When developers do traffic "imrpovement" projects in Chittenden County, the
plan is not reviewed by the MPO. I think this is risky, not only because it
removes local control of growth based on Criteria 5 of Act 250, but also
because the developer may consider bike/bed safety.
At 11:53 AM 5/21/99 -0400, you wrote:
> George and all:
> The VTBPC has strongly endorsed roundabouts. It has not endorsed
>traffic signals that delay and kill pedestrians like they do car occupants.
>Further, there is not evidence that trafffc signals (with or without a
>dedicated walk phase) provide greater benefit in terms of delay and safety to
>pedestrians than intersections without traffic lights (except for
>roundabouts, of course). Further, the suggestion that a dedicated walk
>phase is either desirable or safe (to give slow moving pedestrians the time
>to cross the street) must be questioned. I believe we should encourage
>concurrent walking (i.e., crossing parallel to the stream of traffic) under
>most conditions. This both probably as safe if not safer (the pedestrian must
>look out for their own safety) and, of course, limits delay at intersections.
> Further, we should advocade for pedestrian islands or medians,
>particularly at wider intersections and mid-block crossings. These do cut
>down pedestrian injuries.
> There are a few cases where either (1) a roundabout is not the safe
>alternative, for example sharp grades at one or more approaches; or (2)
>pedestrian volumes are so large that a pedestrian-only phase is required
>(applies at a a roundabout).
> My suggestion is that we promote safe street crossings in general for
>pedestrians and bicycles and roundabouts as the desired standard.
64 Waterview Road
Colchester, VT 05446
Phone: 802 658-1908
Fax: 802 660-4366
Sierra Club, PO Box 3154, Burlington, VT 05401-0031
Phone and Fax:
802 651-0169, 888 729-4109