[MissoulaGov] Fwd: Committee Update 3-11-09

[Ethel MacDonald]

I meant to send this to the whole list so am re-sending.  Thanks for your
patience.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ethel MacDonald <ethelmacd at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09
To: Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>


Thank you, Bob, for this enormous public service of reporting things we
wouldn't know otherwise, like the proposed left-turn lane expansion on South
& Reserve, with no publicity or public or even Council discussion
beforehand.  Since my son has been in Village Health Care for nearly 5
months due to being hit on his bike by a driver making a left turn on
Stevens & Beckwith (was she on her cell phone?), I bike on South through
that intersection nearly every day.  While I have no real problem losing the
bike lane, signaling left and then riding on the line between the straight
through and right-turn lane, I was nearly wiped out last week when a truck
passed me in the straight through lane, then whipped into the right lane in
front of me.  Occasionally cars have done the same, but when a truck does
it, it's damn scary because of the length & his lack of ability to see me
once he crossed the lane line.  He obviously had not guaged my speed (faster
than he thought) in relation to his.  I braked to be safe.  Less experienced
bicyclists would be either intimidated into not biking this route or taking
the pedestrian crossing.
      The real change this intersection needs is pedestrian safety islands
on both Reserve!  I recently spoke with a resident of the housing just
southwest who told me that several 80-year-old women walk to Rosauers (and
Shopko?) for groceries.  Crossing 5 WIDE lanes where the speed limit is 45
mph is a challenge!  If I'm not biking and have to cross as a pedestrian, I
always run to be sure to make it before the light changes.
      Another pedestrian safety issue in this area is the 1/8 mile or so on
South Avenue west of the intersection, particularly on the South side.
Although there is a bus stop, there is no sidewalk between Village Health
Care and the Fire Station and particularly in the winter, there is
absolutely no safe place to walk even to that bus stop, much less to the
intersection.
      As for the cell  phone issue, as a bicyclist I take particular care to
get out of the way as much as possible when I see a driver is on the phone.
I have learned they often become distracted, unpredictable drivers.  Safe
driving is not a silly issue.
  Thank you again for keeping us informed.  Ethel MacDonald


  On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>wrote:


>    Greetings,

>

> This morning in Public Safety we discussed an ordinance to ban the use of

> cell phones while driving. Apparently there are studies showing that talking

> on the phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving drunk. Studies

> also show that hands free phones don’t really help. The problem is not so

> much the physical ability to manage the wheel while holding the phone, it is

> the distraction of having the conversation.  I was also told that it is

> different from having a conversation with someone in the car because the

> person on the other end of the phone conversation is not responding to road

> conditions like a passenger. The ordinance would also ban the use of cell

> phones while riding a bike.

>

> As a frequent user of my cell phone while driving I am hesitant to get

> behind this one. But on the other hand I know I have made bonehead driving

> moves that would not have happened if I were not distracted by the phone. So

> I imagine I will come around.

>

> I have also determined through firsthand experience that it is much harder

> to talk on the phone while biking than driving. I have pretty much given up

> that practice.  We already have an ordinance that requires a cyclist to keep

> both hands on the handle bars so that one is already covered.

>

> There was some discussion about problems with having a law that only

> applied inside the city limits. But only a few years ago it was legal to

> drive with an open container of alcohol outside city limits. And fireworks

> are legal outside city limits.  And then there are dogs on leash. That only

> applies in the city. So there are a lot of examples of the city having laws

> that differ from the rest of the state. We set a public hearing on the

> matter.

>

>

>

> In conservation we looked at a proposal from the Greenhouse Gas Team

> promoting the use of local wood products. We had a presentation from

> Professor Peter Kolb on the forest management practices in Germany. Once

> again the Europeans make us look like Neanderthals. Germany is almost the

> exact size of Montana but they have something like 80,000,000 people. They

> have about the same amount of forest as we do but produce about 16 times the

> number of board feet of wood products.  And they do it all sustainably with

> an incredibly diversified wood products industry. It was a fascinating

> presentation and we ran out of time before we got to look at the actual

> resolution request. We will take it up again in a few weeks.

>

>

>

> In PAZ we discussed development agreements again. The development agreement

> is a contract between the City and a developer that will be required for

> annexation.  We first pursued the idea for properties that were being

> annexed that were not going to go through subdivision. Such as a large lot

> that will be divided into single family detached condominiums.  A

> development agreement would be the only opportunity for the council to

> review and condition the future development.  A secondary interest in

> development agreements is to make the conditions of subdivision part of the

> contract for annexation. This is driven by the desire to make the terms

> under which we are willing to approve a project more defensible in court.

