Home > Announcement, Representing > West Boardman Lake Input Process Plan Released

West Boardman Lake Input Process Plan Released

Public Notices for West Boardman Lake District

a.k.a. the Boardman Lake Ave.

(Click for larger view)

This February 23rd meeting will be the first meeting to revisit the merits and drawbacks of the proposed Boardman Lake Avenue. Basically, much of what’s been discussed on this blog already in some truly enjoyable community discussion (scroll down for discussion). The other issues, recreation and redevelopment/infill are also on the agenda as the push to make this more than a road discussion is clear. That’s a welcome change, but it’s still noticeable to note how the road is downplayed despite that being the driving force behind the effort.

The above graphic gives a brief overview and is far from a comprehensive list of the issues. It also includes some questionable phrasing: access is limited? Really? I was there yesterday and there were families playing, dogs running and many people walking/biking to and from the library. Seems accessible to me…It’s just not designed.

Along with the invite (sent out to Old Town residents, as if they are the only ones impacted), there is also a West Boardman Lake Input Process Plan that was distributed. I’ve uploaded it to Scribd and embedded it here. I haven’t had time to read through it, so I will reserve comment. I invite you to add your comments here…

Get Involved, mark your calendar:

February 23rd. • 7pm • Government Center Cafeteria


MyWHaT is still seeking underwriters to help make this project thrive…or, simply contribute via PayPal.

  1. Brian H
    February 15, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    When the BLA was proposed 30 years ago, and even as recently as last month, it was intended to be a bypass to remove traffic from the neighborhoods. Whether or not one believes that a BLA would indeed cure the neighborhood traffic issues, what is being presented here is not what I think was originally envisioned – I could be wrong.

    I don’t see the need to develop this area to improve non-motorized traffic access. There are several access points to the west side of Boardman Lake and the pedestrian bridge from the west and these can be further developed without building a road which bisects all these access points/trails.

    I do see this providing greater motorized access to the downtown and central business districts, only because this is providing a third north-south arterial route. This road would create better access to the Eighth Street business district and allow east-west cross-town traffic to bypass Old Town neighborhood. This in turn, creates more capacity on Cass and Union Streets for additional north-south traffic to access downtown business districts.

    If this is a redevelopment district, what are the commercial and residential developments going to be? Is there currently demand for commercial space along this proposed road? What will this look like? Is this something that we want bordering our historic neighborhoods? Will it look like Eighth or Fourteenth Streets or more like Old Town business district? Will there be limits or architectural standards to ensure that this district blends with our neighborhood? Do we have a City Planner or Staff that will guide this process?

    My thoughts are that this will add additional north-south arterial motorized vehicle capacity through our neighborhoods and will not reduce traffic volumes over the long-term. I have yet to see a comprehensive traffic model of our street grid that suggests otherwise. Perhaps I am one of the few that consider the green space west of Lake Ave to be part of my neighborhood and view a permanent redevelopment district as an intrusion on that space. If I didn’t care about that green space, there were certainly less expensive homes bordering Division Street I could have bought.

    Again, none of this proposed redevelopment district addresses the complaints that I hear about the traffic through the neighborhoods: traffic speeds are too high between intersections (even if City Staff thinks the average speed is acceptable); vehicles don’t respect stop signs or yield to pedestrians; (illegal) cut-through truck traffic is noisy and causes damage to our older homes; access out of our alleys and driveways (on Cass) is dangerous (which could be attributed to speeding as much as volumes) and pollution from vehicles and heavy trucks. With the exception of moving heavy truck traffic to a new road, none of these issues are addressed with the creation of this redevelopment district.

  2. February 16, 2011 at 7:19 am

    Further proof of the power of your blog Gary. Because a comment by me appeared on your blog, James Russell, a Record Eagle reporter, emailed me, asked me to phone him. He wanted to hear what I had to say about the proposed bypass. I phoned him (from England!)and we talked. I told him I was against the bypass, basically against any more roads for cars. My new “take” on the question is that we cannot build our way out of congestion and that cars should be treated as guests in a city. Here is part of a follow up email I sent him:
    the concept of cars as “guests” in cities, and the idea of “psychological traffic calming” (tearing down all signs for cars) are explained on pages 191 to 195 in the book Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Send MyWHaT a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: