Comment on Champlain Parkway in the Vermont Digger Srory Today

Posted by Tony Redington

The Parkway design now set for construction actually features not a single inch of quality

 walkable/bikable or even high safety drivable roadway. Against the City’s walk bike council 

advisory developed over six months and delivered to Mayor Weinburger in December, not a 

single recommendation can be found in the design–no separate walkway and bicycle 

facilities to assure safety, and not a single roundabout to assure safety for each mode at 

busy intersections. And, the lack of connectivity from Pine St. to points south using a 

roundabout gets shelved. A “Happy Days” 1950s design prevails for the Parkway which 

guarantees decades of relative desolation and commercial blight for the South End. Most 

important will be the needless serious injuries and a fatal or two over the life of the project 

which quality design prevents. Clearly the design represents an indelible black mark for the 

VTrans leadership of Secretary Minter and Mayor Weinberger whose administrators 

continue to mislead the community about this wolf in sheep’s clothing. One merely lays the 

landmark 2.8 mile North Avenue Corridor plan adopted last October against the Parkway to 

see the obvious fatal flaws in the South End project.

City Snookered by State Highway Agency?

Is the Vermont Agency of Transportation Snookering the City on the Champlain Parkway?

Any careful observer of the evolution of the Champlain Parkway since the last full public hearing in the fall of 2006 might guess the latest meager crumbs this year of public information indicates a complete abandonment by the State to any improvements at all along Pine Street and Lakeside Avenue—the project now may be just the “new” roadway from the base of Pine Street with intersections at Home and Flynn Avenues ending at new third signal intersection at Lakeside Avenue.

For nine years the public of Burlington mostly resemble an audience at a long play with the curtain never going up as a number of major changes develop on stage. As a practical matter for the $43 million project there remains no playbill, a simple public document describing what the Parkway is all about in the first place and noting the changes, if any, since 2006. Some involved in Act 250 say there will be a signal at Maple and Pine Streets but how would the public know if that is true?

Earlier this year a strange almost surreal exercise took place at the Burlington Walk Bike Council as attendees were asked to move lines around on Pine Street without being able to move the curblines as one would do if the Parkway project were a re-construction as described in early renderings. The current project in addition to new roadway includes the intersection Lakeside Avenue then existing street to Pine Street, then north on Pine Street to the Maple Street intersection where the Parkway project ends. At least that was the case in 2006. Now, apparently nothing really is involved on either Lakeside or Pine except for rearranging pavement markings.

Some would like for the Parkway project to respond in a meaningful way to further agreed upon aspects of the vision contained in the planBTV South End draft plan recently released. But a Parkway plan—certainly the resources are there—as recently intimated will do nothing of the sort.

Of course from what we know those interested in quality, high safety facilities for all who can walk, bike and travel by vehicle were left out of the 2006 design—yes, there is not an inch, not a penny of walkable or bikable along the route and not a single safe intersection for those traveling by car. Reduce delay for all? No. Energy efficient? No. Minimum pollutant and global warming emissions? No. Any roundabouts?  No.  Any cycle track (protected bike lanes)?  No.

So, the question remains shrouded in mystery behind the curtain out of sight of the public—what is the Champlain Parkway and why have nine years gone by without a plain and simple document that residents can ponder over and discuss? The latest on Pine and Lakeside appears to indicate the Vermont Agency of Transportation has abandoned any consideration of carrying through on investments to benefit the South End along Pine Street and Lakeside Avenue—how sad if true that 98% federal/State funding of those potential benefits have been lost somewhere in goings on behind the curtain. Looks like the City may be snookered by the Agency. Time to raise the curtain? 

First Northeast Roundabout Becomes 20-something

The First Modern Roundabout East of Colorado and North of Maryland Reaches 20^th Birthday This August: Keck Circle Montpelier, VT.

