“Gateway Area Plan Proposed Circulation Network Changes and Evaluated Alternatives”
Video from Arcata’s Community Development Director, David Loya
August 11, 2023
This article includes the 28-1/2 minute video and a full transcription. The themes presented in the video are:
- Improvements to the trail system in the Gateway area
- Improvement suggestions for K Street
- Some discussion on L Street
- A presentation of alternative couplet streets
There are so very many issues with this presentation that a separate article would be need necessary to adequately over them. There are mischaracterizations, misstatements, and downright falsehoods. Among what is wrong is:
- It presents alternatives to having a K-L Street couplet, including having a couplet using M, N, Q, and J Streets. What is conspicuously absent is any discussion of the “no couplet” alternative — that is, keeping the traffic currently on K Street as remaining on K Street, and concentrating on improving K Street. A “no action” option is always a required option in planning strategies. But it is not present here.
- It speaks to the discussion and recommendation of the Planning Commission on the couplet, but makes no mention of the recommendations of Arcata’s Transportation Safety Committee on the couplet. The TSC’s recommendation is to remove the couplet from consideration, entirely.
- It presents the alternatives to the couplet and states explicitly that those alternative routes were vetted by the Planning Commission. In fact, this video is the first time these alternative routes have been made available to the public, the Transportation Safety Committee, or the Planning Commission. There has been no discussion and no vetting by the Planning Commission. Why this video maintains that vetting did take place is a mystery.
- For each of the alternate options, on the screen image there is an inset box that lists the drawbacks of that alternative. For example, on the “M Street Southbound” alternative there is “Coastal wetlands, Planned Open Space, Considerable private easements needed, significant impact to development on a few parcels.”
On the image for the L Street alternative, there is no inset box. And in the discussion on the video, there is no mention of any noted drawbacks of putting a new through road on L Street. And yet, in fact, a new road on L Street would have much the same drawbacks and complications as shown on other alternative routes: Coastal wetlands, Planned Open Space, Considerable private easements needed, significant impact to development on a few parcels.
We are in a situation here where we can not rely on our public officials to tells the whole story. We cannot trust our public officials to present an unbiased view of the facts and the reality. Needed information is missing, while information that is presented is misleading or inaccurate — or simply false.
I started Arcata1.com out of concern that information needed for good decision-making was not being accurately supplied by our city government. This video continues with that unfortunate on-going situation.
The Video Presentation
The video is set to start at the L Street segment, at roughly 12:15. You can easily place your cursor or finger along the timeline at the lower portion of the video to have it start at the beginning if you want.
To change the speed of the video: After starting the video, use the “Settings” tool button 
and change the speed to be 1.25x or 1.5x times faster.
You can watch the video in “full screen” mode by clicking the Square at the lower right of the YouTube screen. A message at the top will tell you how to exit the full screen — it’s the “Escape” key on a PC.
Contents
Click any blue link to go directly to that section. Once there, your browser’s back arrow will return to these contents.
Hello, and thank you for taking the time to learn more about the Gateway Area Plan proposal for balancing transportation modes with an emphasis on bike and ped safety, as well as what is proposed for new and enhanced bike and multi-use trail facilities. I’m David Loya, the Director of Community Development for the City of Arcata and I’m pleased to share this information with you today. Please feel free to reach out to me or my team if you have any follow-up questions. And, as always, let the City Council and Planning Commission know your thoughts as well.
00:33
Let’s begin. In this video I’m going to discuss: The reason for the proposal; what’s actually being proposed; I’ll cover the alternatives that were considered when developing the proposal; and, lastly, why staff and our consulting transportation engineers ultimately landed on the proposals that are presented in this presentation. We’re going to start by looking at what is actually being proposed and why.
01:01
I’m going to jump right into the content, but if you need a refresher on what the Gateway Area Plan is, the boundaries, or why the undertaking is happening in the first place, please visit our YouTube channel with the search term “Gateway” to learn more about these topics. You can also learn more on our website by searching “Arcata” and “Gateway.”
