I spent time this morning, perhaps too much time, mulling over a couple of the issues discussed at last night’s city council meeting. OK, I know what you’re thinking: "Pete, you need to get a life." But that’s just the way I choose to roll.
The discussion over stop signs came about because it’s quickly becoming an epidemic around Kyle or perhaps it’s an invasion of the body snatchers, but it seems like every Tom, Dick and Harriet wants a stop sign on their corner. And, as it stands right now, the city doesn’t have a policy regulating how or even if to approve requests for stop signs.
There is an accepted formula for determining whether a stop sign or even a yield sign is necessary at any given location. And no one, absolutely no one, opposes the installation of such a traffic control devices at any location at which the formula determines such a device is warranted. The trouble is, last week, the council voted to approve the installation of signs at two different Plum Creek locations where the formula determined those signs were not warranted. About a month before that, it was the installation of unwarranted signs at four different intersections in Amberwood.
Police Chief Jeff Barnett outlined the normal routine his department follows whenever any citizen or group of citizens approaches his department seeking the installation of a stop or yield sign. First, he said, police officials study accident reports to discover whether an unusually high number of traffic mishaps have occurred at the said location and they will also install monitors for 72 hours beginning on a Friday evening to count the number of motor vehicles who pass through the given intersection. If the results of both of these efforts point in the direction of installing a sign, then he will summon the engineers to launch a pre-established "Warrant Study" (the formula I referred to earlier) that will result in definitely determining whether the installation of the requested device is warranted.
Neighborhood groups have found a way to bypass this process, however. They simply ask a friendly council member to have his or her colleagues approve the installation of unnecessary signs.
The proposal discussed last night — a proposal that was indefinitely tabled — would require that homeowners wishing to have a device installed that is deemed unnecessary, based on the preliminary study of accident reports and traffic counts, place a deposit ($500 was the one figure mentioned) to pay for a Warrant Study anyway. If the study found such a device was necessary, the deposit would be refunded. If not, tough luck.
Seems to make sense to me. I don’t think all the taxpayers in Kyle should be forced to pay for the process that leads to the expenditure of city funds for unnecessary stop signs that benefit only a small percentage of the city’s total population. But, then, I’m an idealist.
The debate on the topic revolved around two issues. The first raised by council member Daphne Tenorio and supported by council member Travis Mitchell was that it would be easier for subdivisions with homeowners associations to come up with the required deposit and, thus, those without such associations should not be required to pay it. Instead, Mitchell recommended, signatures could be collected on a petition.
Here’s my first problem with that: It seems to me, on its face, to be discriminatory. Such a policy would formally create two separate classes of residents that would be treated differently. The concept of "separate but equal" was deemed unconstitutional in this country more than 60 years ago.
Here’s my second problem with the idea: If you’re going to go to the trouble to circulate through the neighborhood collecting signatures why not instead circulate through the neighborhood collecting contributions to pay for the Warrant Study deposit? The residents could finance it with the money they save by not having to pay homeowners association dues.
The second issue was what to do about devices that were deemed unnecessary via the Warrant Study. On this issue, I go on the record as wholeheartedly supporting City Manager Scott Sellers and Mayor Todd Webster’s stance. "It is staff’s recommendation that …any sign that doesn’t meet warrant is not erected," Sellers said. "That is our position. It will always be our position." Can’t be more clear than that. After the meeting was over Mayor Webster confirmed to me what I thought I heard him say during the meeting, i.e., he would support an ordinance that prohibits the installation of unwarranted traffic control devices.
But what happens if the majority of the council would not support such an ordinance, an outcome Mayor Webster told me was more likely? No one really had a satisfactory answer for that question and I’m guessing that was one, if not the, main reason, the item was tabled.
But here is what I find particularly strange in all of this: Those council members who support, in some fashion, the installation of unnecessary traffic signs seem to also be the ones who complain the loudest about the fact that "Kyle has the highest property tax rate in Hays County." It’s an economic given: One sure way of reducing the tax rate, or at least holding it steady, is to reduce spending. And one sure target of any spending reduction effort should be to eliminate spending tax money on items recognized, and accepted studies prove are unnecessary.
The other item I spent time thinking about was the idea of TxDOT installing a roundabout at the spot where Dorman Road intersects FM 1626. I am particularly sensitive to this because said roundabout would somewhat less than a half mile from where I live. For those not familiar with that area, a left turn from northbound FM 1626 or a right turn from southbound FM 1626 would put you on the comparatively short, in length, Dorman Road, past a popular pre-school, which dead ends at a traffic circle at Cromwell Drive. Taking southbound Cromwell quickly leads to another traffic circle which, if followed to the right, will put you on Sampson which takes you into the heart of the Plum Creek subdivision. The argument for the roundabout is because of the difficulty drivers have of negotiating a left turn from Dorman onto northbound 1626, a turn I make quite frequently because I take 1626 to where I usually need to go in Austin as well as take it to Kohlers Crossing and an easier access to northbound I-35 than I have if I take 1626 southbound.
That left turn to northbound 1626 used to be far more difficult than it is today. It has become immeasurably easier since the installation of the traffic signal at Kohlers Crossing and 1626 which can act as a temporary barricade to southbound traffic and freeing up much more opportunities to negotiate that turn.
I must admit I also have a problem with a roundabout on a four-lane widely divided highway where the posted speed limit is 60 miles an hour (which means motorists travel at least 65) that is intersecting with a narrowly divided two-lane street on which the desired speed limit is 25 miles an hour but the legal speed limit is 30. I especially worry about southbound 1626 traffic careening onto Dorman right there where that pre-school is located.
Now engineers will try to convince that roundabouts are designed in such a way as to force motorists to slow down to speeds of around 13 miles an hour. Frankly, I don’t believe that. Intelligence and common sense, two attributes sorely lacking in the average Texas motorist, tell him or her to slow down around a roundabout. And why in heaven’s name would you want to slow traffic to 13 miles an hour on a road where the posted speed limit is 60 anyway?
Personally, I would be far more supportive of this entire roundabout idea if, along with it, TxDOT would establish a 45-mile-an-hour speed limit on 1626 between Kohlers and Marketplace. It seems like a common sense approach and it would be a move to additionally maximize safety (if "safety" is really the driving motivation in this project), all the while recognizing the reality of that intelligence and common sense that is lacking in Texas drivers would result in massive amounts of motorists drastically exceeding that limit. However, a few well-placed Kyle Police Department patrol cars armed with radar devices could help alleviate that on a regular basis as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment