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 diane@thirdsectorassociates.com.

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 diane@thirdsectorassociates.com.

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 do not support the study being discussed for I-89. The money and time should be spent on new infrastructure for improving bicycle and pedestrian access instead of advocating for more driving. It is a misuse of resources and would only cause a barrier to those who are not driving.
I do support improving pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure and safety at exits 13 and 14.

Alicia 5 months ago

In general money should be spent on enhancing pedestrian and bicycle access, safety for all, and public transportation, rather than on improving access for driving.

Under no circumstances should a new exit 12b be added.

I like the proposed mixed use path and bridge in the Exit 13 hybrid approach, but do not think the other changes seem necessary. I prefer the hybrid approach in general to the diamond if one is to be chosen though. The diamond seems overly complicated, expensive, and too traffic focused. And the mixed use path in that approach, while perhaps more direct, is less friendly and less safe than the one in the hybrid approach.

For exit 14 I don't like either of the proposed alternatives. The priority should be increasing safety and pedestrian/cyclist access. Reducing turn radii at Williston Rd. would be an improvement over current conditions. But neither approach seems great for people trying to cross this intersection by foot or bike. And both seem like way too much money being spent on a highway interchange. I'd go back to the drawing board on this one.

Erik 5 months ago

I do not support the study being discussed for I-89 and the construction that would follow it. We are currently in a climate crisis, and I believe the large investment of money this would require would be counter productive to this issue and encourage more driving. We need to use our transportation budget for other things like public transportation, electrification, and cyclist and pedestrian safety.

Nathan 5 months ago

I am not the expert - Tony Redington and Andrew Simon are though, and they have already written you.
It is not the time to spend money on the Champlain Parkway (the old design), and neither is it time to be spending money expanding I-89! The future will see less traffic on the road - partly because of climate change and less travel by auto in Vermont, and partly because people have now adopted the practice of working from home, instead of commuting 40 to 100 miles to work every day. Many many people have been doing that, but Covid has changed their patterns - and it is not likely that things will return to "Normal."
Please do not spend the money on this. As far as a small town having the same number of votes as a city like Burlington with 30 or 40,000 people - that makes no sense. I hope you can see that. Please change this plan, and invest in roundabouts, and avoid running highways through poor neighborhoods!
Thank you for listening.

Charlie Messing 5 months ago

Envision89 Team,

I was unable to make the April 29 meeting and would like to register the following concerns with these proposals:

1. The Exit 12B proposal seems like a $100,000,000+ solution in search of a problem. Other exits are very close and already suitable. I'm sure there are much better ways to reduce VMT, VHT, and increase connections for much less cost such as increasing multi-use paths, transit routes, and transit frequency.

2. Diverging diamonds don't appear to be as pedestrian friendly as advertised and I believe you are overscoring how safe they are because of how unsafe the situation is now. From the concept maps it looks like slip lanes lead directly into a grade-level crosswalks where a pedestrian/bicyclist will be. Each of these intersections looks like a high speed fatality waiting to happen. If these are not grade-level crossings that needs to be highlighted better. If these are grade-level crossings please re-evaluate alternatives.

3. In general we need to move away from our goal of moving people from point A to point B at the fastest possible speed (seen in your matrix measures of delay and V/C). We should instead focus on how we can actually reduce VMTs in the first place, which none of these projects do meaningfully.

Sincerely,
Christian Matthews
Transportation/GIS Analyst
Underhill

cmatthews 5 months ago

To the Envision 89 team,

I was unable to attend the April 29 meeting, but I do have some comments that I would like to register on the plans for I-89. I have read through the presentation slides for last Thursday's meeting. While I appreciate the thoroughness and precision of the presentation, I question the larger vision that they represent.

I am a retired teacher, a climate activist, an advocate for pedestrians, bicyclists and users of public transportation. My partner and I live without owning a car in Burlington, using all of the above forms of transport as well as being members of CarshareVT. From this perspective, the current proposals for prioritizing improvements to I-89 (and even adding an interchange!) seem wildly out of touch. In the midst of a climate emergency where all forms of individual motorized vehicles (even electric powered) should be a low priority, the commitment of huge amounts of public funds for improved or added interchanges on I-89 reflects a startling lack of vision.

While I do think the pedestrian and bike infrastructure for Exits 13 & 14 need to be improved for safety and ease of use, I would like to see priority given to the following areas:

1. Improved infrastructure for walking and biking throughout Chittenden County. We are lagging sadly behind in this area. It is not safe to bike at all in many areas (think of Route 15 from Winooski to Essex Jct) and it is often dangerous to cross roads on foot (such as Shelburne Road near my home in Burlington's South End).

2. Much enhanced public transportation, including an efficient light rail system that would link heavily-traveled areas of Chittenden County and cut down on car traffic.

3. Roundabouts at busy intersections to improve safety for motorists, bikers and walkers and to save money.

4. Road improvement projects that benefit historically disadvantaged (low-income and BIPOC) parts of our community. The Railyard Enterprise Project seems to be a good example.

By 2050, we need to have a transportation system that supports a living planet and a thriving community. Though sophisticated from a technical point of view, the vision of the current Envision 89 project is pointed in the wrong direction.

Thank you for your work and for considering my comments.

