Champlain Parkway Update--Court Starts, Racial Equity Ignored, Price Doubles?, Private Group Joins Lawsuit

 Pine Street Parkway US District Court Lawsuit Begins,
     Finally, May16

City Ignores King Maple Neighborhood Certified
      Community of Color with Zero Change in Parkway     
      Blatant Environmental Injustice Design After
      Almost 3 Years Public Review

City Quietly Puts Parkway to Bid—Only One Bid  
     Received Two Weeks Ago, About Doubles the
     Overall VTrans/City Estimated Total from $30
     million to as much as $60 million! (Yes, Pine Street
     RIGHTway would cut project construction costs by
     about one quarter!)

Fortieth Burlington, LLC Owner of Major Lakeside
     Office Complex, Innovation Center, joins Pine
     Street in Litigation at Vermont’s US District Court


April 2, 2022

Good Day Pine Street Grassroots Members:

Please note recent highlights as the Champlain Parkway moves from an almost three year delay to apply new Environmental  Justice regulations (not a whisker of change in the harmful Parkway design!) to the Pine Street US District Court lawsuit filed June 6, 2019 (D-Day).  And the apparent ill-timed rush to Parkway construction by the Mayor Weinberger administration. The one bid received March 18 signals a doubling of estimated construction costs!  The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and VTrans estimates of $30 million for construction based on a partial Parkway construction bid of $40.1 million suggests construction costs doubling to about $60 million!

If you have not yet signed the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance petition to support our joint Champlain RIGHTway, please take a moment to visit the petition site provided at the end of this message.  And continue to encourage our City Councilors and Legislative representatives to push for the exciting RIGHTway and its benefits (and save up to 25% of the construction estimate!) instead of the current harmful to the South End design!

When asked the question of who makes the decisions on the Parkway, one is reminded of a conversation between then former Secretary of Transportation Sue Minter following a campaign appearance in her campaign for governor when she told Pine Street leader Jack Daggitt in response to questions about the Parkway design, she responded simply “this is a City project!”  Minter herself is said to have nixed roundabouts in the project in a 2015 meeting.  Still, the point she makes is the Mayor of Burlington is the key person in decisions making regarding the Champlain Parkway.  The Parkway is a City project!!

    Tony Redington
        Walk Safety Advocate
    for the Pine Street Coalition
 


Pine Street Parkway US District Court Lawsuit Begins,
     Finally, May16

Grassroots volunteer Pine Street Coalition (Coalition) filed at US District Court here in Burlington on D-Day June 6, 2019 with the purpose of stopping the obsolete, harmful Champlain Parkway design and obtaining a re-design which responds to safety for all modes, addresses climate change, and most important, relieves not adds to the overburden for King Maple neighborhood.  The City now opposes and always has the current design cutting in two the now certified community of color King Maple and adding 22-37% more traffic and installing two injury generating traffic signals to an already overburdened low-income, community of color area.  

Now the plaintiffs, Pine Street and Fortieth Burlington, LLC, Innovation Center owner face off with the City, VTrans and Federal Highway Administration with first legal brief filings due by May 16.   

City Ignores King Maple Neighborhood Certified
      Community of Color with Zero Change in Parkway     
      Blatant Environmental Injustice Design After Almost 3
      Years Public Review

It remains puzzling after almost three years and a unanimous strong public hearing opposition and comments against the Parkway cutting through the now certified King Maple neighborhood as a community of color—just why not a whisker of design change in this overburdened neighborhood where 32% of residents have no car access and are pedestrian dependent?

A major change this year is the National Roadway Safety Strategy document from the US Department of Transportation (January 2022)

https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS

This policy document calls for a “Safe System Approach” and “Safe System Intersections” (primarily roundabouts) to transport funding to address “preventable” serious and fatal roadway injuries—there are at least 21,000 preventable fatalities each year on US roads, about 30 in Vermont.  (US plunged from first in world road safety in 1990 to18th today, ped deaths up 51% since 2010 with two recorded in Burlington.)

The new national strategy expressly makes both racial/low-income equity and climate change the two vital companion objectives in safety spending. The National Roadway Safety Strategy ties directly to 2021 Executive Orders https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS/SafetyEquityClimate  EO 13985 on Equity and EO 14008 on Climate Change.

It is difficult to conceive of a roadway investment in Vermont which could be more damaging to racial and low income equity and the climate than the current design of the Champlain Parkway!

City Quietly Puts Parkway to Bid—Only One Bid  
     Received Two Weeks Ago, About Doubles the
     Overall VTrans/City Estimated Total from $30 million to
     as much as $60 million! (Yes, Pine Street RIGHTway
     would cut project construction costs by about one
     quarter!)

On March 18, Burlington opened the one bid for construction of just part of the Champlain Parkway between Main Street and Home Avenue—that bid, reportedly $40.1 million alone exceeds the $30 million City estimates on the books for about three years.  The $40.1 million when added some time in the future of the balance of the Parkway from Shelburne Rd to Home Ave (“Road to Nowhere”) means the current Parkway design will double to about $60 million the current estimates.  

This number also calls into question the $20 million estimate for the Railroad Enterprise Project (REP) which just about all in the City favor being built first to bypass the King Maple neighborhood already overburdened with traffic, pollution, and social disruption of high traffic volumes.  The City is responsible for 100% of REP costs over $20 million.

Some say the Weinberger administration ill-timed bid maneuver was to avoid facing the court challenge and avoid a possible injunction stopping construction.  That occurred at US District Court in the Circumferential Highway lawsuit when VTrans let contracts followed by the Court rejected the environmental document and the project died—same issue here with the Parkway?  

Fortieth Burlington, LLC Owner of Major Lakeside Office
     Complex, Innovation Center, joins Pine Street in
     Litigation at Vermont’s US District Court

It is news that the owner of Innovation Center on Lakeside Avenue took action recently to also oppose at US District Court the current Parkway design and seek a quality, modern South End transport facility which is safe, addresses climate change (Efficiency Vermont was a longtime tenant) and corrects the overburden for the low-income and community of color King Maple neighborhood.
Pine Street and Innovation Center have worked closely in the past in regulatory and State courts to obtain a responsible Parkway design.

Attached please note a simple example of a street, a dedicated bikeway, and sidewalk.  This is the type of design Pine Street and Vermont Racial Justice Alliance call for between Queen City Park Rd to Home Avenue and from Home Avenue to Flynn Ave.  It is the RIGHTway!  It is “doing it right the first time!”

Please stay safe!

    Yours truly,


    Tony Redington
    for the Pine Street Coalition

 

What can you do?

Sign the Stop the Champlain Parkway Project and Choose the Champlain RIGHTway Petition: http://chng.it/tS9Ts5FjDx   SafeStreetsBurlington.com

 

 

 

 

Convert Most Unsafe Vermont Communuty Street to Safest with Roundabouts

 September 1, 2021 Rev. 3 February 28, 2022

Convert Most Unsafe Vermont Communuty Street to Safest with Roundabouts

Historic Old North End North Street: Low Cost Conversion of the Most Unsafe and DangerouS  Vermont Community Street to Vermont’s Most Safe, Low Speed, Pedestrian Friendly Street!

                                                  Summary 

One thing parents well know, there is no safe route to Sustainability Academy/Barnes Elementary School along North Street in Burlington. 