At eventide on August 16, 1995 just after application of the Spring and Main Streets modern roundabout's first course asphalt paving, two young bicyclists circled a time or two on the still hot circular travelway. A few minutes later after the paving equipment fully cleared, traffic barriers came down and the first modern roundabout in the northeast opened for four-wheeled vehicles too. So began the first hour of Keck Circle in Montpelier, Vermont's first roundabout--the first north of Maryland and east of Colorado, and 19^th built in the U.S.

That roundabout, Keck Circle, so named by City Council action commemorates citizen-activist and member of the Montpelier Roundabout Committee Andy Keck who died just weeks before the opening of his namesake roundabout, is located a block from grades 6-8 Main Street Middle School. Keck Circle traffic calms a block or two along each leg including the main crossing to the school, and has never been found to require crossing guard protection at school times. To all Montpelier school students today Keck Circle has been in place their entire lives. The roundabout defines one of the four corners of the simple rectangular Vermont Capital City downtown street grid composed of north-south Main and Elm Streets and east-west Spring and State Streets.

Controversial up to and in its early operation, a survey a year later found 85% acceptance and support. That survey was the first U.S. public opinion survey undertaken on a roundabout after construction. To date in almost 20 years of operation no serious injuries were recorded and in the first decade injuries were less than the decade previous. With about 3,000 roundabouts built as of the end of 2014 in the U.S. and Canada not a single walk mode fatality was recorded. (In Burlington, VT two walk mode fatalities occurred at the City's 75 traffic signals between 1998-2014 alone and a third at a signal adjacent to the City border in South Burlington.)

The single lane roundabout with a diameter which averages about 106 feet continues to serve about the same traffic approaching along its three legs,12,000 total vehicles entering it on an average day. About 42 tractor trailers a day travel through the roundabout as it is located on Route 12, and large tour buses are a frequent users during the fall foliage season. Designed by Michael J. Wallwork, Alternate Street Design, Orange Park, FL, Montpelier leaders at the time were Mayor Charles Karparis, City Manager Ryan Cotton and Department of Public Works Director Steven Gray. The Montpelier Roundabout Committee members included: Peter Meyer and Tony Redington (co-chairs), Keck, Gray, then Police Chief Douglas Hoyt, Donna Bate, Alan Lendway and then City Planner Joseph Zehnder. Keck Circle cost $162,000 and involved only City funds. From concept to ready-to-construct, it took two years, then one additional to complete accommodation within the City budget.

Since the opening of the roundabout the other three major intersections along Main Street received favorable preliminary feasibility studies for roundabout conversion—Main and State, Main and Barre (now in detailed study), and across the Winooski Bridge at the south terminus of Main Street at River Street/Northfield Street/Memorial Drive. Montpelier's second roundabout, a single lane roundabout at US 2/302, opened in 2009. Through 2014 there are now 14 modern roundabouts with downtown roundabouts in addition to Keck Circle in Waterbury, Manchester Center (3) and Middlebury. The three roundabouts in Manchester Center with the last two completed in 2013 constitute the first Vermont corridor of roundabouts and first walkable busy corridor in the State.

Wallwork, one of a handful of engineers who designed and promoted roundabouts from their inception in the U.S. in 1990 through today, wrote in 1992: “...I predict that engineers will increasingly realize that traffic signals are not the cure-all and, adopting a more international outlook, roundabouts will proliferate in this last major bastion of the traffic signal. Roundabouts will be used in residential streets to reduce speeds and accidents, and on arterial roads to reduce accidents and provide higher capacity. In all instances they will be more cost effective and aesthetic...” (“Roundabouts for the U.S.A.” 1992).

In the United States, once first in highway safety, fatality rates continue to slide below now a total of 18 nations with top nations (including the U.K., birthplace of the roundabout, in first place). Roundabouts cut incapacitating and fatal injuries about 90% for all modes. The U.S. fatality rate per mlle of travel now is twice that of nations at the top of the list. This means about 20,000 additional deaths each year here, as reported by Malcolm Gladwell in New Yorker Magazine, May 4. Most of the nations ahead of the U.S. heavily invested in roundabouts as well as in urban areas a full range of safe walk and bike infrastructure.

