I support the adoption of the Complete Streets Ordinance. As others have stated, there are other opportunities for improvement that I hope we can adjust before the Ordinance is adopted. Most importantly, we should examine each project with a common sense approach toward active transportation safety initiatives, not just those outlined in the Active Transportation Plan. The ATP was a place to start, but every time we examine a street we should think about the best quality of infrastructure we can provide. Ideally I'd like to see some way that Commission and Council can ultimately impact proposed plans if such plans do not meet the needs of the community.
I'm pleased to see movement on this important ordinance. Two potential changes: 1) prevent municipal budget from being allocated to projects "not recommended" by the Planning Commission, and 2) explicitly allow the Planning Commission to call for an update of the ATP if there is a material change in annual metrics.
While I agree, as you know, that a complete streets ordinance is absolutely necessary for the safety of everyone in Lakewood, I feel that this preliminary description is too vague on several topics according to my reading. First, is the Active Transportation Plan and Safe Streets for All Plan the "guiding light" for the Complete Streets buildout? Meaning if a street is being resurfaced or upgraded but has not been identified in the ATP/SS4A, no additional treatments will be considered/approved?
Second, the two-tiered system, as written, is not clear to me. I'm guessing the two tiers basically break down to primary routes (detroit, madison, warren, bunts, etc) and residential streets. As I understand it, this means that residential streets not identified in the ATP will receive no treatments, even at intersections with primary routes, unless the specific intersection was identified in the ATP.
Third, the CASE is a great idea and I look forward to it's implementation. I hope that they have some real power in shaping our streets going forward.
Fourth, as I have stated many times, the ATP is flawed. there are no changes suggested on Detroit for SAFE bicycle infrastructure, for instance. As Lakewood continues to develop and traffic patterns are adjusted due to Complete Streets treatments, the ATP should be re-evaluated at a minimum of every five years. Developments on the horizon, such as the former hospital site and the former Steve Barry dealership will likely have a major impact on traffic volumes for all modes, parking and visibility, and potentially further development. We cannot wait 10 years to evaluate these changes.
I appreciate your efforts in working toward a better, safer Lakewood.
I support the adoption of the Complete Streets Ordinance. As others have stated, there are other opportunities for improvement that I hope we can adjust before the Ordinance is adopted. Most importantly, we should examine each project with a common sense approach toward active transportation safety initiatives, not just those outlined in the Active Transportation Plan. The ATP was a place to start, but every time we examine a street we should think about the best quality of infrastructure we can provide. Ideally I'd like to see some way that Commission and Council can ultimately impact proposed plans if such plans do not meet the needs of the community.
I'm pleased to see movement on this important ordinance. Two potential changes: 1) prevent municipal budget from being allocated to projects "not recommended" by the Planning Commission, and 2) explicitly allow the Planning Commission to call for an update of the ATP if there is a material change in annual metrics.
While I agree, as you know, that a complete streets ordinance is absolutely necessary for the safety of everyone in Lakewood, I feel that this preliminary description is too vague on several topics according to my reading. First, is the Active Transportation Plan and Safe Streets for All Plan the "guiding light" for the Complete Streets buildout? Meaning if a street is being resurfaced or upgraded but has not been identified in the ATP/SS4A, no additional treatments will be considered/approved?
Second, the two-tiered system, as written, is not clear to me. I'm guessing the two tiers basically break down to primary routes (detroit, madison, warren, bunts, etc) and residential streets. As I understand it, this means that residential streets not identified in the ATP will receive no treatments, even at intersections with primary routes, unless the specific intersection was identified in the ATP.
Third, the CASE is a great idea and I look forward to it's implementation. I hope that they have some real power in shaping our streets going forward.
Fourth, as I have stated many times, the ATP is flawed. there are no changes suggested on Detroit for SAFE bicycle infrastructure, for instance. As Lakewood continues to develop and traffic patterns are adjusted due to Complete Streets treatments, the ATP should be re-evaluated at a minimum of every five years. Developments on the horizon, such as the former hospital site and the former Steve Barry dealership will likely have a major impact on traffic volumes for all modes, parking and visibility, and potentially further development. We cannot wait 10 years to evaluate these changes.
I appreciate your efforts in working toward a better, safer Lakewood.