|
Letter to Matt Dobberteen from Harry Nelson, September 11, 2000 |
|
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Matt Dobberteen Planning and Development Department County of Santa Barbara 123 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 Re: Alternatives for Highway 217 Dear Matt: We very much appreciate your efforts in coordinating the August 22, 2000 workshop with County Staff, COM3, RBF, ATE, HNTB, and UCSB. We all thought it was a very productive day and that we jointly made a lot of progress in identifying key issues and trying to understand one anothers' concerns. Since the workshop, we have been working with the Campus' Highway 217 Review Committee to share the information we received, to refine our analysis, and to further develop some of the ideas that came out of the workshop. Roundabouts The Committee was interested in the concept of roundabouts where Highway 217 intersects Ekwill and Fowler, which County Staff introduced as another potential alternative. However, the Committee raised concerns about safety and operational issues similar to those expressed by Public Works Director, Phillip Demery, at the workshop. As we understand it, RBF believes that the design speed of the roundabouts would be about 25 mph. The Committee expressed concern that some traffic would approach the roundabouts at much greater rates of speed, and that hazardous interactions could result between this fast-moving traffic and much slower traffic entering from Ekwill and Fowler. The roundabouts also would delay traffic going to and from UCSB. An additional concern expressed by the Committee was that the introduction of roundabouts could induce development east of Highway 217. The Committee observed that roundabouts, like intersections, would enable a direct connection across Highway 217 between Old Town Goleta and the agricultural area east of 217. This connection, even if not opened initially, could easily be opened in the future at very little cost. The Committee is also concerned that the County has not considered the potential of either intersections or roundabouts along 217 to detract from, rather than reinforce, local retail businesses by encouraging customers (including customers from the Page Hotel site and those located along Ekwill, Fowler and portions of Fairview) to by-pass Old Town Goleta in favor of retailers located elsewhere in the region. We have asked HNTB to investigate the roundabout alternative and to advise us. We also understand that RBF is conducting further investigations of safety and operational issues related to roundabouts for the County. The Alternatives Matrix Thank you for providing a copy of the Alternatives Matrix that Gerald Comati prepared during the workshop. As we expressed during the workshop, although the County Matrix was a useful device for focusing our discussion, the Matrix should not be regarded as establishing a "ranking" of the alternatives for several reasons. To begin with, the numerical "factors" listed in the Matrix were used for inconsistent purposes during the workshop discussion. Sometimes the factors were used to express the ability of an alternative to meet a proponent's stated objectives; at other times the factors were used to quantify potential environmental impacts of an alternative under the County's CEQA scoring system. In addition, the actual scores for each criteria seemed to be chosen arbitrarily. Compounding this problem was the inability of the group to reach consensus in assigning a given value to a particular category, because the viewpoints of those in attendance differed widely. The criteria headings were also poorly defined, and there was no attempt to weight the importance of each of the ranking criteria (although the criteria would likely differ in their importance towards reaching project objectives). Some criteria important to UCSB were omitted, for example, the ability to handle `surge' traffic from special events. Finally, the County's proposal for stop lights was not subjected to discussion and critique, as it should be. For all of these reasons, as we expressed at the workshop, we thought it was not meaningful to "total" the factors, as appears in the final column of the Matrix chart you faxed to UCSB on August 24th. Further Alternative Studies We understand that RBF will be conducting further studies of Alternatives A, SC1/NC3, D, UCSB 2, and UCSB 4, which are reflected in the schematic diagrams which were prepared by RBF and which you faxed to UCSB on August 24, 2000. However, the most important part of workshop was the fact that all of the County's planning and transportation consultants, including RBF, COM3, and ATE, concurred with HNTB's analysis that intersections along Highway 217 at Ekwill and Fowler would not, contrary to the County's previous assumptions, provide significant congestion relief. Indeed, as indicated by the SYNCRO model, all but two Goleta intersections will function at the same levels of service in 2015 (assuming implementation of the industrial and commercial growth elements of the Redevelopment Plan) regardless of whether intersections are added at Highway 217 or the road system remains essentially as it is today.(1) In fact, intersections on 217 are actually projected to degrade the Patterson at Hollister intersection to LOS D in the AM commute, compared to LOS C in 2015 with the existing road system. As Bret Stewart acknowledged during the workshop, the SYNCRO model is the most accurate and reliable model for projecting future traffic conditions in the area. It is also the model which, in March, County Staff directed UCSB and its consultants to use for the purpose of evaluating the County's proposal and potential alternatives. (2) The County's consultants also acknowledged that the other various alternatives under discussion were similarly neutral with respect to congestion relief. As a result of the consensus on this issue at the workshop, it was agreed that the potential for "congestion relief" should be eliminated as a consideration in evaluating alternatives at the workshop, including the proposal for signalized intersections along Highway 217. As emphasized at the workshop, our goal in participating in these collaborative workshops is to find a traffic solution that meets the needs of all stakeholders, including UCSB, the County, and Goleta Old Town residents, businesspeople, and developers. As emphasized in previous letters to the Board of Supervisors, we do not believe that the purpose of our work together is to identify one more alternative to the stoplight proposal for the County's consideration. Under CEQA, it is CTC's responsibility to identify the basic project objectives of relinquishment, to identify the proposed project and its potential environmental impacts, and to analyze reasonable range of alternatives capable of achieving most of the project objectives. In this regard, the traffic model information discussed at the workshop suggests that the planning assumptions that the County has used to formulate the stoplight proposal are in error, and that there are feasible, and perhaps superior, alternatives to intersections along Highway 217 that the County has not considered. For example, HNTB has identified potential mitigation measures at the few Goleta intersections projected to operate at LOS D in all scenarios (including the scenario of intersections along Highway 217). These mitigations could be implemented to improve levels of service to LOS C without introducing intersections on Highway 217, or even any other changes to Highway 217. In addition, the analysis suggests that there is a system of area road improvements (which do not include intersections along Highway 217 at Ekwill and Fowler) which would:
We would like to collaboratively work with the County and its consultants to develop this important proposal, which we believe could become a mutually-acceptable solution, as well as the "project" proposed in connection with the County's relinquishment request to CTC. Because this collaborative process will take some time to unfold, including additional traffic analyses, design work, and meetings, we respectfully submit that a September 22 response date proposed by the County is not realistic and in view of the important traffic information which is just coming to light, inappropriate. Conclusion We understand that the County's consultants are working on design and engineering evaluations of the various alternatives that we agreed should be evaluated at the August 22nd workshop. We look forward to the reconvening of the workshop group on September 19, to discuss resulting work-products, as well as to define the mutually-acceptable alternative discussed in the preceding section of this letter. As always, please do not hesitate to call me if you have any comments or questions. Sincerely, Professor Harry Nelson On Behalf of the UCSB Highway 217 Review Committee cc: Chancellor Henry T. Yang Allan Abshez, Esq. Mark Chaconas Gerald Comati Scott Cooper Dan Dawson (ATE) Phillip Demery Randall Hammond (HNTB) Steve Huff (RBF) Robert Kuntz Mike Ledbetter, Esq. James Murphy (HNTB) Lisa Plowman Highway 217 Review Committee |
|
 |
|
|
UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 • (805) 893-8000 Site Map • About Our Site • Privacy & Policy Info • Contact Us • Accessibility Last Modified 09-Sep-2005 |