This policy analysis recommends mini roundabouts along Vermont’s most unsafe and dangerous street right here in Burlington—North Street from North Avenue to the west to North Union to the east with five of six cross intersections on the state’s high crash list of 111 statewide. The roundabout is the only intersection type on the Federal Highway short list of pedestrian safety “proven countermeasures.” A mini roundabout, is the most likely application in most of the North Street intersections meaning about one injury crash per intersection every few years versus 0.6 injuries per year per intersection now in the most recent tabulation. North Street roundabouts might approach the record of the other five downtown roundabouts of one injury per 50 years (half century) per intersection. And injuries at a roundabout are less severe than at signals. Right now the five high crash intersections total expanded to a decade of an estimated 32 injuries compares to one injury per decade tabulated at the five downtown roundabouts!

The five Vermont downtown roundabouts with the 52 years of data in Manchester Center {3}, Middlebury and Montpelier averaged just one injury per decade—0.8 car occupant injury, 0.2 pedestrian injury, 0.0 bike injury—none serious. Roundabouts can be expensive as costly utility work often is involved in a project unrelated to the roundabout itself. However, with mini roundabouts used where there are right-of-way constraints, a factor present on North Street, the mini can often be installed with the same safety performance of the bigger sibling for as little as $50,000.  The mini roundabout cost is in the neighborhood of traffic calming.  It is not far from the cost of three sets of one concrete cylinder flower pot and two white plastic stakes ($17,000) installed at several Burlington intersections. Besides you do not have to tend to the flowers at a mini roundabout! 

 

For the historic Old North End (ONE) dating from the early 19th century, North Street remains the most active community centered street featuring numerous retail, business and institutional land uses. Sustainable Academy (Barnes) Elementary School is just a block from the now Old North End Community Center, formerly Saint Joseph’s Elementary School. A variety of restaurants, convenience stores, residential buildings, ethnic retail markets,Vantage Press, Dion Locksmith and Bissonette Properties, as well as the locked Elmwood Cemetery are all found between along North Street between North Avenue and North Union Street. As well, there are four high crash intersections—all four cross intersections located between North Avenue (west terminus of North Street) and North Union Street to the east. Of the six intersections North Avenue, Park Avenue, North Champlain Street, Elmwood, North Winooski and North Union Street are on the VTrans latest high crash intersection list—the only cross intersection along the stretch not on the State list? Elmwood/Intervale and Park Avenue both considered a problem intersection in the neighborhood. 

North Street Important Demographics A key to understanding the dilemma of North Street lies in great part to the unusual demographics of Burlington. In a state with 71% of households owning their home and 29% renters, Burlington is almost the opposite 36% owning their home, 64% renter households. VT Speaker of the House Jill Krowinski and Rep. Curt McCormack who has headed the House Natural Resources and Transportation Committees represent the poorest in the City including practically all the ONE and some of King Maple neighborhoods which contain the only census tracts with excess of 80% with low and moderate incomes, King Maple with the highest concentration of persons with brown and black skins in the state—and the 30% representative district households have no car access and therefore are pedestrian and transit dependent for their transportation. The safety on streets like North Street is absolutely essential. In fact Burlington overall has 26% of its households with poverty level incomes with King Maple and ONE along with Winooski (29% of households with poverty level incomes) together representing the historic economic engine of Vermont, now a corridor of poverty. (A poor family of four means a weekly income at most of about $500.) North Street—Site of Many Injury and Non-injury Vehicle Crashes The four high crash intersections in a five year period averaged 3.8 injuries a year all four intersections in five years (19 injuries all four intersections over five years) plus 3.2 reportable fender bender crashes (“Property Damage Only” or PDO) (64 all four intersections PDO crashes in five years). See table 1. North Street clearly is a victim of the growth of the New North End (NNE) which sent increasing numbers of vehicles destined for downtown, mostly via North Ave, Park Avenue and North Champlain Street. North Winooski and North Union intersections carry the historic traffic continuing today between downtown Burlington and Winooski, a route dating from the days of Ethan and Ira Allen. 

The North Winooski Avenue-Riverside Avenue was not only the Allen’s era route, it was the route of the first trolley line built in the 1880s and continued in operation until 1929. With North Street featuring four of just 111 high crash intersections in the Vermont list, clearly it is a prime candidate for being the most unsafe and dangerous community street in Vermont! ONE leaders have been concerned about safety along North Street. It was a discussion item act the Arts and Business Network ( https://www.oneabn.org/ ) several years ago but it had to wait in line for the Winooski Corridor study now completed. In 2020 a Department of Public Works draft plan included a demonstration of a mini roundabout at the high crash North St/No. Winooski Ave intersection along with a second at Decatur/No. Union/No. Winooski. That demonstration was cancelled for the current construction year from lack of funds, reportedly, and a Public Works representative said there is no consideration of a North Street corridor study. 

Why Traffic Signals which Generate Crashes, Congestion and Delay? All five cross intersections along the west end of North Street (North Ave, Park Ave, North Champlain and Elmwood/Intervale, and North Winooski) are signalized while North Union is a three-way, all-way stop (North Union is one way northbound). Historically as vehicle traffic surged post World War II urban streets quickly became locations of congestion and the only choice to relieve the congestion which handled more traffic than simple signs: the now ubiquitous traffic signal. Traffic engineers had little choice as traffic increased, the traffic signal or limitless congestion and endless queues. But there was a price to shifting from signs to signals—injury crashes increase, particularly for the vulnerable—those who walk and bike—would increase as would car occupant injuries. 

Prime factors in increased injuries and crashes—signals versus all way stop intersections, for example—include higher speeds of vehicles traveling through on green and vehicle which fail to stop which cause, for example, the deadly T-bone crash. For pedestrians the high speeds at signals contribute to the 20% higher pedestrian casualty rate at signals versus all-way stop control and equally safe roundabouts (source, FHWA). So, careful protocols were established to minimize the tradeoff of safety and mobility, called signal “warrants.” This was the status of traffic management until the advent of the modern roundabout which began to make its appearance in the United States (and Vermont) in the 1990s, getting its start in 1966 in the U.K. While slow to become the standard it is today, NY State Department of Transportation and two Canadian Provincial Ministries of Transport (British Columbia and Alberta), for examples adopted regulatory “roundabouts first” policies between 2005 (NY) and 2010. A U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) definitive study in 2001 determined American roundabouts cut serious and fatal injuries by “about 90%.”

A half century of Vermont downtown roundabouts found a single pedestrian injury (not serious), four non-serious car occupant injuries and 0 bicyclist injuries. Consider the five injuries in a half century of service for downtown Vermont roundabouts versus four North Street intersections generating 3.8 injuries a year! As important the stunning tabulation this year of record of now 9,000 roundabouts in US and Canada has yet to experience a single pedestrian death on a marked roundabout crosswalk!  This compares to Burlington during just the the 1998-2020 period at just 75 signalized intersections, 2 pedestrian hit in crosswalks were killed (Barrett St crossing at Dominos and Shelburne Street crosswalk at Home Ave). 

