Burlington landlord Jill Diemer was cleaning up her Old North End property in June when she picked up a scrap of paper. It was a discarded flyer that had been distributed to neighborhood homes highlighting coming changes: 10 parking spots on one-way North Union Street, where she rents out three buildings, would be eliminated to make way for a bike lane.
It was the first Diemer had heard of the plan — and she wasn’t happy. She notified other landlords and was one of many who railed against the lane during a crowded Public Works Commission meeting July 19.
“I’m not against a livable, bikeable, walkable city,” Diemer told the commission. “I feel it’s too much asking for 10 spaces to be taken away on North Union.” Diemer, who has rented to college students and young professionals for almost 20 years, objected to the process. “Property owners and landlords and tenants were left out.”
Laurie Smith, another landlord at the hearing, called the bike lane “very detrimental” and worried that it would “create unnecessary hardship for the residents.”
Everyone opposed to the project said they supported making Burlington a bike-friendly city — just not there.
The bike lane has been two years in the making. It’s part of what’s been dubbed the Old North End greenway, sometimes referred to as “the Wiggle” because it was designed to provide a zigzagging east-west biking route along quiet, residential streets between Battery Park and the University of Vermont campus. It also marked an initial step in the city’s planBTV Walk Bike master plan, a long-term vision for Burlington’s 95 miles of streets and 130 miles of sidewalks that would, in a decade, more than triple the number of bike lanes in the Queen City.
Overwhelmingly, Burlingtonians say they support the two-wheel travel lanes. The number of residents commuting by bike quadrupled between 2000 and 2013, according to statistics from a city survey included in the 233-page master plan. Even so, in 2015, two-thirds of 540 respondents said that they don’t bicycle in Burlington because they don’t feel safe.
But when the rubber hits the road, it gets a bit bumpy, as a recent bike lane pilot program on North Avenue showed. Opponents of the 0.8-mile lane bemoaned the longer drive times they experienced with fewer car travel lanes. Proponents, meanwhile, hailed statistics that showed car crashes had decreased while the temporary lanes were in place.
The Burlington City Council voted 10-2 on July 10 to keep those lanes in place — a decision that frustrated some residents.
“The Wiggle” controversy showed that bike-lane backlash isn’t confined to any one neighborhood. People filled the room at the Department of Public Works’ Pine Street offices as Old North End property owners and three city councilors urged the commission on July 19 to hold off on a vote. They expressed concerns about the loss of parking spaces, criticized what they called a confusing approval process for bike lanes and quibbled over who can claim preeminent rights to the road.
Despite it all, the commission decided 4-3 to move forward with the vote, and then approved the project by a 6-1 tally. In a compromise, the DPW vowed to create at least eight parking spaces within four blocks of North Union. The 1.2-mile bike lane will be in place by the end of September.
One project down, dozens more to go. The city’s long-term list includes 45 initiatives, ranging from multiyear street improvements to better signs. According to the DPW, this year’s agenda includes a bike greenway on Lakeview Terrace, stretches of bike lanes on Pearl and Pine streets, and improvements to Riverside Avenue. There are also less-extensive projects for biking and walking safety: traffic-calming tools such as speed bumps, curb extensions and road markings.
Big projects down the road include biking improvements along Battery, Pine and Main streets, North and South Winooski avenues, and Shelburne Road.
The master plan marks a “paradigm shift” in the way that the city addresses transportation, said Councilor Max Tracy (P-Ward 2), a vocal bike-lane advocate who regularly arrives at council meetings with his bike helmet in hand. Tracy was “incredibly pleased” by the final project plans.
When the city council approved the master plan in April, it effectively ceded control of such projects to the DPW. Now, the department can create bike lanes without council authorization, though it needs approval from the Public Works Commission when there’s a loss of parking or another significant change.
That process is typical for infrastructure projects, but it worries some council members. Council President Jane Knodell (P-Central District) voted for the master plan, but “the devil is in the details,” she said.
As of 2015, 12 percent of Burlington streets — about 11.9 miles — had a bike lane. The master plan would nearly quadruple those numbers — to 45 percent and 43 miles — by 2026. To reach the goal, officials estimate that funding must increase from $1.5 million annually for bike and walk infrastructure to more than $2.5 million a year.
“One of our goals with planBTV Walk Bike is action,” said DPW senior planner Nicole Losch, who was charged with enacting the changes. For the department, she said, that means “trying to implement quickly with low-cost materials.”
Not everyone is ready for such drastic change.
The emphasis on biking seems “counterintuitive,” said Burlington resident Cory Cowles. He’s in favor of walking and biking generally but said the logistics are tricky. Vermont’s winters make it impossible to commute year-round by bike — “except for the most die-hard person,” Cowles said.
Chapin Spencer, Burlington’s DPW director, acknowledged that cycling concerns eat up a lot of his time, though on-street biking improvements make up less than 1 percent of the capital budget.
He’s done his best to be transparent, he said: DPW staff did distribute flyers in the North Union neighborhood — twice — and solicited feedback online. The DPW is also hiring a public information officer to provide better public outreach, Spencer added.
“It’s been hard on us, and on the community, to have some of those conversations,” he said.
Is the dissent just NIMBYism? No, say those who will have lanes installed along their properties. Bike lanes, generally speaking, are “a great idea,” said North Union landlord Jon Pizzagalli. But the first question potential tenants ask when he shows apartments is where they can park, he said.
The city will lose about 500 downtown parking spaces when the Burlington Town Center garage is razed later this year. The redevelopment will include 960 parking spaces once it’s completed in 2020.
A lack of downtown parking leads North Union tenants to look for spots farther afield. “It’s kind of a domino effect on people,” said North Union landlord Laura Waters, who called herself an “avid bicyclist” but one concerned about the influx of bike lanes.
Despite her vote for the master plan, Knodell, too, urged the Public Works Commission to slow down. She told the commission that she would ask for a reassessment of properties affected by parking changes.
“I walked away feeling like they hadn’t really listened to the people that were directly affected,” Knodell, whose district includes the North Union residents, said after the meeting. “What is the big rush here?”
For many biking and walking enthusiasts, though, it’s full speed ahead.
Jason Van Driesche, director of the cycling advocacy group Local Motion, is ready to undo “80 years of car-centric planning.” The organization — which has 1,200 members who have donated in the last year — promotes projects, educates cyclists and makes its voice heard at public meetings.
Van Driesche wants “a better balance” but dismisses any suggestions of a car-bike battle for the streets. “It makes me cringe when people say we need to get people out of their cars,” he said. “That’s presumptuous.”
DPW Director Spencer is familiar to cycling advocates. He founded Local Motion in 1999 and served as executive director until Mayor Miro Weinberger named him to the DPW post in 2013.
Councilor Dave Hartnett (D-North District) worries that Spencer’s past bike advocacy leads him to favor cyclists’ positions in his current role and called it “a huge conflict of interest.”
Spencer “believes in the [Local Motion] agenda,” Hartnett said. “I’m really close to asking Chapin to resign.”
Spencer noted that Local Motion is one of multiple organizations that the department works with. He’s no longer affiliated with the group.
Weinberger defended his DPW director. “He has my full support,” Weinberger wrote in a statement. “Questioning Chapin’s past relationship with Local Motion distracts us from an important and legitimate debate of the transportation policies that I and the large majority of the council are supporting.”
A walk-bike implementation committee, an advisory group convened by Local Motion and the DPW, is helping to enact the master plan. Its members, bike buffs all, met in city hall last Thursday to talk cycling.
One member had his own solution for the battle for city streets: Get rid of all parking, suggested RJ Lalumiere — only half joking. But that’s a no-go, he said with a rueful smile; the opposition “would raise holy heck over that.”
Hartnett would count himself as a member of the opposition. He was outspoken against the North Avenue bike lanes and was one of two councilors to vote no on the master plan. “We made the argument that the city councilors don’t really know what’s in this plan,” he said.
Knodell, for her part, wants more council oversight. On August 7, she’ll present two resolutions. The first asks that any removal of parking spaces within a mile of Burlington Town Center be put on hold while the mall —and its new parking garage — is redeveloped.
The second resolution requests that the Public Works Commission share with the council their process for upcoming projects: “Who gets notified, how will you analyze the impact on parking, potentially adverse impacts,” Knodell said.
At the commission meeting, Van Driesche noted that the stakes are getting higher. If observers thought the North Union project was contentious, just wait: Other projects will require greater parking sacrifices, he said.
“There’s simply no way around it,” Van Driesche told the commission. “This is actually a pretty easy decision compared to what’s coming down the road.”
Update, August 3, 2017: This story has been corrected to reflect the Public Works Commission’s vote tally on the North Union Street project.Related Stories
This article appears in Aug 2, 2017 – Aug 7, 2018.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Since apparently Seven Days is playing loose with the characterization of my statements, let me be clear. I never said “Get rid of all parking”, which is of course a ridiculous statement. I said that arterial streets should not have any on street parking and instead should have cycletrack so each mode has its own dedicated space on the streets we use to funnel traffic over distance.
Of course we need parking and we have and will continue to have plenty of parking. Side streets, parking garages, off street parking, etc. will still provide plenty of space for storing private property, sometimes on public land. Seven Days own reporting notes, “it’s infinitely cheaper to help drivers find the 35 percent of spaces currently vacant”.
https://sevendaysvt-test.newspackstaging.com/vermont/burlington-considers-its-parking-options/Content?oid=2376426
So, please folks park in one of the garages already, where I personally have never failed to find a spot, and stop obsessing over parking directly in front of your destination. We live in one of the most walkable cities in the country; if you give it a try you may enjoy it 🙂
Kudos to Seven Days for looking at this from multiple angles. Local Motion has done fantastic work in terms of bike advocacy and public safety education. The lakefront path is generally a gem and an asset, and was itself controversial back in the day. That said, we really should not be removing parking spots from a city that is already difficult to park in and a city that is experiencing a rapid growth spurt, with over 1,500 new housing units in development and more retail and office space coming (Don Sinex Tall Mall project downtown; Grove Street project; Cambrian Rise on North Ave/former Burlington College/Catholic Church property).
Burlington does not have the public infrastructure like subways or regional rail of Boston or New York City. Even with the subways & regional rail, those cities are permanent traffic jams (with private parking spots often costing the same as a nice one or two bedroom in Burlington). NY Times reported on this, you will pay $165K to $250K for a single private parking spot in Manhattan.
Unless you live within a half mile of your workplace or school, most people do drive. Even students do, who understandably want to be closer to campus, especially in the bad weather. People in the 1,500 plus new housing units will have cars. They may be hybrids or the new Tesla 3 but they will have cars to get around.
And like the article mentions, Burlington does not exactly have the climate of San Diego or Portland, Oregon. How many people are bike commuting in January and February? Pushing bike commuting at the expense of parking just seems unrealistic.
Why talk only to committed motorists Seven Days??? Of course they think riding in Winter cannot be done, they’ve never tried it.
Here’s a hint, it’s actually not hard! Put on some studded tires if you like, dress in layers like whenever you do outdoors activities in the winter and just ride. You’ll make plenty of heat once you get going, in fact the rule of thumb is “If you’re warm when you step outside you’re overdressed.”
We can have either on street parking or people on bikes not in the general purpose lanes, but there is not space for both, so decide which one pisses you off less 😀
Please do not slow down DPW! Streets are for transit; not for free vehicle storage. High quality multi-modal (bike, pedestrian, and yes, automobile) transit systems enhance our entire city’s economy. Provided free storage for personal property on public streets subsidized by taxpayers harms the economy by creating economic waste.
The motive behind these landlords’ objections is less NIMBYism and more based on their greed and selfishness. For years these mom-and-pop landlords (who own older, legacy buildings built before modern parking requirements became code) have not had to provide off-street parking for their tenants because there was ample free parking on PUBLIC streets (provided by taxpayers). I applaud DPW’s work to take back these public assets for the public’s best-interest: bike transit rather than free personal-property storage.
The use of city streets in the ONE for free vehicle storage rather than for transit is corporate welfare and generates inefficiencies in infrastructure that should be used for transit. These creates inequities in the services city government provides, using my tax dollars to bail out landlords who don’t provide their tenants with private, off-street parking accommodations.
If there’s a parking shortage in the ONE that’s because there’s no price for on-street parking. It’s free. Selling parking permits for that area would mitigate some of the waste and could free up streets for more bike lanes.
People. Bike. In. Winter. Where. There. Is. Infrastructure. https://copenhagenvikingbiking.tumblr.com/
People. Bike. Up. Hills. Where. There. Is. Infrastructure. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/17/people-power-montreal-north-america-cycle-city
Looking at the few hardy souls who are willing to bike when there is very little decent infrastructure and extrapolating that to predict who would bike if the lanes were there is folly.
I have been parking cars in downtown Burlington for over 20 years. I have never not found a parking space within a 10 minute walk of my destination.
Why no voice to the possibility that a rental property on the safest, widest, quickest bike pathway between downtown/waterfront and UVM would not be highly desired because of that fact? The landlords state that most potential tenants ask about on-street parking, but have they considered a hard-sell to student tenants regarding the access to safe bike lanes?
IMHO, too many students bring their cars to school in Burlington. You can always tell in late August when classes are about to start, because the traffic volume on Main Street doubles literally overnight. I think most Burlingtonians (except the landlords perhaps) would appreciate less vehicular traffic in the downtown and UVM zone.
Doesn’t Dave Hartnett “(D)” – ha! own a gas station?
Maybe he should consider his own conflict of interest before casting aspersions at the DPW director.
Chris-
You are in South Burlington and have no standing to comment. Union Street is a municipal road and not a VTrans road like St Paul/Shelburne or upper Main streets.
NEXT!
(….of course the out-of-town residents want Burlington taxpayers to subsidize free on-street and two-hour garage parking)
Prospero Gogo, valid points about reality and market demand for parking. We may all wish that students brought fewer cars but the reality is they bring the cars they do. And, yes, as you say, it is immediately noticeable because of increased traffic volume downtown, in the UVM zone, etc. But students are of driving age and legally allowed to bring a car so it does no good to just wish it away. Tuition-paying students deserve a place to park, just the same as taxpaying residents, taxpaying business-owners, business employees (including those who commute from the suburbs), business-supporting tourists, shoppers, etc. It’s why there’s zoning and parking requirements.
As former director of Public Works Steve Goodkind has said, the parking studies over at least 20+ years have shown Burlington needs more parking; not less. It’s not like the Mayor and Chapin Spencer have ignored it; to the contrary, there has been some effort to maximize and modernize pre-existing parking. Thus, some surprise at the moves to now potentially reduce parking for bike lanes. An unintended consequence may be to aggravate sprawl by pushing more students to rent in South Burlington where they can find parking.
BTW, does anyone have more info on the recent legal settlement between developer Don Sinex and Attorney John Franco’s group to add around 200 parking spaces to the new Tall Mall project? Originally the replacement garage for Burlington Town Center was reportedly going to be private valet and not open to general public? But if last month’s legal settlement opens it to the public, looks like a net gain to downtown of around 100 to 120 new parking spaces (even after factoring in 1 parking spot for each of the 272 new housing units)?
Paco, I believe Burlington resident and former Mayor Peter Clavelle successfully initiated the 2 hour free parking at municipal garages. Something supported by the Burlington Business Association and thoughtful and progressive major business leaders like Melinda Moulton. Eliminating the 2 hour free parking would theoretically help pay for garage maintenance and capital costs but also make it even easier for people to just choose on-line shopping; and dining outside the city instead.
Good point about Union Street and it’s not like the sky is falling, DPW has made the commitment to create 8 new parking spaces within a few blocks of Union.
The Commission vote on the Old North End Wiggle and removal of parking on North Union St. was actually 6-1 in favor, not 4-3 as stated in the article (meeting minutes are available on the DPW site).
I am a landlord (and live in the house too) on the proposed route in an area that is not losing parking and I view the project positively. I think it is extremely predictable that the meeting would be full of opponents when DPW tried hardest to get the attention of people who are potentially negatively affected. I think the commission then did right by weighing what they heard last night with what they’ve heard from city residents overall.
