Mid-Hillside and Hillside East
Community Councils

Anchorage, Alaska

DeArmoun Road Issues
It looks like after years of kicking this around,
it has been knocked out of bounds.

DeArmoun Road is the southern boundary of the Mid Hillside Community Council.

Part of DeArmoun Road, from 140th to Hillside, is scheduled for work in the next couple of years. This is officially called DeArmoun Phase 2: E 140th Ave to Hillside Project STP-0001(257) 55663. As of October 9, 2003 the planning process has produced three alternatives. These alternatives have stirred emotions of people living on the road.

For official information on the DeArmoun Road plans, see http://www.hillsideroads.com/dearintro.htm .

The Project Manger is Therese Stokes at Alaska's Department of Transportation 269-0592 therese_stokes@dot.state.ak.us . The Design Consultant is Vernon Roelfs withVEI Consultants 337-3330 vernr@veiconsultants.com .

Here are a couple sites with some inspiring information on how road building decisions are made and how you can influence the result: Take Back Your Streets and the Surface Transportation Policy Project.

The information provided on this page is primarily a bunch of emails sent to Mid-Hillside Community Council President John Weddleton. These are informative but may not be accurate so use this at your own risk. The information is primarily from citizens learning what they can in a hurry to guide the process to a suitable road.

The opinions here do not necessarily reflect the prevailing opinion of the Mid Hillside or Hillside East Community Councils.

DEARMOUN ROAD DERAILED? That big curve on DeArmoun may be the least of the twists and turns this project is facing! AMATS, the group that decides how federal road money is spent in Anchorage, has taken a close look at this project. Click these links for .pdfs with minutes of the meetings in August 2004 and September 2004.

One big issue involves ranking the project in terms of safety. DOT argues that as a percentage of miles driven, the number of accidents show DeArmoun is a dangerous place. The Mayor and others point out that while the percentage may be high, the actual number of accidents are few. The money spent on DeArmoun could go to fix a road with smaller percentage of accidents per mile driven, but a higher number of accidents. There's lots of logic there.

In addition to this, Anchorage is facing constraints on the amount that can be spent and the categories of project that it can be spent on. In fact, it turns out that the high oil price we Alaskans love has caused a decrease in driving nationwide. That decreased the gas taxes collected and now there's not as much for our roads! Planning for the DeArmoun rebuild continues.

Excerpt from an email by Dan Burden (Walkable Communities, Inc) forwarded by Cheryl Richardson (Anchorage Citizens Coalition)

2/26/04

.... Our next stop was with a new group gathered in front of a new, you guessed it, very rural high school just under construction. They took me to a rural collector road that was being widened for its daily 2000 cars and to be rebuilt in anticipation of the many kids who will have to drive there, interacting with kids who will ride their bikes, skate board and walk there. They showed me the $1.5 million dollar set of plans to widen the road on a dangerous curve, talked about how the neighbors do not want an independent path, and on and on. We drove in a large van. A project engineer that took the bicycle and pedestrian course that Michael Ronkin and I offered so many years ago said she was inspired by what we had to say. We looked at a site along this road where three people have been killed already, one was a bicyclist, another a skate boarder, another no one can remember. We looked at the curve, at the base of a very long descent that got up to 13% grade on icy, dark winter roads. This new curve, we were told, "will handle speeds up to 50 mph."

When we got back to the school the new principal was there, the same two out of character for homespun Anchorage slick looking school transportation officials stood by, as did the parents, the landowners whose homes were at stake with the road widening. These people wanted their road to be rural in character, and they were defending the new road designed for higher speeds, and keeping the trees in close to the road. They asked "what do you think?"

I said, "from what you have shown me, from what I have heard you say I think there are some conflicted values here … you are about to make a big mistake. You are taking the youngest, most inexperienced drivers in a land where there are to be many cold, icy months of dark as these kids will go to and from school, mixing them with inexperienced, over confident children who are walking, bicycling without adequate means, designing a faster road that will still have curves and hills, crest vertical and horizontal sight issues, and where you will need to straighten the alignment of many intersecting streets and then hope that people will yield at these high speeds to children trying to get across the street. I looked around to see if folks were with me. They were. I added, "well what about the moose?" You love moose, right, and you do not want them to go away … and they tend to stand out in your roads at the darkest possible time, around the darkest corners, and so far you have not convinced them to wear reflective vests. And when a 1500 pound car going 40 mph hits a 1500 pound moose designed to go through the windscreen of a car, it is not a pretty picture." Of course I did not say that … I was not quick enough on my feet. But if I had they would have understood, and known, and defended keeping the rural character and the moose and keeping the children safe. The point is we cannot design a new road in the midst of the cold, wintery, dark north woods, interact with children trying to get to school using the same high speed road designs that are used to solve simple problems in other parts of the lower 48, where there is less ice, cold, snow, darkness and moose. This place is, I hate to use the term in mixed company, context sensitive.

So I offered an alternative. Do not build a faster road. Instead make your investment in a road that will slow everyone down a bit. This is the far end of a rural connector. You do not want nor need speed out here where you are trying to defend the natural environment. There are moose out here, standing in your roads at odd moments of dark. They do not wear reflective vests. When people in cars hit them it is not a pretty picture. You want something that preserves the woods, the children, the young drivers and the moose you love so much. You need a very different set of engineering tools. So, I drew some alternatives. And I suggested it was time to set aside the $1.5 million dollar study, design a much cheaper road that was more appropriate for their real needs and true values. We then went to another destination. And today we take in three more. Tomorrow I go on to Homer. The scene will repeat itself. And I will do this for at least two more years, and some say, until the day that I die.

........

MID HILLSIDE CC RESOLUTION REGARDING DeARMOUN ROAD
The Alaska Department of Transportation held a meeting on October 9 to present their alternatives, with a "preferred alternative," for developing this road.

This was a well attended meeting with a significant proportion skeptical of the analysis and the ultimate plan. There was a push to get back on the list a plan to develop the road along its existing alignment and within the existing Right of Way. The crowd was told that the plan could be added if local Community Councils approved resolutions requesting this for AMATS (The committee that ranks and authorizes road work in Anchorage.)

To accomodate this, the DOT agreed to extend the comment period to allow the CCs time to meet and craft the resolutions.

At our November 20 meeting, we developed a resolution regarding the DeArmoun Rd project. That is posted on our Resolutions page.

December 10, 2003 

Therese Stokes, P.E., Project Manager
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
4111 Aviation Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska  99519

Dear Ms. Stokes, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DeArmoun Road Project. The Anchorage School District has a number of buses that use DeArmoun Road on a daily basis. I have enclosed maps indicating the location of school bus stops in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the DeArmoun Road project.  I have also enclosed the ASD “Requirements for School Bus Route Extensions” and the “Requirements for Location of School Bus Stops.” 

 We attempt to locate school bus stops in the safest possible locations. When we evaluate potential school bus stops we consider the following:

·        Site Distance - on highways where the speed limit is forty (40) miles per hour or more, we need visibility of at least 500 feet. 

·        Waiting area - areas which have a safe location off the roadway for students to wait for the bus are preferable.

·        Grade at bus stops - school bus stops should be located on flat ground.  During the winter months it is difficult for children to board and exit the bus when parked on a slope.  Locating a school bus stop on a slope increases the potential for a child to slip and fall under the school bus. Buses would also have a difficult time stopping and starting at school bus stops located on a grade. 

·        Street lights - wherever possible school bus stops will be located in close proximity to a street light.

 The Anchorage School District has been providing school bus service on DeArmoun Road for many years.  Some of the bus stops along DeArmoun Road do not meet current the criteria for location of school bus stops. (The criteria was established in the mid 1990’s.) In many cases we were faced with the choice of establishing a bus stop in a less than desirable location or having students walk along DeArmoun Road to reach another school bus stop.  It is my hope that the issues listed above can be addressed in the design of the new road. 

 We would also like to see separated walkways constructed on both sides of DeArmoun Road the full length of the project.  Construction of separated walkways will allow students to walk to both Rabbit Creek Elementary and the New South Anchorage High School.   Walkways also provide a safe place off the roadway for students to wait for the school bus. 

 Improved site distance and reduction of grades in Phase 2 of the project area, especially at school bus stops will help improve safety for school bus operations. DeArmoun Road, like other steep Hillside roads, presents unique operating challenges for us.  Any reduction in the grade on long stretches of the road will be a positive improvement. It is not uncommon for school buses to leave the roadway during the winter months, sometimes buses lose traction on steep grades, but in other cases school bus drivers are attempting to avoid collisions with motorists who have lost control of their vehicles.  Designers should also be careful to provide recovery area in the event that vehicles lose traction. Steep embankments along the edges of the road should be avoided.  

 We would also like to see the addition of pullouts at several locations along DeArmoun Road.  Pullouts would allow school buses to pull out of the traffic lane to allow motorists to pass buses when a line of cars forms behind the school bus.  Some motorists get impatient following buses and make bad choices when passing.  Regularly spaced pullouts will allow buses to get off the road and let cars pass safely.  

 If you have questions please feel free to contact me at the number listed above.

 Sincerely,
Steven Kalmes
Director, Transportation Services
cc:       Ray Amsden, Carol Comeau, Marty Elkins, Linda Schwald, George Vakalis

For the full letter with attachments, click here.

The following is an email newsletter from Ann and Mike Flister.

January 7, 2004

Important Dates: 

Thurs. Jan. 8, 2004,  1-3 PM:  AMATS Policy Committee Meeting, Mayor's Conference Room
Thurs. Jan. 8, 2004, 7:30 PM:  Rabbit Creek Community Council monthly meeting and annual board elections @ Rabbit Creek Road and Snowshoe Lane
Tues. Jan. 20, 2004, 7-9 PM:  South Anchorage High School Public Forum (held at Service High School Little Theater.)

Project Update

Happy New Year to all!  It has been a while since the last general update on DeArmoun Road Phase 2. So much was happening very quickly with the project during November and December that it was difficult to keep up with it all, and to communicate in a timely fashion.

ADOT&PF

Public comment period was supposed to officially close on December 20.  It appears that the comments posted on the DeArmoun "what others are saying" page of the www.hillsideroads.com website have not been updated since early December and many of the comments received late in the period have yet to be posted.

We and several other DeArmoun property owners, through our attorney Jeff Parker, wrote to the Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration requesting that the comment period for the DeArmoun Phase 2 Draft Design Study Report not be closed until the categorical exclusion (environmental document) has been re-evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act, providing the public with an up-to-date environmental document before the close of the comment period and helping to fulfill federal and state statutory requirements for an effective public involvement process and NEPA requirements for putting high quality information before the public, other agencies, and decision makers..  This letter points out reasons why it is likely that FHWA and ADOT&PF will be unable to re-affirm a categorical exclusion, suggests that the project may need to be re-scored by AMATS specific to cost-benefits and public support, and points out potential liability concerns presented by the road and bike path, as designed.

There has been no response yet from either agency to this correspondence.

Municipality of Anchorage

Thanks to YOUR efforts, the public, in making your concerns heard by our local Assembly and Mayor, and thanks especially to Jeff Parker, who as a concerned citizen took the extra step to testify at the December 16 -17 Assembly meeting and to circulate copies of his above referenced letter, the Anchorage Assembly saw fit to recommend eliminating the $3M allocated for 2004 right of way acquisition from the 2004-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). They recommended moving some of the money to the Dowling Road construction project, and the remainder to a Pavement Rehabilitation Program, which we understand is area wide.  The Assembly recommended leaving $500,000 in the DeArmoun project for 2004, designated for design/utilities, with the understanding this will allow completion of the environmental document and additional work on the design. Construction funding for 2006-07 remains intact.

AMATS

On December 4, at least a dozen DeArmoun area residents attended the Policy Committee meeting and made a public statement, submitting a petition signed by nearly 250 people asking the project be re-scoped and designed with appropriate public involvement and addressing public concerns. The group further asked AMATS to implement policies requiring early and active public notice of transportation projects, and suggested that right of way funding in 2004 is not justified until these concerns are addressed. 

At its December 19 Policy Committee Meeting, AMATS voted in line with the Assembly's recommendation with regard to DeArmoun Phase 2 funding.  As of today, we have not seen the revised TIP, but we trust that it will be available at the January 8 AMATS meeting.

At this same meeting, at the urging of State Senator Ben Stevens, AMATS agreed to provide a breakdown of costs associated with the trails in each of the road projects.

Anchorage School District

ASD Transportation Director Steve Kalmes wrote a letter to ADOT&PF regarding DeArmoun Phase 2 on December 11. This letter was copied to the Rabbit Creek Community Council immediately before their December vote on a DeArmoun resolution, but not to the homeowners who had been requesting same for three months.  The ASD favors the current preferred alternative (443R), according to this letter, based on the assumption it will "straighten the curve" and provide safe walking paths for school children. (On 1/9/04 Ann sent a correction to this statement. Be sure to see the ASD's letter regarding DeArmoun Rd.) It goes on to provide some general guidance on ASD preferences for safe roads, essentially that the wider, flatter, and straighter, the better.  They would also like to see bus pullouts, wider intersections and paths on both sides of the road from top to bottom.  One resident at the Council meeting that evening commented that this pretty much rules out the entire Hillside and perhaps the ASD should hire the Air Force to drop a thermonuclear device on Bear Valley as being the most efficient way to make Hillside conform!

