WALKABLE/BIKABLE, WALK AND BIKE FRIENDLY--WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

“WALKABLE AND BIKABLE” AND “WALK AND BIKE FRIENDLY”—WHAT THEY MEAN IN AMERICA AND WHAT THEY DO NOT

    ……..Some Vermont examples

Today an emerging paradigm defining busy urban streets and nodes which safely and comfortably serve all populations who walk and bike can summed up, in addition to the presence of sidewalks: cycle track (protected bicycle lanes) along street segments and roundabouts at intersections equipped with bicycle pathing.

Most busy urban streets can be retrofitted to cycle track and roundabouts with Carmel IN (80,000 population with several freeway exchanges) and Manchester Center, VT well on their way toward all roundabout intersections with a varying potential for further installation of cycle track.  One other variation of the paradigm comes in the form of “shared space”, a European innovation, where for a block or in an intersection all modes intermingle at walking speed (walkers with right of way), perhaps the safest environment for all modes.  Separate street parallel bike or multi-user paths also meet “walkable and/or bikable” which otherwise would be supplied by cycle track and/or sidewalks.  However, to date the bulk of multi-user paths do not connect at busy intersections served by roundabouts thereby their service, safety and accessibility are diminished.   However, cycle tracks just now are being adopted in North America with major investments completed or under way in San Francisco, Chicago (100 miles), Seattle and Montreal. 

The roundabout provides two common elements vital to both modes at intersections—safety and service without delay. The roundabout uniquely provides a high level of safety for those who walk and when properly pathed offers a far higher level of safety and service to those who bicycle versus a signal.  Already the roundabout is the preferred or only intersection treatment for three U.S. departments of transportation (New York since 2005, Virginia and Florida) and two Canadian provincial departments (British Columbia and Alberta).

Applying the roundabout/cycle track criteria to existing American street systems quickly leads to the conclusion the presence of either remains infrequent and the presence of both—something common in many European nations—remains a vision only.  One noticeable missing treatment which does not meet the test of “bikability” is the unprotected bicycle lane or any shared vehicle/bicycle street space.  The problem with simple bike lanes comes from the fact that less skilled bicyclists in general as well as most old and young bicyclists are uncomfortable much less safe—therefore not choosing bicycle for trips on lanes with moderate to high levels of traffic.   When the Dutch retrofitted many of their busy streets with cycle track, already high bicycle volumes increased 25-50%, presumably resulting from lane averse populations.  The Dutch cycle track installations were part of a major bicycle and walking infrastructure investment in response to increasing car traffic sending child bicyclist fatalities to more than 400 annually—and attained a drop to just over a dozen following the major infrastructure investments.

While the term “bicycle friendly” and “walk friendly” remains in common usage, those phrases signify more an attitude than the presence of safe and comfortable infrastructure usable by all populations.

Looking around the State of Vermont there exist a few examples of bikable and/or walkable street segments, short corridors or nodes.

Walkable examples:

1.     Manchester Center  With two new roundabouts completed November 2012, the three roundabout corridor—first in Vermont—along Main Street, one of the two major streets in the upscale shopping area truly deserving its claim “Fifth Avenue of the Mountains.”  The village center roundabout is a mini-roundabout dubbed a “button” by the locals.  This roughly four block long village center and dense retail area completes half of a 1995 town center plan calling for roundabouts on Main Street and the other street leading to the U.S. interchange, Depot Street.  It becomes the first walkable town/city center corridor in Vermont open to all modes.

2.     Burlington Church Street Marketplace   Although a walker plaza, this four-block street turned over to walking only does involve three “shared space” intersection with all modes.  Bicycles are not allowed during the normal retail hours of the day.

Walkable and Bikable Examples

1.     Montpelier  Stonecutter’s Way Winooski West path provides a multi-user pathway along most of its length from the old Montpelier and Wells River station on Main Street east and parallel to the Winooski River with a lumber yard and major food coop on the west end.  It is part of an eventual multi-town multi-user path stretching about nine miles.  A portion of the Winooski East Path from behind Main Street to Montpelier High School via the State House area parking lots also serves a multi-user transportation function.

