Vermont

[Alps]

Two news items out of Burlington lately.

The Burlington City Council recently approved a new roundabout on US 7.  The roundabout will replace the existing pseudo-rotary where Shelburne St, Willard St, Locust St, and Ledge Rd all come together south of downtown.  The plan is for Shelburne, Willard, and Locust to directly junction at the roundabout.  Ledge Rd will have a partial intersection at Shelburne just south of the roundabout.  There will be no direct left turns allowed from Ledge Rd to southbound Shelburne...traffic will turn right and use the roundabout to U-turn south.

The city expects to begin construction in 2021.


Meanwhile, the Champlain Parkway project is delayed again.  FHWA rescinded the Record of Decision for the project, citing environmental justice concerns raised by opponents.  This because the neighborhood adjacent to the project has a higher-than-normal proportion of low-income and minority residents.  The city and VTrans expect the delay to be 4 to 6 months as they review 2010 census data for the neighborhood....this because the EIS was completed before the 2010 census.  The city still hopes to begin construction next year.

Visual of roundabout: https://vtdigger.org/2015/09/07/burlingtons-first-roundabout-is-in-the-works/ . Not noted - how this will affect traffic, which currently has 4 lanes south of that split but will now merge into 2 lanes to fit in the roundabout.

I just laugh at the Champlain Parkway. Wake me when it's open.

[vdeane]

They really should have 4 lanes on the south side of the roundabout.  They could have made it a partial two lane roundabout to make it work optimally, but it looks like they took the cheap way out to fit it in the existing ROW.  If they're hoping the Champlain Parkway will make the lanes on US 7 less necessary, then they should probably wait for it to be built (if it ever is, which I really worry about), because it looks like the NIMBYs (most of whom probably weren't even living there before planning for the thing began) are having success at moving against it.

[froggie]

because it looks like the NIMBYs (most of whom probably weren't even living there before planning for the thing began) are having success at moving against it.

This is largely incorrect.  Most of the NIMBYs are residents along the Pine Street corridor and many have been living there for decades.  One of the key opponents, while not necessarily a neighborhood resident, is the city's former Public Works director.

[The Ghostbuster]

I have a feeling the Champlain Parkway will ultimately meet the same fate as extending Interstate 189 northward: CANCELLATION!

[vdeane]

because it looks like the NIMBYs (most of whom probably weren't even living there before planning for the thing began) are having success at moving against it.

This is largely incorrect.  Most of the NIMBYs are residents along the Pine Street corridor and many have been living there for decades.  One of the key opponents, while not necessarily a neighborhood resident, is the city's former Public Works director.

This project has also been proposed in one form or another for decades.  Unless they were there before 1974, since that's when the first proposal for the Southern Connector came out.

[froggie]

The project at current is considerably different than what was proposed in the 1970s.  The 1970s versions weren't defeated by NIMBYs but by the massive pollution in the Pine Street Canal.

[vdeane]

Still, something was proposed to go through there for decades, and if they're objecting to a two-lane surface street, I can't imagine they would have been OK with a four-lane freeway.

[bob7374]

News report about VTrans adding 'milepoint' exit numbers to exit signs in 2020:
https://www.mynbc5.com/article/changes-coming-to-vermont-highway-exit-signs/30199461

[vdeane]

Is VT not aware that most states just put an overlay on the exit tab instead of replacing the whole sign?  Also, I thought VT 289 was already mile-based with respect to the originally proposed extensions?  Finally, why not add numbers to VT 279?

[Brandon]

Is VT not aware that most states just put an overlay on the exit tab instead of replacing the whole sign?  Also, I thought VT 289 was already mile-based with respect to the originally proposed extensions?  Finally, why not add numbers to VT 279?

It appears as though Vermont lives in a little bubble world of its own here.

[5foot14]

For what they are spending on these signs they could probably renumber everything with overlays. For comparison, Massachusetts is spending $2.8 million to do the entire state, with far more exits. It's not like that have a lot of exits in Vermont and all of their signs were recently replaced so yeah..... Seems like a pointless waste. Unless they are hoping they can get away with leaving these signs up indefinitely, thus not actually converting the exit numbers themselves.

SM-G900P

[KEVIN_224]

Change I-91 in Brattleboro over to Exits 7, 9 and 11. Leave the rest of the state alone. See how long it takes local to figure the mess out!

[vdeane]

Unless they are hoping they can get away with leaving these signs up indefinitely, thus not actually converting the exit numbers themselves.

I honestly expect that is what they plan to do.  Especially given their "forgetting" about overlays when they've designed their newer signs specifically to accommodate them.

[Interstate1956]

Help me with this conversion to a milepost based exit system. I thought the only "changing out" of signage would include the exit sign and the exit tab on the top of the BGS sign one mile up the highway. The rest of the sign can stay. In Vermont's case that shouldn't end up being "millions" of dollars. The way Vermont is choosing to implement this makes it more confusing not less.

[vdeane]

Help me with this conversion to a milepost based exit system. I thought the only "changing out" of signage would include the exit sign and the exit tab on the top of the BGS sign one mile up the highway. The rest of the sign can stay. In Vermont's case that shouldn't end up being "millions" of dollars. The way Vermont is choosing to implement this makes it more confusing not less.