To see Keck Circle in action at school closing one can view this 5 minute-43 second video taken on the afternoon of November 1, 2013 by R.J. Lalumiere of Burlington during a field visit of North Avenue Corridor Plan Advisory Committee members. http://goo.gl/DdajOC

Notes: 1. The public opinion survey report referenced, Montpelier's Modern Roundabout at Keck Circle Neighborhohod Opinion Survey: January 1997” can be viewed at:

http://www.alaskaroundabouts.com/KeckCircleSurvey.pdf

2. The New Yorker article referred to: “The Engineer's Lament” by Malcolm Gladwell, May 4, 2015 New Yorker Magazine

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-lament

3. The base reference for the “about 90%” reduction of “incapacitating and fatal injuries” obtained by installing roundabouts is: R. Retting, B. Persaud, P. Garder, D. Lord. (2001) “Crash and injury reduction following installation of roundabouts in the United States” American Journal of Public Health
. This study because of sample size did not apply directly to either bicycle or walk mode rates, only “all modes rate.” Separate studies of single lane roundabouts do show reductions of serious and fatal injury rates of about 90% for walk mode and bike mode.

COMMENTS ON COMPREHENSIVE VT ENERGY PLAN

Notre:  State Energy Plan "draft" handles in its transportation section all text devoted to walk and bike modes and rail passenger/rail freight in less than five pages

Comments for the 2015 Vermont “Comprehensive Energy Plan”

by

Tony Redington

Burlington, VT 05401

TonyRVT99@gmail.com TonyRVT.blogspot.com @TonyRVT08

July 23, 2015

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the 2015 draft Vermont “Comprehensive Energy Plan” (CEP). The period starting about 1990 marks a continuing

rapid and escalating change in all aspects of transportation, land use and demographics both here in Vermont and the nation. The 2011 current CEP largely failed to capture this ongoing process of change across the spectrum, but generation of data, new services, new infrastructure choices, and collapse of car-oriented finance for transportation investment and maintenance make it paramount that the 2015 plan not only recognize the changes, but also anticipates and aggressively supports all the key positive aspects of this new transportation/land use world whether that be in the area of commuter rail, an immediate adding of Ambus service from St. Albans and Montreal to connect with our Amtrak services to New York City and beyond, fostering building of urban roundabouts and cycle track in order to introduce for the first time walkable/bikable streets in Vermont cities and town centers for the first time, moving “free parking” to paid parking over time for those commuting and using public space, changing our transportation finance to recognize non-car auto taxation now is the new normal, and carefully re-tuning highway cost allocation to reflect new realities thereby reducing the subsidy we all pay for heavy trucks on our highway where a large portion never even stop in Vermont.

With the greatest area of petroleum use in Vermont found in the transportation sector—about half of State consumption—arguably addressing this sector provides both the greatest challenge and greatest opportunity for moving towards a fully sustainable human settlement in this unique State.

The following addresses some of these issues following the content of the CEP Volumes 1 and 2.

1. In the section outlining “strategies” and “measurable goals” for land use and transportation (Energy Plan, Volume 1 p. 15) actions include “tripling the number of spaces in the State park-and-ride program to 3,426 by 2030.”

This policy element is as effective as pouring water in a bottomless pail. Truly it is a measurable failure. The park-and-ride and ride program probably does little to encourage or even support auto-based rideshare, even if that were possible or desirable from benefit/cost standpoint. The decades long decline in rideshare likely continues, a trend since at least 1990 when 55,187 workers reported ridesharing to work, 24.9% of all commuters. All Census data since shows both a numerical and percentage decline to the ACS 2011 report of 31,421 ridesharing, down to 9.9%of all commuters. Since park-and-ride lots may well occupy prime land for high level value development, current lots should be reviewed for sale for that very purpose.

