Parker Street process

Peter Howe has a letter in the most recent TAB (10/4/09) expressing concern about the apparent lack of process concerning the installation of a pedestrian-activated signal at the crosswalk at Parker and Daniel Streets. (I couldn't find the letter online.) While I happen to think that some sort of signal probably makes sense at this location, Peter's process concerns are legitimate. There ought to be a full public opportunity to allow neighbors and others potentially affected to hear the rationale for a signal, the pros and the cons, and offer their input. As with any other traffic change, there are going to be secondary consequences to consider (some of which may even be positive).

Fortunately, it appears to be earlier in the process than Peter appears to assume and that opportunity is still available.

At issue is a recommendation in a pending report prepared by a consultant engaged by through the state's Safe Routes to School program. Bowen is a member school of the Safe Routes program. As such, it was eligible to apply for -- and was granted -- an Infrastructure Assessment. Consultants were retained by the state to survey the transportation infrastructure around Bowen and along walking routes to Bowen and to make recommendations about changes that would make walking to school safer. The program provides money (federal funds) to implement changes if the city adopts any of the consultants' recommendations.

At this point, there is no final report, but according to discussion at the September 14 Traffic Council meeting, the consultants have met with city staff to review their recommendations, one of which is a pedestrian-activated signal at the crosswalk across Parker at Daniel. Peter apparently relied on the minutes of the meeting which state that Traffic Council voted 4-0 "in support of TEC's recommendation for the design of a pedestrian activated full signal at Daniel and Parker Streets." Listening to the meeting audio, however, it appears that no vote was taken as it was just a discussion item and that the report is in error. (Discussion of the Parker Street item begins at about 29:30 and lasts for 13:30.) There was informal agreement, however, that city staff should recommend that the consultant include a full signal (green, yellow, red) rather than a flashing yellow sign as one of the recommendations in the report.

It's tough to tell from the meeting audio what the next steps are once the report is issued. I wholeheartedly agree with Peter's call for "a full, open, transparent public process of reviewing the need for and design and operation of this new traffic light before it's a done deal."

Where Peter and I part ways is with his suggestion that the redesign of the Daniel/Jackson intersection just up the street was "relentlessly pushed through City Hall." The Daniel/Jackson intersection redesign was the subject of innumerable public meetings, a full consultants' study, neighborhood comment on the study and trials resulting from the study, and deliberation by Traffic Council, Public Facilities, and the full Board of Aldermen. Eight years after the first petition to address problems at Daniel and Jackson, there is no permanent construction and we're still before the board (Public Safety & Transportation) after recent returns to Traffic Council and Public Facilities. There are strong feelings on both sides of the issue, but it's just not fair to attribute those strong feelings to a lack of process or transparency.