Some questions...
Looking at the proposed Map and illustrations, I have some questions...
1) Horizon to Patterson area: How are you planning on making entrances to the several homes and assisted living residences? The trees in the illustrations will certainly make it more challenging for drivers to get in and out of their locales. Why do we need more bike lanes in an area that already has them?
2) Patterson to North: Who is going to be responsible for maintaining the easement between the road and the "Multi-Use Trail"? How much more property are the homeowners and business owners going to be asked to give to the city? There are already sidewalks in either direction. Do we need more?
3) North to Ute: Are you going to install parking meters in front of the historical homes on 7th? How are you planning on reducing traffic flow from four lanes to two lanes? All those trees look pretty in the illustrations, but it sure makes it hard to see when trying to turn to a side street or residence. What's the plan for that? BTW, it looks cheap for a historical area.
4) Are you removing lanes to add street parking to an area of town that is industrial and has it's own parking areas in place?
5) Finally, how much is this going to cost? What is the Return on Investment? How long is this project going to take? How will you compensate homeowners and business people who will have a loss in land or revenue during this process? Is this still up for debate or will you just bulldoze it through like other bad ideas that had negative public response? (ie, 4th & 5th St, Horizon Dr. , etc.)
Share Some questions... on Facebook
Share Some questions... on Twitter
Share Some questions... on Linkedin
Email Some questions... link
1 comment
Hello! We see that you submitted questions in this comment section. In order to best monitor incoming questions and responses, please direct questions to that tool. The responses to your above questions are listed below:
1. The cross-sections are somewhat simplified views to consolidate the overall concept into a single picture. The City follows best engineering practices for evaluating sight lines and will ensure that any access points along the corridor have a safe amount of visibility. This section of the corridor does not have any existing bicycle facility today.
2. Today, when sidewalks are buffered by landscape strips, it is the responsibility of home/property owners to maintain that space, including watering trees or other plants and that is not proposed to change on 7th Street. To the greatest extent possible, these concepts intend to meet the goal (adopted in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan) of having Active Transportation facilities that offer a Level of Traffic Stress no greater than two out of four points with minimal impacts to existing curb lines or private property to help manage implementation cost and complexity. On a high-speed, high-volume corridor like 7th Street, that typically comes with physical separation of a dedicated cycle facility and sidewalk from motor traffic. Fortunately, most of the length of this section has additional public right-of-way (ROW) behind the walk on the east roadside.
3. None of the concepts suggest adding vehicular parking or meters to 7th Street where it doesn’t exist today. While the illustrations are simplified, the intent was to demonstrate that the concept aims to maintain the existing tree cover through the historical portion of 7th Street.
4. No lane reductions nor significant changes to parking are proposed for the industrial portion of the corridor (i.e., south of I-70B).
5. Specific implementation costs were not developed as a part of this concept planning; however, relative costs of different options were considered. For example, unnecessarily maintaining 4 lanes of traffic through the historical section of 7th Street while also creating a more accommodating bicycle facility would likely mean significant ROW purchase at high expense, so this was not selected as a lead option. The problem with estimating costs when there is not an implementation plan is that construction expenses are highly variable from year to year.
Since there is no plan for funding or implementation, it is not possible to estimate timelines. After staff finalizes concepts, Council will determine if these match the community vision. If so, staff will begin evaluating options for funding the final design and implementation of higher-priority sections (i.e., north of Grand Avenue). If additional ROW is required, it will have to be purchased from property owners.
Agree
0
Disagree
0
Alert moderator
Share Hello! We see that you submitted questions in this comment section. In order to best monitor incoming questions and responses, please direct questions to that tool. The responses to your above questions are listed below:
1. The cross-sections are somewhat simplified views to consolidate the overall concept into a single picture. The City follows best engineering practices for evaluating sight lines and will ensure that any access points along the corridor have a safe amount of visibility. This section of the corridor does not have any existing bicycle facility today.