As important, Burlington, Vermont and the nation have been falling behind in road safety to a terrible degree. When the first roundabout in the US was built in 1990, the US and UK were safest in road fatalities per mile of travel in the world—UK still remains at the top—while the US has dropped to 18th with 21,000 pandemic level of excess road deaths yearly. Even in covid 2020 when travel miles dropped 12%, fatalities per mile of travel increased 8%! As concerning is the trend since 2010 in pedestrian deaths—up 50% with Hispanics 50% more likely to die per population than white, Black people almost twice that of white-non-Hispanic. 

The two Burlington pedestrian deaths during 2010-2021 (and continuing in 2021) contributed to the upturn in national pedestrian deaths—up 46% in the latest reports. The US Congress, states’ transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations like Vermont single one, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) are well aware of the dismal road death pandemic and in 2013 U.S. laws required all federally funded highway projects to reduce fatal and serious injuries, mandating state and CCRPC to adopt five year objectives for reductions, revised during subsequent five year intervals. Unfortunately for Federal Highway Administration as well as most states and metros (including VTrans and CCRPC) with about two years of the first five year reduction targets in face of the surge of deaths and serious injuries in 2020 while vehicle miles declined 13%, most all will likely fail their first five year targets! 

Note that all neutral and advocate groups for safety—American Automobile Association (AAA), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and GEICO—have as first on their list or near the top of actions for safety, the installation of roundabouts and conversion of existing traffic signals to roundabouts. The new Vermont road death factor: an estimated 22 deaths per year from long term exposure to allowed tailpipe admissions. While road fatalities in recent years about 60 per year, we have learned recently in University of North Carolina research that there is another set of road deaths directly related to long term exposure to tailpipe emissions. ( https://ie.unc.edu/2021/06/08/new-study-identifies-leading-source-of-health-damages-from-vehicle-pollution-in-12-states-and-washington-d-c ). As a summary of the report states: “states experienced substantial health impacts from vehicle emissions and can gain health benefits from local action.” The recent study involving a number of northeastern US state identified the numbers by state and the annual loss of life in Vermont, 22 deaths, expands the annual Vermont road death number by about a third to about 80 deaths yearly. 

While electric cars, hopefully, will be the dominant vehicle type years from now, certainly for a generation the long term deaths from internal combustion cars will continue to exact a toll on Vermonters. It is very likely that built up urban areas—like Burlington’s ONE and King Maple neighborhoods—with congestion and vehicle delay causes a higher level of long term exposure fatalities than living and/or working in a country setting in Charlotte. Since roundabouts cut intersection emissions from vehicles up to one third, the roundabout aids in reducing the pollution load to residents and workers in our admittedly congested city streets. 

An Affordable Investment Quickly Makes North Street a Model of a Safe Community Street —Applying the lessons learned from the AARP Vermont Pine Street Workshop (2014) and Environmental Justice Process in the Champlain Parkway (2019 to date)

First and foremost the North Street intersections in question are best served by roundabouts, likely a mini roundabout like Vermont’s first and only one in Manchester Center. The mini roundabout has the same, or even better, safety record for all modes. Second, any consideration of roundabouts along North Street needs to have all six intersections evaluated in a reasonably short corridor study—the study is not to make signals better, it is to establish roundabout feasibility and utilize experienced (read national practitioners) as part of the consultant team. Actual design of roundabouts for the corridor could be done in a matter of weeks, certainly within a 12-month period. 

An analysis of 5-year and 1-year injury and "Property Damage Only" (PDO) crashes at the five North Street intersections is instructive. This can be calculated easily from the 5-year recent VTrans High Crash Location Report series, 2012-2016. The cost of a fatality used is $1.5 million, $88,500 for an injury and $11,300 for a PDO. Since mini roundabouts are cheap, crash cuts and injury cuts (72% injury cuts alone) with an overall well over $1 million for all five intersections in a year more than covers the five intersections made walkable and safe!  This ignores the real benefits of tens of thousands of hours of reduced vehicle and pedestrian delay (real dollars for business trip delay), stress on all users, and increased economic activity enabled for nearby businesses. Add to this the traffic signal caused excessive climate heating emissions and the now known 25 yearly estimated Vermont deaths from a lifetime of vehicle exhaust pollutants.   

Table 1: Vermont Agency of Transportation High Crash Location Report 2012-2016 Data on the Five North Street Burlington State High Crash Intersections

#23 [Place on list of 111 Vermont high crash intersection list—1 worst, 111 least worst] North St/North Champlain St 0.220 [intersection name and milepost] 5 years/21 crashes/5 injuries/17 PDO [years of data recorded, total crashes, total injuries, property only crashes {PDO}] ($30,219–estimated cost per crash); Total Crashes (per year): 21(4.25); Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $635,000 ($126,900 per year) 

#40 Park St/North St 0.280 5 years/19 crashes/4 injuries/16 PDO ($28,147\–estimated cost per crash); Total Crashes (per year): 19 (3.8); Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $535,000 ($107,000 per year)

#46 North Winooski (Alternate 7)/North St 1.620 5 years/19 crashes/3 injuries/16 PDO ($23,489–estimated cost per crash); Total Crashes (per year): 19 (3.8); Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $446,000_($89,200 per year) 

#87 North Union St/North St 0.300 5 years/15 crashes/0 injuries/15 PDO (3-way-stop) ($11,300–estimated cost per crash) Total Crashes (per year): 15 (3.0); Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $170,000_($34,000 per year)

#110 North Ave/North St 0.180 5 years/20 crashes/4 injuries/17 PDO ($27,305 estimated cost per crash) Total Crashes (per year): 20 (4.0);  Total estimated crash cost for 5 years: $546,100 ($109,220 per year)

Cost really is not a significant factor as roundabouts at the five high crash intersections would certainly reduce crash/injury costs by about half in a five year period, a $2,177,000 value based on half the total cost estimates, above. A set of roundabouts would likely cost as little as $50,000 each, certainly far less than $2,177,000 million. As analyzed elsewhere a roundabout replacing a high crash intersection on the 20 Burlington intersections in the VTrans list would conservatively result in one less injury per year, a saving of $88,500 and two less PDO crashes, a saving of $22,600—or $111,100 per converted intersection per year. An installation of a mini roundabout on a high crash North Street intersection would easily be paid for in savings in about a year, assuming about $50,000 base cost for a roundabout. Some of those savings are to police department costs of incident management, reports, etc., and other City savings include the trips by emergency equipment and personnel to crashes and then to UVMMC. 

Table 2: Summary Data on All Five North Street High Crash intersections (2012-2016) 

Total Crashes 90 total all five intersections:

18.0 crashes per year all five intersections

3.6 crashes per intersection per year —16 injuries in five years, 3.2 injuries per year all five intersections, 0.64 injuries per year per intersection

84 property damage only (PDO) crashes, 16.8 PDO crashes per year all five intersection, 3.4 per PDO crash per intersection per year

Total estimated crash cost for 5 years all four intersections: $2,177,000 ($435,000 per year), $87,000 per intersection per year

Note: There are many crashes involving no injury which never “reportable,” i.e., never enter the crash counts by police departments and the state.  If estimated total crash is $3,000 or below, no reports are necessary. 