[NOTE: This is NOT a feasible way of learning about the Gateway plan. Try it — you’ll see. Searching for “Gateway” on Arcata’s YouTube channel yields dozens of videos… with very few of them specially related to the Gateway Area Plan. The City website’s search does not yield useful or pertinent results. Too bad.]
01:24
Let’s start by reviewing the purpose as stated in the Plan. The purpose was developed through community feedback as well as current best practices for trail and transportation planning. We also use modern transportation planning principles that emphasize reducing vehicle miles traveled and making modes of travel, whether on foot or by wheel, feel safe and comfortable on new roads and trails we are planning. The City is growing. We need to plan for that growth to make sure the infrastructure can continue to support and to enhance the high quality of life Arcatans have come to enjoy. Specifically, we want to plan to continue to support a robust network of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit that’s balanced with vehicular infrastructure to ensure that folks using all modes feel safe. The Plan seeks to improve the current conditions for people using the sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use trails. To that end the strategy proposes to re-align the road network to make safety a priority on existing roads while expanding the current trail infrastructure.
No net loss of trails, in length
02:28
I want to take a moment to address a misconception about the proposal here and to emphasize that the multi-use trails — including the Bay Trail North, which is part of the California Coastal Trail and which is planned to extend to the Annie and Mary Trail — will remain intact and in place. The plan does call for a minor realignment of the northern section of the L Street segment of this trail to improve user safety and enjoyment. We’ll take a closer look at that in a moment.
02:56
Looking at the proposed language of the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council regarding the Plan circulation network and trails specifically, the Planning Commission and Committees recommended the transportation system emphasize alternative modes over vehicles in Policy GA-7a.
[Here is Policy GA‐7a, below]
Plan the Circulation System to Accommodate Planned Growth. In planning for improvements to the overall circulation system, design the system to accommodate the planned amount of growth outlined in other policies. Ensure the circulation system supports a functioning, safe, sustainable multi‐modal network. Support increased demands for all efficient forms of mobility emphasizing alternative modes pedestrians, bicycles, and other non‐ motorized or shared transit options, then vehicles, and trucks, in an effort to induce demand of multimodal transit alternatives and implement transportation demand management strategies, in keeping with Citywide Circulation Element policies (see also, GA‐8a).
03:15
The Commission went on to recommend no net loss of the Class I (one) trail system. These are the multi-modal trails you see along Foster to L Street and out to the Bay Trail. So no net loss of these trails. The policy and strategy are generally depicted in Figures 8 and 9 of the Plan. Figure 8 shows the Plan vehicular circulation network, emphasizing the proposed changes. And Figure 9, on the right, shows the existing and planned alternative modes of transportation, including bike and ped trails.
03:58
Let’s take a closer look at the trails first. This image depicts the Gateway area and surrounding areas slightly grayed out, with the existing facilities, multi-use path, Class II and III bike routes and bike lanes, depicted in the solid lines. You’ll note in the center of the field of view is L Street. The L Street corridor is our current existing multi-use path that’s a Class I trail. The proposed facilities are shown in dashed lines in these figures. [NOTE: The dashed line also shows existing trail to be realigned.]
04:36
I want to draw your attention to the number of new Class I separated multi-use trails that are proposed. Notably N (as in Nancy) Street, which connects to the west side Creamery district is proposed to be extended from Alliance near Shay Park to Samoa along or near the existing rail corridor. The precise location of these trails will be determined in pre-development planning. Other multi-use trail locations include along Q Street and the connection of L and N streets with the N Street trail. [NOTE: What is the connection of the L and N Street trails?]
05:09
The northern section of L Street multi-use trail may need to be relocated to continue to provide the same separated trail experience in the future if the L Street is extended. [NOTE: That is, if L Street were to become a through-road.] This relocation is proposed to start near the 10th and L Street intersection where the trail currently jogs to the east of the rail on to L Street. The trail would be relocated to the west side of the tracks or on top of the tracks to provide a larger buffer from the traffic on L Street if L Street were turned into a one-way southbound couplet.
