A VERMONT TRANSPORTATION FUTURE WHICH DECREASES GREENHOUSE GASES 25% BELOW 1990 LEVELS

This blog includes July 30, 2013 comment material on a Vermont Digger column on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Vermont.

Over half Vermont petroleum use occurs in transportation when motor fuel consumption peaked around the millennium at over 350 million gallons.  Motor fuel use has been on the decline since–now about 11% lower at 312 million gallons (as of the end of 2011).   It very likely goes below the 1990 number of 279 million gallons before the end of this decade.  Decline car travel, driver choosing a family car with higher efficiency, and federal fuel efficiency standards already in place suggest the below 1990 gasoline use level by decade end.  We can be assured of being at the “end of the beginning” of reducing petroleum dependence and looking at 25% or more reductions of the 1990 motor fuel consumption levels in transportation.

Transportation remains the greatest opportunity to reduce consumption. In-state rail passenger services and commuter rail can help and only needs political support for the $60 million initial capital and $7 million additional annual operating funds to start (Amtrak support for two trains daily alone now costs $7 million a year). The bigger problem lies in lack of walkable and bikeable streets in our downtown and village center areas–this means literally the need to invest upwards of a billion dollars over the next decade in cycle track (protected bike lanes) and roundabouts both for safety and service.  As important, walkable and bikable streets key maximum accessibility to all transit types, and roundabouts reduce gasoline use at busy intersections by up to 20,000 or more gallons yearly.  And roundabouts on average at busy intersections reduce waits by about ten seconds for all users versus a traffic signal.

These changes require an immediate, significant increase in broad base taxes to deal with needed highway and rail/walk/bike infrastructure–otherwise moving below the 1990 levels of transportation use of petroleum becomes increasingly problematic.  Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick proposed a broad base tax, the income tax, for transportation of $1.9 billion to address highway and public transport needs, plus increases in traditional car related levies.  Proportionally for Vermont this equates to $100-150 million for transportation needs for all modes from broad base taxes while continuing to increase motor vehicle related taxation as in past practice.

Actually $150 million equals the amount Vermont employers expend for the 280,000 parking spaces employees currently use every workday.  This is based on a $600 a year cost of a surface parking space—capital cost, maintenance, amortization of initial cost, and property tax.   When you consider the 280,000 vehicles used daily by commuters must  also be parked at night at workers’ residences and far greater number provided “free” by merchants and institutions you very quickly get to a half billion a year subsidy of car parking at a minimum.  Shifting $150 million to various forms of non-car transportation which enables “harvesting” parking spaces for more valuable uses makes a $150 million more for transportation look like the same type of investment represented by the fluorescent bulb payback in energy conservation, insulating buildings, etc. 

VERMONT TRANSPORTATION--A DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT

DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT—THE CURRENT YEAR VERMONT TRANSPORTATION BUDGET

May appear strange, but the Vermont‘s $653 million State transportation budget with more than half federally funded remains a day late and dollar short.

Adding a $1 tax on gasoline or a general fund equivalent raises enough money—about $200 million yearly--enabling commuter rail services along three corridors out of Burlington, an intercity “circle train”, a head start on roundabouts and cycle track needed to make downtowns and town centers truly walkable and bikable, and a major boost to the Town Highway grants helping to relieve the local property tax burden.  And the only practical choice, raising transportation taxes of this magnitude from the State general fund mostly though the income tax, also allows for some funding of additional needed social service programs.

A $1 gas tax would probably yield about $200 million, about the same relative amount as Gov. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts sought this year in new income taxes to fully fund needed transportation investments and operations for all modes plus some investment in education.  What does Gov. Patrick know and why did Virginia abolish the gas tax in favor of a broad base dedicated sales tax this February?  Simply both state’s governors recognized the transportation investments can no longer be tagged onto a declining mode, car travel, while the public demands more efficient and sustainable travel modes—public transit, walking and bicycling.  

