A group of citizen activists is seeking an injunction to keep the City of Burlington from building the long-planned Champlain Parkway connector.
The Pine Street Coalition — a grassroots group of 150 people who want a “cheaper, greener, quicker and much safer roadway” — filed a lawsuit in federal court last week that asks a judge to halt construction of the 2.8-mile road in Burlington’s South End, which has been planned since the 1960s.
The suit names Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger, Vermont Agency of Transportation Secretary Joe Flynn and Federal Highway Administration executive director Thomas Everett as defendants.
Coalition member Steve Goodkind, formerly Burlington’s city engineer and public works director, said the group doesn’t oppose the project — just the current version on which the city hoped to break ground by year’s end.
“We want a modern road, a road that does divert traffic around neighborhoods, a road that provides multimodal forms of transportation,” Goodkind said.
The group’s main contention is that the project’s 2009 environmental impact statement is stale because it relies on outdated population data, traffic models and land-use patterns. Pine Street Coalition member Tony Redington said the design is a “vestige of the 1950s and ’60s that doesn’t fit the needs of today.”
“Both the project and the natural and human communities through which it passes have significantly changed,” the 29-page filing reads. “The pace and magnitude of those changes has increased in the last 10 years since this project last went through [National Environmental Policy Act] review.”
The suit says that review doesn’t account for the South End becoming a “vibrant city hub.” The coalition criticizes the design for lacking “separate and safe” facilities for walking and biking; the design includes shared-use paths.
Just last month, however, the Federal Highway Administration ruled that the decade-old environmental review was still valid. Redington said this lawsuit effectively appeals that decision, and he thinks the public, if given the opportunity, would support a redesign.
“This design is hurtful to the South End,” he said. “This design needs to be stopped and a new one considered.”
The suit comes just after the project reached a major milestone: The Burlington City Council approved the parkway’s design and construction budget on June 3, moving the long-delayed project one step closer to reality.
As proposed, the parkway would essentially help connect Interstate 189 to downtown Burlington. The nearly $45 million project would be 95 percent federally funded and 3 percent state funded; the city’s 2 percent share, plus related expenses, would be $3.2 million, Burlington Public Works director Chapin Spencer said.
The suit asks for the court to issue a judgment in the coalition’s favor, and barring that, to stop construction until the case is heard.
“We want a road to go through an environmental impact statement and come out as a much better road,” Goodkind said. “It’s a project that’s needed down there; it should be a much better project, and it can be a much better project.”
Spencer rebutted the characterization that the parkway design is unfriendly to pedestrians and bikes, noting that the plans call for raised intersections, crosswalks and shared-use paths that will calm traffic. He said the city anticipated this lawsuit and plans to go out to bid this summer.
City attorney Eileen Blackwood declined to comment on the suit’s specifics until it’s officially served on City Hall.
“We haven’t had a chance to analyze it,” she said. “We’re still understanding and figuring out what we’re going to do.”
Blackwood said the mayor stands by his statement last spring that “the time for debate, amendment and appeal has long passed.” The city maintains that the 2009 environmental statement is valid, she said.
Read the lawsuit here:
Correction June 13, 2019: The city’s $3.2 million portion of the project is for its 2 percent share as well as other expenses. A previous version of this story was incomplete.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
A great read in the Winooski. Just says it all!
http://thewinooski.com/index.php/2019/05/2…
I think we’ve narrowed down the fundamental basis of Steve Goodkind’s politics: NO. No to development of much needed housing, no to improvement of our decrepit and inadequate transit infrastructure, no to repairs to our parks and other spaces. The fact that Goodkind was a decision maker over each of these topics in years past maybe explains why they have been so stagnant for so long.
Of all things, the local transit situation is a huge barrier for Chittenden County residents and visitors. Traveling from Mallet’s Bay to Williston can take 35-45 minutes, getting from Shelburne to the U-Mall requires driving through downtown Burlington. These “opponents to everything” could have proposed alternatives and sought consensus on them at any time over decades, but it’s always easier just to refuse.
