REGION WALK BIKE PLAN COMMENTS TAKEN UNTIL FRIDAY, APRIL 30
Comments by
Tony
Redington
on
the
Draft
“Chittenden County Active Transportation Plan—Recommendations
March 26, 2016”
April 24, 2016
My name
is Tony Redington and am a resident of 20 North Winooski Ave.,
Burlington, VT. I am not a car owner and move about the City all
year on foot and by bicycle and public transit. Am an active member
of: Neighborhood Planning Assembly 2/3 (NPA 2/3), the Burlington Walk
Bike Council (BWBC), Safe Streets Burlington (SSB), the Pine Street
Coalition PSC), AARP Vermont Livable Communities Group, and the
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP). Also a member
since the formation of the Vermont Bicycle Pedestrian Coalition
(VBPC) in 1993, now merged into Local Motion (LM) in Burlington.
First,
some general comments on the draft “Chittenden County Active
Transportation Plan” (ATP) produced by the Chittenden Regional
Planning Commission (CCRPC). With exception of perhaps a few blocks
(and no intersections) for bicyclists along Dorset Street and the
four blocks and adjacent street sections (but not intersections) of
the Marketplace for pedestrians, there is not a walkable/bikable
transportation facility in the County along busy streets (collector
and arterials). (By transportation facilities in these comments, it
is meant a facility must be available 24/365 with lighting and winter
maintenance--and possess for other than local street sections,
all-modes safe connectivity, i.e., in most cases modern roundabouts
or strong traffic calming at intersections.) Also important, because
there are no safe busy intersections for the walk mode other than
the Marketplace and none for the bicycle mode, there are no “low
stress” corridors of two or more blocks because there are no “low
stress” intersections. The ATP top rank of a “1” for “low
stress” remains truly a mirage in our County.
The term
“mirage” for walkable and bikable is not an overstatement of
current conditions. Burlingtonians point with pride at the Church
Street Marketplace completed over three decades ago in 1981.
Meanwhile the current Walk Bike Master Plan uncovered an ugly set of
intersections pedestrian injury data. Every single intersection
along South Winooski Avenue from Pearl Street to Main Street made the
“dirty 17” pedestrian crash list with at least one injury per
year 2011-2014. How disturbing it is that perhaps the safest stretch
of street--the Marketplace—has a parallel street where every single
intersection is high pedestrian injury crash site—a true street Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hide in parallel streets!.
As the
CCRPC staff and consultants well know, with a half century of data on
five downtown/town center roundabouts and the Burlington Walk Bike
Master Plan data on pedestrian injuries (2011-2014) note carefully
the following:
a. in a
52 year span Vermont roundabouts recorded one non-serious pedestrian
injury and four minor car occupant injuries. Pedestrian injuries
rate for the five roundabouts was under
two injuries per century for each intersection.
b.
Burlington at 17 intersections (13 signalized) experienced almost one
injury per intersection per year (0.9). Pedestrian injuries rates
(which included one fatality) for the 17 intersections currently
average 90 injuries per
century for each intersection.
Vermont
and U.S. walk and bike injuries are on the rise and our rates of
injuries and fatalities for healthy modes are about three times that
of urban Germany and the Netherlands where a large cross section of
the population bicycles compared to mostly young adult males
bicycling here in Vermont (about two thirds male nationally).
Bicycling
and walking safety is serious business but one would not know it by
reading the draft ATP. The five most recent urban fatalities in
Burlington/South Burlington occurred at signalized intersections
(three pedestrians, two drivers and a cyclist). Nowhere in ATP is
the “problem” of bicycle and pedestrian safety identified,
discussed or addressed in a quantitative manner.
Nor does
the draft ATP recognize or address the new federal highway planning
regulations which require Chittenden Country Regional Planning
(CCRPC) to calculate rates of bike and pedestrian injuries rates
separately for a five year period (and separately from motor vehicle
injury rates), and produce a plan for reducing those rates along with
specific measurable progress methods. In other words ATP is not in
conformance with new federal highway planning regulation and policy
directives as actual walk and bike injuries are not addressed and
remedies identified—even qualitative analysis would be a start.
(No paint and bulbouts please!)