05:46
This is important for the public to understand. Some have been confused that the proposal eliminates the multi-use trail along L Street. In fact, the trail will be improved and the overall system will be greatly expanded by the proposed plan.
[Note: HOGWASH! The L Street trail would NOT be “improved” just because Mr. Loya says it will be. Certain aspects of the trail would be improved, yes. But in terms of enjoyment of the trail by the people who would be using it, it would be degraded.]
The plan emphasizes a walkable, bikeable, and high quality of life vision for the Gateway area.
[Note: Does putting a road alongside the L Street mule-use trail – so that a quiet conversation while walking there were to become impossible – does that “emphasize a… high quality of life vision”? People prefer walking in a peaceful setting, not alongside a trafficked road.]
06:09
Now that we’ve looked at the trail system, and understand that no trails are being eliminated [only degraded, it seems] and that the plan proposes the addition of several new trails and bike lanes, let’s take a look at the proposed road systems. The road systems are going to have to adjust from their current configurations to accommodate these new trails and to create the types of improvements in safety that we’re seeking.
06:38
Okay, so zooming in on that map and putting into the context of the larger area in this aerial image. The plan proposes to continue the one-way couplets in the downtown on 8th and 9th Streets to connect the Creamery district with the downtown. These roads will enhance walking and biking experience and reduce the drive lanes considerably, emphasizing these alternative modes. There are several diagrams in the Gateway Area Plan that you can view on our website to see what’s proposed for 8th and 9th Streets.
Start: Focus on K and L Streets one-way couplet
07:11
But I really want to emphasize and focus on the K and L one-way couplet that’s being proposed, because it’s been the focus of community dialogue to date.
07:21
Let’s start by looking at the existing conditions on K Street. Currently, K Street works well enough for vehicular traffic.
[NOTE: This is not what Todd Tregenza said a year ago. He said it is not working well at the present time.]
There are north and southbound lanes and parking on both sides of the street. While the current Level of Service measure of traffic congestion does result in some peak flow traffic impacts, these levels are considered acceptable locally. The City has a long history of accepting poor Level of Service as part of its travel demand management and mode shift strategies.
[NOTE: This is Engineering-speak. In plain English, please. What is a “mode shift strategy”?]
The idea being that folks will use other modes of transportation if vehicular traffic isn’t working for them. You’ll note, however, the infrastructure for bikes is not as good as it could be in this image. Currently, the bike lane is shared with the travel lanes for vehicles. That is, there is no designated bike lane. We have painted Sharrows to remind drivers that the lanes are intended for bikes as well as cars. But this does not create a comfortable biking experience for even the most experienced riders compared with separated bike lanes. For pedestrians, the situation is acceptable, but it could be better. There are five-foot sidewalks on either side of K Street, and the crosswalks are well marked. However, crossing the street requires approximately a 40 foot path of travel, across two ways of travel lanes and two rows of parking. So there could be improvements here.
08:52
Again, one of our main objectives in updating the mobility network is to enhance the walkability and bikeability while improving the connectivity between downtown and the Gateway area. Currently, to make that transit from downtown to the Gateway area, you have to cross larger crossings with longer pedestrian exposure. And there are several design elements in the proposed plan that helped to resolve these concerns.
[NOTE: To walk “from downtown to the Gateway area, you have to cross larger crossings with longer pedestrian exposure.” Other than K Street, what other street crossings are large street crossings are there? I Street, and J Street are not larger crossings. Only K Street is a problem.]
09:28
Of note, the two-way crossing intersections that we have now create several more conflicts than are created by one-way with two-way and you’ll note that one-way one-lane intersections reduce even more the number of conflict points between bicycles, pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
09:55
Here you see the current (on the left) and proposed crossings for K and 9th Street. The number of conflicts is greatly reduced here by reducing traffic transit from two lanes both ways to one lane both ways. Again, this is a very well-designed set of one-way couplets, where the number of conflicts is greatly reduced. There are separated bike lanes on both K and 9th Streets; crossings are reduced to a maximum of 24 feet; and the bulb-outs and crosswalk design help calm traffic as it approaches these intersections.
