HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-22 Public Comment - R. French - comment about FowlerFrom:rblfr@aol.com
To:Agenda
Cc:bradfrencha1@gmail.com
Subject:comment about Fowler
Date:Tuesday, August 2, 2022 11:22:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I attended last week's Transportation Advisory Board meeting and was concerned by the fact that thepresentation to the board seemed misleading in that it made it sound like land acquisition is in the worksand close to being complete. The reality is a little different. When the one board member who hadconcerns about the project asked about the status of land acquisition, the response sort of glossed it overand seemed to suggest that it was pretty much a done deal.
My mother is the owner of the land between Babcock and Durston where you are planning this road, andmy brother is the owner of the plot at the NE corner of Fowler and Babcock. Prior to thier ownership itwas my grandparents land, back when it was just pastureland in the country when they purchased itnearly 100 years ago. No one has ever spoken to any member of our family about acquiring land for thisroad. I guess I'm just curious how the City sees that playing out.
I'm not asking because I am anxious to see this project get underway or looking for such discussions, Ijust thought you should be aware. In fact I would prefer that the city heed the philosophy of Jane Jacobsand downsize this road in recognition of the reality that a road of this size is often more a detriment thanan asset. Jacobs was insightful in recognizing that bigger roads do not make for better urbanenvironments, and her work related to it changed the course of what many came to recognize asmisguided efforts to destructively slice big roads through existing urban fabric.
I was a little troubled by the fact that money is being spent to design a road that the public (at least thelocal public) by and large does not want, on land that the city does not own, and make it sound like theacquisition of such land is merely a formality. In making this point I would point out that nobody amongthe many who spoke last week spoke in favor of the proposed design. And there were some compellingcases made against it, which I think should be given their due.
It was also alarming to see that significant resources have already been used designing these grandroadway schemes on our land before any discussion whatsoever with the land owners. The meeting lastweek seemed somewhat tone-deaf to the wishes of the citizens, with efforts made to limit public commentand tamp down the groundswell of opposition to a road this big. The schemes seem disrespectful of thefact that this is a quiet, preexisting residential neighborhood, and seem oblivious to the impact that a roadthis big will have on livability, walkability, or bikability or the impact it will have on the property ownerswhom the road will encroach on. This precedence given to speeding up automobile circulation at theexpense of other modes and other uses, seems contrary to the tenets of smart growth.
Here are a few links to articles that make the case for smaller roads:
Bigger Isn’t Always Better: Narrow Traffic Lanes Make Cities Saferhttps://www.wri.org/insights/bigger-isnt-always-better-narrow-traffic-lanes-make-cities-safer
What's Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worsehttps://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
https://archive.curbed.com/2020/3/6/21166655/highway-traffic-congestion-induced-demand
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Rob French1414 Ash Drive