| Comments 97-121 - October 6-15, 2003 |
| 97 | It saddens me to loose this quiet, little road. I am getting very tired of so many people trying to get somewhere in such a hurry! That said, I would ask that you provide a "soft trail" to go from Abbott Road to at least the Lore Road tail head for BLM. Horses do not do well on a hard surface trail. I don't like to request a special use trail but I do think that some workers and runners prefer the softer trails. |
| 98 | I recommend that Abbott Loop Road continue to Tudor Road and be our lanes with a turn (5th lane) in middle as a turn lane. Also recommend that E 48th be a four lane from Abbott Loop Ext. (east) to Tudor Road and this would be part of Abbott Loop Ext as one road.. This road should be elevated to allow no traffic light on it but at lower levels traffic lights fro feeder roads. Dowling Ext. should also be four lanes. We must push into the 21st century with design and better traffic flow. Someday this could be like a bypass for the East side, and eventually link to Seward Highway. |
| 99 | I, Martha Carli want safe access to the trails that I walk on everyday with my dog. Trails are at the end of E 64th and Abbott past the Enstar Chugach electric road near the Dowling Substation. I also walk the mushers trail up to the Science Center at times- weather permitting- and swamps not too deep. I do not want gravel trucks or heavy road equipment using my street- E 64th- to build the extension project. I want E 64th Ave closed off completely at 64th and Abbott with safe access to cross for pedestrians. I am not in favor of this extension project. |
| 100 | Keep the Project as small as possible but with room to be expanded. We do not need a freeway in the neighborhood. As much as possible keep the rural feel to Abbot Loop Road. This project is NOT the solution to Lake Otis and Tudor. That is an east-west problem. |
| 101 | No Comments |
| 102 | No Comments |
| 103 | I
would like to know the effects of the additional traffic on Tudor Rd.
I think the additional traffic at Bragaw and Tudor will cause a backup
on Tudor east of Bragaw, thus making the rush hour backup on Tudor worse
than it currently is. Could you model this and report at the next public
meeting? I have read the East Anchorage Traffic Study in detail. I disagree with your projection of large traffic flows from the service High area to the U-Med district. While there will be some traffic, the projections seem high. It also appears most traffic would be a northeast/southeast flow. A project connecting a Dowling Rd extension east to Bragaw is supported by the study. I would like to see funds reprogrammed from the 64th to Dowling segment of the Abbott Loop rd, and used for extending Dowling. |
| 104 | Thank
you for taking our comments on the Abbott Loop Extension Projects. Please
keep us on your email list to receive project updates. GENERAL OPPOSITION We are opposed to this project and voted against the bond proposition that pushed the project forward. We are opposed because we feel that as a community we need to stop and think about the rapid rate that we are filling valuable wetlands and developing what were once protected natural areas. We are also opposed because we believe this project will not relieve traffic in congested areas, on the contrary it will likely increase congestion on roads not designed for higher traffic loads, roads that are currently more rural in nature and provide access to quiet neighborhoods. That said, we realize the nature of the funding for this project means it will be constructed no matter how strong the opposition. CONCERNS ABOUT SCHEDULE We are concerned that the project schedule calls for designing the project while the environmental document is being prepared. The purpose of the environmental document and process is to evaluate potential impacts and modify the project to mitigate or minimize impacts. It also appears that the environmental document will be essentially written and the project designed before some environmental studies (the moose study and fish study) may be complete. Please address these concerns in the environmental document and state how the design of the project can be modified based on public and agency concerns during the environmental process. PREPARE AN EIS We believe an EIS should be written because impacts associated with this project will be significant. This project may significantly impact wetlands, wildlife and fisheries, and local neighborhoods. The project may also negatively affect secondary traffic patterns. PURPOSE AND NEED During the scoping meeting on September 15, numerous reasons were given to support the purpose and need for the project, including evacuating the hillside in case of emergency and the commuting pattern between the hillside and the U-Med district. In the environmental document, please provide solid supporting evidence for each purpose and need. ALTERNATIVES Four "scenarios" were presented at the scoping meeting, one or more of which will be evaluated in the environmental document as alternatives based partly on public input. We believe the scenario along the existing utility corridor should be included in the environmental document because co-locating the road with the utilities may have less cumulative impact on the project area than clearing a separate corridor. NATURAL RESOURCE/PARKLAND IMPACTS We are very concerned about continued loss of wetlands in Anchorage, particularly along our stream corridors. The wetlands survey and environmental document should fully evaluate the acres of wetlands that will be lost from this project, how wetlands impacts will be mitigated, and how important wetlands resources (particularly riparian areas) will be protected or losses minimized. In your assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts, please address cumulative losses of wetlands in the Anchorage bowl, or in the Campbell Creek watershed at a minimum.We are glad to hear a fisheries study will be conducted for this project. This study should evaluate the annual lifecycle of fish using the streams in the project corridor.The uplands in this area also provide valuable wildlife habitat and we hope wildlife use by all species, from passerine birds (including ravens), to moose, to lynx and other predators will be evaluated in the environmental document. Again, wildlife use in all seasons is important. We have personally observed this area being used as a winter roost by ravens.In addition to the wetlands and wildlife/fish habitat the project crosses, there are parklands to consider. We have several concerns in this regard. First, the project would bisect a portion of the park and decrease the western portion's value as part of a large contiguous park. Second, the parklands are bordered by Heritage Land Bank lands that would be subject to development if/when the road is built, encroaching into or adjacent to more protected parklands, possibly resulting in increased wetlands fill, further degrading the value of the area for wildlife and fish habitat, and decreasing the relatively peaceful, quiet nature of the parklands as they are now. Third, constructing the road likely will result in the desire for additional park access and new trail connections which may result in increased land clearing, wetlands fill to build trails or degradation of wetlands that are used for trails, and conflicts with dog mushing trails. TRAFFIC/NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS We are also concerned about the potential for increased traffic along the existing portion of Abbott Loop Road between 64th Ave. and Abbott Road and along the east-west neighborhood roads that connect to Lake Otis Parkway. We would like to see the environmental document for this project address the traffic impacts (volumes, speed, noise, and air quality) associated with the new project corridor, existing Abbott Loop Road, 68th Ave, and Abbott Road (from Hillside Drive to Lake Otis). We believe the secondary and cumulative impacts study should address future road connections that are foreseeable such as Dowling Road, Abbott Loop/Elmore Road, and others that may positively or negatively impact traffic and related issues in this area. SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Please consider the following as secondary and cumulative impacts as quantitatively as possible: 1. impacts to wetlands in the Anchorage bowl 2. impacts to parklands and natural areas near the project area, this should include any foreseeable plan to develop parklands such as roads, future trail heads and trails, community parks, ballfields, Hilltop ski area expansion plans, utility easements, sale and development of Heritage Land Bank lands, etc. 3. additional road connection/improvement projects associated with Abbott LoopThank you for considering our comments. |
| 105 | In
my humble opinion, if the Bragaw Extension has to be built, the road should
be elevated 10 feet for about 3000 feet in length from Campbell North
Fork, past Dowling Tributary, even though it is more expensive. In the
long run we will save money on maintenance cost and wildlife fatalities.