  

Tony Redington February 28, 2022 TonyRVT99@gmail.com

Vote No March 1 Ballot Item 4, Burlington Main St: Steve Goodkind, Michael Long and Tony Redington Weigh In

 2/22/2022


Now added February 22, Steve Goodkind, P.E., Decades Long City Engineer, Joins Michael Long’s and My Front Page Forum submission on $30 million Main Street Ballot Item 4 March Town Meeting, March 1 for copying and pasting on your local FPF (about 20 separate areas in Burlington)

The CH 17 Forum on Ballot item 4 featuring Michael and Tony Redington:
https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/burlington-article-4-borrow-259m-downtown-tif-district-forum

January 2022 new National Roadway Safety Strategy based on safety with twin additional objectives of racial and income equity as well as addressing climate change.  Approach to roadway investments “Safe System Approach”: https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS  

City Website with 12-word transportation Great Streets “standard” ( Walkable and bikeable — safe for all modes and all levels of accessibility ): http://greatstreetsbtv.com/downtown-standards

Note the key chasm in Great Streets so-called standards is assumption of traffic signals along Main Street—the now obsolete and dangerous technology as traffic lights kill, injure, delay, heat the planet, implement racial injustice/low-income discrimination, and degrade scenic quality.  The now standard roundabout (AARP, AAA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Federal Highway Administration advocate them) since 2005 in NY State Department of Transportation is primarily for its superior safety for all modes, but the roundabout also addresses each and every signal defect in a superior fashion! Nineteen of Burlington’s 20 high crash intersections are signalized recording 1.4 injuries a year while five downtown Vermont roundabouts average an injury a decade. The engineer presenting Feb 1 on Great Streets was clearly unaware of the high crash intersections on Main Street and also unaware that roundabouts were the main recommendation of the City’s North Avenue Plan (2014) and Winooski Corridor Plan (2020) for Main/South Winooski, the highest crash intersection in Vermont.

North Avenue Corridor Plan (2014) first corridor goal in part: “Achieve a world class transportation corridor that offers quality of service and highest safety for those who walk, bicycle, and travel by motor vehicle or transit.”  Landmark plan calls for corridor length sidewalk, protected bike lanes (cycle track) and roundabouts at key intersections.  https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FINAL-NorthAve_CorridorReport.pdf
                                        ———
             2/19/22
 
Steve Goodkind, P.E. Decades Long Former City Engineer Statement on Town Meeting Main Street Ballot Item 4—Public Expense of Addressing Ravine Sewer Not Warranted
 
Having recently read the minutes of the Jan. 10 “public hearing” regarding the proposed TIF authorization vote for March, I am concerned about the information being offered by DPW Director Spencer and his engineers.
 
Forty years ago, as city engineer, I began efforts to deal with problems with our combined sewer system. At the top of the list was the Ravine Sewer. Installing an alternate large diameter pipe in the city's ROW to divert stormwater flow from the Ravine Sewer was the first project of the overall $52 million upgrades we made to our wastewater systems during the late eighties through the mid nineties. Because of it's location and depth it was not practical or cost effective to entirely eliminate the Ravine Sewer and doing so would not have furthered our goal of dealing with the combined sewer problem. The Ravine Sewer was left in place to continue its' function as a sanitary sewer.
 
We were well aware that portions of the Ravine Sewer had buildings constructed over it
and this could present problems in the future. However, the line appeared to be in good shape and technologies were coming along to rehabilitate buried pipes in place. In the specific case of the former site of the county jail, now a parking lot at the corner of Main and Winooski, future developers would and could design to accommodate it.
 
The lack of any cost effective options for relocating the Ravine Sewer have not changed. The public benefit is very small and the costs will be extremely high. Rehabilitating in place is by far the best option. This, however, would not help developers.
 
Relocation solely benefits future developers at great expense to the public, be it local or state education funds paying the tab. Managing the Ravine Sewer within their project is probably much more cost effective overall. We will not have to use public money that could fall on the taxpayers if sufficient development does not occur to pay for the TIF bonds.

                   ————————————————-

          Text of January 10, 2022 City Council meeting
                public hearing on Ballot Item Four


Minutes
(omitted minutes text before this item)
 
6.02 Public Hearing Regarding Downtown Tax Financing District (TIF) Great Streets Project
 
Director Pine began the presentation by saying that this is a rare opportunity to make a $30 million investment in Burlington’s downtown without impacting taxpayers. He said that this funding opportunity expires if the City is unable to bond for it by next March (of 2023). He said that the improvements would meet the needs of a diverse group of users. He said that the project’s proposed stormwater investments would reduce pollution of Lake Champlain. He said that the project’s proposed utilities investments would be more significant than any other upgrades in the last 50 years.
 
Senior Engineer Wheelock noted that the project would include 6 blocks of Main Street between Battery and Union Streets. She said that the improvements would provide amenities for all users of the streets, including pedestrians, motorists, cyclists, and businesses. She also noted that improvements would occur for water, sewer, electrical, and communications infrastructure.
 
Mr. White spoke about the financing of the TIF District project. He noted that Burlington has two TIF Districts—the Waterfront TIF District and the Downtown TIF District. He explained the concept of tax increment financing and how it ties public and private investments together to create value and use new taxes to pay for upgrades. He provided a brief overview of the Downtown TIF District’s history, noting that the district was established in 2011, its final date for new debt is March 31, 2023, and its final year to retain the education increment is 2036. He outlined the current finances, noting that $5,420,000 in debt has already been incurred pf the previously-approved $10 million, and $4,580,000 in remaining debt authority still exists. He briefly outlined the private projects that would occur in the district. He noted the district’s projected cash flow, saying that a positive balance is anticipated for the district.
 
Director Spencer spoke about the public process around the TIF and associated bond vote. He noted that there will be public engagement through March, after which the bond vote will occur. He said that concept development will occur between February and May. He noted the public bodies that will need to be engaged throughout the process.
 
 Councilor Barlow asked if the sewer is being upgraded or replaced, and asked how the associated costs were determined. Senior Engineer Wheelock replied that they conducted an engineering estimate of the worst case scenario, but said that they need to continue investigating the condition of the pipes and sewer in the spring. Councilor Barlow asked about the education tax increment and its effect on education tax rates. Mr. White replied that the taxes generated by the district would not have been generated but for the public investments in the district (which then lead to private investments and additional tax generation).
 
 Councilor Mason asked about the ravine sewer and whether it was always anticipated to need to be worked on significantly. Senior Engineer Wheelock said that the ravine sewer is not in active failure, but said that the TIF district has capacity to conduct work to improve it, which would make it possible to develop the surface parking lot that it sits on. Director Spencer noted that in the past there wasn’t the awareness of the ravine and the risks of developing on it that there are now.
 
 Councilor Carpenter asked about how the ravine could be impacting the fire station on South Winooski Avenue. Senior Engineer Wheelock replied that part of the project would entail looking at how surrounding properties are connected to the ravine sewer. Mr. White added that that fire facility does not meet current Fire Department needs and standards and that dealing with the ravine sewer becomes an important piece of future work on the fire station facility.
 
 City Council President Tracy opened the public hearing.
 
Brian Cina expressed support for the Great Streets Project. He spoke about how behavior shapes the environment and vice versa and said that the Great Streets Project would positively impact the community. He said that the current environment on Main Street negatively impacts behavior. He expressed concern that the TIF District could cause rent increases that displace local businesses. Director Pine said that the goal isn’t to increase taxes but to spur private investment in certain properties that may not have otherwise had those investments in them.
 
