CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Barbara Karl | 7/20/2015 3:50:08 PM |
| I am submitting these comments as President of and on behalf of Airport Heights Community Council. The council does not meet in the summer and so the full council has not addressed this case but our bylaws allow the Executive Board to act on behalf of the council when it does not meet and the E-Board has authorized this submission. First, the full council has passed two resolutions opposing this project in the past, which can be viewed on the council's web page on the Federation of Community Council's website. Secondly, the E-Board requests a postponement of this case until the full council can address it at their September meeting (9/17/15). I suspect that other councils will be requesting such a postponement as well. Finally, one of the council members is a professional land surveyor and has reviewed the packet that was sent to this council and five others. I am submitting her comments regarding her review for the AHCC below. Barbara J. Hosier, P.L.S Professional Land Surveyor #AKLS-8623 --------------------------------------------------Potential and existing costs associated with the S. Bragaw Road extension: Removing organic materials up to 30 feet deep. Replacing organic materials with suitable fill materials up to 30 feet deep. One report lists organics as deep as 80 feet. These costs are not specifically estimated by the engineer and could be a major overrun to the project. Utility conflicts and disturbance: there is a 12 inch, high pressure gas line and a 48 inch sewer main trunk line running through the project corridor. The design has set aside some funds for resolving these conflicts, but the potential for additional costs are great. Municipality of Anchorage is tasked with maintenance of the proposed road. Potential costs include plowing, fixing frost heaves, lighting, striping, additional pedestrian crossings and signage. The design calls for two, 4 lanes roads to empty into this new 2 lane road, (a very poor design concept). Eventually there will be additional lanes required, and all the same expenditures will have to be repeated. If the plan is for a 4 lane parkway, then it should be planned in advance. The right of way issues have not been adequately resolved or funded. -------------------------------------------------- Construction Plan set and Project design report review comments: 1) Ask for Bureau Of Land Management approval. Stated Purpose for the project does not match Restrictions stated in the Land Patent. BLM approval needs to be acquired before Right of Way can be secured. Extensive financial penalties can be assessed by the federal government if their approval is not obtained prior to any construction activity on this project. 2) The Design Report and the construction plans are incomplete. Those given to us and dated April 21, 2015 are incomplete and do not reflect the project as discussed by the design contractor. Missing items include: 3 out of 5 typical section sheets, survey control and Right of Way acquisition sheets, estimate of quantities, DOWL's standard drawings, Grading plan, Landscaping plan, Lighting plan, Striping Plan, Hydrology report,approved environmental document and no traffic safety report, or any consideration or mention of local wildlife. 3) The design is a major engineering task due to extreme cut and fill areas and conflicts with a high pressure 12" gas line and a 48" sewer line. cuts up to 30' deep, fill around the overpasses 25'. 4) This design is unsafe for pedestrians, bikers, skiers, runners, mushers and other traditional users of the area. No separate multiuse path is included in this plan set. Pedestrians and bikers in the road with cars & snow berms. Only one pedestrian bridge is included. Another bridge "added later". Build it now , fix it later! Round-about traffic puts pedestrians at risk. There is no respect shown to the athletic legacy of the area. This city has worked for years to move bikes away from cars- this plan is a step backwards. 5) S. Bragaw Road is a major safety concern. The Design Report mentions this road in the beginning but ignores it completely when it comes to the crash analysis and traffic flow data. Bragaw is lined with at least 3 schools. Increased traffic puts our children at risk. There are no pedestrian overpasses on Bragaw. There is a pedestrian crosswalk on No. Lights west of Nichols Dr. that needs to be included in the crash and traffic analysis. Lake Otis is a problem, don't move the problem to Bragaw. ROW issues. Conclusion: There is so much missing information and so many problems with this plan, but the main problem is that this road is dangerous to bikers and pedestrians and will do nothing to relieve traffic congestion. -------------------------------------------------- Options for improving traffic flow in the U-Med district: The crash analysis included in the design report is from 2003-2007 and is compared to a statewide average. A more current report would be more useful and should be compared to an Anchorage traffic average. This analysis should also include S. Bragaw Street and the pedestrian crossing on No. Lights, just west of Nichols Street. There have been recent improvements to the UAA Drive & No. Lights intersection which have improved traffic flow and access to the U-Med district. Improvements to the existing pedestrian crossing across UAA Drive would be very inexpensive and would reduce congestion and improve safety on UAA Drive. Additional turning lanes on existing area streets have the potential of increasing traffic flow throughout the U-Med district. Should you have questions, please contact me. Barbara Karl President AHCC | |