Loading...
2004-03-29 Meeting Report (Kirkwood Boulevard Extension)SPIN Citywide Forum for Neighborhoods #1, #2, #3, #5, and #6 ML Master Thoroughfare Plan Relating to the Future Extension of Kirkwood Blvd. Monday, March 29, 2004 7:00 p.m. Southlake Town Hall Third Floor Training Rooms Summary of Questions and Comments On the traffic flow study, did that conclude that the original proposal of taking the road out to the access roads along State Highway 114, or is that taking Carroll and Highland as they are now, with no additional access roads cut in? I am just trying to understand why the traffic count jumped so much higher if we have the original proposal feeding traffic back out onto the access roads. So neither model included what was approved in the original plan, so it would be helpful to know what we had the original plan included also. So you are saying that you did a traffic study on the original Council approved plan? What is wrong with what we have in place right now? Why do we have to make changes? Do they have to have this additional road access; can't they use 114 access roads? Does the developer think that they are trying to help us with alternative proposals? Did Aventerra come to the City with the proposal to put the street through? What changed between the mid- nineties when the traffic counts were x amount, what changed to make the traffic counts different? Has the development plan changed to increase traffic counts, or did we just not do traffic studies back then? But the concept of traffic will flow to the easiest route; all three of these Aventerra tracts have good access to the 114 access roads, with the possible exception of the third tract up there. Why would it not be advantageous to use the access roads of State Highway 114 to handle traffic? One thing that you just said though, it sounded like the natural flow of traffic is going to be towards 114. Let's say that we don't do anything, and that Highland and Carroll get so congested, what I would do if I worked at one of these offices would be to go towards 114 and loop around under the freeway. Intermediate traffic is not a measurement; it is a.m. and p.m. peak. What do we estimate the additional car count from these three things you are talking about? The car count coming from these three developments. What do you estimate that the number of employees and or residents that will be in these three developments? One thing that puzzles me, is that both of you all don't seem to want to talk about the original plan and what is wrong with it, you don't even have the original plan up there. The original plan contained an exit onto Carroll, so what is the point in talking about it? The point is, again, people are going to take the path of least resistance. If I can go two blocks and get down onto 114, am I going to do that, or am I going to get down through an intersection on Carroll, take a right onto Highland, go on across, go up to Carroll to another light, and then go on to another light? You say 27,000 employees. It would be businesses going in these tracts, correct? What is the proposal for your green crossing right there on Carroll, where is that route going? By putting this roadway in, you are forcing people up north in order to get them out of town, and you are interrupting our way of life with this proposal. I guess I am still struggling to catch up with you here. We are talking primarily commercial development here, not residential. I understand that, okay. If you look at Highland as being the northern boundary between the three tracts. Okay, Highland is the Southern boundary. Let's look at tract two; that is north of Highland. Is that any reason for an "employee" to go north on Carroll Road, what would be the reason for him to go any further north to get out of Southlake. If we are talking about a commercial area, there is nothing commercial further up north. What would be the reason for these "employees" to want to go north on Carroll? I can't imagine anyone wanting to go north. The point is that the extension of Dove going out to the hotel out there, I can't understand and am struggling with why can't the focus be to draw traffic back to 114, and not direct traffic to these back streets? I have been in Grapevine, Southlake, Colleyville for 40 years. The most heated debates I have seen living here are about the roads. At one time there was a pretty good east -west thoroughfare on Continental, and that was proposed to avoid the congestion that we now see on Southlake Blvd. That was turned down because it was said that Southlake Blvd. would be able to handle all of the traffic. Now we see the future and the traffic. I am not opinionated in any way on how you get the routes to go, but from what I have seen historically in the last 40 years, we are going to have to have a lot more east -west thoroughfare alternatives. 114 won't do it, just like Southlake Blvd. didn't do it. I think we are going to see the days a lot quicker than we think where we are going to have to these alternatives. Which option does the staff favor? Would this option also preserve the original access onto 114 access roads? Did your traffic study factor in the impact of the future school sites along E. Highland? What does this road cost to put in all of these items? I know that you won't build it, but what does it cost? How much would it cost to build a bridge across 114? I only ask because I have seen what they have done on 635; they could get on a bridge across the highway and get on the access roads heading west. They have done similar arrangements on 635. The developer will build this style road at a million dollars a mile, and it would they would eventually come to the City to help. Right now I would have to just say that I think that 114 can handle the traffic with bridges to get access to the east bound access roads. These maps over here depict the changes in traffic flow as a result of this development. Where do the lines come from? Does any of this data factor into what eventually happens on Dove?