Hi all,
I am sorry to report that due to a legal issue, the testing of Third Street's traffic calming has been suspended. The actual testing of the devices before balloting to install them
seems to be in conflict with the current stated policy.

There are two choices:
1 ) Move ahead with balloting without any testing or data
or
2) amend the policy at city level and then proceed with our testing.

Delay is unfortunate but I think that getting the right answer to our traffic issues is more important. Requiring the ballot voting to support something without being allowed to test it first is clearly counter intuitive and is obviously a flaw in the procedure which requires a remedy. I have requested Council's legal department to move forward on this issue immediately.

Chris Sturbaum

PS - My duties on Plan Commission will cause me to miss the Prospect Hill meeting on the 12th. Maybe a special meeting on traffic calming could be planned at this meeting so this issue can be fully discussed.

Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:43:00

Chris, and all --
Let's make the laws work for us! We like this device and want it to become permanent. It has already slowed down the screechers who dash through the lights to hit our stretch of Third at high speeds.
Thanks,
John and Pat McDowell

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:45:00

Part of the plan is to put speed bumps on Third from Maple to Walker with a
stop sign at Walker. The city wants to try speed cushions which have grooves
in them for the tires of emergency vehicles to go through, not slowing them
down. The combination of islands at the front of the neighborhood with speed
cushions at the end of the neighborhood should do the trick.
David- thanks for working on reducing the speed around the park!

Karen Knight

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:47:21

The city has told us that the Prep School did not apply for some kind of school zoning and does not see the school as an official school so will not put cross walks in for them :(
Karen

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:01:04

The crosswalk can be argued for *any pedestrian* and there's no need to
reference The Prep school now that we know what Karen has shared.
Merridee LaMantia
820 W. Howe St.

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:24:57

I like the idea of the island being there but the positioning and design of
that one just didn't seem right. Several times I was a passenger in a large
pickup truck turning onto 3rd from the north. The first time it was a
surprise and we nearly took out a parked car. Subsequent times it was
difficult and needlessly hazardous with the adjacent parking. I'd like to
see a redesigned island and also speed bumps. Sure, there is a procedure to
follow but if there is enough concerted and consistent bitching from the
neighborhood we could get those speed bumps. Procedures are circumvented all
the time.
Robert

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:28:54

I agree with Robert's description of the island: "needlessly hazardous with the adjacent parking." Could one more parking spot have been eliminated during the test period?

Jul 9, 1:06 pm

I heartily agree with the purpose of traffic calming, but the existing island channeled people going west into driving down the center of the street. The day I met an SUV driving down the center of the street was not one of the better ones. And it doesn't seem to slow people down for long (there's the same issue with the chicanes at the end of third street, which some people take as a slalom challenge. They're still not stopping at the stop sign at third and Jackson. I suspect that a sleeping policeman would be more helpful. If it were put about a third of the way in, it might slow people down for the whole block. And in combination with more further down third street, it might encourage people to take Kirkwood or 2nd street west.
Leah

Jul 9, 1:24 pm

What is a sleeping policeman? Sounds like a good idea!
Karen

Jul 9, 1:44 pm

Hi all,
I do support both solutions and have been working to achieve same. I think a redesign is a good idea on the 3rd and Rogers island but the concept is a good one.
Chris

Our neighborhood's next step could be further speed limit reductions to 25 MPH
and crosswalks on Howe are also a good idea. Future neighborhood grants
can be directed to the park which is where the new pavilion came from.

