说明
When is the southern end of North Ave going to be marked as “no parking” as laid out in the original North Ave corridor study?
确认人:
Burlington, VT
Bike Lane ▶ 已确认
1 North Ave Burlington, Vermont
Move the marker to represent your issue's location. The address will not change.
问题 ID:
4422122Submitted To:
Burlington, VT类别:
Transportation or Parking Improvement Request INT Technical Services已查看:
777 次数已报告:
于服务请求 ID:
SR-101321-13- 分享
-
无法对此问题进行公开评论和状态更改.
42 评论s
Bill Ward Director of Permitting and Inspections (官方验证)
iceu (注册用户)
已确认 DPW Pine Customer Service (官方验证)
DPW Engineering PP (官方验证)
BTVHobbes (注册用户)
iceu most likely doesn't bike, maybe we should work towards a middle ground? As a cyclist, I feel frustrated that most of the bike infrastructure in the city is not continuous, it starts and stops and leaves a cyclist in a tough situation of take the lane for safety or ride the edge in the door zone. As a driver, I want to be able to park my vehicle in town even during busy times.
One is an issue of safety, the other of convenience......
iceu (注册用户)
peace
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
That Guy (注册用户)
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
So you are saying you disagree with him and that you believe Local Motion has an agenda.
As far as the "bold faced lie" goes, Jason is probably referencing the available data, which show high vacancy rates downtown. See link below:
https://parkburlington.com/parking-counts-highlight-available-spaces/
一位匿名的 SeeClickFix 用户 (注册用户)
DPW Planning NL (官方验证)
Thank you for inquiring about this project. The North Avenue Corridor Plan has a significant list of improvements to pursue and this project is still being evaluated for our long-term capital project list. We recognize the importance of this issue, and its impact to you, and we will continue to balance resources to address this and other long-term projects.
In the meantime, this year we will be formalizing a low-cost parallel route that offers an alternative and does not impact on-street parking:
The Lakeview Terrace Neighborhood Greenway can be accessed from Berry Street, Canfield Street, Haswell Street, or through the parking area at the top of Depot Street. As part of our quick-build program, the Lakeview Terrace Neighborhood Greenway will see traffic calming, signs, and pavement markings to prioritize biking in the near-term. For more information on this project and on Neighborhood Greenways, please visit https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPW/NeighborhoodGreenways
Thanks for your interest in improved connections and safer options for bicycling in Burlington.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
一位匿名的 SeeClickFix 用户 (注册用户)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
一位匿名的 SeeClickFix 用户 (注册用户)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
There is quantifiable data showing that the road diet on North Avenue made the street safer for drivers. The city also voted on the reconfiguration and it passed.
This is a matter of safety versus convenience.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
Oh do you live up there? No
Was it voted NO by 60% of Ward 4 and 7, Yes.
Has it made the commute longer, Yes.
Has it taken parking away from residents in front of their homes? Yes
Did the City council vote on it even though there were issues with the Survey, Yes.
Did City Councilors in Ward 4 and 7 loose trust in DPW as well, Yes.
Did cyclists get what they wanted at the expense of other citizens? Yes.
Do I like the bike lanes yes, but not at the expense of the residents in that area.
一位匿名的 SeeClickFix 用户 (注册用户)
Toilet manners - then the plan for no parking on southern end needs to be implemented for safety.
What infrastructure - I agree 100% which is why I asked my original question. I don’t really believe installing no parking on southern end was ever truly DPWs intention. North Enders were duped into believing no parking was going to be posted on all of North Ave.
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
"Oh do you live up there? No"
I live in Burlington, where my taxes pay for all of the infrastructure.
"Was it voted NO by 60% of Ward 4 and 7, Yes."
Yeah. Not really a huge majority or anything, and the rest of the city voted for it.
"Has it made the commute longer, Yes."
Yep. Safer too.
"Has it taken parking away from residents in front of their homes? Yes"
Sure did. Wards 4 and 7 can park off of driveways, so this shouldn't have any impact.
"Did the City council vote on it even though there were issues with the Survey, Yes."
Yep. Partially because the rest of the city voted for it.
"Did City Councilors in Ward 4 and 7 loose trust in DPW as well, Yes."
Did they trust DPW in the first place?
"Did cyclists get what they wanted at the expense of other citizens? Yes."
The primary motive of the road diet was to remove lanes to increase safety. The bike lanes were secondary. Did everyone get a safer road to drive and ride bikes on, as well as cross to get to the other side? Yeah.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
-You live in Burlington, but not in the area affected.