2.     Burlington  A multi-user path along Riverside Drive from the Winooski River Bridge connecting to the center of Winooski extends about a mile to the Community Health Center near the intersection of US 7.

3.     South Burlington  Burlington and South Burlington possess extensive primarily recreational multi-user path systems mostly located so as to serve a limited  transportation role, although a very important transportation for those who are able to use sections of the paths for transportation purposes.  Two parts of the South Burlington bicycle network qualify for consideration as walkable and bikable, though lack of roundabouts at major intersections limit safe and comfortable connectivity to nearby development which ranges from major schools, government facilities, shopping centers and residential developments.  Kennedy Drive from Dorset to Heineberg Road is served by a multi-user path o the north side.  And Dorset Street is the only joint grade separated  sidewalk/bike track on each side of the street with the walk and bike section distinguishable by pavement coloration.

Certainly there are other examples of nodes, multi-user paths, and roundabout corridors either in place or well along in the development stage.  Brattleboro, for example, screened the bulk of its built up intersections in 1993 for roundabout conversion and the Putney Road corridor (one roundabout in place) has Town and State approval for plans to provide all roundabouts along with walking and bicycling infrastructure which may well be the first both walkable and bikable corridor with full service roundabouts.  Montpelier’s Main Street is another candidate for a roundabout corridor.  And, the Middlebury Town Center roundabout with some calming measures along Merchants Row is a good candidate for retrofitting to a walkable and bikable downtown area.  Depot Street roundabouts along with cycle track in Manchester Center might move that area into the walkable/bikable category.

The next step for walkable and bikable downtowns and village centers require comprehensive planning efforts to identify at the same feasibility and priority for roundabout/cycle track nodes and corridors.  Investment dollars to carry out plans require tens of millions of dollars yearly, but the payoff will be increased walking and bicycling as well as public transit usage.  These changes enhance the value of commercial and retail center areas, and households have long been know to choose their housing in part on the availability of quality walking and bicycling infrastructure. 

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.

CYCLE TRACK MEET THE BICYCLE PATHED ROUNDABOUT

THE PROPER BUSY STREET DESIGN--PROTECTED BICYCLE LANES (CYCLE TRACK) WITH ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTIONS WHICH INCLUDE SEPARATE BICYCLE PATHWAYS

Today Vermont and the nation face the reverse dilemma encountered by Western European nations a half-century ago and now only mostly resolved.  Then Western Europe with the bulk of urban trips by foot, public transit and bicycle faced an invasion of cars on street systems which in many cases dated from the Middle Ages.  Europe largely solved their dilemma through innovations ranging from modern roundabouts, traffic calming, cycle track (protected bicycle lanes) and “shared space.”  An equilibrium now exists there in the modal shares with car travel in some areas still a minority of urban trips with walking and bicycling trips even increasing their shares. 

Today Vermont like the rest of the nation operates in the beginning of an urban transportation revolution with rapid growth in walking, bicycling and public transit modes—but from a tiny base shares, less than one percent share for bicycle trips, just over three percent for walking trips, slightly over six percent public transit and overall ten percent for these three modes

Since government controls practically all walking, bicycling, bus and rail passenger infrastructure and investments, the urban transportation customer who demands immediate changes to enable their new choices faces a stodgy, unresponsive governmental landscape.  And too often that landscape set of choices involves increased risk to life and limb.

                        The walking and bicycling infrastructure stovepipes

Two key types of new infrastructure of great benefit to walking and bicycling modes—roundabouts and cycle track—arose from separate and distinct histories.  Roundabouts arose in 1966 in the U.K. primarily as a means of moving more cars with less car occupant injuries—the fact that walker injuries sharply declined and at most a minor gain in bicyclist safety got treated as a side benefit.   Cycle track—now a Western European staple—grew from increased cyclist carnage on busy streets when car travel increased.  Yet, roundabouts and other walking and bicycling infrastructure appeared to develop along separate parallel lines.  The connection between cycle track primarily benefiting cyclists of all skills and roundabout treatments--which one can argue arose primarily meet the safety and service needs of walkers--remained to a great extent evolving within their own separate stovepipe.