Andrew Simon
Burlington, VT

ASIMON 5 months ago

I am opposed to adding an exit to I-89 on Hinesburg Rd. in South Burlington. This will lead to more traffic congestion and air pollution as well as cause explosive growth in the vicinity. This is the opposite of what we need to do to move forward in a sustainable and ecologically sound manner. I moved to Vermont from Atlanta over 40 years ago. I never saw a new road or Interstate construction that added to quality of life or long-term reduction in traffic woes. We need to focus on improvements to exits 13 & 14 that will enhance the safety of and encourage alternative transportation modes, such as pedestrians and bikes riders. The climate crisis is real and what we do locally matters.

Susan 5 months ago

I can't believe we waste so much money on "studies". The solution is just simple common sense but the State has dropped the ball for over 30 years.The Circ highway was proposed back in the late 60's when we had leaders that actually had some foresight.

Right now we direct all traffic in and out of Burlington using two routes that are always clogged at rush hour times. It's pretty clear no member of this commission has ever driven into or out of Burlington at high traffic times.

Build the Circ and the Southern Connector and we will have a loop highway that will not only elevate traffic in Burlington but thought much of Chittenden County. This really is not a complicated problem and spending millions of dollars we don't have to study it to death just kicks the problem further down the road... that doesn't exist yet...

Doug 5 months ago

I live in a neighborhood off Hinesburg Road and love, love, love the beautiful meadows and mountain views that I get to enjoy on my daily travels. I also really appreciate that it takes about 5 minutes to get my kiddos to the high school, due to reasonable traffic levels and few traffic lights. Actually, everything I need is within about 5 miles. As you can tell, I am strongly opposed to an exit 12b. But I keep waiting for the day when there will be a safe multi-use path down Hinesburg Road. For now I run as quickly as I can across the bridge and hope I don’t encounter a large truck! I wish my kids could bike or walk safely to and from the high school via Kennedy to Hinesburg Road. So if we have all of this money to spend on improving transit, let’s not just re-distribute the traffic and congestion, or invite the noise, pollution, and sprawl of the interstate into our neighborhoods. Let’s build more multi-use paths and create safer intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists. I’ll do my part by investing in an electric vehicle, carpooling, making my errands as efficient as possible, walking, and biking. I think of all the countries I’ve traveled to where I walk miles and think nothing of it because the cities are well laid out and make it easy and safe to do so. Or places where there are more bikes than cars. We have a tremendous opportunity to create the city that we want to live in. And I personally want to live in one with less reliance on roads and cars, not more. Thank you.

Amy S 5 months ago

Regarding the work you’ve been doing, I encourage you to give climate-crisis-related items more weight than the other goals given that everything—including economic access—will be affected by how we address climate change.

In making any interchange selection, it is very important to be forward-thinking enough to imagine a NON-car-centric future and to ideally use a climate-crisis filter to incorporate the cost of carbon of both construction and post-construction usage.

As a resident in one of the large neighborhoods off Rt. 116, I see that
Exit 12B would harm QUALITY OF LIFE in nearby neighborhoods
• By increasing the already significant traffic noise
• By increasing traffic on Hinesburg Road south of the new exit by 39%
o Which would slow residents’ travel time to grocery stores & schools
o Negatively affect air quality from emissions
o Make it more stressful and less safe to bike to Williston Road
o Perpetuate sprawl

MM 5 months ago

Our transportation funds should be used in service of sustainable, healthy transportation such as walking and biking. I support the efforts to make the exit 14 area safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
I oppose the proposal to add another exit in South Burlington. The more infrastructure we provide for cars, the more drivers we will have. This contributes to sprawl. Adding an exit is a waste of money that could be spent on mass transit options. Furthermore, covering over more land with impervious pavement is shameful.

Gail 5 months ago

Do not fund the I-89 exit, use the money to invest in accessible and free public transportation for Vermonters

Kristin 5 months ago

The exit 14 improvements are not sufficiently beneficial for the cost. Bike and pedestrian improvements across the overpass need to be prioritized. We do not gain much from the reconstruction or dismantling of the cloverleaf to justify the proposed cost and associated diversion of traffic to other local streets.

asvt 5 months ago

I do not support constructing a new exit on I-89. It is a misuse of resources that should be used to make transportation more sustainable and accessible. I do support an assessment and consequent improvement of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure at the highways interchanges.

Megan 5 months ago

I do not support constructing a new exit on I-89. It is a misuse of resources that should be used to make transportation more sustainable and accessible. I do support an assessment and consequent improvement of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure at the highways interchanges.

Megan 5 months ago

I do not support constructing a new exit on I-89. It is a misuse of resources that should be used to make transportation more sustainable and accessible. I do support an assessment and consequent improvement of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure at the highways interchanges.

Ella 5 months ago

I do not support constructing a new exit on I-89. It is a misuse of resources that should be used to make transportation more sustainable and accessible. I do support an assessment and consequent improvement of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure at the highways interchanges.

LauraLu 5 months ago

I do not support constructing a new exit on I-89. It is a misuse of resources that should be used to make transportation more sustainable and accessible. I do support an assessment and consequent improvement of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure at the highways interchanges.

egraff 5 months ago

I do not support constructing a new exit on I-89. It is a misuse of resources that should be used to make transportation more sustainable and accessible. I do support an assessment and consequent improvement of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure at the highways interchanges.

Spasqualoni 5 months ago

I do not support constructing a new exit on I-89. It is a misuse of resources that should be used to make transportation more sustainable and accessible. I do support an assessment and consequent improvement of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure at the highways interchanges.

egraff 5 months ago
Page last updated: 11 May 2021, 18:58