HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-13 CorrespondenceCity of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 30, 1996
To: The Honorable Mayor Naomi J. Novick, Members of the City Council, City Clerk
From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Re: No parking any t'me nstallation on the south side of Pepper Drive from Birch Street west
to Sandusky Drive
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3 of the City Code, this is to advise you of the following
action:
ACTION
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A10 of the City Code. the City Traffic Engineer will direct the installation
of NO PARKING ANYTIME on the south side of Pepper Drive from its intersection with Birch
Street west to its intersection with Sandusky Drive. This action will take place on or shortly after
February 14, 1996.
COMMENT:
This action is being taken upon the completion of the mail-out questionnaire to the residents of
Pepper Drive that would be affected by this change in parking conditions on Pepper Drive.
Thirteen questionnaires were distributed and six were returned. Of the six that were returned, five
were in favor of extending the prohibition.
Date:
From:
Tue, 6 Feb 96 21:47:07 CST
Larry Molnar <lam@astro.physics.uiowa.edu>
To: mkarr@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Cc: lam@astro.physics.uiowa.edu, kkubby@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu,
denorton@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Subject: Transportation hearing comments
Dear Ms. Karr, February 6, 1996
For the city records, I am sending here a written version of my
comments at the transpo_tatlon hearing held this evening. (I was the
first speaker.)
Sincerely
Larry Molnar
700 Manor Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
I would like to make one comment about the SEATS program, and then five
brief suggestions about the bus system.
SEATS
The city staff's first budget draft fails to distinguish the two
distinct financial problems we face: a significant increase in the cost
of SEATS this year (140k$), and a significant decrease in the federal
support for transit beginning in the following year (250k$). Making
the city accessible to people with disabilities is a priority for all
Iowa Citians, and the cost should be spread appropriately. If, as
suggested in the draft proposal, this cost is born solely by the
minority that use the buses, we may ultimately destroy the viability of
both the bus system and SEATS. New money from the general fund or the
parking fund has to be a component of paying the additional cost for
SEATS. [By the way, I appreciate the truth of Mayor Novick's comment
that the SEATS budget is currently subsidized through the general fund
in accord to the principle I am stating here. The focus of my point is
strictly the proposed approach to pay for the *increase* in the SEATS
budget.]
BUSES
With regard to buses, we need to be very careful to maintain the strong
system that we have. There is a real danger that if once we begin
chipping away at the system, we will enter a downward spiral of ever
fewer riders bearing ever greater costs for less service until the
system shuts down. We need, therefore, to meet the budget without
significantly damaging ridership. To that end I have five comments.
1) I think the proposal to raise the bus fares from 50c to 75c is one
necessary way to increase revenue. Given how long the price has been
at 50c, this increase cannot be seen as too onerous.
2) On the other hand, I think the proposal to raise the monthly passes
from $18 to $25 is a great mistake. The current bus passes require 18
roundtrips to be economical; the proposal reduces this to 17. This is
greater than any other bus system in Iowa (based on the summary from
staff), and gives little financial incentive for loyal ridership.
Consider the analogy to magazine subscriptions. These are typically
half the newstand prices. This is not done to subsidize faithful
readers. It is done because they know sales and profits increase by
getting your money and committment up front, rather than allowing you
the possibility to say "no" every week. A bus pass for, say, $20,
aggressively advertised as the bargain it would be, would likely
increase participation in the pass system and maintain or increase the
revenue.
3) A variant along these same lines is to offer strip passes with a
marginal discount (say 11 rides for the price of 10). This might be
particularly attractive in Iowa City because of the large number of
people who may need the bus only three days a week (and so would not by
a bus pass) because of class schedules, part time jobs, and complicated
child car schedules. (I fall into this latter category myself.)
