Karen Rowell successfully collected the necessary signatures to put the following question on Burlington’s Town Meeting Day ballot: “Shall the city of Burlington keep four vehicular lanes on North Ave.?” The goal: Prove to public officials that the majority of New North End residents oppose a pilot project, scheduled for this Spring, that would temporarily reduce a four-lane stretch of road to three lanes, plus two bike lanes.
But the city attorney ruled that the question was too vague. Since it’s too late for Rowell to circulate another petition, the city council will need to decide whether to put forward a rephrased version of the same question, in deference to the people who signed the original one.
Kurt Wright, a Republican who represents the New North End, plans to put forward a resolution that would do just that at next Monday’s council meeting. The question would be advisory, not binding.
But here’s the quandary: If the council votes to put Wright’s question on the ballot — and if a majority of residents in the most-affected neighborhood strongly oppose the pilot project — the council and the administration will be under significant pressure to scrap a project they’ve already approved, unanimously.
Supporters of the pilot project have said it’s important to at least test changes to North Avenue, and they note that city officials have pledged to restore the four lanes if the trial turns out to be a failure.
Among the proponents is Progressive Councilor Max Tracy, who opposes putting a reworded question on the ballot, arguing that the vagueness of the original question makes it too risky for councilors to try to guess at its intent.
Wright, who helped collect signatures for the petition, insists that the intent was “absolutely clear.” He continued, “I think it would be a really horrible precedent to set for the city council to not put a question on the ballot because of some technicality.”
Tracy, however, is concerned that a different precedent would be set if voters strongly oppose the pilot and the council decides to abandon it. “I think this absolutely is the wrong way to go about doing transportation policy … I don’t think we should put everything to a vote before we try things.”
Mayor Miro Weinberger issued a memo Friday afternoon announcing that he does feel comfortable interpreting the petitioners’ intent, and he supports putting Wright’s question on the ballot.
At the suggestion of the city attorney, the new question states, “Shall the City Council, Public Works Commission, and Administration be advised to keep four lanes open to motor vehicles on North Ave. from the Route 127 access intersection north to the Shore Road intersection?”
But like Tracy, the mayor, who has publicly supported the pilot project, expressed qualms about letting public opinion dictate transportation projects. His memo continues, “I do not believe we should make complex transportation planning decisions by ballot item.”
Wright declined to speculate about how the outcome of a vote on the ballot item would affect his position on the pilot project itself — “I really don’t want to go too far into conjecture on that.”
Dave Hartnett, an independent New North End councilor, didn’t support the petitioners’ effort — he thinks people should wait until the pilot project is up and running to make a judgment — but now that they’ve gotten the signatures, he will support putting the revised question on the ballot. Although he’s skeptical the project will actually improve North Avenue, he said he will continue to support the pilot, even if his constituents vote against trying the new configuration.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I sent the following via e-mail to City Attorney Eileen Blackwood on September 11th – I never got a response:
“Please review the question below. What I want to know from your office regarding the question is this: Will the Mayor or Council or City Clerk have any reason to say that the question itself is unacceptable for some reason and therefore will not be put onto the ballot?
Please respond as soon as possible as we have much to do by way of collecting the amount of signatures needed to force this on the ballot.
Petition to put the following question on the Burlington City March 2016 ballot:
Shall the City of Burlington keep four vehicular lanes on North Ave.? Yes__No__
Karen Rowell”
I wonder why it’s so vague now. Also Mr. Tracy – if the transportation planning decisions are so complex, why does the DPW head Chapin Spencer not have an engineering degree? If he doesn’t need one – why do we?
I went door to door helping get signatures with the first version of the petition, and then the second one. It was very obvious both times from people from a very high percentage approached that support keeping North Avenue just the way it is now. 4 lanes where they are in certain areas and no special bike lanes. No interest in support for the pilot studies are what I found as folks do not trust the body of the city council. The NPA and the Task Force have been very much one sided on this issue (only to support the side of the pilot study).
Karen has shared a lot of her exchanges of communication between the Secretary of state and City Attorney on request for clarity and how to properly proceed for requesting the right wording and process for this. For the City to now pull this is very sad and smacks close to skirting violations of our 1st Amendment rights to petition our government.
I urge people to make sure that they speak out to help us Monday night at the city council get this on the ballot!