1) the Wetland stays in tact, 2) there is a lot of overflow in the wintertime,
3) the activities in the park are not disturbed. There are numerous ski and sled dog trails in the area which need to be tunneled through the road and most likely will be flooded. This particular area acts like a sponge which prevents flooding in Anchorage. A lot of people are concerned about the integrity of the park and if the road is elevated, they will have no argument. |
| 106 | I am forwarding the comments submitted by Cheryl Richardson on to you, even though you already have received them. Cheryl has spoken so elequently, and has so meticulously detailed all of the points that I would attempt to pull together, it is useless for me to add new sentences to her statements. It is fervently hoped that you will address each point she has made and will provide such answers to the questions that she has raised, so that the community of Anchorage citizens will more fully understand the process you have taken and the questions that she and we members of the Anchorage Citizens Coalition have asked for quite a long time. |
| 107 | I am writing to support the analysis of this project that has been done by the Anchorage Citizens Coalition. It appears to me that they have done a thorough study of the need for the project versus the cost of disturbing the streams and wetlands along the proposed alignment. It also appears to me that the project has been pushed along to please certain politicians rather than on a rational analysis of the need for the project. I ask you to do a more thorough analysis of the need for the project. |
| 108 | I
would like to submit the following comments regarding the proposed Abbott
Loop Extension Project. Extending Abbott Loop is not a good long term
solution to our traffic troubles in East Anchorage. It may help solve
the problems of traffic flow for a couple of years but eventually gridlock
at Tudor/Bragaw and Abbott/Abbott Loop will result. Instead we need to
look at other options such as better public transportation in East Anchorage
and other long term solutions such as working on completing the existing
north-south highway corridor through the business district. The land use surrounding Abbott Loop Road and Far North Bicentennial Park are not designed for a high traffic road. People run, walk, bike and ride their horses along Abbott Loop to get to the recreational trails at Bicentennial Park. Increasing the traffic along this road could increase collisions with wildlife and humans. The extension through undeveloped parkland in Bicentennial Park would be devastating to wildlife who use the area as a travel corridor and to birds who nest and forage in the area. Large intact tracks of wildlife habitat are becoming rare here in Anchorage and we need to preserve the large tracks of land for wildlife use and human recreation. Roads act as barriers to land mammal movement and fragment habitat. The northern goshawk, which is listed as an Alaska Species of Special Concern, nests and forages in Bicentennial Park. Construction of a new road through the parkland would result in a permanent removal of foraging habitat and increased disturbance from human activity. The wetlands that would be impacted within the proposed undeveloped parkland areas are important for maintaining the biochemistry, and flora and fauna of the area and support a number of bird, and mammal species. Many of the wetlands in the Anchorage area have already been lost due to development, and this trend is expected to continue as the population continues to grow in Anchorage. Elimination of these forested wetlands could result in increased runoff, altered surface and subsurface drainage patterns, loss of wildlife habitat and changes in plant community composition adjacent to the new roadway.The North and South Fork Campbell Creek are mapped as anadromous waters that support spawning salmon species. Placing fill materials and other construction materials in the creek could cause increased sedimentation and could disturb spawning salmon. Increased human access into the undeveloped parkland might also increase the harassment of spawning salmon. Bridge crossings over all channels of Campbell Creek should be designed to provide relatively unconfined passage for fish and wildlife. In addition to the direct impacts from loss of wildlife habitat and wetlands, the indirect and cumulative impacts of future development in the new roadway corridor area would likely cause further loss of wildlife habitat and wetlands. New roads into previously road less wildlife habitats have a detrimental and lasting impact to wildlife in the area. I would like to see a thorough wildlife study completed so that impacts can be fully evaluated. I would also like to see an Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the project instead of an Environmental Assessment. Thank you for your time and for considering my comments. |
| 109 | At
the meeting, we were told that individuals wanted to get from the east
side to the Dimond Center. We were also told that if both the Abbott Loop
and Dowling Road projects were completed that individuals would take Abbott
Loop to Dowling Road and then to the New Seward Highway to get to the
Dimond Center. To me, there is a flaw in this logic. Assuming that there
are few if any traffic lights on Abbott Loop, why wouldn't individuals
take Abbott Loop all the way down to Abbott Road which would take them
directly to the Dimond Center? The current speed limit on Abbott Loop
is 45 mph, but cars continually speed. If the road is expanded, I can
imagine that the cars will speed even more than they do now. And with
Abbott Loop being a residential area with new ball fields, horse stable,
dogsled trails, and lots of moose, this would seem to not be an ideal
situation. If individuals do take Abbott Loop to Dowling Road and then to the New Seward Highway, then there is a timing issue that I don't understand. Wouldn't it make more sense to expand Dowling Road prior to the Abbott Loop project? If nothing else, wouldn't expanding Dowling first alleviate traffic from midtown going to the south side and lower hillside (and thus alleviating the Tudor/Lake Otis traffic)? Since the initial traffic study was done so many years ago, I believe the municipality would benefit from re-doing the study citywide with current data This would give a truer picture of the present traffic flows and problems. For example, I think that a significant amount of traffic is trying to get to the Glenn Highway. Wouldn't a better solution be to expand Bragaw Drive through Providence/APU to provide access to the Glenn Highway? I believe that it would be very worthwhile to determine a way for the existing monies to be re-allocated to this type of road project. At the meeting, three alternatives (#1A, #1B, and #2) were identified. I still believe that little would be gained by expanding Abbott Loop, and a fourth alternative should be to do nothing at this time. If the municipality is adamant on expanding Abbott Loop, then the third alternative (#2) seems to be the lesser of the three evils. I appreciate you taking the time to read my comment, and for any consideration you may be able to give. |
| 110 | The
Bragaw extension as proposed does not in my estimation reflect good planning.