4) Having looked at the proposal to eliminate evening service, I am
amazed how little money this seems to save. Evening service accounts
for roughly 6% of all the rides, but its elimination would save only 5%
of the operating costs. If 1:1 return is considered favorable, we may
as well eliminate the whole system. Cutting evening service seems to
me the beginning of the fatal downward spiral. (While opposing
elimination of evening service, I am open to cost savings through
carefully selected reduction in frequencies or possible combinations of
routes.)
5) Finally, it is striking to me that the largest employer in town
heavily subsidizes parking spaces, but does not offer discounts on bus
passes. The University could probably save significant money in future
construction and greatly benefit the city bus system at the same time
with such discounts. On the other hand, University employees have a
lot to lose if the bus system withers away. The city should
aggressively approach the University along these lines.
I thank the Council for holding this hearing and giving me your
valuable time.
DAVE COUCHMAN
2709 WAYNE AVE.
IOWA CITY IOWA 52240
February 6, 1996
DEAN THORNBERRY
Dear MR. THORNBERRY:
Enclosed you will find the various costs saving items that xv¢ talked about per our phone conversation.
I hope that these will be given some serious consideration by you and the rest of the council. I feel that
taxpayer money is not being utilized appropriately, in fact, I think that some of the transit budget is
being wasted on unneeded items (MANAGEMENT) to the tune of $I 50,000.00 to $200,000.00.
Please as a member of the city council give these ideas some consideration,
this is a unique city full of good ideas and growth I'm sure that as you
become aware of the waste that you will do the right thing.
LETS GET RID OF THE WASTE AND STAY ON TOP OF IT FROM
NOW ON! !
Sincerely,
Memorandum
DATE: February 6. 1~6
TO: DEAN THORNBERRY
FROM: OAVE COUCHMAN
RE: TRANSIT ISSUES
1. SHOP SUPERVISOR IS NOT NEEDED: I GUY TO WATCH 4 GUYS WORK IS WASTE
(SAVINGS $4{},000 TO $$0,000) 2. COMBINE NIGHT MANAGEMENT WITH PARKING AFTER
7 P.M. (SAVINGS AT LEAST $10,000) 3. HAVE RON OPEN UP MONDAY THROUGtl FRIDAY
NO NEED TO ttAVE 3 MGRS. ON DUTY EVERYDAY Ttt]S IS WASTE. SHIFT WOULD BE FROM 5:30
TO 2:30 4. HAVE A PART TIME AFTERNOON MG1L FROM 2 00 TO 7:00 AND Tt~N
COMBINE NIGtIT MGT WITH PARKING.( SAVINGS OF AT LEAST $15,000 ) 5. REDUCE OR
ELIMINATE SAFETY SUPERVISOR LET A DRIVER OR DRIVERS TRAIN NEW DRIVERS AND
EVALUATE CURRENT DRIVERS OR HAVE A PART TIME SAFETY SUPERVISOR {SAVINGS
AT LEAST $25,000 TO $45,000). 6. LOOK AT REDUNDANCY IN SEATS SERVICE, (COULD
BE A VERY BIG SAVINGS). 7. CUT BACK ON SATURDAY MGT. NOT NEEDED. B. ON
CALL DRIVERS SItOULD DRIVE MORE WHEN NEEDED 0VIGT. WASTES ALLOT HERE).
9. MGT. WASTE ALLOT OF MONEY ON UNNECESSARY OVERTIME LOOK AT TRANSIT
HISTORY IT WILL SPEAK FOR ITS SELF, (RON WASTES ALLOT HEREI. 10. MAKE
CHANGES TO SOME ROUTES TO MAKE THEM MORE EFFICIENT. 11. LOOK AT
PARKING AND 'FRANSIT TO GET RID OF OVERLAPS IN MGT. AND POSSIBLY WORKERS.
ACTUALLY I FEEL RON HAS DONE GOOD THINGS SINCE JOINING TRANSIT,
HOWEVER THERE 1S SO MUCH WASTE HE HAS TO DO MORE YI' SEEMS AS IF HE
DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT MAKING CHANGES OR SOMETIMES HE
WILL NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES.
