Six months ago, a global team of experts from IBM came to study Burlington’s carbon footprint and to make recommendations for how the city could reduce its output of the so-called greenhouse gases that are changing the world’s climate. Working in conjunction with the Miro Weinberger administration, the six IBMers produced a 60-page report last week that makes a half dozen policy recommendations.
None of them, however, squarely addresses what the report itself identifies as the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions: transportation — which is to say, private automobiles.
Asked why the report didn’t at least mention alternate forms of transport, such as walking and cycling, Marian Lawlor, a spokeswoman for the IBM team, said, “I can’t answer that question for you.” She added that the three-week-long assessment “should have” paid more attention to transportation issues generally. “They just didn’t bubble up” during the interviews the IBMers conducted with numerous city officials and other local leaders, Lawlor explained.
Chapin Spencer, who was director of the Local Motion alternative transportation advocacy group at the time, echoed Lawlor’s comments in an interview on Monday. “I wish it would have dealt more with transportation,” said Spencer, who was recently appointed head of the city’s Department of Public Works.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Transportation is easily solvable, just not to a few fringe groups.
Build the CIRC.
Add a 3rd lane to the interstate from exits 12 to 16 and make one lane thru traffic only
Put auto cameras at the jughandle on Main St to ticket those that “block the intersection.” Or at least put a cop there who will actually write tickets.
Put up “walk/don’t walk” signs on Church St.
The fact is most GHG in Burlington is due to idling in traffic… There are some relatively easy ways to fix that…
All good ideas for facilitating automobile access. I think, however, these miss the point about pollution. Assuming that all these changes were implemented, they still wouldn’t address the point about the (assumed) significant role that fossil-fuel-burning cars play as greenhouse gas emitters in the Queen City.
I like your suggestions except for the walk/don’t walk signs on Church Street. That (IMHO) should be a center focused on the support and promotion of pedestrian traffic. We need some space (preferably spaces over time) where the pedestrian comes first and foremost. As a resident of the area, I do my best to either be patient or do a loop around Church St. to avoid the potentially long waits esp. on nice days that bring in the people. And speaking to tourists over the many years I have been here, the consistent message conveyed to me is that they like and are attracted to Church Street primarily because it is open and friendly to pedestrians.
Amp up eclectric car usage, build more charging stations and offset the electric use with solar polar.
Promote electric and hybrid cars, build more charging stations and offset the electric usage with solar and wind.
I will disagree.
You can try to encourage people to car pool, use mass transit, etc but ultimately the best and most effective way to reduce pollution IMO is to use less gas and the easiest way to do that is to stop wasting it idling. If idiling time was reduced in all cars traveling through the city that would be significantly less fuel consumption (and less pollution) then getting 50 more people to ride the ccta… I’m guessing.
Burlington might bend the cars to people ratio by allowing higher population densities- allowing construction of new, tall residences in all neighborhoods. City Hall recently moved in this direction, though I fear that Act 250 pretty much guarantees that a few dedicated refusniks can stop almost any project or delay it indefinitely.
There is no technological alternative to fossil fuels at this time. Wind power generation had no sooner arrived in Vermont than people went ape trying to stop it, therefore even if a breakthrough in electric batteries were to be achieved the charging would be done by plants burning coal, gas or (in the case of Seabrook nuclear power station) uranium.
Which leads me to conclude that J. Carter has the right solution for 2013.
That’s the kind of reasoned, logical approach that infuriates all the excitable types who populate our great state. They killed the Circ (roadz r bad), but let me tell you right now, people are literally going to die on the overcrowded, winding roads that must continue to carry traffic loads beyond anything they were designed for in the 1920’s.
Church Street is a great example of a livable, walkable neighborhood. Lake street is emerging as another. Hopefully soon we can link the two.
Expand the bus routes to include a Shelburne Rd to U-Mall to Winooski loop. Open up the K-Mart parking lot as a commuter lot instead of the Lakeside lot, it would save a lot of traffic on the south end of Pine Street. Put in a shelter or two there and create a “mini-hub” by also routing the Middlebury and Montpelier Links there.
I think you’re partially right. Insofar as preventing idling prevents using unnecessary fuel (which apparently ranges from a 1/4 gallon to a 1/2 gallon per hour, per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg… ), you’re spot-on. There’s no arguing that, if the city’s able to prevent idling cars, that prevents a lot of fuel wasting.
However, that line of reasoning is probably too narrowly defined in that it assumes that a gas-consuming vehicle is the only way to get into and around the city. If the ONLY feasible way for people to be transported around Burlington is a car, then yes, minimizing car idling should move up to the top of our priorities.
On the other hand, if there are alternatives, then the idling minimization, as worthy a goal as it is, is probably a lower priority than, e.g., facilitating mass transit. (As an aside, Freakonomics’ Eric A. Morris concludes the best would be to increase use of the already-existing mass transit infrastructure rather than spend a lot for more. See http://freakonomics.com/2012/1… .)
