1997-11-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1i3 Ms. Mary MacNei!, President of STP,_MP, said that there is a discrepancy in the CATS plan between goals and funding, and expressed concern about the number of major road wide~njng projects in Phase II!. Ms. MacNei! said that unless something is done, the City wi_H be impacted by traffic from gro.wt, h in the surrou_n_ding counties. _.~. Rich Collins, member of STA_.M~, asked Council to appoim a delegation to look at envirowmenta! issues associated with the Meadowcreek Parkway. Mx. Collins said that Mc!ntire Park should be a central park for the region. Mr. Collins said that if any federal money was used for park land, any land taken must be replaced. Mr. Kevin Lynch, 609 Locust Avenue, opposed the Parkway. _Mr. Lynch said that the traffic on Locust Avenue and other places is getting worse with regional comanuter traffic, and a portion of road ~fi. mds should be taken and used _tbr alternative means fbr dealing with the traffic. Mr. Lynch said the Meadowcreek Parkway wi!! encourage growt~ ~h in the County. Mr. Lynch said that there should be a joint City/County meeting on the CATS plan. Mr. Greg Jackson, !20!-B Sycamore Street, said that the quality ofiife provided by parks and greenbeks is important to the com_munity, and he opposed the Parkway. Mr. Jay Carden, representing the Sierra Club, said that the CATS is an internally inconsistent plan and the Meadowcreek Parkway is unjustified. ~.~. John Conover, ! 04 W. High Street, said he feels it is a mistake to build the Meadowcreek Parkway as k is currently designed. Mr. Conover noted the reasons to build the Parkway include: promoting access to downtown (which he feels is no longer needed and k would hurt the economy); agreement with the County (which he believes is no longer in effect); and harm_ to Park Street. Mr. Conover proposed that the Council ask for a 4freview, look at the CATS criteria, and install traffic signals on Park Street. Mr. Conover asked that traffic counts be run without a western bypass and an eastern__ corridor. Mr. Roger _.Martin, A!tamont Circle, noted that the CATS Plan says that Meadowcreek Parkway .wi!! help the rexona! traffic into the City. Mr. Martin said he feels there should be a joint plamnJng co_m__rrfission with the County, and that a decision on Meadowcreek Parkway should be deferred until there is an announced agreement on reversion. Mr.. _Alan Kanter, ! 122 Park Street, supported Meadowcreek Parkway as an a!terna~ive to funneling traffic onto Park Street. Mr. Paul Fishbane, 751 pa_rk Street, thanked Council for giving weight to bikes, public transportation and improving quality of neighborhoods, and agreed that w~hfi!e he supports the Parkway, it should not be a defacto tbxoughway. Mr. William Lucy, 4!0 2nd Street, N.E., noted that North Do~mtown residents are divided on the issue of the Meadowcreek Parkway. Mr. Lucy said he does not agree with the armament that the Parkway M!! improve downtown. M_r. Lucy suggested that speed humps be const_ructed on Park Street. Mr. Lucy said that transportation plamfing and !and use p!an_njng should go together and the CATS plan should be delayed until they are discussed. Mr. Malcolm Cote, ! !06 Park Street, said that the Park Stree. t environment is being degraded by the volume of traffic and urged Council to help in finding a solution. M~r. Cole supported the Parkway. Mr. Stan Ragle, ! ! 59 Kensington Avenue, asked that Council step back and explore other alternatives and nOt validate the C_~ffS plan at thais time. Mr. Steve Majiske, !6!3-B Amherst St., said that facts aM circumstances have changed and he is not com,'inced that the Meadowcreek Parkw. ay is the best solution for Park Street. M~r. Majiske said he thinks a regional plan, involving the City, County and U_njversity, needs to be developed. Mr. Majiske added that he feels people .will use public transportation if available.