[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-17-10

[Lynn Ascher]

Re the Brooks St. Project: As a resident of the street (600 block), I  
can attest that very few people who live on Brooks park on Brooks,  
and widening the street would not entice us to  start.  We park in  
our garages and/or parking slots in our alleys where it is safer,  
cleaner and more convenient.  The few cars that do park on Brooks  
belong to students living in rentals whose alley spaces can't  
accommodate more than three or four cars.  Doug Harby's (City  
Engineer) letter to Brooks St. residents announcing that the street  
would be widened by six feet contains no real reason for doing that  
other than it "will allow for on-street parking except in areas near  
Mount, Beckwith and Higgins where left-hand turn lanes will be  
installed. Bicycle lanes will be included in the final project."   
Well, Brooks already has on-street parking, and there are already  
left-turn lanes at those three intersections.  The mention of bicycle  
lanes is so casual that it sounds like an afterthought.
And according to Steve and Ethel, a bicycle lane down eight blocks of  
heavily trafficked, fume-laden Brooks is not something cyclists have  
been clamoring for, particularly when three safer, quieter side  
streets (Edith, Woodford and Blaine) easily take cyclists from  
Higgins to Mount.

But most important, not only to those of us who live on the street  
but, I think, to all Missoulians, are the well-being of the avenue of  
maples that frame the residential blocks of Brooks from Higgins to  
Mount.  These trees are at least 70 years old, and admittedly  
approaching the end of their expected lifespan.  Already old, they've  
been further stressed by tenant neglect when homes become rentals;  
inadequate water in summer; and low moisture levels during recent  
winters. However, over the last two years, arborists from Parks and  
Rec. have checked every tree on the street from Higgins to Mount,  
pruned them, taken out trees that were dead or dying, and replaced  
some with new saplings (which also don't get watered but that's'  
another issue...)  As a result, the trees are intact, relatively  
stable and healthy.  And after all that, for the city now to propose  
that the street-side root systems of every tree on Brooks be  
literally amputated just a few feet from their trunks in order to add  
six (unnecessary) feet to the street's width is wantonly destructive,  
esthetically blind and just plain stupid.  When a 70-year-old tree  
loses half its root system, one that stretches 20 or more feet out  
from its center, it loses half its nutrients and half its water  
supply.  To expect these trees to suffer no ill effects from that  
kind of treatment certainly proves that engineers don't know much  
about trees; those trees will go into shock and begin to die. And  
apparently Public Works has also mentioned that "a few trees" will  
have to be removed to accomodate this urgent project. And for what?

Why is this Public Works project being presented as "necessary" and  
as a fait accompli with no consultation with, or input from,  
residents of the street?  Clearly it's "free" money," i.e., non-city  
funds, that's paying for it. There's federal stimulus money, Montana  
DOT project funding and gas tax allocation dollars-- and they want to  
spend that money while it's available.

If the project's objective is to provide a wider street, then the  
easiest, cheapest, greenest way to do it is to abolish parking on  
Brooks (which would affect maybe 5% or less of the residents),  
declare the current parking lanes to be bike lanes, and paint them as  
such.

Lastly, it would make a lot of sense if the city's traffic engineers  
would route more traffic, particularly heavy trucks, away from the  
residential section of Brooks and onto Stephens, a much under-used  
street with four quite wide driving lanes that would take drivers  
pretty much where Brooks takes them. And faster.

lynn ascher


On Mar 20, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Steven Allison-Bunnell wrote:

When the current plan does not deal with the River->Brooks corridor  
on Higgins, or below Mount on Brooks, then I don't see the value of  
damaging a historic boulevard to create bike lanes for an orphaned  
stretch of the street. If the plan included the whole thing, then  
maybe I could get excited about it.

Here are the incomplete routes I experience regularly:

1. Trying to get down to Tremper's from the Slant Streets west of  
Stephens. There is no through side street between Stephens and  
Russell south of Mount. This means you have to detour out to the  
sidewalk on either of those streets, even if you've gone down a nice  
quiet side street to Mount. I make a LOT of trips to Ace and Book  
Exchange, etc., and would love for a better route. Ironically, a  
simple path through the current Ace Nursery area would do the job.

2. Trying to get down Higgins at Hellgate High. There is no safe way  
to continue South on Higgins at the Higgins/Brooks intersection. But  
yet there's a bike lane on Higgins starting at The Corner. Talk about  
incomplete routes! A striped bike lane for through traffic on Higgins  
would be awfully nice.

