2001-03-19 Special Called Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Browse Search

( .. .. e e Council, I've researched the consultant's 4 page evaluation ofthe Farrington extension. I've spent many hours in University libraries locating 3 ofthe 6 reference books they say they used to justify the Farrington extension and studying those references cover to cover. All3 books were authored by the Institute of Transportation Engineers; the accepted authority on the subject. BOOK #1 - "Transportation and Land Development" 1988. Deals with planning transportation systems for raw vacant land. It is NOT even applicable to our developed rural residential neighborhood. I found NO wordage or data in this book that supports the consultants claim of arterial spacing. But there was infonnation supporting our safety concerns that the consultant failed to put in the evaluation. See Attachment pages 1-5 (circled #). Book #2 - ''Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook" 1976. Page 541 recommends an arterial spacing of 1-2 miles for Rural areas. And we are rural; complete with hay fields, farm animals, and a rodeo arena. Sens to Underwood is 2.4 miles which is only slightly over the lose recommendation. However, the consultant ignored entire paragraphs such as page 9. that support our view that this road is a serious safety hazard. Book #3 - Transportation Planning Handbook 1992. Deals with metro, regional and state systems. The consultant says this book supports his claims, but I found NO mention of arterial spacing or "principals" that would support the Consultants claims. However, there were several paragraphs about citizen involvement and community input that the consultant ignored both in the evaluation report and in the evaluation itself. Book #4 - Residential Street design and Traffic Control. This refere~~ book is also written by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. BUT TI:IIS REFERENCE BOOK WAS NOT ON THE CONSULTANT'S LIST. PERHAPS IT IS BECAUSE TIllS BOOK IS THE EXACT REFERENCE FOR OUR SITUATION AND IT SUPPORTS OUR CLAIMS, NOT THE CONSULTANT'S. This book devotes an entire chapter to studying the effectiveness of plans to stop through traffic and speeding. It proves the consultants recommendations to "calm" traffic are ineffective or not doable. See pages 10-16. The consultant's evaluation doesn't contain one word about the safety impacts of the extension to the residents of Fairmont Park, Glen Meadows, and Lomax. And you've seen our video so you know the safety impacts to these neighborhoods. One very important discovery came from this research. BY DEFINITION, H, L, P AND LOMAX SCHOOL RD. ARE LOCAL OR RESIDENTIAL STREETS BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE DRIVEWAY ACCESS CONTACTS THEM. THEY ARE NOT COLLECTORS OR ARTERIALS AS FALSELY CLAIMED. THEY REQUIRE THE SAFETY STANDARDS DUE THEM. Thank you for your consideration, Bill Scott, Treasurer for Common Sense Government.