The Proposal for K Street
10:30
Let’s take a look at what the plan proposes for K Street. From this vantage you can see that K is proposed as a one-way northbound with either a separated or completely segregated bike lane, wide sidewalks with bulb-outs at intersections, and parking on one side, and high visibility crosswalks. Let’s take a look at a typical cross-section. Now this is the plan view and a visual with the rendering of northbound one-way on K Street. By creating one way of travel, you reduce the travel lanes considerably creating plenty of room for doubling the size of the sidewalks on both sides of the street.
[NOTE: Same can be achieved by removing one or two parking lanes. Going from two 12′ lanes + 2 8′ parking to two 10′ lanes + 1 8′ parking gives 12′ feet right there.]
So instead of five-foot sidewalks we have ten-foot sidewalks planned. There is also added room to create a wide uni-directional bike lane and a buffer. Now this bike lane can be either just separated by that buffer or we can enhance that separation further and create a full Class IV bike lane here. And this proposal does retain parking on one side.
[NOTE: How do bicyclists feel about a one-direction bike lane? To go south, they’d have to go over to L Street or to J Street?]
11:45
If the plan view and the visualization didn’t work for you looking at the street view, here’s another visualization of a typical for K Street. [NOTE: This has the sub-compact mini cars – not a valid visualization. To see what real-life vehicles would look like, see here.] And again, you’ll note that the Class IV segregated bike lane is created by elevating the bike lane to the elevation of the sidewalk instead of requiring the bike lane to be on the same level as the road, that creates that segregation. [NOTE: Elevating the bike lane to the level of the sidewalk is not enough to feel safe.] You’ll note also the broad sidewalks and one drive lane.
The Proposal for L Street
12:21
Now let’s look at the proposal for L Street. We’ll take a look at the alternatives in a moment. But first I want to review the current condition of L Street and what the Gateway proposal recommended by the Planning Commission is. Currently L Street is open between 11th and 7th to local traffic only. There are bollards preventing traffic from entering at 11th Street. The road is open on one small segment north of 11th street, but it’s otherwise impassable by vehicular traffic. This is also where the current location of the L Street portion of the Bay Trail is located. It’s concurrent with the road on this segment. This portion of the Bay Trail is — as well as the second segment between 10th and 11th — are actually shared with the road. While this is an extremely low flow, local traffic only portion of L Street, the trail is not technically a Class I multi-use trail on this segment, since it’s on the road.
The reason I emphasize this is because the Gateway proposal does make this segment fully segregated from the road.
[NOTE: What is missing here is that the Gateway proposal ADDS a through-road next to the multi-use trail where no through-road exists now. The large majority of the current trail has no road next to it. Three and a half blocks or so do have a road – a low-speed, non-contiguous, no through-traffic road that is more like a driveway. The Gateway proposal ADDS a trafficked road alongside all of it.]
And so the current experience that you have entering the road [on a bicycle] and sharing that low flow traffic would be eliminated in the future and the trail along the entirety of L Street would be completely segregated. Okay, getting back down to L Street for a second here, L Street also does not extend south of 7th Street.
13:46
So there are current gaps in the flow of traffic from L Street, some created by our bollards, others that are just a factor of not having L Street ever been developed on those segments or having been abandoned.
14:07
On the portions of L Street that are open to vehicular traffic, there are two vehicle lanes going north and southbound and one parking lane.
[NOTE: Hardly ! This is not 2 lanes. LOOK AT THE PHOTO.]
Let’s take a look at what’s proposed in the plan. Again, you can see from this vantage that much of the proposal for L Street mirrors the K Street in many ways. There’s one lane of traffic — southbound this time — broad sidewalks, bulb-outs, and high-visibility crossings. The one notable difference is the existing multi-use trail remains and is enhanced by the Gateway proposal.
[NOTE: As is stated, the trail is “enhanced.” To most people, the trail is severely degraded. A trail that has no car through-traffic next to it, versus a trail that has a through-road alongside it is generally regarded as degraded — if for no other reason than a trail with a road next to it is not a place for a peaceful conversation.]
