A New World of Transportation for Vermont?

A New World of Transportation for Vermont? 

During a February Burlington (VT) North Avenue corridor study meeting the question of funding for carrying out a “vision” of a livable street led to government types lamenting the scarcity of funding.  Then came President Obama’s March proposed budget starting October calling for a 25% increase in federal transportation program funding meaning a likely increase of $50 million or more for Vermont yearly over the $196 million currently budgeted.

Pretty much ignored by the press—no expects the expansion to pass Congress—the President’s proposal marks a historic but inevitable shift of funding from gasoline taxes to general funds.  As important, the budget calls for additional highway and transit funding plus two entirely new program categories, rail and multimodal.   

After car travel growth slowing for more than a decade, it flatlined beginning in 2007 and that peak year remains the national record to this day.  As car travel plateaued (it only grew 3% 2000-2010 in all of New England) so did gas and diesel tax revenues.  By 2010 the ramshackle federal Highway Trust Fund used for roadway and transit projects went bust (it raises about $37 billion a year) and Congress for a temporary fix dumped $14.7 billion into it from general funds. The President’s budget addresses the problem and more.  The budget calls for a $18 billion a year spending increase with corporate income tax reform raising about $36 billion yearly covering the spending increase and closing the current accumulated deficits.

While highway travel growth came to a halt, public transportation growth continued and accelerated.  In 2012 public transportation trips reached the highest level in a half century.  Rail and public transportation needs increase meaning more funding to meet demand as well as fostering transportation modes known for higher levels of safety and per passenger mile reductions pollution, emissions, and global warming gases.  In addition this means increased emphasis and investments in long neglected urban and town center walking and bicycling modes infrastructure—particularly the new technologies of cycle track (protected bike lanes) and roundabouts (one laners are truly “intersection safety belts” for all users).

While no immediate federal program expansion is expected, the new transportation finance direction is clear, and states also began last year moving away from highway vehicle-only sources for transportation finance.  Virginia last year abolished its gas tax and moved all transportation funding from a dedicated general sales tax.  Massachusetts seriously considered sourcing additional transportation funding at a rate of  $1.9 billion in income taxation to deal with the evaporating car-based revenues twinned with higher public transportation and highway funding demands.  Further, the near term solution to transportation funding for states can only be resolved with federal assistance since over half the states contain constitutional provisions and laws, mostly dating from the 1930s, prohibiting gasoline and motor vehicle taxes being used for anything but highways.   

An injection of $50 million federal funding into transportation in Vermont posed by President’s budget along with shifting federal programming strongly toward multi-modal and rail would signify substantial opportunities for the State.  Here are some Vermont examples of estimated capital costs for rail passenger services and basic walking/bicycling infrastructure composed of cycle track (protected bike lanes) and roundabouts:

(1)  Commuter rail: between Burlington and Montpelier-Barre/St. Albans/Middlebury--$60 million (includes track upgrades and rail passenger equipment).

(2)  Intercity rail: extension of rail passenger services to Bennington, St. Johnsbury and between Bellows Falls-Rutland--$60 million (includes rail passenger equipment).

(3)  Light rail: extending outward north and south from Rutland downtown-$60 million (includes light rail vehicles).

(4)  Light rail: Burlington north/south line North Avenue’s Flynn School to south end of Pine $60 million; and Burlington’s waterfront to Fletcher Allen Health Center/University of Vermont/Champlain College via Church Street Marketplace--$80 million estimates (includes light rail vehicles).

(5)  Cycle track for urban and town centers: $2 million a mile

(6)  Urban roundabouts (single lane): $2 million per intersection average (roundabouts are designed with separate/shared paths for cyclists).

Of course Vermont and other states must also address their overall transportation funding and in most cases reflect the same kind of movement toward general fund revenue sources found in Virginia, Massachusetts and the federal proposed budget.

The new and revised revenue streams for transportation present challenges and opportunities but these cannot be avoided as the age of car travel as the primary funder of all transportation modes recedes into history.  Currently in urban U.S. about four percent of commuters go by bike and on foot with another six percent using public transit.   When all is said and done, Vermont urban and town centers—like those of the rest of the nation—will come to more closely resemble those in Western Europe where about half of all urban trips each day occur on transit, by bicycle and on foot.

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.

REMEDY TH MISSING LINK OF VERMONT TRANSPORTATION: COMMUTER RAIL

THE WHY AND WHEREFORE--COMMUTER RAIL, THE MISSING LINK OF VERMONT TRANSPORTATON, AND THE SIMPLE REMEDY

With the truly overnight growth from 0 to 46 commuter buses radiating outward from Burlington, VT each workday the obvious question arises, why not adding commuter rail services to serve Vermont workers and employers?

It goes without saying commuter rail with self-propelled vehicles handle upwards of 150 passengers per trip, reduce the need for the current 46 buses daily (though some would continue and new short link shuttle services added). Unlike buses, commuter rail serves the tourist, contain space for many bicycles, and set a backbone for an eventual in-state intercity rail passenger network.