Providing convenient parking spaces—practically all surface parking—at key intersections of major arterials is both expensive and and the least valuable use of land. The Richmond park-and-ride lot expansion required by the success of commuter Link buses but not by rideshare demand, and the installation of a dangerous stoplight remains a certain source of a serious injury.

Solo journey-to-work grew until 2000 hitting 75% and since declined very slightly to a point between 74.0 and 75.0 percent in every ACS survey since. The slight decline remains very significant in view of the aforementioned decline in rideshare—this means the a shift of both rideshare and solo commutes both recently moved into negative territory. Because of the decline in rideshare, the total worker commute by car topped out at 87.1% in 2010 and since in three ACS samples has averaged 84.5. A one-percent shift is not insignificant since each percent point change represents a shift of about 32,000 Vermont workers. The current Burlngton Link commuter bus services began in 2003 serves about 500 daily commuters, and my recent study of commuter rail along three corridors out of Burlington estimates about 2,200 served while a lower number, perhaps 200 continue on reduced Link services. Overall, commuting by car declined since 2000 while walking, bicycle, work at home and public transit

increased at an average well into double digits.

The rapid change in demographics—such as, absolute population decline since 2010 in nine of Vermont's 14 counties and the doubling of the senior population to 24% total population between 2010 and 2030—require a full re-examination of not just how to improve “efficiency” of worker commuting but also how the entire population travels and how travel can be accommodated for all types of trips. Using the official Vermont population projections, we are experiencing an increase of about 4,500 new seniors each year and an reduction in under 65-aged population in excess of 2,000 a year. While the 4,500 “homegrown” senior population grew yearly or about 18,000 2010-2014, overall population in Vermont according to Census increased less than 1,000.

These factors of demographics and modal shift alone imply both relatively major land use and transportation considerations, the re-emergence with a vengeance of every mode other than carcentric forms, and providing proper incentives for re-vitalizing town center and city transportation systems with, for the first time, quality/safe walk/bike infrastructure allowing those two mode to take an equal place in the transportation marketplace, as well as intercity-commuter passenger rail and in more than one case light rail services.

2. In the section outlining “strategies” and “measurable goals” for land use and transportation (Energy Plan, Volume 1 p. 15) actions include fostering more compact land uses though efforts at the State, regional, and local level.

This entire discussion misses the basic transportation equation—if you cannot improve, capacity and service to particular modes while retaining a modicum of safety, no changes occur in land use or travel modes other than those dictated primarily by household incomes and demographics. That is the nature of the transportation/land use equation. The reason for sprawl—other than huge public expenditures to foster it through car subsidies—remained in great part streets and intersections unable to handle vehicle traffic. This forced the well known devolution of alternative modes so dependent on high densities—walking, bicycling and transit—still dominating much of Vermont urban landscapes, particularly in Chittenden County. Two infrastructure inventions, the roundabout in 1966 and cycle track in the 1990s, increase intersection capacities by about half, reduce delay for all modes, and overall can reduce serious and fatal injuries for all modes up to 90%. Because of the safety gains these innovations provide thereby fostering alternative modes, and because the roundabout improves safety, service and capacity for ALL modes, densities can increase and growth of walking and bicycling in downtowns and village centers can now begin. To see these dynamics in reality one can visit any of the Vermont downtown examples, first and foremost the State's first roundabout corridor in Manchester Center and the downtown roundabouts in Middlebury, Montpelier and Waterbury.

For the first time, transportation designers and policy makers have a all-modes opportunity to make urban areas and town centers walkable and bikable—and yes drivable.

So, the primary State planning goal of compact urban and town centers separated by rural countryside can be in fact achieved, not the impossible dream really was when first entered into legislation more than a half century ago when the landscape remained under siege by seemingly limitless resources being plowed into car ownership and operation. That siege suddenly has lifted.