So, in a sense there has existed a “roundabout” stovepipe and a “cycle track” stovepipe.  Sidewalks for walkers and cycle track for bicyclists now represent a generally accepted approach for street segments, and several U.S. cities, particularly Chicago now in the midst of installing 100 miles of cycle track leading the development.   Meanwhile, the bicycle community justifiably found the larger earlier roundabouts in the U.K. still highly crash prone and that legacy of concern spread to other nations.  Research finds bicyclists injury rates decrease significantly over alternatives with single lane roundabouts and slight safety increase at smaller two-lane roundabouts.

Roundabouts came to the United States in 1990 and now number about 4,000.  Roundabout performance included an overall reduction in serious injuries and fatalities of about 90%.  But for those who walk and bicycle, safety—particularly at multi-lane roundabouts—remained a concern.  The “roundabout stovepipe” did not address how to serve all skill levels of bicyclists in a comfortable and safe manner.   Only recently has the U.S. design guidance suggested on/off ramps for bicyclists to avoid the roundabout circulating roadway and only then for multi-lane roundabouts.   So, the stovepipes developed—roundabouts serving the needs of cars and in smaller versions the needs of walkers while cycle track helped bicyclists of all skills move with a high level of safety between intersections.

Leave it to the Dutch who experimented with pathways at roundabouts and researching the performance before and after for treatments to find an avenue where all modes can operate with increased safety and efficiency at intersections—in a word to resolve the conflicts between roundabout and cycle track stovepipes.  The Dutch research revealed that a roundabout with a separate bicycle pathway sharply improved safety over alternatives with or without a bicycle pathway.  The bicyclist community cites research which concludes that a separate path (such as cycle track) increases bicycle crashes—but that same study shows the decrease in crashes along street segments provided by the path is overshadowed by increased crashes at intersections—which, no question—would be signs and signals.  The pathway/bicycle facility armed roundabout matched with cycle track seems to be the ready resolution of the dilemma and promises a final erasure of the roundabout and cycle track stovepipes.

Ideally, the busy intersection treatment becomes a roundabout with an cycle track approaches on each leg leading to a separate bicycle pathway more or less in parallel to the sidewalk system and side-by-side crossings with the walker crosswalk.   Of course, not all intersections possess the space for the ideal of separated bicycle and walker treatment so that multi-use pathways or—at worst for the cyclist—the on/off ramp (the minimum treatment) on the sidewalk where, essentially, the bicyclist becomes a walker.

Dutch roundabout intersection designs now are being circulated as models for bicycle treatments.   And, there is no reason why research should not confirm the Dutch experience that properly designed bicyclist treatments at roundabouts along with cycle track along street segments represent the future for urban street design to the meet the needs of bicyclists and walkers.   

DEMAND MANAGEMENT MUCH IN DEMAND

DEMAND MANAGEMENT MUCH IN DEMAND BY VERMONT CUSTOMERS

Apparently lots of the greater Burlington region commuters take to the Link buses which for a typical commuter between Montpelier and Burlington can increase the household dollars available—after taxes—by upwards of $7,000 yearly.

With just a month to go in the operational year of the Link buses between Burlington and the outlying connections—Middlebury Milton, Montpelier and St. Albans—ridership sets a new record, about 200,000 for the year and a growth of over 11% after a 14% increase last year.  From another standpoint about 440 workers now make their way back and forth to work on one of the 50 Link buses.  At the current growth rate that number will increase to about 500 this time next year, a number approaching 2% of all workers who cross the Burlington border to their jobs each weekday.

Pretty good growth numbers considering little change in the employment numbers statewide, a decline in car travel 2010-2011, and a state population increase Census estimates at 11 persons a month since the 2010 official counts.

