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

[hdgray at modwest.com]

Hi Bob,

I do not really support a Ban on Cell phones while driving on the basis it
creates a distraction for the driver. Having kids in the car is a much
larger distraction for more people I would guess.  Little teddy screaming
his head off in the back seat not only makes the parent/driver want to
turn around and not even face the road to deal with the issue but pull
their hair out at the same time. Now that is a distraction.

If the city is looking at implementing a fine for people that get into
accidents because they were on the cell phones I could support.  Those
individuals would have proved that they cannot talk and drive at the same
time and a ticket may help them remember that in the future. Convict the
guilty and leave the innocent alone.

Sincerely,
David Gray
Ward 6


>

>

> Begin forwarded message:

>

> From: Lynn Ascher <lascher01 at bresnan.net>

> Date: March 12, 2009 12:09:21 PM MDT

> To: "Bob Jaffe" <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09

>

> I'm in favor of banning drivers (and bikers, if necessary) from using

> cell phones while driving.  If you look at a driver's face while he's

> on his cell, it's obvious that his attention is not on the traffic

> around him but on the conversation he's having.  If a driver needs to

> use his phone, then he can pull over, park for a minute and make or

> take the call. This is very much about traffic safety and accident

> prevention, and not about devising petty rules to harass citizens.

> --  Lynn Ascher

>

>

> On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:11 PM, Bob Jaffe 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.

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----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.