[NENA] FW: More on Barstow
Chelsea Morning
chelsea at cybermesa.com
Sun Mar 9 21:55:14 CDT 2008
Carla,
The property north of the arroyo will continue to be developed irrespective
of what decision is made about the Barstow. The total level of congestion
to which you refer will be a reality even if the bridge is not built. The
choice here is really about whether we will open up another route across the
arroyo that provides us with a low-traffic north-south alternative to
Wyoming and Ventura.
John,
If developed as a vehicle road, Barstow will never compare to Wyoming and
Ventura. Both Wyoming and Ventura have been started as major four-lane
corridors. The four-lane construction on Wyoming north of Nor Este, as well
as the construction of a bridge over the arroyo on that route suggest that
the long-term plans are to widen it to four lanes for its full length.
Barstow is different. It is set up as a two-lane collector with additional
width to accommodate a third turning lane where required. It will never be
able accommodate the capacity of the Wyoming and Ventura corridors.
Regarding access to Northstar Elementary, the east-west corridors that you
mention dump out onto Ventura or Wyoming. Given the high traffic volume, I
wouldn't feel safe letting my kids use these roads. These are both high
volume corridors lacking sidewalks. Gaining an "interior corridor" that
provided a safer pedestrian route to the areas north of our neighborhood and
that allowed us to keep our kids off of the high volume roads would be
great.
Paul and Pat,
It seems like this thread is really an "is not, is too" debate. People are
saying how terrible things will or won't be with the bridge but neither side
has presented any solid data to support or refute their positions. Maybe
there would be value in asking Brad to have the City's traffic engineering
folks run some analyses to project traffic levels with and without the
bridge given projected development patterns in the areas surrounding NENA.
I know that NENA and VENA have not officially weighed in on these issues yet
but all of this raises the question of what the associations' policies are
regarding development of roads in our area. John said that opening Barstow
would have "significant negative impact on our neighborhoods." My real
concern is that there are larger things planned that will impact the area
far more significantly than this little two-lane project we are arguing
about here.
First, I remembering seeing plans for Alameda that showed it be extended all
the way to Eubank. The divided road you see now north of La Cueva would be
continued on to the east. With the majority of new growth occurring west of
the river, you can expect to see traffic volumes on Alameda increase and, if
extended to Eubank, the east-west traffic we could expect on Alameda will
make the north-south Barstow traffic we are arguing about look
insignificant. If these plans are still on the books, what are the NENA and
VENA positions on this?
Of more concern to me is Wyoming. When Paseo was being widened and turned
into a high-speed corridor, the Journal published a long-term plan that
showed Wyoming, Eubank, and one other street being extended to intersect
with Tramway. When you look at the relatively small number of homes that
will be built north of the arroyo, you have to wonder if connection to
Tramway isn't a primary motivator for this development work. Given the
traffic snarl that exists at Paseo and I-25, you can be sure that if Wyoming
is extended, it will carry huge volumes of traffic past our neighborhood, as
that route becomes a shortcut past the Paseo/I-25 intersection.
If we don't already know whether these long-term plans are still valid, I
think that we ought to use this debate about the relatively insignicant
impact of a bridge at Barstow to spur us to find out what the City and
County plan for the major roads in our area. We also ought to develop a
plan for how we want to address these things. As we have seen, the City has
allowed the Sector Plan to be violated repeatedly since being passed. What
makes us believe we won't come up short again in these kinds of matters?
Rick Craft
-----Original Message-----
From: Carla Irwin [mailto:nmirwin at earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 8:29 PM
To: John Ingram
Cc: Chelsea Morning; Paul Grunwald; 'NENA'
Subject: Re: [NENA] FW: More on Barstow
John, I live in Vineyard Estates #3 and I agree with everything you
have said in describing the situation about Barstow and not building
the bridge to allow access the go north. This area has only grown more
traffic congested and will continue to do so.
Carla
John Ingram wrote:
> Rick,
> I appreciate your thoughts. However, I respectfully disagree.
>
> The traffic on Barstow north of Paseo would be worse than Ventura
> north and, perhaps, comparable to the negative issues we have on
> Wyoming north.
>
> I don't know how much time you've spent walking on Barstow, north of
> the arroyo. My partner and I walk it alot. It's relatively flat,
> straight with little or no natural barriers which would hamper heavy,
> fast traffic flow. Just the opposite from streets like Ventura and
> Wyoming.
>
> Other streets east and parallel to Barstow, and to some extent west
> (Wyoming), are hilly, up and down, narrow----difficult to speed on, etc.
>
> If a bridge were to be built (with our tax money) across the arroyo at
> Barstow, then we would be opening the gates ---- dumping in and out
> of Paseo.
>
> If you're concerned about access to North Star Elementary, there are
> plenty of east-west streets which provide access. We don't need
> another north-south major artery leading to Paseo.
>
> Also, take a look at the traffic flow on Barstow, south of Paseo. It's
> a negative, an increasing problem. That's what would happen to
> Barstow, north of Paseo with a bridge across the arroyo.
>
> The only thing preventing Barstow from becoming a major artery leading
> to Paseo is the lack of a bridge at the arroyo.