Without a clear plan how to handle traffic that would be dumped on Tudor
or even at the south terminus.It is clear that the Univ/Med district Plan
does not want a road bisecting their district and neither do I feel it
is wise to destroy what has become a very nice employment center. But
without the ability to know (in advance) how traffic would be dispersed
from Tudor, then Bragaw should not be build.Perhaps there is an assumption
by the politicians and planners that if Bragaw were built that it would
then be a 'given' that other road (not yet named) would have to be built.
That is not the proper way to do planning.Neither do I see a real attempt
to address the role of public transit in reducing traffic congestion at
Tudor and Lake Otis. It was said that maybe one bus from Lake Otis could
be moved to the new Bragaw extension. That is nothing more than a shell
game and does not reflect a real attempt at applying transit to traffic problems.And last, from what I heard at hearings and even the TransVision forum, people want to see a real attempt to fix Lake Otis and Tudor which would mean taking property to do it. It surely would be less expensive than building the Bragaw extension. |
| 111 | I
would like to have the following comments on the Abbott Loop extension
project included in the preliminary scoping document: - The project should be designed at a minimum to the standards (width, shoulders, line of sight) of other newer roads in the area: Lore Rd– Lake Otis to Frontage Rd and 68th - Lake Otis to Abbott Loop. - Means for pedestrians to cross this busy road is critical – traffic lights with crosswalks or tunnels. Road crossings are that are especially critical include; 68th/BLM entrance, Coventry/Abbott Loop Community Park ball field entrance and at 84th and Jupiter. - Provide hard striped shoulders set to minimum standards of typically 4-6 feet wide, ideally 6-10 feet wide for the full length of Abbott Loop (Abbott Road to Tudor). Shoulders will improve safety by allowing vehicles room to move to avoid dangerous situations including obstructions and vehicle breakdowns. Shoulders will also provide a safer and more efficient area for bicycle commuters and allows for a temporary snow storage area for initial road clearing, - This road will serve an important core university area. UAF, APU, PAMC and ANHC students, staff, patients and clients will all use this new route. This core university area has one of the largest bicycle commuter concentrations in Anchorage. Encouraging more alternate commuting with adequate shoulders and paved trail will reduce vehicle traffic and should remain part of the project. - Provide interconnection of the new adjacent roadside trail(s), to the trail system behind the MOA public works buildings. - Implement the principals outlined in the Anchorage 2020 plan relating to land use transit and pedestrian improvements. - This new route will traverse the coldest area in Anchorage. Winter air quality including CO should be addressed. This project may have detrimental impact on the air quality of nearby neighborhoods. - Reallocate funds from other sources (AMATS, TEA-21 Alaska DOT, FHWA) so that the finished project meets ALL the necessary objectives. Closing comments: Preserving the quality of neighborhoods, safety, aesthetics, preserving habitats and permitting alternate modes of transportation are very important elements that should all be addressed in this project. These elements are key to the quality of life in this area of Anchorage.I was overseas for the September 15th and could not attend the public scoping meeting. The information found on the Abbotloop.com/Dowl website was lacking any preliminary designs or detailed project siteing. This lack of information made it difficult for citizens and community councils difficult to comment intelligently on this project before the scoping report deadline. |
| 112 | These are some comments on the Bragaw extension and the impact to my neighborhood. Would like to have East 64th dead end at Bragaw for vehicular traffic, rather than being a through street. I do not want the extra vehicular traffic running up and down my street. If I need to access Bragaw, I would rather use East 68th intersection which will probably be protected with stoplights. I would like to be able to access the Bike trails and/or sidewalks which may parallel Bragaw, via East 64th. I and my mother use the woods and the Campbell tract extensively for walking and recreational activities, and want reasonable access to our traditional and customary recreational grounds, rather than to have to walk all the way down to East 68th to cross Bragaw. Please, please do not use East 64th to build the new Bragaw extension. I realize that major construction will take place at the end of the street, I just do not want all of the gravel trucks and dozers running up and down our street. In 1989, Enstar contracted an oil field construction company (Cimarron) to build a gas pipeline along our street (East 64th) out to the airport. Cimarron destroyed our street with all of the construction and the street was Never placed back to a equal or better state the road was in prior to construction. Our street finally was “chipped” two years ago. Please don’t bust it up. The construction will cross streams which bear and support salmon. The Salmon finally returned (Oct. 04), to the small streams which parallel the power lines and “old” natural gas line which extends north from East 64th and Abbot Loop. (The stream name on your map is Dowling Tributary). The salmon had been held up due to low water levels, but due to the recent rains the stream has risen enough to give them passage. I have lived in this area since 1981 and have experienced some cold winters. Minus 45 or colder is not unheard of. Even one of the meteorologists with the National Weather Service, who lives on East 67th ahs stated that this area is the coldest in the Anchorage bowl. I bring this up as numerous streams in the area doesn’t freeze over, even in the coldest of winters and many animals from the Campbell Tract stop here for their water. (Dowling Tributary). Most of the ravens from the hillside area stop here for their water. Unfortunately, the proposed Dowling-Bragaw intersection will be located where the warm water flows. I live in a quiet part of town. A area frequented by moose, bears, coyotes, and once in a while even wolves. Spruce hens, pin grosbeaks, arctic hares, weasels and assorted fish. I value quiet places, since most of my work life has been out on the flight line at Anchorage International, playing amongst the jets. I hope you can provide the maximum protection available to abate the noise levels from the traffic. Thank you for your time. |
| 113 | Reviewing
the options presented for the Abbott Loop Extension, I support an option
that provides the most support for future connections of Boniface and
Dowling along with the least impact to the wetlands and the network of
trails between East 48th and East 64th.While the stated goal of this connection
is to "provide a transportation connection from southeast Anchorage
to the University/Medical District," my impression from reviewing
the EAST study and participating on EAST's Citizen Advisory group is that
this need is not as important as the connection of the Muldoon area to
the area generally towards the Dimond Center.The more I heard about the
Bragaw/Abbott Loop Extension during numerous EAST meetings, the more I
was convinced that "completing the grid" with this extension
would fail to meet people's expectations. This road will dump traffic
onto, according to the EAST study, the busiest part of Tudor. The optimal
way to get to the U/MED district will continue to be via the New Seward
Highway.When people realize that this extension provides no relief from
their commuting woes, we'll have a real push for the Dowling and Boniface
extensions. We might as well admit that now and spend the money for this Abbott Loop Extension towards that goal. |
| 114 | I
am a 30 year resident of the Abbott Loop area and I strongly object to
the current plans for the proposed Abbott Loop extension. I also have
many questions regarding the plans and the justification for the project.