RECEIVED F£1 0
To: Members of the City Council
From: Annie ~ucker
Re: Designadng budget funding for amediationfund- anamendment
February 5, 1996
Thank you so much for your time and consideration after your Tuesday night meeting two
weeks ago. I'd like to use this letter to continue our discussion. I have been discns~ ng your
concerns with mediators and lawyersin Iowa City and would like to amend my proposal. I propose
thatnextyear'sbudgetinclnde alineitem designation of$1000to coverrnediadon fees. These funds
would b e available to participants in mediations which do not involve the city as a disputant and
where the mediated issues are not related to the business or income of one or both of the disputants.
When we met, many of you made positive comraents about mediation as an effective way to
resolve disputes. You also expressed concerns, and the above stipulations are intended to address
those concerns. One concern had to do with the perceived or actual conflict of interest if City funds
paid both parties' feesin a mediation where the City was a disputant. Another concern was the
prospect of a businessperson a.~plying to use these City funds in a businesscelated mediation.
As I listened to your d~scussion while I waited to speak to you, I got an even clearer idea of
the tough. choices you are facing as you design this budget. I don't imagine you are looking for new
opportumues to spend money. On the other hand. my sense isthat you recognize the value of people
working things out, at alJ levels. Linda Woitorefe~red tothe recent settlement of the Prohaska
lawsuit and you are familiar with alocal agency'srecent mediation results.
Neighberhood disputesmay bethemost corernon usefor thesefunds. In fact, the existence
of the funds, and the option of mediating, could be made known by the Neighborhood Services
Coordinator through theneighborhood centers, neighborhood organizations, etc. AsIowaCity
continues to grow and change, w e may b e grateful that we started m ski ng mediation accessible for
umes whentempers flare.
I do appreciate your time and consideration. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
,
Artfie Tucker
1425 Oaklawn Ave.
Iowa City, IA 52245
354-1250
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:20:16 -0600
From: "Rockne L. Foreman" <Rockne-Foreman@uiowa.edu>
To: mkarr@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Subject: Transit System
We are ten-year veterans of the Iowa City Transit System. We take the bus to
and from work at the University every work day. Please consider very
carefully before you reduce service, or raise fares to the point where many
people will feel it is much more economical to drive in. We don't think
anyone on the council wants the parking situation in downtown Iowa City to
worsen, which is exactly what it will do when riders perceive that it is
easier or less expensive to just hop in their cars. The smart, ecological,
progressive course to take would be to increase not decrease service, and to
make the fares more rider-friendly, not more expensive.
Please think about this issue carefully. We have believe that the bus
system should be subsidized with parking revenues (raise them if you need
to), you should not penalize those who are responsible users of the transit
system in order to supplement those who are irresponsible in using private
transportation. Where would the money come from for yet another parking
ramp, a ramp which would ultimately be needed if all we bus people started
hauling our cars to downtown Iowa City. Please plan ahead.
Rockne Foreman (335-5218) (337-4170)
Deborah Foreman (335-3713) (337-4170)
Rockne Foreman
University of Iowa
Information Technology Services
Rockne-Foreman@uiowa.edu
Voice: 319-335-5218
Fax: 319-335-5505
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:10:36 -0600
From: Colin Gordon <colin-gordon@uiowa.edu>
Reply to: JC-NEWS@netins.net
To: jc-news@netins.net
Subject: politics of public transit
some political background on our transit crisis
Colin Gordon
The Politics of Public Transit
As local governments plod through their fiscal 1996 budgets, they are
beginning to confront, in concrete and troubling ways, the local
implications of the "Contract on America." In Iowa City, one of the
issues we face is deep cuts (and the eventual disappearance) of federal
operating assistance for public transit. As I looked more closely at how
and why federal assistance was being cut, I was struck by how this action
illuminated both the links between national retrenchment and local
consequences, and the larger logic and assumptions of Republican (and
increasingly Democratic) politics.