When
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx earlier this year
announced the new walk, bike, and motor vehicle safety management
requirements for state agencies and metropolitan agencies like CCRPC,
he went out of his way to express concern for the increase in walker
and bicyclist deaths in America.
While my
own interest is primarily safety for the walking mode, the only
treatment available for routine application for busy intersection
safety for those who walk is the roundabout, therefore the addition
of roundabouts to my walking advocacy. The importance of the
roundabout to walk safety is investigated in my Canadian
Transportation Research Forum (CTRF) paper “Modern Roundabout
Technology Unlocks the Stifled Walking Mode in Canada and the United
States—Toward a Roundabout
Centered 'Walking Service Level' Classification.”
The
paper presented in 2010 contains an addendum, an evolution of the
CTRF 2010 classification. It turns out the roundabout—long prized
for its safety benefits for car occupants—promises nearly the same
level of benefit to the cyclist as the cycle track era has emerged
and bicycle accommodation in roundabout design marked evolved.
Clearly,
the modern roundabout with a 0.1 “crash modification factor”
(i.e., reducing the rate of injuries by about 90% in the single lane
format for each mode) which can be applied to walk and properly
designed accommodations for cyclists. In the one lane format the
roundabout represents a no-regrets approach to addressing absolutely
deplorable injury rates now for those who walk and bike (much less to
those who occupy motor vehicles) in our County. AARP supports
converting signals to roundabouts for safety. Dan Burden in his
Burlington AARP livable communities workshop in 2014 calls for all
roundabouts along the lower Pine Street corridor (from Pine and Maple
Street southward). Burlington's land mark North Avenue Corridor Plan
with a goal of a world class, safest for all modes 2.8 mile street
calls for at least three of seven signals replaced by roundabouts and
cycle track (dooring free) end to end. (Did not see dooring free
lanes addressed in ATP—perhaps it is there.) These reports and
recommendations and plans can be identified or at least be annotated
in the report.
The
absence of any mention of the Champlain Parkway current design in the
draft ATP also speaks volumes as the current design would
significantly increase both bicycle and pedestrian crash numbers, not
only from increased rates of exposure in the South End of Burlington
but in great part from introducing four particular traffic signal
systems—Sears Lane/Parkway, an entirely new pedestrian
intersection; Flynn Avenue/Parkway where a T sign-control
intersection becomes a more dangerous signalized cross intersection;
and converting two four-way stop intersection--viewed as the safest
sign or signal control approach—to quite likely a far more
pedestrian crash producing signalized control.
To
advocate in a government policy document residents to walk and bike
without addressing the fundamental lack of safety for these modes on
busy County streets from lack of proper and safe infrastructure in
effect recommends our residents—young and old—undertake
activities known to be hazardous to our collective health.
Five
corridors of three or more roundabouts in Vermont are in various
stages of development: North Avenue, planning stage; Putney Road,
Brattleboro commercial corridor, 5 roundabouts, in final design
stage; Manchester, one built and one partially in place; and
Montpelier, one built, one in design and two others in plan stage.
Chittenden County outside of Burlington lags Vermont terribly in
highest safety level intersections for all modes—the roundabout,
the “intersection safety belt” (obviously in regard to walk and
bike modes applicable in this draft ATP).
With
over 5,000 U.S. roundabouts now and not a single pedestrian fatality
recorded in North America through 2015 since the first roundabout in
1990, it does not take much more evidence to conclude that both short
term and long term investments (as little as $50,000 for mini
roundabouts with the best safety record) must include the high
benefit cost ranking roundabout intersection conversions. Of course
one does not have to mention the annual reductions of 10,000 and over
motor fuel consumption at roundabouts over signals with 15,000-20,000
entering vehicles along with about a third reduction in global
warming gases and other pollutants—or the reduction of pedestrian
waiting times to less than five seconds. (Note, about 90% of County
signalized intersections can be converted to roundabouts and about
75% or more being single lane.)
In short
the draft ATP calls for the County to continue its devolution of walk
and bike safety while major Vermont towns and cities as well as
Counties pass our Chittenden County by in walkability and bikability.
Even Bennington County—home in a recent report to 30% of the high
accident top 100 statewide intersections list by the Agency of
Transportation--this very day has it first roundabout under
construction as the entrance to its new Walmart.
Please
consider the following specific comments:
Page
6--Additional Goals for Next Decade
Please add:
a.