The current plan to construct a 4 to 6 lane highway from Tudor road across
the Campbell Creek wetlands to Abbott Road will very negatively impact
our neighborhood, may actually increase congestion on Tudor Road, and
will greatly exacerbate existing traffic congestion on Abbott and Abbott
Loop road's. The Abbott Loop extension is not consistent with the East
Anchorage transportation plan which found a need for another east west
transportation corridor, not a north south corridor. There are many aspects
of this project which are questionable. Why is $37 million dollars in
state funds being spent to construct a major transportation project when
the state has a $700 million dollar budget deficit, and the federal government
would pay 90% of the project cost ? Is it to to avoid federal highway
planning, environmental and public involvement standards? It is not clear
how the very expensive extension will ease congestion at Lake Otis and
Tudor when there is no current collector street which allows easy access
to the extension, without the extension of Abbott/Bragaw across the hillside
to Elmore and beyond. Why is the project called the Abbott Loop extension,
when this appears to be nothing more than a piece of the old Bragaw extension
which has been rejected many times in the past? According to the plan,
this four to six highway project would inexplicably dead end at Abbott
Road and 36th street. 36th. Street is already congested and Abbott road
isn't constructed to handle more traffic, so the benefits appear limited,
and may make the situation worse on other streets. Is the long term plan
is to extend the new highway down Elmore to O'Malley or Rabbit Creek Road
and up Bragaw through the University to the New Seward Highway? Is changing
the name to the Abbott Loop extension and piecemeal the project , a strategy
to divide and mute public opposition? I attended the September 15, public
meeting at Kasunn Elementary school. My estimate is that 200 people attended
this meeting and all but 5 or 6 were opposed the current plan for the
Abbott road extension. A couple of the people who supported the plan were
ADOT employees who were in the audience. I have many other questions and concerns with this project. My detailed comments on the Abbott Loop extension are attached, and I would like them included in the project record. Thank you. I. Project Scope:A. Purpose and Need: 1. The Purpose and Need statement isn’t a good fit for the project. It is difficult to imagine that the destination of large percentage of the traffic on the hillside is the University/Medical district. If the project really dead-ends into Abbott Road, then it will draw from a very limited area of South East Anchorage (i.e. North of O’Malley road). People from O’Malley south are more likely to continue established traffic patterns down to Lake Otis and the New Seward Highway than driving at slow speed through a maze of residential streets to reach Abbott Loop Road. If large numbers of people actually do this, it will exacerbate traffic congestion on streets such as Birch and Abbott Road. If the real need is for another east-west connector this project doesn’t appear to fill the need. II. Questions that need answers:Why are you calling this the Abbott Loop Extension (ALE) when it really is the old Bragaw Extension? Bragaw is the contiguous street, that would be extended. Abbott Loop runs parallel and is approximately a quarter mile to the east? Why are State funds being used for this project when the State has an annual billion-dollar budget deficit? Why isn’t the project being built with federal highway funds when the federal government would pay 90%? Is the purpose of using increasingly scarce state money in a time of fiscal crisis simply to avoid federal planning, construction, public involvement and environmental standards? Will this deception really work when the ALE would connect other roads (Tudor, Abbott Road, and Dowling) that are constructed and maintained with federal funds? It is also disturbing that $ 37 million dollars is being spent on this road when road maintenance is going to be reduced from its present unacceptable level in Anchorage, because the Governor cut $10 million dollars in state funds which were supposed to go to the city. If the ALE won’t cut through the University’s, what roads will be used to route traffic north and downtown? If the plan is to piecemeal this project and divide opposition by changing the name and constructing the middle portion of the Bragaw extension, and then working to get the other sections approved later, this should be disclosed to the public and evaluated in the EIS. How will the extension of Bragaw to Tudor affect congestion at the Lake Otis and Tudor intersection without the construction of other proposed roads? If the Tudor Lake Otis extension is the problem why not build an overpass and an interchange there? Won’t traffic that the Bragaw Extension dumps onto Tudor still have to go through that intersection to go downtown, and points east? Won’t the additional motorists using the new intersection of the ALE and Tudor Road experience the same congestion and delays as currently exist at the Tudor Lake Otis intersection? How will construction of other planned road connections affect traffic congestion at Lake Otis and Tudor, i.e.: C Street south of Dimond Dowling to Raspberry Dowling to Lake Otis 92nd between New Seward and Minnesota What would be the harm in waiting to see how those roads impacted the Tudor/Lake Otis problem? How will implementation of Anchorage 2020, including concentrating new housing and office development in downtown and midtown, affect congestion? Conversely, how would this road affect continued sprawl beyond the bowl? What are Anchorage’s plans for transit improvements as outlined in Anchorage 2020, and how will this affect east side congestion? Conversely, how would this proposed road affect the future of Anchorage’s transit improvements? A. What is Dowl Engineering’s public involvement process? · Which community councils and other public venues will Dowl use to discuss this project with the public? · Will Dowl restrict public involvement to “open houses” that restrict the flow of information, and to “questions only, no statements” at their meetings as was done with the EAST study and the Abbott Loop Extension open house? · When is the public comment stage over?