While New England car travel grew by just 3% the entire decade 2000-2010, public transit, walking and bicycling in many urban area grew in double digits—Burlington’s public transportation authority grew 71% 2000-2010, bicycling to work doubled and travel to work by car dropped about 10%.   Vermont Census data revealed traveling to work by car flat lined from 2000-2010, the numbers walking, bicycling, taking the bus and working at home increased by 9,000.  Overall, the proportion of car travel to work declined about 3% for the period and the trend shows no signs of changing any time soon.

Why the sales and income tax and not gas taxes?  Massachusetts and Vermont both are raising gas taxes this year by modest amounts.  But about 30 states restrict car tax revenues to highways only.  This makes it very difficult for those states without such restrictions—like Vermont—from going out on their own with large gas tax increases as it would only create everyone to gas up at a lower cost in cross border areas.  Besides investments in rail, public transit, walking and bicycling benefits go across the entire population.

Vermont and the U.S. lag behind several Western European nations in many health and economic indices in great part because those nations levy $3-$4 taxes on a gallon of gasoline versus about five dimes federal and state levies combined in the U.S.  Those $3-$4 gas taxes enable major investments in a modern transportation system for all modes placing the U.S. decades behind in walking, bicycling, and rail modes.  And that differential increases today.   A viable economy—particularly the important Vermont tourism sector—depends on a full range of transportation modes for current and future viability and growth.  States cannot wait for a federal gas tax to become available for meeting transportation needs arising from a declining car culture.  Neither can Vermont--the State remains now a day late and a dollar short.  

THE BURLINGTON TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM

GETTING A WALKABLE, BIKABLE BURLINGTON, VT—THE PATH AHEAD

         ...plus a touch of rail passenger services

 

1.   Burlington traffic decline started 25 years ago—8% to 28% declines on major routes into downtown area—North Avenue, Beltline, Pearl, Main, Shelburne and Pine.  The State projects that traffic decline continues.

2.   Burlington workers travel to work—a third on foot, transit, and bike—is a remarkable statistic, over three times the U.S. urban average of 10%.

3.   Those traveling to downtown and the waterfront will increasingly go by bus, passenger rail, bicycling and walking—it’s been the trend for decades now and will continue into the future.

4.   While walking and bicycling occurs in a “bike and walk friendly” City, the City is mostly neither walkable or bikable along busy streets with two notable exceptions, the Marketplace and Riverside Avenue.

5.   Only through major investments on busy streets of cycle track (protected bike lanes) and intersection roundabouts can a walkable bikable City become a reality.

6.   Bicycle and walker injuries and fatalities—car occupants too—continue on our streets with the costs of poor safety infrastructure outweighing by far the dwindling costs of congestion as car traffic declines.   The tragic deaths of Sam Lapointe on the crosswalk at the Colchester/Barrett intersection last year and Dealer.com employee Karen Borneman while driving through the St. Paul/Main Street intersection two years ago illustrate the need for safe street infrastructure investments.

7.   Most busy City intersections can be served by single lane roundabouts, cutting walker and car occupant serious injuries by about 90%.  First step, analyzing all busy intersections for roundabout conversion, then building five or so yearly, a figure based past Western European rates.

8.   All in Burlington who walk and all who bicycle--regardless of age and skill--deserve walkable and bikable infrastructure on major streets.

9.   Large increases in State funding from general funds must occur for the State’s cities and town walkable and bikable infrastructure as well as for needed rail passenger services (intercity and commuter).

10.        A truly walkable, bikable busy street features sidewalks and cycle track along its sections paired with roundabouts at key intersections.

''MUM AND DAD WITH KIDDIES IN BEHIND" AND THE "DYNAMIC DUO"

FOR “MUM AND DAD WITH KIDDIES IN BEHIND”: CYCLE TRACK AND PATHED ROUNDABOUTS; OR THE DYNAMIC DUO

An extensive discussion of designing roundabouts for bicycles recently included how to incorporate paths for bicyclists at intersections along with connections to likely cycle track—protected bicycle lanes—along street segments, a combination affording safe and comfortable transit for bicyclists of all ages and skills. 