Jul 9, 1:55 pm

I look forward to a meeting when we can get together and talk about these ideas. I must say that I was glad the barrier was gone this morning at 2:20 when the fire trucks and police cars started arriving and they could just barrel down the street, which I know we don’t want most of the time—but I want to remind us that we do want emergency vehicles to be able to access our neighborhood quickly when they need to.
I want to change the topic slightly and commend the Fire Department and Police Department for their work in saving the Paris Dunning House this morning. I talked to Jawn Bauer at lunch time, and he also said they were awesome. At one point there were 3 fire trucks in the 500 block of West Third, one on Fairview right in front (the hydrant is at our corner, next to one of the two stop signs at Third and Jackson), one in the 600 block of W 3rd, plus two other fire vehicles and 3-5 police cars. Some of those folks left as the hours wore on, but the last three fire trucks didn’t leave until 6:30 this morning, when they were sure the fire and hot spots were out.
Another different topic—The last of the old Fairview School is being torn down today. There is a committee working on fundraising for the new Artful Learning curriculum and training. If anyone is interested in helping or in getting more info, please let me know, and I will be happy to talk with you about it. We will be updating the listserv regularly. Among our fundraising ideas are selling bricks from the old school (hopefully the chimney itself), some musical presentations, and lots of other ideas we are still exploring. We will launch this fall, after the campaign for the extracurricular activities (ECAs) is accomplished.
Glenda Murray
525 West Third

Jul 9, 2:17 pm

Thanks, Joshua. But what about speed cushions? (I jumped from a link in one of the articles you provided). If what I've read is correct, they would slow down cars significantly, but not emergency vehicles.
Leah

Jul 9, 2:57 pm

It's not an odd thought at all, and we discussed this approach last summer. The consensus then was that those of us who have tried the civilized approach have been told to f-off, we've been flipped off, swerved at, and had cups and plastic bottles of soda thrown at us-- often in front of our own houses. Last week, an ice cream truck trundled down Third Street, and when it stopped for people wanting to buy ice cream, the cars behind it began honking. These people couldn't care less that they're in our neighborhood.

Jul 9, 3:30 pm

We are planning to have a special meeting on Monday August 2 at 6:30 pm at the Green Bean to discuss these traffic issues. We are hoping to get Justin, the city engineer who is working on this problem, to attend. Please come and bring your great ideas. The more of us that turn out, the more the city sees
that we are serious about fixing this problem. Once the city has a plan, it gets voted on by residents in Prospect Hill. If half the residents agree with the plan, it goes in front of the City Council. It will be important for everyone to show up to impress on the Council that traffic is a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

Thanks for all the great ideas that have been posted!
Karen

Jul 9, 3:34 pm

I guess I must jump in the fray as I live on Third St. near Rogers.
I am all for getting rid of the chicanes and signs by the cemetery. They are an eyesore and not effective at slowing the traffic. I walk my dog down that stretch frequently and am always concerned that a fast moving vehicle will take me out while negotiating the curves in daredevil fashion. The traffic median that was recently removed did seem to slow traffic, but I recognize the difficulty of making a turn onto Third St. West if you are heading South on Rogers. It did serve to flag the beginning of a neighborhood. Perhaps a smaller unit would work but one still planted with flowers. I would hate to see a mass of concrete as marking the entrance to our neighborhood. Personally I think traffic bumps (sleeping policeman) or what ever they are called work the best. I would be concerned about rumble strips as a solution because of the noise pollution issue for neighbors living near them.
-Teresa Miller

Jul 9, 3:44 pm
I understand this issue is important to quite a few of you. However, PLEASE, for the sake of all of our inboxes, either take this into a different email thread with those who have responded with their interest or wait until the upcoming meeting that was just announced at Green Bean Café to discuss this issue. There are a LOT of folks on this listserv, and I don't think we all need to be involved in email after email brainstorming solutions.
Thank you! In related news, does anyone know how to set this so you only receive a daily digest of emails from the list? If so, email me directly!
Christie
P.S. And no, the irony of me sending yet another email to everyone on the list is not lost on me. :)
Christie Wahlert

Jul 9, 4:34 pm

Hi All,
If we go the speed bump way, I suggest we be more creative about using some design with color and texture...this will surely create some smiles as you slow down and bump.
Joe

Jul 9, 11:38 pm
Hey Everybody --
This is a really stimulating debate! I just want to add one more detail. Currently, every week day, a group of charming little kids gets escorted across Rogers, up Third, across Third to Jackson, en route to Trades Park. We fear for the well-being of these tots if the free-wheelers cruising west on Third are not contained.
John and Pat

Jul 10, 11:50 am

Hello everyone,
I would like to put in (another) plea that this should be considered and presented as a neighborhood-wide problem, requiring a neighborhood-wide solution.

Several people have already pointed out that speed limits are too high throughout Prospect Hill and that crosswalks and speed bumps are needed in multiple locations rather than just on 3rd street (where they are definitely needed) -- 4th street should be added to the list. Although traffic is not as heavy on 4th as on 3rd, speeds are much too high and drivers much too careless for an area with heavy pedestrian traffic, including young children. We should have a lower speed limit, speed bumps, and crosswalks (particularly at 4th and Rogers).
Rachel Guglielmo
620 W. 4th St.

Jul 10, 3:09 pm

Karen and all,
We really need to take this one step at a time.

We are in the middle of the process of working on 3rd Street which has the biggest traffic problem at the moment.
Starting other projects before getting this one resolved is not the best way to succeed.

Changing speed limits is another process and we will want to discuss this at the neighborhood level.

There has been support for this idea in the past from the city council.

We need to resolve our plans at the neighborhood level and then work to bring them about.
Chris Sturbaum

Jul 11, 9:07 pm

I like speed bumps and 4-way stops too. The simple things are often the most effective.
Cynthia

To All,

Everyone seems to be comfortable expounding on this site and I am grateful for that, but we need to do more.

We need to show our frustration by our physical presence at the meetings.
The only way Engineering or City Council will take us seriously to listen to what we have to say. They have to see us!

Reading this e-mails at those meetings will have little effect but if we if show up they will "get" how seriously dangerous this situation is.

Thx.
Susan Park

Jul 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Dear Neighbors--

The west 3rd St. traffic-diversion supporter who wrote that "Prospect Hill will vote" on the west 3rd St. traffic-diversion ballot is being misleading. By the flawed process of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NSTP), only those residents who live along west 3rd—those who stand to benefit by this traffic-diversion project that pushes traffic elsewhere in the neighborhood—will be allowed to vote on this ballot.

The rest of Project Hill that will be negatively impacted by the increased traffic is barred from voting. I live a hundred feet or so from west 3rd and can't vote. Bet most of you can't either. Fourth St., Howe, Madison, Smith, Prospect, the rest of Prospect Hill--no vote. This is gerrymandering of a most undemocratic--and unneighborly--type.

We all share an interest in traffic moving along our residential streets at an appropriate speed--25 mph for the most part; 20 mph in zones such as schools, parks and Wonderlab. But many neighbors are concerned that this proposed west 3rd St. traffic-diversion bumper-car scheme will just push traffic to other Prospect Hill residential streets. One only needs to talk to the residents along west 7th who saw a dramatic increase in traffic after the west 6th St. traffic islands were installed to know this is a valid concern. Rather than this special-interest west 3rd St. traffic-diversion scheme, we need a comprehensive traffic-calming plan for ALL of Prospect Hill that will serve the entire neighborhood.

I have the highest regard for Council member Sturbaum, who does a yeoman's job for his constituents, including championing the interests of the west 3rd St. residents who stand to benefit by the proposed traffic-diversion project. But this is bad plan concocted out of a flawed ordinance. It has almost caused a neighborhood disaster. Many neighbors are saying if City officials hadn't ordered the illegal traffic-diversion island at 3rd & Rogers removed the day before the Parris Dunning House burned, firetrucks couldn't have negotiated the labyrinth. So let us urge Council member Sturbaum to lobby for a comprehensive Prospect Hill traffic-calming plan that takes into account the needs, rights and safety of the entire Prospect Hill neighborhood.

Please add your voice to those calling for a comprehensive Prospect Hill traffic-calming plan, and a reform of the flawed Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program that disenfranchises most of the neighborhood.
Email addresses are below.

Doug Wissing
213 S. Jackson St.

Jul 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Hi Neighbors,

At the last PHNA meeting, a new committee was created to work on traffic calming through out the neighborhood. The plan of this committee is to work with the city to get a comprehensive traffic calming effort in Prospect Hill.

