetts appropriation on a pro rata population basis, a Vermont $90 million yearly can fund within a five year period, for examples: capital costs of commuter rail services along three corridors (Montpelier, Middlebury and St. Albans); other intercity services (such as a feeder passenger service from Bennington); capital costs for one light rail line (such as an east-west and north-south line within Burlington and a Rutland line north-south connecting the Mall to the downtown shopping area to the northern edge of the residential areas); a down payment on the major costs necessary to for the first time provide infrastructure making downtowns and village center both walkable and bikable (principally through roundabout and cycle track along corridors, town centers and areas); and, finally, long—but not least--deferred investments in bridges and other highway infrastructure.

These examples assume no federal matching funds and availability of federal funds expands the possible scope of annual investments.

One additional aside on United States transportation finance.  Of the roughly $100 billion spent annually on all highway construction and maintenance, the user pays only 62% with the balance coming from property taxes, general fund taxes and other non-highway related taxation (see FHWA “Highway Statistics 2010, Table HF 1).  (For this reason Vermont town highway grants supposed to support street maintenance and improvements needs to be substantially increased and and formulas revised to take into consideration such factors as lane miles year round cycle track and sidewalk as well as overall traffic volumes to reflect relative maintenance costs.)  Today there exists little relationship between the user costs placed on the highway system versus revenues—whether those user costs on the system are weight related measured by routine cost allocation updates, maintenance costs at the town level mostly property tax supported, or social costs at all levels.  

Because the majority of states—over 30—restrict use of highway related taxes and fees to highway use only, for highway finance to change in a way which meets national needs, federal taxation—particularly of gasoline and related highway imposts—must be expanded.  If the States—in this case Vermont—were able to employ a European level gasoline tax of $4 gallons instead of about twenty-five cents, a revenue stream of $800 million which mostly would be allocated for general fund expenditure.  Because of state to state competition enacting a large gas tax is not possible—and only a federal gas tax re-distributed to the states and easily bypass states constitutional restrictions of their own auto-oriented taxes to highway use only.

         Specific Recommendations for Immediate Transportation

         Actions

There follows here specific policies, activities and changes recommended for Vermont transportation programming today. 

I  Amtrak

1.    Start an Ambus between St. Albans and Montreal connecting with the Vermonter which will immediately reduce overall State support costs to Amtrak and add back the 10,000 annual passengers per year lost when the bus connection ended.   Impact: reduce State annual support requirements for the two Amtrak services initially by about $400,000.

2.    Accelerate the schedule of extending the Ethan Allen service from Rutland to Burlington—immediately preferred by 2016 at the latest—the 2017 schedule now represents a two-decade timeline to extend the service the 80 miles between the two Vermont cities.  Impact:  While little change in annual State support costs would likely occur, numbers of annual passengers would increase and overall economic benefits to the Rutland, Addison, and Chittenden Counties would be significant. 

3.    Immediately revise current regional public transportation providers routes and schedules to provide connectivity to Amtrak passenger train stations throughout the State.  Impact:  Coordinating public transit connections with Amtrak trains would increase slightly the passengers numbers on Amtrak trains with resulting economic benefits to the regions surrounding the stations and a slight reduction in the State’s annual Amtrak support costs.

II Commuter Rail and Intercity Rail Passenger Services

As part of a “Vermont All-Mode Transportation Initiative of General Fund revenues annually dedicated to transportation: (1) initiate commuter rail service between Burlington and Middlebury, Montpelier and St. Albans; (2) initiate a “circuit train”, Burlington-Rutland-Bellows Falls—White River Junction—Montpelier-Burlington designed as the foundation for a full intercity rail passenger service with connections along all existing rail corridors; (3) a north-south light rail line in Rutland from the south end Mall via the City center area through the upper residential area; and (4) create full connectivity between rail services and the routes and services of regional transportation service providers.  Impact:  Each worker using these services on a 20 mile one-way commute in place of solo driving increases after tax income (between Burlington and St. Albans, for example), a 40 mile commute $7,000 (between Burlington and Montpelier, for example).  Note a study I authored earlier this year, “An Action Outline for Commuter Rail Passenger Service along Three Burlington Corridors” provides a complete market, capital cost, and operating cost analysis for Chittenden County-Washington County, Chittenden County-Franklin County and Addison County-Chittenden County commuter rail service.

