[Jjs5056]

My opinion of the staff is that they're continually leaving the city 1 step - or more - behind the major trends in complete street planning. Exacerbating this problem is the funnel vision they seem to have once an idea is set in motion; this carries throughout most of the city's decisions, but there have been some really spectacular failings of the streets department over the years.

I actually like what's become of 1st street, but let's not forget the original "improvements" which left the sidewalks baking and parked cars shaded. Surely, someone had to have noticed this and stepped in to halt construction and figure out a solution instead of carrying it to completion. I also think the original recommendation by the Urban Form stakeholders to design a linear park would've been a much nicer solution, and it's a shame the cheaper and simpler option was chosen unsurprisingly. All of our streets have fallen victim to back-of-house operations/poor planning, but 1st is one of the worst victims, and maybe a linear park could've shifted those trends toward more traditional building orientations with alleys serving back of house needs? Not to mention the impact such a linear park would have had on cooling, property values, and connectivity between Hance and the Sports Arenas.

The other massive fail is underway right now: the Roosevelt Streetscape. Thankfully, a passionate group fought hard enough to ensure parallel parking was installed on the south side of the street, but the fact that incorporating parallel parking into a complete streets program is infuriating! The city left the decision up to business owners, who wanted a more "pedestrian experience" to take over. Yet, these same business owners are forcing the city into developing parking solutions for the community, which will surely come by way of parking lot or garage, so they clearly understand there is a need for parking in close proximity to their business in order for it to thrive. The removal of parallel parking nearly destroyed the chance for the street to become a retail destination - what retail street in America doesn't offer streetside parking? The whole idea is to reduce speeds and increase the likelihood of a surprise shopping trip to increase revenues.

The result of the parking removal is 20' sidewalks and bike lanes that are even less protected, wedged between pedestrians and traffic. I can't think of 1 place on Roosevelt where 20' of sidewalk will ever be useful or trafficked. The 'retail' selection will always be quick-and-go kind of necessities due to the small footprints of the buildings (which is why parallel parking is needed), so window shopping will never come into play, even in fantasy land. Further, I can't think of any place that really offers outdoor dining at all to begin with, and dining establishments are far and few between on the road.

Bikers will be left unprotected - another huge area we are lacking in, and will continue to lack in, as our hired 'expert' doesn't feel protected bike lanes are a priority because of streetsweeping issues - and the project will hardly accomplish the most basic goals of these projects: reducing speeds, as they've provided nice, wide curves for speeding cars to turn around on.

Oh, and most of the trees on 1 side will be boxed due to the utility lines. 20' of sidewalk and no real trees... wtf.

Lastly, it just seems ironic for this city to ever talk about things like heat islands when they own and/or are responsible for the creation of how many surface lots in downtown?

Sorry for the lengthiest post ever; I just got done reading about the spread of protected bike lanes and I think every city in the U.S. was listed but Phoenix. That's okay, our only visited area is going to look great because it'll have 20' sidewalks and no parking cluttering up the roadway!