14:44
Let’s look at the plan more closely, and to zoom in on this plan view. You’ll note that this plan view shows the orientation with North up. This will put the Creamery building on the left side. But let’s look at this as the plan would be viewed southbound, the way vehicular traffic would flow. So we’ll turn that all over. The plan calls for retaining and expanding the public sphere on the west side of the trail to enhance the linear park features that currently exist.
Some properties have already contributed to a park-like feel. The [owners of the] Creamery building, for example, is maintained landscaping, benches, public art — all of which have the feeling that that landscaped area which is actually on private property is part of the public sphere. The plan calls for expanding and adding to this, requiring developers and property owners to contribute area to the west side of the trail to create that broader linear park feel. The plan proposes retaining the multi-use trails I’ve mentioned earlier and the vegetative buffer, creating that separation from the travel lane. It does propose to open a single drive-lane headed southbound and retain the parking. Lastly, it retains the sidewalk.
16:06
Let’s take a look at what that might look like on L Street, south of 8th. You can see here that there’s really not much change to the existing physical conditions — some restriping, repaving to touch up the road, and that sort of thing. And while this would become a primary southbound road under the Commission’s recommended proposal [NOTE: The PC recommended pursuing the couplet. They did not recommend any particular design], the road design would emphasize reducing travel speeds through several road design elements, some of which we’ve already discussed, like narrowing lane widths, bulb-outs, and other environmental design elements. So you see here the trail is retained, the buffer zone is retained. One direction of travel instead of two. This would be through traffic, not just local traffic, parking, and then sidewalk.
16:54
Looking again, an image from L and 9th. Here’s another way of thinking about it. The existing travel lanes would be converted to one-way southbound with a parking lane next to it. You’d keep the vegetative buffer, the trail, the separation, and the sidewalk.
17:11
I want to close out this review of images by looking at, again, the L Street typical design. This is included in our Gateway Area Plan. Showing the planting strip, starting from the left to right, planting strip that would be on the west side of the trail, trail separated vegetative buffer, drive lane, parking lane, and then the sidewalk. I want to note that we’re talking about retaining a Class I trail, not a Class IV protected two-way bikeway. And so that will remain a multi-use trail. It would not be converted to a bike way.
17:53
This wraps up the discussion on the proposal. And I hope this helped explain the relationship between the trail, the bike lane, sidewalk improvements that are designed to improve user safety and comfort — the proposed redesign for vehicular traffic as proposed in the Gateway Area Plan. I also hope it’s clear that the City is not proposing to remove any multi-use trails. And, to the contrary, the proposal is to improve the trail network, adding several multi-use trails and several bike lanes.
Alternatives that were considered
18:25
Now let’s take a look at the alternatives that were considered before settling on the K and L Street couplet, to accomplish this alternative transportation goals [for] the community. Again, the purpose is to create a safer, more balanced in terms of travel mode, and intuitively-connected downtown and Gateway area. I’m going to focus on the K and L couplet exclusively and the alternatives there for this discussion.
18:55
For alternatives to be effective, they would need to accomplish several mutual goals. First, the alternative needed to meet the safety and convenience goals for alternative modes of travel. We’ve seen the intersection improvements, road width reductions, sidewalk widths increases, and other features that creates safety and convenience for bikes and peds previously. Any alternative that we evaluated and recommended had to retain these. Second, the alternative would need to support the infrastructure. [NOTE: What does that mean: “The alternative would need to support the infrastructure”?] This may seem like it goes without saying, but there are lots of routes that have been proposed that actually won’t support the infrastructure ultimately that we need to build out this safer future.
Next, the vehicular routing needed to be efficient and effective. Now, some have drawn criticism against this because they say we should not be focusing on the efficiency of vehicular traffic. But the efficiency in terms of a couplet is affected by the distance between the north and southbound segments. And if the plan routing becomes too convoluted or too distant, then people will choose non-planned routes which create traffic and safety impacts that were unintended. And so for this reason, we wanted to make sure that vehicular routing was at least efficient enough to retain the effectiveness of that couplet and make sure that people took the planned routes that were established in the plan.
