Good answer!!! there need not be competing interests, it's a scarcity that
is created to keep people infighting. Demand that those highways be taken
out of the pipeline, and there will be plenty of money for bike-ped projects.
ALERT! Folks in Chittenden County:
< This is YOUR chance to SPEAK OUT for better public transit! >
< Re-organize and expand CCTA! >
< Express Commuter Buses from Park and Rides! >
< Expand Amtrak and Commuter Rail options! >
<--------------- "REGIONAL TRANSIT FUTURES FORUM" ----------------->
< Wednesday, September 22nd >
< 7 pm -- Presentation, 7:30 pm -- Public Forum >
< Contois Auditorium, Burlington City Hall >
?? In an area as forward-thinking as Chittenden County, ??
?? why do we have such inadequate bus and train service ??
The Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization has organized
this public forum to hear what you think about transit in the area.
Vermont Transportation Alliance encourages children, seniors, persons
with disabilities, and low-income workers to come and tell how bad it
is. How we can't get to work, to the store, to school, etc...
Behind the scenes of this forum, policy makers are ready to pit bus
service agaist train service -- wanting us to believe that we can't have
both...but we can! Here's why:
1) BUSES AND TRAINS COMPLIMENT EACH OTHER, SERVE DIFFERENT MARKETS
- Buses are good for short, flexible trips, drop off at corner
- Trains are good for longer commutes, interstate travel
- Trains attract middle class commuters who won't ride buses
- Both needed to boost transit to 6% of all travel trips (L.R.
2) WE CAN FUND BOTH BUSES AND TRAINS
- Vermont has received huge increases in Federal Transportation $
- Vermont currently spends much less than 5% on transit
- Many funding sources different for buses, trains --
- NO Chittenden County analysis shows that we can't do both
Road-builders want us to fight over scraps. It's time to demand our
fair share! Come with your personal stories and your vision.
FOR MORE FORUM INFO, SURF www.ccmpo.org AND CLICK ON "TRANSIT FUTURES"
VERMONT TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE is a coalition of businesses,
environmental groups and citizens that believes Vermont must develop a
more sustainable transportation system -- transportation options that
provide mobility for seniors, children, persons with disabilities and
low-income workers while preserving our working landscape and our
quality of life. Vermont Transportation Alliance is a project of the
Conservation Law Foundation and V-PIRG.
~~ chapin spencer ~~
~~ 175-B north prospect street, burlington, vt. 05401 ~~
~~ (802) 864-2974 [log in to unmask] ~~
~~ Vermont Transportation Alliance ~~
~~ 128 intervale road, burlington, vt., 05401 ~~
~~ (802)660-3500x243 fax (802) 660-3501 ~~
~~"growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell."~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ edward abbey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 10:04 PM 09/18/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>I've been considering Jon Kaplan's letter, and I'd like to share my own
>thoughts. First of all, I am one of the cyclists on the committee. I
>commute to work and enjoy cycling long distances between towns. So, I am
>biased from the other direction. Jon's argument is a good one. I've
>heard it before--from Tony Reddington. We would benefit more people for
>the money if we build sidewalks and roundabouts to encourage walking and
>cycling short distances, mainly in larger towns. Undeniable. However,
>I've not heard there are competing interests. That is, there's a law on
>the books about improving shoulders when road projects are undertaken.
>I've not heard anyone advance the notion that if they don't pave the
>shoulders, there will be more money for sidewalks and roundabouts. If
>there is no competition, then the discussion on shoulders, from a
>cyclist's or pedestrian's pont of view, is very important.
>Then, I'd like to offer a few reflections on Jon's argument, from the
>other side. I believe it is our place, as a committee, to form a vision
>of Vermont as a cycle-friendly state. Of course, this is self-serving to
>those of us who ride. so what. What would the state look like if cycling
>and walking were as important in the planning process as cars? Although
>sidewalks and roundabouts are of great importance in the total picture,
>to limit the discussion to them is way too narrow, in my opinion. To say
>the shoulder discussion is important only to a handful of Vermonters who
>cycle distances and to the bike touring industry ignores the importance
>of the bike touring industry to the economy. As rail trails have become
>a tourist destination and an economic boon to communities that host
>them, so a state the has a reputation for bicycle friendliness and
>safety will attract more of the kinds of tourists most of us would like
>The action of creating a vision is the first step in the process of
>change. If we believe that , say, 10% of the trips under 5 miles should
>be made by bicycle or on foot, what would our streets and roads need to
>look like? I commute 7 miles to work. What should the roads on my route
>look like to provide for my safety? What I'm saying is that if we limit
>the discussion too narrowly, we may never create the changes most of us
>would like to see, though we might get more roundabouts and sidewalks.
>VTBIKEPEDPOLICY-L: The Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Discussion List
>Subscription control: http://list.uvm.edu/archives/vtbikepedpolicy-l.html.
>For help: email [log in to unmask] with the word "help" in the message
Leanora M. Terhune
64 Waterview Road
Colchester, VT 05446-6489
Phone: 802 658-1908
Fax: 802 660-4366
VT Chapt. Sierra Club
PO Box 3154
Burlington, VT 05401-0031
VTBIKEPEDPOLICY-L: The Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Discussion List
Subscription control: http://list.uvm.edu/archives/vtbikepedpolicy-l.html.
For help: email [log in to unmask] with the word "help" in the message body.