View Full Version : New Traffic Plan?

09-30-2011, 06:58 PM
Wednesday's paper had a front page article about making Fourth Street a One Way street . . going East . .

Anybody look at this abortion? What the Hell are those people thinking? And to what end are they looking at . . ?

Here's their web site if you can get on it. Super slow . . Our tax dollars at work . . http://www.pueblo.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=88

Go to Traffic plans



Loren Swelk
09-30-2011, 08:07 PM
Having all of the traffic signals blinking red or yellow after 7pm should tell our traffic planners that there is no traffic downtown.

If you watch the eastbound flow, 60% of it turns north at Greenwood.

This proposed plan is a bigger joke than the Lake Ave. boondoggle.

10-01-2011, 07:16 AM
Well, besides the fact that the East to West feed at Bradford Ave would be a soup sandwich with no stacking space coming off the interstate ramp, they are totally ignoring the fact that the three stooges are planning on screwing up the West end with their new Judicial Building . .

So basically, the through traffic that the state highway (Yes dear, 4th street is still a "State Highway") would be discouraged, and they have yet to give a viable reason . .

Back when the downtown area was fixing to be abandoned (1966-67) we did a study with the COG Planning commission (before I went to work there) to keep the downtown area from becoming the ghost town it is now . . And anything we did, had to work around 4th Street remaining a thoroughfare. We studied making it a one way and nothing really worked . . And you can see, nothing's changed . . .

More of the "Youth syndrome" . . "Ignore history, ignore need, we know better!" . .

Bob Nattering
10-01-2011, 08:01 AM
I'm not a resident with a stake in the expenditure or the result, but since I always have an opinion:

City employees, such as traffic managers, go to meetings with their peers from other cities. They see what the new trends are in things like bike paths, wide pedestrian pathways complete with landscaping and fancy surfacing materials. These downtown renovations must look very appealing, if you're an employee of a city that isn't changing much.

Along with traffic flow changes, the City will also be looking to increase high density, higher-end residential and commercial space. They will be seeking other monies for beautification that will make the area attractable for higher end retail and restaurant traffic.

This kind of "urban renewal" has been underway in the "Old Town" portion of Arvada for about 20 years. So after those 20 years and numerous grants and allocation of untold tax money, the vision is beginning to be realized. We now have an area that attracts people from Arvada itself and from the surrounding metro area. There are more restaurants (especially higher end restaurants), more pedestrian traffic and more overall commerce in the area.

On the other side of the coin, the rent rates in the area have priced out most of the "mom and pop" operations. You won't find much in the way of a place to eat lunch for less than $10. You won't find used book stores, specialized nitch retailers, etc. that need low rents to survive. Whoever currently lives in low-rent apartments in the downtown area, will be forced somewhere else, in spite of what they say about including low rent housing in the area. Low-rent housing can only go so low, when it has to meet the latest of the building codes.

These planners don't seem to recognize the need for parking lots, which add a lot to cost but don't add anything to the beauty of the project. So, you can be sure that if the renovation works, the patrons will be doing a lot of driving around looking for parking.

Even if you believe the pros of this kind of renovation outweigh the cons, has anyone doing the planning looked at feasibility with respect to Pueblo's population, culture and location. Pueblo, for example, is probably not going to draw much commerce from anywhere outside Pueblo County due to location. Additionally, Pueblo probably has a smaller population of younger people who like to walk and ride bikes and perhaps a bit of a different culture than suburbs in the Metro-Denver area. Have the planners even considered the feasibility with respect to culture, population density, etc, etc?

One thing I know for sure, is that they never lay out the entire grand vision and cost at one time. It'll be given out piece meal, one project at a time. Then they never have to justify the entire cost of the grand vision.

Loren Swelk
10-01-2011, 08:30 AM
Bob, you do have a stake. Where will you eat in Pueblo when the China Lantern becomes the La Chez Lanterne and you have to pay twenty bucks for Mongolian Beef?

Bob Nattering
10-01-2011, 10:14 AM
I was hoping when the new digs were finished, you'd be offering to buy over at the new absinthe bar.

10-01-2011, 03:52 PM
Let's see . . The Union Avenue venues used to be Low life Bars and second hand stores . . After many years of planning and spending lots of money on renovated storefronts, The Union Avenue "District" is now a place of high brow cocktail lounges and "Antique Stores" . .

Hmmmm . . . .

10-01-2011, 05:55 PM
I couldn't figure out why they would suggest such a thing either. While it would make traffic going east toward all the businesses at the airport complex would run smoother, sooner or later all those people coming back thome the other way would have to find a way around all that. As Large said, there is no easy way back through there.

THe only way to do it would be to go under I25, turn right, to 2 blocks over to get to 6th, go all the way down until you have to turn back left and go 2 blocks back to 4th. The whole idea is stupid. Maybe they are hoping someone will get lost down there and spend all their money trying to find their way back out of town.

10-02-2011, 09:29 AM
As for the purpose, I'm guessing "Justification of existence" or proving that we actually need a traffic planner to do more than make sure the lights work right and traffic flows un-impeded . . which, currently hasn't always been the case . .

We seem to be more involved with making bicycles work well . . or places for them to be ridden . . and while the number of bicycles have increased on the city's streets, the number isn't anywhere close to needing specific byways or even traffic lanes (although there are on all, or at least, most of) on the main thoroughfares. I might add, there might be a conflict of interest here, as Pepper Whitlief, (sp?) the current "Traffic Engineer", is a bicycle afficianado and has spent a lot of the city's money's on bicycle trails and traffic lanes . .

And I have to add . . I wonder how CDOT must feel, having just completed building an expensive bridge for crosstown thru traffic, just to see the city discourage travel on this particular thoroughfare?

Kinda like they must have felt when they (CDOT) built the huge interchange (Hwy I-25/Hwy 24) to gain easier access to the Colorado Springs Airport and then find out that Colorado Springs was moving the airport.

And . . looking back on my days, both, as a Planner and Architectural Designer . . We always envisioned large, wide walkways and "People Spaces" . . in and around our projects . . But . . you have to have a reason to bring them and then keep them, meaning people. We have invested a huge sum (and seem to keep investing) around a ditch full of water, which is an enjoyable space, but there must be more things to bring people to it . . The downtown area isn't even close to being the riverwalk. Nor is it a "Shopping Center" anymore. Narrow streets and wide walks won't do much for anyone but the planners . . "Build it and they'll come" doesn't work as well as it used to.