-60% is still 60%, and the rest of the city dictated what would happen in the NNE, which is not ok.
-It took parking from residents that they had when they purchased their home. Do you own a home? Was your property affected?
-It has increased yard parking. Do you not care about those residents affected?
-Yes the City Council voted on it too soon. Thanks Max Tracy, go back to your Ward.
-Speaking to City Councilors, yes they did, it was a pilot. DPW never intended for it to be a pilot. Local motion lobbying and Chapin Spencer made sure of that.
If safety was primary and bike lanes secondary, why take away parking spaces and add bike lanes? Which is the main issue here. If they did it without screwing the local residents, I wouldn't have a problem. It was always about cyclists getting a bike lane at other citizens' expense. Which is my overall issue
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
"-You live in Burlington, but not in the area affected."
Burlington is the area affected. The city charter will not allow two wards to dictate infrastructure policy for the whole city.
"-60% is still 60%, and the rest of the city dictated what would happen in the NNE, which is not ok."
60% of two wards is still a minority in Burlington. According to the city charter, this is okay.
"-It took parking from residents that they had when they purchased their home. Do you own a home? Was your property affected?"
Roads do change on occasion. There used to be a streetcar that went down North Ave. The beltline was built in the 70s. People owned those home back then too.
My property is affected, yes. I pay taxes. I also can ride a bike to Ace Hardware to buy supplies and improve my property with them.
"-It has increased yard parking. Do you not care about those residents affected?"
Certainly I care. But when someone's convenience is making a street unsafe, the street needs to be changed. It's not unreasonable to remove street parking in this area.
"-Yes the City Council voted on it too soon. Thanks Max Tracy, go back to your Ward."
Too soon? The project took years to develop, and two more years to make permanent. Max Tracy is a city councilor, whose job is to vote on city issues, as per the city charter. I get that you're upset, but your argument isn't really logical.
-Speaking to City Councilors, yes they did, it was a pilot. DPW never intended for it to be a pilot. Local motion lobbying and Chapin Spencer made sure of that.
You're right though; DPW never intended the road diet to be a pilot. If I recall, the pilot idea was floated by the council to help people understand what the changes were.
"If safety was primary and bike lanes secondary, why take away parking spaces and add bike lanes? Which is the main issue here. If they did it without screwing the local residents, I wouldn't have a problem. It was always about cyclists getting a bike lane at other citizens' expense. Which is my overall issue"
Taking underutilized parking out and putting in bike lanes isn't "screwing the local residents." Local residents are using the bike lane. More bikes means less car traffic, and bike lanes mean that car traffic is able flow better. Everybody is getting something. As for getting a "bike lane at other citizen's expense," you should keep in mind that every lane is a bike lane, and a person riding a bike is entitled to use the full lane when needed.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
You can continue to ignore the points I've made and twist things to validate your argument:
"The city charter will not allow two wards to dictate infrastructure policy for the whole city."
The issue is that 2 wards were not allow to dictate infrastructure in their 2 wards, the rest of the city did.
"Roads do change on occasion."
- That they do. Great point. But maybe the local residents affected should have a say. If you own a property, you are financially invested in that property. Do you directly pay a property tax in Burlington?
" Max Tracy is a city councilor, whose job is to vote on city issues, as per the city charter."
- He did not just vote on it, he initiate the vote when their were issues with the survey initiated by DPW because it was a pilot program.
"If I recall, the pilot idea was floated by the council to help people understand what the changes were."
- Then its not a pilot to determine if it would be kept. Your telling me DPW misrepresented the idea as a trail period, for further evaluation, and had 100% intentions of keeping it. Hence the mistrust in DPW.
"Taking underutilized parking out "
- You have independently deemed all parking taken for the current bike lanes and the proposed southern section as underutilized. Local residents affected my disagree. Driving down the southern section of North Ave, the parking looks to be well utilized. One could also state that a bike lane in Vermont would be underutilized much of the year.
- It is understood that every travel lane can be utilized by a bicycle, why bring it up? Why have a bike lane then? Resident parking was removed so a cyclist could get an bike lane. Your contradicting yourself.
-I can tell you that the residents in that area will tell you there is more traffic, not less. more bikes does not equal less cars. The bike lanes are primarily utilized by the weekend cyclist, not a commuter traveling to work.