ASD has not yet been able to produce an accident report comparing DeArmoun to other Hillside Roads, also requested by the community since September.  As you now know, school bus safety was one of the concerns brought to AMATS by Dick Tremaine when recommending the road realignment without first notifying the neighborhood. 

However, ASD Superintendent Carol Comeau, when reached in mid-December, promised to ask ASD Transportation Department to research and produce accident information.

Community Councils

We'd like to extend special thanks to Huffman-O'Malley, Mid-Hillside, and Ocean View/Old Seward Community Councils for proactively inviting affected residents to discuss and collaborate on resolutions as well as providing a website (Mid-Hillside) posting of relevant discussion.

Other thanks

Gratitude is in order for State Rep. Bob Lynn (District 31) and his staff, especially Tom Moffatt, for assisting the public with obtaining information and facilitating communication with the Muni and  ADOT/PF on this issue.  Bob has truly given new meaning to the term "public servant" as he and his staff stayed on top of the issue and fielded phone calls from constituents night and day. We believe legislators are back in Juneau next week; you can contact him for further information or to say thanks at Representative_Bob_Lynn@legis.state.ak.us.

What next?

Support and vote for Assembly candidates who represent their community:  Please remember that Municipal elections are coming up in April, including one South Anchorage Assembly seat. This is a great time to get out those checkbooks and support candidates who will work for responsible government spending and private property rights.

Stay Informed:  Do NOT become complacent about this road project. As we have learned, AMATS has the ability to shuffle money between projects at any time. It has and will continue to do so if the public does not stay on top of them.  We also know that if not forced to do otherwise, the project can move to final design and the categorical exclusion rubber-stamped without further public review.  For the sake of your neighborhood, your property, and your taxes, YOU CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. 

This project is still alive and it remains to be seen what it will look like when a final design is released.  It will take an ongoing effort by active, involved citizens to see to it that safety and cost benefit concerns are addressed, and we already know that the public notification process leaves much to be desired.

Please do yourselves a favor and contact Tana Klunder at the Municipality of Anchorage Traffic Planning Department to get on the email list for automatic AMATS meeting notices and agendas.  She can be reached at KlunderTG@ci.anchorage.ak.us.  Follow the Traffic Planning Department links at www.muni.org to find additional AMATS information and meeting minutes.

DeArmoun Phase 1 (Westwind Dr. to E. 140^th Ave.) is not affected by the December AMATS action and proceeds as scheduled and with its current funding. Environmental issues arising from work already done on Phase 1 will depend on the outcome of the re-evaluation of the Categorical Exclusion, which covered both phases of DeArmoun. Rabbit Creek Community Council is considering another resolution to request an additional pathway on the South side of Phase 1 from Elmore Road to E. 140^th, pending input from neighbors. 

Web Developer?  If you have the technical expertise and ability to develop and host a web site on this project, please speak up. There are other active road web sites, initiated by concerned citizens, that appear to be helpful in keeping the public up to date. If a road project ever needed its own website, it's DeArmoun Road.

If you are interested in visiting other web sites, check out the following:

Strawberry Road   http://www.geocities.com/sandlakecc3/strawberryrd/srcreport.html
Northwood Extension:  http://stoptheroad.org/

Here's hoping for a brighter future in the coming year. One silver lining in this issue has been the opportunity to meet SO MANY of our neighbors and people who have become involved from across the city.  We are blessed to have so many caring, intelligent, and truly great people living in this area who want to keep their community safe and livable and who have put in time and hard work to back up those beliefs.  Please keep up the great work, and feel free to contact us any time as new information arises.  We'll try to keep you informed.

Ann & Mike Flister
Tel. 344-4948
aflister@gci.net

The following was emailed 12/15/03

November 30,2003
Representatives of the Citizenry:

During the past few weeks we have learned a great deal about process and procedure for absconding with individual properties.  In September of 2003 we received a notification that the Dearmoun Rd., Phase II project had been designed and a meeting was to be held on October 9^th at Rabbit Creek School.  We attended that meeting finding it shocking that no one had disclosed the proposal to property owners until this time.  We purchased our property in 1995 and at no time prior to the fall of 2003 received notice of plans impacting our property.  We inquired why no one had ever contacted property owners regarding this issue; why disclosure laws were not followed?  We were told that DOT is sensitive to Disclosure laws.  Does this mean our state and local representatives are exempt from the law?  After attending several other meetings, we were appalled at the disregard for informing and including the public.

This project had origin back in 1990 (we have found out as early as 1985) and again in 1997. After investigating, we found there were meetings, attended only by a few individuals (one had 6 individuals).  This small minority made a determination to take the property of others for a small collective want.  As of the writing of this letter an entire home built as recently as 2001 will be history if this continues.  Again, we, as well as others who purchased property or live in the impact area, never received a notice of any kind while the integrity of our homes were being placed in jeopardy. 

 In 1998 when the aforementioned meetings were taking place a waiver, if you will, allowed many normal procedures to be by-passed.  The categorical exclusion enabled planners to bypass an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Study by asserting, among other things, that there would be no residential or commercial displacements, and that the project would not result in “substantial changes in the vertical or horizontal alignment or increase the number of through lanes adjacent to a noise sensitive land use or the project itself crease a noise impact.” Then in the fall of 2003, still under the categorical exclusion, homes are being destroyed and the complete environment that had made DeArmoun attractive to property owners will be demolished.  It is ours as well as the belief of others’ that this exclusion was nothing more than a way to eliminate knowledge and speed up the process of land acquisition.

 A few days ago another bitter piece of information was bestowed on the property owners.  Yes, taxes will be raised to support user fees for trails we do not want.   Who is paying those taxes and tax increases? 

 When trying to understand what is taking place and where we need to go to halt this process, it has been a series of political errors  (deliberate or not?)  and individuals who continue to point fingers, yet no one accepts responsibility for allowing this travesty.  This is a debilitating disease of political injustice.  Our purpose in bringing this to your attention is to elicit your support in stopping this ill-founded plan immediately.  As community and individual taxpayers, we feel the political and individual agendas need to be set aside. Disclosure laws are in place and those need to be followed.   The categorical exclusion determination misrepresents the impact imposed in the design.  It is our understanding that Governor Murkowski has stated there will be no state monies for this project.  Therefore, whose dollars are being allocated?  At a time of economic downturn, the following bullets establish just a few issues that pose a concern to everyone in Anchorage and the State of Alaska

Ø      Taxes

We, the taxpayers are experiencing difficulty in supporting the present services, including fireman, policeman and general safety and yet, we are going to put in a super highway and trail system? 

We have 128 miles of existing trails at present and limited funds to maintain them. With the decrease in Parks and Recreation funding how can an economical plan include more trails? Maintaining trails/paying taxes for something used minimally for approx 4 months of the year.

Paying annual taxes for property that has been scheduled for acquisition for how many years (10-15-20)?            What will the compensation be for this ?

Ø      Raising roads and speed

The proposals increase speed on DeArmoun to 50, and at the curve 35.  At present the speed is 40 and 25.  Up the speed, less danger?  There is plenty of Nation wide documentation demonstrating this thinking and design is an antiquated fallacy. (We would be happy to supply documentation). Roads aren’t maintained now. * If you want to minimize accidents – get the city to sand DeArmoun when it needs it.

 An accident quota has been used to verify this move.  However, when examining the reports, the rationale is not viable.  Here is just one example of the 18 accidents in a 10 year period. 40% of the recorded accidents have been either at intersections (at the end and beginning of this stretch, not on the road itself) or from moose (this will not change).

 Ø      Disclosure Laws: 

If we placed our property up for sale, as of September 18, 2003, we have to disclose the there is a plan to acquire our property for this project. However, no title company, no real estate person, no government was forced to disclose this information even though, it has been in plans for many years.

How many people would be living on this street had the proper channels and laws been followed and they knew what a few individuals have in mind for their property? Who would purchase a home for the lot, the environment and the rural ambiance knowing it would be taken away.  

We (Anchorage Citizens) refuse to be duped by our local politicians, as well as their state conspirators in accessing our property and manipulating funds to pay for a few individual wants.  The disregard for human dignity and respect is underway in other projects throughout the Anchorage bowl. Faith in the law and the political process is fast waning.  Halt the project, listen to the people, and do not allow these tactics to continue.

Sincerely,
Robert and Julie Maker
POB 222155
Anch.Ak.  99522 

I believe an insightful scribe once wrote: 'No Community Council is an island." The things we do are watched by others in a variety of contexts. The following is an email from a group opposed to the Southern Extension of the Coastal Trail and John Weddleton's response.

12/2/03

The "draft" resolution had all options included so we'd have a way to make sure all sides were heard in the short time we had to come up with a resolution. The numerous mutually inconsistent points should have made clear it was not a final statement. For every point someone could like, there was an opposite to hate. (Maybe that was the perfect Resolution!?)

The implication that Bjarne and I have unilateral control over a COMMUNITY Council resolution is incorrect. I am just one vote on the council. (I bring the drinks and cookies, too, but there's no indication that sways any votes my way.)

The folks who live along DeArmoun aren't "Shut the project down NIMBYs." I haven't heard anyone say "do nothing" to DeArmoun Road. Most folks share DOT's goal of making the road safer. The issue is the extent of the work needed to get there. It appears that the generally constructive and informed attitude of the neighborhood has motivated DOT to work diligently to accomodate. Opponents of the Coastal Trail might take note of that.

The writer is correct that I am concerned about property rights. I don't like the government mucking around with people's personal property and I think it's critical that people get very fair compensation when their property is taken. At the same time, I know that we drive over the memory of entire swaths of neighborhoods when we travel on Minnesotta, New Seward Highway, the Glenn .... all of our favorite roads. If we dish it out to others, we should be prepared to eat the same meal. No irony there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week of November 23, 2003: Who are the NIMBY’s now?

A joint Huffman/Mid-Hillside Community Council meeting was held November 20th. The DeArmoun Road engineers were there along with DOT's Mike Scott. Their presentation was informative and it seems as though these engineers are attempting to accommodate the public's concerns. John Weddleton, President of Mid-Hillside CC, with Bjarne Holm (A.K.A. FOCT Webmaster) crafted a Mid-Hillside draft resolution on DeArmoun Phase 2 project. To review a copy of the draft resolution click here.

The irony of this resolution is that Weddleton & Holm have identified the same concerns on property rights, etc. with the DeArmoun trail project that SARTA identified for the South Coastal Trail Extension. Furthermore, they don't want it in their neighborhood!

email received 11/20/03
From: Ann Flister

To John Weddleton, Mid-Hillside Community Council:

Once again, thanks for maintaining a forum for info in the Dearmoun Road
project. just noticed Mr. Holland's posting on your website dated Nov. 7 and have to respond. He continues to perpetuate several myths that cannot go unchallenged.

1. That the trail would not be reason for taking the house. Mr. Holland
here fails to acknowledge several facts surrounding this issue. First, that
the design that realigns the curve through my property is not necessary and
was ruled out in the preliminary engineering report years ago. Accident for
the existing road do not demonstrate a compelling need for the changes now
proposed on this $14 million Phase 2 project, nor do the new designs
adequately address how the accident experience will improve, if at all, with
the new design.

It is also a fact, according to DOT, that the 443R alignment which goes
through my house is the ONLY one that allows for a bike path underpass to
connect to the additional trail on the south side from Currin to 140th,
something that Rabbit Creek community council has apparently been advocating
for years, despite being told by DOT that a pedestrian underpass or overpass
was not needed, was too costly, would require changing the scope of the
project, and would require more right of way.

2. but the real tragedy in this project is letting the Fislers build their
house in the first place - that should never happen again.... First, my name
is Flister--No, the real tragedy here is that the community was told that
the road was performing just fine, the traffic accident history and cost did
not justify changing the alignment and DOT had no plans to realign the
curve. Yet their council continued to push for a realignment, without a
mandate of South Anchorage residents or without themselves notifying
affected property owners or taxpayers citywide. Mr. Holland makes some good
points about the need for a statutory public process, but tries to absolve
community councils of that responsibility.

It is one thing for a community council to choose not to get involved or to
sound the alarm about potential harm to a neighborhood if it comes to their
atttention. Yet, it is quite another matter if a community council is
actively ADVOCATING for that harm, to the point of surreptitiously
requesting a change of scope to the project, not once but TWICE. They have
CREATED a situation for which they better darn well take responsibility.
Mr. Holland's statement here also ignores the question of whether the curve
needs to be changed at all, ignores the fact that there are numerous design
options not yet presented that might achieve BETTER results without
impacting properties, or that could utilize the 1+ acre McCabe Tract A lot
closer to the curve, which is believed to be FOR SALE. His point that this
should never happen again is well taken.

3. I also confirmed after the meeting with Vern that NO houses are being
taken as a result of the trail, in ANY option... Taking houses is a result
of the curve straightening only - not the trail. Oh, the "STRAIGHTEN THE
CURVE" myth again. This is the "sexy" aspect of this project that gets
politicians excited and special interest people something to hang their hat
on, but has no basis in reality. The 443R design that DOT presented as their
recommended alternative on Oct 9, would NOT straighten the curve. None of
their options would straighten the curve because the road is built on the
hillside and follows the natural terrain of the hillside. If engineers
really wanted to straighten the curve, then it would have to go through a
municipal park and some BLM tract, near as I can tell from the maps. I don't
see him advocating for that. The proposed curve with the 443 radius would
simply give it similar geometrics, though a bit sharper curve, as the one at
Hillside and Abbott Road near Hilltop Ski Area, complete with the higher
speed design and guard rails. And we all know that that curve is not
accident-free!