Caryn Long expressed concern about parking being taken away in the Great Streets Project. She asked how many parking spaces would be removed. Mr. White replied that some studies have shown that the City actually has more parking than it needs and that it has a parking management problem, not a parking shortage. Senior Engineer Wheelock noted that the concept is not final and that there will be months of public engagement and opportunity for input prior to finalizing the concept. She said that they need to seek funding approval from voters prior to having a finalized concept.
 
 City Council President Tracy closed the public hearing.

                      ——————————-
 

Michael Long Front Page Forum Submission

TIF: Free Money Is a False & Dangerous Fantasy

Gene Bergman’s intentions may be pure, but his thinking is flawed.  His ALL CAPS insistence that we must invest immediately in long neglected infrastructure is almost frantic. His support for TIF funding does not add up. When he says, “Property taxes don’t increase to pay the debt,” he may be fooling himself, but we should not let him fool us.

To his credit, Bergman does not claim, as the mayor and other city officials do, that TIF debt is paid exclusively by taxes on new, TIF-inspired development. That claim is false through and through.
Gene claims instead that TIF debt “is paid by the revenues generated by the increase in TIF district property value as measured from its 2011 creation.”  This is closer to the truth if by “property value” he means tax revenue. 
The Downtown TIF feeds off the difference between its tax bill in 2011 and its tax bill in 2022 — for every property in the Downtown TIF district.  If the TIF district tax bill has increased by 85% — as mine has in Ward 2 — the bulk of that “tax increment” (minus 25% of the school portion) is diverted to pay off TIF debt and interest. Most of these “tax increment” dollars come from routine increases or reappraisals unrelated to TIF inspired development.  

And every tax dollar from previously tax exempt properties like the former YMCA (more than $80,000) goes to TIF, aggravating shortfalls. This leaves TIF district revenue for schools and city services far below the levels needed in 2022.  The millions lost to TIF — even if the projects funded are worthy — increase property taxes substantially above what they would otherwise be. 

And when taxes are increased in response to unacknowledged TIF diversions or for any reason — as they will be if the 5.5% increase in Question 2 is approved — all of those additional dollars in TIF districts are allocated to TIF, further fueling the magnitude of the increase required.

We’ve spent $4.4 million borrowed TIF dollars to “transform” St Paul.  Now the City speculates we “need”  $31.5 million more (Question 4) for a stretch of Main and a sewer ravine that may turn out to be a black hole of abysmal dimensions.  

City officials do not even mention the $22 million in TIF funding previously approved for the stalled mall redevelopment project.

If we really need this money for Main Street before we plan and fund the new high school, we should borrow it directly and honestly — not through a TIF back door.
Even when TIF “works” because the funds diverted are sufficient to pay the debt and interest incurred, TIF does not work because it diminishes the dollars available for the Education Fund and city services. 
That is the simple truth arithmetic reveals.  Free money is a  false and dangerous fantasy.

                          ---------------------------------------------------------------

     Tony Redington Front Page Forum Submission

Main Street—Vague Ballot item Ignores Safety

Vote No at Town Meeting on $30 million Ballot Item 4 for Main Street, a boondoggle proposal where the last public meetings were six years ago!

In a statement in Front Porch Forum ONE Central community leader Gene Bergman writes:

"Our transition to a bike/walk friendly, safer, and carbon neutral transportation system doesn't get cheaper through delay. VTrans data shows Main Street intersections need improvement."

Gene Bergman is a leader who supports racial and economic justice. But not here where Mr. Bergman supports a project which does just the opposite, a clear decade long record of the City pursuit of transportation racism and injustice with no signs the Main Street will change the City's pattern. Each week a pedestrian or cyclist is injured and each week two car occupants are injured in Burlington crashes using 2012-2016 averages.

Unfortunately Gene Bergman remains dead wrong on the vague Public Works concept for Main Street where 78 injuries per decade occur on just the four high crash intersections (including Edmunds School crossing) without a single word of public discussion of safety, not single word of discussion of climate change impacts, not a single word of the equity for the poverty and persons of color who dominate the 32% of residents of Old North End, Downtown and King Maple neighborhoods without access to a car.

While Bergman refers to VTrans he is unaware there are no Main Street detailed scoping studies and analytics which remain a mainstay of roadway projects at VTrans. The new federal Safe System Approach to address the horrific US pandemic death toll contained in the strategy released just last month was never applied to Main Street. ( https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS )

Our City Council has strong forward looking policies on Racism as a Public Health Emergency and Climate Change as a Public Health Emergency--and these were never applied or considered on Main Street. 

No commitment to safety, no commitment to climate change, no commitment to racial justice (just the opposite) means please Vote "No" on Main Street Ballot Item 4 on March 1.

Tony Redington
Walk Safety Advocate

Two Year Environmental Justice Rules Application to Parkway Design Results in No a Whisker of Change

Frustration and consternation remains that after 2 years of applying new Environmental Justice regulations to the obvious current Parkway design injustice to low income (26 of Burlington residents have poverty incomes, a population mostly in King Maple and Old North End neighborhoods); and blatant injustice to the community of color (King Maple largest such community in Vermont).   

Frustration and consternation the result of two years was nothing of outreach and hearings, etc., and not one design change!  No recognition even of known degrading of safety, air quality, and livability, particularly along Pine Street part of the Parkway which cuts King Maple in two!  Not even an admission that in King Maple there will be more traffic, higher speeds, and degraded walking conditions and increased pollution are not a bad thing!

Tweets on 2 year Environmental Justice rules application to the Champlain Parkway with unanimous opposition at the one hybrid 2021 hearing and not a whisker changed in the hurtful, obstolete and global heating design!! Here are some recent tweets in this regard.

     "US Transport Boss Pete/VT Fed Highway chief Hake/VTrans Secretary Flynn last Friday after 2-year look leaves untouched Champlain Parkway blatant racial/low-income injustice in King Maple community of color. South Ender Carolyn Bates montage reflects reactions of many. Add Mayor Weinberger to this group! #btv #vtpoli"

      "Champlain Parkway 2-year Environmental (In)Justice work completed a design trifecta of planet heating and upped road injuries. Add Mayor Weinberger to the non-perform list!. #btv #vtpoli"

     "Robust[ed] System of Transportation" says Burlington Public Works director on WCAX. $100 million spent on 2.3 miles Parkway through the South End and not one inch of sidewalk, not one inch of safe bikeway/protected bike lane. That "Robusted!" #btv #vtpoli Go RIGHTway! ]

Red Light for Traffic Signals

The current Champlain Parkway design calls for 6-7 new traffic signal systems, a technology considered pause and dangerous in every way.  Here is a tweet announcing Freakonomics feature on roundabouts replacing signals:

“Traffic signals in most cases belong in recycling bins (highly toxic for pedestrians!). "Should Traffic Signals be Abolished?" on Freakonomics. City of almost no signals left (about 140 roundabouts, a dozen signals) Carmel, IN Mayor Brainard https://freakonomics.com/podcast/roundabouts/ #btv #vtpoli"

Burington—A Pedestrian or Bicycle Injury Weekly

Pedestrian and bicycle injuries are a weekly occurrence in Burlington.  The Champlain RIGHTway reduces bike/ped injuries versus the increase inherent in the current design. 