>
> I hope my neighbors are paying attention. There are plans to build
> this bridge and there are people looking for money to do it. For the
> most part, these are folks who don't live up here, and therefore don't
> have our interests at heart. Their job is to ensure that these arroyos
> are paved, and these streets are opened for developer's interests.
> And, they're pushing this bridge before we get a chance to organize
> and stop it.
>
> I hope Brad Winter is reading these emails. I'd like him to comment.
> What can he do to help us stop this bridge?
>
> John
>
> P.S. Comment for NorEste Neighborhood Assoc. membership committee -
> the best way to increase membership is to organize around an issue,
> like this bridge thing. Let's go door-to-door on a nice weekend and
> recruit new members.
>
> */Chelsea Morning <chelsea at cybermesa.com>/* wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I can't imagine that you are going to see the level of traffic
> that you suggest. Wyoming and Ventura, which sit on either side
> of Barstow are long thoroughfares designed to handle larger
> volumes of traffic. Much of the increased traffic volume came
> with the widening of Wyoming and the establishment of high density
> housing to the west of the road (something I remember NENA
> agreeing to when the sector plan was developed). Since Barstow's
> south end is at Harper, I can't see it ever being used as a major
> corridor. The majority of the traffic that we care about is
> likely to turn on and off of Paseo. Besides the landfill traffic
> that you mention, the only destinations north of the arroyo are
> the elementary school and homes. Given the low density
> construction north of our neighborhood, there just aren't that
> many homes up there. If trucks on the way to the landfill is your
> real concern, then work with the city to post proper signage
> establishing a prohibition on truck traffic. If it hasn't already
> been put in place, a traffic light at Barstow and Alameda might
> also reduce the attractiveness of that route.
>
> On the up side, putting the bridge in would provide easier access
> to the elementary school for those of us with kids who go there.
> As it currently stands, Wyoming and Ventura are the only options
> for us, both of which, as have noted have high traffic volumes.
>
> Rick Craft
> (currently in Springfield, Va; returning to Nor Este in July)
>
> *From:* members-bounces at noreste.org
> [mailto:members-bounces at noreste.org]*On Behalf Of *John Ingram
> *Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2008 2:45 PM
> *To:* Paul Grunwald; 'NENA'
> *Subject:* [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [NENA] FW: More on Barstow
>
> Hello to All,
>
> If you spoke to everyone whose property backs-up to Barstow,
> on both sides of the street all the way to Paseo, and asked
> them why they don't want an automobile bridge over the arroyo,
> they might explain their opposition. I'll try to explain mine.
>
> Take a look at traffic issues on Wyoming north if you'd like
> to contemplate how the future might be if there was an
> automobile bridge across the arroyo at Barstow.
>
> If there was a bridge at the arroyo now, at the very least
> there would have been semi-trucks running back and forth
> emptying the landfill at the end of Barstow north. Imagine that.
>
> In my opinion, the increased traffic on Barstow with a bridge
> across the arroyo would be a significant negative for our
> neighborhoods.
>
> I live one street west of Barstow. I can't imagine how awful
> it would be to have the increased traffic that would result
> from an automobile bridge. Those whose back yards face Barstow
> would have a lot more problems than me.
>
> I will continue to organize against a bridge across the arroyo
> because of the potential problems associated with
> back-and-forth increased traffic (especially at the corner of
> Barstow and Alameda) all along Barstow --- past Desert
> Ridge Middle School --- to Paseo.
>
> For what's it worth, as someone who build a house in the
> neighborhood in 1991, that's my position.
>
> John
>
>
> */Paul Grunwald <pgrunwald at comcast.net>/* wrote:
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> *From:* Maxon Stuart B Contractor AFOTEC/A3Z
> [mailto:Stuart.Maxon at afotec.af.mil]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2008 8:54 AM
> *To:* Paul Grunwald
> *Subject:*
>
> I have lived on the corner of Betty Sabo and Barstow for
> the past 8 years (8324 Eagle Rock)...I think we are
> confusing the roadblock on Betty Sabo with the roadblock
> at Barstow and the arroyo...About 5 years ago a petition
> went through the Nor Este neighborhood to block Betty Sabo
> BECAUSE of the roadblock on the Barstow arroyo...The
> petition was executed by my former neighbors Paul and
> Barbara Hewitt...I have possession of this petition...The
> roadblock on the arroyo is simply there because a bridge
> was never installed and it was too steep and deep to allow
> a ford...I am not aware of any agenda, petition or
> initiative to block the Barstow arroyo bridge...I
> understand that city planners allocated funds in 07 or 08
> to design the bridge and that a possible installation will
> occur sometime in 09 or 10 if funded by the city. Nor
> Este residents signed the near unanimous petition to close
> Betty Sabo UNTIL the bridge is built, because the arroyo
> roadblock was funneling all Barstow traffic through our
> neighborhood...According to the petition, the Betty Sabo
> roadblock will be removed when the Barstow arroyo bridge
> is built...Personally, I look forward to that day...
> //signed//
> Stu Maxon, Contractor
> HQ AFOTEC / A3Z
> (505) 846-9928 / (DSN) 246-9928
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at noreste.org
> http://noreste.org/mailman/listinfo/members_noreste.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at noreste.org
> http://noreste.org/mailman/listinfo/members_noreste.org
>
More information about the Members
mailing list