Question:
I am wondering if there are any reliable – and reasonably bright – LED light bulbs available yet to replace CFL’s?
Chris Burns’s Answer:
There are no screw-in LED’s that we can recommend at this point but the industry is moving very fast, so we hope to see some high quality screw-in products within a year or two. The problems have been with light output, color temperature and especially durability. LED’s are not inexpensive so it is very disappointing when they fail prematurely, which has been a problem. http://www.efficiencyvermont.com/pages/Business/HVAC/Lighting/LED/ gives a good overview about LED technology and http://www.efficiencyvermont.com/stella/filelib/LED_EligibleProductsList_Residential_052909.pdf provides a list of LED products currently eligible for rebates from BED and Efficiency Vermont.
Question:
I live in a condo, and my slider doors are metal framed, face south, and look like the original ones. I place foam padding on the floor and draw the vertical blinds at night to cut down on the winter draftiness. During winter days, I open up the blinds to let the sun pour in and then need not turn on my heater until 9 p.m. some days. In addition to being leaky, my current sliders have glass that is slightly “stained” between panes. I’m thinking of doing some replacement. The condo board has decided to only allow one make of replacement slider. It is part plastic (even the bottom molding) white in color, and the frame covers more surface area (less glass exposed). Since there are about three inches of frame at the top of the slider, part of my view of the sky would be blocked with the specified doors. While I understand that less glass surface can be a good thing for keeping heat in, am I not also losing on solar energy reaching my interior? If I were to simply replace the glass in my existing sliding doors, would that be an opportunity to “seal” the doors better within the existing metal frame?
Chris Burns’s answer:
A friend, who had a similar two-bedroom condo whose slider faced east, asked a similar question. He replaced the door and likes it, but he took my advice and added more attic insulation, and weather-stripped and latched the attic hatch, which was uninsulated and very leaky. He reports his place is warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer. He relies totally on the Rinnai heater and has found the condo recovers more quickly from the temperature set-back when he comes home from work. BED’s John Lincoln would be happy to take a look at your place for similar opportunities. John and I do not think the glass replacement idea would be worth it as it would only address heat loss through the glass, not what is coming through the moving parts of the door and at the points where the slider is attached to the rough opening on the wall. As important, it would not address the thermal bridging issue, which good sliders do. My sense is that you would be better off with an Energy Star-rated slider. I would not expect huge savings from full replacement as the slider is a relatively small percentage of the overall heat loss of the building. The attic, exterior walls and an uninsulated slab are much higher contributors. You may get a 4-to-8 percent savings on your heating costs with a good slider. You may be eligible for a tax credit. Check out www.energystar.com for some useful information.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
What Exactly is the "Single-Lane-on-Hybrid-Footprint" Design?
When we started working to build support for a one-lane roundabout at the Shelburne-Willard-St. Paul intersection, there were two proposed designs on the table: a single-lane roundabout (which we support), and a "hybrid" roundabout (which we oppose). The main difference between them was that the "hybrid" version has an extra lane tacked on the side to allow people who are heading north from Shelburne Road up Willard Street to bypass the roundabout and shoot by in their own lane. We oppose this design because it is a lot less safe -- for cars, pedestrians, and cyclists alike -- than the plain old one-lane roundabout. (It also doesn't qualify for the 100% VTrans funding that would come with the one-lane version.)
If that wasn't complicated enough for you, the Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee (TEUC) of the city council has now added a third version to the mix. At their meeting on Friday, February 6, they endorsed a "single-lane-on-hybrid-footprint" design. We're endorsing this version even though it has "hybrid" in the name. Read on and we'll explain why the TEUC's version is worth supporting.
What the TEUC endorsed was a design that, once it is built, will for all practical purposes be the single-lane design. However, it will be built such that it can be converted to the "hybrid" design -- that is, with the added lane on the east side of the roundabout -- if traffic and safety assessments indicate that the hybrid would in fact work better. For this reason, the TEUC resolution calls for biannual assessments of the roundabout's performance to ensure that the single-lane version is doing the job.
We are endorsing their resolution because we are confident that a single lane design will work great from all angles, from traffic capacity to accident rates to pedestrian safety -- and that it will therefore never need to be converted to a "hybrid" design. The most important thing at this point is to move forward and get this project going. Therefore, we urge the city council to endorse the resolution and move forward without delay.