My recent tweet:  “Numbers in BTV are clear, about one pedestrian or cyclist injury weekly and two car occupants (from recent 5 year data set). BTV has 20 high crash intersections on state list, each 1.5 injuries/year average. City has not addressed any of these. #btv #vtpoli"

 

Roundabouts the Intersetion Standard, RRFBs not a Substitute

Locust Street—Roundabouts on Both Ends of Street? 

Next June we all know a roundabout gets going on the east end of Locust Street, a street home of a church, a church school and a major city playground. Two of the three Three Sisters streets go north from Locust along with another popular residential street, Hayward. The street slopes down slowly from east to west with a rather sharp decline approaching its west end on Pine Street with Parkside Terrace on the north corner and Callahan Park on the southside, a bus shelter on the east side perhaps about 100 feet south of the intersection. Callahan Park also continues a north/south pedestrian way for students who travel to and from Champlain School. 

Somehow, Locust Street either end has intersections with major change in the last decade. But are they the right changes? And what do the changes mean to safety, particularly for pedestrians? Pedestrians remain the "apartheid mode" with few efforts at high quality safety transportation investments to benefit the pedestrian, more often than not in our urban areas a person of color. 

We all walk but few bike!) Also, somehow, the west intersection of Locust, a T junction, is largely untouched by the Champlain Parkway, either in the current controversial design (my personal feelings set aside) or the coalition promoted Champlain RIGHTway (Pine Street Coalition, Vermont Racial Justice Alliance and Fortieth Burlington, LLC [Innovation Center]). (Not to say the RIGHTway coalition of three groups are truly all ears for any grassroots suggestions!!) While most have an opinion about roundabouts or at least know about them, few have given much thought to the City’s Department of Public Works (DPW) increasing use of RRFB’s (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons) installed mostly without even bothering to do much analysis of intersection management choices. So about 2013 or early 2014 during the Mayor Weinberger administration the first RRFBs were installed along Pine Street. I call them fireflies because along Pine Street at night where there are several one sees them light up sporadically like fireflies. In part because there is no clear priority for pedestrian safety in the City (its’s the apartheid mode remember) not much attention has been given to the RRFB versus the acknowledged safest pedestrian intersection which is the all-way-stop, versus the traffic light which is the true enemy of the pedestrian.

Defining the differences, particularly in regard to safety, is important even if one does not care about pedestrian since the City has about a third of its traffic high crash intersections, with our a quarter, 20, on the current VTrans high crash intersection list—those intersections average 1.5 injuries a year. Our five downtown VT roundabouts average one injury a decade (0 bike injuries in 52 years recorded and one pedestrian non-serious injury). Burlington experiences about two car occupants a week and one either a cyclist or a pedestrian injury (2012-2016 data). The RRFB The RRFB started as proprietary product and owed much of its success to a great extent from advertising and public relations activity (something roundabouts and all-way-stops lack!). 

 Traffic engineers for three generations have lived off traffic signals installations and their management—many without much knowledge of RRFB performance have apparently succumbed to their allure—and cheapness, about a tenth the cost of a traffic signal (about $175,000 median price). What do we know about the RRFB? The 2008 first research mostly centered on its first use for mid-block crossings—BTV is doing this too. A more recent study, 2020 is fairly comprehensive but still centers on mid-block or mid-block with a significant private entry: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Programs/ResearchDocuments/SPR814Final.pdf As an aside, it would nice if DPW began to seek research and analytical support in their decision making. Too much of Burlington transportation—Regional Planning too but to a lesser extent, staff as well as consultants—remains cookbook and ignoring major changes, sometimes rapid like bicycle treatments evolution at roundabouts, now proceeding. 

What we should ask and demand is transportation investments based not just on comprehensive cost benefit (sill in its infancy here in Vermont), but also on the “science,” transportation research. In a word we need a Fauci overview, the science, in our transport decisions. The 2020 Racism as a Public Health Emergency and 2019 Climate Change Emergency, both new City policies, must be afforded more than check the box response at DPW and CCRPC. So, privately promoted RRFBs are new, little research is available, particularly on use at intersections. It is true that mid-block crossing use may have benefit cost benefits versus very expensive ($1 million on up) HAWK and Pelican treatments—which do better than RRFBs but not when benefit cost is involved—still a tradeoff of cost for pedestrian injuries which is still involves careful thoughtful decision. RRFBs at the Locust St intersection.   First, the Pine Street RRFB intersection treatments apply mostly to crossing Pine Street but not along Pine crossings themselves—i.e., Marble, Locust, Howard marked crosswalks. Second, we have no thorough research on RRFB versus the normal and equally highest level of safety all-way-stop and roundabout. We must analyze alternatives because single-lane roundabout with central islands can be quite expensive, but mini roundabouts (recommended up and down Pine Street by Dan Burden in the AARP 2014 Pine Street Workshop report with preliminary feasibility designs provided for Pine/Maple Street intersection on page 1) can be quite cheap and obviously superior in safety (and most everything else!). Consider the fact that within the first few months of installation, there was a critical pedestrian injury at the Locust Street/Pine Street RRFB—more serious than any pedestrian injury (the one!) in a half century of downtown VT roundabouts tabulated. One critical injury does not mean we should reject RRFBs, but it jogs the mind and connects the new roundabout at one end of Locust, the mini recommendation of Dan Burden (58th on the list of great urbanists in recorded time) for every intersection south of Main Street, and, yes, the very fact the intersection has been unaddressed in the Champlain Parkway over half a century.

So, first, does an all-way-stop make sense at Locust/Pine as that is the traditional traffic engineer correctly staged most safe for pedestrians. Actually we have an all-way-stop at both Pine/Maple and Pine/King about seven blocks away—it is safe for the many pedestrians (most students using to access school buses a.m. and p.m. are persons of color). And yes, there is no anecdotal of pedestrian crashes there. But for sure anyone who travels, works, or lives along Pine Street knows at traditional drive time p.m. experience regular 4-7 minutes queues to clear the Maple Street intersection northbound. That would likely be duplicated for the downtown bound stream at Locust as well. The alternative roundabout here because of tight space, the mini-roundabout. First, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) lists the roundabout as the only pedestrian safety “proven countermeasure” and is the only intersection type on the list—FHWA might consider adding the all-way-stop to pedestrian proven safety countermeasure list. Yes, Roundabouts at Each End of Locust Street Since an all-way-stop means unacceptable addition at busy intersections of more queuing with vehicle delay and increased climate heating in violation of our 2019 Climate Change Emergency policy—the roundabout becomes the default choice—which in addition to pedestrian safety equal to the all-way-stop (signals FHWA tells us generate a 20% higher pedestrian crash rate than either all way or rounds) also results in sharply lower crash rates for vehicles, reductions in climate change emissions and pollutants, drops in vehicle delay and motor fuel consumption, lower maintenance cost and not eventual replacement costs (signals have a limited lifespan, even RRFBs), improved scenic quality, and certainly some safety benefit for cyclists if only through traffic calming of speeds two-three blocks in all directions. 