Duncan Campbell, a senior traffic engineer from New Zealand, summed up the roundabout design approach as follows:

“Designing to well accommodate cyclists at a roundabout you have to decide which skill level you are targeting and the busyness of the particular location. Certainly mum and dad with kiddies in behind might want an off-road path with safe road crossings (so are the[y]re going to be amenable mid-block connections for continuity I would ask? ) ; novice adults might want the same at busier or multi-lane locations; and experienced adult cyclists will likely (in my experience) prefer to stay on the road as it will usually be the quicker run - although a Dutch type arrangement where cyclists have priority on a peripheral path could be an exception to this.”

Many in the transportation field point to unprotected bike lanes.  While desirable,  unprotected lanes cannot provide service to all skills and ages—and in a nation like the U.S. with high rates of bicycle injury rates we hardly want to encourage the less skilled to be riding around town on plain lanes on busy streets.   And busy signalized intersections provide a mass of confusion and conflicts compared to a simple crossing, usually with a median, a roundabout with a path for cyclists enables.  A minimum a roundabout can enable a bicyclist to ramp on or off to a sidewalk and cross as a walker—far safer than a signalized movement or “taking the lane” of the roundabout. 

           A Yankee blindspot in street design in general and roundabouts in particular

Europeans addressed street design to respond to citizen complaints from growing car use.   This car growth occurred during a time when the majority (still mostly the case) of urban areas travel comprised walking, bicycling and transit.  Our North American streets, relatively, have “mums, dads with kiddies in behind” because the car (and highway design) simply pre-empted them.  Simply our "community development" since World War II spurred by homeownership subsidies (still there!) created vast areas of suburban and exurban unwalkable/unbikable/untransitable urban sprawl.   While European bicycling amounts to a double digit share of urban travel, in North America one percent is typical.  And European walking share exceeds the U.S. ten percent share.  Moreover, walking and bicycling injury rates per mile of travel are several times those of Germany and the Netherlands.

American planners and engineers--and citizen advisory panels--have limited experience or clear idea what a walkabe/bikable environment contains.  It is mostly nearly non-existent in North America.  This may explain why many tout bike lanes which are not family-friendly and just being nice to bicycles and pedestrians constitutes substantial progress when in fact those actions though praiseworthy do not address directly providing safe and comfortable infrastructure for either bicyclists or walkers.  Note overall roundabouts cut serious injuries and fatalities by about 90%.  To date with 3,000-4,000 roundabouts built since 1990, only one bicycle fatality and no walker fatality has yet be recorded in the U.S. and Canada.

The idea of pathing roundabouts for bicycles in combination with cycle track—the “dynamic duo”--represents a major breakthrough as they bring the interest of bicyclists and walkers together (yes, as a walker we really would like bicycles segregated from us!).   Additionally, the roundabout/track "combo" applies mainly to busy urban arterials and collectors where the primary transportation roadblocks for all modes exist (mostly for walkers and bicyclists) and where injury rates are high for all users.  Young professionals want out on car culture, choose downtown areas for walking, bicycling, and transit to work and play.  In fact already an unexpected 10% drop has occurred in driver licensing among the under 30 crows.  Workers increasingly veer away from car travel to work.  Therefore we must change focus to investing in safe infrastructure for walking and bicycling.  Lack of roundabouts and cycle track found in more advanced nation stands as a barrier frustrating an American and Canadian urban population seeking to travel on foot and by bicycle as well as using these two modes to access public transit.   We need to rapidly invest sizable sums in the “dynamic duo” to revitalize our downtowns and village centers—pathed roundabouts at the intersections and cycle track between.

SIGNS OF A STABLE OR DECLINING VERMONT WORKFORCE FROM NOW TO AT LEAST 2030

VERMONT POPULATION GROWTH HIT A POTHOLE IN 2011-2012 AT A TIME OF MAJOR AGE GROUP TRENDS CHANGE THE STATE’S WORKFORCE LANDSCAPE

A Vermont Department of Labor (VDL) 2005 study projecting working age populations from 2004 through 2030 pointed to a slowing but positive growth of overall population during the period—but Census reported tiny increase from 2010 to 2010 and an actual decrease in Vermont population for 2012.

Other U.S. Census projections of total population by age generally show little change 2000-2030 in working age population while under age 15 declines slightly and 65 and over population more than doubles.

While the VDL using Census data indicates an annual population growth of about 6,000 a year starting in 2005 slowing to about 2,000 annually in 2030, the State barely gained about a dozen citizens a month 2011-2012 or about 500 for the two year period.   In fact, the Census reported only a 1,700 yearly population increase for the State, 16,900 for the  entire 2000-2010 decade or 2.8% with the 2010 Vermont population 625,741. 

The most difficult estimation in projecting populations comes in determining a number for those who will migrate in and out of a state which comprises the “net migration.”  The other population change can be gained from very accurate data each state records—birth and deaths which provide a base  then adjusted by net migration.

But even more noteworthy in the 2005 study were workforce age population changes centering around 2012 when “Vermont’s working age population [15-65]…is forecast to decline for the foreseeable future.”  That forecast shows working age population in continual decline 2012-2030 though a slower rate toward the end of the period. 

Sharp differences occur in various age groups of the workforce forecast.  From about 2006 through 2022 the 15-19 age group population dips sharply early on and then from a lower base begins to grow in 2022.  About 2015, the 20-34 age group representing the baby boom echo which grew rapidly from the millennium begins a slow by steady decline through 2030 as that echo ages out into the 35-49 age range.  The only group growing rapidly 2016 though 2029 are those same baby boom echo folks which hit the 35-49 ages. Finally, the baby boomers finish exiting out of the 50 to 65 age workforce group into the post-65 retirement category—first they grow the 50-65 age group from 2005 to 2016  followed by moving into retirement, driving down the  50-65 age group population 2017 through 2030.

This report (access it at file:///Users/TonyRVT/Documents/VTdemographic-projections-2004-2030.pdf)  presents in easy to interpret graphs these changes for each of the New England States while highlighting the Vermont data. 

ONE REGIONAL TRANSIT AGENCY BOARD AND AMTRAK CONNECTIVITY

Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) and Rail Passenger Service—Apparently not a Priority

Visited Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Board meeting and spoke at the beginning of the “public” item on the agenda June 18 where CCTA and many other public boards and commissions allow anyone wishing to speak a chance express their concerns and views.

After introducing myself and explaining I was a member of the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) and concerned about lack of connectivity on Saturday and Sundays to the Amtrak Vermonter service at Essex (Monday through Friday connections are excellent), the overall reaction of the Board could not have been cooler.  No response to my concern or even acknowledgement the problem exists was offered.  Connectivity by Vermont’s regional transit agencies to all Amtrak stations is a major problem at a time when every additional Amtrak rider decreases needed State dollars—now budgeted $7 million a year. 

Even though CCTA receives the majority of its funding from State, federal and local tax dollars, CCTA leaders remain clearly unsympathetic to the overall needs of public transportation which includes rail passenger services, particularly in regard to integrated, coordinated scheduling.

The advent of service by Amtrak to Burlington now set for 2017 through extension of the Ethan Allen service from Rutland to Burlington also was stated to the CCTA Board and a flyer on a study of commuter rail feasibility which builds off the success of CCCTA Link, a ten year old commuter service from Burlington to Montpelier, Middlebury and St. Albans now serving about 500 commuters on 50 buses each workday—a clear indication that commuter rail service can be marketed to and from Burlington.  The Board reaction was that commuter rail would be good if it can be shown to be economic, an interesting thought in view of the fact that two-thirds of the CCTA budget comes from governmental sources and its stated mission is support of quality public transportation services.  The Board suggested that ideas about commuter rail be brought to the attention of the CCTA “management.”

It appears clear that federal and State agencies which fund public transit agencies in Vermont represent the only realistic avenue to assure coordination and integration of rail and bus transport services.  However a 2013 comprehensive statewide intercity bus service plan also contains no consideration of rail passenger services much less coordination of existing regional transit to access Amtrak intercity services.   So much for the multi-modal, integrated transportation system first called for at the beginning of the 1990s in both State and federal transportation law.