With respect to neighborhood protection there appears to be, within the Neighborhood Caucus, two competing sets of interests. For those who live immediately adjacent to Open Space trailheads and access points, there is an understandable desire to limit adverse impacts associated with out-of-area visitors who drive, bike, or otherwise make their way through the neighborhood on their way to see Open Space.
For folks not fortunate enough to live immediately adjacent to Open Space, the principal concern appears to be access. There are also questions about how best to deal with expected increases in the general demand for Open Space access.
Based on views expressed thus far, there appears to be strong support for the measures which minimize adverse impacts upon "close in" neighbors. These measures might, for example, include:
- Partial neighborhood parking permitting system to assure that neighbors and their guests have a "place to park" (adequate parking would be retained for out-of-area Open Space visitors).
- Route of any new trails and access points away from housing and neighborhood backyards.
- Consider relocating some social trails and, perhaps, some primary trails away from neighbor backyards.
- Provide frequent trash pickup service and trash cans (out of "smelling" distance).
- Encourage and support alternatives to automobile access including bicycle, pedestrian, and mass transit access.
- Implement rapid response law enforcement for neighborhood access complaints.
Another idea that has been suggested but has met with strenuous opposition and is, therefore, extremely unlikely to be implemented is the creation of off-street parking facilities to limit neighborhood parking problems.
In general there also seems to be support for the notion that the determination of which (if any) of the above measures would actually be implemented at a specific access points should primarily be left to those would be most immediately affected (i.e. the adjacent neighbors)
This assumes that equitable public access be maintained to both designated trails and undesignated social trails.
While many have expressed strong support for non-automobile-based access (e.g. bicycles and public transportation), there are many people who want to drive (so they can simply spend more time on Open Space). They point out that Boulderites seem to drive everywhere. Just look at the traffic around soccer fields, schools, shopping centers, and workplaces. Why, they ask, should Open Space be any different.
At this point we are soliciting comments on the access / neighborhood protection debate and, especially, potential compromises.
See right-hand link column for links to neighborhood access comment pages. >>
As a Chautauqua neighbor I know the centerpiece of the WTSA is a dangerous traffic situation. Personally I don't believe in limiting access by limiting parking. If people want to come, great, let them but they can pay to park. Also, the traffic must be managed better. The proposal to move the entrance to the top of 9th street with a traffic light or roundabout makes sense. The current auto entrance is a dangerous nightmare with no pedestrian accommodation. At the very least there should be a path next to the paved entrace so people don't have to walk on the road around that first blind corner.
ReplyDeleteThere should also be new meter payment diagonal parking along the whole south side of Baseline and a new meter pay parking lot in the field up by the tennis courts. I know the city will have to work with many other agencies to do anything at Chautauqua but isn't that what you are there for?