Install at least one all-modes low-stress intersection (primarily
single lane roundabouts) in each County City and Town Center.
b.
Install at least one all-modes low stress corridor of three or more
roundabouts
Page
7 Conclusions of Existing Conditions Assessment. First sentence:
Chittenden County is making great strides in advancing its inventory
of bicycling facilities.”
This statement is a flat out lie. Suggest the following:
“Chittenden County first and foremost needs to make it first
significant strides In advancing an inventory of low-stress bicycle
facilities.” The only low-stress transportation facilities in the
County (versus seasonal facilities) are cycle track on a section of
Dorset Street in So. Burlington and some multi-use facilities, such
as the Kennedy Drive between Dorset Street and VT 116. Would
suggest a listing of these and perhaps others I may not be aware of
somewhere in the report. By definition “low stress” would
include cycle track and roundabout intersections (such as the
Burlington Shelburne Street roundabout design) where a cyclist has a
choice of “taking the circular travelway” and/or a separate
pathed (Assen, NL design preferred). Other than “low stress”
facilities the vast majority of those able and willing to bike do
not and cannot (safely) bicycle in the County. Year round
facilities, of course, mean both adequately lighted and plowed
(similar in nature to the Montpelier East and West Bikepaths now
scheduled to be connected by a one-lane Main Street roundabout).
These comments are consistent with the Illinois State Bicycle
Facilities Plan (2015).
Page
7—Last sentence: “....and safer walking and bicycling”
More walking and bicycling within the County does not necessarily
result in “safer walking and bicycling.” More bicycling without
sufficient walk facilities can lead to more congestion and lack of
safety for the walk mode. Probably not the most important
comment—but the connection is very weak.
Page
12--Crash Frequency: Bicyclists and Pedestrians
First, pedestrian safety and needs always end up last in
consideration but always should be first. Everyone walks and must
walk at certain points. Same cannot be said of bicycling. The
entire emphasis of this chart misleads. There is a general level of
unacceptable frequencies of crashes for each and every mode in the
County because of the lack of safe infrastructure—sidewalks and
cycle track on busy streets and all-modes safe intersections
(mostly roundabouts). With a downtown frequency of only one
pedestrian crash in over a half century (five roundabouts in
Manchester, Middlebury and Montpelier) and just four minor car
occupant injuries at those same intersections—any busy
intersection with a disabling injury per decade or so for any mode
operates at a questionable level and requires attention, placed on a
list and prioritized for conversion to low-stress, safe status.
Page
13—Public Input: Charettes and Wikimap
Since the County does not have a low-stress busy intersection or
bicycle street cycle track (excluding the three Church Street
Marketplace intersections for the walk mode and cycle track along
Dorsett Street for bike mode) holding charrettes and interviewing
local residents of the County hardly represents public input. A
2004 charrette in Montpelier about City needs came up with two—more
roundabouts and a bus circulator service (both implemented with one
additional roundabout in place and at least two more on the way).
Page 13 represents at worst planning malpractice.
Page
14 Public Input—North Avenue [Burlington]
The reference to North Avenue needs to addressed at some point by
referencing the North Avenue Corridor Plan which calls for car-free
cycle track from end to end of the corridor and converting at least
three of seven signalized intersections to roundabouts. Suggest a
note number or asterisk with this information suggesting that
concerns already addressed.
Page
19 Level of Traffic Stress
This appears to be mis-labeled as it appears to be a discussion of
bike facilities not walking facilities. First paragraph talks about
low-stress really being low-crash rate prone in order for all able
to bike willing to bike—but then the safety aspect gets lost in
research jargon—the Minetta model never is really explained.
Page
20 Stress Examples for Cyclists
This misleads as it shows a recreation path—clearly without
lighting for night use and very likely in a snow climb unplowed
(like all County bikepaths, I believe).
Page
21 Level of Traffic Stress in Chittenden County
This is very misleading as it appears to continue to count
recreation (seasonal and/or unlit) paths as part of the
transportation network. Certainly such a network can be described
but it must be identified as such with a second map showing a year
round network. One can argue also that multi-use paths even if
plowed/lighted do not qualify for LS 1 status with moderate to high
traffic (note Riverside Avenue in Burlington in this regard—also
with a high crash section for pedestrians). Note, again, this map
should be labeled for road sections/street sections only a there are
no bicycle LS 1 intersections in the County (versus, say the
Cambridge, Hyde Park, and Morrisville roundabouts along VT 15 in
Lamoille County).