2. Today, when sidewalks are buffered by landscape strips, it is the responsibility of home/property owners to maintain that space, including watering trees or other plants and that is not proposed to change on 7th Street. To the greatest extent possible, these concepts intend to meet the goal (adopted in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan) of having Active Transportation facilities that offer a Level of Traffic Stress no greater than two out of four points with minimal impacts to existing curb lines or private property to help manage implementation cost and complexity. On a high-speed, high-volume corridor like 7th Street, that typically comes with physical separation of a dedicated cycle facility and sidewalk from motor traffic. Fortunately, most of the length of this section has additional public right-of-way (ROW) behind the walk on the east roadside.
3. None of the concepts suggest adding vehicular parking or meters to 7th Street where it doesn’t exist today. While the illustrations are simplified, the intent was to demonstrate that the concept aims to maintain the existing tree cover through the historical portion of 7th Street.
4. No lane reductions nor significant changes to parking are proposed for the industrial portion of the corridor (i.e., south of I-70B).
5. Specific implementation costs were not developed as a part of this concept planning; however, relative costs of different options were considered. For example, unnecessarily maintaining 4 lanes of traffic through the historical section of 7th Street while also creating a more accommodating bicycle facility would likely mean significant ROW purchase at high expense, so this was not selected as a lead option. The problem with estimating costs when there is not an implementation plan is that construction expenses are highly variable from year to year.
Since there is no plan for funding or implementation, it is not possible to estimate timelines. After staff finalizes concepts, Council will determine if these match the community vision. If so, staff will begin evaluating options for funding the final design and implementation of higher-priority sections (i.e., north of Grand Avenue). If additional ROW is required, it will have to be purchased from property owners. on Facebook
Share Hello! We see that you submitted questions in this comment section. In order to best monitor incoming questions and responses, please direct questions to that tool. The responses to your above questions are listed below:
1. The cross-sections are somewhat simplified views to consolidate the overall concept into a single picture. The City follows best engineering practices for evaluating sight lines and will ensure that any access points along the corridor have a safe amount of visibility. This section of the corridor does not have any existing bicycle facility today.
2. Today, when sidewalks are buffered by landscape strips, it is the responsibility of home/property owners to maintain that space, including watering trees or other plants and that is not proposed to change on 7th Street. To the greatest extent possible, these concepts intend to meet the goal (adopted in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan) of having Active Transportation facilities that offer a Level of Traffic Stress no greater than two out of four points with minimal impacts to existing curb lines or private property to help manage implementation cost and complexity. On a high-speed, high-volume corridor like 7th Street, that typically comes with physical separation of a dedicated cycle facility and sidewalk from motor traffic. Fortunately, most of the length of this section has additional public right-of-way (ROW) behind the walk on the east roadside.
3. None of the concepts suggest adding vehicular parking or meters to 7th Street where it doesn’t exist today. While the illustrations are simplified, the intent was to demonstrate that the concept aims to maintain the existing tree cover through the historical portion of 7th Street.
4. No lane reductions nor significant changes to parking are proposed for the industrial portion of the corridor (i.e., south of I-70B).
5. Specific implementation costs were not developed as a part of this concept planning; however, relative costs of different options were considered. For example, unnecessarily maintaining 4 lanes of traffic through the historical section of 7th Street while also creating a more accommodating bicycle facility would likely mean significant ROW purchase at high expense, so this was not selected as a lead option. The problem with estimating costs when there is not an implementation plan is that construction expenses are highly variable from year to year.
Since there is no plan for funding or implementation, it is not possible to estimate timelines. After staff finalizes concepts, Council will determine if these match the community vision. If so, staff will begin evaluating options for funding the final design and implementation of higher-priority sections (i.e., north of Grand Avenue). If additional ROW is required, it will have to be purchased from property owners. on Twitter
Share Hello! We see that you submitted questions in this comment section. In order to best monitor incoming questions and responses, please direct questions to that tool. The responses to your above questions are listed below:
1. The cross-sections are somewhat simplified views to consolidate the overall concept into a single picture. The City follows best engineering practices for evaluating sight lines and will ensure that any access points along the corridor have a safe amount of visibility. This section of the corridor does not have any existing bicycle facility today.