· Once the environmental analyses, etc. are over, will there be additional public comment allowed?B. What will Dowl’s environmental analysis include? · The ALE will bisect both the Campbell Creek wetlands and parklands immediately to the east and west of the right of way, separating these lands both physically and hydro logically (constructive use). In fact most of the project between Tudor and 88th is located adjacent to state and federal lands parkland, and connects federally funded roads. How is this project affected by the Federal 4 (f) requirement to consider all viable alternatives to building this road? · How will this project comply with the Clean Water Act and Corps 404 regulations? How will the Corps of Engineers findings from the 1970’s that rejected the Bragaw extension because of unacceptable impacts on wetlands east of Lake Otis and the existence of reasonable alternatives be used in this analysis and influence this project? · When is Dowl’s environmental analysis and engineering/design to be finished, by 2004 as Dowl says, or by 2005 as the state says? · When does Dowl intend to complete its application to the Corps of Engineers for a wetlands permit to construct the road? · What are the wetlands issues that must be addressed before the Corps of Engineers approves a wetlands permit? (Identified to date: floodplains that prevent flooding downstream, nearby homes and basements affected by hydrology changes, salmon rearing habitat, runoff containing pollutants from the roadbed and vehicle exhaust entering the wetlands, and eliminating important habitat for moose, coyotes and bears.) . What measures will be taken to minimize and mitigate the substantial impacts to wetlands, hydrology, recreation and wildlife that will occur as a result of the construction of this road? Will adequate studies be conducted to identify and quantify these impacts? If the environmental analysis is scheduled for completion in 2004, it does not provide adequate time for studies. C. How would this road affect land use and traffic in adjoining neighborhoods? · What plans do you have to reduce the impact on neighborhoods along Abbott Loop Road? These subdivisions were platted and improved based on Abbott Loop being a rural collector, not a high-speed highway. How will access to homes and subdivisions be maintained during construction? How will safe reasonable access be maintained to Abbott loop Road? The only access to and from the Winchester Heights subdivision is Abbott Loop Road. If normal access to Abbott Loop Road is blocked as it was during construction of the Wuerch Ball fields it will be a nightmare for residents. · How will trebling the traffic on Abbott Loop Road contribute to the aesthetics and noise factors of the adjoining neighborhoods? What speed limits are proposed for the new Abbott Loops extension? How many traffic lights will have to be installed on Abbott road for safety?· How close to existing homes on Abbott Loop will the road be built?· How much private property will have to be seized to build the road?· How close to the ball fields will you go and will that eliminating the treed buffer along Abbott Loop Road?· What are the plans to develop lands alongside the Bragaw right of way between 48th and 68th Streets if the road is built? Who owns this land?· What is the likelihood of Elmore being constructed south of Abbott, and Bragaw extended to the Glenn Highway to the north. As proposed is previous Bragaw extension proposal? What are the costs and barriers?· If roads south of Abbott Loop Road aren’t going to be connected, where will all the traffic come from to warrant the Bragaw Extension and the Abbott Loop “Improvement”?· Where are the cars coming from and going to from northeast to southwest Anchorage? D. How does this project relate to Anchorage’s comprehensive plan goals to protect neighborhoods and parks, develop an efficient transportation system and reduce reliance on the automobile? · What level of transit service is needed to lure a significant number of those projected drivers from their cars? · What are the future land use development patterns that generate the traffic described in the East Anchorage Study of Transportation? · How much will this project add to the state or municipal operation and maintenance burden in these times of shrinking government resources? · This two mile project budgeted is at $37.5 million when most roads cost $2 million a mile. Where do planners expect to bridge across the creeks and wetlands, and how long a bridge or bridges do they estimate? · Has the EIS for the 48” municipal waterline been completed? Where and when will the municipality’s waterline be constructed, and how will it affect this project?Recommendations:If this road has to be built, connect Bragaw to the Dowling extension, not Abbott Loop Road. Leave Abbott Loop as a local collector. This project will bisect the most productive and extensive wetlands remaining in Anchorage. These wetlands contain most of the remaining salmon spawning habitat in Campbell Creek; provide feeding areas for bears, winter areas for moose, and a migratory corridor for wildlife moving east and west. A solid fill road will impound water on the upstream side and dewater down stream wetlands, unless extra ordinary measures are taken to maintain drainage. A good example is the Glenn Highway crossing of the Palmer Hay flats which flooded the east side of the highway, but dried up the west side. If the project is built provide long high bridges across both branches of Campbell creek and all of the tributaries. These bridges should be at least 600 feet long and can act to pass flood flows, recreational users and wildlife. Provide cross drainage at numerous points to attempt to maintain downstream wetlands. Limit speeds to reduce moose car collisions and impacts to local residents. Construct the 48” waterline adjacent to the road prism, and construct the bridges so that the waterline can be hung on the bridge rather that being trenched through both branches of Campbell Creek and the 5 other streams that would have to be crossed. All of the drainages crossed the proposed road contain salmon and high value resident fish. Provide fish passage at all stream crossings and at all stream flows, by building bridges. Restore fish passage where it is currently blocked or impeded by 3 bad culverts in Campbell Creek branches on Abbott Loop Road. Incorporate innovative measures to minimize wildlife vehicle collisions on this new road in a high wildlife use area. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and ask questions to be answered by essential pre-project research and in the environmental analysis. I would like to receive notices of all future meetings and copies of the draft and final environmental analysis. |
| 115 | I
am providing these comments as part of the public scoping process on the
proposed Abbott Loop Extension. While I do not support this project, I
would like to thank, and congratulate you, and your planning team for
the excellent facilitation at the Public Scoping Meeting, and for allowing
the public to exhaust their comments. This is a controversial and emotional
project and by allowing the public to express their thoughts, without
a deadline, was the right thing to do.As you can see from my address above,
my home is within 3 houses of the proposed extension. I grew up in this
neighborhood (right across the street) and as an adult choose to return
to the area due to the quiet, low traffic surroundings, and safe access
to the recreational trails east of my property. My family enjoys the frequent
wildlife visits by moose and the more infrequent visits by bears.Over
the past decade I have had the opportunity to attend several meetings
regarding the extension of Abbott Loop to Tudor Road and have several
specific comments in regards to this projects' Purpose and Need, addition
of Alternatives, and need for further Environmental Impact studies.The
last meeting I attended was held at the Science Center approximately five
years ago, and identified this project's Purpose and Need as reducing
traffic at Lake Otis and Tudor. The public's response to this Purpose
and Need was to upgrade the intersection, in which several partial clover-leaf
configurations were brought up. The loudest protestor to this public response
was the owner of the Church at the southwest corner of the intersection.
This meeting was heavily attended by environmental and community representatives
as well as Municipality of Anchorage traffic planning representatives.