III  Vermont All-Mode Transportation Initiative (VAMTI)

Establish a “Vermont All-Mode Transportation Initiative (VAMTI), a yearly appropriation starting at a $90 million level from General Fund revenues dedicated to transportation with a multi-purpose approach including:  (1) economic development; (2) transportation sustainability (with emphasis on land use transportation relationships); (3) energy conservation and pollution reduction; (4) downtown, town center, and urban investments in walkable and bikable infrastructure, particularly roundabouts and cycle track; (4) reduction motor vehicle travel through investments in demand management; and (5) transportation safety upgrades.

IV Urban and Town Center Walking and Bicycling Infrastructure: Cycle Track and Roundabouts to Move Busy Vermont Streets to Walkable and/or Bikable Status

Vermont city downtowns, town centers generally show the same pattern of lack of walkability and bikability found throughout North America.  Notable Vermont exceptions include: (1) Church Street Marketplace, Burlington’s four-block walkable mall dating from 1981 with shared space intersection areas for all modes; (2) walkable town center roundabout nodes in Montpelier and Middlebury; (3) bikable and walkable cycle tracked Dorset Street between Williston Road and Kennedy Drive in South Burlington (though not served by any roundabout intersections); (4) Vermont’s first walkable street, Main Street along the corridor of three roundabouts in Manchester Center completed in 2012; and (5) arguably, walkable/bikable shared paths along Stone Cutter’s Way in Montpelier, Riverside Avenue in Burlington and Kennedy Drive in South Burlington—again several street segments without any roundabouts at key intersections.

Walkable and bikable streets provide for all users regardless of age, skill or disability safe and comfortable accommodation for both modes along street segments and at intersections.  Street segments attain walkable and bikable status through presence of separate cycle track and sidewalk, or in combination which can include accommodation on a side path.  Generally, to attain walkable and/or bikable status each key intersection accommodation is supplied by a pathed roundabout for both modes or through traffic calming.   Generally, signalized busy intersections, lack of sidewalks, and unprotected bike lanes signify the type of busy streets which a minimum standard of walkability or bikability.

Address the almost complete lack of bikable and walkable urban, downtown and village center busy streets through: (1) initiation immediately of a roundabout/cycle track program as a the major thrust of the “bicycle pedestrian” program along with an initial allocation of $10 million annually from the Vermont All-Mode Transportation Initiative (VAMTI);  (2) initiate regional planning projects identifying all urban and town center streets and corridors to be sidewalked/cycle tracked/roundabouted into walkable and bikable status and prioritizing projects the corridors, areas and nodes so identified; and (3) since pathed roundabouts and cycle track when installed along with sidewalks comprises the very definition of a “complete street”, incorporate these three elements through revisions to existing projects where appropriate as well as in all new urban, town center, and downtown projects with priorities for funding guided by town and regional plans.  Comparing the cycle track, about two miles in Vermont, versus the Netherlands on a per capita basis the Dutch have 670 miles of cycle track versus Vermont’s 2 miles.

Finally, state transportation agency policies and regulations need to be revised to reflect the superior safety and service of roundabouts and provision of walkable/bikable busy urban street treatments in all projects.  Note three state transportation departments (New York State DOT since 2005) and two Canadian province departments operate on a “roundabouts first policy” and a similar approach needs to be adopted in law and Vermont state agency policies and regulations.  It is noteworthy that a search of the Vermont Agency of Transportation website of “roundabout” response is the site lacks any information at all.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Vermont’s transportation-related topics.

VT TRANSPORTATION BOARD COMMENT PERIOD ON TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM DEADLINE NOV 30

 NOVEMBER 30TH DEADLINE FOR VERMONTERS TO COMMENT ON TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMING 

The Vermont Transportation Board [website: tboard.vermont.gov ]  is in the midst of six public hearings

“for the purpose of taking public comment on a variety of transportation-related

topics. The Board also will accept public comment via email until November 30.

Please submit electronic comments to the Board’s executive secretary at

john.zicconi@state.vt.us.”