Note the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) calls for converting existing stoplights to roundabouts (and not to build new ones) as half of all senior driver deaths occur at signalized intersections compared to less than a quarter for those younger. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2000) found U.S. roundabout cut serious and fatal injuries about 90%--from about 1990 the U.S. has dropped relatively like a stone compared to leading nations, from first to 19^th in fatalities per mile of vehicle travel, twice the rate of the top nations including the U.K. at number one.

Sensible housing policy (placing housing near services with walkable/bikable/transit), provision of mixed use development, and slow weening of Vermonters off car and truck public subsidies (about 43% of all highway construction and maintenance comes from general not vehicle levies according to a just released study by USPIRG) promises both a major reduction of vehicle miles of travel and associated motor fuel consumption, but also major economic gains in incomes, health, and resources badly needed in human services areas by government.

3. In the section outlining “strategies” and “measurable goals” for land use and transportation (Energy Plan, Volume 1 p. 15) rail passenger service gets an insignificant and total comment “...the State must continue to support...rail passenger initiatives that dovetail with northeast and Canadian rail initiatives (sic)”.

The 2011 plan process did not catch the rapid shift of commuters to and from Burlngton along “Link” corridors, now more than 50 buses daily between Burlington and Middlebury/Montpelier/Milton/Jefferfsonvile/St. Albans. With daily commuters approaching 600 and 330 commuters served between Burlington-Montpelier, the Link services represent the key mode change in Vermont commuting patterns. All modes other than car commuting are up and solo/rideshare car commuting trends downward. Note the huge benefit to the Burlington-Montpelier commuter who saves $8,000 in after tax income for taking the Link service over the solo commute by car.

Because of the 130 or so commuters from Montpelier have one destination—Burlington--the Link service tells us that the Montpelier and four surrounding towns has about a quarter of its total workers traveling to Burlington taking the Link each workday. This “market” data using journey-to-work Census information constitutes the major yardstick for estimating commuter rail potential when reasonably applied to the three rail corridors potentially served out of Burlington. Compared to the three towns served by Link between Montpelier-Burlington, for example, commuter rail can serve seven plus Technology Park in Essex Jct. In the same travel time as the Burlington-Montpelier Link.

While Amtrak on/off passengers in 2014 totaled 106,000, commuter rail Burlington-Montpelier service estimate would be five times that number, 550,000 and with the additional two corridors, total annual on/off passengers 953,000. Overall over 2,000 Vermont journey-to-work trips would be represented with the three rail corridor commuter service, a number equivalent to about 5% of the total workers crossing the Burlington border to and from work each day, 1% of solo drivers statewide, 7% of rideshare statewide, and 80% of cyclists statewide.

An immediate increase in Amtrak passengers—about a 15% increase or 17,000—can occur by just contracting an Ambus to connect the Vermonter at St. Albans to Montreal. This service likely cuts the current State support for Amtrak from $8 million to $7 million overnight. This really constitutes a no-regrets action—if the bus fails to earn its keep, the service can be ended.

4. The modern roundabout installed in 200 Vermont busy intersections promise about a 3% reduction in current levels of motor fuels use in the State: the reductions come in three parts: (1) direct motor fuel reductions short term (2) medium term reductions from from increased development densities and modal shifts altogether; and (3) long term reductions from the same combination of change, modal shift and higher density land development.
   The reductions in motor fuel consumption and associated emissions, about 30% compared to signals not only has been determined empirically and in models but is also calculated routinely in roundabout analysis in U.K. and Australian developed software which dominate U.S. traffic analysis.
   One Greek case study using an empirical “car following”method to determine annual fuel consumption and related emissions employed a before-and-after set of data on a signalized intersection converted to a roundabout. That study of an intersection with 23,500 vehicles a day entering compares reasonably with Vermont busy intersection conversions such as, Montpelier US 2/302 roundabout conversion with 21,000 vehicles per day and Brattleboro's Keene Turn Roundabout with 28,000 vehicles per day including an usually high 900 tractor trailers daily.
   The reduction in fuel totaled almost 19,000 gallons annualized. With about 400 signalized Vermont intersections it is fair to estimate about 200 busy intersections is a reasonable objective for roundabout conversion at least one criteria being impact on fuel consumption. Certainly about 90% of signalized intersections are roundabout-conversion feasible.