I am curious as to why this approach was dropped, and your team is trying
a new approach with the Hillside to U/MED reasoning. With the change in
ownership of businesses and the shut-down of others at the Lake Otis and
Tudor intersection I think that this study should focus on the real Purpose
and Need and not construct a band-aid type project that will really not
fix the problem ? Add the Lake Otis and Tudor upgrade Alternative.I would
like to see specific numbers of Hillside residents who are actually trying
to get to U/MED versus mid-town or down-town. If the numbers trying to
get to mid-town or down-town exceed the numbers trying to get to the U/MED
area, construct a project that will facilitate this need ? Upgrade Lake
Otis and Tudor.As a long-term planning project the Abbott Loop Extension
does not make sense unless it can connect all the way through to the Glenn
Highway, and that does not appear likely without support of the Universities
and Providence Hospital (of which neither were represented at the scoping meeting).Another alternative that has been discussed and apparently dropped, that would have far less of an impact on the environment and surrounding residents, is the alternative that utilizes the BLM land to the North and east of Abbott Loop. This alternative should be added and analyzed due to the reduced construction footprint needed, the lack of stream crossings, and the already existing Campbell Airstrip road that could be tied into at the intersection of Abbott Loop and 68th or Abbott Loop and the Campbell Science center intersection. The fact that the stream crossings have already been made should make this alternative very attractive to construct in regards to cost and environmental impacts.Having lived in this area twice over the past 20 years, I am very concerned that a project of this size is proposed for construction without a determination as to who is going to maintain it. While living in the area as a teenager I rode the bus from the Abbott Loop and 68th intersection to Service High School. All through high school I braced myself on the bus for the nasty pothole in the East lane between Lore Road and 72nd Avenue. After almost 20 years this pothole has never been addressed and is there today. Why should a project of this magnitude be constructed when it does not appear that maintenance in this area is of any priority at all. The soils in this area are highly saturated and significant (8-12 inches up or down) ground movement needs to be considered and avoided during the design and potential construction.Regardless of what alternatives are analyzed, other than the no build alternative, an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. This area is highly used recreationally by skiers, dog walkers, mushers, and runners as well as hikers. The day I moved into my house I had bear scat in my yard, and have had at least twenty visits by several species of bear over the past seven years. Moose are encountered daily in our neighborhood, as well as fox, eagles and many other species of wildlife. This area is very quiet and noise and vibration analysis would be required as well as air quality analysis due to the substantial traffic increase. An analysis of property values as well as what this extension, if constructed, would do to property values is needed.I am an avid supporter of development, however, as hypocritical as it may sound, not in my backyard. I have two small children who regularly play with the neighborhood children at the end of the street and accompany my husband and myself on hikes through the woods, and while the local wildlife can keep us on our toes, the thought of a three to five lane highway within 200 feet of my house makes me raise the above-listed issues.My final comment is in regards to the fancy chart that was displayed at the public meeting that depicted the percentage of voters who voted on this project. I hope that you got the message at the meeting, but for the record, I will put down on paper my thoughts. The bond package that this project was attached to included needed infrastructure projects that totaled more than 226 million dollars, of which 37.5 million was slated for the Abbott Loop extension. That is about 16% of the total bond. To depict graphically that 66% of Anchorage voters wanted the Abbott Loop extension is deceptive and inaccurate. This project should have had it's own bond package to determine whether Anchorage voters really wanted it on it's own merits. While it is too late to find out if Anchorage voters really want this project, please don't depict things in the favor of this project thataren't 100% accurate. |
| 116 | Anchorage
Audubon submits the following comments regarding the proposed Abbott Loop
Extension Project. Extending Abbott Loop is not a good long term solution
to our traffic troubles in East Anchorage. It may help solve the problems
of traffic flow for a couple of years but eventually gridlock at Tudor/Bragaw
and Abbott/Abbott Loop will result. Instead we need to look at other options
such as better public transportation in East Anchorage and other long
term solutions such as working on completing the existing north-south
highway corridor through the business district. The land use surrounding Abbott Loop Road and Far North Bicentennial Park are not deigned for a high traffic road. People run, walk, bike and ride their horses along Abbott Loop to get to the recreational trails at Bicentennial Park. Increasing the traffic along this road could increase collisions with wildlife and humans. The extension through undeveloped parkland in Bicentennial Park would be devastating to wildlife who use the area as a travel corridor and to birds who nest and forage in the area. Large intact tracks of wildlife habitat are becoming rare here in Anchorage and we need to preserve the large tracks of land for wildlife use and human recreation. Roads act as barriers to land mammal movement and fragment habitat. The northern goshawk, which is listed as an Alaska Species of Special Concern, nests and forages in Bicentennial Park. Construction of a new road through the parkland would result in a permanent removal of foraging habitat and increased disturbance from human activity. The wetlands that would be impacted within the proposed undeveloped parkland areas are important for maintaining the biochemistry, and flora and fauna of the area and support a number of bird, and mammal species. Many of the wetlands in the Anchorage area have already been lost due to development, and this trend is expected to continue as the population continues to grow in Anchorage. Elimination of these forested wetlands could result in increased runoff, altered surface and subsurface drainage patterns, loss of wildlife habitat and changes in plant community composition adjacent to the new roadway. The Northern and South Fork Campbell Creek are mapped as anadromous waters that support spawning salmon spec9ies. Placing fill materials and other construction materials in the creek could cause increased sedimentation and could disturb spawning salmon. Increased human access into the undeveloped parkland might also increase the harassment of spawning salmon. Bridge crossings over all channels of Campbell Creek should be designed to provide relatively unconfined passage for fish and wildlife. In addition to the direct impacts from loss of wildlife habitat and wetlands, the indirect and cumulative impacts of future development in the new roadway corridor area would likely cause further loss of wildlife habitat and wetlands. New roads into previously roadless wildlife habitats have detrimental and lasting impact to wildlife in the area. Anchorage Audubon would like to see a thorough wildlife study completed so that impacts can be fully evaluated. We would also like to see an Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the project instead of an Environmental Assessment. |
| 117 | As
the Tudor Road and Lake Parkway intersection grows into a bigger problem,
I see the need for a second access route between East Anchorage to Mid
and South Anchorage. The Abbot Loop Extension project will help solve
the problem, however, it could not solve the entire problem by itself.