The basic issue, buried deep in the budget politics of the past year, is
relatively simple. Since 1964, annual appropriations for the Federal
Transportation Administration (FTA) have included operating assistance to
municipal transit systems. In large urban centers, federal aid accounts for
between 4 and 10 percent of transit budgets; in small centers (under 200,000
population), federal aid covers between 12 and 20 percent. This budget line
has been under constant attack in recent years. For fiscal 1995, federal
operating assistance was cut 12 percent to $700 million. For fiscal 1996,
the appropriation was slashed 43 percent to $400 million with the
understanding that it would be phased out entirely in three years.
In Iowa City, federal and state operating assistance in 1995 covered about
$250,000 of a $3 million transit budget. This will be cut by one-third in
1996 and disappear by 1999. Our options are limited. Demands on our
transit system, reflecting both local growth and an ADA-inspired expansion
of paratransit services, continue to grow. The share of local tax levies
going to public transit has risen sharply in recent years. In response to
the current crisis, City staff have proposed dismal and draconian choices
between cutting service and raising fares, with full knowledge that any such
combination will slowly strangle an essential public service by rendering it
less convenient and less affordable. The situation elsewhere is similar: a
survey of medium and small urban transit systems in Pennsylvania, for
example, suggested an average fare increase of 64 percent or service cuts of
26 percent would be needed to adjust to the loss of federal aid.
All of this draws a direct and compelling line between bipartisan national
rhetoric about "getting the government off our backs" or "giving
responsibility back to local governments" and the consequences of such
rhetoric in local settings. We are not seeing government lifted off our
backs, we are seeing busses lifted off our streets. We face increased
responsibilities without the resources or the tax base to deal with them.
What is especially ironic is the posturing of conservatives in local
government who gleefully join in chipping away at the edifice of "big
government', without stopping to realize that, as local officials, they will
be downstream when the dam breaks.
As a thin slice of the "Contract for America" and the subsequent budget
debate, the transit issue is especially revealing. During consideration of
the FTA appropriation last fall, there was little attempt by Congressional
Democrats to stem the bleeding. Senator Hatfield (D-OR) argued against
shuffling more money to municipal transit, reasoning that "it would be
raising false hope that we somehow are going to reverse the trend." In
fact the dissent, such as it was, came primarily from a Pennsylvania
Congressional delegation -- including Republican Senators Specter and
Santorum -- acutely aware of the impact of the cuts in smaller industrial
centers. More tellingly, just as deficitmania never seems to penetrate tax
policy or military spending, budgetary justification for cuts in transit
assistance evaporated in debate over other FTA budget lines. Federal
highway assistance, at $18 billion, received a 5 percent increase. Spending
on airport improvements, at $1.6 billion, grew 10 percent.
As a whole, the FTA bill reflected a combination of Congress,s distinctly
suburban vision and its ability and willingness to continue rolling logs
amidst the smoke of budget politics. Alongside its clear preference for
cars and airplanes, Congress also spent just under $700 million -- that is
nearly twice its spending for all municipal transit systems -- on fifteen
specific transit projects, almost all commuter rail construction. This
list included $125 million for the notoriously corrupt and wasteful Los
Angeles Metro Rail project. This is "a backward looking bill that promotes
the transportation solutions of the 1950s" observed Representative Borski
(D-PA)," o . . this is a bill for the part of America that has cars and
needs its'airports expanded. It is not a bill for the working people of
America."
The class politics of transit funding also emerged in connections between
transit assistance and other thrusts of the Republican revolution. In a
futile effort to shame their colleagues into softening the cuts, some
Senators noted the irony of pushing welfare reform which required people to
work, and then making it impossible for them to get to work. Senator
Santorum (of all people) argued that "as we continue to cut back or increase
fares . we are going to affect the ability of these people to hold jobs,
[when] in fact we are going to make them have jobs on welfare." The transit
cuts, alongside the dearth of decent jobs at living wages and the perverse
logic of welfare reform , only underscore the cynicism behind the Republican
panacea of private employment.
