I appreciate that all of the recent comments have not included any name-calling. Thank you.
I do want to address some comments from recent postings:
1) I don't understand the reference to "ballot-rigging." There hasn't been some kind of vote, so I don't get it.
2) The traffic counts I refer to are official counts done by PAG. I don't have the link, but this is public info and you can get it from their website.
3) The assumption has been made that I live in the neighborhood and just don't want this project in my backyard. Not the case. I live between Craycroft and Wilmot. I am just interested in transportation issues and building a thriving urban center both downtown and in the surrounding areas. I believe you do that by creating access to it, not by running a road through it.
Finally, I would just suggest that people drive this piece (between Euclid and Country Club) during rush hour, morning and evening. There are no bottlenecks, not even close. Any bottleneck occurs in downtown itself, and widening the gateway to it is not going to eliminate it.
So, in addition to being "extremists", people who disagree with you are"ideologues." I can take a pretty good guess as to where you get your "discussion" style, but I won't go there. Have you ever considered that these comment sections can be an opportunity for people to actually discuss topics of importance and perhaps listen to each other and name calling does not facilitate that?
Anyway, the 8 lane option is already off the table. What is being discussed is how to do the 6 lane alignment. The important thing to remember is that traffic counts are down to 1984 levels. Original projections have not materialized. One of the reasons for this is that other roadwork has been done that has taken pressure off this particular corridor ( a win for the transportation planners). Traffic is never backed up on this section of Broadway. Sure, things slow down from further east, but it is not due to traffic volume. It has to do with the number of lights. This is inevitable when one is driving through a more densely populated urban area. In widening a road going through this area, we would probably slow down traffic. This is because a wider roadbed would require longer lights. I hope no reader would suggest that we go forward with a plan that wastes taxpayer money.
Recent Comments
I do want to address some comments from recent postings:
1) I don't understand the reference to "ballot-rigging." There hasn't been some kind of vote, so I don't get it.
2) The traffic counts I refer to are official counts done by PAG. I don't have the link, but this is public info and you can get it from their website.
3) The assumption has been made that I live in the neighborhood and just don't want this project in my backyard. Not the case. I live between Craycroft and Wilmot. I am just interested in transportation issues and building a thriving urban center both downtown and in the surrounding areas. I believe you do that by creating access to it, not by running a road through it.
Finally, I would just suggest that people drive this piece (between Euclid and Country Club) during rush hour, morning and evening. There are no bottlenecks, not even close. Any bottleneck occurs in downtown itself, and widening the gateway to it is not going to eliminate it.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Anyway, the 8 lane option is already off the table. What is being discussed is how to do the 6 lane alignment. The important thing to remember is that traffic counts are down to 1984 levels. Original projections have not materialized. One of the reasons for this is that other roadwork has been done that has taken pressure off this particular corridor ( a win for the transportation planners). Traffic is never backed up on this section of Broadway. Sure, things slow down from further east, but it is not due to traffic volume. It has to do with the number of lights. This is inevitable when one is driving through a more densely populated urban area. In widening a road going through this area, we would probably slow down traffic. This is because a wider roadbed would require longer lights. I hope no reader would suggest that we go forward with a plan that wastes taxpayer money.