Under TransVision, the Long-Range Transportation Plan for Anchorage, the Municipality of Anchorage and Alaska Department of Transportation will be taking into consideration results of the East Anchorage Study of Transportation. The study shows the need for many other road extensions in Anchorage. Directly related to the proposed Abbott Loop Extension project is the East Dowling Road Extension. The extension to East Dowling would meet with the extension of Abbott Loop. It appears quiet obvious that the extension of East Dowling would be pursued upon approval or completion of the making the projects inter-related. As part of the analysis for cumulative impacts in the environmental document for the proposed Abbott Loop Extension project, the potential Dowling extension should be considered. The cumulative impacts from the proposed Abbott Loop Extension project would set precedence for the Dowling extension, leading to increased traffic along residential areas. As a resident of the area, I am writing to you with concerns of the increased traffic. My home sits just south of East Dowling Road; east of Lake Otis. Other than a couple easements for a drainage ditch and a power line, our back yard basically sits on East Dowling Road. Currently, the traffic on this portion of East Dowling Road is minimal, as it only carries traffic of residents living further east. An increase in traffic as a result of these extensions would impact our home environment. With a foreseeable increase in traffic frequency and quantity along our subdivision, a mitigation measure to this cumulative impact should be a sound/visual/safety barrier. Although projects in the past have incorporated a low dirt berm as a means of blocking noise of increased traffic, I would hope an insufficient effort such as this would not be good enough for the extensions into residential neighborhoods. I would suggest a block wall as a sound, visual, and safety barrier. A wall would greatly minimize the noise of increased traffic, keep the privacy of our property intact, and prevent the potential situation where a car could leave the road way and crash into our homes or yards where our children play. Thank you for taking your time in considering my comments. |
| 118 | Founded
in 1971 by Alaskans, Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE) is a non-profit,
public interest organization working for the sensible stewardship of Alaska's
natural environment. With thousands of members from around the state,
Alaska Center for the Environment is a voice for public lands conservation,
clean air, clean water, and livable places. Thank you for the opportunity
to provide comments on the proposed Bragaw / Abbott Loop Extension.In
general, ACE is concerned that the Bragaw / Abbott Loop Extension is being
designed even before the project has gone through Anchorage's planning
process. It has not been approved within Anchorage's Long Range Transportation
Plan, which is due to be completed in May of 2004. And the East Anchorage
Study of Transportation, that recommends construction of this road, has
not been approved by the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions
or by the Anchorage Assembly.It is bad policy to push one major, costly
project while a larger transportation planning project is underway. Specifically:1.
How will extending Bragaw / Abbott Loop Road to Tudor without linking
to Dowling or Boniface affect congestion at Lake Otis and Tudor and along
Tudor?2. How will construction of other planned roads affect eastside
congestion if the Bragaw / Abbott Loop Road extension is not built, ie: § C Street south of Dimond? § Dowling, Raspberry between Lake Otis and Minnesota? § Abbott/92nd between Lake Otis and Minnesota?3. How will Anchorage 2020 implementation, including concentrating new housing and office development in downtown and midtown, affect congestion?4. What are Anchorage's plans for transit improvements as outlined in Anchorage 2020, and how will this affect congestion?The land use and transportation modeling that demonstrates the need for this project has been done outside the public view. It would be helpful to know how projected growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) relates to actual population growth in Anchorage and in the Mat-Su. These numbers should be expressed in percent growth per year to provide common points of comparison.While in the past, VMT (vehicle miles traveled) has grown many times faster than population; there are strategies to contain that growth. Most are included in Anchorage's comprehensive plan. But it is not clear how VMT reduction strategies have been incorporated into the modeling that "demonstrated" the need for the Bragaw / Abbott Loop Road Extension. The comprehensive plan describes a number of strategies and outcomes including more compact land use development, mixed commercial and land use development in selected locations, increased transit service and pedestrian access, reduced miles traveled per person. How have these strategies and outcomes been incorporated into the traffic projections for the Bragaw / Abbott Loop Road Extension?How much additional sprawl would be generated if the recommended roads are constructed?Citizens still lack documentation of the modeling inputs that generated the need for this road connection. Perhaps the project's greatest problem is that its underpinning land use assumptions are not observable. It is unfortunate that a year after Anchorage's Land Use Allocation Report was released; we still do not have maps showing recommended land use patterns. Rumors abound but we have no hard facts. The approved report left us with the empty knowledge that the comprehensive plan's land use strategies do not deliver sufficient residential or commercial densities to meet comprehensive plan goals. This in itself is reason to suspect engineers' conclusions that this road will relieve congestion in Anchorage.In the end, citizens must ask, what improvements at what cost? Thus far, modeling for the Bragaw / Abbott Loop Road Extension focuses on vehicle miles traveled. But there are other costs to consider: air quality, noise, water quality, congestion, sprawl, comprehensive plan goals, fish and wildlife habitat, wildlife range, mobility, access, equity, recreation, flooding, neighborhood livability and traffic, and increased taxpayer burden.A. Overarching questions: * Do citizens concur with the assumptions in the transportation demand model? What are those assumptions? * Do these recommendations truly relieve congestion, or do they move it to "off ramps?" * Where are drivers coming from and going to through Far North Bicentennial park?B. What will the environmental analysis include? * How is this project affected by the Federal 4f requirement to consider all viable alternatives to building this road? * How will the Corps of Engineers records from 1970's that rejected the Bragaw / Abbott Loop Road extension in order to protect the wetlands east of Lake Otis influence this project? * What are the wetlands issues that must be addressed before the Corps of Engineers approves a wetlands permit? The Bragaw Extension project, as now scoped, will traverse the southern section of the Campbell Tract complex of wetlands, which exist as the largest uninterrupted, class A wetland complex left in the Anchorage Bowl area. The Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan, adopted by the Anchorage Assembly in March 1996, defined class A wetlands as;Formerly designated as “Preservation” in the 1982 Plan, “A” wetlands have the highest wetland resources values. They perform at least two, and typically more, significant wetland functions. “A” wetlands are considered most valuable in an undisturbed state, as most uses or activities, especially those requiring fill, negatively impact known wetland functions. Additionally, the document identifies this portion of the wetland complex as having the highest scores in hydrology, habitat, and species occurrence of the entire complex. Portions of this wetland have a direct link to the Campbell Creek hydrologic regime. This wetland provides crucial flood control to residential areas downstream of the proposed project that have not been addressed in any of the scoping documents and will prove to be a very costly endeavor if even possible.The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has identified this wetland area as providing critical salmon spawning habitat that will be destroyed through even the ancillary impacts of roadway runoff should this project be