Some of the growth of the decade-old Link services operated mostly by the Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) occurred as the result of active programs to reduce solo driving, particularly by three of the largest employers in Burlington, the “troika” of Champlain College, Fletcher Allen Health Care (FAHC) and the University of Vermont  (UVM).  The “troika” works through their joint small entity, the Campus Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA) which undertakes a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging and rewarding their 10,000 employees and 16,000 students to switch from solo driving to car share, walking, bicycling and taking public transit.  Discount or free transit, for example, is offered students and workers by CATMA, including Link bus services.  And, the numbers taking Link and other transit services reflects the CATMA efforts to reduce solo driving which is called in transportation language the realm of “demand management.”  The goals of demand management may vary, but the central mission in demand management is to reduce the use of certain transportation facilities so as to avoid expensive capital expenditures to increase capacity—assuming increasing capacity is even possible in a given situation (consider the cost, for example, of widening Main Street in downtown Brattleboro or Bennington).

The future looks bright for “demand management” as increasingly young driving age population aged 15-30 no longer even have a driver license and efforts in the demand management remain in the early stages of development.  CATMA is beginning to work with the State’s largest public employer, IBM in Essex, for example.  Further, the largest State employer, the State of Vermont itself, until now stayed on the sidelines in providing support or alternatives to solo commuting.  But a sudden scarcity of parking in Montpelier caused by relocation of workers after loss of State facilities from the storm Irene in the fall of 2011 resulted just recently in starting demand management on the part of the State.  A few dollars a month cost to the State to convince an employee to drop solo commuting pales by comparison to the $600 for a ground level parking space per year and up to $30,000 to $40,000 per space capital cost in a parking garage. 

Meanwhile, CCTA this year added larger buses to handle the highest ridership Link between Burlington and Montpelier—also growing at the highest rate of 13% since last year.  Finally, the growth of Link services and demand management programs confirm the findings in a recent study touting the potential for commuter rail services along the corridors from Burlington to Middlebury, Montpelier and St. Albans. 

BOSTON CYCLIST CRASH STUDY, EDITORIAL, CALL FOR CYCLE TRACK

The Boston Globe editorial dated May 22 calls for bicycle infrastructure in the words of the last paragraph:

"Cyclists are correct, though, that many accidents can be prevented with better infrastructure. The city should hasten efforts to build bicycle tracks [cycle track] that completely separate drivers and cyclists."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/editorials/2013/05/22/crashes-mount-city-must-grapple-with-bike-safety/dU5aUxLw1s5UX25adFHtfJ/story.html

The editorial strangely does not address intersection safety where a fatality of a MIT scientist occurred Sunday.  Roundabouts in a Dutch study were found in general reduce cyclist injuries by more than half and a separate pathway around a roundabout (parallel or as part of the walker sidewalk and crossings) virtually eliminate bicycle injuries. Burlington area bicyclist fatalities included two, one each at a Burlington and Charlotte intersection.

Tbe Globe Editorial follows on the heels of a major bicycle safety report from the Office of the Mayor in response to a rising number of bicycle injuries and fatalities at the same time bicycle use and encouragement of its use--including the surprisingly shared bike program "Hubway" of the last few years.

The reprort can be accessed at this site:

http://www.cityofboston.gov/news/default.aspx?id=6131

COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION AGE ARRIVAL....

COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION AGE ARRIVAL…

TIME HAS COME FOR BIG INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE SPENDING ON TOWN AND URBAN CENTERS FOR WALKING AND BICYCLING—THE CHANGES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR

It happened in Germany and the Netherlands near the end of the last century, and now it is time for Vermont to launch a major town and urban center infrastructure program with initial investments at the rate of $10-$20 million mostly from federal transportation funds, entirely allocated to the walking and bicycling modes. 

A good start for walking and bicycling infrastructure spending would be an immediate infusion of $5 million this year with an invitation for submissions of proposals by towns and cities with basic cycle-track (a la Montreal), roundabouts, and other easily designed and built walking and bicycle facilities serving local residents along major streets and thoroughfares.

When starting their infrastructure programs Germany and the Netherlands already boasted the typical European modal share of bicycling and walking in the range of 25-35%, but still both invested heavily on big improved facilities for walking and bicycle travel.  Meanwhile U.S. and Canadian modal share remain stuck to on average about 1% for bicycling and 10% for walking.  