It's a sad fact that many road projects get funded and promoted not because
of a need based in science but because of a popularity contest--an idea that
might have further some campaign contributor's motives or might look good
for a politician wanting something cool to add to his political resume.
4. The trail does result in taking some land for additional ROW but the
person that reacted to my support for the trail by saying the trail wasn't
worth loosing houses was wrong. If DOT is successful, we'll see the trail
have little impact at all on the ROW since most of it can be built in the
utility easement needed away if enough pressure can be put on the utility
companies. That's a big IF for those of us who might have to give up "some
land" for a trail, coming from someone who probably doesn't live on the
road. That's also a tall order for a trail that we all know is purely
recreational in purpose, not driven by local pedestrian needs--of which
there are virtually none on DeArmoun above 140th Ave. I suspect what we
have here is the tail wagging the dog. Where once many of us were open to
the idea of a trail, pathway, or whatever you want to call it--the trail
advocates have now convinced us that compromise, for them, is not an option
and they are not to be trusted.

There is some merit to Mr. Holland's suggestions for public process; it's
sorely needed. However, he seems to think that an ideal "committee" would
have politicians and community council folks outnumbering people who
actually live on and use the road. In other words, the regular folks who
have to live with the result and pay for it to boot.

That is just plain wrong and that is why we have a $22M+ grandiose, land-grabbing trail driving
a road project to serve a handful of socialists who seem obsessed with
connecting the municipal trail system at all costs--to the point of
destroying people's lives and homes and families, and their property values.
All so that we can pay MORE PROPERTY TAXES to maintain a recreational
facility for a couple of people in spandex.

I have documents supporting all of my comments, and more, for anyone who
cares and would like to see them.
Ann Flister (speaking for myself, not my husband ) / 5021 Currin Circle /
Anchorage AK / 344-4948

*********

November 19, 2003
Re: DeArmoun Rd. Project Phase II

To Whom It May Concern:

Due to prior commitments I will not be able to attend the Nov. 20th meeting concerning the DeArmoun Road project. I would like my comments included in the public record of the meeting.

I have been driving DeArmoun Road from Hillside to the Seward Hwy. since 1983. It is a poorly engineered road which was built decades ago for a truly rural hillside. Even when driven with the utmost caution it remains a dangerous road.

I fully support Phase 2 improvements to DeArmoun, including wider road surface,paved shoulders and reconstruction of the curve above Currin Circle. Wider brush clearance will also help limit moose-vehicle collisions.

I think a vocal minority has commandeered the public meeting process. Most of the people I know on the upper hillside want to see Phase 2 built. I urge the State to do the greatest good for greatest amount of people and enact Phase 2. It will not only give us a good road today, but will benefit many Alaskans for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Steve Connelly
11860 Nebesna Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99507

From: Therese Stokes
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:25 PM
To: A. Flister
Subject: Re: Dearmoun Phase 2 questions

Ann,
Here are answers to more of your questions.

"A. Flister" wrote:
Dear Ms. Stokes,There were still a couple of questions on which I had not heard back from you, plus some additional questions about Dearmoun Phase 2.1. Total estimated cost for Dearmoun Reconstruction, Phase 1 and 2 COMBINED? (You gave me Phase 2 figures--thanks)

Cost estimates for Phase 1 are:
Design, ROW Engineering, Utility Relocation Agreements: $1,340,000
ROW Appraisals & Acquisition: $945,000
Utility Relocation: $2,672,547
Construction: $4,849,281

Current cost estimates for Phase 2 are:
Design, ROW Engineering, Utility Relocation Agreements: $1,978,000
ROW Appraisals & Acquisition: $3,000,000
Utility Relocation: $2,025,000
Construction: $5,750,000

2. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic studies/data for Dearmoun from E. 140th to Hillside Drive?

DOT has not performed formal studies other than a pedestrian gap study at E. 140th to determine if sufficient length gaps were available for pedestrians to cross. During speed studies, pedestrians have been observed and noted. The Anchorage Area Trails Plan contains study information for the Anchorage Bowl.

3. Radius, grade, traffic load, pavement width and accident data for the curve at Hillside and Abbott near Hilltop Ski Area?

Radius: 475 feet
Grade: 10.3%
Average Annual Daily Traffic and Accidents (most recent available data)
2000 AADT: 2331 Accidents: 2
2001 AADT: 2456 Accidents: 4
2002 AADT: 2078 Data not yet available.

4. Comparable state road(s) curves having similar radius, grade, width and traffic load as the proposed Dearmoun Phase 2 443R alternative?

Good question, but one that will require research. We can research curves, their geometrics, and traffic volumes as time permits. We have as-built plans of state roads available for viewing and copying here in our office.

New questions:1. One of the rationales for the curve realignment was the belief by some that many more accidents than shown in the studies "go unreported." My understanding is that the towing companies who work this area will not pull vehicles out of the ditch along this curve without APD flagging the upper and lower ends of the curve for traffic control during the tow. How can accidents go unreported if this is the case?

We use only reported accidents in our analyses. We don't know how many go unreported, but we have received comments from people that have been involved in, witnessed, and towed errant vehicles from accidents that were not reported to APD or Troopers. This information is not used in the accident analysis, but public comments regarding safety merit mention in the DSR narrative. APD said that they assist in traffic control if a towing company makes a request.

2. The primary reason, it appears, for the Anchorage Assembly and AMATS changing the priority, funding, and scope of the Dearmoun Road (in regards to the Currin curve realignment) on June 1, 2000, was according to testimony, because "many times school buses fall off the road," and ".... one side of the curve has a drop of several hundred feet," and also referenced it is as a "hairpin curve."Can you confirm, deny or otherwise address these specific claims with factual data? How many school bus accidents have there been over what period of time? What type and how many comments has ADOT&PF received from the Anchorage School District?
Is there a drop of several hundred feet? And what is the technical definition of a hairpin curve?

I do not know the source of the above statements, and therefore cannot comment on them. Factual geometric and topographic data is contained in the draft DSR.

There are no reported school bus accidents within the period of study of the 3R accident analysis. According to ASD, school buses periodically go off the roadway in the segment of the horizontal curve near Currin Circle and require towing, though they are not reported. These occurrences are generally avoidance maneuvers and involve only the bus. ASD has asked to be put on record in support of straightening the horizontal curve near Currin Circle and reducing the grade of the hill above the curve to improve school bus operational safety. They consider this a difficult segment of roadway for school buses.

3. Why was the road station corresponding approximately with our lot chosen for the alternate additive for the separated pedestrian crossing to connect with the optional south side trail? (As opposed to some other place along the road).

The roadway station of the separated pedestrian crossing was chosen at the closest location to E. 140th where the fill height was adequate to accommodate the pipe height and not cause adverse impacts to drainage.

4. Status of right of way acquisitions on Phase 1 -- all are settled?

All acquisitions were negotiated successfully, with no condemnations.

5. We understand there was a lawsuit from an individual against the State in approximately 1999 regarding the curve at Currin Circle. Can you provide any information on that case? Case number/name? Did the State prevail? Any relevant expert witness (engineering) testimony that you can share?

I was not involved in the case. I obtained the case number from the Attorney General. The answers you seek should be available in the court transcripts.

3AN-97-3156 Civil, Wells v. State

November 8, 2003
A petition is being circulated by some of the residents living on DeArmoun Road. To download a Word file with the petition Right Click this link DeArmoun Petition.
NOTE: The information provided and the petition are not a product of the Mid Hillside or Hillside East Community Councils and may not reflect the prevailing opinion in the area.

Two steps are needed:

1. The RCCC needs a committee structure that be more involved in these projects over time - our current board must react to too many different issues each month.  A land use committee is certainly needed and perhaps a transportation committee should be formed around the DeArmoun road project and long term work with LRSA, AMATS, DOT... on projects.  A committee structure insures broader involvement and avoids overloading one person.  Over time the committee can learn the processes and tricks, and advocate for projects and participation, letting the councils know when something is coming up and offering recommendations.

 2. A resolution is needed by the Muni establishing  recommendation to AMATS policy committee regarding project citizen involvement roles and responsibilities.  The amount of time and energy spent getting this clarified has exacerbated all of the issues and forced people into a mode of trying to kill the project instead of trying to learn the facts, assess the options, and offer informed opinions.  The resolution needs to say:

 #1 Any AMATS funded project will have a Citizens advisory committee for the life of the project while funded composed of 2 reps for each affected community council, 2 reps of directly affected residents, the DOT project manager, and Muni assembly reps, +?? Their responsibility is to review the technical and process elements of the project and maintain an ongoing flow of information to and from the councils on project status and important decisions and milestones in order to insure the councils and the area residents are aware of current developments and opportunities to support or comment on options.  Their role is meet on a regular basis - at least twice a year - much more during active planning and construction and become citizen experts on the project and help DOT engineers and consults with assessing issues and options, reviewing plans, and making recommendations to the project manager on technical and process elements of the plan emphasizing citizen involvement and ownership in the project.  When a project is finished it should be the community's project... not the agency that built it.

 #2 Any AMATS funded project must have a AMATS approved citizen involvement process created and followed.  A copy of the process should be sent to the councils and updated with current timelines at least once a year.  In most cases this will start with a standard document - but the first step will be to engage the city's councils in developing a template - we need one.

 #3 No building permits will be issued for property along an AMATS project without AMATS review and approval and a database of projects will be maintained for investigation by home owners and potential home owners that warns them of potential impacts.  The muni can not accept responsibility for the impact on properties listed so the wording has to be careful - but the real tragedy in this project is letting the Fislers build their house in the first place - that should never happen again - for their sake and the sake of the community that will be shackled with a substandard road design for 20+ years only because no one would tell them that a major road project was planned.

Therese's recap tonight of comments received and the positive comments about the citizens group working on Strawberry reinforce the importance of these two elements in my version of the resolution - I don't think they are confrontational recommendations and tonight's meeting validated the importance of both in the process. I think they need to be put back in.

I also confirmed after the meeting with Vern that NO houses are being taken as a result of the trail, in ANY option... Taking houses is a result of the curve straightening only - not the trail.  The trail does result in taking some land for additional ROW but the person that reacted to my support for the trail by saying the trail wasn't worth loosing houses was wrong.  If DOT is successful, we'll see the trail have little impact at all on the ROW since most of it can be built in the utility easement needed away if enough pressure can be put on the utility companies.

H. R. "Ky" Holland
kyholland@orst.edu

From: Jeanne McQueary [mailto:strawberryroadcommittee@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 3:13 PM
 Subject: Food For Thought - Take Back Your Streets

Excerpt from CLF:  TAKE BACK YOUR STREETS

Streets and roads are important public spaces.  They determine whether a community looks scenic or bleak to drivers and others passing through.  They are used for a variety of purposes besides driving - at least in towns and cities that people find appealing.  There is no well-liked rural area whose roads are not scenic, and no well-liked city or town without street life.  And the importance of scenery and street life is not confined to a few "quaint" places in each state or region:  for most of us, streets and roads are places where we walk our dogs, take a stroll, jog and let children walk or bike.

Streets and roads also have to serve multiple transportation uses.  They are relied on by pedestrians, including young and elderly, bicyclists and sometimes by people in motorized vehicles other than cars or trucks, such as electric wheelchairs or motor scooters.  Yet, until very recently,, the needs of motorists alone determined what projects transportation agencies thought up and how they designed those projects.  As James Howard Kunstler puts it in The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-made Landscape,

'The traffic engineer is not concerned about the pedestrians.  His mission is to make sure that wheeled vehicles are happy.  What he deems to be ultrasafe for dirvers can be dangerous for pedestrians who share the street with cars.  Anybody knows that a child of eight walking home from school at 3:00 in the afternoon uses a street differently from a 46 year old carpet cleaner in a panel truck."

After decades of preoccupation with the needs of the carpet cleaner, it's time to rethink streets and roads with the needs of the 8 yr old in mind.

All these realities have led many communities to adopt an approach to road and street design and traffic management that puts communities first and TRAFFIC SECOND.  The best statement of what a community sensitive approach means appears in a 1980 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report, State of the Art: Residential Traffic Management.  The report states the primary goal of street improvement and traffic management as: "to significantly improve the environmental conditions of as many residents as possible, especially those most vulnerable to traffic impacts.  There are seven subgoals:

      Reduction of traffic accidents
     Safety and convenience for pedestrians and other non-motorists
     Safety for children at play
     Elimination of noise and pollution
     Improved scenery
     Neighborhood revitalization and stability
     Reduction in crime

From: Jeanne McQueary [mailto:strawberryroadcommittee@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 1:33 PM
Subject: Federal Initiatives in New Jersey 

Federal Initiatives

an except from Flexible Design of New Jersey's Main Streets, prepared by the

Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute 
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
for the New Jersey Department of Transportation

Sensitivity to community context would be difficult without recent changes in federal law.  Beginning with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and continuing with the National Highway System Act (NHS Act) of 1995 and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998, the US Highway code now allows, and even encourages, a certain degree of flexibility in highway design.

Before 1991, all roads built in the U.S. and paid for even in part with federal funds had to meet guidelines in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets (the "Green Book").  If officials wanted to do something different, their only options were to seek design exceptions from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or to build entirely with state and local funds.