Page
22 Level of Stress
About the same comment as on Page 21—no low stress intersections
along busy routes for any mode—cure like that proposed and
rejected for Taft Corner and US 2/Industrial Drive in Williston,
roundabouts of course.
Pages
23-32 Developing a Regional Network
The description of a “walking” as well as a “bicycling”
network for the County as a whole probably, really, a bicycle
network not a walk network. Walking trips of more than a 1,000 to
1,200 feet (maximum for access of public transportation) likely
represent the reach or extent for determining a “walk network”
and connecting to an adjacent “walk network.” A countywide
approach really does not represent any kind of a useful tool or
policy makers.
Page
35 Infrastructure Recommendations: Long-Term/10+ years
a.
“Separated facilities”--this should be balanced in the same
sentence with “and continued installation of all-modes safe
intersections, i.e., roundabouts” along prioritized corridors and
nodes” These investments would be primarily “town centers and
arterial streets” benefiting primarily the walk mode and
secondarily the bicycle mode.
b.
Jughandle: Convert the jughandle to a two-lane roundabout with
actuated pedestrian/bicycle pathing
c.
Address once and for all the Winooski Circulator by installing two
two-lane roundabouts (a “dog bone” design) with diameters of
about 130-140 feet to improve traffic movements, all modes safety,
and shifting unused “dead space” inside the Circulator to useful
park/plaza/cafe space to the outside. Again, though little used,
ped/cyclist actuated signals for crossings.
d.
A recreation path along the Circ should come second to converting VT
15 signalized intersections to roundabouts accommodating
cyclists—most all would be single laners.
Page
36 Infrastructure Recommendations Short Term/Immediate to under 5
years
Of
the seven recommendations (the word walking and pedestrian does not
appear a single time) only one addresses anything remotely connected
to the walking mode and continues the economic and social injustice
suffered by anyone who chooses to or by circumstance must rely on the
walk mode in our County downtowns, village centers and built up
areas. Overall, there does not appear to be a single significant
short or long term infrastructure investment recommendation which
addresses in a substantial way to improved walking and bicycling for
the population at large—or to address improved safety. (For
example, why not support the Burlington installation of the “free”
roundabout on Shelburne Street which right now may get completed in a
planning and construction process of about 20 years, or implement the
North Avenue Corridor Plan roundabouts and cycle track?)
I have suggested in comments to
the Annual Workplan of CCRPC that all major
intersections
be examined for roundabout conversions and the prioritized for
implementation. (Why not benefit cost analysis being applied
roundabout conversions versus other CCRPC projects?)
Pages
38-44 Non-infrastructure Recommendations
These pages on enforcement, education, education and engineering
all rest on a deep level of lack of safe infrastructure quicksand.
The ideas and program elements sound fine until one goes out and
tries to bicycle and walk on busy County streets and negotiate
actual intersections. As the architect of Copenhagen's program for
reaching 50% of all trip by bicyclist said succinctly: “start with
infrastructure first.” The draft ATP does not even address
infrastructure in a tangible manner.
Pages 45-46 Next Steps
The “next steps” can only follow and rest on a rationally
thought out plan. ATP is not a rationally developed plan so the
next steps really have little or no meaning.
Finally
a last comment on the size and scope of walk/bike safety investments
facing us in Chittenden County. There are three major threats to
life and limb for our residents from early adulthood through early
middle age. Each nationally amounts to about 30,000 deaths yearly:
highway crashes, gun violence, and in recent years the drug deaths,
i.e., the oppiad epidemic. Each of these areas involves public
policy and investments to reduce deaths substantially. In the case of
highway fatalities and injuries—and our concern here is primarily
for those who walk and bike—the investments required in our County
certainly reach hundreds of millions over the next decade. This is
the level of investments already undertaken in the past in Western
European nations mostly over the past 30 years as the U.S. once first
in highway safety in 1990 now rests at 19th—with 13,000 excess
deaths based on the rate achieved by the current leader (we were once
co-leader with them in 1990), the United Kingdom.
Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on this draft plan.
