Contact Us

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Please provide any thoughts, comments, ideas, or questions to the Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study Team using the Guestbook below or by sending an email to Diane Meyerhoff, Public Engagement Manager, at

Please provide any thoughts, comments, ideas, or questions to the Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study Team using the Guestbook below or by sending an email to Diane Meyerhoff, Public Engagement Manager, at

Guest Book

Let us know any thoughts you have on existing issues or potential improvements for the I-89 corridor in Chittenden County. 
loader image
Didn't receive confirmation?
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.

I applaud the comments of many here, and support looking to the future and envisioning a time when Vermonters are able to be less dependent on their cars -- when there are many more public transportation options and our roads are much more pedestrian friendly and bicycle friendly. Adding more lanes to I-89 is not an option for the future that I'd support. I have long wished for a bus route along Rt. 2 between Burlington and Montpelier (not just during commuter hours) that passes through the centers of several towns that currently aren't served by public transportation. This would reduce the traffic on I-89 to some extent, and it would require subsidies. My hope is there will be this sort of funding in the future.

BetsyH about 1 year ago

Although many Vermonters are currently dependent on personal vehicles, the future of transportation in our region will likely be quite different, and it's the responsibility of thoughtful planners to think outside the car.

All investments in the I-89 corridor should prioritize public transit stations that are accessible by foot or by bike rather than car-centric infrastructure. Even Park & Rides, though well-intentioned, are currently so poorly designed as to be almost unusable by people who don't drive a car.

I live in Richmond Village, for example, and can hardly get to the Park & Ride safely on my bicycle, let alone on foot, and there is no parking for bicycles at the Park & Ride. When I get off the bus at the Park & Ride, especially at night, I put my life at risk to cross roads and on-ramps to walk home.

It would be very inexpensive to invest in basic safety measures for cyclists and pedestrians, especially compared to the money that's thrown away to facilitate expensive and polluting car travel.

TCPatterson about 1 year ago

I travel I-89 from South Hero daily, get off exit 16, park my car, and thoroughly enjoy riding my bicycle to work in Burlington. My favorite section is the new 'Park and Pedal' (AKA 'Park and Ride') right off that exit; where folks can park their cars and pedal into town. I would love to see that exit/entrance ramps intersection rendered safer for bicycle passage on Route 2.

I feel that this process would be informed by Transportation for America's new report 'The Congestion Con: How more lanes and more money equals more traffic'. The report lays out how, "in an effort to curb congestion in urban regions across America, we have overwhelmingly prioritized one strategy: we have spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars widening and building new highways. 30,511 new freeway lane-miles of road were added in the largest 100 urbanized areas of the US between 1993 and 2017, an increase of 42 percent. That rate of freeway expansion significantly outstripped the 32 percent growth in population in those regions over the same time period. Yet this strategy has utterly failed to “solve” the problem at hand—delay is up in those urbanized areas by a staggering 144 percent."

The report "examines why strategies to reduce congestion are failing, why eliminating congestion might actually be the wrong goal, and how spending billions to expand highways can actually make congestion worse by encouraging people to drive more than they otherwise would, a counterintuitive but well-documented phenomenon known as induced demand. The report also has five simple policy recommendations to make better use of our billions of dollars without pouring yet more into a black hole of congestion 'mitigation.'" The report can be found at A webinar is scheduled for Tuesday, March 17. Registration for that can be done at

Laura over 1 year ago

I highly recommend that we NOT increase lanes to I-89. As our roads are already a major barrier to wildlife movement, and can cause ecological problems, we don't need to make this worse by making our roadways wider and more impassable. In addition, instead of promoting more single passenger vehicles by widening the road, we should be putting our money into promoting busses and other means of transportation, so as to minimize the amount of traffic on our roads (hence making the need for wider roads minimal).