If that wasn't complicated enough for you, the Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee (TEUC) of the city council has now added a third version to the mix. At their meeting on Friday, February 6, they endorsed a "single-lane-on-hybrid-footprint" design. We're endorsing this version even though it has "hybrid" in the name. Read on and we'll explain why the TEUC's version is worth supporting.
What the TEUC endorsed was a design that, once it is built, will for all practical purposes be the single-lane design. However, it will be built such that it can be converted to the "hybrid" design -- that is, with the added lane on the east side of the roundabout -- if traffic and safety assessments indicate that the hybrid would in fact work better. For this reason, the TEUC resolution calls for biannual assessments of the roundabout's performance to ensure that the single-lane version is doing the job.
We are endorsing their resolution because we are confident that a single lane design will work great from all angles, from traffic capacity to accident rates to pedestrian safety -- and that it will therefore never need to be converted to a "hybrid" design. The most important thing at this point is to move forward and get this project going. Therefore, we urge the city council to endorse the resolution and move forward without delay.
We're Almost There!
The Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee of the city council voted Friday, February 6 to endorse the one-lane-on-hybrid-footprint design. While they did not endorse a straight-up single lane design, their vote is nonetheless a step in the right direction given the committee's previous endorsement of the two-lane (hybrid) version.
But we're not there yet! The City Council votes Monday night on whether to go ahead with this project, which will have 100% funding from VTrans. Our key goal at this point is to ensure that council doesn't back out at the last minute, either because of waffling ("we need more studies") or because of a vocal presence by the small minority of folks who are opposed to the roundabout entirely.
There are two things you can do to help make sure city council endorses the single-lane roundabout design:
Here are all the city councilors' emails:
sharon.bushor@vtmednet.org, pdecelles@comcast.net, rrellis@burlingtontelecom.net, vinewright@burlingtontelecom.net, janeknodell@burlingtontelecom.net, davidsframeshop@aol.com, timashe@burlingtontelecom.net, clarencedavis@burlingtontelecom.net, bkeoghsr@yahoo.com, jshannon@burlingtontelecom.net, amontroll@aol.com, paulfin@sover.net, eadrian@comcast.net
You can read the resolution that the TEUC endorsed on Friday (and that the full council will vote on Monday) at: http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/citycouncil/agendas/
But we're not there yet! The City Council votes Monday night on whether to go ahead with this project, which will have 100% funding from VTrans. Our key goal at this point is to ensure that council doesn't back out at the last minute, either because of waffling ("we need more studies") or because of a vocal presence by the small minority of folks who are opposed to the roundabout entirely.
There are two things you can do to help make sure city council endorses the single-lane roundabout design:
- SUNDAY OR MONDAY: Email all the city councilors (addresses are below) to ask them to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing a single-lane roundabout design at the Monday meeting. Emphasize the importance of moving ahead on this project without any further delay, both to improve safety as soon as possible and to avoid losing state funding for the project.
- MONDAY: Come to the City Council meeting Monday night (February 9) in Contois Auditorium to show your support for the one-lane design. The Public comment portion of the meeting starts at 7:30 pm, but you have to sign up in advance to speak, so if you want to comment, be sure to get there by 7:15 or so.
Here are all the city councilors' emails:
sharon.bushor@vtmednet.org, pdecelles@comcast.net, rrellis@burlingtontelecom.net, vinewright@burlingtontelecom.net, janeknodell@burlingtontelecom.net, davidsframeshop@aol.com, timashe@burlingtontelecom.net, clarencedavis@burlingtontelecom.net, bkeoghsr@yahoo.com, jshannon@burlingtontelecom.net, amontroll@aol.com, paulfin@sover.net, eadrian@comcast.net
You can read the resolution that the TEUC endorsed on Friday (and that the full council will vote on Monday) at: http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/citycouncil/agendas/
Sunday, January 25, 2009
FAQ: But what about...
Lots of people have questions about the one-lane roundabout and why it is the best solution for the Shelburne-St. Paul-Willard intersection. Here are a few answers.
Does the Burlington Fire Department support the single lane solution?