> Since our experiences with Bob Brugh and John Didel, I now see all

> developers as potential litigants.  For that matter I see the neighbors who

> protest the development as potential litigants as well as anyone else who

> has a horse in the race.

>

>

>

> A related matter we also took up was modifying our resolution regarding

> contract sewer connections. We made a number of modifications including the

> requirement for a development agreement for developments outside of city

> limits that want access to the sewer. For now on they will be subject to

> pretty much all the same conditions as developments inside the city

> including park dedication and payment in lieu of impact fees. We set a

> public hearing on both items for April 6th.

>

>

>

> In A&F we approved some union contracts. Labor costs are the lion’s share

> of our budget but we pretty much just rubber stamp these agreements. They

> are the outcome of the negotiations between the administration and the

> union. It would actually be a violation of labor law if we didn’t approve

> them.

>

>

>

> The main item we discussed in Public Works was the request to make an

> exception to our noise ordinance for some MDT resurfacing projects. This

> enables them to do the work at night on high volume roads.  The sticking

> point was the proposal to redesign South and Reserve. They want to make it

> so there are double left turn lanes off of both directions of South.  There

> were a few problems. One was the fact that a major intersection in the city

> of Missoula was being redesigned and we were only hearing about it because

> they wanted an exemption from the noise ordinance.  Another problem was that

> there was no provision for bicycle infrastructure. It was incomprehensible

> to me that such a thing would even be considered. When City Engineer Kevin

> Slovarp was asked about the bicycle lanes he said it never occurred to him.

> He is really good at giving the wrong answer in situations like this.

>

> Later I found out the right answer when I spoke with Phil Smith, our bike

> and Ped coordinator, to find out why there was not some more advocacy here.

> Phil’s answer was that we generally don’t put bike lanes in at intersections

> with turning lanes. The cyclist is expected to just take the appropriate

> lane.

>

> The problem with this intersection is that the road starts spreading out

> into the various turning lanes about 585 feet away from the actual

> intersection. So you are supposed to take the lane and ride with 35-40 mile

> an hour traffic for 585 feet. Clearly there is an opportunity here for some

> improvement.

>

>

>

> When the committee refused to grant the exception for the project on South,

> John Hendrickson made a comment to the effect that this is why MDOT screws

> us on funding. If only we would be more compliant and let them build their

> highways through our community like they know best we would get more money.

> After the meeting when he was having a good ol’ boy chuckle with the MDT guy

> about us silly Missoula people I asked him what was so bad about Missoula

> having high standards and wanting to have a say in the design of our

> transportation system. He told me that in this case it was impossible to

> have anything less than 12 foot lanes at the intersection so this was the

> only way it could be built.  I’m having trouble believing that but need to

> look into the 12 foot lane rule some more.

>

>

>

> In Committee of the Whole (COW) we heard from some FEMA people about a

> workshop they were doing for Missoula.  They were here gathering information

> for a disaster preparedness training they will be doing for about 50

> participants.  The training is in Maryland and the feds are picking up the

> tab for the whole thing. We don’t have a lot of natural disaster hazards

> here so the training will be about earthquakes. My understanding is that the

> recent gas explosion in Bozeman was related to seismic activity so it isn’t

> that off base. In general, the biggest fear here relates to something going

> wrong with a train which could of course be caused by an earthquake.

>

>

>

>  Thanks for your interest,

>

>

>

> Bob Jaffe

>

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

>

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

>

> 406-728-1052

>

> Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to

> City business may be considered public or private records depending on the

> message content. The City is often required by law to provide city records

> to individuals requesting records, some of which are not public records and

> have limited scope of distribution pursuant to state law. The City is

> required by law to protect private, confidential information. This message

> is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are

> not the intended recipient of this transmission, please notify the sender

> immediately, do not forward the message to anyone, and delete all copies.

> Thank you.

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

>

> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But

> posts to this list may be entered into the public record.

> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com<http://www.cedarmountainsoftware.com/>.

>

>




-- 
"Rocks in the water do not know the suffering of rocks in the sun."
Haitian proverb, www.GrassrootsOnline.org <http://www.grassrootsonline.org/>




-- 
"Rocks in the water do not know the suffering of rocks in the sun."
Haitian proverb, www.GrassrootsOnline.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090312/bbed3fd3/attachment.htm>