Next Monday, Burlington city councilors will need to make an uncomfortable choice — ignore a request from roughly 5 percent of voters or risk turning over decisions about city infrastructure to public opinion.
Karen Rowell successfully collected the necessary signatures to put the following question on Burlington’s Town Meeting Day ballot: “Shall the city of Burlington keep four vehicular lanes on North Ave.?” The goal: Prove to public officials that the majority of New North End residents oppose a pilot project, scheduled for this Spring, that would temporarily reduce a four-lane stretch of road to three lanes, plus two bike lanes.
But the city attorney ruled that the question was too vague. Since it’s too late for Rowell to circulate another petition, the city council will need to decide whether to put forward a rephrased version of the same question, in deference to the people who signed the original one.
Kurt Wright, a Republican who represents the New North End, plans to put forward a resolution that would do just that at next Monday’s council meeting. The question would be advisory, not binding.
But here’s the quandary: If the council votes to put Wright’s question on the ballot — and if a majority of residents in the most-affected neighborhood strongly oppose the pilot project — the council and the administration will be under significant pressure to scrap a project they’ve already approved, unanimously.
Supporters of the pilot project have said it’s important to at least test changes to North Avenue, and they note that city officials have pledged to restore the four lanes if the trial turns out to be a failure.
Among the proponents is Progressive Councilor Max Tracy, who opposes putting a reworded question on the ballot, arguing that the vagueness of the original question makes it too risky for councilors to try to guess at its intent.
Wright, who helped collect signatures for the petition, insists that the intent was “absolutely clear.” He continued, “I think it would be a really horrible precedent to set for the city council to not put a question on the ballot because of some technicality.”
Tracy, however, is concerned that a different precedent would be set if voters strongly oppose the pilot and the council decides to abandon it. “I think this absolutely is the wrong way to go about doing transportation policy … I don’t think we should put everything to a vote before we try things.”
Mayor Miro Weinberger issued a memo Friday afternoon announcing that he does feel comfortable interpreting the petitioners’ intent, and he supports putting Wright’s question on the ballot.
At the suggestion of the city attorney, the new question states, “Shall the City Council, Public Works Commission, and Administration be advised to keep four lanes open to motor vehicles on North Ave. from the Route 127 access intersection north to the Shore Road intersection?”
But like Tracy, the mayor, who has publicly supported the pilot project, expressed qualms about letting public opinion dictate transportation projects. His memo continues, “I do not believe we should make complex transportation planning decisions by ballot item.”
Wright declined to speculate about how the outcome of a vote on the ballot item would affect his position on the pilot project itself — “I really don’t want to go too far into conjecture on that.”
Dave Hartnett, an independent New North End councilor, didn’t support the petitioners’ effort — he thinks people should wait until the pilot project is up and running to make a judgment — but now that they’ve gotten the signatures, he will support putting the revised question on the ballot. Although he’s skeptical the project will actually improve North Avenue, he said he will continue to support the pilot, even if his constituents vote against trying the new configuration.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Regarding “sharing the cost,” the facts are that the majority of the cost of building and maintaining roads in Vermont are paid for by the general taxpayer, not motor vehicle fees. Thus, it is those of us who drive cars (me included) who are subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers. If we truly want to share the cost then gas taxes and registration fees for motor vehicles need to dramatically increase. Until then, if you drive a car you are getting free stuff.
I’m with Ziggy’s comment. If we all should SHARE THE ROAD , then we ALL should SHARE THE COST. As a vehicle owner on the road,we need a license,registration,inspection AND insurance.Why hasn’t the state,with all the “money ideas” they get,come to the conclusion that help with the cost of roads and the bike path , could be helped by retrieving money from bikers who want to SHARE THE ROAD. It would only be fair.No money being put in?No changes to the road and the extra traffic that comes from it. Isn’t it always about the bottom line?Then so be it “NOT” to the North Avenue changes.
How is 5% a majority. I live in the NNE and am all for a change to this pathetic road. It needs help. That said, I have to agree somewhat that bikes should be routed to the bike path. A center turning lane would be ideal on North Ave.
After seeing the improvements this brought to travel on Pearl Street /Route 15 in Essex Junction – which I initially was against – I believe it would offer the same improvements to North Ave.
When I was a kid, a game called ‘Frogger’ was one of my favorites. The object of the game was to get your frog across 5 lanes of speeding traffic then hop your way onto a Lilly pad after crossing some logs. Oftentimes, a car would hit my frog and it would splat because crossing 5 lanes of traffic was a real challenge.
North Ave. is a real-life Frogger game. Except there are people trying to cross that road and the consequences are far more concerning. The Pilot already contains an “out” clause after implementation which was hard fought by NNE Councilors. Let the Pilot determine if petitioners’ fears are realistic.
Boy, people never stop trying to stop progress or change. I bet there were lots of petitions from the horse and buggy people when cars started showing up. We need to make the streets safer for alternate forms of transportation into the future. I have a suggestion for how to word the question on the ballot:
Shall the City of Burlington build a wall across North Ave?
Just imagine the opportunity to post videos of residents scaling it to get downtown.
I say bring back the streetcar. Take back Vermont–to the times when public transit got people around with dignity. At the very least, let’s have public meetings and get to know each other and our positions better; and exercise the visionary part of our noggins a little. I would love to see a subway or light-rail get people out of their cars. Here’s a study that recommended that: http://www.ccrpcvt.org/library/transit/bur…
Doesn’t it deserve a couple of those 4 lanes on North Ave?
Leave North Avenue Alone!! I grew up on North Avenue. I moved to “The Ave.” in 1977 when I was eight years old and lived there except a few years here and there until 1999 when my daughter was nine, at which time we moved out of state. Since returning to the area in 2001. I can easily say the through the years I have logged many miles and hours on North Avenue, and have seen 1 accident, which was not on the stretch of road in question. The last time it was changed there was the supposed traffic test which was a lane change and traffic light added coming on to North Ave. from the beltline. As a regular driver of that change I felt and still feel it was unnecessary and cumbersome. There is no easy traffic flow and the area is in need of repair. I regularly travel North Avenue to and from the grocery store, doctors, dentist and it is a main route for me to my granddaughters school in Downtown Burlington. I travel much of Chittenden County and see many accidents, traffic violations, poor drivers and poorly maintained roads yet I have never seen another accident on North Avenue. The current 4 lanes lessen the traffic back ups that will happen with the proposed changes as well as decrease likelihood of accidents due to drivers cutting each other off during a lane merge. I see and get stuck in that mess often enough on Williston road. Who really wants the changes? A Petition was circulated and from the number of signatures received many people don’t want them. Don’t mess with something that isn’t broken. No Pilot Testing!! Once it happens it stays!!
This is going to seriously tie up traffic. I am Wellington to bet it adds an additional 5-10 minutes to already slow morning commute. With the beltline entrance and the high school it is already very difficult to get anywhere in the morning. And as someone who travels it everyday with multiple stops (children at different schools) I know how hard it is to get off side streets also. Going south in the am it takes forever to find a break in traffic and with only 1 lane per direction it will surely make it near impossible. I oppose. Why are we spending so much on the bike path if people aren’t using it to travel downtown on bikes???