Yes. Fire Chief Mike O’Neil from the Burlington Fire Dept (BFD) testified at December's Transportation Energy & Utilities subcommittee meeting. He said that even if the roundabout were to become blocked by an accident, BFD has alternate routes, so the single lane design does not pose a problem for them. As standard procedure, the fire department has alternate routes planned all over the city, which they use anytime there is a blockage in a preferred route.
CONCLUSION: A single-lane roundabout is the safest solution for cars, pedestrians, and neighbors alike.
Will it be hard for motorists to get used to navigating through a single lane roundabout?
No. Roundabouts have been used extensively throughout the United States and Europe. In December, Burlington Fire Chief Mike O'Neil spoke to colleagues in Hanover, NH, where two roundabouts have recently been built. They reported that, while it took motorists a few months to get used to the roundabout, the process went quite smoothly.
CONCLUSION: A single-lane roundabout will clarify who has right of way at each point, making it easier and more predictable for motorists to navigate this complicated intersection.
What is CCTA's position on a single-lane roundabout?
A recent CCTA memo says, "There is no doubt that the new roundabout project [regardless of the design chosen] will delay traffic moving through that intersection. From a safety perspective this is a good thing and should reduce the number of accidents currently occurring at this intersection. What is unknown to us is whether the delay will cause CCTA to alter our service in some manner."
Does the Burlington Fire Department support the single lane solution?
Yes. Fire Chief Mike O’Neil from the Burlington Fire Dept (BFD) testified at December's Transportation Energy & Utilities subcommittee meeting. He said that even if the roundabout were to become blocked by an accident, BFD has alternate routes, so the single lane design does not pose a problem for them. As standard procedure, the fire department has alternate routes planned all over the city, which they use anytime there is a blockage in a preferred route.
CONCLUSION: A single-lane roundabout is the safest solution for cars, pedestrians, and neighbors alike.
Will it be hard for motorists to get used to navigating through a single lane roundabout?
No. Roundabouts have been used extensively throughout the United States and Europe. In December, Burlington Fire Chief Mike O'Neil spoke to colleagues in Hanover, NH, where two roundabouts have recently been built. They reported that, while it took motorists a few months to get used to the roundabout, the process went quite smoothly.
CONCLUSION: A single-lane roundabout will clarify who has right of way at each point, making it easier and more predictable for motorists to navigate this complicated intersection.
What is CCTA's position on a single-lane roundabout?
A recent CCTA memo says, "There is no doubt that the new roundabout project [regardless of the design chosen] will delay traffic moving through that intersection. From a safety perspective this is a good thing and should reduce the number of accidents currently occurring at this intersection. What is unknown to us is whether the delay will cause CCTA to alter our service in some manner."
What is important to note is that both designs -- the single-lane roundabout and the so-called "hybrid" design -- would cause traffic to back up slightly. In fact, according to a study commissioned by VTrans, the peak-hour delay for northbound traffic with a single-lane roundabout in the year 2019 would be less than one second longer than the delay for the hybrid design (3.8 vs. 4.7 seconds). The "hybrid" two-lane version does not offer a "miracle cure" for traffic. In fact, it is in most respects inferior to the two-lane version.
The broader point is that almost everyone -- CCTA included -- agrees that traffic should slow down at this dangerous and poorly designed intersection. Therefore, to say that CCTA is opposed to a one-lane roundabout is to distort the truth. CCTA's goal is simply to ensure that the much-needed slowing of traffic at this intersection is compensated for by improvements in transit efficiency elsewhere.
The real solution to transit delays is to be found elsewhere on Shelburne Road. CCTA has indicated that if they were able to either increase to every-15-minute peak hour service or give buses the ability to delay red lights on Shelburne Road, the resulting increase in efficiency would more than outweigh any delays at the roundabout.
CONCLUSION: There is no reason to settle for a less safe, less efficient, less economical design for the roundabout when CCTA's scheduling concerns can be addressed more effectively and more reliably through other measures.
CONCLUSION: There is no reason to settle for a less safe, less efficient, less economical design for the roundabout when CCTA's scheduling concerns can be addressed more effectively and more reliably through other measures.
