Thursday, January 21, 2010
 
sponsored by

City puts stop to traffic lights at Fifth and College

Send a link to a friend

[January 21, 2010]  Tuesday night at the committee-of-the-whole meeting of the Lincoln City Council, Alderman Nathan Turner with assistance from Mayor Keith Snyder introduced and outlined two letters of intent from the Illinois Department of Transportation.

The letters required that resolutions be passed saying that the city would accept partial financial responsibility for work scheduled to be done later this year by IDOT.

One letter addressed resurfacing of Fifth Street from Evans to Keokuk and included placing traffic lights at the intersection of Fifth and College. The letter also stated that the city would be responsible for a portion of the cost of installing the signals.

At the previous workshop, Alderman David Wilmert questioned how this had come about, and was told by Tracy Jackson, city street and alley superintendent, that it was the result of a request made a few years ago.

Exterminator

At the suggestion of then-Ward 2 Alderman Verl Prather, the council had agreed to request a study from IDOT to see if a traffic control device was warranted.

At the end of the meeting, Wilmert, who is the newest Ward 2 alderman, and Alderwoman Kathy Horn from the same ward said that they wanted the public to voice their opinion on the matter.

At this week's voting meeting the resolution was read and the motion to approve it was made by Alderwoman Marty Neitzel.

The discussion that followed indicated that the majority of the council is not in favor of placing a traffic light at that particular intersection.

Alderwoman Melody Anderson was the first to speak up. "I'm going to be voting no on this," she said.

"I don't have any problem with the road improvements, the milling, patching, resurfacing," she said. "(As for) the signal at Fifth Street and College, I don't know where all this was initiated in terms of whether there was an alderman at that time that pushed it, but the consensus that I have heard back -- and this isn't my ward, but I've still heard input -- is that they really don't want that signal."

She continued, "As for the money that it would cost us, I would rather we use that for road improvements."

Alderman David Wilmert commented: "That has been my feedback as well. It caught me by surprise, being new to the council. Kathy (Horn) and I decided to do some polling."

Wilmert went on to say that the majority of the people he heard from were opposed to the light. Wilmert also suggested that perhaps there was a need for a light on Fifth Street, but just not at that particular intersection. He suggested that it might be wiser to place a traffic light at one of the intersections closer to the school. Wilmert concluded that he, too, would be voting no.

Horn said that she, too, would vote no on the motion.

"This is my ward, and I'm very interested in what the people have to say about this," she said.

She recounted that many of the people she had heard from in the last week were confused about how this had come about. Horn said that the discussion was before her time on the council, but that as she understood it, IDOT had said that the intersection did not warrant a signal.

Alderman David Armbrust asked city engineer Mark Mathon to verify that the proposed signal would be a "car-triggered" signal. Traffic on Fifth would only be stopped when vehicles were at the intersection on College, waiting to turn or pass through. Mathon said that, yes, that was the case.

Armbrust then recounted that there are many times when it can take several minutes to get out onto Fifth from College.

Anderson said that one could say the same thing about the intersection of Fifth and Union.

Alderwoman Stacy Bacon said that she, too, thought that a stop was needed on Fifth Street, but for safety concerns, it would be better placed near the (Jefferson Street) school.

Mathon said that he wanted to clarify that when the study was done by IDOT, the warrant study showed that except for actual traffic count, which was low, the intersection did qualify for the light.

Anderson asked if they could exclude the light and approve the resurfacing.

Mathon said that if the city vetoes the light, he's really not sure what will happen to the rest of the proposal.

[to top of second column]

In city attorney Bill Bates' absence, Blinn Bates was asked by Alderman Buzz Busby if the paragraphs regarding the light could be stricken from the resolution.

Bates indicated that what might have to be done would be submitting a counteroffer to IDOT. He said that they would not be able to accept the letter of intent in part, so the city would need to propose a counteroffer.

Mathon also suggested that refusing this letter of intent could have consequences down the road.

"If the city were to say, ‘We will participate save for the lights at Fifth and College,' in the future they (IDOT) may say signals are now required there and it's on your dime," Mathon said. He qualified his statement by saying, "How founded this concern is, I'm not sure."

"At this point, I'm not willing to take that consideration that may be unfounded to go against the wishes of my ward and the people who have responded," Wilmert said. "So we'll wait for that day as far as I'm concerned."

Photographers

Neitzel said that she, too, has experienced long waits trying to get out onto Fifth. She also noted that she thought it would be best to stop traffic before it gets to the school. She concluded that she would be voting yes to the stoplight.

Wilmert said that he felt like they were being pushed into making a hasty decision. He respectfully asked that the council vote down the motion and take a little more time to investigate the situation.

Mayor Keith Snyder said that it wasn't anyone's intent to push the resolution through without due consideration, but that IDOT had issued a timeline that the city was expected to adhere to.

The council discussed whether or not they could change the resolution and the letter, and it was decided that they would have to wait until next week's meeting to make any further changes.

The motion on the floor to approve the resolution was voted down 7-2.

Those who voted against the resolution and consequently the traffic signal were Aldermen Jeff Hoinacki, Turner, Wilmert, Bacon, Anderson and Horn. Neitzel also changed her vote from yes to no, leaving only Busby and Armbrust voting in favor of the light. Alderwoman Joni Tibbs was absent for this week's meeting.

The second IDOT letter that required a resolution from the city was for resurfacing work to be done on Route 10 from Kickapoo to Pulaski. Included in the work will be repaving of parking lanes, for which the city will bear the cost.

Funding for the city's portion will come out of motor fuel tax revenues and will total approximately $19,000.

This resolution was approved by unanimous vote.

[By NILA SMITH]

Past related articles

Water

< Top Stories index

Back to top


 

News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching and Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries

Community | Perspectives | Law and Courts | Leisure Time | Spiritual Life | Health and Fitness | Teen Scene
Calendar | Letters to the Editor