Of course, the results are no surprise given the staff dislike of the project. Do you even need to look at the results?
From the website:
The City is currently studying the implications of converting Johnson and Gorham to two-way streets along the corridor. A series of public meetings are planned to discuss the results of the study and obtain public input.
The first meeting was held on Thursday, November 10th, at 6pm at the Christ Presbyterian Church at 944 E. Gorham St. A copy of the presentation can be found here: 2011-11-10 Presentation
The second public information meeting was held on March 1st at 6pm at the Christ Presbyterian Church at 944 E. Gorham St. A copy of the presentation can be found here: 2012-03-01 PIM Presentation Handout
Here’s a few nuggets from the handout at the second meeting which you should quickly review:
Goals for the corridor from survey
(first response were people from the Tenney area, the second is overall)
Improve Conditions for Bicyclists T-1st (145) 1st (278)
Improve Pedestrian Crossings T-1st (145) 2nd (257)
Maintain Parking 3rd (119) 5th (179)
Maintain/Improve Transit Service 5th (103) 3rd (206)
Slower Car Speeds 4th (116) 4th (189)
Fewer Cars on Johnson/Gorham 6th (93) 6th (142)
Fewer Cars on Other Local Streets 8th (37) 8th (85)
Other 7th (46) 7th (86)
Livability Goals from survey
Maintain Current Businesses and/or Attract New Ones 1st (200) 1st (349)
MaintainMature Trees 3rd (151) 2nd (276)
Improve Corridor Aesthetics 2nd (143) 3rd (272)
Reduce/Improve Storm Runoff to Lakes 4th (114) 4th (212)
Increase Owner Occupancy 5th (94) 5th (160)
Improve Air Quality 6th (66) 6th (112)
Other 7th (39) 7th (51)
End Results, Conclusions Presented at the Meeting
They looked at four scenarios and here’s how they ended up. The details are in the presentation handout above:
I’m not sure how they decided the scores, but this is what they came up with. The first scenario is keeping it one way, the second is full two-way. Guess which one wins!
Bike Conditions 1 0 -1 -2
Pedestrian Crossings 1 0 0 0
Transit 0 -1 1 0
Parking 0 1 -1 -1
Business Accessibility 0 0 1 0
Maintain Trees 0 0 0 0
Improve Aesthetics 1 1 1 1
Diversion 0 -2 -1 -1
MV Ops/Congestion 0 -2 -1 -1
Safety 1 -1 0 0
Cost 0 -1 -1 -1
TOTALS 4 -5 -2 -5
I don’t think the flat scoring is really fair given the goals. The points are lost on things that were not priorities of the survey takers. I’m also curious how the diversion and congestion numbers (lower concerns but most points lost – four of the five negative points) were determined and if there are things that can be done to mitigate those items. Also, there were no cost numbers in the handout. But, of course, this is no surprise that the results are presented this way.
I’m kinda unclear if this is the end of the process – it appears to be. Did we pay $75,000 for that? Or is there more? I can’t figure it out from the website but this appears to be the results of the study. If it is, I’m kinda disappointed. I wish I was able to make the two meetings.
So can we all agree that the $75,000 was wasted? Yes, the results were predictable, as were the protestations of supporters, which was the argument against spending the $75,000 to begin with. Did you note the summary of the written comments portion of the survey? Only 18% of respondents who live on Johnson/Gorham wrote in favor of converting to two-way, while 54% of Johnson/Gorham respondents preferred maintaining one-ways. If you can’t get the support of the only people who are supposed to benefit from this, how do you expect to get the entire city to go along with it? I thought the study was helpful and well done, and I found the information more interesting than expected, but I would still rather have not spent the $75,000 to confirm what we already knew. I, for one, hope that is the end of the process.
It is unfortunate that the decision is based on the survey.
Seems to me, that is not an accurate way to find put what the residents really want