The real reason for no commuter rail services lies in the American tradition of subsidizing cars only and failing to recognize governmental responsibility for assuring a multi-modal transportation system characterized by safety, efficiency, and sustainability in all senses of that word.

A Redington Blog dated June 8, 2012 describes transportation in terms of a Vermont household, i.e., basic consumer expenditures. It is no surprise that of the 16% of household expenditures devoted to transportation practically all—about 95%--gets gobbled up by moving around by car. Since Vermont median household income closely parallels the national figure, the ballpark figure for total ground transportation spending by Vermont households roughly comes to $1.986.

The June Blog outlines the proportion of funding as follows:

How does this $1.986 billion for Vermont consumer transportation expenditure annually break down in terms of public transportation, the car and “other” (primarily air but also intercity bus and rail)? The online “Urban Transportation Fact Book 2004 gives an indication urban breakdown which reflects a public transportation dimension: 94% “user operated” (best known as a car), 1.44% “purchased local transit” and 4.56% “purchased intercity.”

The key number involves expenditure on cars, 94%, translates to $1.87 billion for Vermont households spending on car transport. Since this number comes from an urban-based analysis, it understates somewhat the both the proportion and amount of Vermont households expenditures on cars. Using some data and making some guesstimates, here are the other ground transportation household expenditures by Vermont households along with associated government support:

                                                                             Vermont Transportaton

                                                           Household Expenditure             State/Federal/Local

                                                                                                             Support

                                                                                              (yearly)

Automobile                                                $1,986.0 million                  Over $100 million

Public transportation (bus services)               $16.0 million                 $39 million

Amtrak                                                           $15.0 million                    $4 million

Greyhound/Vermont Transit/Megabus           $25.0 million                  Substantial

Future Commuter Rail                                     $2.4 million                  $2.4 million

Several commuter rail plans dating back to 1989 provide the planning for operations, costs, schedules, etc. The next steps involve establishing the necessary rail authority, development of a short term plan for the first corridor, acquisition of equipment, preparation of stations, and startup of service.

Few would suggest erasing all local bus services in Vermont. Few would suggest ending Amtrak rail service. And private intercity bus services depend on infrastructure—highways, bridges, capital maintenance, etc.--funded by about 40% from non-highway user revenue sources. Commuter rail can easily serve far more Vermonter trips than Amtrak, rival commercial inter-city bus service trips, and also serve tourists and the tourist industry. The public cost of support for commuter rail—capital and operating--will be far less than current State expenditures for public transportation and somewhat more than Amtrak. (Note Amtrak support involve pure State tax dollars.) Also important much of the cost of installing new commuter rail service can be obtained from current federal transportation funding and likely special federal transportation appropriations.

In conclusion, consideration of commuter rail no longer needs to be a “vision” but as a task to be completed with the next two or three years. 

Notes:  1.  Public transportation expenditures/support based on multiplying Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) FY 2012 budget numbers by a factor of 4.

2.  Commercial bus expenditures a guesstimate

3.  Amtrak based on recent data annual passengers, 140,000, a typical ticket roundtrip to NYC at $106, and FY 2012 $4.5 million budget for the State cost share.

4.  See June Blog for additional sources of data.

5.  Future Commuter rail based on 200 day operation with about 3,000 trips daily (1,500 roundtrip commuters) or about three times the current year numbers on CCTA Link services.  Revenue roundtrip used is $7, a dollar less than current Burlington/Montpelier Link fares.   

PART 1 OF 2: WHY AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION SUCKS...

WHY THE AMERICAN LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SUCKS (PART 1)....AND HOW VERMONT UNIQUELY CAN ADDRESS THEIR PART OF THIS PROBLEM (PART 2)

PART 1: WHY THE AMERICAN LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS SUCK

Admit it, we are tired hearing the routine comments from recent travelers and TV commentators touting the great European high speed trains, how frequently they run, their great on-time performance, and ease finding local transit connections to and from final destinations. (Why some European nations even boast networks for bicyclists and walkers from various transit centers—but let's not get into that subject here!) The follow up unwelcome comment continues with a question like “why doesn't the U.S. have quality rail services.” The reason why we do not want hear this any more--like the mention of the every 20 minute (you don't need a schedule) high speed service from early morning to late night in Taiwan connecting their their largest cities, yes, Taiwan, not to mention the extension underway now of the older high speed South Korean “KTX” service to the Winter Olympics base city of Chuncheon—comes not from the idea America no longer competes but from the suspicion our leaders do not really care any more or are just plain deaf.

By looking at the the “state of transportation” in a small state like Vermont, the U.S. “transportation problem” and its solution becomes easily apparent. Vermont transportation officials point to the State's supposed high per capita expenditure on public transit services, mostly through regional agencies running buses--a figure of $40 million a year in public monies gets mention.

The real question is what is $40 million in the overall Vermont “transportation market” and the place of public transportation in the overall scheme of things. Look at the answer first: it appears an in-state passenger rail system providing an integrated commuter/intercity network in that “overall scheme”--an expenditure of $10 to $50 million or even more in startup funding (primarily capital) followed by a programmed expansion involving more capital investment--represents a drop in the proverbial maple sap bucket in Vermont transportation expenditures.