ISTEA changed all that by creating a National Highway System (NHS) of Interstate and other high-performance highways, and a larger system of non-NHS highways eligible for federal funding under the newly established Surface Transportation Program.  For roads not on the NHS, ISTEA gave states latitude to adopt their own design, safety, and construction standards.  The NHS Act provided that even NHS highways (other than Interstates) could by designed with due consideration for "environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community and preservations" impacts.  In 1997 the FHWA published "Flexibility in Highway Design", which forcefully argues for flexible design within AASHTO guidelines.  TEA-21 added language requiring highway projects to conform to local needs and allowing projects to be designed for desired rather than relevant federal laws and initiatives.

This report has 3 chapters.  Chapter 1 is Introduction and Chapter 2 Findings and Recommendations is the heart of the report.  The first section on proactive roadway design suggests changes in the design process in increase context sensitivity.  The second section makes the case for reclassification of de-designation of certain state highway segments now functioning as local main streets.  The third section recommends changes in design exceptions policies to promote context sensitiveity and pedestrian safety.  The fourth section proposes new design standards for main streets.  The fifth section recommends the incorporation of traffic calming guidance into the RDM to expand the design options available.  The last section contains a conflicts-solutions matrix offering practical solutions to conflicts between DOT standards and local objectives.

Chapter 3 contains local and regional case studies.  There are four studies of context sensitive design projects in New Jersey.  One was written by a local practitioner and is rich in information about process and community objectives.  The other three are engineering-oriented and follow a common format to permit easy comparison.  There are also six engineering oriented case studies from nearby states.  These represent a wider range of SCD projects than do the New Jersey studies.

11/2/03
John Weddleton email reply to Dianne Holmes and Ryan Stencel

I'm encouraged in Ann's write up and the info on the Strawberry Road page to see recognition that a trail might have some validity beyond being a recreational "ammenity."

The irony is that people who think of trails only as a recreational frill show that they consider travel by car as the only option for getting from point A to B. The reward for being mired in the car culture is bigger and faster roads. More cars, more driving earns us more and bigger roads.

Reading the 3R report, it is clear that while the safety issues got DOT to look more closely at the road, the traffic and speed determine the ultimate design. As a community, the DeArmoun neighborhood chooses to drive fast and drive a lot. If they are not willing to do something to change that behavior, they might at best postpone the inevitable. By fighting a tool for decreasing traffic, a trail, they tattoo their foreheads with "Cars Rule." They get to drape their neighborhood in a road that fits their behavior.

The traffic/speed connection to road design shows the immediate and abundant public input process that all of these projects have. Everytime we get in our cars and push down on the pedal, we vote for the road we want.

November 2, 2003
From Ann Flister
I just came from a meeting of "road people" organized by the Strawberry Road
Committee--learned about it/invited at the last minute. I was able to join
the meeting in progress but had to leave before it was over.  Eagle River
people were there, Chugach Way people, myself, and Strawberry Road group.
All have similar issues of design speed (and concerns of worsening safety
instead of improving it), lack of neighborhood notification/involvement,
construction and maintenance costs, etc.  Even though some are state roads
and some are city roads, many of the issues are common and so are the
players (AMATS, DOT, engineering firms that work on both state and city
projects--all following the AASHTO "standards" and almost always using the
extreme limits of those standards).

The group is trying to organize and wants to figure out how to educate
decision makers on state and city level, as well as engineers, on the
flexibility available in the standards and the research their group has
amassed on this subject. They want to try to influence legislation to
mandate DOT to adopt the "context sensitive" concept in their road designs
(which relies heavily on community/neighborhood involvement in the planning)
and similar mandates on the local level. They want to make presentations to
community councils, engineering associations, etc.  (Sand Lake is already
in--the Strawberry folks are a committee of SLCC).  They said that some
engineers are coming around--but it's not applied consistently. There are
some "good projects" and some "bad projects" around town. Citing the 15th
Avenue design as a good one, I think, because of the landscaping, narrowed
curb/gutter, etc., which slows traffic down.

They feel that a citywide "coalition" will get more attention than small
groups fighting one road project at a time--it's the same fight everywhere.
Many other cities and states have already come around and are making their
roads narrower and leaving vegetation, as they have found just what you were
saying that wider streets and expanded clearing encourages faster vehicle
speeds and therefore more accidents/fatalities.  They even had some
documents from AASHTO that supports their position.

Another interesting tidbit--they say the tendency to design everything to be
centered on "the vehicle" actually drives most of the other problems with
the road, greater right of way needs, greater trail design and separation
from roadway becuase wider/faster road requires more space to separate
pedestrians. If I understand correctly, does this mean a slower road gives
more flexibility on the trail/sidewalk?

Much info in a very short time, so I'll try to relate more as it comes in. I
think it would be a good idea for RCCC to be in touch with these
folks--organizers are Frank and Jeanne McQueary at 243-2999.

Ann F.

November 1, 2003

Here's a link to a site that presents another Anchorage neighborhood's answer to a similar DOT road project.

http://www.geocities.com/sandlakecc3/strawberryrd/srcreport.html

October 30, 2003
To Dearmoun Area Residents and Responsible Taxpayers

This message will share some of the feedback from my detailed email of October 21, clarify a couple of points, and relay new info that has come up in the past few days.

Corrections

First, I'd like to clarify some remarks in my October 21 message sharing some of the history we have learned bout the Dearmoun Road upgrade.  My references to a former Rabbit Creek Community Council person's involvement were not aimed at Dianne Holmes, the current president, nor its current board.  The individual I referred to who was involved in the 1997-98 scoping and public involvement meetings, as well as the May/June 2000 reprioritization (with the proviso for realigning the curve) was Barbara Weinig, who served as RCCC president before Dianne Holmes.  Dianne tells me that Ms. Weinig is no longer active with the RCCC.  I apologize for any confusion caused by not clearly identifying the person(s) involved. 

For her part, Dianne Holmes says she continues to ask ADOT&PF to follow RCCC's 2002 requests to reduce "clear zones" and trail width. She says that an earlier plan showed 8' shoulders and her council succeeded in asking that be reduced to 6'.  She has been proactive since the second half of 2002 in adding and keeping my family on the RCCC newsletter mailing list.

Finger Pointing and Closet Decisions

My point in sharing the historical facts on Dearmoun was not to attack any one individual but to illustrate a seriously FLAWED PROCESS.  A process that allowed one individual, who with the community council label and clout was able to influence one Anchorage Assembly member, who then was able to influence Assembly colleagues and AMATS in changing the scope and the priority (and accompanying funding) of the Dearmoun Road project without your input or that of your neighbors.

What's more, the same thing can happen again. Those of you who attended the October 9 ADOT&PF meeting, voiced your concerns and went home, may feel as though you've been heard and you've done all you need to do.  Like you or your neighbors in 1998, you may think that you don't need to follow up because you rely on your community councils and local elected representatives to carry your input forward and assure that it is incorporated in the planning process.  AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS DID NOT WORK BEFORE AND IT CANNOT WORK THIS TIME UNLESS YOU PUT PRESSURE ON YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS and COMMUNITY COUNCILS AND DO NOT LET UP UNTIL THE ROAD IS DONE!

It's important to note that our local South Anchorage Assembly members have yet to acknowledge the intense controversy on Dearmoun Road nor its apparent lack of public process by taking a stand or taking action.

When pressed, they continue to point the finger at the State ADOT&PF for lack of public input, lack of flexibility and lack of sensitivity to local needs, and they discourage using the Assembly as a means to expand the debate. Never mind the fact that Muni officials make up 3 of the 5 members of the AMATS Policy Committee.

Mayor Mark Begich, while admitting that AMATS is "dysfunctional" has not taken a public stand on this project nor offered, as yet, to seriously consider our suggestion of bringing it before the Assembly for open debate. We suggested to him that (a) the City's requirement to sign the Maintenance Agreement required by the State on the trail attached to Dearmoun road (b) the costs associated with same (relevant to the city's current budget challenges and debate over future taxes to cover operating costs), and (c) the controversy created by the Assembly's role in changing the project's
scope without appropriate neighborhood involvement should be matters of broad concern to Anchorage residents.

Anchorage's current AMATS Assembly representatives, Dick Traini and Doug Van
Etten, have been slow to return phone or email messages for the past month, from us and neighbors.

"The Curve"

A couple of people, who have not bothered to scrutinize the State's Design Study Report, seem to take at face value the State's assertion that running through our lot in Currin Subdivision is the best way to upgrade the curve above Currin and Bainbridge Streets.  One woman wrote to say that she's sure we will feel badly some day if one of our children is killed on a school bus that flipped on the curve because we refused to relinquish our house! We know she means well, but she's a victim of the information void and the misinformation recently fed to us about this project.

Meanwhile, an undeveloped lot, Tract A McCabe Subdivision (over 1 acre is in size), lies between our house and the curve. This property's owner is willing to sell and the lot potentially gives the State room to creatively re-engineer the curve, if necessary, without harming our house or the two homes on Bainbridge Road.  Apparently, some folks are not even questioning why the 1998 engineering recommendation said the curve could be made safer with what appeared to be no impact on the Currin or Bainbridge lots.

The fiction and fantasy surrounding the curve (which continue today) were apparently the basis for Dearmoun Road's change in ranking ahead of other priority state roads in June 2000 and accompanying funding increases. Please visit the Assembly's page at www.Muni.org on the Web, and click the "meeting minutes" link to find the transcript of the brief discussion at the May 26, 2000, Anchorage Assembly meeting on this topic.

Here you will see that Ms. Weinig testified that school buses slip off the road routinely in this area, and one side of the road "has a steep drop of several hundred feet."  (THE FICTION).  Assembly Member Dick Tremaine echoed her remarks, calling the curve a "hairpin" curve.  Neither provided factual data (number or type of accidents, or contributing factors).  Neither said they were speaking on behalf of a majority of their constituents.  Neither bothered to inform the other Assembly members of the 1998 preliminary engineering recommendation finding realignment "not worthy of public
funding." 

No one else from the neighborhood was there to testify (and as I said before, it is likely that no one knew it was on the agenda).  There was no reference to any Anchorage School District testimony on this matter.  And MOST importantly, there was no attempt to notify property owners in this section of road that a serious discussion about their future was on the table.   Two people apparently felt themselves eminently qualified to decide that widening the curve would make it safer (the FANTASY).

The Speed

I was pondering the pros and cons of a flatter, wider Dearmoun road while driving down O'Malley in the dark one day last week. Suddenly, a vehicle came upon me from behind and proceeded to tailgate a few feet off my bumper. The tailgating continued westward from approximately the Alaska Zoo to just before Lake Otis intersection, where the other driver then passed me and continued down the road at over 65 miles per hour.  Moments before, I had slowed my speed to just under the posted 50 because I had just passed one moose on the road side and was wary, having seen two other moose in the area the same day.

It's hard not to imagine such a scenario on the new "improved" Dearmoun alternative 443R curve, with school bus stops at the top and bottom of the curve among some 20 bus stops along the length of the road.

We are hearing that there is a movement nationwide and oversees to reverse the designs of the past couple of decades that trend toward wider, faster roads. Research is finding they are NOT safer, and many communities are now spending money to narrow the roads and introduce traffic calming measures where they previously spent money developing roads to ASHTO standards making them wider, faster. More on this later. 


The Trail

The  Muni Trails Coordinator, in a conversation with my husband Mike last week, indicated to him no willingness or ability, on the City's part, to compromise on the Dearmoun Road trail design, saying that the  Areawide Trails Plan has to be followed to the letter and that too much compromise has already been made in foregoing the trail on the south side of the road called for in the AWTP.

Mike was interested in learning why the Dearmoun trail could not be a combination of natural path or sidewalk (where necessary to avoid private property and save money) rather than the bulky "multi-use" trail that harms private property and costs some $1700 per mile to maintain, according to the trails coordinator.  The discussion, he says, went "Nowhere."

Adopted Plans

"Adopted Plans" is a term we hear frequently in answer to our questions to city and state representatives regarding Dearmoun Road.  The Areawide Trails Plan is just one of many adopted plans that overlap and affect decisions on road and development issues in the area.

We obtained a copy of the Areawide Trails Plan, and were stunned to learn that this document that was adopted into Municipal code  for Anchorage's trails was based entirely on a telephone survey with 409 residents in 1997 Let's see, 400 residents out of a population of 250,000, to use round numbers, equates to less than 0.2% of the city's population. The latest survey "2002 Anchorage Household Travel" involved only 1600 people.


The Transportation Enhancement Funds

There has been much discussion lately about the City's use of 15% or more of Federal Transportation funds towards enhancements, while the Federal Government requires only 10%.  Mayor Begich told Michael and me last week that he defends Anchorage's right to decide how to use Federal transportation dollars, even if they are used for recreation rather than transportation, and even if they exceed 15% on some projects.

He acknowledges that trail maintenance must be paid for somehow, likely through property taxes and/or user fees.

He said he does hope to improve the AMATS process, to make it more accessible to the public.


Your Role

As you can see, lots of things have impacted you, your property taxes, the beauty and character of your neighborhood, and now your private property rights--and you may have had little or no involvement in those decisions. Your local Assembly representatives seem think that's your problem.  If you don't understand and don't take the time to educate yourself and work with our current system, then you get what you deserve.  This thinking also seems to translate to, "if you do understand the system, and make the time to attend meetings, you can use the system to your advantage without regard to how it impacts your neighbors, or whether it's good for the community."