Conversion of 200 busy intersections to roundabouts with a resulting average 19,000 gallon annual reduction in fuel consumption represents a 1.2% decrease in the 2012 Vermont consumption of 307 million gallons of motor fuel. Another 1.2% in the medium term”, 10 years, can be estimated and a third 1.2% for the “long term”, 10-20 years, comprised of a combination of modal shifts to non-motor vehicle travel combined by the impacts of increased development densities. Overall, the 200 signal-to-roundabout conversions represent a 3.6% decline in motor fuel consumption. This does not address the ancillary benefits of hundreds of thousands of hours of reduced travel time for all modes, injuries and fatalities avoided, and improved scenic quality.

5. The 2010 plan miscalculates both post-2000 Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel (AVMT) but also presents a slow growth AVMT scenario already proven not to be the case.

First, the 2000-2010 growth to 7 billion-plus AVMT clearly is in error. Vermont AVMT growth for the period likely was less than the 3.1% average growth rate for all New England AVMT for the period leaving Vermont AVMT below 7 billion AVMT as of 2010. The Vermont AVMT actually declined 1.8% 2010-2013, a figure which is reasonable when compared to other Ne England States (all but Massachusetts declined). The problem with Vermont 2000-2010 change of AMVT occurred in two changes in how the State calculated AVMT during the period—the lack of a consistent method skewed the 2000-2010 upward.

Second, as Vermont population growth slowed more than expected (dipping into negative territory in a recent year) and the 2014 Census data showing population decline in nine of fourteen counties clearly indicate a slow growth in AVMT regardless of other factors. But, the growth of the senior population factor—about a half percent of Vermont population each year or about 3,000, shifts into the senior age category while the under-65 population slowly declines. This trend reflected in the official State population estimates means—all other factors equal—a slow and steady decline in AVMT as that over-65 driver mile-per-year over the decades has remained 40% below the under-65 aged driver. So, Vermont absent any other factors can anticipate a flat to slow downtrend in AVMT at least through 2030 based on demographics alone.

Of course other factors are not equal—the under 30 age group driver license proportions have dropped, employers and public policy pushes for reduced solo driving, and there are clear indications of decreased public financed of motor vehicle use.

One of the major areas for action is abandoning “free” parking for solo driving Vermont workers who burden the public and private sector with $120 million year parking costs.

6. Transportation finance must move away from vehicle taxes to support needed non-vehicle services.

USPIRG in a report this year found 42% of the investment and maintenance of highways came from non-user funding. The federal government ended motor vehicle taxes to support the so-called Highway Trust Fund about three years ago and currently is considering a number of non-motor vehicle taxes of about $8 billion to keep federal transportation programs continuing for a short time. At the state level Virginia abolished the gas tax last year and funds all highways through an across the board dedicated sales tax. Nothing complicated here—car travel decline combined with rapid growth of all other modes (walk, bike, rail, bus, etc.) means other sources must be tapped. Vermont must address these new reality—commuter rail, for example, might be funded by a northwest/central Vermont dedicated sales tax. And, subsidies of high-petroleum use/polluting heavy trucks by everyone else needs to

stop.

Most important our urban areas and town centers needs a $100-$200 million immediate investment in modern, quality, safe walk and bike infrastructure to respond to making a reality safe, multi-modal transportation increasingly found in our town and regional plans.

7. Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel (AVMT) Exhibit 9-7 appears seriously flawed; Exhibit 9-8 similarly historically misleading.