If you would like to work with your neighbors on traffic calming, please attend the next PHNA meeting on Monday August 2nd at 6:30 at the Green Bean. This meeting will be devoted to traffic calming.

Hope to see you there!

Karen

Jul 27, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Hi Rachel and Neighbors,

I think a little background is in order. The neighbors on West 3rd Street have been following the city's process for traffic calming for nearly two years now. Neighborhood meetings have gone over the options and there have been meetings with the city officials. The voting (balloting) is limited by ordinance to the people on the street who are directly effected by the changes and who suffer most directly from the traffic issues as well. These are the city's rules that neighbors have been faithfully following. The city council has to approve the traffic calming action as the final oversight process.

Regarding planning, it is a good idea to work on a neighborhood-wide basis. The speed limit is one thing we can work on together and there are stop signs we can add to 4th Street as we did for Howe Street. Future traffic calming is another option on a street by street basis.

However, I would really hope that no-one wishes to use this planning process to undo the work of 3rd Street traffic calming. That would be a disappointing direction for a neighborhood like ours to take.

The problems on 3rd Street are real and neighbors of ours are talking about leaving this neighborhood if things don't improve. I am truly disturbed to hear this from people who moved here with such high hopes. Unlike 4th and Howe, this street has a four lane road aimed right at it with a timed stop light. If we do nothing, future development of apartments to the west will only make this situation worse. I hope we don't add insult to injury by opposing the only remedy for their distress.

Chris Sturbaum

Jul 30, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Neighbors and colleagues,

As I have said before, there are always people who oppose traffic calming and reasonable people can disagree. I am sorry that this disagreement is taking place but sometimes that is an inevitable part of our democratic process.
As the representative of this district, I have by code been part of this process from the beginning. The traffic calming ordinance (NTSP) also encourages petitioners to work through their neighborhood association which has been taking place for going on two years now.

Here are a few additional facts:

*There are still cars driving over the speed limit on a street with no barriers between sidewalk and street. The black marks on the islands show that excessive speed is still occurring.( I have never come close to hitting any of the islands since their installation.)

*The first objective in the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NTSP) is to" 1 ) Improve neighborhood livability by mitigating the negative impact of vehicular traffic on residential neighborhoods." and the first description of "livability" is "The ability of residents to feel safe and secure in their neighborhood."

* Residents feel unsafe in their neighborhood on a street categorized as a local street.

* The technical violation charge (illegal procedure) came from the city gathering data before the balloting process. While this would have made for a more informed decision, it was technically out of order: ( Step 7 before Step 6.)

* The charge of "illegal traffic diversion" comes from the ordinance which states that the increase in traffic on parallel streets can not exceed 150 additional cars. The statement that the traffic calming devices are in reality "traffic diversion devices" is simply rhetoric. Ironically, the testing which was stopped on demand had the purpose of evaluating the effect of various traffic calming actions on adjacent streets. Fortunately, this testing would still take place after the balloting and modifications would still be made as needed. For instance, it is illegal to impact 4th or Howe Street by more than 150 vehicles per day and this would be tested.

* The charge that the temporary test device would have kept the fire trucks from saving the Paris Dunning house is simply not true and no permanent device is ever installed without full review and approval by fire and safety vehicles.

* The NTSP is designed to address one street at a time but it does not ignore
surrounding streets and in fact, tests are made to affirm that the adjacent streets
are not overly impacted.

* The balloting process has been arrived at through experience. 51% of all eligible
households on the street in question must support the remedy with one vote per household. Any non-vote is a no vote.

I look forward to an open discussion at the neighborhood meeting on Monday.
This has never been an attempt to pit one street against another. The neighbors on 3rd Street really are experiencing a negative impact and they are asking for help.

Chris Sturbaum

Hi Prospect Hill Neighbors,

We should be able to get definitive answers about both the process and the possibilities for traffic calming at the Prospect Hill meeting Monday at 6:30 at the Green Bean with Justin Wycoff. My perspective is that there are clear political reasons to try to finish the 3rd Street project now. If we try to start all over we risk losing funding to other neighborhoods.