 At Locust/Pine most of the land, at least on three quadrants of publicly owned (the Park and either City and/or Burlington Electric Department on the westside assure no right-of-way acquisition issues. So, the costs of a mini-roundabout would be low and development time a few weeks of design and public review process followed by construction in the next normal season—usually installing (like at Shelburne Street Roundabout) in June after both elementary schools are closed. Price would be mid-five figures likely. Certainly for costs, comparing mini to RRFB, the roundabout wins easily. So let’s proceed with a scoping of a mini-roundabout at Pine/Locust and provide the safest street in the City with a roundabout at either end?—for a lengthy roundabout dogbone round duo!! RRFBs at Shelburne Street Roundabout? Why? For some reason RRFBs are to be installed at the Shelburne Street Roundabout in spite of the fact that not a single pedestrian has every died on the 9,000 US/Canadian roundabouts on a marked crosswalk through 2020 (two deaths on marked Burlington the roughly 75 traffic signal crosswalks since1998). 

If one were concerned about improving pedestrian safety at a roundabout which cuts serious or fatal injury upwards of 90% there are certainly better, cheaper engineering choices one would be expected to take. First, one could narrow entries/exits to 10 feet (see Keck Circle in Montpelier or Grand Union in Manchester Center) versus the practice of VTrans of 12-15 feet wide entry and exit lanes. In other words, reduce area of pedestrian exposure—a principle often and thankfully employed by our DPW. No costs involved but certainly some resulting reduced speeds beneficial to pedestrian safety. Second, one could employ raised crosswalks which has been done in a few cases elsewhere. Again, no cost. The problem is if you get roughly about a 90% average decline in pedestrian safety, then additional expenditures need to be carefully considered and not controversial. Narrowing entries and raised crosswalks do not engender anything negative. A signal without some scientific support? Raises serious concern the signal could increase ped injury rate. RRFBs which are not the best practice at an intersection and where there is no science to support it, is very questionable at a roundabout (why at a roundabout, for example, but not at an equally performing safe intersection type, the all-way-stop?). I myself avoid where I possibly can ever using an RRFB at an intersection, instead of venture carefully onto a crosswalk, making sure a vehicle driver sees me and yields, then halfway across repeat with traffic in the opposite direction. The reason? Like at a roundabout (sans signals) its safety depends not only by design (medians restricting crossing to one direction of traffic at a time, vehicle speed constraints) but also by making safe crossing include an alert pedestrian self-protecting and a driver yielding—neither with any distraction like a signal. Those are absent at a traffic signal—any traffic signal which interferes with accountability of driver and pedestrian, therefore accounting for the relatively poor signal pedestrian performance and the superior roundabout pedestrian performance. 

     Locust/Pine Roundabout and Bicyclists

Right now the Locust/Pine intersection provides no treatments applicable to the bicyclists. The Locust/Pine roundabout would provide significant safety improvements. First, a standard ramp—off on approach and ramp-on at the outgoing leg would be provided—same as at the Shelburne Street Roundabout. This “choice” of take the roundabout lane or shift to pedestrian mode and benefit from the safer pedestrian crossings is a safety improvement over the current configuration. The cyclist entering Pine Street from Locust clearly gains as a stop is no longer necessary, reduced speed conditions mean easier integration to traffic, etc. For bicyclists traveling south the roundabout offers an easier left turn against slowed northbound traffic and the off-on ramping now absent. 

Final Note 

My TonyRVT.blogspot.com includes a recent monograph application of roundabouts along North Street which is termed the most dangerous community street in Vermont and through adoption of mini roundabouts potentially becoming the safest. In addition there is the archive the monograph and walkability Burlington which first saw the light of day as a six part series here on the BWBC listserv.

Tony Redington September 19, 2021 TonyRVT99@gmail.com TonyRVT.blogspot.com @TonyRVT60

The Equality Street--A Step Up from the Complete Street, Accounting for Racial Bias

The Equality Street: Battle for a Champlain Parkway “RIGHTway,”

                      North Street Burlington, and Beyond

The Pine Street Coalition battle in the South End for a Champlain RGHTway moves to a new level as the City Council may well shortly approve building the Railroad Enterprise Project (REP) before any current pending Parkway is built—this would assure the King Maple neighborhood gets immediate relief from current levels unsafety, traffic, pollution and congestion instead of an additional onslaught of traffic from the City’s’ current obsolete, unsafe Champlain Parkway design. 

The REP was always wanted by the City as the Parkway route through to Main Street (Alternative 1 in the 2009 environmental document) instead of through Pine. REP extends from Kilburn St/Curtis Lumber on Pine Street to Battery Street so the Parkway route effectively bypasses King Maple neighborhood. King Maple has the lowest median income in Burlington, over 80% low and moderate income population and highest Vermont concentration of persons with black and brown skin.

  Pine Street and Two Principal Allies, a Major Victory

    —FHWA Funds Railroad Enterprise Project for $20 million and Likely Moves to the Front Burner 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) promised to walk away from the now $100 million project unless the Parkway cut King Maple in two and increased Pine Street traffic there 22-37% through King Maple to Main Street. The Parkway current design through King Maple degrades pedestrian safety and delay with two traffic signals replacing all-way-stops at Maple and King thereby raising speeds and pedestrian injury rates by 20% (all-way stop or a roundabout equal in their pedestrian safety superiority). 

Mayor Kiss and City Council rather than losing all funding accepted the current route under the duress in 2009 in spite of long time community opposition. The grassroots group Pine Street Coalition began in 2015 and following the leadership of the Burlington Walk Bike Council and undertaking community outreach, adopted a set of Parkway re-design guidelines, little changed to this day. The basics: (1) full sidewalk and separate bikeway along the entire route (none now, not an inch); (2) retaining connectivity between Pine Street and Queen City Park Road Kmart Plaza versus the current design dead ending Pine short of the Parkway; (3) use of engineering “best practices” including safest-for-all modes and climate change prevention champion roundabout (the one and only FHWA pedestrian safety “proven countermeasure” intersection); (4) cutting 1.5 miles of expensive excess lanes miles of roadway; (5) preservation and protection of Englesby Brook, the City’s largest stream entering Lake Champlain which the Parkway would stuff into a long pipe; and (6) accepting the Parkway as an ordinary City street and dropping full controlled access restraint at Pine/I 189 intersection. 

The Pine Street Coalition re-design guidelines and challenge documents issued in April 2018 clearly led to a change of heart by FHWA which suddenly offered the City the REP it rejected in 2009, and later even sweetened the offer with a better financial deal for the City after Pine Street Coalition went to US District Court on D-Day, June 6, 2019. Thanks to Pine Street’s long time partner (they were there before Pine Street) Fortieth Burlington, LLC owner of Innovation Center on Lakeside Avenue and joined by the second Vermont Racial Justice Alliance (VRJA) in summer 2019 during the now ending Environmental Justice two-year-plus outreach—a direct result of the Pine Street lawsuit—REP has now moved from a $20 million initial reluctant offer by FHWA toward front burner status. 

One cannot overstate the importance of the Environmental Justice process for the education it brought to all in detailing the blatant transportation racism and injustice not only in King Maple now acknowledged, but also the special core role the safest pedestrian design plays in avoiding disproportionate negative impact of roadway projects on communities of color and low income. That core safest pedestrian design when twinned with the best accommodation of bicycles is the very definition of an “equality street” in all senses of descriptive—from transportation equity for all modes to racial equity for communities of color with their far higher dependence on the walking mode. 