2. Today, when sidewalks are buffered by landscape strips, it is the responsibility of home/property owners to maintain that space, including watering trees or other plants and that is not proposed to change on 7th Street. To the greatest extent possible, these concepts intend to meet the goal (adopted in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan) of having Active Transportation facilities that offer a Level of Traffic Stress no greater than two out of four points with minimal impacts to existing curb lines or private property to help manage implementation cost and complexity. On a high-speed, high-volume corridor like 7th Street, that typically comes with physical separation of a dedicated cycle facility and sidewalk from motor traffic. Fortunately, most of the length of this section has additional public right-of-way (ROW) behind the walk on the east roadside.
3. None of the concepts suggest adding vehicular parking or meters to 7th Street where it doesn’t exist today. While the illustrations are simplified, the intent was to demonstrate that the concept aims to maintain the existing tree cover through the historical portion of 7th Street.
4. No lane reductions nor significant changes to parking are proposed for the industrial portion of the corridor (i.e., south of I-70B).
5. Specific implementation costs were not developed as a part of this concept planning; however, relative costs of different options were considered. For example, unnecessarily maintaining 4 lanes of traffic through the historical section of 7th Street while also creating a more accommodating bicycle facility would likely mean significant ROW purchase at high expense, so this was not selected as a lead option. The problem with estimating costs when there is not an implementation plan is that construction expenses are highly variable from year to year.
Since there is no plan for funding or implementation, it is not possible to estimate timelines. After staff finalizes concepts, Council will determine if these match the community vision. If so, staff will begin evaluating options for funding the final design and implementation of higher-priority sections (i.e., north of Grand Avenue). If additional ROW is required, it will have to be purchased from property owners. on Linkedin
Email Hello! We see that you submitted questions in this comment section. In order to best monitor incoming questions and responses, please direct questions to that tool. The responses to your above questions are listed below:
1. The cross-sections are somewhat simplified views to consolidate the overall concept into a single picture. The City follows best engineering practices for evaluating sight lines and will ensure that any access points along the corridor have a safe amount of visibility. This section of the corridor does not have any existing bicycle facility today.
2. Today, when sidewalks are buffered by landscape strips, it is the responsibility of home/property owners to maintain that space, including watering trees or other plants and that is not proposed to change on 7th Street. To the greatest extent possible, these concepts intend to meet the goal (adopted in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan) of having Active Transportation facilities that offer a Level of Traffic Stress no greater than two out of four points with minimal impacts to existing curb lines or private property to help manage implementation cost and complexity. On a high-speed, high-volume corridor like 7th Street, that typically comes with physical separation of a dedicated cycle facility and sidewalk from motor traffic. Fortunately, most of the length of this section has additional public right-of-way (ROW) behind the walk on the east roadside.
3. None of the concepts suggest adding vehicular parking or meters to 7th Street where it doesn’t exist today. While the illustrations are simplified, the intent was to demonstrate that the concept aims to maintain the existing tree cover through the historical portion of 7th Street.
4. No lane reductions nor significant changes to parking are proposed for the industrial portion of the corridor (i.e., south of I-70B).
5. Specific implementation costs were not developed as a part of this concept planning; however, relative costs of different options were considered. For example, unnecessarily maintaining 4 lanes of traffic through the historical section of 7th Street while also creating a more accommodating bicycle facility would likely mean significant ROW purchase at high expense, so this was not selected as a lead option. The problem with estimating costs when there is not an implementation plan is that construction expenses are highly variable from year to year.
Since there is no plan for funding or implementation, it is not possible to estimate timelines. After staff finalizes concepts, Council will determine if these match the community vision. If so, staff will begin evaluating options for funding the final design and implementation of higher-priority sections (i.e., north of Grand Avenue). If additional ROW is required, it will have to be purchased from property owners. link
Thank you for your contribution!
Help us reach out to more people in the community
Share this with family and friends