Attend and become active in your community councils, since they seem to have some ability to influence city government, if not the ADOT.  Support politicians who aren't afraid to take another look at "Adopted Plans" when finances are strained and times have changed, and in places where they just plain don't make sense.

Ask your homeowner associations and your neighbors to take a stand and involve themselves in city planning processes.

But above all, DO NOT sit back and expect that the comments you made on October 9, or one letter or phone call, are sufficient.  Demand that this road project, and others like it, are discussed and openly debated in the light of day with full disclosure of the cost breakdowns, impacts to private citizens and businesses, impacts to citywide operation and maintenance costs, relationship to other road projects, and impacts on property tax mill rates for your area (including how they may change with the addition of these "enhancements"). 

Attend the upcoming community meetings, AMATS meetings, homeowner association meetings, and make your concerns known.  Try to look beyond protecting your own piece of land or gaining the ability to recreate on someone else's, and insist on an open debate of the larger issues.  Who controls AMATS and with what agenda?  Does the Areawide Trails Plan, and others, provide flexibility to address individual neighborhoods' needs and wishes?  Do these plans reflect current budget realities?

Are the extra dollars spent on enhancements on some politicians' "pet" projects limiting funds that can be used towards crucial safety and congestion problems in all areas of town?  Are these enhancement dollars being used to forcefully acquire and convert private property to public use, without an overwhelming public need?

If you support parks and recreational services as one of city government's functions, ask yourself this:  Why are we building an expensive trail to serve half a dozen people on Dearmoun Road, when the Muni Parks and Recreation Department is facing budget cuts that endanger programs such as Little League baseball, which serves thousands of kids?

And before the half dozen of you call me to say "more than six of us will use the trail---build it and they will come," I challenge you to research and explain the need for a trail big enough to drive a truck on, unless it is to accommodate the moose population that exceeds the number of joggers on this road!

Important Dates - Please Note!!!!!!

Thurs. Nov. 6 - HALO Meeting,
at Spirit Retreat Center, Corner of O'Malley and Hillside Drive (6:30 PM).

HALO is the "Home and Landowners Organization" for Area "G" in Anchorage. This is the area south of Dowling and East of the Seward Highway. Its Board is comprised of 2 representatives for 5 sub-areas within "Area G", plus a President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. The organization is 28 years old under the current structure but its history goes back farther, and includes Sue Norgard and Ermadine Griffin on its board.

The group's goals, according to president Chris Hamre, are to provide a variety of services for its membership including the promotion of social welfare, education, science and good government. This has evolved recently to support and promote the rural residential nature of Southeast Anchorage as Anchorage wrote our 2020 plan and as we begin to write the Hillside District Plan.

HALO will attempt to inform members and encourage a constructive dialogue on
the subject. Whether the board will take up a position on Dearmoun Road, according to Hamre, is at the pleasure of the board.

HALO meetings are open to the public and its membership is limited to persons owning homes or land within our borders. Dues are $10/year and membership applications are available at the meeting. 

Perhaps this will be an opportunity for ADOT&PF to explain how the current Dearmoun road design (which increases speeds, clear cuts all trees and vegetation in the expanded right of way, diminishes the beauty and scenery, destroys historical landmarks such as pieces of long-time residents' and homesteaders' properties including the Dearmoun homestead apple tree, and lops off chunks of residential lots to make room for an urban type trail) will "promote the rural residential" nature of the Hillside.

Wed. Nov. 12, Ocean View/Old Seward Community Council
At Ocean View Elementary School, 7 PM This community council has graciously offered a few minutes on their agenda to the Dearmoun Road issue.

Thurs. Nov. 13 - Rabbit Creek Community Council Monthly Meeting at the Church on Snowshoe Lane at the bottom of Rabbit Creek Road.   7 PM

RCCC does not intend to have Dearmoun Road on its regular meeting agenda this month, instead taking it up as part if the Nov. 6 HALO meeting. However, the council has said in the past that its meetings are open to the public and there appears to be time on the agenda at each meeting for "persons not on the agenda."

Nov. 20 - Huffman-O'Malley, Mid-Hillside and Hillside East Community
Councils
This meeting will be dedicated to the Dearmoun Road issue. MHCC and HOCC say
they are seeking input from their areas and intend to pass individual resolutions as an outcome of this meeting.

Again, you do not have to be a member to attend, though voting is limited to
current members.

November/December AMATS

We hear that Dearmoun will be on the agenda for the next  AMATS Policy
Meeting but hear that  the November meeting may be canceled. Visit
http://home.muni.org/transplan/Mtg%20Schedule.cfm for 2003 AMATS meeting
schedule.

Final Notes:

Don't forget that public comment on Dearmoun Phase 2 closes December 20.
Write to ADOT&PF, AMATS members and your elected public officials.

There is no guarantee that a few of us will be heard.  Please get the word out to your neighbors!  Attend and get involved.  Pay a few dollars to become a member of your community council.

Great job to all who have helped raise awareness about this issue--with roadside signs, calls to radio talk shows, letters to the editor and calls to politicians and ADOT&PF officials. 

As mentioned before, we cannot guarantee 100% accuracy of the info contained
herein and welcome your input and expertise.  Will gladly publish corrections to any obvious errors! 

Ann Flister, 5021 Currin Circle, 344-4948, aflister@gci.net

10/21/03 Ann Flister email
To Dearmoun Area Residents and Responsible Taxpayers:

We continue to expand the mailing list to inform Dearmoun area residents and landowners, and responsible taxpayers citywide, about the Dearmoun Phase 2 road project. In tracking down email addresses, we have talked with a number of folks who still have limited knowledge of what this road design proposes to do and look like, and to many who think that they will not be affected if they don't have property bordering the road (except to gain a few seconds by getting up and down the hill a little faster!)

With these periodic email updates, we hope to shed some light on things we have learned in recent weeks and to dispel some of the myths and mystery surrounding this project. (As we've found, we cannot trust State or Local officials to do so.) If you would like to be removed from this list, or if you know someone who would like to be added, please email Ann Flister at aflister@gci.net.

We are just average citizens and are by no means experts on roads, trails, or public process. So, if you have some particular expertise to share, and especially if you have corrections or additions to any of the content herein, please let us know right away. We'll include it in the next edition!

The public responds! To date, we have collected over 175 names of interested citizens and key contacts on this project, including 152 individuals who signed in at the Oct. 9 meeting with the Department of Transportation. We have been able to contact many of the folks on this list and obtained email addresses for about 80. Nearly 100 people on the list are identified as homeowners on or near the road. 75 people have said they are NOT in favor of the current road proposal for Phase 2, while 8 people say they are in favor, and 62 are listed as "unknown," because we have not been able to locate a phone number or email address, or because they represent government agencies involved. (Note, there is some duplication in the above numbers, as a few of those are couples and were counted as two homeowners.)

First, a summary of important meetings, past and upcoming, followed by some important info that you will need to make your concerns heard.

RECENT MEETINGS

Mid-Hillside Community Council, Oct. 16 MHCC met last Thursday evening On the DeArmoun Road issue, and kicked around ideas for a resolution that would ask AMATS to request Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ( ADOT&PF) to consider "an alternative that would be less invasive," according to John Weddleton, President. (See below for info on upcoming joint meeting with Huffman-O'Malley.)

Huffman-O'Malley Community Council, Thurs. Oct . 16, HOCC and Ocean View Community Councils invited AMATS representatives Lance Wilber, Craig Lyons and Mike Scott to talk about the transportation planning process. Sen. Con Bunde in his remarks to the Council said that the State legislature tried a few years ago to have representatives on the AMATS committee, but were refused. AMATS, a joint city-state panel that directs spending for federally funded transportation projects in Anchorage, consists of two parts: the Policy Committee, and the Technical Advisory Committee. The policy committee consists of the Mayor, two Anchorage Assembly representatives (currently Dick Traini and Doug Van Etten), and a representative from both the State DEC and ADOT&PF commissioners' offices (Mike Scott for ADOT&PF). This committee prioritizes and determines funding levels of road projects with input from the Technical Advisory Committee.

Mike Scott of ADOT&PF distributed a list of current South Anchorage projects, with brief descriptions and the funding breakdown on each. These projects all include pedestrian facilities and are funded for right of way acquisitions of $400K on Abbott Road, $1.5M for Huffman, $1.8M for O'Malley, and $3 Million for Dearmoun Phase 2.

ADOT&PF project managers gave a brief update on these projects: Scott said that they do listen to citizen input on the designs and will try to work with the neighborhoods. Wilber explained that the best time for the public to play a role in a road project is years before construction, during the environmental phase and preliminary planning phase when it first gets on the list of projects. Several people in attendance complained of lack of public involvement and lack of public awareness of this process, and of pending damage to their property values, drainage and other issues.

Sen. Ben Stevens, also in attendance, spoke about his bill SB 71 to limit the amount of money that can be spent on trails and related projects to the required 10% of federal highway dollars. He said that the city-controlled AMATS committee has been spending upwards of 15% on some projects, which he believes is excessive in times of budget shortfalls and considering other roads that need work. He claimed this formula has enabled expenditures for private property acquisition to support enhancements such as trails on recent projects because the trails were built into the road construction costs.

Lance Wilber mentioned the TransVision planning now underway and said that his group has tried very hard to get the public involved but with limited success.

A representative of SARTA (South Anchorage Reasonable Trail Advocates) distributed a paper explaining its position against diversion of federal transportation enhancement funds from roads to bike paths and from transportation to recreation uses at the expense of public safety. More info is contained on its web site www.sarta-ak.org .

UPCOMING MEETINGS - IMPORTANT ! The following information has been changing rapidly as the various groups try to coordinate schedules. This info was current as of 8:30 PM last evening, near as we can tell. Stay tuned for updates.

HALO Meeting (Home and Landowners Inc .), November 6, 2003 Separately, HALO will hold a meeting, with ADOT&PF reps there, at 7pm on November 6 at the Catholic retreat at Hillside and O'Malley. While the people involved with HALO and the issues considered overlap quite a bit with the community councils, it is a distinct organization. We're told they are planning to host a series of meetings where all the various hillside road projects will be presented over time. The Nov. 6 meeting will focus on Dearmoun Road and ADOT&PF representatives will have maps, drawings and other information.

Rabbit Creek Community Council, Nov. 6 (with HALO) and November 13 Dianne Holmes of RCC says that if their board agrees, they will join HALO for the November 6 meeting on the road project. If you aren't familiar with HALO, she says it is the Home and Landowners Inc group started in the 70s and devoted to maintaining low density in SE Anchorage. Rabbit Creek Community Council plans to hold its regular monthly meeting on November 13. Everyone within the RCCC boundary needs to show up at these meetings with your $3 Council membership fee in hand and become a voting member! We will circulate the membership form with another email.

Huffman/O'Malley, Mid-Hillside and Hillside East Community Councils Joint Meeting: Thurs. November 20, at Christian Church corner of Lake Otis & O'Malley These three community councils will hold a combined meeting to share their respective draft resolutions on Dearmoun Phase 2 and solicit input before passing final resolutions. It is not clear that ADOT&PF people will be available at this meeting. Again, if you live in one of these councils' boundaries, you need to get your membership dues in and SHOW UP AT THE MEETINGS! You do not need to be a member to attend (and we would encourage ALL interested citizens to show up at every meeting), but obviously everyone eligible would be well advised to join.

COMMON QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT DEARMOUN ROAD PHASE Following are some of the frequently heard comments and questions as we talked with neighbors on and near the road. Why has the scope and footprint of this project grown so much? I had heard there would be a bike trail, but I never knew it would be so big. I have lived on the road for years and never knew about the planned upgrade at all. How can that be? Good questions, and the answers are not easy to find. As you all know, ADOT&PF points the finger at AMATS and the Community Councils. AMATS points the finger at ADOT&PF. The community councils say they aren't listened to. The public says they don't have input and don't know about AMATS or their community councils.

Our research shows that Dearmoun Road came onto the AMATS radar screen in 1997(?) and scoping and environmental phase were done with what appears to be limited public involvement. According to the Dearmoun Road 1998 Preliminary Engineering Report (a copy of which we now have in hand), a notice was placed in the newspaper, a mailing sent to property owners, and a citizens advisory committee established. This committee consisted of only a handful of people, including two members of the Rabbit Creek Community Council, a representative each from of the Huffman O'Malley and Mid-Hillside Community Councils, project consultants, a representative of Chugach Electric, and an Anchorage Police Department officer. This group met three times in 1998; one of those meetings attended by only 6 people, which consisted mostly of the project consultants, ADOT&PF personnel, and one then community council president.

A public scoping meeting in November 1997 generated attendance of 34 people, and comments solicited, with low response. Paved shoulders, according to Anchorage Police officers, would assist in enabling them to pull speeders over safely to write traffic tickets. There were quite a few comments from citizens who generally wanted to keep the traffic speeds down, keep trees and vegetation intact, and minimize impact on private property.

There were two members of the Citizens Advisory Committee that consistently wanted trails, one of those repeatedly insisted on trails on both sides of the road. The consultants came out of that process with a preliminary design recommendation, with an estimated cost of $6 million (for the entire Dearmoun Road from Westwind to Hillside Dr.) This design recommended leaving the curve above Currin and Bainbridge Streets on the existing horizontal alignment, saying the accident history and cost effective analysis deemed any horizontal realignment to be "not worthy of public funding." The report said its recommended improvements would address most of the accidents on this stretch of road. Adjustments to the horizontal S curve between Von Scheben and Gunnison (requiring minimal right of way acquisition), sight distances along other sections of the road, and a 10'-12' wide trail on the north side appear to have been included in this design. It's also interesting to note that the project consultant said he felt that public education/awareness of speed limits were also options to improve safety and "enforcement may be the single most effective tool to reducing speeds."

