Residents discuss barricades
November 10, 2009
By J.B. Wogan
The city asked residents what they would factor into a decision about removing barricades, and they got answers — lots of answers.
While safety topped the lists, other main concerns were cost and neighborhood character.
At stake are 22 barricades and roughly 57 dead ends (25 of which are marked to become through-streets in the future), all of which are under review by the city.
At the Oct. 28 meeting, residents all agreed that safety must be a paramount concern. But the meeting was also about what criteria to use if and when safety concerns are addressed.
Residents split into tables and drew up guiding principals for barricade removal. In some cases, they voted as a way to show which ones were most important. After safety, residents disagreed about whether cost or neighborhood quality should be the second most important factor.
Beverly Keffer, who lives near the intersection of 244th Avenue Northeast, said she thought cost should be a guide in terms of broadly figuring out which road connections were practical.
Neera Soi, who lives in Hidden Ridge, asked about the fairness of changing the feel of a neighborhood.
“What about the quality of the neighborhoods that people bought into?” she asked.
In past meetings, residents have voiced displeasure about changing roads in their neighborhood because they purchased their homes expecting low traffic volumes.
Marilyn Hargraves, who lives in the northwest corner of the city, said even if the city addressed all safety concerns, the feel of a neighborhood would be an issue.
“If you fix everything, it’s still going to change the character of the neighborhood,” she said.
Community Development Director Kamuron Gurol conceded as much.
“These are all challenging. There is no ideal situation,” Gurol said.
Reporter J.B. Wogan can be reached at 392-6434, ext. 247, or jbwogan@isspress.com.
Comments
One Response to “Residents discuss barricades”
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
In the 11/4 issue of the Review Julie James said that the 32nd Street barricade is a “stupid obstacle in my neighborhood” I find this ironic for a couple of reasons. First, for someone that lives 3/4 of a mile away to call this “her neighborhood” is a bit of a stretch. Secondly, for someone that lives on a dead end culdesac to complain that she cannot use someone else’s neighborhood as a “cut through” route is slightly hypocrtical. The barricade is not a “stupid obstacle”, rather an impediment to her desired route to shave a minute or two from her drive to the schools. Somehow I doubt that Ms James would be as supportive of city efforts to connect her street to SW 43rd so that all of us could get to ELSP a couple minutes faster. I have lived within sight of the 32nd st barricade for 30 years. The people living on my street are the ones that will have to live with the negative impact to this neighborhood. We are also the ones that stand to save the most in drive time to 228th, but the vast majority want the barricade to remain. The City of Sammamish paid for a traffic study in 2002 which showed over a dozen major safety issues that would need be be corrected, not the least of which is a major sight distance problem which cannot be corrected without raising the road bed several feet. The cost in 2002 was estimated at over $3 million dollars. All of this to end up back on the same road that is the current route? The fact is, this would not correct any “traffic backups”. It would merely redirect speeding traffic through a residential area that is a main route for kids walking to school. We already watch people driving on 32nd, speeding with impunity, ignoring the red flashing signs saying “slow down”.
Each and every barricade has it’s own unique issues and the decision to remove or retain needs to be looked at indivdually with major input from the “real “neighbors that have to live with the daily consequences.