Consider the current Vermont market, mostly cars.  Using 2010 U.S. typical household expenditure of $48,109 (after taxes) transportation represented 16.0% or $7700 ($7,697 rounded to the nearest $100).  Vermont median household income was within $100 of the U.S. (see U.S. Census “Quick Facts” online). When this number is multiplied by Vermont's 256,612 households it totals $1.986 billion.

How does this $1.986 billion for Vermont consumer transportation expenditure annually break down in terms of public transportation, the car and “other” (primarily air but also intercity bus and rail)? The online “Urban Transportation Fact Book 2004 gives an indication urban breakdown which reflects a public transportation dimension: 94% “user operated” (best known as a car), 1.44% “purchased local transit” and 4.56% “purchased intercity.”

Using 1.44% “purchased local transit” against a Vermont total figure of $1.986 billion gives consumer purchase of local transportation figure of $28.6 million. This figure—as one would expect in Vermont which has a much smaller typical urban footprint—appears too large when you consider that for the FY 2013 budget the total estimated consumer expense (fare box and “purchased services”) for the Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) is $3.99 million out of a $13.75 million revenue total.

The best estimate—and certainly on the high end—simply involves taking the CCTA numbers and multiplying by four since the County represents 24% of the State population, or $55 million expenditures by public transit agencies and $16 paid by users (who certainly pay under 30% user of trip costs). These numbers clearly overstate the actual numbers, but do give a rough dimension. In terms of consumer expenditure in Vermont.   From the Urban Transportation Fact Book, consumers spend 65 times “purchased local transit” on “user operated” car travel--and using $16 million expended by Vermont riders on public transit and 94% of $1.986 billion on car travel, the ratio of  Vermont car travel expenditures to public transit expense is 117 to 1. Admittedly the a sizable chunk of Vermont public transit operations provide for low income and older folks and the system is not expected to pay its way.

As we all know, U.S.--and Vermont—car travel gets huge per mile subsidies in the form of about 40% of all highway infrastructure paid for by non-user taxes and fees, high subsidies for parking at work and at other destinations (much of it provided for free), subsidies required to provide for orderly motor fuel markets, and devoting about a quarter of all urban land to the street system in great part to accommodate motor vehicles.

One cannot escape the conclusion that shifting a small amount—tiny in terms of the $1.9 billion overall Vermont household annual transportation expenditures and governmental consumption from the automobile to create a sustainable commuter and intercity passenger rail system not only is possible but desirable as already a substantial latent demand exists for an alternative to being a slave to the car. Consider the over bus 300 commuters—and growing by double digits yearly--to and from Burlington. These folks left cars for the “Link” bus services, all done a few short years—and almost no one chooses a bus to work if quality rail were available. Weekdays 18 Link commuter buses a day run the Burlington to Montpelier/Waterbury corridor with the average bus over half full. Self-propelled rail cars--with more comfort and greater safety--can serve twice the number of commuters in corridor with as few as half the trips.

As a practical matter we know that a rail-based service in a short period of time would shake the auto-centricity of this State to its very foundation.  Several basic feasibility studies date from 1989. Very likely and quite quickly a rail passenger network with integrated bus and bicycle connectivity replaces the unsustainable car system and becomes the preferable and permanent way of “getting from here to there” in Vermont.

DEAD END TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Vermont transportation investments need to put first things first. The “biggest transportation spending plan in State history” touted by Governor Peter Shumlin yesterday does not contain the elements needed for a re-direction of Vermont transportation in an age when more Vermonters daily reject the 100% auto centric life. The following comment online today responded to the Burlington Free Press report and points to the two principal gaps in our transportation investments:

Vermont transportation projects continue down a dead end street, failing to address two key, long-neglected priorities—(1) establishing commuter rail, a start towards an in-State rail passenger network which recognizes rail the emerging backbone of Vermont transportation as more Vermonters every day join in reducing or abandoning altogether an unsustainable car lifestyle and (2) improving urban areas and town center walking and car circulation through a dozen or so new roundabouts annually—like the two under construction in Manchester Center. AAA calls for a “zero fatality” rate on our streets and anything but a roundabout on average increases serious injury and fatality rates about 900% per the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety decade old study. Car travel in Vermont declines now while public transit, bicycling, and Amtrak grow at single to double digit rates. Time for a change in transportation, our lives depend on it.

Other important elements in the changing transportation market include: (1) the need for businesses and government agencies to enable and support employees use of their own dollars to take advantage of the incentives in the federal tax code allowing tax free commuter benefits for those who commute by transit, bicycle, or carpool--sorry walkers, you get left out in the cold on this one; (2) supportive bus networks which work in harmony with rail passenger services and extend or take the place of rail where it is uneconomic or where the rails do not go; and (3) re-examining the entire highway network to see where in a changed environment federal and state highway networks can be downsized to conform to the reduced demands for highways as car travel declines.