|
Post by tinman4x on Oct 30, 2009 6:14:15 GMT -9
Wow, until this a.m. I had not seen the proposed route that runs right up Campbell Creek and along the Ft. Richardson boundry. Talk about loosing a big chunk of geocaching area. An article appeard again today at www.ADN.com. The public comment period closes [glow=red,2,300]today[/glow] so if anyone would like to speak out and have their opinion counted today is the day. Comments can be submitted to www.highway2highway.com
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Nov 1, 2009 7:37:35 GMT -9
Options 1-4 do the best job at bringing 'freeway' speeds & movement to the downtown core. My money's on a #4; it's the least impact to 'neighborhoods,' uses the most public space, and causes the least disruption in building on/off ramp systems. The attractiveness of #7 City Bypass is similar; however, as the OP remarked, it sure impacts recreational space - and it's worthless to moving traffic in/out/thru the downtown zones. Whichever is chosen, there will be incredible opposition, as it will in a blink of an eye render impacted commercial and residential districts undesirable due to noise, traffic volume changes, and access issues (and not necessarily because the freeway goes through them).
Whichever is built, it will be nice to move traffic through town at a sustained measured pace without stoplights. The point is to build-in accessibility to the daily commuter flow while impacting least what we value the most - and Anchorage likes its 'neighborhoods' and its green space. I hope Option #7 is discarded early on in review, and said so in a public comment to the review board.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Nov 1, 2009 9:28:18 GMT -9
I provided feedback that Option 2 makes the most sense. The roads are already in place. Add a few interchanges like recently done for Bragaw to eliminate traffic lights and one has a highway to highway connection. Business access can be provided by making the right-hand lane an egress/ingress lane like I've seen done in New Jersey/New York. Minimal impact to established neighborhoods and parklands.
|
|
|
Post by arcticbutterfly "Akbfly" on Nov 2, 2009 22:13:03 GMT -9
I can personally say I definately don't want to see #7 happen at all. Which I also believe the most expensive way to solve the problem.
|
|
|
Post by li1gray on Nov 7, 2009 16:59:25 GMT -9
My 2 cents went for #4. It keeps that traffic out of downtown and let us keep the green we have on the east side and Far North. It sure would spoil a lot of wetlands!
But the gov probably has been paid off with the a route already but at least I know I voiced my 2 cents on the matter! Guess that is why they call me with all those "phone surveys" even though I am on the don't not call list'
|
|