Long story short. These lanes were supposed to be a done deal. The public meetings didn't generate any real negative response. The plans were done and we were ready to go.....until the city council meeting yesterday.
Apparently, there was a negative email campaign directed by one of the unhappy residents (a definite minority at the meetings) that targeted our Ward 5 council member (Neoma Jardon) with a bunch of incorrect "facts" that gave her the opinion that she "couldn't support the change".
So we now have one month to get her and council to reconsider! So if you care about it at all, leave me a comment so I can get you involved in sending her a positive form email!
More on this later.....
I strongly agree with the Staff recommendations which were made by educated experts yet the Council let a bunch of opinions sway their judgement. The lady who spoke during public comments could not even articulate WHY she didn't support the road diet except perhaps she felt the community wasn't given the opportunity to be involved in the process. Or was it that she 'just didn't like change' which is just typical. Even if she were given the opportunity to be involved in the process I highly doubt her opinion would change. Often times people have no real justification for why they feel the way they do except, they 'just don't like it' or "I think this idea stinks..." to quote one of the emails to the Council.
ReplyDeleteThere were a lot of comments made during the meeting without merit.
1) "Can lane diets support future growth?" This comment is based on the old-school way of thinking and assumption that people have no other choice but to drive around. If you only build lanes for cars then yes, people will have no other choice to get around than to drive. So instead of allowing their children to walk or bike to school, parents have to drive them because of safety concerns.
2) "[...]as traffic backs up, people peel off onto side streets to try and get to work or get home." WHAT did the Council think is CAUSING the traffic back up? CARS. The number of lanes has less to do with "traffic" than the number of cars on roads do. In one of the letters written to the Council, there was an argument to increase the number of lanes on Keystone to accommodate more (car) traffic. What a ridiculous idea! More lanes can only mean more cars on those lanes and that does not necessarily mean the traffic will get better--traffic is more likely to get worse as drivers realize their is a bigger avenue which compounds many problems. It is a residential street not a freeway! More lanes for what? More lazy people?
3. Speaking of wasting money, a Council "question tax payer dollars being spent on Keystone"? There is no question--tax dollars WILL be spent on Keystone one way or another. However, in the long run more tax dollars will be spent to maintain 4 lanes than 2 lanes. Has Council Jardon forgotten those tax payer dollars also come from the very users of the roads who choose to ride their bicycles instead of drive? Yes, I pay real property taxes and vehicle registration fees for my car that sits in the garage during the work week! So why should MY tax per dollars go towards striping lanes built for cars when I ride my bicycle more than I drive?!
I understand that biking as a mode of transportation is not practical for everyone and I am not trying to assert my commuting choice onto others. However, if the city create lanes that are solely built for cars, then residents, children, college students, working professionals will not have a whole lot of (safe) options but to drive and add to the problems of traffic congestion and road maintenance. Why couldn’t the roads of our city serve multiple purposes and provide room for everyone? I encourage the Council to open their eyes and consider ALL users of the roads--not just drivers. Do we not have legs and feet to walk, run, bike, or move by wheelchair?
The council wants reports and numbers to support their decision making but one of the things that is harder to measure in numbers, dollars, and statistics is the quality of life. For me, quality of life is more than just the 15 minutes spent in a car driving to get to work or home. Not supporting the road diet because of car traffic concerns instead of considering the quality of life by creating roads and bike lanes that serve the community is very short sighted to me.
I am going to write to the Council, in more words or less, and if you need my name and info to add to this comment then please let me know.
By the way, if it is no trouble could you post the contact information of the three gentlemen from the NDOT/RTC/City Manager? If I have to go sit on Keystone for traffic counts and near pedestrian-car/bicycle-car collisions in the mornings, I will do it. Or go from door to door passing out flyers to residents on the street to notify them of public meetings, I will. I am sure they were given opportunities over the past couple years but were too busy (doing everything else but) driving to notice any posted signs.
ReplyDelete