Public Transportation needs a serious publicity boost in this state. Especially outside the greater Burlington area, in more “far-flung” areas (okay, Montpelier) – for example, we have the GMTA transit system, which for better or worse, is stuck with the label of being the transportation for those too poor to have a car. Plus, Vermonters seem to really take the concept of self-reliance and kick it into hyperdrive (“I’m a Vermontah, I do what I wanna’…”) – the concept of sacrificing a little more time to take mass transit over driving a private vehicle…and especially the idea of having to spend money for it…they just don’t jive with the (especially rural) Vermont way.
Jcarter – just to help me understand your idea re: I-89, do you mean like an HOV lane that can only be entered / exited from at designated points? If that is what you’re thinking – great idea in theory, not doable in reality. Reason: most traffic that is on 89 before Williston (the theoretical starting point) is off the interstate before Colchester.
There are some simple traffic patterns that I’ve noticed that could be launching pads for improvement – there seems to be a ton of movement from the Burlington exit(s), 1) north to Winooski (and specifically heading for 15 toward Essex), and 2) south to 189. That would tell me a lot of folks are trying to head east-west across the region that right now, must use 89. It would take some use of eminent domain, but why not create some sort of parkway that links from Dorset St., north up to Route 15. Kinda like a Storrow Drive, for those of us familiar with a slightly larger B-town with slightly larger traffic headaches.
Nate, I’m just trying to be realistic. For years public transportation has been encouraged, demanded, publicized, incentivized, etc. In all those years that hasn’t amounted to much. The vast majority of people still drive. Idealistically its the way to go, realistically people are going to continue as normal. If you want to effect change, its reality that wins out every time over ideology, and it’s reality that needs to be fixed.
I’ll give you an example. Say you have a sidewalk that comes to a “L”. People constantly cut across the grass creating a muddy spot and that mud gets tracked into your house. You can reseed the grass, you can put up ribbons, you can put up signs but people will still walk across the grass and create a muddy spot. Or you can make an arch in the sidewalk.
A few people will heed your signs and not walk on the grass (talk public transit), but most will keep tracking mud on your floor. If I were really interested in changing things I’d fix the sidewalk before trying to fix human behavior.
I was thinking more along the lines of an on off lane on the right side of the interstate. Basically, if I wanted to get on in Winooski but right back off again at 14, or on from 189 but right off at 14 you wouldn’t even bother merging with thru traffic. The two normal lanes would be for thru traffic, thru traffic could continue at a normal pace. At somepoints its 35-40mph coming across the Winooski Bridge and thats “After fixing the problem” it used to be a complete stop.
That doesn’t necessary eliminate a lot of pollution,(although a constant speed is much more efficient then slowing down and speeding up) it just makes sense. Which of course is why it hasn’t happened.
Burlington especially, has this passive aggressive mentality that if nothing is done, people will have to car pool, or take public transportation, etc and then they will get their own way.
Yeah, but something has to be done… close the thru lanes down all together and divert cars around church… It will never happen either way so it doesn’t really much matter.
I appreciate you working on the topic of climate change, however I’m not sure how the article could be written and published without mentioning the fact that the McNeil Biomass Incinerator is the single greatest source of CO2 not just in Burlington, but in the entire state.
http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/29…
It’s considered by some to be “carbon neutral” as the CO2 released is reabsorbed by the wood used to generate it in the first place…
I personally think its silly but that’s why it wasn’t mentioned. CO2 makes the plant that is used to produce the power creating the CO2 that then makes another plant that can be cut down for power producing more CO2 which provides carbon etc etc etc.
Please build a bike lane along side the (failed) circ.
Can’t do it, the frogs would croak.
Thanks for the response.
Yes, “some,” as in industry and those ignoring science. No recent science reports consider biomass energy as carbon neutral.
Here’s the science: http://www.energyjustice.net/c…
Let’s see the transportation scene in Burlington much like the rest of urban Vermont features slowly declining car travel dating now over a quarter century with key streets radiating from our downtown–the Beltline, Pearl, Main, Shelburne and Pine for examples down 8 to 28 percent so since about 1990 and continuing to decline. Commuter rail including the self-propelled passenger units and rail upgrades for Montpelier and St. Albans service less costly than the $60 million now being spent to replace the I 91 bridge in Brattleboro over the West River. Then there is the outrageously successful program of UVM/FAHC/Champlain College though their CATMA, a joint tiny transportation management office, to get workers and students go by any means other than in a personal car. Then there is the light rail study (also the cost of that I91 bridge) which could serve the Burlington to Marketplace to FAHC to UVM to the south Campus and Champlain College. Guess thse IBMers just get around much any more.
Well, actually three of ten Burlingtonians walk/bike/transit to work compared to less than 10 percent of urban America. Roundabouts at key busy intersections increase safety for walkers and reduce gasoline consumption…and installing cycle track, I.e. protected bike lanes, with roundabouts equipped with pathing provide safe infrastructure and erases those bad behavior bike rider issues.