The two remaining hearings are: St. Albans, November 15 and Middlebury November 20 (details on website).  However, certainly everyone can be encouraged to submit their specific concerns in regard to any transportation issue.  Certainly every time a citizen comments in support of bicycle and walker infrastructure as well as its funding helps the cause of finally getting a real start on a walkable and bikable community, a vision we all share.

My comments submitted to the Transportation Board for changes in state transportation programming will address and include:

1.  Protected Bike Lanes (Cycle Track)   Over the past year policies for bicycle infrastructure moved from now passé bicycle lanes to a truly “complete” streets composed of protected bicycle lanes called “cycle track” paired where feasible with roundabouts armed with separate or shared walker/bike paths so bicyclists can choose the generally safer course of not “taking the lane” at an intersection.  Only through this new infrastructure (note NY 9 roundabout and separate bike and walker facilities north and south) approach can we begin to achieve true bikability in Vermont—now nowhere to be found in our downtowns, village centers and other built up areas.  An immediate infusion of $2-$3 million for cycle track within the current year budget (SFY 2014) can kickstart cycle track with administration placed in the Bicycle-Pedestrian Program.

2.  Rail Passenger Service Expansions  With sharp drops in the proportion of Vermont workers (3%) choosing car travel to work, a general end to car travel growth and the aging Vermont population (124% increase 2000-2030 of 65+ versus under 2% for under 65—U.S. Census), it is clear we need to: (1) advance the date of Amtrak extension of service from Rutland to Burlington to SFY 2015 nor 2018 as now projected; (2) Initiate an Ambus connecting the Vermonter at St. Albans to Montreal, a sure money maker and reducer of State Amtrak support dollars until rail service extension is completed in the indefinite future; (3) Complete planning and start initial service elements within two years of” (a) commuter rail service between Burlington along the corridors to Montpelier, Middlebury and St. Albans, (b) a “circuit” intercity service Burlington-White River Jct.-Bellows Falls-Rutland-Burlington, and (c) light rail service Fletcher Allen Health Car/UVM to the Burlington waterfront via the Church Street Marketplace.

3. Intersection Roundabout Conversions  With two states and two Canadian provinces adoption of “roundabouts first” policies and the undisputed safety and service benefits of the single lane roundabout for all modes, it is long past the time for Vermont transportation programming to: (1) immediately undertake through regional transportation planning a list of intersections to be converted to roundabouts taking into consideration walking/bicycling/economic factors and prioritizing the conversion list; (2) revise all new construction and other major projects (like the Burlington Champlain Parkway)  by replacing all designed/planned signals to roundabouts; and (3) moved quickly to a 20-30 roundabouts per year installation rate, easily achievable with the addition of the Transportation Funding Initiative (TFI) outlined herein.

Note the AARP policy advocating roundabout conversions because of the far higher incidence of senior driving and walking fatalities at intersections compared to the under 65 age population.  Transportation research clearly shows the primary differential in skills and abilities which change with aging involve judging gaps in traffic and speeds, major elements addressed by roundabouts versus the context of the signalized or signed intersection.

4.  New $90 Million Annual State Allocation of General Funds for Transportation  As car travel New England wide increased only 3 percent so far this century the revenue streams from car related taxes no longer even sustain necessary basic highway needs.  Meanwhile the rapidly expanding travel modes—rail and bus passenger services, walking and bicycling—all demand substantial additional resources to both meet demand and for first time installation in the case of cycle track and roundabouts.  Two states for the first time dealt straight up with the changed transportation funding needs—Virginia in February abolished the gas tax and replaced it with an across the board sales tax of one percent to be used to fund all transportation modes; and Massachusetts shifted for the first time on a regular basis $890 million yearly from general funds, again to fund needs for highway, rail passenger, public transportation, walking and bicycling.  The Vermont equivalent of the Massachusetts general fund shift of $890 million is $90 million (note Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick fought tooth and nail for an amount double that which his legislature finally approved).

 Examples of what $90 million in Vermont funds are: (1) a light rail system running from UVM and Fletcher Allen Health Care to the Burlington waterfront via the Church Street Marketplace (including the purchase of the light rail cars); (2) the full capital costs of commuter rail services from Burlington to Middlebury, Montpelier, and St. Albans plus intercity rail extended in a circular service Burlington-White River Jct.-Bellows Falls-Rutland-Burlington—including self-propelled rail cars; (3) 90 miles of downtown and village center cycle track; (4) 30 roundabouts with paths accommodating both bicyclists and walkers; and (5) rehabilitation of 45 miles of Vermont highways.