The values and priorities and tactics of the 104th Congress were neatly
captured in one final element of the FTA appropriation: an attempt to repeal
the FTA's Section 13 (C) which guarantees collective bargaining rights and
prevailing wages for transit workers in systems receiving federal
assistance. In keeping with the blissfully ludicrous assumption that
America's troubles stem from big labor and big government, the Gingrichites
argued that Section 13 (C) was "nothing more than a gift to organized labor
for the past 30 years," and that reduced labor costs following its repeal
would "allow transit authorities the flexibility to reduce their costs and
accommodate reductions in Federal operating assistance without reducing
services or increasing fares°" By this reasoning, as Representative
Foglietta (D-PA) noted, the Republicans were going to "replenish the coffers
of mass transit" by "ask[ing] the working people of this Nation to pay for
it." Equally troubling was the way in which repeal was approached. Echoing
the larger pattern of regulatory reform, the Transportation Committees acted
on the concerns and demands of transit management, never consulted or
approached the transit workers, and buried a substantial revision of labor
law in a seemingly arcane appropriations bill.
The repeal of Section 13(C) did not survive into the final version of the
bill, offering a temporary respite to transit workers (especially in
right-to-work states). But there is little to cheer about. Congress is
busy pursuing other avenues of paring back 13(c) and, with the end of
federal operating assistance by 1999, the leverage for federal labor
standards will also be lost. More broadly, of course, the fiscal blow to
municipal transit systems will be felt by all working people, the disabled,
the elderly, the environmentally-conscious, and the communities -- like Iowa
City -- in which they live.
Date: 07 Feb 1996 15:53:15 GMT
From: caroline dieterle <ADPSYA2.CDIETERL@UIAMVS.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>
Reply to: JC-NEWS@netins.net
To: JC-NEWS@netins.net
Subject: politics of public transit
Date: 02/07/96
From: caroline dieterle CDIETERL - ADPSYA
To: JCNEWS - INTERN
Subject: politics of public transit
Reference: Your note of 02/07/96 15:14
I just wonder whether the people in Congress truly understand the implication
and results of the transformation of our country to a society with only two
economic classes.
J FCEIVF_O FFa 0 8 I§§6
To: Czty Council Members, Czty of Iowa C~ty
From: Jason 1'I. Morztz, 1131 Ash St., Iowa City,
Re: No Fare Increase, No Service Cut!
Date: February 6, 1996
IA 52240
Hello. My name :s Jason Moritz. I am a graduate student in the
Department of Geography at the Universaty of Iowa. For almost two
years I have used Iowa City Trans:t (ICT) to get back and forth from
my home and school. Even though I have a car, I believe that the bus
· s the most affordable. convenient and reliable form of
transportation available to me. ICT also grants accessability to
those who would otherwise have to do without it. For these
reasons. I am opposed to the proposed fare increase and
service out. Thank you for your t~me and consideration in this
matter. I hope that my wews w~11 help you mahe your deolsxon on
this issue. If you have any questions about my comments or want
add~txonal information, please call me at work (335-0166) or at home
(358-0787). Thanks.
(!:~ February 7,
1996
RECEIVSO FEB 0
To:
City Council of Iowa City
City Manager - Steve Arkins
Iowa City Transit System
I was in attendance at the open forum last evening on the
potential changes in the transit system, partlcullary the
bus service. I am not a user of SEATS or Paratransit, so
cannot expound on that although I understand why the services
are somewhat connected, finanically as well as the parking
system downtown.
As you may recall I did get up and speak, I just wanted to ex-
pand my thoughts in clearer terms.
As I stated last night, I am not opposed to the fare increase
up to .75¢, although as with everythinG in life always increaseing
the price in something does nojt guarantee good se.rvice, and this
. ~ . },~u- .
is a PUBLIC system. I con ~ now you can razse przces and cut
services and feel that this would not have an adverse effect all
the way aroundm ~urely you will lose some riders due to the price
increase, but CERTAINLY you are to lose much more if you cut service.