Technically it doesn't even need to include that... for new/large enough signs, a simple overlay will suffice.  Vermont seems to be under the impression that they need to replace the full sign for some reason... which I suspect may have something to do with "we don't really want to convert and are looking for an excuse to drag our feet".

(personal opinion)

[The Ghostbuster]

Although this seems to be a "compromise", I think VDOT should renumber all exit numbers to mileage-based, and the only sign replacements should be the signs where exit numbers would be in the triple digits. The rest of the signs can remain unreplaced and unaltered (except for the exit number).

[sprjus4]

Should Vermont speed limit be lowered to 55 mph?

BURLINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) Some Vermont lawmakers are pitching a bill to lower the statewide speed limit on major highways from 65 mph to 55 mph. The idea is just being floated now, with supporters saying it aims to cut crashes, save fuel and help with climate change. Our Ike Bendavid found mixed reactions on the road.

In Vermont, the top highway speed limit currently sits at 65 mph. But in New York and New Hampshire, it's at 70 mph.

Dropping down to 55 mph has happened before and would be a big change for drivers.

"I would actually like to see it increased to 70 like in New Hampshire," said Miranda Davison of Hardwick.

But with lawmakers looking at ways to combat climate change, one idea that has surfaced is for drivers to slow down to a maximum of 55 mph.

Many drivers we talked to were skeptical.

"I don't think it's a good idea because people are going to go the speed they want anyway," Davison said.

"I think it should stay where it is. If you lower it, people are still going to speed," said Kelli Flood of Colchester.

No proposal has officially been introduced in Montpelier but supporters may be counting on Vermonters' concerns about climate change.

"I am a supporter of doing anything I can to reduce the burning of fossil fuels," said Collette Foster of Hardwick.

A lower speed limit has been tried before. In the '70s, Congress reduced the speed limit to 55 mph nationally to help cut fuel consumption during the energy crisis. The 55 cap was lifted in the '90s. This time, the idea is also energy-related, aimed at reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions.

"I was alive when the speed limit was reduced to 70 to 55 back in the day during the oil crisis and I know that it does save fuel use," Foster said.

"I have never thought about it in those terms," said Cortland Johnson of Waterbury. "Any way we can reduce greenhouse gases has got to be a little helpful."

Again, there is no official proposal but Williston Rep. Jim McCullough is pushing the concept and it has already been discussed in the House Transportation Committee. McCullough told WCAX News on Thursday that he knows the idea is controversial, but he plans to introduce a bill and is hopeful it will pass.

"We need to reduce our carbon footprint in the state of Vermont by nearly half of our carbon footprint," Rep. Jim McCullough, D-Williston, said.

If this were to ever become a thing, Vermont would have the lowest maximum speed limit of all 50 states.

Seems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".

[Duke87]

Seems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".

Indeed, but it'd give some people warm fuzzies that they can feel like they're doing something.

Knowing how Vermont State Police operate though, it WOULD be enforced.

[jp the roadgeek]

Seems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".

Indeed, but it'd give some people warm fuzzies that they can feel like they're doing something.

Knowing how Vermont State Police operate though, it WOULD be enforced.

They're watching

[froggie]

Seems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".

Indeed, but it'd give some people warm fuzzies that they can feel like they're doing something.

Knowing how Vermont State Police operate though, it WOULD be enforced.

(VSP would try to enforce it, but they are so few in number that it would be hilarious.  Vermont lacks the police numbers for effective speed enforcement as it is....this would make it much worse.)

[vdeane]

Ridiculous.  Let's hope this goes nowhere.  IMO VT needs to INCREASE their speed limit on interstates, not decrease it!

[sprjus4]

Ridiculous.  Let's hope this goes nowhere.  IMO VT needs to INCREASE their speed limit on interstates, not decrease it!

Agreed. Vermont, along with New York and New Jersey, need to increase their limits to 70 mph on interstate highways.

[cl94]

The 55 bill isn't even the craziest thing to come out of the legislative session. There's a bill to legalize prostitution and another to ban cell phone use by people under 21.

Edit: hyperlink error

[sprjus4]

The 55 bill isn't even the craziest thing to come out of the legislative session. There's a bill to legalize prostitution and another to ban cell phone use by people under 21.

That cellphone ban is merely a joke. It won't ever pass.

[PHLBOS]

Seems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".

Those of us who were alive and/or coherent at the time the National Speed Limit was lowered to 55 in reaction to the 1973-74 gas prices spikes and long lines at the pumps; know that such was done as a means to reduce fuel consumption.  At the time & given what was available in terms of vehicle transmissions; such, for the most part, had some validity & truth.

However, the days of 3-speed automatics (GM's 2-speed Power-Glide automatic was already being phased out during the early 70s) and non-overdrive gear transmissions are long gone among newer vehicles.  Overdrive and later multi-speed/variable transmissions, the former has been available as far back as the early 80s have rendered the 55-mph speed limit as a fuel-saving measure obsolete.  Case-and-point: both of my current vehicles (a 2007 Mustang & a 2011 Crown Vic) get their optimum fuel economy between 68-72 mph.

Bottom line: these legislators that propose measures like these are still stuck in the 70s IMHO.