However, long-term residents on this road tell us they never knew of this outcome with respect to the trails and right of way. The community council officer who repeatedly insisted on both north and south side trails stated in one of the meeting records that she did not like this Preliminary Engineering recommendation (Option B) because it did not allow for a trail on the south side of the road. In June of 2000, apparently without any broad neighborhood involvement, a South Anchorage assembly member went to the Anchorage Assembly for support in recommending Dearmoun Road be moved up in the AMATS TIP (Transportation Improvement Projects) funding priority from Number 23 to Number 8, where it remains, even though it has a lower "score" of 75.8 versus other critical road projects with a need scoring of 100 and higher. At this time, he asked for and received an additional $250,000 of design funds to "re-evaluate" realigning the curve above Currin and Bainbridge Streets, disregarding the 1998 preliminary design recommendation.

Two months earlier, the property at Lot 7, Currin Subdivision was sold and the new owners were already drawing up house plans. Two years later, in 2002, the owner of Tract A, McCabe Subdivision, the still-vacant land between Currin Lot 7 and the curve, placed her property on the market for sale as a residential lot. The 1998 preliminary design specified approximately $1M of right of way acquisition for the entire Dearmoun Road (Phase 1 and 2), under the recommended option "B," the option that had the least right of way requirements.

The plan today has grown to $3M of right of way acquisition, for PHASE 2 ALONE. We do not have the figures for Phase 1. It is not clear that the Preliminary Engineering Report's final recommendation was ever shared with the public, or even with the citizens who provided direct comment in 1997. We are not aware of any widescale public communication or public involvement since 1998. The homeowners at Currin & Dearmoun should have known about the State's plans when they built in 2001. Other homeowners and sellers should have known about the State's plans. We agree, but changing the curve was not the State's plan at that time. Calls to ADOT&PF in 2000 and 2001 assured us the only plans were widening the pavement and keeping the existing centerline. And, like most of you, we did not know that a South Anchorage Assembly member, with encouragement from one community council president who had the ear of the AMATS policy committee, was pressuring AMATS in June 2000 to increase funding and change the Dearmoun plan.

If you or any of your neighbors recalls receiving and has a copy of any mass mailing, or other public notice from your South Anchorage Assemblyman or the Rabbit Creek Community Council about this change of plans during early to mid-2000, would you please fax a copy to us at 561-9312 ! It is important to note that at least four (4) families who bought and sold properties in this section of Dearmoun from 2000 through 2002 also asked and were told by the State that future upgrades would not impact their properties or would have less impact than what is currently proposed. If you have been similarly misled in your questions about this project, please write your elected officials! Apparently, none of these homebuyers and sellers, including us, knew about the existence of the 1998 preliminary engineering report, knew about the prior public involvement (or lack thereof), nor of the ongoing lobbying of AMATS by special interests.

Reading the Public Involvement section of the 1998 Preliminary Engineering Report, and following the AMATS Committee records from 1998 to 2000 period, shows that the same Rabbit Creek Community Council officer who pushed the north and south trails idea continued to work the AMATS process, attending nearly every policy committee meeting during that period. The State says this is the best way to fix the road. They're experts, so they must be right. Given abundant funding, engineers will do what comes naturally-design the most ostentatious road they can justify. They use "federal standards" as their mantra and support their recommendations with weak or exaggerated traffic projections and accident analyses in order to spend the money. One must read the fine print to know that there are other options available to address both motorist and pedestrian safety on this project, provided for in the Areawide Trails Plan, AASHTO, Anchorage 2020 Plan, Anchorage Long-Range Transportation Plan, and other documents.

Options exist that do not require wide scale damage to private property and do not require the massive spending allocated to this project! If you think these drastic changes are necessary for transportation safety, think again! If you think they are necessary for congestion, do your homework! The current Dearmoun Phase 2 design report references increasing population density in the 2001 Anchorage Bowl Long Range Transportation Plan as a rationale for bigger road, projections that were significantly lowered in the Anchorage 2020 Land Use Allocation Report prepared in October 2002. If our calculations are correct, Dearmoun Road's Phase 2 upgrade (only 1.89 miles from E. 140th Ave. to Hillside Drive), will cost $6.3 Million per mile and will be primarily a "fill" job, meaning an overall raising of the grade and importation of material to the project, with no cutting or removal of material. Fill/grade elevations mean greater right of way requirements due to slope limits. They also means your property will most likely be lower than the roadway and drainage may be a concern.

The 1998 Preliminary Engineering Report states, Section 6.0 Design Designation/Design Criteria, "...Design criteria for 3R projects allows existing geometric and roadway elements that do not meet current standards to remain, unless historical accidents exceed predicted values, and the upgrade to current standards is cost-effective." This paragraph goes on to say "The analysis determined that roadway improvements such as vertical curves, horizontal curves, and super elevation modifications are not required."

This road plan is a "Done Deal" and we can't change it. Not so! Since October 9, we hear ADOT&PF has already indicated they may back off on the clear cutting zone by a few feet. But they still have to scale way back to make it acceptable to most residents. Clearly, we have to keep pressure on the politicians. And since none will take responsibility for this mess, we must make ALL of them hear us, Loud and Clear! Some 300 residents in the Eagle River Loop Road area have organized and gained a reduction on that project's footprint. This road project specified two large multi-use trails, one on each side of the road, and the acquisition of 40 pieces of private property, including two homes. But they're lucky to have learned about it early in the "planning" process. Dearmoun Road Phase 2 somehow reached final design stages, and most of us only learned of its scope and impact within the past 3 weeks!

There is a growing concern among many, and ample reason, it appears, to send the planners back to the drawing board on this project. Citizens are filing formal complaints with the Federal Highway Administration and the State Department of Law over an expired and apparently invalid 1998 environmental exclusion used to "grease the skids" for this project. This "Categorical Exclusion," enabled planners to bypass an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Study by asserting, among other things, that there would be no residential or commercial displacements, and that the project would not result in "substantial changes in the vertical or horizontal alignment or increase the number of through lanes adjacent to a noise sensitive land use or the project itself create a noise impact." The Categorical Exclusion document is a MUST-READ for anyone potentially impacted by Dearmoun Phase 2. Copies are available from ADOT&PF.

No matter how much we like better roads and trails, we cannot help but feel there is something VERY WRONG about this project and how it has been conducted. PUBLIC COMMENT ON DEARMOUN PHASE 2 Public comment period on Dearmoun Road Phase 2, according to Therese Stokes of ADOT&PF, is extended to December 20, 2003. But do not wait! Write now! Comments are accepted by Postal mail, fax, E-mail, phone, but Ms. Stokes says that email and phone are not guaranteed because email storage capacity is limited and phone calls are not recorded and may be limited by her note taking skills.

Following are the addresses and numbers where official comments are accepted and recorded:
Therese Stokes, P.E., Project Manager ADOT&PF Highway Design
P.O. Box 196900
Anchorage AK 99519-6900
therese_stokes@dot.state.ak.us
Tel. 269-0592 FAX 243-4409

or to the consulting firm:
Vern Roelfs, P.E., Project Manager VEI Consultants
1345 Rudakof Circle, Suite 201
Anchorage AK 99508-6105 vernr@veiconsultants.com
Tel. 337-3330 FAX 338-5386

OTHER KEY CONTACTS
Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich
632 West 6th Avenue Suite 840
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
PO Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650
Phone: (907) 343-4431 Fax: (907) 343-4499
E-mail: wwmayor@ci.anchorage.ak.us

AMATS Assembly Representative/Anchorage Assembly Chair
Dick Traini P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage AK 99519-6650 Tel. 561-4526 (h) FAX 563-7996 dtraini@gci.net

AMATS Assembly Representative Doug Van Etten P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage AK 99519-6650 Tel. 344-9081 (h) FAX 273-7742 (w) vanetten@Alaska.net

South Anchorage Assemblyman Dick Tremaine P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage AK 99519-6650 Tel/FAX. 345-5813 tremained@muni.org

South Anchorage Assemblywoman Janice Shamberg P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage AK 99519-6650 Tel. 343-4124 FAX 343-4780 jcshamberg@gci.net

Rabbit Creek Community Council Dianne Holmes, President Tel/FAX 345-1514 dianne@corecomm.net

Huffman-O'Malley Community Council Ms. Ryan Stencel, President Tel. 345-4316 akstenc@aol.com

Mid-Hillside Community Council John Weddleton, President Tel349-8370./FAX 349-8376 john@weddleton.com

WRITE OR FAX THEM ALL !!! IMPORTANT READING AND WHERE TO FIND IT:

Dearmoun Road Phase 2 Design Study Report, September 2003 - Available from ADOT&PF above ADOT&PF

Categorical Exclusion, Dearmoun Road Reconstruction Project, July 15, 1998 - Available from ADOT&PF

Dearmoun Road Reconstruction Project 1998 Preliminary Engineering Report - Available from ADOT&PF AMATS Policy Committee and AMATS Technical Advisory Committee

Meeting Info - Schedule, meeting agendas and minutes available at MOA Traffic Planning - 343-7991, 4700 Bragaw Street, or on the Web at www.muni.org/iceimages/transplan AMATS 2001

Anchorage Bowl Long-Range Transportation Plan -

MOA Traffic Department Anchorage Land Use Allocation Document,

Anchorage 2020 Land Use Assumptions, Oct. 7, 2002 -

MOA Transportation Planning Department The Citizen's Guide to AMATS

Areawide Trails Plan, April 1997 - MOA Department of Community Planning & Development

Hillside Roads Website at www.hillsideroads.com

If you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact Ann or Mike Flister at 344-4948 (evenings/weekends) or write to aflister@gci.net

________________________________
email Kevin Gray 10/17/03

Hi John-

After reading some of the document (Official Streets and Highways Plan) that I sent in the earlier link, it seems possible that the DOT has classified Dearmoun incorrectly. This study classifies Dearmoun as a Class II, Minor Arterial. Minor Arterial is defined as follows:

Minor Arterials: These streets carry between 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. They should have two to four moving lanes and paved shoulders (for emergency parking). Residential development should be discouraged from abutting directly onto these streets. Direct access to commercial property must be carefully controlled to limit the number of permitted driveways. Where possible, driveway access should be shared with abutting property owners.

(Page 10 of the report).

DOT's handout from the meeting held on Oct. 9 said that Dearmoun "carries an average of 2,200 vehicles per day." The study classifies streets that carry approximately 2,000 vehicles per day as the following:

Collectors: Traffic volumes on collector streets vary greatly. Residential collectors in low density areas may carry less than 2,000 vehicles per day. In higher density areas more than 2,000 vehicles per day may be more typical. Non-residential collectors may carry up to 10,000 vehicles per day. There should be two moving lanes with paved shoulders for emergency parking. Direct driveway access to a collector in residential developments should be discouraged.

Reverse lot design within subdivisions should be required in order to minimize driveway access. At a typical pattern of residential development, a minimum spacing interval of one-eighth to one-half mile is normally followed. It is not desirable for residential collectors to form a continuous system since there is then a tendency for traffic to use the collector in an arterial through-movement capacity.

Maybe that gives us some info for classification issues. If I get more, I'll send it along.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards,
Kevin Gray

________________________________

email Kevin Gray 10/17/03

My name is Kevin Gray, I was at the MHCC meeting last night. We talked about some of the data regarding the road classifications, and standards information that I had found on the web, and you asked that I send you the link for it. Below are some of the pertinent links:http://www.muni.org/iceimages/transplan/ACF4D7.pdf

(This is the roadway list, classifications, and specifications for road width, etc. Its 35 pages).

I've also attached my email to Vern Roelfs (VEI Consultants) where I asked certain questions, and received responses that I related in the meeting for informational purposes.

Thanks again for leading the CC.

Regards,
Kevin Gray
6900 Callaway Circle

_____________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Vern Roelfs [mailto:vernr@veiconsultants.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:39 PM
To: 'Kevin L. Gray '
Cc: Therese Stokes (therese_stokes@DOT.STATE.AK.US); 'Karen Helgeson'; 'Timothy A. Trawver'
Subject: DeArmoun Road, Responses

Mr. Grey;

I will answer as many of these as I can at this time.

1. How many landowners will be required to relinquish all or part of their land to accomplish the proposed project? How many would be required to relinquish all or part of their land under the other two alternate proposals being considered?

Number of Parcels impacted: 240R-62 parcels, 442R-63 parcels and 835R-63 parcels

2. How many landowners would be required to relinquish all or part of their land to accomplish changing the main two curves to the proposed configuration, and paving the road to the 36ft corridor specification rather than the existing 22ft corridor, but with no multi-use pathway?

We have not developed this information as of yet.

3. One of the primary justifications for this project seems to be the accident pattern of DeArmoun Road. I believe this information was going to be contained in the Draft report due out soon, is this correct? If so, will it also have comparative statistics for like roads in Anchorage? If not, is it possible to get these statistics elsewhere?

