Taking issue with a friend's comments

-A A +A

This letter is in response to Joel Williams’ letter in the Feb. 27 Los Alamos Monitor dealing with changes to Trinity Drive.  Joel is a friend and previously a neighbor of many years.
Trinity Drive has numerous problems: It is dangerous for drivers because of numerous intersections without traffic signals. It is dangerous for those riding bicycles and for pedestrians.  It is an uniquely ugly street and does little to promote Los Alamos as a nice place to visit, live or shop.
My belief is something needs to be done and my hope is that the Trinity Drive reconstruction will be able to address some of above problems so that Trinity Drive can become a safe and pleasant street.  
It is worth noting that Trinity Drive is a state highway and that if we do not have a plan to improve the street, the state could well provide one for us that we may not care for at all.
I have comments on specific statements that Joel made:
•Placating less that 2 percent of the population at the expense of the other 98 percent. Those of us living along Trinity have more at stake because we use Trinity more frequently.  In my case multiple times per day as compared to about once per week when I lived on Barranca Mesa.
• The team studying traffic flow observed and counted traffic flow and ran simulation studies using well regarded simulation programs for the various configurations of Trinity.  The results of these studies should be considered and studied by all who are interested in Trinity reconstruction.
•I take issue with the statement that the focus groups were: “stuffed with special interest groups.” These well advertised meetings were open to anyone who wanted to attend.
I would encourage everyone including the silent (?) 98 percent to take an active part in developing positive solutions to the redo of Trinity Drive.

Ronald Christman
Los Alamos