Thanks very much to those of you who were able to go speak at the City Council meeting today. We had several people say their pieces against road narrowing, and some interesting responses from both the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Jeff Greene, and City Councilman Bill Murray (see the end of this post).
Here is Chesley Miller emphasizing the history of road narrowing efforts and particularly the role Colorado College has played.
I’m just very concerned that CC has become a bad neighbor and that the special interest of CC is being given precedence over the neighbors, the residents. Instead of fixing sidewalks and trimming trees we get road striping and road dieting. I think we’re a little off in our priorities.
Here is Rose Porter pointing out the potential for more congestion as our city keeps expanding.
We’re going to build a stadium on the south end of town and we’re having an ice hockey arena on the north end. When all that traffic combines with all the new apartment buildings, we’ve created–we didn’t, you, the City–created bottlenecks that are only going to be worse. We are increasing traffic, decreasing accessibility, and there’s not any part of this that makes sense.
“Increased cycling will reduce overall congestion.” That’s not true at all. The more cyclists you have, the more lanes that are one lane, which is causing traffic build up throughout the city.
And here is Ed Snyder explaining that many residents feel ignored and railroaded on this issue, and that those of us who object aren’t going away.
[Kathleen Krager] unilaterally was going to change the roads, and worse yet Mayor Suthers said at the injunction hearing that she’s free to ignore the master plan completely. That she can change the roads at her own discretion. So what’s the point? What’s the point of working with you guys on a master plan? What’s the point of developing this if you can just do whatever you want whenever you want to do it? Then it’s clear that the methods we’re using to help influence our world, the social contract we’ve agreed to, isn’t’ being effective.
Fast forward to 3 minutes to see responses from both Jeff Greene (the Chief of Staff for Mayor Suthers) and City Councilman Bill Murray:
Greene: Sir, I’ll be glad to have a conversation with you. I do want to emphasize: what Ms. Krager does and any of her decision making process is first and foremost is about public safety. She makes determinations about the traffic flows in this City based on public safety. But sir just as much as there’s people in opposition to the proposed and the changed roads here in the downtown area, especially Cascade, there are the same number of people or more who are in support of those changes.
Ed: We’re not debating right? I don’t respond to that right? [City Council President Skorman says no.] Let’s talk. To say I don’t agree is an understatement, but I’d be happy to chat.
Bill Murray: Sir, Research was reversed based on input, but I never did see what the level was, the threshold that they used for it, so please keep on insisting for the information.
Ed: We will.
Jeff Greene is repeating the same talking points Krager, Gaebler, and others have insisted on before: this is about safety and most voters want this. But, as with those who came before him, Greene can’t provide data to show either of those claims is true. Krager has made wildly exaggerated claims about safety on Cascade, despite contradicting data. Gaebler has claimed most voters agree about bike lanes, but when pressed for data she leaves the conversation. Perhaps if and when Mr. Greene gets in contact with Ed they will have a more productive conversation. We will see.