[NOTE: Once again, Mr. Loya has said things that are mostly valid, but that do not answer the original concern or question. Yes, the efficiency of a COUPLET is important — but this not answer the question of “they say we should not be focusing on the efficiency of vehicular traffic.”]
20:28
Lastly, the route needed to be feasible. Some alternatives would require demolition, you know, of several private buildings, for example, acquisition of easements and et cetera. The selected alternatives needed to be practicable in addition to possible.
[NOTE: If a couplet road were to be built on N Street, then the Wing Inflatables would need to come down – but it’s likely to come down anyway. It would be removed if there were a master plan for the Barrel District, or if there were to be a public “square” on that site. ALSO NOTE: The L Street proposal that is being promoted also requires acquisitions and easements.]
20:37
So with these primary principles in mind, and with the goals of alternative transportation safety, the City’s consulting traffic engineers and City staff evaluated several routes. These were ultimately vetted by the Planning Commission, and the Commission recommended the L and K Street couplet proposed in the Gateway Area Plan. But let’s review the routes that were vetted.
.
Important – These routes were not vetted.
[NOTE: These proposals were not vetted by the Planning Commission. This is the first time that these proposals have ever been seen. And there is no mention of not being vetted and not ever seen by the Transportation Safety Committee. The members of the TSC were asking for these alternative proposals starting in January 2021, 1-1/2 years ago.]
[NOTE: The Planning Commission recommended the couplet be retained. They did NOT recommend this couplet over any alternative, or relative to any other alternative. They did not see these alternatives.]
21:03
First, we could take a look at a nearby southbound alternative to L Street — M Street, M as in Mary. This option does have some coastal wetlands that would have to be filled to execute it. It also overlaps with planned open space. And the fact that several private easements and demolition of buildings that are existing and housing businesses would have to be demolished to build out this roadway. And there would be significant reductions in the development potential of key opportunity sites in the plan area. [NOTE: Reductions? There’d be a road there — that’s an improvement. There is no reduction in the opportunity sites t here.] And so for these reasons, we found M Street to be less attractive than option from L Street and did not recommend that one.
[NOTE: Building a straight road on M is impossible! The Holly Yashi and Brio buildings would be torn down plus Wing Inflatables. This road would go through the Creamery parcel, the Greenway parcel. Not a viable alternative — at all. Why is this even mentioned? And yet with some manipulation – i.e. not a straight road – there are some possibilities.]
21:51
We could scoot the couplet to the west a little ways and make the couplet fall on N, as in Nancy, Street. That could also be paired with a portion of an M Street since M is already opened. That would lead to reduce paving from a full N Street alternative. This alternative has some of the same cons of the M Street southbound. In addition, because the distance and security, the N Street is likely to lead to cheaters following these unplanned routes, creating those unintended consequences that we talked about earlier.
[NOTE: Any street other than J or L will be more than a block away from K Street. If a street is actually designed as a couplet, drivers will use it.]
22:29
We evaluated the possibility of routing southbound traffic along 11th Street to Q Street and then it would exit on to Samoa Boulevard. This also has some of the same cons that were discussed before. There is a roadbed on Q street so it’s possible and practical. But the distance would lead to even more cheaters. In particular, for folks who are trying to get to 101. If they were driving southbound and had to drive all the way over to Q Street, chances are good they would go through downtown instead to get there. Q And O have similar features. O Street is a possible alternative that was also similarly rejected because it’s not as supportive of those goals and principles as L Street.
23:24
I do want to take a look at J Street with a little bit more attention. J Street was considered an alternative early on, and it would accomplish many of the goals and it’s a fairly attractive option for from a mobility standpoint, the D street option would affect more than twice the number of current residences, however, [NOTE: This is because the Gateway area does not have many residences. To say that would affect “more than twice the number” is true – but disingenuous.] and it’s not a commercial corridor or planned one. And it would likely create more cross traffic seeking to get from J Street to the Gateway compared with L Street, which is located in the planned activity center already. Notwithstanding, J is a viable alternative to L for a couplet.