I suspect Goodkind’s only motivation is to see his name in the paper on a regular basis.
NATE you don’t have to drive through downtown Burlington to get to the u mall unless you never knew you can get on the interstate and get there in no time….
So, not an eminent domain argument? Just no?
The plan as it stands makes no sense . . .why dump all that traffic on Lakeside Av? That railroad bridge is going to feel very small and narrow after a while and it will be tough for folks who are going into the old GE building for Social Security or the VA clinic in there, which means you may need to install a traffic light.
What is needed is a real highway befitting our City’s ( and those in City Hall) massive ego: an 8 lane overpass that goes all the way to the bottom of King Street. Just think of it . . . 8 glorious lanes of traffic celebrating the Free Market and Neo liberal economics right into the heart of the downtown of the Manhattan of New England. And it will need a new name, Champlain Parkway sounds so . . .blah! It should be called the “Weinberger Executive Skyway for Beautiful People”. Now that’s vibrant!
And since it is an elevated road you can build apartments underneath it for all of the poor folks you will dislocate out of the Old North End once you are done gentrifying it. Its a win-win!!!
The Burlington City government has already decided what’s going to happen. Look at the North Ave “pilot” project. It was soundly voted down, by the people it directly affects. It just didn’t matter. It went through anyway. Same thing is happening here. Traffic is a MAJOR problem in the city. Parking is even worse. This project is NOT going to help that. And of course taxes will go up to cover this new project. Because our taxes are so low now…
If you think this is a disaster now, just wait til DPW starts putting the cylindrical concrete “planters” aka garbage containers and plastic poles along the new $45 million road much as it has done throughout Burlington.
The project has been delayed many years by these same opponents and now they want a court to rule the EIS is outdated. Sounds like the boy who murdered his parents, then pleaded for mercy because he ws an orphan….
Thanks Gigrape – should’ve said “Shelburne Rd” – you can take 189, but at certain times of the day its so congested its actually quicker to go through downtown. Shelburne Rd. itself is a commuting nightmare. I guess for folks who don’t have to drive to get to work every day, the traffic and lack of options to bypass city roads (not to mention efficient mass transit between towns) isn’t a big deal. That might be why the opponents are mostly retirees.
Also main street, shelburne road, intervale ave, Colchester ave and many other streets are a nightmare at certain times of the day but I don’t see anything done about the traffic on those streets. I’m also retired but don’t oppose a quicker way to get around the traffic.
If you actually study the Parkway as the design is now, and compare it to Mr. Redington’s suggested changes, you will find his plan to be far superior, far cheaper, and much better suited to the world of today (rather than 2006, when the EIS was last done). He’s talking about allowing pedestrians and bikes – and not cutting off Pine St.
His plan makes plenty of sense, and the present plan does not. It costs too much and accomplishes too little. Traffic problems would increase, and so would accidents. The plan does need to be re-designed.
Since so many people have decided to weigh in on these comments (almost 80 dislikes in one case!) I expect to hit 100 with this one. Come on, all you Mirovians, you can do it!
Steve Goodkind had 20 years to develop a better plan and didn’t. He is just showing his true colors of being a disgruntled FORMER employee who is Anti-Miro everything, but still living off the tax payers with his retirement.
To Ted miles645:
Why bother to attack Steve? You say he has no alternate plan? He’s not a loner – look at the new plan proposed by Tony Redington and worked on by a small group of dedicated citizens.
It sounds like you are ready to support the Old Design just because it’s designed. But it needs updating.
Steve and I are both allied with Mr. Redington, and there is no “just say no to everything” involved here. Read the details, study the project and compare the state of the South End Business District ten years ago with the way it is today.
It will dawn on you that the re-design is far better, far cheaper, and will actually help the situation rather than making it worse. If the City builds it the way they had it planned, you will see right away why the old Champlain Parkway plan is opposed. (Cutting off Pine St., no separate bike and walking lanes, and traffic lights galore) We need what has come to be known as “complete streets.”
This could help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_str…
“We’re on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin’ that ride to nowhere
We’ll take that ride”