Submitted by Wayne Senville (not verified) on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 1:02pm.
Examine Combined TDM and Public Transportation Concepts Set Out in Alternative 1 in Draft Circ Hwy EIS (2007)
After reading through the Land Use/Transportation Analysis prepared for the ECOS project (Draft #2) I would urge the ECOS Committee and CCRPC staff to consider for analysis the robust public transportation/transportation demand alternative that was included in the Circ Highway EIS Alternatives Screening Technical Report. This alternative (called "Alternative 1: Combined TDM and Public Transportation Concepts") was developed with input from CCTA. It offers a comprehensive strategy that could move Chittenden County towards long-term energy and environmental sustainability.
Unfortunately, during the Circ EIS process, this alternative was deemed too broad in scope to fit the much narrower goals and purposes for building the Circ. Highway. As a result, this Alternative was not fully analyzed (e.g., in terms of energy saving and other impacts).
I don't know if CCRPC staff made use of the comprehensive and inter-related strategies set out in Circ Alternative 1 in developing Scenario 2 in the ECOS Land Use/Transportation Analysis -- if not, I'd urge staff to take a close look at Circ Alternative 1, which is still available online at:
http://www.circeis.org/documents/study_documents/draft_eis/DEIS%20Appendices/Appendix%20B%20Alternatives%20Screening%20Technical%20Report/Chapter%204.pdf
(if the above link doesn't work, go to:
http://www.circeis.org/HTML-appendices/appendixB.html
then download Chapter 4, and look at pages 4-2 to 4-6.
The bottom line for me is that a comprehensive strategy combining public transportation and TDM is essential for meeting Chittenden County's long-term energy, transportation, and land use needs. In the long-run I believe this will also be a much more cost-effective approach than building new highways. Again, the framework for such an approach was set out in Circ Highway Alternative 1. What wasn't done at that time was the more detailed analysis of energy and related benefits/impacts.
Examine Combined TDM and
Examine Combined TDM and Public Transportation Concepts Set Out in Alternative 1 in Draft Circ Hwy EIS (2007)
After reading through the Land Use/Transportation Analysis prepared for the ECOS project (Draft #2) I would urge the ECOS Committee and CCRPC staff to consider for analysis the robust public transportation/transportation demand alternative that was included in the Circ Highway EIS Alternatives Screening Technical Report. This alternative (called "Alternative 1: Combined TDM and Public Transportation Concepts") was developed with input from CCTA. It offers a comprehensive strategy that could move Chittenden County towards long-term energy and environmental sustainability.
Unfortunately, during the Circ EIS process, this alternative was deemed too broad in scope to fit the much narrower goals and purposes for building the Circ. Highway. As a result, this Alternative was not fully analyzed (e.g., in terms of energy saving and other impacts).
I don't know if CCRPC staff made use of the comprehensive and inter-related strategies set out in Circ Alternative 1 in developing Scenario 2 in the ECOS Land Use/Transportation Analysis -- if not, I'd urge staff to take a close look at Circ Alternative 1, which is still available online at:
http://www.circeis.org/documents/study_documents/draft_eis/DEIS%20Appendices/Appendix%20B%20Alternatives%20Screening%20Technical%20Report/Chapter%204.pdf
(if the above link doesn't work, go to:
http://www.circeis.org/HTML-appendices/appendixB.html
then download Chapter 4, and look at pages 4-2 to 4-6.
The bottom line for me is that a comprehensive strategy combining public transportation and TDM is essential for meeting Chittenden County's long-term energy, transportation, and land use needs. In the long-run I believe this will also be a much more cost-effective approach than building new highways. Again, the framework for such an approach was set out in Circ Highway Alternative 1. What wasn't done at that time was the more detailed analysis of energy and related benefits/impacts.