A table containing summary accident information is included in Appendix3 in the Draft DSR which is, or will be available shortly from DOT. Also included in the DSR is a plot showing accident locations and type. It is an attachment at the end of the 3R Analysis in Appendix 4. Accident rate over the short segment in the vicinity of the curves is 13 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled. The state wide average for this type of highway ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled.

4. Do you know which AMATS document is the controlling document regarding the requirement for the multi-use trail (i.e. 2001 Anchorage Bowl Long-Range Transportation Plan, or the 2001-2003 Transportation Improvement Program or other?).

The "Area Wide Trails Plan", April 1997, Produced by Anchorage Planning Department.

5. Why was the North side of DeArmoun Road chosen for the multi-use pathway, rather than the South Side?

The north side was shown for a multi use trail in the Area Wide Trail Plan, and this was the approved location in the project environmental document. I would go on to say that there are connectability advantages at the existing paved bike path at Crestview Drive, and it will match the multi use path being constructed in phase 1 of the DeArmoun Road project.

6. What is the steepness grade of the proposed multi-use pathway – it seems that this could be very dangerous in the areas around the curve for instance?

Generally the pathway will not be paved in areas steeper than 5%. In steeper areas, we propose to use a RAP surface which will remain somewhat loose. It will have advisory signs indicating a steep grade and "Walk Your Bike".

7. What is the width of O'Malley road – 36ft? Why doesn't O'Malley have a multi-use pathway? Is Huffman road also going to be improved in the same fashion with the same width requirement, as well as the multi-use pathway?

I am not familiar with the particulars of the other road projects, however the web site "hillsideroads.com" does contain some of this information.

Thank you for your comments and your interest in the project

Vernon L. Roelfs, P.E.
_______________________________________________

10/16/03
Phone John Weddleton with Dianne Holmes

She spoke w Morberg w DOT RE:DeArmoun who says they need more info than we had discussed for a potential resolution pushing for a new alternative

Fix Curve or not?

Trail or no Trail? She says since the ROW is as narrow as 88' in some places, there is not room for the road they want and an adjacent trail.

_______________________________________

10/12/03
Comments via phone call John Weddleton with Anonymous DeArmoun neighbor

To fix the homes that should have exited onto Bainbridge rather than O'Malley, they could extend Bainbridge and end it w a cul de sac.

If keeping current alignment, reroute the trail to a side street and then rejoin below the curve.

He mentioned leveling out the drop then rise after the top of the curve.

Questioned the category they put the road in. He thinks they used Hillside Area growth rates for the projected traffic level. DeArmoun Rd is mostly built out and development in the rest of Hillside won't use DeArmoun.

______________________________________
email 10/7/03 Ann Flister
Thank you, John [Weddleton].

We will likely be at all the council meetings the next few weeks. Looks like your newsletter has already gone out, but if anyone asks you may want to clarify the speeds you quoted are what they would be posting on the curve north of Currin (it's 25 mph now, it's 37 mph under the 443R plan that takes out our house, and I think 50 mph on the 840R). I think the rest of the road would be posted at 45 mph, though it will be designed to 50 mph. So, in effect, your illustration would show even less difference in time to get down the hill. The plan document is way too complicated for the average person, which is why it would be nice for someone with an
engineering background to put it to a reasonability test.

You make some good points; thanks for getting the word out.

John, just as I was about to wrap up this email, we obtained a second set of plans through Rep. Bob Lynn, that has now bumped the cost estimates up to $11.6M for 240R and $10.8M for 443R, and they have now changed 840R to "835R" with a $14M estimate! It appears that a whole lot has changed in 2 weeks! And there is still a page missing on their right of way acquisition list.

They've increased all the cost estimates and made the gap even wider to favor 443R!

It appears one of the reasons that the cost went up on 240R is because they are now talking about relocating all the underground utilities on the south side. Do you know why? Because when VEI was out here with Stokes and Trawvers the other day, I stupidly asked them if they would have to move the utilities and the response was a surprised, "Oh, yes I guess we will!"

DO NOT TRUST THESE REPORTS!

aNN f.

______________________________________

10/7?/03 from Ann Flister

John [Weddleton],

37 mph is what it says in the book. Please PLEASE please obtain a copy for yourself and look at. We are not engineers and hate trying to be the ones to interpret several hundred pages of technical info for others. But, we can read and it appears that the State's case for spending this money on any of these alternatives is weak, arbitrary and without sufficient justification. They contradict their own rationale for the 50 mph design. Their traffic accident reports actually support improving the curve at 140th and the s-curves between the two Gunnisons, where there HAVE been fatalities.

We spoke with a highway engineer who is familiar with the project, who said he felt the State's case was weak. He asked not to be quoted, however, as he has other current projects with ADOT&PF. I understand there was a 1999 lawsuit about the curve by a person who was injured (the only serious injury we're aware of in the past ten years) against the State, and I understand the State prevailed. It would be nice to obtain a copy of the expert witness (Dowl Engineers) testimony from that case.

People think the curve will be eliminated with this change, but it will not. It will still require posting at a speed lower than the rest of the road (which is 45 mph). It will be raised with steep inclines on the sides, and guard rails. People already zoom around it at 50 mph sometimes and this will only encourage them to go faster. Right now, there are no fatalities on this curve. 20+ people who attended the meeting at our house the other evening believe if this is allowed to happen, there will be fatalities, on the curve as well as other places. The faster, wider curve will begin to straighten right at the intersection with Currin Circle, a current ASD bus stop. People in this neighborhood are very concerned about what will happen with this new intersection.

This is not in the community's best interest. It is not a prudent use of highway funds.
Ann
____________________________________

email 10/7/03 from Ann Flister
Yes, it appears to be virtually a wash between the existing alignment (240R) and the realignment of the curve (443R), because of the way they presented the 240R with the massive fill job and elimination of access to two homes on Bainbridge, which they say "may" have to be purchased. Most of us question that as there appears to be a way for those homeowners to access that street from the Huffman side, and there is no reason that they can't compromise on the grade adjustment to leave those homeowners alone.

They also appear to have undervalued the properties on the south side. The State can do whatever it wants to make the numbers come out to favor their position. The $8.5M though, does not include any wells, septic systems, or other problems they may encounter in the new right of way, nor does it include costs for litigation. The $10M quoted on the news is more likely to be the cost. The third alignment, which completely eliminates the curve, is placed at $12M.

Too bad the news story on Ch. 2 last night did not emphasize the impact of this project on the 60+ other homeowners who will lose pieces of private property, trees and in some cases driveways and structures.

Ann F.
344-4948
248-6483
______________________________________

10/5/03 email from Dianne Holmes
Ryan,
When the Flister's say that 53 properties will be affected, I believe she means some ROW will be taken, but until I can see the plans and talk with DOT, it may mean that they are exercising their right to use the whole ROW which is something like 75 to 100 ft I think. I guess I don't think of "taking" in the same manner as others. None of us would care to see the Flister's house taken and if there is a design that doesn't do that, yet fixes the curve, then great.

What we must watch for is how DOT has decided to change the speed on the road, if indeed they have, and are not calling DeA something other than what it was categorized before. We all said last yr that we didn't want it to be a high speed road.
Dianne
_______________________________________

email 10/04/03
Dianne Holmes
Were either of you there last yr when we had that DOT meeting? We didn't see any designs but only discussed a horse ditch and not taking so much vegetation and reducing the shoulders to 6 feet or less. You guys going to be able to attend the DOT meeting? I can only be there from 5 to 6:30 and then must go to our meeting.
D

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Dearmoun Ph. II
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:32:23 -0800
From: "A. Flister" <>
To:Thanks, Dianne.

I saw the RCC newsletter today which says only that there will be a public meeting on Dearmoun Phase II and to go and see that the council's input was incorporated. Do you realize that this project takes portions or all of 53 private properties and impacts many others, to increase design speed to 50 mph on a section of low density, residential road where residents do not want it and do not need it? Do you realize their cost estimates for this excessive taking of private property do not include estimates for wells, septic systems, other unforeseen circumstances encountered in the right of way, nor do they include dollars for litigation?

Your membership needs to study this document and understand the impact it will have should it be approved.

I also noted that your regular monthly meeting is the same date and time as the DOT public meeting. I'm puzzled that it would be business as usual for your group during the one and only opportunity that you have to be able to make a difference in this arbitrary design that is wasteful of public money and harmful to so many area residents and does not appear to improve safety.
You need to see this document!!!
Ann Flister
_______________________________________

Dear Ms. Stokes:

I just read the September 2003 DeArmoun Road Edition of the Hillside Roads Newsletter and am surprised and disappointed to see that Phase 2 (E. 140th to Hillside) of the DeArmoun Road improvements now say that the road will have a "multi-use pathway on the north side of the roadway where feasible." I have never seen "where feasible" mentioned before in any planning documents.

Pathway access for pedestrians and other non-motorized types are sorely lacking on the Hillside, especially the uphill/downhill component (there are none).

How can a pathway be put in just partially? Where do path users go when it isn't there, on the road? If there are difficulties in making a proper path, then now is the time for engineers to make the appropriate designs that ensure a safe and continuous pathway is built as part of the road
upgrades.

I recommend that you come to the Rabbit Creek Elementary School public hearing on October 9 (5 - 8 PM) with solutions that will ensure that a pathway is designed and built that will keep users safe and provides continuous access all along the phase 2 improvement area.

I look forward to seeing you at the meeting and hearing more about the project.

Sincerely,

Joe Banta
_______________________________________

9/30/03
Dianne Holmes
Anyway, on DeArmoun--I talked to DOT and was told there is a Mr Maker on DeArmoun who is trying to get the whole trail design stopped because some of his property will be taken. He is trying to get others to join him. We need to be together on this issue of insisting on adhering to the adopted plans like the Trails Plan where pedestrian facilities are planned. We aren't a hick town anymore.

DOT does not have at this time a design for a flat bottomed ditch on the south of DeArmoun as the engineer thought it was ok to put horses in the same area (ditch) next to a raised trail. I told her that she had better talk to the horse folks and then sent a message to Robin Holm and Mary Kaye Hession to contact Ms Stokes about this. You can add your opinion too.

But there is more. If DOT calls a path a trail, it has to be separated and be pretty wide like 8-10 ft. If they call it a sidewalk it can be narrower. I said can a sidewalk be separated from the road and narrow too? It is all in what they call it I think. All we want is less land to be taken, yet achieve the goal of a path, right?
_______________________________________

9/27/03 (via Email)

TO: Alaska House Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska Senator Con Bunde, Assembly AMATS Reps. Dick Traini & Doug Van Etten , Assemblywoman Janice Shamberg , Assemblyman Dick Tremaine

This is Margaret Ann and Michael Flister of 5021 Currin Circle (Lot 7, Currin Subdivision, at the corner of Dearmoun & Currin). We are writing to you regarding the Dearmoun Road Phase II road project. As you may know, the Department of Transportation is set to release its design proposal to the public at a hearing on Thurs. October 9, at 5 PM at Rabbit Creek Elementary.

We are in receipt of a draft copy of the design study, which shows three alternates driven by different options for the curve just above Currin Circle, as follows:

240R: Keeps the existing centerline as is, but raises the grade significantly at the lower end and widens the road to 12-ft lanes and 6-ft. paved shoulders. This would be a 25 mph curve (p.16).

443R: Moves the right of way on the curve through our property (Lot 7, Currin S/D), widening the curve to a 443 degree radius and requiring a complete acquisition of our property and demolition of our home (built in 2001). This would be a 37 mph curve (pp. 16, 18, others). This alternative has an option for a $700,000 multi-use trail on the south side of Dearmoun Road.

840R: Moves to a completely new right of way further to the south. The only option that eliminates the curve but requires the take of 8 homes. This would be a 50 mph. curve.

All three alternates above include a paved, multi-use trail on the north side of Dearmoun.

DOT Project Manager Therese Stokes tells us that Alternative 443R is DOT's preferred route, and the one the State will advocate on Oct. 9.

We have spent considerable time analyzing the design study document, which is quite voluminous and includes the pros and cons of the three alternates, those of various rejected options, as well as traffic study, cost analyses, and other data.

In our opinion, there appears to be a lack of compelling necessity for any drastic change to the road beyond widening. There appears to be a fundamental flaw in the basis for these design proposals in that the State is using URBAN, 50 mph, new construction design criteria for a road that they themselves point out it is a rural, mountain terrain road, with low density and no commercial development, and which appears to require only 30-40 mph design criteria. The State admits it deems Dearmoun is "urban" for the purpose of this project because it falls within Anchorage. (Appendix 4, p. 1.)

There appear to be several assumption and reasoning lapses on this project significant enough to warrant serious questions.

Among these:

1. Why is the State trying to adhere to new design criteria on a "3R" Project that is not required to meet new design criteria? Road classification alone impacts every formula, grade maximum, speed maximum, and traffic safety criteria on the project. The design document appears to contain numerous conflicting references to the classification of Dearmoun Road and the applicable design criteria. (see pp. 1, 3, 4.)

2. Do DOT's traffic studies support a compelling need for change of the right of way? Of 63 reported accidents throughout the scope of the project since 1996, only 6 occurred on the curve itself. The remainder occurred some distance above or below, on the straight stretches of the road. Of the 6 on the curve, only one (1) involved a serious injury; and there have been ZERO (0) fatalities. All the reported accidents appeared to be caused by operators violating basic speed or other traffic rules. The majority have been single-vehicle accidents, or single vehicles sliding off the road into a parked vehicle. Where is the justification for displacing a family and taking a private property with a home? Don't forget, we're only talking about 6 minor incidents over 5 years.