I find it strange that the Council recently decided that they are traffic engineers. I worked at the UVM Transportation Research Center off of Colchester Ave when that road switched from four lanes to three. That process seemed much less controversial and more based on facts and data: the corridor had several high crash intersections and segments; four lane roads are an outdated and dangerous design; and 4-to-3 conversions have the co-benefit of allowing room for bike lanes, a mode that more people are choosing and is good for health and the environment. The North Ave process was entirely different, and now part-time Councilors want to micro manage the professionals at Public Works?
You know you’ve written a great story when advocates for both sides are complaining in the comments that the coverage is slanted against them. Excellent job, Katie.
marianne1 did you fail reading comprehension in school? I never said anything even close to: “we all should bike in the winter because he does”.
I said: “Of course [committed motorists] think riding in Winter cannot be done, they’ve never tried it. “
Dispelling the demonstrably false notion that one cannot bike in Winter is hardly the same as saying everyone should do it, although plenty of people already do with more joining in every year. (_)
Get off your high horse and accept that folks are going to continue getting around lots of different ways. Focusing all our transportation resources on motoring fails the third of Burlingtonians who don’t drive.
There’s an awful lot of mud being slung here. Please, let’s engage in respectful dialogue and work collaboratively to come up with solutions that are mutually beneficial, respect the existing needs and circumstances in the city, and create a model multimodal city.
We own a building on N. Union. The city has allowed multi-tenant buildings with associated parking on N. Union – landlords did not create this arrangement. This is an interdependent system that has been in place since before most of you were born. This doesn’t make it wrong or right. As we all can agree, unfortunately, most people drive cars and need a place to park.
Our argument against this plan is that within a month, (and unknown to the property owners before a June 30 letter was sent out) the DPW is removing parking in a densely populated area that will cause the equilibrium of the system to be significantly impacted. Transportation in the city is like a three-legged stool and with this decision they are kicking out one of the legs without any effort to ameliorate the effects. I realize that they have found scattered parking spots in the area, but this doesn’t address the reality of the parking pressure that we are dealing with on N. Union. If the DPW had looked at each of the three legs – walking, biking & parking there could have been creative options considered that would have maintained parking and provided safe infrastructure for biking and walking. Did the DPW or anyone railing against us offer solutions to begin relieving parking pressure in this area? How do we keep employees and visitors from parking on N. Union instead of downtown where they have to pay? How about satellite parking for those students in the area who don’t use their cars often? Or, 24-hour parking limits in the area to eliminate long term on street parking?
Finally, the July 19 DPW Commission final vote was 4-3. It was not an overwhelming vote of confidence for this plan.
Biking commuters quadruple according to statistics from a city survey included in the 233-page master plan? I don’t believe that for one minute. I would question any “study” from the corrupt Burlington leadership – My experience is that they are slanted to get a certain result or are “apple vs. orange” results that should not be compared – Only the Press and Local Motion members believe those studies. Everyone else is on to them.
Seven Days usually only tells one side of the story as I witnessed during the so-called N. Ave. Pilot which was never a pilot at all. “He’s done his best to be transparent, ” referring to Chapin Spencer who repeatedly lied throughout the North Ave. project. Giving the press unscientific pie charts – letting them run off and report results that he KNEW were untrue. Also ADMITTING that he “may have counted each biker four times” when challenged on his results on increased biking on the Ave. The only thing he’s done his best at is deception and manipulation. You can go to those meetings all you want – if you don’t agree with Local Motion you WILL NOT be heard and your opinion will not be considered. The council has given Chapin/ Local Motion free reign to run this city even though it is a complete conflict of interest for him to do so and would be ILLEGAL anywhere else but Burlington. WAKE UP Vermonters – Stop voting in people from out of state who only have outside interests for our city. We need to start voting in Vermonters or out-of-stater’s who LIKE Vermont and don’t want to change it to wherever they came from – strictly agenda driven representatives. The only people in Burlington who get representation are Local Motion members and that’s it!