And eventually this would kill the system, as there are less riders
there will be less funding to operate the system, and then you will
raise the fares again and it will continue to be a downward spiral.
So please, consider ve.ry.carefully ALL YOUR OPTIONS, and perhaps at
least see what just raising the fares will do to generate more
funding for at least a year~-as we allknow that rlderhip i~ oown
n the summer time, and when the 4 times a year when the University
is not in session, so please think this over carefully.
I live on Hawaii Court, at this time I can take either the Westwinds
-~_Plaen View and Hawkeye Bus. With two of the routes I have to walk
2-3 blocks, one^g~.~w_h. ich is up a large hill. Neither of this is
a problem for m~,~'~s a problem however if you cut service to this
area at~J.c~ht%,~he only bus to service this area at night ls the
°'m~-3{estwlnds- H~awke~'~ye and Plaen View quit at 6:15. I us~ to live
"/~9~.berorA~einaanldlSU~se~ and the Plaen View route was changed in Dec.
]came back tgo sunYsettan~n~ntdo°W~2nun. Setsom°Ueotnet°dePlc~end,V~hanndO stuh~vney
of rldership and no advance publicity~I just happened to hear a
passenger and driver discussing it one day. I wrote to all of you
to explain my views and even called the transit system, I never
received a written reply or response from any of you. Now that I
live here (moved in Jan. 96) I only have approx. ]5 min ride to
UIHC, however for anyone picking up the bus on Aber ave it is almost
a half-hour ride. I now have the reverse if I take the Plaen View
home, I have a half-hour ride home. I am not pleased wlththat, but
prefer it over no bus service to the area° But when the route was
changed, about 1 ~{eek prior to the change there was a small blurb in
the paper and no.~ if 'few' signs in the buses aud they did it when
school was not in session so that when students returned in January
they had no idea the service had changed.
It was explained to me that it changed at that time of year because
it would effect the leas~ amount of people at the beginning. Yet
the purpose of ch~ging it was to ease ridership on Hawkeye and
Express routes (which majority of riders are students) yet sJr~n~s ~;~
were in the dark. I have no idea of this change has been good
or bad, and now my circumstances have changed somewhat as now
the Plaen View serves me well, at leaset for going to work. I
do use it 3 times a week to go to New Life Fitness world as
well and really do appreciate the change in the WEstwinds night
s~iceto that area is very beneficial to me.
I take the bus everywhere, I have planned my physician, hair, dental
appointments etc.. so that they are on bus routes. I only drive
on Sundays and I take it 3-4 evenings a week. I cannot
afford to drive my car everyday, and my feet are in poor health
to let me ~alk to work everyday, the bus is my lifeline. I know
~hat I mc~a~t be h0mebound in the winter time because I can take
~ bus to almost anywhere, I even do it to go to movies in Coralville
etc .... I used the Coralville system for 15 years before I moved ~
to IC and I just cannot express how strongly I feel about this ~
whole system. I know it is something like 10-15 riders per hour
to help pay for the bus at that time, PLEASE look into somethings
that will increase ridership, not decrease it. I think car pools
for city employee~ is a good idea, not so sure on a city tax for
vehicles, but som~hing can be foun~ to draw ~iders to the system.
The new Coralville malls will hav~a MAJOR IMPACT, perhaps you
could work something out with them to have a shuttle service as
well.
Gas is not going to be this 'cheap' for_long, I strongly suspect by
2000 we will have $2.00 and up prices®'~hen people will be clamoring
for service, and yuu could be out of the ~ame by th~n.
This is a diffmcult time, tough decsions must be made, I h~e
this council has a better ear to the people than the last
and that you will listen to what we all said last night.
Thank you ~
Marsh-a Hucke
418 Hawaii Ct.
Iowa City, Iao 52246
RECEIVED FEB 0 8 l[Ig6
(LI-P '/;/
-h
p~ FS_o¼
~_L_c d~ 5 g
71 '
%
I
c'k.r~ h I rq,9 ~
~-om+ b ~.c ~t~<
%
$~ ~c-c r'e.,. 1¥
,q/ex ~. x, ,r,; x..-
2,
0././/5" 0 ;-',.+ ¥~ s ~j<~4_ C+
RECEIVEr] ~'r~ 0 7
RECI~IVED FEB 0 ? 1~6
3100 East Washington .%'freer
Iowa City, IA 52245
Phone (3L9) 339-6844
F~ (~) 3~m-6709
M~chael J. Kelley. PHnclpal
Feb. 12, 1996
To the City of Iowa City,
The Helen Lemme PTA Safety Committee and concerned Lemme
parents are requesting an adult crossing guard. This guard is
needed at the corner of Dartmouth and Washington St.
Enclosed with this request, is a petition listing our concerns
and signatures of Lemme parents.
'Jud~y/oess~l~
PTA Safety Committee Co-Chairman
School i$ v/,mt wa make it -- $1;are the Joyl
96FEB 12 ?RI2:56
Dear Iowa City Council I~e~eCr~s!¥' 10~'~A
Jan. 31,1996
This letter is written to you by Letoroe Elementary School parents regarding the
lack of adult crossing guard supervision at the intersection where Washington St.,
Dartmouth St. and the Lemme entrance meet. Currently, Lemme provides 6th graders
as crossing guards. They are allowed only to prevent children from entering the
intersection when traffic is moving, but cannot stop traffic so children can cross. All
children living south of Lemme are instructed to cross over here as it is the only
supervised crossing. Because of this, the following major problems and concerns have
resulted:
1. Children are unable to cross the street in a timely manner and must often wait
the longest in inclerpent and sometimes unsafe weather. From 8:20 A.M. on, large
numbers of children congregate at the crossing and are unable to cress due to the
concurrently high number of cars flowing in/out of the only entrance to the school. in
severe weather, the problem is compounded by even greater numbers of parents
driving, and this includes south side parents who do not want their children standing
an extra long time in the bad weather. This makes it rough on those kids who do not
have the luxury of a ride, and is of great concern to us.
2. There are children who leave on time for school, but cannot cross the street
until after 8:30. The second bell is at 8:35, and it can be a real struggle to remove all
winter apparel and be on time.
3. It does not seem right nor safe that children that have already walked a
distance should be made to stand an extra 5-10 minutes in severe sub-zero wind chill
conditons or in pouring rains, etc.
4. Some children, to avoid this bottleneck, are crossing Washington St. in other
areas, often outside of the 20 mph school zone. This defeats the whole purpose of a
safe crossing and concerns us greatly.
5. Children have been seen crossing the intersection after 8:30, when the 6th
graders leave to go to school. Traffic has been seen to be still moving, and the
Rochester bus has been seen stopping for kids. Also, the east side of this intersection
on Washington St. is a hill over which traffic would have difficulty stopping for children
if conditions were slick or they were driving faster than 20 mph.
6. What about the advisibility or legality of allowing our 6th graders to stand out
in severe weather and act as crossing guards? If not them, then who?
7. The 6th graders cannot truely see traffic coming from the east due to the hill
present. They may correctly allow children into the intersection when no traffic is
moving, but cars coming over this rise reach the crossing with children still present in
the walkway. So far luck/as been with us, but this potentially is an accident waiting to
happen.
We have been told that another traffic flow study may be needed before it can
be determined whether the Letoroe intersection really warrants an adult crossing
guard. We are, however, deeply concerned about the safety of our children and feel
the problem goes much deeper than what a traffic study would indicate. It is hoped
you will give serious consideration to the above listed problems and concerns, and
that adult crossing guard supervision be started as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Concerned Lemme parents.
.ST.
Continuation of signatures of Lemme parents to the Iowa City Council showing support
of initiating adult crossing guard supervision at Letoroe School:
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29. {
30.
31.