This can also mean years more of waiting if we stop the current process and then wait for a revision of the traffic ordinance. Funds are getting harder to come by each year and we are in line for help this coming year.

I suggest that the best thing to do is to make sure that 3rd Street calming fits into a larger neighborhood vision. The city can't afford to fund neighborhood wide projects, all at the same time, which is one of the reasons why considering these issues one street at a time has become the norm: Literally one project, one year at a time, is how this works, due to the available amount of funding for traffic calming.

I look forward to meeting and talking about all this with all of you at the Prospect Hill meeting on the 2nd. This is the strength of our neighborhood association: That we can work out our issues at this level and then take them to the city for resolution.

The neighborhood association hasn't been ignoring our neighborhood wide traffic situation. Over the years the association has supported stop signs on Howe and Madison, advocated for 2nd and West Kirkwood and worked on 3rd Street issues from it's inception. The work on neighborhood issues of speed limits and additional traffic calming will continue. The formation of a committee for this planning is a very positive step. I just believe that traffic calming still needs to happen one street at a time due to the reality of the funding process. Glad you are all involved! See you on the 2nd.

Chris Sturbaum

July 28, 2010

Dear Chris and Neighbors,

Thank you for your note. We very much appreciate hearing your views. We are entirely in favor of following the correct process, as we believe everyone in the neighborhood is. As you note, part of that process is that the City Council needs to vote on this; each councilperson’s vote should reflect the considerations of the whole neighborhood and city. We were at the 12 July meeting, and heard a range of views -- from neighbors on 3rd, 4th, Howe, Jackson and other streets -- all in favor of 3rd Street’s plan as part of a comprehensive neighborhood plan. Voicing concerns, including our concern that no plan be finally voted on that is not neighborhood-wide and neighborhood-approved, is part of that process too.

It is therefore not helpful to frame such concerns as improper opposition to an ongoing process or a proposal to ‘undo’ a plan for traffic calming on 3rd Street -- it is, on the contrary, a concern for process that includes the whole neighborhood. For example, you mention that there is a requirement that only the affected street participate in the ballot. To us, this just demonstrates the problem of having proceeded on a non-neighborhood basis. A comprehensive neighborhood plan could either have been put to a neighborhood ballot or -- if for some technical reason that is not possible -- to parallel street-by-street ballots. As it is, a process has been advanced that makes it impossible for neighbors to voice their views effectively or be assured of full information about the process.

So we would welcome more background information -- part of the problem, frankly has been that clear and authoritative information about the process has been in short supply. You mention that the 3rd Street process has been ongoing for some time; this is true, but so have attempts to ensure that this is a comprehensive plan for the neighborhood. We recall an extensive discussion on the group listserv last year, during which many voices called for attention to traffic-calming throughout Prospect Hill; we, for example, specifically raised the issue of including 4th st. traffic calming as part of a comprehensive plan last October.

So, we are in favor of a neighborhood plan that includes the 3rd Street project, just as we are in favor of a process that is open and communicative. In that spirit, we would like to know:

What is the current status of proposals for 3rd Street? What are the next steps, including opportunities for neighbors to be heard?
How do current plans for 3rd Street take into account the concerns of the whole neighborhood, including risks of traffic diversion? What specific opportunities would neighbors on other streets have to comment on, support or object to a 3rd Street-only plan?
Is there a single location where the current status, remaining steps and timeline, and opportunities to be heard regarding plans for 3rd Street is currently listed? Perhaps there is, but it is evident that many actively interested neighbors do not know these basic facts and do not know where to find them.
Is there any reason -- any technical objection - why a ballot could not be organized for a whole neighborhood project, rather than just for one street? If there is, could we have parallel ballots for each segment of a neighborhood project, with agreement that no council vote will be taken on any until balloting for all is completed?
Is there any reason why a comprehensive neighborhood plan -- one that includes 3rd Street traffic calming and similar measures for Howe and 4th -- could not be advanced? We cannot see the objection to this, which seems to be in the best traditions of a comprehensive, all-neighborhood approach of precisely the kind that surely we all want.

Regards,

Rachel Guglielmo & Tim Waters