Two key factors demand the investment  $10 million or so each year right now. Consider a typical highway expansion or bypass which today costs $15-$30 million.  Several of these high expenditure highway projects are now in the State five-year construction program.  So, a $10 million-a-year expenditure for walking and bicycling infrastructure program over and above the current bikepath program continues very affordable.  The first factor favoring a new direction  involves the very success of the bikepath program itself--the cycle of building bikepaths and basic sidewalks in most of Vermont’s downtowns and village centers has run it course since the landmark program began 1990-1991.   

Second, more importantly, car travel plateaued and will likely decline this decade in much if not all of the state.  Part of this phenomenon gets reflected in car travel growth sliding to a crawl 2000-2010.  Remarkably in the workforce no increase occurred in car travel to work during this same period while a flood of over 9,000 workers, over two percent of the workforce, suddenly walked, biked, took public transit or worked at home.  The end of car travel growth and workers abandoning the car as a way to work means the need suddenly exists to make downtowns and town centers quality place—and safe places--to walk and bicycle as is the case in our urban small town counterparts in Europe.  Burlington’s Church Street Marketplace arose in great part as an inspiration from a similar effort in Copenhagen.  Now, Vermont town and urban centers, again, need to replicate the infrastructure changes which sustained and expanded walking and bicycling in continental western Europe over the recent decades.

Regional planning agencies and key state agencies need to develop on a coordinated basis detailed plans for town and urban center cycle track and roundabout (and traffic calming elements also) which assure markedly improved and safer walkability and bikability for all ages.  These planning efforts build on already existing basic walking and bicycling plans mostly done in the 1990s.   Planning this time around not only looks at basic cycle tracks and roundabouts, but also the informal built up area “back” ways and creation of connections closed off in the past but with camera monitoring equipment can now be safely made available for walking and bicycling connections to and between the street and sidewalk networks.  These investments surely will spur increases in walking and bicycling and insure either stable or declining car travel and congestion in all built up areas of the State.

Finally as Vermont surely will follow other states moving to broad base taxes and away from constantly declining revenues associated with car travel, a new stream of resources can fund walking, bicycle, passenger rail and public transit.

Now the modern age of community transportation begins: (1) first commuter and intercity rail passenger services along with local bus and other public transit; and (2) provision in our town centers and urban areas basic safe walking and bicycle infrastructure along streets and backways which enables a renaissance of walking and bicycling mode.

NH AND THE U.S. SECOND RATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROBLEM

NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE U.S. SECOND RATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

PROBLEM

“All revenue…from registration fees, operators’ licenses, gasoline road tolls or any other special charges or taxes with respect to the operation of motor vehicles or the sale or consumption of motor vehicle fuels shall be appropriated and used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of public highways within this state…and no part of such revenues shall, by transfer of funds or otherwise, be diverted to any other purpose...

New Hampshire Constitution, Part Second—Form of Government Article 6-a    Adopted November 1938

        

The meager and often low quality United States public transportation systems clearly come to mind when traveling not just in modern European nations or Japan but also when finding outstanding services available in Southeast Asia nations ranging from Korea and Taiwan to Singapore. 

While some cite the United States love of the car--and clearly that accounts for part of the scanty Amtrak network and less than two dozen commuter rail systems nationwide--the fact of 30 state constitutions and other law prohibitions on the use of gasoline and car taxation for anything but highway purposes stands alone as the leading cause.  Most highway oriented segregation of taxation occurred during the 1930s when states got into the highway building business as a means of improving their economies and when few states had sizeable tax sources so familiar today, for examples, general income and sales taxes.  Further, the federal highway programs and policies begun with the Federal Highway Act of 1914 and its successors required states possess administrative capacity to carry out federal highway initiatives and receive federal funding.

Now, however, the landscape in transportation moves through a period of historic change including the first substantial plateau in car travel with several states to record declines this decade, the first occurrence ever.  Meanwhile unprecedented growth in all other mode—walking and bicycling, bus, and rail passenger--experience growth levels not seen since the car came into use a century ago. At the same time efforts to address climate change, achieve economic competitiveness, address health, and conserve petroleum resources all combine to reverse decades of urban sprawl, create increased use of all modes except the auto mode as well as an obvious need to address substantial expenditures for modern infrastructure for he suddenly burgeoning transportation modes.   Meanwhile Americans learn, often for the first time, the value of public transportation and the varying quality of those services.

