Loading...
Item 4D 0 rter. 11/14/13 Ci.soufhlal®.bws Mail - 2030 Mobility Master Plan...myconmments to P&Z Co Wri j� l /�.[ 1s � e �h I f,�J wear SOI"d..AKE Daniel Cortez <dcortez @ci.southlake.tx.us> 2030 Mobility Master Plan...my commments to P&Z 1 message Mills Michael Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:24 PM To: dcortez@cityofsouthlake.com Daniel: The following is the text that I spoke from at P&Z meeting last week. Part of it I literally read and parts I paraphrased. Sorry for the delay in getting this info to you. Also for your back pocket I have done some research on the trails administer concept and have collected some job descriptions from other communities that have used it successfully. Mike Mills 1528 Main Street I have two comments regarding the 7 October 2013 Draft of the Mobility Master Plan: The first has to do with the relative priority ranking of two of the intercity multi use trail components and the second has to do with the policy recommendation to create an interdepartmental trails and sidewalks coordinator position on city staff. Regarding intercity trail connectivity: -The primary intercity multi -use trail Southlake has available to link with is the Cottonbelt Trail running from Grapevine to Fort Worth, paralleling SR 26 on our SE border. With the most recent construction on SR 26 about to be completed the gap in the trail including a bridge over Big Bear will be complete making the trail essentially continuous from Grapevine to Forth Worth after over a 10 year multi -city effort, yet our Southlake trail system still does not connect to this intercity route. - Instead Southlake has had a dead end multi use trail on Brumlow at the edge of the Timarron development for over 10 years, leaving a 2280' gap between our trail network and this intercity route that requires our citizens to walk, run or ride bikes for about a half mile in the traffic lanes of one of our busiest arterials. -In the draft plan before you, this gap is buried as item #205, a "tier " element, and is tied to a Brumlow widening project which is also a Tier 3 project (roadways) meaning it is unfunded for a minimum of another 7+ years. - Meanwhile a similar length trail section to connect to the Cottonbelt Trail via Kimball is listed as a Tier 1 element and is included as #4 and #5 items on the Priority List. -To me this dramatic disparity between where these two possible connections to the Cottonbelt intercity Trail are ranked /prioritized is in conflict with the prioritization criteria stated in the planning document and makes no sense logically. The plan lists 6 criteria for prioritizing trail projects which are proximity to schools, parks, existing and future trail elements, adjacency to roadway types and intercity connectivity. The Brumlow route would rank higher than the Kimball route on 5 of the 6 criteria and would be equal on the 6th. (note that logistics nor cost is documented as being a criteria for ranking and to do so would confuse the "investment" decision with the "financing" decision one is what we want to do and the other is how we would pay for it and capital budgeting should treat these as separate decisions otherwise one would do all the low cost but least desirable projects). -Not included in the criteria is the fact that the Kimball area has very little residential population and is at httpsJ/ mail. goggle. caNmail /WOP?ui =2811 219e8bdlea Meuoppt&search= inboo&th =1425359c52d8b351 1/2 11/14/13 CisoutNale.bcus MCI - 2030 Mobility Master Plan...mycomments to P&Z the edge of our city making access logistics a challenge by our citizen users while the Brumlow connection is more centrally located to our residential population and would have central connectivity to our existing and planned trail system, making usage more compelling and practical. -Given the documented criteria used by the plan and common sense, I would ask you to consider flipping the prioritization given the Kimball intercity trail connection with that of the Brumlow connection... i.e. flipping project ID "D" and "E" with project ID #205. (note that the Brumlow segment is also over 300' shorter. Secondly, having to do with Policy Recommendation AT8: I strongly and enthusiastically support the creation of a trails coordinator position to operate across departmental lines in coordinating the planning, construction, advocacy and communications, and grant writing associated with trials and sidewalks. In the plan I request that you name a responsible department rather than kicking the can down the road by leaving it TBD (my opinion is that it should be in Planning (Planning) but should have a dotted line to Public Works (construction and maintenance), Parks & Rec. (programming and productivity), the City Managers Office (Communications) and Public Safety. Having multiple bosses on the surface could be a challenge but the right person in this position could not only make great strides in moving our trails system forward both physically and in usage but by facilitating the interdepartmental coordination required would make a number of those bosses look quite good with very little time commitment on their part. There are cities in our part of the country that have used this approach very successfully in getting the job done quickly and with little or no cost. Grant money is out there and has been tapped at the state and federal levels by neighboring communities for millions while we have settled for a few hundred thousand this position should be a profit center financially while creating a first class trail system. We need to thing bigger and we need to find a dynamic, highly motivated and skilled person to act in this capacity. Based on the cost/benefits both financially and in quality of life in our community that this position can affect, I ask that you prioritize this recommendation and move forward to implement it. httpsJ /mai l.g cog le.corNmail /u/O ui= 28iIF21ge8bd1ect Weoppt& search= inboo&llp1425359c52d8b351 2/2