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

[Jennie Dixon]

My first comment ever on the MissoulaGov Listerv:
Ban simultaneous texting and driving, No Question!


>>> <hdgray at modwest.com> 03/17/09 9:17 PM >>>

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 > 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

> as> 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.



_______________________________________________
-----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.