Bulldog Boulevard and Public Input

In an ideal world, citizens would only be notified of projects and meetings that they are interested in. Unfortunately, even with the technology available today, it is still hard to know beforehand who will be interested in which project. So we, the government of Provo generally, notice on all issues. A negative consequence of the volume of notices is that many citizens don't follow the notices closely, and may not be aware that an issue they care about is being addressed. City officials go to great lengths to make it as easy as possible to stay informed with the current efforts of the City. We publish blogs (like the one you're reading), we tweet, we write newsletters (tons of newsletters, with different scopes, and even give you an easy way to sign up for the ones you want), we host a public input web forum where we both ask for input on specific questions and welcome thoughts on any topic you'd like, we are on Facebook, we sponsor neighborhood meetings, we meet regularly with the press, we post silly (and hopefully informative) videos, we hold town hall meetings and open houses, and, yes, we still publish notices in the newspaper.

Despite our good faith efforts, sadly we routinely hear from people very late in the public process who are upset at the direction of a project and who are upset that they didn't learn of the project sooner. Please know that we are doing our best and are always open to suggestions for improvement.

Most recently this occurred after an open house on the Bulldog Blvd Design. We are fairly late in the process, the traffic and environmental impact studies have been conducted. State and County money has been secured. But this is another opportunity to spread the word of the coming improvements and get the public's input on design. A resident attended the open house and did not like the overall project, who sent out an email alerting fellow residents of the project. The Council has received many emails protesting the project in the last couple of days, many from people who are just hearing of the project and only have what information was in the email. Once word got out that opposing emails were being received, we've received a number of letters from supporters of the project.

Rather than respond to each concerned resident individually, I'm going to put my thoughts here.

I first heard about this project while serving on Provo's Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. My first reaction was also one of alarm. I knew of the lack of good east-west corridors in Provo. This road is near my house, but I tried to avoid it when possible because it is such a stressful street to be on. My initial reaction was that reducing an automobile lane in each direction would make things worse. But as I listened to the traffic engineer, what he said made sense. This road is problematic. It has the highest rate of accidents in the STATE, more than 7 times the average. This road is threatening the life, health, and safety of all users, predominately automobile drivers and passengers. The engineer explained that even projecting far into the future, the traffic on this road doesn't warrant three lanes in each direction. Then he said something that surprised me but made sense as I thought about it and applied it to my own experiences. This street isn't stressful because it is over-crowded. It is stressful because of the poor design. The third traffic lane isn't helpful, it's causing much of the conflict and problems. How many times have I turned right onto the road and then needed to change three lanes in two blocks to make a left-hand turn? How many times have I seen drivers shoot out of a parking lot and cross many lanes of traffic to get where they are going?

I could be wrong, but I don't remember bike lanes being discussed in that first meeting. The point was that a lane of traffic would be removed in each direction and that the resulting capacity would still be more than enough for the demand and it would be significantly safer. It wasn't until later that I saw the beautiful renderings of the landscaping and bicycle lanes that would fill the vacated space, funded by the State and County who are happy to see this unsafe corridor fixed.

The conversation seems to be about whether an automobile lane should be sacrificed to make room for trees and bikes. Even the Project Newsletter states, "the project plans to convert one travel lane in each direction to bicycle lanes." But I see this as a fix of a bad design where overcapacity was significantly harming the safety of the road. The additions of trees and bike lanes is the best use of the freed-up space, particularly when the State and County are so happy to pick up the tab.

I am confident that this project will improve the safety and experience of all users of this street and will be a beautiful addition to our street network. To those who are concerned about the loss of a lane, I hope that with further research you will agree that this project is a "common sense" solution. Though the Council will not directly vote on this project, I am thrilled to be held accountable for my support of this project. I am confident that the vast majority of the community, if not everyone, will be happy with the results of this project.