The picture presented of Vermont change in Exhibit 9-7 appears seriously in error, representing a false trend line. The growth 1980-1990 appears about 25% versus actual growth of 57%. From 1990 to 2000 growth collapsed to 16%, then about 3% (using New England average) 2000—2010, turning negative about 2008 and never reaching that number since. The sharply reduced growth in AVMT was known to the VAOT in a study and an analysis in the 1989-1991 period when a 20% growth (overstated by about 20% as it turned out) was projected 1990-2000. This graph needs to be revised to reflect the real trends it fails to reflect.

Exhibit 9-8, of course, must be replaced by now historic data showing a downtrend/flatlining in AVMT from 2008 forward (note earlier comments that the Vermont peak never hit 7 billion AVMT because of changes in Vermont calculations of AVMT made a one time unjustifiable increase in the figure subsequently used as a base for annual calculations thereafter). As AVMT represents a key metric, Vermont's numbers for the 2000 forward need to be revised to better reflect actual levels. Because HPMS and motor fuels—along with comparisons with other New England States—serve as a guide, such a revision in numbers for 2000 and after do not pose a major obstacle.

Without accurate trends and inventory, policy discussions and setting objectives become exceedingly difficult and lead to a mis-allocation of scarce resources.

8. Public transportation, walking and bicycling—the three rabbits along with one horse, the car, in the transportation horse and rabbit stew
   While Vermont households spend about $2 billion in their household budget for car-based transportation, they spend perhaps $10 million for public transit including Amtrak, walking and bicycling. Now it is well understood that a network of intercity and commuter rail as well as modern high quality and safe walk/bike infrastructure is not only possible but a market driven demand, sizable investments are needed outside of highway taxation stream to fund these burgeoning transportation modes while decreasing subsidies to all forms of motor vehicle transport except the public transport vehicles.
   It is noteworthy that less than five pages is devoted to walk, bike and rail passenger modes even though these three can represent more than half the urban trips in some urban planning. In Copenhagen, bike trips topping half of all urban trips in about two years has been a goal since 2000. Commuter, intercity and light rail along with walk/bike modes shares of 20% or more represent the very minimum that CEP needs to recommend along with estimates of modal shifts from vehicle miles, car registrations, etc. (Note that in a recent month there was a 1,000 vehicle decline in registered cars and light trucks in Vermont.)

Thank for the opportunity to submit these comments.

Burlington Going All Dutch Cycle Track in Walk/Bike Master Plan?

Burlington Vermont with 45 Miles of Cycle Track—Going Dutch

Burlington walk/bike advocates look to cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen as examples to emulate. For cycling what would Burlington major streets be like with the Netherlands cycle track (protected bike lanes) per person?

An American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) survey found only one percent of 5,000 Burlington seniors bicycle for routine trips to shop, do errands and visit friends. It is one thing to bicycle on quiet residential streets and quite another for bicycling on busy urban arterials where only the young risk takers dare walk and bike. Bicycling remains the province of mostly young adult males everywhere—and for cities like Burlington will remain so in the future until infrastructure—cycle track for busy street sections and roundabouts to provide safe passage and traffic calming at intersections—gets built.

Right now, Burlington has 5 miles of cycle track in its landmark corridor approved plan, the North Avenue Corridor Plan (NACP) with a design free of dooring from adjacent parked vehicles. On a per person basis—there are 18,000 miles of cycle track in the Netherlands—Burlington would feature 45 miles of “track”--compared to the 127 miles of sidewalk, for example, that the City maintains year round.

As a matter of fact 45 miles of cycle track installed likely lines all of Burlington busy streets. Again, unlike sidewalks which the usual treatment on both sides of every street in the City—cycle track generally gets installed only on busy key corridors with most “local” streets considered safe and bikable by most of the population. Cycle track mostly would be on what transportation planners call collector and arterial streets. The 45 miles of cycle track would come in two basic forms—a two-way bikeway or single lane protected bike lanes about six feet wide on either side of the street. The bikeway or lanes can be built either at the vehicle lane level the sidewalk level or in between. Curbing, flexible posts or just about any other barrier can be employed to separate cyclists from vehicle lanes—just as sidewalks are separated. And in a given long corridor the cycle track configuration can change along the way.