一位匿名的 SeeClickFix 用户 (注册用户)
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
"The issue is that 2 wards were not allow to dictate infrastructure in their 2 wards, the rest of the city did."
Yes, correct. In spite of the special treatment that residents got in Wards 4 and 7 in way of surveys before and after the Pilot, the rest of the city still wanted the road diet to be permanent.
"maybe the local residents affected should have a say. If you own a property, you are financially invested in that property. Do you directly pay a property tax in Burlington?"
The local residents did get a say. Surveys were distributed to the NNE. The city voted for this. As for property taxes weighting my opinions, that's some dangerous ground. Must we have property to be able to vote in Burlington?
"Then its not a pilot to determine if it would be kept. Your telling me DPW misrepresented the idea as a trail period, for further evaluation, and had 100% intentions of keeping it. Hence the mistrust in DPW."
Sure it is. There aren't armadillos in the road, even though it was much safer and kept people in their lane, because the majority of the survey results showed they weren't liked. You can skew however you like, but the purpose of DPW is to build safe roads and maintain them, among other things. The numbers show that they did just that on North Avenue.
"You have independently deemed all parking taken for the current bike lanes and the proposed southern section as underutilized. Local residents affected my disagree. Driving down the southern section of North Ave, the parking looks to be well utilized. One could also state that a bike lane in Vermont would be underutilized much of the year. "
I am not qualified to independently deem any parking underutilized or not. My information comes from the pilot data. The southern section is more narrow and is more utilized, if I recall correctly.
"It is understood that every travel lane can be utilized by a bicycle, why bring it up? Why have a bike lane then? Resident parking was removed so a cyclist could get an bike lane. Your contradicting yourself. "
Not really. Bike lanes are for people who don't feel comfortable or fast enough taking a travel lane. Having bike lanes encourages people to get out of their cars and bike instead.
"I can tell you that the residents in that area will tell you there is more traffic, not less. more bikes does not equal less cars. The bike lanes are primarily utilized by the weekend cyclist, not a commuter traveling to work."
Are you qualified to make any of the claims in your statement above? Research is showing that indeed, more people biking means less people driving, at least for some trips. "The weekend cyclist?" How do you know that?
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
In spite of the special treatment that residents got in Wards 4 and 7 in way of surveys before and after the Pilot, the rest of the city still wanted the road diet to be permanent.
- How dare they get special treatment, they only live there.
"The local residents did get a say. Surveys were distributed to the NNE. The city voted for this. As for property taxes weighting my opinions, that's some dangerous ground. Must we have property to be able to vote in Burlington?"
- Did the City respect the results of the survey and that they were not properly distributed and people were not able to complete the survey prior to the city councils vote? Despite having the survey, I don't think the City Council cared.
"The city voted for this. As for property taxes weighting my opinions, that's some dangerous ground"
- I do not feel that renters should have the same weight as property owners. Someone who rents and lives in Burlington for 1-2 years or 4 years for college should not have the weight as someone who has chosen to live their life here.
"Sure it is. There aren't armadillos in the road, even though it was much safer and kept people in their lane, because the majority of the survey results showed they weren't liked. You can skew however you like, but the purpose of DPW is to build safe roads and maintain them, among other things. The numbers show that they did just that on North Avenue."
-The pilot program was to determine if the 4 lanes would stay or change to 2 lanes with bike lanes. I don't believe the armadillos were the main focus of the pilot. And the armadillos are gone because it was a safety issue. Your discounting the misrepresentation by DPW.
"I am not qualified to independently deem any parking underutilized or not. My information comes from the pilot data. The southern section is more narrow and is more utilized, if I recall correctly"
- but you did. you did quantify the parking as underutilized. You made that statement. Yet you are still advocating removal of the southern parking, though it is utilized more. Which is the entire issue, removal of resident parking to create an underutilized (Nov-March) bike lane.
"Are you qualified to make any of the claims in your statement above? Research is showing that indeed, more people biking means less people driving, at least for some trips. "The weekend cyclist?" How do you know that? "
- I have live and worked in the NNE for 10 years. I talk to my neighbors. I drive on the avenue. Did you ever travel on the avenue prior to the lane change. Do you even travel to this part of Burlington now? May I suggest you look at the world around you and less in a report that was put out by DPW. Its anecdotal evidence which you will disagree with.
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
"- How dare they get special treatment, they only live there."
Yes, exactly. The entire city pays for the roads, and the roads aren't just for New North Enders. In spite of that, the city showed preferential treatment to these two wards.
