StopTheCirc

Governor's Climate Change Commission Punts on Transportation

At a Press Conference held today at the University of Vermont, Governor James Douglas and members of his Commission on Climate Change unveiled, as Commission Chair Ernie Pomerleau put it, "signature Vermont ideas and signature Vermont concepts."

Conspicuously absent from these signature ideas and concepts were any significant approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Sure, there was some of the usual rhetoric about investing in downtowns, promoting energy-efficient buses, and encouraging growth centers, but there was very little to back this up.

Visibly missing from the Commission's lengthy report or the Press Conference was any mention of the Circ Highway and the $200 million or so the State of Vermont still wants to pour into building it. Not a peep about better ways of spending this princely sum -- such as on real alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle use. (See my post on a lost opportunity in the EIS process of developing a realistic transit alternative).

Even more remarkably, despite the report's rhetoric about the need to "reduce travel demand," the report calls for the state to "invest more in its transportation infrastructure, including highways, railroads, and park-and-ride facilities." The Commission's strange logic is that by doing this "the development of public transportation can be accelerated" (see page 4 of the Commission's October 2007 report). Wouldn't it be make more sense -- if the goal is really to reduce greenhouse emissions -- to invest more in public transportation, recognizing that this would, in turn, reduce vehicle miles driven and eliminate the need for building new highways?

But a lack of any true focus on dealing with the transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions (see Chart at end of this post) didn't keep Governor Douglas from announcing his pleasure that "Vermont is ahead of the rest of the nation in addressing global warming."

Governor Douglas might, however, want to read respected environmentalist Bill McKibben's recent comments on the Circ Highway that: "Every other sensible jurisdiction in the country is trying to get past their 60s and 70s era over-investment in highways." As McKibben puts it, "the Circ can best be described as a global warming machine."

And, before I close, here's a chart from the Governor's Commission report, showing just how important a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions the transportation sector is in Vermont. Which makes it even more puzzling -- and disappointing -- that the Commission chose to punt when it came to calling for any signficant measures to curb our auto-dependency.

Bill McKibben comments on draft EIS

To: Kenneth Sikora, Federal Highway Administration, kenneth.sikora@fhwa.dot.gov

Dear Mr. Sikora,

I write in opposition to plans for building more of the Circ Highway. I have been involved in climate change issues for a number of years, having published the first book for a general audience on the subject in 1989 and organized the biggest demonstrations nationwide against global warming in the past two years.

In my opinion, the proposed Circ Highway can best be described as a global warming machine.

All analyses (and endless historical experience) shows such belt highways create sprawl. And they therefore lead to increased reliance on automobiles. They also rob the resources necessary for wiser investments in the solutions of the future. And perhaps most of all they help reinforce the notion that the central job for planners is to 'move more cars.' 

This is a project planned in the past, and it is a project that reeks of the past. Every other sensible jurisdiction in the country is trying to get past their 60s and 70s era over-investment in highways. We are the guys late to the party who seemed determined to drink a keg of beer in an hour just to catch up. It's a gross sight.

--
Bill McKibben
Scholar-in-residence, environmental studies
Middlebury College

Note from Wayne Senville: for more on Bill McKibben's background and publications on global warming and other topics. Join Bill in expressing your views on the Circ EIS to the Federal Highway Administration -- and letting our elected officials know what you think.

We Have to Go a Giant Step Further

Apropos of the belief held by Governor Douglas and many of our state and local elected officials that we still need to spend $200 million dollars or so to complete the Circ Highway, take a look at these excerpts from a recent column by respected analyst Neal Peirce (to read the full column):

"Increasing the fuel efficiency of the cars we drive -- the environmentalists' perennial battle to get Detroit to improve vehicle gas mileage -- is a great cause. ... But it's not enough. We have to go a giant step further with sharp cuts in how far, and how often, we drive. If we don't, there's virtually no chance we can reduce our cars' massive greenhouse gas emissions -- now responsible for 45 percent of automobile carbon emissions worldwide.

Since 1980, total miles driven by Americans has grown three times faster than the rise in our population, even twice as fast as vehicle registrations. The vast majority of new development is laid out assuming people will use cars for virtually all trips. Homes have been built ever farther from workplaces. Shopping malls, big retail boxes, office parks and new schools are routinely built without a thought to pedestrians or public transit. The net result: more and longer auto trips, most often driving alone.

But what if we switched to develop more compactly? ... 88 percent of household growth from 2000 to 2025 is expected to be by elderly people or childless families. Aging baby boomers will be driving less and looking for walkable environments; one survey shows Gen Xers tend to value diverse, compact communities and show disillusionment with "bland vanilla suburbs."

[We also need to] develop the same kind of comprehensive, reliable rail and bus systems that Europe and Japan offer -- real alternatives to the private car."

-------------

p.s., if you haven't yet filed any comments on the Circ Highway environmental impact statement, please do so -- details are in my previous post.

Kudos to Virginia Clarke for Circ Op-Ed

Virginia Clarke -- former long-time town of Richmond representative on the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization -- prepared an excellent Op-Ed that ran in the Burlington Free Press on October 26. Virginia succinctly captured the essence of the concerns of those opposed to the limited access Circ Highway. Here's what Virginia wrote:

"When the new proposed costs of the Chittenden Solid Waste District landfill were recently revealed to be $90 million, people began to wonder if perhaps more recycling and less trash might be a good idea. There's nothing like contemplating a huge expenditure of (your) money to sharpen your appreciation for alternative solutions to a problem.