Obviously, 45 miles of cycle track—North Avenue from North Street to Plattsburgh Avenue being 5.6 miles—means most of the major corridor streets in the City including but no limited to:

--the North Union from North Winooski-South Union (to Main Street)

--North Winooksi Avenue from Riverside to Main Street

--all of Pine Street (assuming reconnection through the Burlington Town Mall)

--North Champlain

--North Street

--Battery Street

--Pearl Street

--Main Street from Union Station to University Heights-So. Burlington border

--East Avenue

--Colchester Avenue

--College Street

--Several street sections related to the UVM and Champlain College campuses as well as UVMMC

--Lakeside Avenue

--Sections of North and South Prospect Streets and North and South Willard Streets

--Shelburne Street, lower St. Paul and So. Willard Streets

Right now the City does not have a busy street roundabout or an inch of cycle track. The only cycle track in Vermont was built a decade ago on the street segments of Dorset Street, South Burlington between Williston Road and Kennedy Drive.

The Walk Bike Master Plan process faces an easy task for identifying and some prioritizing cycle track (except for North Avenue) and roundabouts for safe walk-bike infrastructure so all residents and visitors can enjoy safe walkable-bikable busy streets here regardless of age and skill. Just go all Dutch! 

VT Digger Posted Comment Today on Burlington Bikepath Foundation Fund Raising

While seasonal bikepaths represent an important economic and health benefit to a community, so do safe, walkabe/bikable streets where the City’s record over the last 34 years is perfect–little to no quality/safe infrastructure. Even more disturbing is the seven year timeline for its first safe intersection project at Shelburne Street and a $30 million design for the Champlain Parkway without a single intersection or street segment with safe, separate pathways for the cyclist and walker. With a walk/bike fatality on a Burlington stoplight intersection every three years the place to invest is not hard to find. Burlington now trails even some Vermont cities and towns in safe, quality walk/bike infrastructure on busy streets.
Tony Redington @TonyRVT08

Vermont Rail Safety--Crossings Needs and Positive Train Control

Vermont: No Positive Train Control (PTC),  Lot of Rail/highway Crossings Needing Active Warning Systems

The recent death here in Vermont of a person walking along the tracks hit by the Vermonter Amtrak train and the tragic—technically preventable if the planned investments had been completed---four fatalities and dozens of injuries both point to America’s antiquated rail safety systems.  There are probably about 30 rail/highway crossings along Amtrak routes here which are very dangerous with no active warning or insufficient active warning—many which underwent review team analyses recommending active warning (gates and flashers) or upgrades to gates/flashers from flashers only.  There are literally only a handful of busy rail/highway crossings in the State with sufficient sight distances to obviate the need for active warning.  And “positive train control” (PTC), the system which stops down train speeds or literally stops them when required when engineers make mistakes like the one in Philadelphia—not going to be done according to one rail policy maker here as Vermont’s two passenger trains a day along with a few freight trains does not as of today force PTC installation.  Another safety “compromise”?  Yes, PTC is expensive, about $100,000 a mile.  Still federal highway officials value a life saved at $9.1 million (1999 dollars).   In New York State, for example, every public crossing with a passenger train has active warning so as the Ethan Allen Amtrak trains cruises though several crossings in Rutland, Fair Haven and Castleton without active warning, the train enters New York State where every crossing has at least flashers.  Two recent Vermont injuries at rail/highway crossings along the Amtrak Vermonter route both involved crossings with no active warning system.  Oh, one in four rail-highway crossing injuries is fatal compared to one in 75 car occupant injuries.