In the Star’s report on the mayor and council vote to approve the Broadway alignment (“Council votes 5-1 to widen Broadway” April 20) it was noted there was one dissenting vote. Since no basis for that dissent was given in the article, to balance the reporting I’ll provide that here.
Last June we voted to allow staff and consultants to take a draft alignment for widening Broadway proposed by the Citizen’s Task Force (CTF) and refine it. Last week, the mayor and council approved that refined design. Although it is only 30 percent designed, the city manager confirmed at the meeting that making meaningful changes will “be a challenge.”
Ahead of last June’s unanimous vote to move the CTF draft alignment into the “30 percent” design phase, I wrote a guest opinion piece in which I proposed three things: That we give the process a chance, that holding to a zero demolition position was unrealistic, and that the design team must honor the input we have heard from hundreds of people at multiple public meetings.
Approving a draft concept does not imply automatic support for the outcome of the design process. My dissent was consistent with my earlier position. The input of the people was not honored.
I attended nearly all of the CTF and public open houses related to the Broadway project. In those meetings and in briefings given publicly to the mayor and council, the staff, an overpriced out-of-state consultant and the RTA made comments that were inconsistent and that are out of touch with what the public has been asking for throughout the planning process.
For example, the mayor and council were told by our transportation director that a 98-foot width on Broadway was achievable. Nothing close to that exists in the 30 percent alignment. We were told a “four travel lane plus two dedicated transit lane” option was possible. And yet one week after that was stated, at a public open house the “4+2T” option was declared by staff to be “not fundable.”
We were told “acquisitions do not mean demolitions.” But with our vote to approve the 30 percent alignment, we accepted an amendment to our agreement with the RTA that states “all structures impacted by the future Right of Way will be demolished within 180 days.”
Staff has produced a report that outlines the process and standards by which the roadway will be designed. It’s called the Design Concept Report (DCR.) The DCR has tables describing acceptable lane widths that are at odds with what the CTF was told by staff and consultants would be allowed by the engineers. And the 30 percent design triples the number of bus pullouts compared to the original draft alignment. Modeling in the DCR says pullouts are not recommended because they slow down transit.
The mistake the CTF and I made was not in supporting moving from the draft alignment into the refinement process. It was in trusting that process would be conducted on the up-and-up.
None of the traffic projections, demographic models or trend reports on what people value in transportation corridors justifies spending over $70 million on what is being proposed.
The RTA needs the trust of the people if it hopes to see its reauthorization approved. Forcing an unneeded, expensive project on members of the public, who had offered up multiple productive alternatives, is not the way to achieve their support for continued funding.
Opponents of the 30 percent plan support good growth that follows urban design principles not taken from a perspective 30 years in the rear view mirror. The 30 percent design is modeled on assumptions not consistent with driving trends, not consistent with what the community and Citizen’s Task Force identified as priorities, and not reflective of how other cities are addressing urban transportation corridor planning.