City Council Emails
Here are the email addresses for all the members of the Burlington City Council in an easily copied-and-pasted format:
Please email all council members and let them know you want them to approve the one-lane roundabout design as endorsed by the Burlington DPW!
sharon.bushor@vtmednet.org, pdecelles@comcast.net, rrellis@burlingtontelecom.net, vinewright@burlingtontelecom.net, janeknodell@burlingtontelecom.net, davidsframeshop@aol.com, timashe@burlingtontelecom.net, clarencedavis@burlingtontelecom.net, bkeoghsr@yahoo.com, jshannon@burlingtontelecom.net, amontroll@aol.com, paulfin@sover.net, eadrian@comcast.net
Please email all council members and let them know you want them to approve the one-lane roundabout design as endorsed by the Burlington DPW!
Friday, January 9, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Choice Is Clear
We strongly support the single-lane roundabout design for the Shelburne St. intersection because it is safer, cheaper, and less intrusive than other alternatives. We urge that the Burlington City Council accept the recommendations of traffic planning studies, the Burlington DPW, and VTrans so that this important project can move forward. Here are our reasons:
A single-lane design provides safety and traffic flow at lowest cost
Estimated Construction Cost: $895,000
Benefit/Cost ratio = 1.37
PROS:
• Safer for cars than 2 lane alternatives (72% crash reduction)
• Safer for bicycles (slower traffic)
• Safer for pedestrians (narrower pedestrian crossing is safer and quicker)
• Better vehicle speed control with single lane entry
• Better queuing performance for worst movement (southbound on St. Paul St.)
• Costs less: less pavement, smaller intersection, less maintenance, no additional right-of-way needed
CONS:
• Northbound lanes must merge before entering causing longer moving queues during peak times
A 2-lane roundabout is more expensive and less safe
Estimated Construction Cost $1,034,000
Benefit/Cost ratio = 0.91
PROS:
• Less delay and shorter queues for northbound approach at peak traffic, 2019
CONS:
• Likely to be more accidents (sideswipes occur where 2 lanes)
• More dangerous for bicycles (less speed and lane control)
• More dangerous for pedestrians (longer crossing distances, faster traffic)
• More delays and longer queues for St. Paul approach
• Costs more: more pavement, more maintenance, and more right of way intrusion onto neighbors
Traffic studies show that even at peak traffic in 2019, the 2 lane design will result in only marginal reductions in average traffic delays on Shelburne St. (3.8 vs. 4.7 seconds) and will actually increase overall delays when all approach directions are considered.
Safe and efficient movement of trucks and other large vehicles and emergency vehicles has been addressed in single-lane design.
Vermont Highway Safety Program will pay 100% of the cost of single-lane roundabout, but not for the 2 lane design.
A single-lane design provides safety and traffic flow at lowest cost
Estimated Construction Cost: $895,000
Benefit/Cost ratio = 1.37
PROS:
• Safer for cars than 2 lane alternatives (72% crash reduction)
• Safer for bicycles (slower traffic)
• Safer for pedestrians (narrower pedestrian crossing is safer and quicker)
• Better vehicle speed control with single lane entry
• Better queuing performance for worst movement (southbound on St. Paul St.)
• Costs less: less pavement, smaller intersection, less maintenance, no additional right-of-way needed
CONS:
• Northbound lanes must merge before entering causing longer moving queues during peak times
A 2-lane roundabout is more expensive and less safe
Estimated Construction Cost $1,034,000
Benefit/Cost ratio = 0.91
PROS:
• Less delay and shorter queues for northbound approach at peak traffic, 2019
CONS:
• Likely to be more accidents (sideswipes occur where 2 lanes)
• More dangerous for bicycles (less speed and lane control)
• More dangerous for pedestrians (longer crossing distances, faster traffic)
• More delays and longer queues for St. Paul approach
• Costs more: more pavement, more maintenance, and more right of way intrusion onto neighbors
Traffic studies show that even at peak traffic in 2019, the 2 lane design will result in only marginal reductions in average traffic delays on Shelburne St. (3.8 vs. 4.7 seconds) and will actually increase overall delays when all approach directions are considered.
Safe and efficient movement of trucks and other large vehicles and emergency vehicles has been addressed in single-lane design.
Vermont Highway Safety Program will pay 100% of the cost of single-lane roundabout, but not for the 2 lane design.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