"- Did the City respect the results of the survey and that they were not properly distributed and people were not able to complete the survey prior to the city councils vote? Despite having the survey, I don't think the City Council cared."
The city did way more than was reasonable to get people in the NNE to do the survey, including mailers, setting up stations at assisted living buidings, extending the deadline, and even calling residents.
"- I do not feel that renters should have the same weight as property owners. Someone who rents and lives in Burlington for 1-2 years or 4 years for college should not have the weight as someone who has chosen to live their life here."
Some people in Burlington intend to rent in Burlington until they die. How are you going to parse them out? Sorry, but I don't even think that's constitutional.
"-The pilot program was to determine if the 4 lanes would stay or change to 2 lanes with bike lanes. I don't believe the armadillos were the main focus of the pilot. And the armadillos are gone because it was a safety issue. Your discounting the misrepresentation by DPW."
No, the armadillos weren't the main focus of the pilot, but the pilot called for protected bike lanes. The pilot also was successful, popular with the majority of the city, lowered collisions, and encouraged bicycling. This all right out of the data collected.
"- but you did. you did quantify the parking as underutilized. You made that statement. Yet you are still advocating removal of the southern parking, though it is utilized more. Which is the entire issue, removal of resident parking to create an underutilized (Nov-March) bike lane."
But I didn't. Here's a link to the parking assessments along North Ave starting at 127.
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/DPW/TransportationProjects/NorthAveStudy/Parking%20Assessments_10-14-15.pdf
Lots of zeros in there. Also, not once have I advocated for removing parking in the southern corridor on North Avenue. I'm not sure where you got that one.
"underutilized (Nov-March) bike lane." Show me some hard data.
"- I have live and worked in the NNE for 10 years. I talk to my neighbors. I drive on the avenue. Did you ever travel on the avenue prior to the lane change. Do you even travel to this part of Burlington now? May I suggest you look at the world around you and less in a report that was put out by DPW. Its anecdotal evidence which you will disagree with."
You're right; anecdotal data is pretty much valueless. But to answer your questions anecdotally, I both drove and biked on the avenue before the change. I always do the speed limit, and angry scofflaw drivers would speed by creating dangerous conditions. When biking, those same drivers would close pass even when the other lane was available. People would also yell out of their cars to get out of the road.
Do I travel to the NNE now? Sure do. There's Hannafords, Ace Hardware, The Bagel, North Beach, and I take my motorcycle to Daily Rider for inspections. All of which are open to everyone in Burlington, not just people who live in the NNE. The experience of using North Avenue now versus then is like night and day, driving and biking considered.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
The Constitution only applies to federal elections. In local elections, its based on each municipality. Burlington has extended voting to Non-citizens. Its less about the renters who choose to rent their whole life and more about the ones who live here a year or 2 and then move to another municipality. My issue with you as a renter, you do not seem to care about the homeowner affected. Just about what you want, the removal of cars, and addition of bike lanes. Consideration of an individual homeowner is absent.
"Here's a link to the parking assessments along North Ave starting at 127"
So your statistically significant data deeming parking underutilized was taken from ONE day of observation, a work day as well. In addition the parking lines designating a parking lane weren't visible. Statistically the data collected is a joke. On could argue that car parking increased near 5:00, but then again the data is junk. Was this data also collected by DPW? If so seems like a conflict of interest.
TM your view is too polarized against cars, always has been. I cant cont to explain to you why people in the NNE aren't happy and why they feel jaded by DPW. Sadly history will repeat itself in the southern half and local residents will be ignored to move Localmotion's and Chapin Spencer's AGENDA forward. Yes local motion has an agenda.
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
"The Constitution only applies to federal elections. In local elections, its based on each municipality. Burlington has extended voting to Non-citizens. Its less about the renters who choose to rent their whole life and more about the ones who live here a year or 2 and then move to another municipality."
Right, I get your point. Should absentee homeowners have more sway over Burlington elections than the people who actually live here? Students also can continue to vote in their home state, since they retain residency.
"My issue with you as a renter, you do not seem to care about the homeowner affected. Just about what you want, the removal of cars, and addition of bike lanes. Consideration of an individual homeowner is absent."
You're assuming that I'm a renter, and you're assuming what I want. For the record; I want safe streets with infrastructure that supports cars and bicycles. That can include parking when it's reasonable.
"On could argue that car parking increased near 5:00, but then again the data is junk."