I proudly gathered signatures from registered Burlington voters to allow them, and not Big Brother, to decide whether $150,000 (last estimate) in federal tax dollars ought to be used to paint road stripes in an.8 of a mile section in the New North End. If the project is a bust, as I think it will be, there is no money to paint stripes again. I just don’t get it: Why reduce driving lanes to one from two, add a bicycle lane in the road when sidewalks are legal to bike on out here and there is a bike path available? As a 15-year NNE resident, traffic is already gridlocked during prime morning and late afternoon/early evening prime drive time making it a dangerous challenge particularly, to try and make a left turn to head north or south on the avenue. Increased carbon emissions from drastically increased vehicle idling on the avenue in a city that has an idling law? How silly. The mayor claims North Avenue is the most dangerous street in Burlington. Back that statement up mayor, with police report “metrics.” There is NO money allocated to revert the .8 of a mile back to 4 vehicular lanes if the pilot fails. To local officials I say stop wasting my taxpayer dollars on a project that does not complement the dense residential and commercial mix of the New North End. Instead, use taxpayer dollars to fix and improve infrastructure integral to the environment and safe streets: Burlington’s dysfunctional waste water treatment system and crumbling and pot-holed streets. Please do that BEFORE you keep adding more multi-unit housing projects.
For the life of me I can’t see why anybody would not want to make N. Ave safer for all walks of life, Motorists, bikers, and walkers, Lord knows its not safe now, nobody knows where the other person is . you take your life in your own hands trying to cross it, and the fight is only over .8 of a mile….. now why ruin a super great project because of those who do not understand what is going on. These petition carriers are wrong. They would rather see more accidents, perhaps deaths .. this is our neighborhood, we want safer streets, not a drag strip or race track like we have now. Give this a try…. i know most of you will love it once you get use to it, Everyone should be for it, bikers want to be safer, motorists want bikers off to the side to make it safer, and pedestrians want to cross the street without being hit by a car doing 50 in a 25 or 30 MPH zone,
well, if a question is put on the ballot, the whole city gets to vote on it, not just Wards 4 and 7. that is as it should be.
personally, i think it’s better to try something before rejecting it outright. that’s what the pilot study is for.
Why don’t you just ask the Burlington telecom supporters that stole the $15m in tax payer money to create a private company to pony up the cash for the bike path.
Few things are studied as much as road design. Decades of transportation research shows that 4-lane road designs, like North Ave, have substantially higher accident rates and offer no appreciable improvement in travel time. If you are against the pilot project, which will settle once and for all what the impacts of 3-lane design will be, at least present some transportation studies to back up your arguments.
North Ave is 0.8 miles. You can double the speed limit and it won’t change the fact that it connects to a 2-lane road, which then puts you into a city with traffic congestion. The only thing that can be done to improve commute times is to decrease the number of cars (public transportation, car pooling, bike commuting). We can, however, reduce the needlessly high accident rate on North Ave through better road design. Let’s give the pilot a try.
Some research to get you started…
http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/conversion_of_four_lane_undivided_urban_roadways.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/broadway.shtml
Karen; the question is vague. Let us review the Mayor’s Memo, because he succinctly nails why it’s so vague.
“First, the question is not framed as an advisory measure – the language does not make it
clear to voters that this is a non-binding measure meant to reflect public opinion but not
requiring any change to City ordinances or planning.
Second, the wording of the question is unclear. North Avenue is four lanes only for certain
stretches of the road, and “vehicular lanes” could reasonably be understood to include
vehicles other than cars, such as buses or bicycles.”
I wonder what you would have thought about when the city put a streetcar on North Avenue, and then removed it years later? Or when the city paved North Avenue for the first time? Roads need to change to meet the needs of their stakeholders. And right now, North Avenue isn’t working or safe for anyone.
Why did the taxpayers pay millions to establish a bike path??? Also if bikes are allowed on the road they should need to pay for inspections, registrations, and license as we do as automobile drivers. Upgrade the bike paths and leave North Avenue alone
Montpelier decides to use our tax dollars to change 8/10th of a mile on North Ave. because we have many accidents and some people want to ride a bike on the Ave. protected by a painted line. The city is afraid of setting a precedent by allowing people to vote on changes that will affect their lives. The Mayor and city council know what’s best for us. Some people want to rely on statistics from a trial period of this road change. I guess the statistician will be the same person from Montpelier who discovered the high incidence of accidents we have.
I have lived one block away from Plattsburgh Ave. for 38yrs. and drive on the ave. at least twice a day almost every day of the week. I have seen people do the following. Speeding, talking on phones, texting, making left turns by a right turn only sign, following to close to the vehicle in front of them, going through red lights, making a right turn on red without a complete stop, riding bikes at night without lights or reflectors and wearing dark clothing, ignorance of traffic laws, disregard of traffic laws, stupidity, a lack of civility, and a tremendous lack of common sense.