If the primary goal of bike routes is to enable bikers to seamlessly  
get where they want to go, it seems like removing these kinds of  
obstacles and using the streets we have is a far more helpful  
approach. I have never found myself wishing for a bike lane on Brooks  
proper between Higgins and Mount. Ever. And I've been riding in this  
neighborhood for 13 years now.

Thanks everyone for your support of biking and street trees!


On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Ethel MacDonald wrote:


> As one of the vocal bike advocates, I of course appreciate bike  

> lanes, and agree with -- just about everything everybody (Steve,  

> Jim, Tim) writes -- I take the side streets but push for bike lanes  

> too!  While I think bike lanes on Brooks are needed, I really can't  

> support taking out trees to add bike lanes.  Brooks is a really  

> nice street with the trees.   Sounds like a big, expensive project  

> that the residents are going to hate.  I'd be willing to bet if  

> given the choice they'd opt for losing parking on one side of the  

> street instead.  There are very few cars parked on most of Brooks.

>

> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Jim McGrath  

> <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org> wrote:

> Okay I'll bite. This is an old argument.

> Side streets are 'great' -- and if they are truly connecting, I  

> encourage riders to use them. However, mature riders expect and  

> deserve infrastructure routes that allow them to directly travel  

> through the community. (I have been --years ago-- directed a route  

> that added several miles to my bike route, to be safe. My sense is  

> that it is better for cars to take an extra mile or two and let  

> bikes have the direct route.) Bike lanes provide several things.  

> They signal to cars that bikes are going to be there. They provide  

> excellent space for bikers who use them. I have found in Missoula  

> that cars respect bike lanes. So a biker who is somewhat shy of  

> traffic can begin to take advantage of the direct routes available  

> to cars.

> We need as a community to have bike lanes on all major streets and  

> we need to expect many of of folks to travel by bike. I just saw  

> gas prices go up again. As a community we need to make sure our  

> citizens have the infrastructure in place to make choices. Bikes  

> lanes are easy-- way less challenging than separate off-street paths.

> ...I advocated for years for bike paths, and I use them  

> frequently... so there's a whatever. I love em.

>

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com on behalf of Steven Allison- 

> Bunnell

> Sent: Fri 3/19/2010 6:57 PM

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-17-10

>

> When there is such heavy traffic down Brooks, and very pleasant  

> side streets on both sides (Blaine & Woodford), what do we want or  

> need bike lanes on Brooks for, especially when the bile lane on  

> Higgins from the bridge to Brooks is also very dangerous and  

> undesirable and the side street bike route goes down Myrtle/Woodford?

>

> It seems far more useful to make sure there is side street route  

> connectivity down to Tremper's than a main arterial bike path on  

> Brooks that peters out below Mount and is horrible on Higgins.

>

> Steve Allison-Bunnell

>

>

>

> On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:23 AM, 4065449619 wrote:

>

> > I would completely agree with Steve's comments on Brooks' tree- 

> lined boulevard, eventhough it's not easy to forfeit bike lanes.  

> But if it's designed well, I believe we can have both future trees  

> AND bike lanes; and then continue the boulevard design further down  

> Brooks.

> >

> > Tim Skufca

> >

> > Sent from my phone.

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Steve Adler <adler at bigsky.net>

> > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:37 AM

> > To: Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>;  

> missoulagov at cmslists.com <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> > Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-17-10

> >

> > Bob,

> >

> > I'm a bit vague on this one, but isn't Brooks a "Boulevard Zone"?  

> - with some special considerations?  (I believe that designation  

> was actually a legal tool to prevent a formerly proposed street- 

> widening project from taking out the trees.)  It is a special  

> little stretch famous for it's tree-lined character which frames  

> the view of Lolo Peak.  I know that trees do reach the end of their  

> lives much as we all do.  But is there any way to make sure that  

> trees get replaced as they are taken out?  If possible, it would be  

> preferable to plant trees earlier - in anticipation of the ones  

> that will have to come out.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Steve Adler

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > From: Bob Jaffe

> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:43 PM

> > To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> > Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-17-10

> >

> >

> > Some details on the Brooks street project are that the road will  

> be widened about three feet on either side. There will be parking  

> on both sides, bike lanes, and one driving lane each way. This  

> section does not currently have curbs so most of the intrusion into  

> the boulevard is already worn and parked on.  Most of the trees on  

> this stretch are very old and nearing the end of their lives. There  

> are a few that may need to be taken out as part of the project.

> >

> >

> >


_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula.  
But posts to this list may be entered into the public record.
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20100323/aafe01aa/attachment.htm>