Certainly, you could, and I agree. It appears that 2 cars were parked between Institute Road and 127. That's up from zero all day.
You can say the data is junk, but it's more significant than any emotional argument.
"your view is too polarized against cars, always has been."
No. I want people to use cars responsibly and be held accountable, just like other users of heavy machinery.
"I cant cont to explain to you why people in the NNE aren't happy and why they feel jaded by DPW."
A significant minority in the NNE are happy, if we can interpret the vote that way. If you remove all of the politics behind the road change, is driving down the avenue better now than it was?
"Sadly history will repeat itself in the southern half and local residents will be ignored to move Localmotion's and Chapin Spencer's AGENDA forward. Yes local motion has an agenda."
Is that really happening? I understood that they were leaving parking on the southern end, and the plan is to route people on bikes through Lakeview Terrace. I don't really see a problem with this.
Of course Local Motion has an agenda; just like AAA who helped write the US's automobile laws in the 70s.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
"You can say the data is junk, but it's more significant than any emotional argument. "
No statistical data from one day is bad. Have you ever taken a statistic course? Id weigh anecdotal evidence over this junk data any day.
TM you are anti-car, always have been. You've state in the past you'd like to remove all cars from driving in front of your residence.
My neighbor states that it now take 2-3 times longer to travel the avenue would disagree that its better. I take 127, I avoid the chaos. Then again personal experience means nothing to you.
Local motion has an agenda and lobby for cyclists at whatever expense to the other residents in Burlington. learned that at the PWC about Pearl St.
If they are going to leave parking alone great. I ask that DPW respect the citizens of Burlington that rely on on-street parking.
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
"No statistical data from one day is bad. Have you ever taken a statistic course? Id weigh anecdotal evidence over this junk data any day."
Eh, I don't disagree with you that 2 days of data isn't enough to jump on, but that's what's published. If it makes you feel any better, I still occasionally see scofflaws parking in the bike lane on North Avenue.
"you are anti-car, always have been. You've state in the past you'd like to remove all cars from driving in front of your residence."
Hah, it's like you know me. I'm not anti-car, and I certainly haven't always been. When I was younger, I went to trade school for automotive mechanics.
Apart from the mild Ad Hominem, I stated that if I had the option, I would close my local street to through traffic. Local vehicles would still be able to park on the street. I brought this up as a reason to consider the Greater Good of the city, and not focus on hyperlocal residents at the expense of the whole city.
"My neighbor states that it now take 2-3 times longer to travel the avenue would disagree that its better. I take 127, I avoid the chaos. Then again personal experience means nothing to you."
Weird. Whenever I see it traffic is always moving. Why isn't my personal experience (driving and biking) meshing with yours?
"Local motion has an agenda and lobby for cyclists at whatever expense to the other residents in Burlington. learned that at the PWC about Pearl St."
If you say so. You know; I had no idea there were dentists on that stretch of Pearl Street. I avoid going that way generally because there's no bike infrastructure there. I could bike there, and I suspect others will too. People driving can still park nearby.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (注册用户)
' I don't disagree with you that 2 days of data isn't enough to jump on, but that's what's published"
-But you did jump on it. And it is published, which is embarrassing.
"Hah, it's like you know me"
-Only based on what I read.
"Weird. Whenever I see it traffic is always moving. Why isn't my personal experience (driving and biking) meshing with yours? "
-Do you often drive North Ave on school days before 8:00 or at 5:00.
"People driving can still park nearby. "
Except those with disabilities.
Toiletmanners (注册用户)
"But you did jump on it. And it is published, which is embarrassing."
At this point, two days of published data shows that zero people were parking in that area of North Avenue during the day. Does your anecdotal evidence refute that, or are you more upset by the principle of taking away parking to return the road to travel use?
"Only based on what I read."
You know, I'm not inferring anything about you. I'm fine with debating about issues, but if you're going to slander and assume my values, you're wasting your time.
"Do you often drive North Ave on school days before 8:00 or at 5:00."
I've been traveling down North Avenue about twice a week just after 5pm, driving or biking. Traffic is flowing, sometimes slower than the speed limit, but never deadlocked.
"Except those with disabilities."
Alright. How many able-bodied people are going to park farther away to let those businesses have handicapped spots? It's a short walk. I keep hearing that parking must be preserved so people can park right in front of the business, and they aren't disabled.
一位匿名的 SeeClickFix 用户 (注册用户)
Burlington, VT (官方验证)