32.
33.
Continuation of signatures of Lemme parents to the Iowa City Council showing support
of initiating ~adult crossing g.g.~ard supervision at
Continuation of signatures of Lemme parents to the Iowa City Council showing support
of initiating adult crossing guard supervision at Lemme School:
87. ~' '
89. ~
Continuation of signatures of Lemme parents to the Iowa City Council showing support
of initiating adult crossing guard supen/ision at Lemme School:
108. '~-'~ '-
lO9. '~-~',~,
11o.
~. , ~,~. ~
115.
0'3
Continuation of signatures of Lemme parents to the Iowa City Council showing support
of initiating adult crossing guard supervision at Lemme School:
121 L,~ P,-<~,, ~ __
122."~r.u~~._
128~ ~1 fi '
Continuation of signatures of Lemme parents to the Iowa City Council showing support
of initiating adult crossing guard supervision at Letoroe School:
Continuation of signatures of Lemme parents to the Iowa City Council showing support
of,!r)Jtiating adult crossing guard supervision at Letoroe School:
166. '-~
Continuation of ~ignatures of Lemme parents to the Iowa City Council showing support
of initiating adult crossing guard supervision at Lemme School:
Iowa City City Council
Civic Center
Iowa City, IA 52240
629 Melrose Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
February 12, 1996
RECEIVED FEB '1
~ C'")
Dear Council Members:
As you reconsider the design for the First Avenue improvements, I encourage you to keep in
mind several points which were raised in connection with the Melrose Avenue reconstruction
project. I believe that this is appropriate because both neighborhoods include older residential
areas juxtaposed to busy (and soon to be buslet) major arterials.
First, the wider the street, the greater the traffic volume (the "if you build it, they will come"
phenomenon). A four lane road will result in traffic flows greater than those that would have
been projected for a narrower road, and this traffic will spill over into other pans of the
neighborhood. There will be increased pressure on intersections in the area, as well as on those
road segments containing numerous access points, i.e., driveways, parking lot entrances, etc.
As you may recall, one of the primary constrmnts to a 4-or 5-lane Melrose Avenue was the effect
on the intersections: even the widest alternative resulted in unacceptable future levels of service.
Would the many intersections around Towncrest be similarly effected?
Second, two reasons cited for not selecting one of the wider Melrose Avenue alternatives were
the difficulties that would be created for pedestrians (having to cross 4 lanes of traffic) and
bicyclists (having to ride in traffic). Assuming similar problems would result in the First
Avenue neighborhood, I believe this situation should be carefully examined before reaching a
conclusion on the road design.
Third, it was stated in the Melrose Avenue Environmental Assessment that, in terms of vehicular
safety ...."the 4-lane undivided urban arterial (no left turn lane) has the highest accident rate of
any urban roadway. The addition of a left turn lane (the three-lane or five-lane alternatives) has
proven to reduce accidents by as much as 60 percent. it should be noted that, in recent years,
urban roadways have been converted to three lane design with increasing frequency because of
their excellent safety record." There has been much talk about the addition of a major grocery
store to the First Avenue area, which would undoubtedly result in a marked increase in traffic
along First Avenue and elsewhere. I would suggest that, from a safety standpoint alone, the 3-
lane option deserves serious consideration.
Finally, one of the reasons given for the selection of the 3-lane alternative was that it "would
improve safety conditions for vehicles pulling out of private drives along Melrose Avenue. It
also would provide a safe storage area for vehicles turning left...into the driveways." Given that
numerous curb cuts already exist in the First Avenue area, it would seem prudent to consider the
3-lane option in order to assure easy and safe access for turning traffic in the future.
Thank you for your consideration.
Truly yours,
Michaelanne Widness
!\fief cc. nIF, c L~i-.g v. hc~ ONR IJ':'.G'~, EPA,
~..'a,l,' 'Lo £ cq[,£' t-,a:c {' ~., EP,,.u- t ¢]1 =-.'l a~i-,C C~