KateK over 1 year ago

Some input...
1. I would NOT add lanes to I-89. We need to reduce SOV use (even if electric) and increasing lanes would push congestion to secondary roads. Use of one of the four existing lanes (toward Burlington in AM and away from Burlington in PM) for HOV/bus use would increase capacity while not straining secondary road while encouraging reduction of SOV trips. Reducing the speed limit (except for HOV lane) would be a good thing for the environment.
2. Exit 13 (at least on-ramp to I-89 N), Exit 12B, and Bolton exit (in that order) are all reasonable long-term goals because they reduce secondary road traffic. I don’t know enough to say whether the unintended consequences would be worth it.
3. VTRANS cut the trees in the median through Williston two years ago. We need MORE trees (or solar collectors) in the median and lining the interstate for noise and stormwater reduction. I realize trees that can fall into the traveled roadway if blown down are not good, but such trees when cut should be replaced by species appropriate for the location.
4. We need more park-and-rides to facilitate reduction of SOV trips. They should include EV chargers and bike lockers and be well-connected to active transportation paths.
5. Not about traffic, but... Williston was bifurcated by I89 in the 1960’s. Pedestrian and wildlife paths across the Interstate would be a good remediation of the ill effects. This goes for other towns as well. Suggestion: When replacing culverts or doing major road work, expand wildlife and active transportation conduits.
—Chapin Kaynor (Williston citizen comments, but I’m also on the Williston Planning Commission and GMT Board of Commissioners.)
PS LOOOONG Range... Resonance induction charging embedded in the road for electric vehicles, paid for by EZ-Pass-like means, may become a thing. When installed at the right interval to match the vehicle speed, the resonance can make the charging more efficient and a short section of road can supply a relatively large amount of charge to moving vehicles.

ChapinKaynor over 1 year ago

I commute from home in Milton to Williston now, but will be commuting to Burlington starting in the fall. It seems to me that completing the Champlain Parkway would be a good first step to removing some of the congestion at exit 14. I also think that if we are looking 30 years out we should be considering locations of tunnels in and out of Burlington. The cost of tunnels might actually be cheaper than redoing bridges some time in the next 30 years (Boring Company). With the convergence of autonomous electric vehicles and cheap tunnels, much of the traffic congestion can be moved below ground where our transportation infrastructure is safe from the wear of snow removable, freezing and thawing, etc. It should also open up more space for pedestrian friendly last mile travel and parks above ground. Much of the existing roads will still need to be maintained, but investments at the right time could really make Burlington and the surrounding area a friendly, safe city of the future.

ebreiland over 1 year ago

I am usually traveling between Colchester and either Canada or south to Williston. I really don't have a favorite intersection but I do wish for more access points to the interstate. Colchester's intersections really don't serve Colchester, they better serve Milton and Winooski. In Colchester I could save 10-20 minutes depending on traffic if there was an intersection at Shadow cross farm eliminating the excessive traffic on east lake shore and rt 2 to exit 16 by Costco. South Burlington could use one at 116 and of course Bolton really needs it's own exit.

mholly over 1 year ago

The CCRPC road investment program is consistent with that of the Federal Highway Fatality Administration which has led the nation and Vermont to now 19th (down another notch in latest international safety report) in highway safety since 1990--now over 23,000 fatalities a year excess over top five nations' rate. Vermont death toll about an additional 30 dead yearly. For metros--as AAA study shows--cost of highway death/injury twice that of congestion. CCRPC has never invested in a safe intersection, the obvious no regrets safety policy. Burlington alone has 20 high crash intersection on the State list of 111--the 20 intersections average 1.4 injures per year while the five downtown roundabouts in VT average one non-serious injury per decade. This is just the surface of the dereliction of duty of the CCRPC and its engineering staff. No money for changes in I 89 and take the diverging diamond and build two cheap roundabouts to reduce global heating and predictable injuries. Tony Redington, Burlington, Walk
Safety Advocate

Tony Redington over 1 year ago

My largest concern is that from what I saw in the South Burlington town meeting that entire focus seems to be on the users of the I-89 corridor and not taking consideration those that live in the neighborhood surrounding the corridor. I am concerned of what the impacts will be to surrounding areas if additional interchanges are added or lanes expanded. With Southern Burlington neighborhoods already being negatively influenced by airport noise, this could just compound difficult situations. Will people be displaced if more land is required to be used? Will noise increase in local neighborhoods? How would it impact home values and quality if life.

