[NENA] More on proposal to build a bridge across arroyo at Barstow
Chelsea Morning
chelsea at cybermesa.com
Mon Mar 10 22:33:47 CDT 2008
John,
Sorry for being long-winded in this mesage but I am trying to answer each of
the questions you have laid out and to see if we can pursue alternative
ideas, as you suggested.
First, I agree with you that I have been disappointed with the City being
willing to allow developers to violate the sector plan. The first I
remember was the apartment complex being built taller than had agreed upon
and the City planners giving us an "Oh, well" response.
My source for my assertion regarding Barstow as two-lane collector was my
memory being refreshed by Google Maps yesterday and the maps on Microsoft
Live. We have been in D.C. since July 06 but will be returning home to Nor
Este this summer. Since I could not fully recall the exact details of
Barstow, I looked at the aerial imagery which confirmed that for the
majority of its length, it is marked off to support two continuous lanes of
traffic. The stripes that mark the edge of the lane widen where required to
support left- or right-hand turn lanes. I agree that the road between
Alameda and the arroyo is wide enough to support four lanes of traffic and,
it is conceivable that Barstow could be restriped to accommodate two lanes
each way (I can't tell if it is actually wide enough for this) but this
would not be a divided road like you find on Wyoming. Again, this seems
like an "is not, is too" kind of argument and there is probably value in
NENA or VENA contacting the City's traffic engineers to get a read on what
is currently planned for Barstow and what could possibly be (e.g., could it
ever be used as a four-lane corridor).
Regarding the alternative pedestrian route, what is your idea?
Regarding the "larger things", I was referring to the drawings I had seen in
the past that showed the extensions of Wyoming and Paseo to Tramway and
Eubank respectively. I have not seen anything on these of late but the
capacity of Wyoming being built up north of Nor Este seems like more that
would be needed given the amount of traffic that could possibly flow to and
from the homes up there. Roads cost money and the City doesn't build big
just to build big. It leads me to wonder if the extra capacity isn't for
some other purpose, possibly the connection to Tramway shown in the article
in the Journal.
In writing the last email, I used the words "...relatively insignificant..."
intentionally. I fully understand how the bridge project must look to you.
You have a very nice home there on the entrance to the cul de sac 100-150
feet from Barstow. Right now, other than neighbors accessing their homes,
you have virtually no traffic running past your end of the neighborhood,
especially since the developer annexed Oakland and blocked off that corridor
just east of the entrance to Nor Este. I also understand your concerns
about home value if Barstow is opened and you move from essentially zero
traffic to whatever traffic levels would result.
At the same time, compared to what we face on Wyoming and Alameda, I
honestly believe that the traffic levels on Barstow would be insignificant.
When our family first moved into Nor Este fourteen years ago, Wyoming north
of Alameda was a two-lane road. When NENA and VENA "compromised" with the
City planners and accepted 7 homes per acre west of Wyoming in order to
guarantee 3 homes per acre transitioning to one per acre north and east of
the neighborhoods, they were implicitly agreeing that it would be okay to
significantly increase traffic levels on the west end of Nor Este. When
Alameda was widened to four lanes, all of the homes that face Alameda were
impacted. Again, it is hard for me to imagine Barstow ever rivaling these
roads in traffic volume (I know, I am back to the "is not, is too"
argument).
No, I had not heard about all of the accidents on Barstow south of Alameda.
Regarding how close we live to Barstow: about half a mile. Our home backs
up to Wyoming.
Last point: you have noted in a couple of your messages that a key issue
here is how "the neighbors" in our area will be impacted. Those of us who
live on the west and south ends of Nor Este are neighbors here too. It
seems to me that there are real questions about equitable treatment implicit
in this conversation we are having. Do VENA and NENA represent the
interests of all of the homes in the neighborhoods or only some? If you
want us, your neighbors along Wyoming and Alameda, to stand with you against
the Barstow bridge, it would help to know that the position of the
associations on continued development of these two roads on our end of the
neighborhood. That is my whole point in raising the "larger issues" concern
yesterday. When the associations "compromised" on the sector plan, only
those of us on the west and east ends of the neighborhood paid the price. I
fear that we will be paying even more in the future. In this context, can
you understand why a "quieter" interior north-south corridor is attractive
to those of us south of the arroyo? If we are going to be hemmed in by
Wyoming and Alameda, it would be nice to know that we can safely and easily
access areas north of the arroyo to reach our school, to ride our bikes,
etc.
Hopefully I addressed your questions, John. I don't have any special desire
to see your part of the neighborhood endure what the "compromise" handed to
us. I _am_ concerned about fairness and seeing that NENA and VENA stand for
all homes, not just a few.
If we understand each other now, maybe we could turn this conversation to
alternative solutions. Your suggestion that there might be a way to satisfy
desires on both sides of this debate got my attention. Are you thinking a
pedestrian bridge across the arroyo? I would find this preferable to the
Georgia O'Keefe / Betty Sabo solution. My kids and I have gone bike riding
up in your end of the neighborhood, cutting through the walkway on your cul
de sac. At present, we have to turn back west and cross at Georgia O'Keefe
if we want to access the other side of the arroyo. Having the ability to
cross there at Barstow would be very appealing.
Another alternative (less attractive to you, I am sure) would be to work
with the City to ensure that only a two-lane bridge is built. This
choke-point approach would reduce the likelihood of Barstow ever
transitioning to a four-lane corridor (if this is even possible).
Look forward to hearing from you,
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: John Ingram [mailto:ingram1ja at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:38 PM
To: Chelsea Morning; Carla Irwin
Cc: 'NENA'; ingram1ja at yahoo.com
Subject: 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://noreste.org/pipermail/members_noreste.org/attachments/20080310/29cebd47/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Members
mailing list