A city consultant presented a renewed, concept‑level plan for downtown street connectivity on Dec. 2, urging the council to consider a lower‑impact alternative to the long‑debated 3rd Street extension while advancing targeted pedestrian and bike improvements across downtown. The presentation framed the work as part of the Destination Downtown effort and emphasized safety, mobility and economic development as key goals.

Chris (project presenter) told the council that a more connected street system — closer to a grid — spreads out traffic, reduces pressure to widen arterials and typically improves safety for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. “When a street system is as close to a grid as we can get it, it’s hyper efficient,” he said, and he cited research by Wes Marshall (University of Colorado) and data from a private connectivity product to illustrate trade‑offs.

The staff recommendation focuses on several linked moves rather than a single, expensive rebuild: completing a missing 4th Street connection in the northwest, targeted bike/ped improvements on Fairview and Cherry, neighborhood traffic circles in Old Town to replace some four‑way stops, and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) at key crossings rather than full signals where ACHD policy makes signalization unlikely.

Chris told council that ACHD in 2025 signaled they are unlikely to permit a full traffic signal at 3rd & Fairview because of arterial signal‑spacing policy; ACHD instead indicated openness to access‑management measures, refuge islands and a PHB to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings. “Signal, they’re not aboard that train,” Chris said, describing the 2025 agency position as different from assumptions used in the 2008 alignment study.

Cost and property impacts featured prominently. Chris said all alignments analyzed in the 2008 report would require purchasing private property — in several cases full takes — and estimated right‑of‑way acquisition at “at least about $2.5 million, close to $3 million,” with total acquisition and negotiation risk potentially pushing the figure higher. He also noted overpass options can be an order of magnitude more expensive: “I wouldn’t be surprised if you saw a price tag of about $20,000,000 or more” for an overpass across the tracks, while underpass options raise geotechnical and groundwater challenges.

Council members pressed on trade‑offs and timeline. Several members said the alignment and similar concepts have been discussed for decades and asked staff to clarify which prior approvals and right‑of‑way holdings remain. Council members also raised redevelopment timing, the possibility of leveraging ACHD resurfacing projects, and whether the 2½‑street yellow dashed alignment (the lower‑impact route presented) could avoid demolitions that the 3rd Street alignment would require.

Chris said a written white paper will accompany the presentation in the coming weeks that will detail the number of homes affected under each alignment, a ROW cost breakdown, construction estimates (escalated to 2025 dollars) and recommended next steps, including public outreach and coordination with ACHD and the Urban Renewal District. He advised that the white paper will provide the data the council requested about property takings, timing and exceptions within ACHD policy.

Transportation Commission liaison staff told council the commission had a brief preview and is available to review the white paper once it is finalized. Several council members asked staff to consolidate council feedback and return recommended edits that can be packaged and sent to Meridian Development Corporation for their consideration.

What’s next: the consultant will provide the white paper with a full analysis of alignments, property‑impact counts and cost estimates; if the council wants to pursue changes to the existing plan and mapping, staff said that would trigger a public process and likely require coordination with ACHD and possibly a comp plan amendment.