Jmroach62 over 1 year ago

I urge the I89 planning to place a high emphasis on actions that will reduce our transportation greenhouse gas emissions. People want to reduce their impact and are increasingly willing to change their driving habits. We need more park-and-rides and increased capacity, coupled with increased bus service that more people can take advantage of. We need to reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle traffic. We need EV charging infrastructure. These decisions will have a great impact on the future - please plan wisely, with future generations in mind.

stbower over 1 year ago

I urge the planning team to direct resources towards minimizing single passenger vehicle traffic on I89, particularly in Chittenden County. Prioritize bike routes, trains, buses, park and rides, carpooling, etc. to ensure a equitable transportation future for all, not just those who who can afford to maintain the single passenger vehicle status quo. Our public infrastructure investments now will lock us into patterns and routines for many decades to come. Although many of us can currently afford to drive around in our own cars, that may not be the case in 20 years. Let's get ahead of the curve by envisioning a resilient, equitable transportation system that works for all abilities, ages, and financial situations, and then putting a plan in place to make it happen.

PhoebeHowe over 1 year ago

I am not able to articulate this as well as Jack Hanson, Center for Research on Vermont, 1/28/2020, so I'd like to just say that I echo his white paper, and hope that you can read it and adopt as much of it as possible. Basically, "what he said". Please do not increase asphalt on I-89, please increase the number, quality, range and frequency of buses on I-89. Increase the same for trains. Improve the "last mile" options for all ages, genders, abilities and economic levels. Try and mix the funding buckets, so that some of the huge amounts of money slated for roads can also be invested in public transportation. Thank you!

lravin over 1 year ago

Three lanes in each direction from Georgia (Exit 18) to Richmond (Exit 11).

phillyh2 over 1 year ago

Every two weeks from the Mass line to South Burlington. When I lived in South Burlington and Burlington daily use. My favorite spots are the rest areas !!

Gene Beaudoin over 1 year ago

I am a real estate developer and have developed hundreds of projects in the eastern US. Vermont projects include the Shaw's stores in Colchester and Berlin. Needless to say I have a lot of experience on I-89. With magic wand in hand here's what I would do:

1. Complete the planned improvements at the ramps pf I-89 at Rt 7 in Winooski. Critical problem solved.

2. Create a SPUI at the interchange of I-89 and RT 2 in South Burlington. Great example in Latham NY-I-87 & Rt 7. Horrible traffic evaporated. Critical problem solved. This would also take pressure off the SE Connector.

3. On I-189 west-bound create a left off ramp which would connect to I-189 east-bound. This would ease the pressure on Williston Road, Kennedy Drive, Dorset St for drivers wishing to go south on I-89. Cheap fix.

4. Open the south end connector.

5. More wishful -- add an elevated two lane road over the train ROW on the waterfront. Two lanes one way in the am rush and the other way in the pm rush.

6. More wishful--help UVM build a tunnel from the UVM sign to the UVM green or just past the student crossing.

Gene Beaudoin over 1 year ago

In the Chittenden County section of I89 it's really important to plan for minimizing the Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) traffic, for many reasons. This means that all interchanges should have an accessible Park and Ride for ride sharing and bus service (buses that can carry bicycles like the GMT buses, of course). Please include that as a priority in your planning.

Ian Stokes over 1 year ago

Glad to hear this project is moving forward.
Couple comments/suggestions:
1) On the Quick Poll, suggesting you add "Other" since I found out about the project in a local small free community newspaper.
2) Guessing a comprehensive survey for the general public will be forthcoming as to options and which options could be suggested to have a higher priority?
3) Suggestions: "Start Simple" with changing the merge off Exit 14E with better traffic light changes to create a better merge on to Williston Rd. This is a terrible Exit Ramp!
4) Hoping a long range goal for a new On-Off Exit Ramp area that would allow Interstate access onto Heinesburg Rd, Kennedy Drive area.
5) Develop a TRAFFIC ALERT REAL TIME SIGN NETWORK starting on I-189 -South to I-89-South so cars can take the Kennedy Drive or Williston or Richmond Exits if accidents or road conditions dictate this Alert! Same in reverse to best for Rt 2 or Rt2a or use Rt 117.
6) SIGNAGE approaching French Hill 89-S to reduce speed (Max 45mph?) in bad weather

Thanks for looking this over!

Robert D over 1 year ago