[NOTE: “And it would likely create more cross traffic seeking to get from J Street to the Gateway compared with L Street” is a downright silly argument. A couplet on L Street is likely to create more cross traffic for people seeking to get from L to downtown — which is something that many more people would likely do.]
24:03
There are other ideas that have been raised that were not further evaluated because either they didn’t meet the principles outlined above and the alternative transportation safety goals, or because they were variations on the theme that we’ve already evaluated. For instance, one alternative suggested was to make K a one-way northbound and to not designate a southbound couplet to K — letting individual drivers decide which route to take. We did not explore this further because this we viewed as planning for unplanned routing and would necessarily lead to those unintended consequences.
24:44
So there were several alternatives that are not discussed here further, that you may have heard discussed in the public discussion thus far, but this is where I will end our alternatives analysis.
25:00
We did discuss alternatives to improving K Street. Staff provided several options for modifying K Street and these options were evaluated primarily because the timing on L Street development is unknown. [NOTE: False — The TSC evaluated this as a permanent solution, and the PC evaluated as a possible permanent solution.] And so K Street will likely have to serve in the near term, while L is being, you know, either easements acquired or L is being developed. Also, we would need to have options for the near term for modest improvements to safety and traffic management on K Street, recognizing the challenges that I pointed out earlier in this video.
25:38
To do that, I wanted to go back to the existing conditions to start the comparison. So again, we have five-foot sidewalks on either side, eight-foot of parking on either side, and 12-foot travel lanes within the 50 foot right of way. One option developed by our engineering team provides two-way vehicular traffic on K Street — so it retains two-way traffic — adds bike lanes, and retains one parking lane. This option improves bike safety for sure, but it does not change the conditions for the other modes and it does not reduce the number of conflicts at the intersections. This is a good interim option for enhancing bike safety, and the City will need to engage the public regarding the decision to eliminate parking and to add these bike lanes before implementing this. This option is however inferior [NOTE: It is inferior FOR CARS] to the proposed gateway plan couplet idea, and it does not meet most of the goals and principles outlined in the plan in this presentation. [NOTE: “Does not meet most of the goals and principles outlined in the plan” is a statement of opinion, not fact.]
26:40
Another alternative that we evaluated adds a turn lane to the two-way K Street option. This may be required if growth and densification create unacceptable traffic due to turning movements off K Street onto the downtown and Gateway areas. This is also considered an interim option. And this alternative also does not address the safety and convenience goals connecting the downtown. In fact, because you’re adding that third turning lane, you’re actually exacerbating some of the conflict points [NOTE: Not exacerbating the contact points for drivers] and making it more difficult to cross and use K Street as a non-motor vehicle.
In Conclusion
27:25
This completes our review of the alternatives considered. Staff and the consulting engineers have proposed the K and L Street couplet because it meets all of the goals supporting the alternative transportation modes, creates superior alternative for bike and ped safety, and meets the design and development principles for feasibility. The Planning Commission reviewed these alternatives [NOTE: NO, THEY DID NOT] and concluded that the K and L Street couplet should be the policy direction for the Gateway plan.
27:52
I hope this review advances the conversation and clears up some misconceptions about what’s actually being proposed. In addition, the rationale for the proposal, as well as the alternatives review [NOTE: Which did not previously exist], along with the Commission’s recommendation are now in one place instead of scattered over several meetings. We hope that this enhances the conversation and provides people the information they need to make appropriate comment on the proposal and the decision makers with the information they need to make final policy decisions.
[NOTE: This video unfortunately does not contain the information needed to make decisions. Much of what is here is OPINION that is stated as though it were fact. And, very specifically, the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Committee are conspicuously absent.]
28:24
Thank you for taking the time to watch this informational video on the mobility alternatives associated with the Gateway Area Plan. Thank you for your time