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

[Dobrina Teifel]

Rick,
I have no idea how often google maps updates its aerial views, but I  
can address one concern of yours.

There currently exists (and has existed for over a year) a pedestrian  
bridge over the arroyo at Barstow, and it connects the Nor Este park  
trail with a trail on the North side of the arroyo that runs parallel  
to the arroyo almost up to Ventura, giving walkers and bikers a  
wonderful uninterrupted stretch to enjoy. I walk there with my  
stroller and bike with my kids a few times a week and while I live far  
away from Barstow to be personally concerned about the traffic, I do  
believe neighbors need a space to walk/stroll freely, without fearing  
for their kids. Maybe you too would appreciate this feature, since you  
mention that you like to bike there.





On Mar 10, 2008, at 9:33 PM, Chelsea Morning wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080311/c68e8d0a/attachment-0001.html