With Vermont households cutting back their almost $2 billion expenditure on car travel, the increase in taxes on progressive basis still results in an overall reduction in the typical Vermont household budget for transportation.  In a sense the new funding, a Transportation Funding Initiative (TFI) just reflects the consumer choice already clearly expressed in the marketplace.

THE CHANGED TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT--THE FUTURE IS HERE

The comments before City Council react to the lack of vision which recognizes the expanding role in urban America and Burlington of public transit (including light rail, commuter rail and Amtrak service) along with the necessary new walking and bicycling infrastructure--protected cycle lanes (cycle track) and roundabouts.

Simply, shoppers, visitors and local citizens going about their daily trips increasingly will travel in modes other than the car.  Car trips already plateaued about 2000 in New England and already an increasing proportion of travel is non-car based.  The comments below reflect this new reality and the need to revise transportation investments to meet this change, change fostered by a number of forces ranging from pressures on resource consumption, stagnant household incomes, economic competition, global warming and the like.

COMMENTS BEFORE THE BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL JUNE 3, 2013

                    REGARDING BURLINGTON PlanBTV

                                    Tony Redington

                                    Burlington, VT                                   

                                    Blog:  TonyRVT.blospot.com

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final Draft of the PlanBTV aimed at guiding the development of the Burlington downtown and waterfront areas.  This more than year-long process represents my first participation in policy development as a Burlington citizen.

The comments here relate primarily to the transportation sections of which contain serious shortcomings and some clearly misleading.  Most important the transportation elements fail in the mission of any--providing a rational guide to the downtown and waterfront development.  Most of my comments relate to the inadequate walking and bicycling content.

My suggestion is that instead of adopting the Plan BTV as is, that at least the Transportation section, particularly the walking and bicycling material, be re-worked with the cooperation and participation of the Burlington Walk Bike Council (BWBC).  I am sure you would be surprised as councilors to learn that neither the Steering Committee nor the full BWBC meetings (two total monthly included a minute of discussion regarding the PlanBTV materials much less even receiving at any time the three or four pages of draft and then revised PlanBTV material on walking and bicycling.  As a Steering Committee member, perhaps you can understand my submission of these comments following reviewing the draft document in the last few days.

Let me emphasize the fact of rapid change in the marketplace in all modal travel—bus, rail, auto, walking and bicycling.  For example, already the statistic from a year ago of 62% of traveling to work by car in Burlington drops to 54% in the latest Census information—car travel to work surely will continue to move downward and drop below 50% in the near future.  All major roadways accessing the downtown and Marketplace in Burlington show substantial and continuing decreases in numbers since peaking about 1990.  Traffic numbers decline on major streets—Main, Pearl, the Northern Connector, Shelburne, Pine and Northern Avenue—range from 8 to 28 (Pine Street) percent over the past two decades. 

As representatives a ward, one way to think of change is to consider home to work trips each year since 2000--about ten of your constituents switch from car travel to work to another mode every year—bus, walk, bicycle or work at home.  In Vermont car travel to work dropped 3% in the last decade with an estimated 9,000 workers during the period choosing something other than car travel—and the number of car travelers at the end of the decade unchanged from 2000.

But the PlanBTV language concludes: “Shoppers and visitors coming to downtown from afar will likely continue to get here by car.”  Basically we need to recognize that shoppers and visitors increasingly will come by modes other than the car.  Extension of Amtrak service to Union Station is less than three years away, seasonally the Champlain Ferry brings thousands to the waterfront, and commuter rail and even light rail from the waterfront via the Marketplace to UVM and Fletcher Allen Health Care are very likely within a few years.  Finally, PlanBTV cites “convenience” as key to choice of travel—I would suggest that those who quit their cars in droves for the CCTA Link service to Montpelier recognize the up to $7,000 annual after tax saving in their household budget—and that saving is after paying the daily $8 roundtrip daily fare.   Simply, just about any ground mode of transportation is less costly than the private auto.