I don’t see the following, increased police presence because of a high rate of accidents, pedestrian activated crossing lights, road repairs, sidewalks on every street, politicians wanting to help except at election time. Going from four lanes to three will not change peoples driving habits. There are more cars than bicycles and a painted line won’t protect you.
Why doesn’t the city repair Manhattan Dr., or the roadway crumbling into the inter-vale at the top of N.Champlain St., or all the missing or broken curbing’s.
If it ain’t broke fix what is.
This is going to seriously tie up traffic. I am Wellington to bet it adds an additional 5-10 minutes to already slow morning commute. With the beltline entrance and the high school it is already very difficult to get anywhere in the morning. And as someone who travels it everyday with multiple stops (children at different schools) I know how hard it is to get off side streets also. Going south in the am it takes forever to find a break in traffic and with only 1 lane per direction it will surely make it near impossible. I oppose. Why are we spending so much on the bike path if people aren’t using it to travel downtown on bikes???
Leave North Avenue Alone!! I grew up on North Avenue. I moved to “The Ave.” in 1977 when I was eight years old and lived there except a few years here and there until 1999 when my daughter was nine, at which time we moved out of state. Since returning to the area in 2001. I can easily say the through the years I have logged many miles and hours on North Avenue, and have seen 1 accident, which was not on the stretch of road in question. The last time it was changed there was the supposed traffic test which was a lane change and traffic light added coming on to North Ave. from the beltline. As a regular driver of that change I felt and still feel it was unnecessary and cumbersome. There is no easy traffic flow and the area is in need of repair. I regularly travel North Avenue to and from the grocery store, doctors, dentist and it is a main route for me to my granddaughters school in Downtown Burlington. I travel much of Chittenden County and see many accidents, traffic violations, poor drivers and poorly maintained roads yet I have never seen another accident on North Avenue. The current 4 lanes lessen the traffic back ups that will happen with the proposed changes as well as decrease likelihood of accidents due to drivers cutting each other off during a lane merge. I see and get stuck in that mess often enough on Williston road. Who really wants the changes? A Petition was circulated and from the number of signatures received many people don’t want them. Don’t mess with something that isn’t broken. No Pilot Testing!! Once it happens it stays!!
I say bring back the streetcar. Take back Vermont–to the times when public transit got people around with dignity. At the very least, let’s have public meetings and get to know each other and our positions better; and exercise the visionary part of our noggins a little. I would love to see a subway or light-rail get people out of their cars. Here’s a study that recommended that: http://www.ccrpcvt.org/library/transit/bur…
Doesn’t it deserve a couple of those 4 lanes on North Ave?
Boy, people never stop trying to stop progress or change. I bet there were lots of petitions from the horse and buggy people when cars started showing up. We need to make the streets safer for alternate forms of transportation into the future. I have a suggestion for how to word the question on the ballot:
Shall the City of Burlington build a wall across North Ave?
Just imagine the opportunity to post videos of residents scaling it to get downtown.
When I was a kid, a game called ‘Frogger’ was one of my favorites. The object of the game was to get your frog across 5 lanes of speeding traffic then hop your way onto a Lilly pad after crossing some logs. Oftentimes, a car would hit my frog and it would splat because crossing 5 lanes of traffic was a real challenge.
North Ave. is a real-life Frogger game. Except there are people trying to cross that road and the consequences are far more concerning. The Pilot already contains an “out” clause after implementation which was hard fought by NNE Councilors. Let the Pilot determine if petitioners’ fears are realistic.
After seeing the improvements this brought to travel on Pearl Street /Route 15 in Essex Junction – which I initially was against – I believe it would offer the same improvements to North Ave.
How is 5% a majority. I live in the NNE and am all for a change to this pathetic road. It needs help. That said, I have to agree somewhat that bikes should be routed to the bike path. A center turning lane would be ideal on North Ave.
I’m with Ziggy’s comment. If we all should SHARE THE ROAD , then we ALL should SHARE THE COST. As a vehicle owner on the road,we need a license,registration,inspection AND insurance.Why hasn’t the state,with all the “money ideas” they get,come to the conclusion that help with the cost of roads and the bike path , could be helped by retrieving money from bikers who want to SHARE THE ROAD. It would only be fair.No money being put in?No changes to the road and the extra traffic that comes from it. Isn’t it always about the bottom line?Then so be it “NOT” to the North Avenue changes.
Regarding “sharing the cost,” the facts are that the majority of the cost of building and maintaining roads in Vermont are paid for by the general taxpayer, not motor vehicle fees. Thus, it is those of us who drive cars (me included) who are subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers. If we truly want to share the cost then gas taxes and registration fees for motor vehicles need to dramatically increase. Until then, if you drive a car you are getting free stuff.