With that model close at hand, it was all the more surprising to hear little outcry when reminded in the recent environmental impact statement hearings that Circ Highway Section A-B was projected to cost in that same $90 million ballpark. And that's only before the cost overruns. Despite the fact that this invoice will be shared by local, state and federal taxpayers, it is still our money. So, why not ask the same question? Perhaps we could solve the problem by reducing the demand on the facility, i.e., by driving less. Creating a costly new piece of infrastructure does not have to be the answer to every problem, especially in transportation, when we cannot even afford to take care of our existing roads and bridges.

In addition, this expenditure siphons off resources in exactly the wrong direction relative to the most significant of our environmental concerns -- climate change. We know that we will need to transition to alternative transportation as it becomes more and more urgent to reduce greenhouse gases (some think it's already urgent, others think it's too late and others just hope the whole problem will go away), so spending $90 million-plus on the Circ won't leave many transportation dollars for anything else.

Demand-reduction strategies and a rapid, timely, attractive public transportation system are congestion-reducing strategies that build toward rather than away from a sustainable environmental future, so let's spend our money on these if we must spend it. Rapid-transit buses on the highway, shuttles looping the neighborhoods, vanpooling to shared employment destinations, incentives for not filling the streets with single-occupancy vehicles at peak travel hours, and provision of walking and biking facilities will all help move people around with clear consciences.

The Circ is no longer the appropriate response to congestion. Even in the few years since Judge Sessions ordered the environmental impact statement, most people have become aware that global warming is not only a reality, it is happening at an accelerating rate. It's not going to be all that easy to change our extravagant vehicular habits, but it will be even harder if we've already spent all our money going down the wrong road."

"The Circ is a Global Warming Machine"

That's what respected environmentalist and author Bill McKibben has called the Circ Highway. [photo of McKibben at this Spring's global warming walk which he helped organize]

Given the interest we as Vermonters express in global warming, why is it many state and local "leaders" still want to invest huge amounts of scarce transportation funds in building the Circ Highway?

Perhaps we need to have Nobel prize-winner Al Gore visit and talk with them!

The Circ and its global warming impacts will be under consideration -- indirectly at least -- at this coming Tuesday evening's meeting of the Burlington Planning Commission.

This past Tuesday, Burlington City Council unanimously adopted a Resolution introduced by Councilor Joan Shannon requesting the Burlington Planning Commission to look into Circ Draft EIS Alternative 1 -- the Alternative I focused on in my previous post -- which was discarded by the EIS consultants. She has asked the Planning Commission to also consider how the various alternatives in the Draft EIS correspond to a prior City Council Resolution adopted in February 2005. To download the 2005 Council Resolution: Download 2_22_05_circ_resolution.pdf .

The City Council's Transportation Committee, under the leadership of Councilor Bill Keogh, has stated that none of the various alternatives make any difference in terms of impacts on the City of Burlington. To download this Memo: Download Burlington_council_committee_memo_9_18_2007.pdf

To me, Alternative 1 is clearly consistent with many Burlington policies, and is the only Alternative that in any serious way addresses global warming and auto-dependency. (It is not mentioned in the Council Committee's recommendation.)

Global warming and auto-dependency are of increasing concern to all Vermonters, including Burlington residents. These concerns are highlighted in Burlington in our adopted Municipal Development Plan, in the Legacy Plan, in policies such as the Climate Action Plan, and in the current draft of the Burlington Transportation Plan, which strongly calls for increased public transit services and transportation demand management programs and states that: "Encouraging alternative transportation modes is a key part of any effort to address global warming." Global warming does not respect municipal boundaries, and clearly calls for regional approaches.

Here is what the Burlington Municipal Development Plan has to say:

"Most climatic scientists now agree that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases are having a measurable impact on the earth’s climate. ... [Climate change] poses a significant economic and environmental threat to our region and beyond. ...

Recommended actions ... Implement policies and planning to reduce transportation demand and to encourage more fuel-efficient and alternative fueled vehicles; Continue implementation of existing TDM programs including park and ride lots, shuttles and rideshare programs; and develop park and ride lots and shuttle services that link and connect to employment centers."
-- above paragraphs from page VIII-6 and VIII-8 of the Burlington Municipal Development Plan

But if Alternative 1 cannot be put back on the table, the City of Burlington would do well to recommend the lowest cost Alternative be adopted as the preferred Alternative.

Cost should be an important factor in selecting among the alternatives, given the extremely wide range in costs identified in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (from $50.9 million to $90.1 million). To the extent cost savings can be achieved on this project, more funds will be available for other needed transportation projects in Chittenden County -- including in Burlington.

Not surprisingly, those alternatives that involve the limited-access Circ Highway (or the Circ in combination with other roadway improvments) are the more expensive of the ten active alternatives -- compared to alternatives that focus on improvements to Route 2A or call for a "Circ Boulevard" in contrast to a limited accesss highway. While none of these "lower cost" alternatives involve anything like the transit-oriented approach of eliminated Alternative 1, at least they're $15 to 20 million less in cost than building the limited-access Circ.

You are welcome to Download the memo to the Planning Commission I emailed in advance of next week's meeting: Download memo_to_Burlington_Planning_Commission_from_WSenville.pdf  It includes the pages from the Circ Draft EIS technical appendix on Alternative 1, plus two other summary tables from the EIS on the comparative costs and environmental impacts (on wetlands) of the ten alternatives.

The Burlington Planning Commission is meeting this coming Tuesday, October 16th at 6:30pm in City Hall Conference Room 12 (go down the steps at the front entrance) to discuss what to recommend to the Burlington City Council in response to the draft EIS. I urge those of you reading this who are Burlington residents -- and certainly anyone else interested -- to attend this meeting. To download the agenda: Download 2007_10_16pc_agenda.pdf

The Burlington City Council will then be taking this up at their Monday, October 22nd meeting.