While the federal sharing of gas taxes to transit and all other modes began in 1982

New Hampshire reflects all the negative elements of the constitutional restriction of use of highway oriented fees and taxes.  The State now enjoys two passenger rail trains with stations in the State receiving tens of millions of dollars of support from federal and neighboring states funds--but no support from New Hampshire coffers.  The economic revival of former manufacturing community, Dover, is credited in great part to the now ten ear old successful Downeaster train service paid for mostly by Maine.  When a route-long celebration occurred with the extension of the Boston to Portland Downeaster to Brunswick all three New Hampshire stops (Dover, Durham and Exeter) hosted festive events at the celebratory trains made its progress stop after stop towards the new Maine stations at Freeport and Brunswick. 

When it comes to bus service the two top ridership systems in a state with three major metro areas are the low population Lebanon-Hanover service, second, and the highest ridership bus service, the UNH Durham campus.  The total Lebanon-Hanover service is dwarfed by commuter bus “Link” services to four locations outside Burlington, VT or even one free shuttle operated in Burlington linking the waterfront to its Church Street Marketplace, University of Vermont and Fletcher Allen Health Care.

A look at public transit, walking and bicycling journey-to-work shows New Hampshire trailing the most rural state, Vermont, and U.S. averages by a wide margin except for walking to work where New Hampshire trails Vermont but leads the U.S. average:

                       

 Journey to Work Modal Share           New Hampshire   US        Vermont

Motor vehicle                                                            89.5                   86.1             84.5

Public transit                                                            0.3                     5.0              1.1

Walk                                                               3.1                     2.8              6.0

Bicycle                                                           0.3                     0.6              0.7    

       Source:  American Community Survey        

We also know the transportation consumer has radically changed.  Younger driving populations licensing is ten percent below the figure of the mid-1990s.  Employers who must spend a minimum of about $600 a year to provide an employee parking space now increasingly participate in incentive programs for workers to quit solo driving—and workers are responding in sizeable numbers.   During the 2000-2010 commuter buses and employer programs factored into about 900 Vermont workers a year choosing not to ride in a car to work.  During that period while total Vermonter with jobs increased 9,000 no increase in car travel to work occurred. 

Finally, the car has enjoyed tremendous private and public subsidy—for example, about 40% of all highway infrastructure  comes from non-user sources, primarily in the form of property taxes which support local street networks.  Air pollution costs, employer parking and retail parking support represent other major subsidies to the car. 

New Hampshire faces difficult funding choices for a transportation system moving quickly from car travel to other modes—and fairness alone requires public support of the more sustainable forms of travel, read just about any mode but the car and air travel. 

Waiting for constitutional change in New Hampshire may take some time as two-thirds approval is required and pro-motor vehicle interests remain substantial.

New Hampshire can look to the first two states to recognize the changed demands for state transportation finance—Virginia and Massachusetts.  Virginia abolished the gas tax in February and now funds all transportation from an across –the-board dedicated sales tax of 0.8 percent.  Massachusetts stretched traditional car oriented taxes and now is on the cusp of using income taxes to support operation and expansion needs of all transportation modes.  New Hampshire, long a no-broad base tax haven, must seek innovative ways to support non-car modes.  One avenue might be to shift all municipal road program expenses to motor vehicles through vehicle sales taxes, increased gas taxes and increased sales taxes on car accessories.  This “car property tax shift” would allow imposition of a statewide property tax which would then be available for other modal support, particularly public transit, that is, regional bus and rail networks and intercity rail, like the Downeaster.  This is just one example of tax innovation—the point remains that finding a tax source does not prevent addressing the need for the State to quickly address a long festering and deepening need to provide support for non-car transportation modes. 

In a general sense, any state with restrictions on use of car-oriented revenues—and three of five states do—must address how to fairly fund other modes with rail and bicycle/walking infrastructure and all public transit requiring a proportional support endemic in the car mode.