Why Alternative 1 disappeared ... and what was lost

Earlier in the process of putting together this draft Environmental Impact Statement a very promising alternative was put on the table: its focus was on "transportation demand management" -- that is, reducing single-occupancy vehicle use by providing greater public transit and putting more effort into other creative approaches. Here are the key components that were part of Alternative 1 (described on page 3-9 of the draft EIS):

-- Park-and-ride lots
-- transportation management association
-- improved traditional bus service; seven new “flex-ride” bus services in Essex, Williston, the Kimball Avenue area, Jericho-Underhill, Richmond, and Waterbury;
-- two bus rapid transit routes from Charlotte and Burlington to Essex Junction via Williston;
-- rail service from St. Albans to Burlington via Essex Junction.

note: I've uploaded the details of Alternative 1 (a six page pdf) prepared by the Circ consultants. You can download the file. Again, this Alternative was dropped from consideration, as explained below. It's contained in one of the Technical Appendices to the draft EIS.

So what happened?

Did you take a look at what I posted describing how VTrans narrowly defined the Purpose of this project, and how through a strategy called "segmentation" VTrans decided to have the EIS only focus on the "A-B" segment, instead of on all of the remaining planned Circ Highway?

The results of those VTrans decisions -- not surprisingly -- made any transportation demand management alternative, such as Alternative 1, unfeasible. Here's the explanation the Circ EIS consultants give for why Alternative 1 could not be pursued:

"Alternative 1 was designed as a robust and extensive package of transit improvements and transportation demand management measures to reduce trips in the VT 2A corridor. However, the screening analysis shows that it does not meet the project purpose and need, as its congestion reduction on VT 2A is small and its crash reduction is minimal." (see page 3-21 of the Draft EIS; emphasis added)

So here's the bottom line: by defining the project purpose narrowly just on congestion relief in the Route 2A corridor, and only focusing on the A-B segments, VTrans has pre-ordained that a transit-oriented approach that could have had huge County-wide (and even statewide) benefits could not be considered.

Again, an enormous amount of money will be wasted with this narrow approach to transportation planning -- an approach whose sole purpose seems to be to get the Circ built.

note: want to see what we're missing. I'm setting out at the end of this post the map of public transportation services included in Alternative 1 (from page 3-11 of the Draft EIS), again an Alternative that is NOT one of the 11 alternatives still under consideration.

And then read the details on what was proposed in Alternative 1 ... and weep! It's an account of what the County's future could be with improved public transportation services -- here's just an excerpt from the Circ consultants' report: "the combination of these services [bus, bus rapid transit, flexible bus, and rail] could greatly expand public transportation options within the project area, and to and from surrounding areas. These services could provide high quality regional services that could be competitive with travel by private vehicle, and flexible services that could provide door-to-door service for many trips."

In comments you file on the draft Circ EIS (deadline, November 8th) consider requesting VTrans to include Alternative 1 and, if necessary to enable this, broaden the statement of "Purposes" for the project AND include consideration of the impacts of the full Circ build out.

note: to view a higher resolution copy of this map, please download a pdf of the page included in the draft Circ EIS.