  Next Challenge—Achieving Champlain RIGHTway "Complete," “Equality Streets” 

Very simply, an equality street is first and foremost a busy street with sidewalks and roundabout intersections which also contain either on-street cycle track (protected bikes lanes) and/or a separate safe two-way bikeway. There now is not a single inch of “equality street” along the existing Champlain Parkway and Rail Enterprise Project design! Quite the contrary the current Parkway and REP design are clearly racially and transportation unjust and discrimination by the inferior treatment of those who walk and bike versus those who travel by motor vehicle. Burlington actually established a landmark “equality” street model in the North Avenue Corridor Plan (2014) which contains three basics—sidewalks and roundabouts at key intersections, and end-to-end cycle track. 

It was the Parkway Environmental Justice process and leadership of VRJA, its director Mark Hughes and their staff, that led over the last two years which led to the expanded and deepened definition of an equality street. Expanded in the sense of applying directly to the lexicon of racist transportation practice where a community of color or low-income neighborhoods are present or affected. Deepened in clearly defining sidewalks and either all-way-stop or roundabout intersections as the minimum standard of pedestrian design of busy streets. It is the Parkway converting of two all-way-stop intersections with many pedestrians to traffic signals which set up the real life conflict which has arisen in the Parkway Environmental Justice process. 

The Parkway environmental document of 2009 and previous public process ended two years before the Vermont Complete Streets Law (2011) enactment which calls for consideration of safe accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle modes in road projects. Even a cursory examination of that law along with Burlington practice and plans shows the use of a shared use path treatment in the Parkway and REP fails the Vermont legal standard and is inconsistent by mixing two modes to the detriment of both as well as in an unsafe manner. Key to understanding the equality street definition, particularly the need for a pedestrian sidewalk treatment, is recognizing that neighborhoods of low income and communities of color are in fact disproportionately dependent on safe walking facilities because they are significantly pedestrian and transit dependent. In Burlington’s King Maple and Old North End neighborhoods fully 30% of residents lack access to a car. Burlington Public Works Commissioner and UVM professor Pablo Bose is not only a researcher in this regard, he is also active in assisting New Americans and others lacking a car obtain necessary transportation services.

Further, the pedestrian mode has always been pretty much ignored in transportation by government. For example there have been incentives and tax breaks for solo commuter drivers to give up their annual $2,000 parking garage spaces and $600 surface parking lot space, incentives for van group participants, incentives for taking transit to work and incentives to bicyclists—but never any formal incentive to the sizable walk-to-work set who cost the employer the least and do so in a healthy way! In a word, the pedestrian mode is the apartheid transportation mode, the right-turn-on red allowed today which kills about 30 pedestrians being the most obvious outrage of transportation discrimination not to mention the 50% increase in pedestrian deaths since 2010 (two such deaths in Burlington). 

In the larger picture of discrimination, people of color die at 50-90% higher rates per population than white-non-hispanic (Native Americans 2 to 3 times the lower "white" rate). We must assure the highest level of quality and safe pedestrian facilities in our urban neighborhoods, particularly where there are numbers of low income and persons of color—something totally lacking in the current Parkway and REP. With tabulations showing a bicycle or pedestrian injury weekly in Burlington (plus two car occupant injuries) and a bicycle or pedestrian death every five years, safety on our streets is major concern.

  Parkway/Railyard Enterprise and the Controlled Access Versus a Complete, Equality Street Standard

The Parkway and Railyard Enterprise Project are a vestige of 80 year old ring-road around Burlington concept with the circle to be closed from I 189 by the Parkway through the South End, through the waterfront and Old North End to the VT 127 Beltline which dates from the 1980s— finally the completed circle via the Circumferential Highway from Colchester through Essex to VT 289 and interchange with I 89. The Circumferential Highway was effectively canceled by Governor Shumlin in 2011 and the waterfront/Old North End section of the ring road was discarded decades before. 

Pine Street Coalition has assumed from a the start the “controlled access” of the interstate is relaxed, ending at the I 189/Pine Street/Queen City Park Rd/RIGHTway interchange intersection. From that intersection pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as additional intersections (like one at the City Market South End parking access, for example) could be installed as the RIGHTway onward becomes an ordinary busy street following the Vermont Complete Streets Law (2011) which calls for safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists, a step now better described as employing the “equality street” model contained in the City’s North Avenue Corridor Plan or the Pine Street/VRJA/Fortieth Burlington, Champlain RIGHTway design guidelines necessitated by the presence of a community of color and a number of safety considerations, pedestrian safety paramount. 

  The “Shared Use” Pedestrian/Bicycle Facility—Second Class, Racial and Low Income Discriminatory

    Accommodation for Bicyclists and Especially Pedestrians

The current design of the Parkway and REP both utilize either nothing or a shared use path (REP) exclusively thereby mixing high speed bicycles and e-bikes with on foot children, families, and those who move either temporarily or permanently by cane and walker. In a rural setting this might be satisfactory but in a busy metropolitan center like the South End of Burlington with practically unlimited space for a sidewalk and separate 2-way bike lane through out the REP and Parkway use of a shared use path considering the community of color is nothing but straight, blatant racial discrimination and injustice! 

It can be expected the REP/Parkway which connects at either end with the Burlington Bikepath (a recreation path) will bring a large number of visitors and City residents making a “circle” tour—Bikepath and "South End Bikeway”—as Pine Street supporters envision thereby aiding the South End economy. Further the longer term promise of a full service bikeway from the north tip of ONE south to Queen City Park Road is moved ahead with the “South End Bikeway.” South End residents during public meetings on the REP expressed the importance of their using the REP to access the Bikepath—now with only two South End at grade connections—one via Austin Drive/Oakledge Park and the other at Harrison Street opposite Sears Lane. Note the “new” Parkway roadway sections with right-of-way acquired decades ago (including Road to Nowhere) are about 100 feet in width to accommodate the early planned four lane divided highway, now to be two lanes requiring less than half the 100 foot width. Spending $100 million where there is more than sufficient right-of-way and getting not a single inch of sidewalk or separate bikeway is pathological and discriminating street design! 

  North Street and Beyond 

Burlington has a major task before it addressing the 20—all but one signalized—intersections on the State high crash list, 18% of the 111 statewide and averaging 1.5 injuries a year. The 19 signalized intersections (not all were tabulated in the statewide report) represent over one in four of Burlington’s traffic signals which total about 75. Not surprisingly many of the high crash signalized intersections are in the Old North End (ONE), including four of the six on North Street between North Avenue and North Union. North Street with its many commercial businesses is truly a “community street” and it can easily and cheaply be converted from perhaps the least safe Vermont community street to the most safe using the knowledge developed in the South End RIGHTway, the Environmental Justice process now ending, and the North Avenue Corridor Plan endeavors. The inexpensive mini roundabout first suggested in the AARP Vermont Pine Street Workshop (2014) is particularly adapted to the narrow right of way along North Street. So, the many lessons learned during the past several years can be applied to problem streets and intersections throughout Burlington. 

Tony Redington 

onyRVT99@gmail.com