completed.The Corps of Engineers findings from the 1970’s rejected the Bragaw extension because of unacceptable impacts on wetlands east of Lake Otis and the existence of reasonable alternatives. Since that time the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan has officially designated this area first as a “preservation” wetland in 1984 and then as a class “A” wetland in 1996. It appears highly unlikely that the Corps of Engineers will now find this project to be acceptable and at the very least will require a lengthy and expensive permitting process.C. How would this road affect land use and traffic in adjoining neighborhoods? * What are the plans to develop lands alongside the Bragaw / Abbott Loop Road right of way between 48th and 68th Streets if the road is built? * What is the likelihood of Elmore being constructed south of Abbott? What are the costs and barriers? * If roads south of Abbott Loop Road can't be connected, where will the traffic come from to warrant the Bragaw / Abbott Loop Road Extension and the Abbott Loop "improvement"? * Where are the cars coming from and going to through Lake Otis and Tudor? * What effects will this road have on other major arterials and neighborhoods in Anchorage? * How will this road affect neighborhoods beyond East Anchorage? * How will this road affect neighborhoods west of the Seward Highway?D. How does this project relate to Anchorage's comprehensive plan goals to protect neighborhoods and parks, develop an efficient transportation system and reduce reliance on the automobile?* What level of transit service is needed to lure a significant number of those projected drivers from their cars to eliminate the need for this road? * What are the future land use development patterns that generate the traffic described in the East Anchorage Study of Transportation? * How much will this project add to the state or municipal operation and maintenance burden in these times of shrinking government resources? * Where do planners expect to bridge across the creeks and wetlands, and how long a bridge or bridges do they estimate? * Where and when will the municipality's waterline be constructed, and how will it affect this project?Thank you for considering our comments as you scope the environmental assessment for the Bragaw/Abbott Loop Extension. |
| 119 | I
attended the public meeting at Kasuun. My comments and questions- Concerning Air: Area of Lake Otis and Tudor already filled with plenty of carbon monoxide and dust. What will happen to our neighborhood if another busy road is built so close to the tow that exist. The wetland area is low-lying and air tends to “hang” there frequently depending on the weather. (We can smell vehicle emissions on some days that is so strong that we do not want to linger outdoors. Our daughter has asthma. With the increasing incidence of asthma here in Anchorage, I bet many other people who have asthma live near Lake Otis and Tudor.) Concerning Water: Polluted run-off water into streams, marsh and wetland is devastating to the ecosystems. What are other effects known when air and water pollution are combined in sensitive wetlands? Concerning Land: Any construction on a wetland “sponge”, which applies to a large area where the Bragaw extension is planned, will affect water holding ability and change the drainage of snow melt and rain run-off. Will flooding be a problem? Will salmon habitat be affected? Changes to this wetland are demonstrated in our neighborhood near Lake Otis and Tudor after a small new development was put in two years ago. Concerning the Abbot Loop Extension Fact Sheet: The statement about voter approval for funding this road is misleading. You should have stated that this road proposal was one of several other projects around the state included in the same bond proposal. You will recall, voters had to approve all or none of the projects. Therefore, approval from voters on the bond package does not mean 65% of the voters in this state want the Bragaw Extension/Abbot Loop to be built. What we need: More work and time to develop a sound, well planned transportation plan based on public transportation, walking, and bicycling, as well as the automobile as transportation choices. Well-planned, healthy choices for development and transportation for land available will benefit all of our citizens. Can’t we take a little while to consider this issue with an open mind? |
| 120 | I went to the meeting on Sept. 29th and talked to representatives. I have some serious concerns on how this road will fit into the 2020 Comp. Plan. Why are you doing the environmental impact study after the road is designed? There will be horrible effects on wildlife crossing this road- It is going thru wildlife corridors. I see a lot of dead moose, bears, etc. and accidents, possibly fatal, to citizens. What is the destination of traffic at Lake Otis and Tudor? I have not seen the results of this report. The LRTP needs to be completed before road building plans are done. The University/Medical area does not employ the majority of citizens- Downtown and mid-town does. Where is all the traffic going to go when it hits Tudor from the south. It will all be funneled to the already over burdened corner of Lake Otis and Tudor and the already over burdened corner of Lake Otis and Tudor and DeBarr and Bragaw. What future land development patterns are you using to project this traffic growth? Air quality is a huge concern of mine- Our air is terrible, how is this project going to affect air quality? more transit is a better answer then more roads. A better study needs to be done with alternatives other than more roads. |
| 121 | First,
I am against the proposed project for the following reasons: Traffic.
The Bragraw Extension is seen as a way of relieving traffic congestion
currently experienced at the Lake Otis/Tudor intersection. If constructed,
I believe we will see an increase in traffic at that intersection plus
much more traffic congestion at the Abbott Road and Abbott Loop Road intersection,
which in turn will require a "fix" at great cost and much impact
to neighbors and surrounding neighborhoods. Environment. In addition to traffic problems point out above this road "improvement" project will have a substantial environmental impact on the Campbell Creek watershed impacting the following: water quality (increases in water temperature, total suspended solids, dissolved solids, salinity), wetland viability, reduction in salmon rearing and wildlife habitat, impacts to wildlife range and mobility, and increased potential for localized and watershed flooding. Human impacts: Increased traffic will negatively impact neighborhoods adjacent to the road by exposing them to more noise, air, and light pollution. Past and present studies have shown a high correlation in increase traffic (associated air pollution) with increases in asthma in the very young and old. If the road must be built, first we should seriously consider using the existing money to build the Bragraw/Dowling Connector, as this will alleviate more traffic congestion and is recommended by the East Anchorage Transportation Study. Of the three scenarios presented at the public meeting in September, I prefer the second scenario that calls for a wider road (4 lanes) between 48th and where the Dowling extension intersection would connect to the Bragraw Extension and from there a much smaller ( but upgraded road) to Abbott Road. I also recommend building the longest bridge possible across the Campbell Creek watershed to reduce the environmental impacts listed above. Campbell Creek is TO important to us to tell it be impaired by this road project.I also express many of the same concerns present by the Anchorage Citizens Coalition. how does this comply with the Anchorage 20/20 plan? it is not approved within Anchorage's Long Range Transportation Plan, East Anchorage Study of Transportation has not been approved by the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions or by the Anchorage Assembly. lack of documentation of the modeling inputs that generated the need for this road connection including current travel origin and destination through this part of town, travel delays, transit service levels, pedestrian environment factors. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments! |
| 1-20 | 21-60 | 61-74 | 75-96 | 97-121 | 122-139 | 140-160 | 161-168 | 169-200 | 201-239 |
| 240-259 | 260-268 | 269-286 | 287-295 | 296-308 | 309-337 | 338-367 | |||
| Agency Comments | Comment Main Page | ||||||||
Webdesigner. August 2003
