There is some bitter satisfaction for opponents of the St. Albans Walmart project in the weekend Messenger.  I am one of those opponents, and my satisfaction is bitter because the news does not bode well for St. Albans; or for any community that must rely on the judgements of VTrans and the Act 250 system.

Messenger ace, Michelle Monroe reports that neither the District 6 Commission, nor the Environmental Court based their traffic mitigation requirements for the Walmart permit on the recommendations of the 2007 Hoyle and Tanner Corridor study commissioned and paid for by VTrans.  

Instead, they simply endorsed the wholly inadequate and fundamentally mistaken mitigation proposed by the developer, that will ultimately have to be completely undone in order to address the likely safety and congestion issues that will result.  

The accepted mitigation plan was based on a 1997 Vtrans study that failed to take into consideration the fact that the proposed Walmart would add nearly 700 car trips in peak hours!   It also includes a local traffic diversion that would be the exact opposite of what was recommended in 2007.  A complete debacle.

How often have I bemoaned the fact that Ms. Monroe didn’t come onto the Messenger’s staff until nearly all of the Walmart permit process had concluded!?

So, now all of the permits are in order for Walmart developer JL Davis to go ahead with traffic alterations that will simply make the north end of St. Albans a traffic and pedestrian nightmare.  It appears that this fact is not even in dispute; and it seems to have been apparent to those responsible early in the Act 250 process.

“The corridor plan may call for different and innovative solutions and the Walmart improvements would have to be torn up.”(VTrans traffic expert) Byrne told the (District 6) commission.

In his written testimony to the District Commission in 2006, Vtrans Traffic Engineer Bernard Byrne stated that, although the traffic mitigation proposed by Walmart for the entire corridor… was sufficient for vehicle safety, “there may be a better way.”

For this reason, Byrne recommended that the immediate traffic mitigations required from Davis be limited to those essential  for the entrance to the proposed Walmart; but also that a further requirement  to contribute to a fund for “long-term corridor improvements” be a stipulation of the permit.

The District Commission, and later Judge Durkin of the Environmental Court, nevertheless chose to ignore that recommendation and simply endorse the developer’s own traffic proposals.

Which brings us to 2012 when JL Davis appears poised to begin work at the site with a fatally flawed traffic plan still approved. But will that really happen or is Mr. Davis himself going to apply the brakes?

Therein lies what may now be a convenient escape hatch for Mr. Davis.

It is now coming up on a full year since the Walmart permit had final approval from the Vermont Supreme Court.  

Why is it that there is no Walmart “brand” at the proposed site, and the only other potential project reported for the JLD Properties land is a credit union  to be located on the far south end of the property, at the junction of Route 7and the entrance route to I-89?

Does it sound to you like Walmart is still coming to town?  It doesn’t to me.