[NENA] More on proposal to build a bridge across arroyo at Barstow

Mon Mar 10 14:53:21 CDT 2008

I sense there is a broad split in the NENA position to oppose the
Barstow bridge...I sense that landlocked residents who live north of the
arroyo tend to approve of the bridge, and that residents who live south
of the arroyo generally oppose it...Installing the bridge will not
attract more traffic to the area...Logically, more road options will
generally decrease congestion and choke points across the area...

Anyway, this brings up a broader issue...How does NENA form any position
presented to the city?  If less than half of the residents are members
of the association, how does NENA form a consensus?  If the association
cannot legally enforce covenants, how can it legally form any formal
position that represents the will of residents, without first
petitioning the residents?

//signed//
Stu Maxon, Contractor
HQ AFOTEC / A3Z
(505) 846-9928 / (DSN) 246-9928
-----Original Message-----
From: members-bounces at noreste.org [mailto:members-bounces at noreste.org]
On Behalf Of John Ingram
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:38 PM
To: Chelsea Morning; Carla Irwin
Cc: 'NENA'
Subject: [NENA] More on proposal to build a bridge across arroyo at
Barstow

Rick,

You said Barstow is "...set up as a two-lane collector with additional
width to accommodate a third turning lane where required. It will never
be able to accommodate the capacity of the Wyoming and Ventura
corridors." 

In my experience (working on the La Cueva Sector Plan), "never" was a
word that was rarely used correctly by the city and developers, so I'm
worried by your choice of words.

Rick, please tell us the souce for your statement about how Barstow is
set-up, and what your interests are in this issue.

Have you walked Barstow north and south of the arroyo? It's big enough
now to become a 4-lane at both ends of the arroyo.  

It wouldn't be a good thing even if a bridge at the Barstow arroyo
resulted in half as much traffic as we see on Wyoming and Ventura. 

If your sole concern is gaining a safer pedestrian route to North Star
Elementary, then that can be done without building a bridge across the
arroyo at Barstow. And, I'm willing to help you accomplish that. In
return, will you help us organize support for not building a bridge at
Barstow? 

In your email to Paul and Pat you described our concerns about a bridge
at the Barstow arroyo as: "...relatively insignificant..". 

You also said: "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." 

I wonder what those larger things are. Can you tell us?

Your attitude about building this bridge might lead one to think that we
haven't adequately and clearly explained our concerns to you. Allow me
to make another attempt.

We understand this is a very significant issue. A bridge at the Barstow
arroyo would negatively impact our neighbors whose east or west
backyards face Barstow. The increased traffic flow on Barstow would
contribute to lowering the values of those homes. The quality of life
would suffer as well.

Rick, are you aware of the numerous automobile accidents on Barstow
south of Alameda wherein cars have run off the road, into our neighbor's
backyards and homes? Those accidents caused significant damage because
backyards on the west side are below Barstow's grade.

Also, a bridge at the Barstow arroyo would negatively impact the quality
of life for our neighbors who live one street east and west of Barstow.
Others who live further away would be negatively impacted as well,
perhaps not to the same intensity. 

I hope you will understand why we who live closest, closer and close to
Barstow don't want this bridge built, and why we're asking our neighbors
to help us stop it before it gets started.

May I ask how close you live to Barstow?

John

Chelsea Morning <chelsea at cybermesa.com> wrote:

	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 /* 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 /* 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
	>