Note extensive comments I made orally and in written form earlier in this process were almost entirely excluded in any subsequent plan drafts.

Before specific objections

Here are some other specific comments:

1. In the section “crossing to the other side”:  This section fails to mention the only proven method of moving walkers through intersections quickly, safely and comfortably—the modern roundabout.  For some reason City and Regional planners totally fail to recognize the pre-eminence that the Federal Highway Administration places on the use of roundabouts for walker and all other modes safety—or the fact that three states and two Canadian provinces now make the roundabout the default choice for intersections.  Note to date not a single walker fatal has occurred in almost 15,000 roundabout years in the U.S. and Canada. 

2. In the section “1. Bikeways”: This section claims, falsely: “Recent studies have shown the dedicated bike lane can reduce injury for bikers by 90%. “  I must say that this can only be described as untrue based on research and even advisories of the organization sponsored by U.S. DOT note this,  Bicyclinginfo.org (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=971 )

Key here is that a bicycle lane and a protected bicycle lane or cycle track are two totally different treatments—lanes are not particularly safe and cannot be used by all ages or those of all skill levels.  Cycle tracks when connected to proper intersection treatments provide both mobility and safety for all bicyclists.  (my blog posting over the weekend center on this very subject ( see TonyRVT.blospot.com )

Basic bike lanes do not necessarily result in increased safety and certainly do not serve all users (I avoid them except during low traffic periods).  Protected bike lanes, also called cycle track—which I endorse—still have yet to be completely accepted by all elements of the bicycle community.  My blog addresses this overall issue and how truly “complete streets” means cycle track along segments and roundabouts with bicycle pathing at intersections presents the best infrastructure affording mobility and safety for users of all ages and skills.

3. In the section “ 2 Intersection treatments”:  This section does not mention roundabouts and the importance of separate bicycle pathways at a roundabout or other types of bicycling treatment where separate bicycle and walker pathways cannot be provided.  With the new Shelburne Street roundabout coming on line in a year or so, this is not an academic concern.  (Note with a few exceptions most of Burlington arterial streets can be served by single lane roundabouts which do [see Netherlands 1994 research by Schoon and van Minnen] reduce walker injuries by about 90% and bicycle injuries by 60% or more).

4.  In section “Bike Culture”:  A general comment here.  Bicycling and walking in the United States experience crash rates are several times higher than in the Netherlands and Germany per mile of travel (John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra).  We need in Burlington substantial—tens of millions—in investments in walking and bicycling infrastructure (mostly cycle track/separate bicycle pathways and roundabouts) as a pre-condition to encouraging and achieveving high levels of walking and, particularly, bicycling.  We need to be careful not to put the cart before the horse.

5.  In the section “Cycle track”:  Again, the claim cycle track reduces bicycle injuries “90%” does not find confirmation in research.  Indicator research—cycle track versus riding on normal roadway—done in Montreal found significant decrease in injuries but statistically complete research remains to be done. I strongly support cycle track as the basic infrastructure to provide a safe level for bicycling for all users—but am not ready to quantify in the absence of data the reduction attained over lanes/no lanes.   My current position is that only protected bicycle lanes, cycle track, need be installed and where possible matched with roundabout treatments at intersections.

6.  In the section “Transit ties it altogether”:  This section needs to be totally redone since, as a practical matter, car traffic entering declines—and this includes vacation and visitor travel.  Transit includes the Amtrak service set for 2017.  Transit includes high capacity commuter rail service which can literally deliver thousands of visitors and hour to the waterfront.  Transit includes high capacity light rail which along with commuter rail was studied extensively in Burlington in the 1990s—those plans need to be re-examined and referenced in PlanBTV.  The transit section (including Champlain Ferry as an integral part) really keys the future success of both the waterfront and the Marketplace.  Transit and the promise it provides for low cost access carrying visitors in large numbers needs to key the entire aspect of  bringing folks to and from the future development of the waterfront

One last comment.  PlanBTV fails to acknowledge the Marketplace “plaza” as one of three in the nation and its intersections a rare U.S. example of “shared space” where modes mix at the highest level of safety at the Cherry, Bank and College intersections—shared space which needs to be expanded outward where helpful to retail businesses and replicated in other spots in the community—and probably at spots within the waterfront development.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on PlanBTV.