3. The State uses only 1996 to 2001 in their traffic accident study, but long-term property owners in the area are not aware of a single fatality in this area for the past 20 years. Is this data available somewhere?

4. Would 443R appear to encourage greater traffic speeds around the curve? It requires the construction of guard rails due to the steep edge incline caused by raising of grade by as much as 35 feet. With this scenario, would it stand to reason that fatalities might increase? As it exists, the curve allows those who misjudge the conditions to generally slide off in the ditch on the north side, resulting only in a towing bill but rarely any injuries. Would higher speeds, combined with guard rails on a curve (which is still there, mind you) combine to increase head-on collisions?

5. 443R would create a much tighter angle on the intersection of Currin Circle and Dearmoun. Would this, combined with the higher traffic speed coming down the hill, make this a more dangerous intersection? This intersection is currently an Anchorage School District bus stop.

6. Where is the data that PROVES that 443R will be safer than some variation of 240R, or a simple widening of the existing road surface?

7. With 443R, would the enormous fill to raise Dearmoun and the tightened angle of the intersection with Currin mean complete clearing would have to be maintained inside the curve to maintain sufficient visibility--leaving no sound buffer or visual buffer for the remaining homeowners in Currin Subdivision? (Appendix 10, Plan & Profile Sheet F3.)

8. How accurate is the State's assertion that 443R is the least costly of the three alternatives, considering what appears to be undervaluing and inconsistent valuing of the properties south of Dearmoun in Currin subdivision that would be affected by 443R? (Appendix 6, p. 2, Appendix 7, p. 33, p. 40.)

9. If there are errors in property values, lot numbers, maps and drawings in the current draft design study (which appears to be the case), how can any of the cost analyses or other data be trusted?

10. One reason for the State's favoring 443R over 240R is the possible elimination of Dearmoun access under 240R to two property owners in Knik Subdivision, which access their lots from Dearmoun "for unknown reasons" according to traffic engineer Vernon Roelfs, when their access "should have been oriented to Ridgewood Circle along with their neighbors" and where access appears to be possible. (See pp. 15, 33, 29, and Appendix 7). If the above is true, why would one homeowner (Lot 7, Currin S/D), whose home is built according to current codes, with legal access and properly situated on its lot, be penalized (i.e. have property condemned), in favor of two homeowners whose properties are not?

11. Why cannot access to the two Knik Subdivision lots referenced above be saved under 240R with some modification (i.e., grade adjustment, alternative access)?

12. Therese Stokes presented to AMATS on 9/26/03 a design addition to construct an additional multi-use trail with a tunnel beneath Dearmoun to allow connecting access of trails to municipal parks. This design addition is dependent upon the 443R alternative and is being advocated, it appears, by a handful of Rabbit Creek Community Council members. How many people are advocating this trail, when have they done so, who are they, and do any of them LIVE on Dearmoun Road?

13. Why did the State fail to provide critical information about its plans for this project when homeowners of Lot 7 Currin Subdivision asked about design plans before the lot was purchased in 2000 and again when the home was built in 2001, saying it had "No plans to change the centerline in the foreseeable future…" What were other property owners told who built homes along this portion of Dearmoun in the past 2-3 years?

14. Why did VEI Engineers tell the homeowners at Lot 7 Currin in mid-2001 that the only plan near Dearmoun and Currin was to widen the road to 12 foot lanes and 6 foot paved shoulders"?

15. How do you stop a locomotive that seems to be charging down the track of mowing down a home that was built to the side with assurance from DOT that the "track" would not change?

These are a few of the many questions that the State should answer before approving a design that displaces a family, destroys a brand new home, negatively impacts an entire subdivision, jeopardizes school bus safety, and likely increases the risk of serious traffic injury on Dearmoun Road at the intersection with Currin Circle.

We urge you to obtain and review copies of this report and to attend the public meetings on this matter. Can you help us and other Dearmoun residents get truthful, accurate answers to these questions?

We are available and most willing to meet you for coffee at our home, to review the design document and show you first hand the impact this drastic proposal would have on our family and our hard-earned home.

When you have sufficiently reviewed the study, we would be most interested in your official position on the design alternatives, when and in what manner you intend to go on record with a position.

Needless to say, time is of the essence as the comment period closes November 9, 2003. Thank you for your time and interest in this very important matter.

Mike & Ann Flister
aflister@gci.net
_______________________________________

Email 9/28/03
Ann Flister
As a follow up to the email we sent yesterday and discussed with some of you today, we wish to make you aware of a discrepancy we have found. Upon further review, we discovered a mistake in one of the assumptions we made with regard to the State Department of Transportation's Design Study Report for the above referenced project. (One of the problems with the State not providing sufficient notice for the public to review and comment on such important and drastic design changes--and possibly what they are counting on).

Upon initial review of the document, we assumed that the section that referred to urban vs. rural information was a typographical error. Upon further review, it made sense that a rural road would have a higher speed than an urban road, due to the nature of a rural area. (You want to go faster if you live in a cornbelt to get from point A to point B, than if you live in the city.)

You will recall that we questioned the apparent classification of Dearmoun Road by the State, in its Design Study Report dated August 2003, as an "urban collector," though it has the characteristics of a rural road. We could not understand why on earth it needs to be designed as a 50 mph road. We assumed that a rural road would have a lower design speed than an urban road. It doesn't.

Rural = 50 mph

Urban = 30-40

Dearmoun Road = Class 17 Urban Collector Mountainous Terrain (Appendix 4, p.1)

On p. 3, Section 1.4 - Design Speeds, it states "The AASHTO DDHS, Exhibit 6-1, p. 426, recommends 50 mph as the design speed for new construction rural collectors in rolling terrain with ADT greater than 2,000 and 40 mph for urban collectors in rolling terrain with ADT between 400 and 2,000. Mountainous terrain design speeds for urban collectors are 30 and 40 mph, respectively, for ADT between 400 and 2,000, and for ADT greater than 2,000.

"The road is functionally classified as an urban collector by the project design designations. The urban classification is because the roadway is within Anchorage, which the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and streets defines as urbanized since the greater area population exceeds 50,000." (p. 1) The report goes on to say, however, that Dearmoun has the appearances of a rural road so, "Based on these observations, rural design standards and 3R methods are appropriate even though the road classification is urban." (p. 1) (Very important.) On what basis does the State make this arbitrary decision?

They have taken a road with an official classification "urban collector with mountainous terrain" (with 30-40 mph design maximum speeds) and subjectively designed it as a rural road (with 50 mph maximum speed) WHY? What is their intent?

This entire design study appears based on a 50 mph design speed. "We use 50 mph for our 3R design speed in evaluating geometric elements." (p. 4)

Is this point alone sufficient enough to call into question the entire Design proposal about to be released on October 9?

Who has the expertise to address these questions objectively? We certainly cannot trust the fox watching the henhouse.

The public needs answers to these questions, and quickly.

Ann Flister

_______________________________________

email Sept 28, 2003
Dianne Holmes
All,
What do you think we should do about the 3 road designs? It appears from what I heard about the O'Malley open house that it doesn't seem to make a difference even when we try to get in the design phase early.

Have any of you taken a position? We have only discussed the need for 2 trails--one being at least a flat bottomed ditch (which I hope you all will help support because people from your areas were at the RCCC meeting well over a yr ago asking for it).

I don't think it was mentioned in the message that we all just received from the Flisters that Route 240 (the 25 mph plan) would cause the three plus homes the bottom or the curve to have to exit out Bainbridge.

Of course no one wants to have any house moved, but do we also want to see a huge road project that doesn't fix the bad curve. What are your thoughts?

Dianne

_______________________________________

email 9/27/03

Ann Flister

Dear South Anchorage Community Council Representatives,

We are in receipt of a draft copy of the Dearmoun Road Phase 2 design study report. As you many know, the Alaska Department of Transportation is set to release its design proposal to the public at a hearing on Thurs. October 9, at 5 PM at Rabbit Creek Elementary.

We are in receipt of a draft copy of the State's design study report, which shows three alternates driven by different options for the curve just above Currin Circle, as follows:

240R: Keeps the existing centerline as is, but raises the grade significantly at the lower end and widens the road to 12-ft lanes and 6-ft. paved shoulders. This would be a 25 mph curve (p.16).

443R: Moves the right of way on the curve through our property (Lot 7, Currin S/D), widening the curve to a 443 degree radius and requiring a complete acquisition of our property and demolition of our home (built in 2001). This would be a 37 mph curve (pp. 16, 18, others). This alternative has an option for a $700,000 multi-use trail on the south side of Dearmoun Road.

840R: Moves to a completely new right of way further to the south. The only option that eliminates the curve but requires the take of 8 homes. This would be a 50 mph. curve.

All three alternates above include a paved, multi-use trail on the north side of Dearmoun.

DOT Project Manager Therese Stokes tells us that Alternative 443R is DOT's preferred route, and the one the State will advocate on Oct. 9.

We have spent considerable time analyzing the design study report, and there appears to be a lack of compelling necessity for any drastic change to the road beyond widening. There appears to be a fundamental flaw in the basis for these design proposals in that the State is using URBAN, 50 mph, new construction design criteria for a road that they themselves point out it is a rural, mountain terrain road, with low density and no commercial development, and which appears to require only 30-40 mph design criteria.

There appear to be several assumption and reasoning lapses on this project significant enough to warrant serious questions, which we have outlined in meetings with the State and today in written correspondence to our elected officials for this area.

We have the following questions of your community council, which appears to represent residents affected by this project:

1. Have you seen the design study for Dearmoun Phase II and what is your position on the proposed options, particularly 443R?

2. If you favor 443R, why do you favor it?

3. Will you be in attendance at the October 9 hearing?

4. What has been the history of your community council's position and actions with regard to this project?

5. What action, if any, will be taken by your councils and WHEN in regards to the design proposal for Dearmoun Phase 2?

We appreciate a response at your earliest opportunity. Obviously, time is of the essence, as the public comment period (and the only opportunity to save our home) closes November 9.

If you know of others who would be interested in responding to this email, would you please let us know where to forward it as soon as possible.

Ann & Mike Flister
_________________________
Subject: Re: update for DeArmoun ?
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 15:04:02 -0900
From: Therese Stokes <>

Dianne,

I apologize for the delay in replying. DeArmoun Phase I is at the final design stage and we anticipate advertising the project this spring for summer '03 construction. Advance utility relocation work may take place in the spring.

VEI Consultants is the designer for DeArmoun Phase II as well. As a result of comments that we have received to date on this project, including yours and those of the Community Council, I directed the designers to investigate more alternatives in the Design Study Report. We anticipate holding our public meeting in early March.

Regards, Therese Stokes

*************************************************************

12/1/02 [John Weddleton phone call notes with Ann Flister]

She knew buying house that there was talk about about straightening the curve. Spoke w DOT when they got the building permit, spoke w T Stokes and was told that all they would do is widen. Would leave center lane where it is.

10/22/03 Ann Flister offers these corrections to John Weddleton's notes from this 12/1/02 conversation: " What I said was we had heard of the debate years before, and had heard it was tossed out for lack of merit/need (which turns out to be true as we've since found from reading the 1998 preliminary design recommendation). Because we knew about the pending upgrades, though, we asked again before buying the lot in early 2000 and building the house in early 2001 and on all occasions were assured that what we heard before was correct; there was no plan to change the alignment. At that time, we were concentrating on being sure that we had sufficient additional setback for the widening of pavement in the existing ROW. We were never even told that any right of way would be needed from our lot."

Talking to surveyors later, got the same story. Her husband continued to call and ask questions and heard from VEI that might straighten the curve. She last spoke w them in October. She saw a preliminary version that showed road going through her house. 2 of the 3 option would require buying the entire lot. The 3rd would require some of their lot.

They spoke w an attorney who will represent them if they have an issue with the State. Ronald Baird. Was Muni Asst Atty for 20 years. Did MOA ROW acquisition.

He said the state is reqrd to reimburse homeowners for costs spent to seek advice for their rights. "save your receipts."

*******************

email 11/23/02

Dear John [Weddleton],
Thanks for speaking with me the other night regarding the MHCC's role in the State road construction proposed for Dearmoun, and we're sorry that we missed you when you came by on Friday.

when you have a few minutes, I would love to know when, in what context, and with whom the subject of our house came up, as you were obviously familiar with it when I mentioned our address. It's the same reaction I got when I spoke with the other two community council presidents--"Oh, you own THAT house..." I'm especially curious if you've heard direct comments from the D.O.T. project manager or engineers, or if we have been the subject of discussion at other public meetings.

Makes me wonder if we were the last to know about the re-routing plans...!
Our home phone is 344-4948, and my weekday number is 248-6483. Thanks again for your interest.

Ann Flister CPRW
Alaska Career Center
Anchorage, AK
Tel. (907) 561-9311
Fax (907) 561-9312

It can be hard to visualize the various trail and lane widths discussed here and in the various reports.

I'll try to post a few pics of DeArmoun and other roads to help.

To the left is Birch Road about 2/3 of the way from O'Malley to Huffman looking south. The paved trail is 7'. It is separated from the road by 13'. The road lanes (center line to the edge) is 12'. My measure of the road lane includes the paved "shoulder" which is really just a few inches. Car speeds on this road appear to be roughly the same as DeArmoun. The trail separation feels adequately safe. - John Weddleton 11/9/03

Back to Top