Fitchburg CC Agenda for 6/6/06
Just my take on a few of the items on tonight's agenda
195-06. AN ORDINANCE: To Amend Chapter 169-76 of the Code of the City of Fitchburg. (Stop Intersections)
(First Reading)
What is this? The number suggests it is a new petition/order. What's in it, who brought it and why is it going to a first reading rather than assignment to a committee?
Update 6/8/06 - At the council meeting this was sent to the legislative affairs committee.
196-06. Councillor Ted E. DeSalvatore, to revoke the additional charges placed on white goods, TV's monitors, tires and batteries and return said items to the cost and control of Fitchburg's waste management and find other low to no cost solutions to reduce uncontrolled dumping.
(Finance Committee)
If you want people to recycle and properly dispose of trash items (and we do) you need to make it easy. At least someone on the city council gets it.
198-06. Councillor Joel Kaddy, to request the Planning Dept. and the Director of Parking to create a 10-yr parking plan for the City of Fitchburg.
(Planning Dept. and Parking Clerk)
Surprise, this actually makes sense. Much more sense than fiddling with the winter parking ban for 90 days like they did last winter.
199-06. Councillor David Clark and Mr. Larry LeClair, to post speed limit signs and "Slow-Children" signs on Albee St. near Newton St.
(Public Safety Committee)
I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. The city has no authority to set speed limits. At the last public safety committee officer MacNamara had copies of the list of authorized speed limits in Fitchburg which he made available to councilors. If a road has an authorized limit but it is not posted then ask the mayor to have the DPW post it. Otherwise this requires a speed study and request for a limit to MassHwy which requires approval of both MassHwy and the RMV.
Next dueling petitions
203-06. Mayor Dan H. Mylott and Councillor Norman Boisvert, to install a permanent traffic island at the intersection of Clarendon and Daniels Streets as designed by Petition 20-05 and in accordance with the accompanying Ordinance.
(Public Works Committee)
204-06. Kathleen Denmark, 25 Berkshire St., to prevent the temporary island at Clarendon & Daniels Sts. from becoming a permanent change to the intersection and to implement changes to the intersection as outlined in petition 209-05 (which was granted by unanimous vote on 10/18/05 and sent to DPW and granted per Engineering by unanimous vote on 11/15/05).
(Public Works Committee)
Two self serving petitions. Councilor Boisvert, who apparently fancies himself a traffic engineer redesigned this intersection. His original petition was passed unanimously by the Public Safety Committee but when I spoke in opposition before the full council it was sent back to committee. Councilor Romano looked at the design and asked what was discussed in committee meeting. Some members of the Public Safety Committee, (you know who you are) that had voted for it weren't in the room when it was discussed. (They really shouldn't meet when the planning board is in session).
If I'm not mistaken Kathleen Denmark is an abutter of the intersection and stands to loose some on street parking if councilor Boisvert's petition is adopted. Her husband who presented his petition for a different redesign of the intersection is Chief of Police for Harvard MA, another who fancies himself a traffic engineer. If I had to choose between the two redesigns I go with the cop having a better understanding of traffic movement and driver behavior than the plumber. Fortunately, if both petitions are rejected then the intersection reverts to its former configuration.
Bottom line: Both 204-06 and 203-06 should be given leave to withdraw. The reason is there is a lack of supporting evidence for the redesign. A comprehensive study of the area is required to determine how the redesign affects not only the intersection being redesigned but the entire area around the intersecton. The study needs to examine traffic levels, and accident rates and severity for Clarendon and Daniels as well as for the roads and intersections where traffic may have been or may be diverted to as a result of the redesign. Lacking such a comprehensive study there can be no conclusion for or against the redesign. It is not only a waste of money but a later analysis could put the city at risk of being sued if the accident rates here or at adjacent intersections increased in number or severity of collisions.
Anyone care to predict what will happen to these two petitions when they're sent to the public works committee, which is chaired by councilor Boisvert?
210-06. Councillor Ted E. DeSalvatore, to evaluate the city street by street having to do with its winter parking needs and ban. Where alternate parking is necessary for snow removal, an alternate parking area must be designated and where an alternate parking area can not be designated, no such ban can be applied to that area.
(Public Works Committee)
Three problems here.
195-06. AN ORDINANCE: To Amend Chapter 169-76 of the Code of the City of Fitchburg. (Stop Intersections)
(First Reading)
What is this? The number suggests it is a new petition/order. What's in it, who brought it and why is it going to a first reading rather than assignment to a committee?
Update 6/8/06 - At the council meeting this was sent to the legislative affairs committee.
196-06. Councillor Ted E. DeSalvatore, to revoke the additional charges placed on white goods, TV's monitors, tires and batteries and return said items to the cost and control of Fitchburg's waste management and find other low to no cost solutions to reduce uncontrolled dumping.
(Finance Committee)
If you want people to recycle and properly dispose of trash items (and we do) you need to make it easy. At least someone on the city council gets it.
198-06. Councillor Joel Kaddy, to request the Planning Dept. and the Director of Parking to create a 10-yr parking plan for the City of Fitchburg.
(Planning Dept. and Parking Clerk)
Surprise, this actually makes sense. Much more sense than fiddling with the winter parking ban for 90 days like they did last winter.
199-06. Councillor David Clark and Mr. Larry LeClair, to post speed limit signs and "Slow-Children" signs on Albee St. near Newton St.
(Public Safety Committee)
I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. The city has no authority to set speed limits. At the last public safety committee officer MacNamara had copies of the list of authorized speed limits in Fitchburg which he made available to councilors. If a road has an authorized limit but it is not posted then ask the mayor to have the DPW post it. Otherwise this requires a speed study and request for a limit to MassHwy which requires approval of both MassHwy and the RMV.
Next dueling petitions
203-06. Mayor Dan H. Mylott and Councillor Norman Boisvert, to install a permanent traffic island at the intersection of Clarendon and Daniels Streets as designed by Petition 20-05 and in accordance with the accompanying Ordinance.
(Public Works Committee)
204-06. Kathleen Denmark, 25 Berkshire St., to prevent the temporary island at Clarendon & Daniels Sts. from becoming a permanent change to the intersection and to implement changes to the intersection as outlined in petition 209-05 (which was granted by unanimous vote on 10/18/05 and sent to DPW and granted per Engineering by unanimous vote on 11/15/05).
(Public Works Committee)
Two self serving petitions. Councilor Boisvert, who apparently fancies himself a traffic engineer redesigned this intersection. His original petition was passed unanimously by the Public Safety Committee but when I spoke in opposition before the full council it was sent back to committee. Councilor Romano looked at the design and asked what was discussed in committee meeting. Some members of the Public Safety Committee, (you know who you are) that had voted for it weren't in the room when it was discussed. (They really shouldn't meet when the planning board is in session).
If I'm not mistaken Kathleen Denmark is an abutter of the intersection and stands to loose some on street parking if councilor Boisvert's petition is adopted. Her husband who presented his petition for a different redesign of the intersection is Chief of Police for Harvard MA, another who fancies himself a traffic engineer. If I had to choose between the two redesigns I go with the cop having a better understanding of traffic movement and driver behavior than the plumber. Fortunately, if both petitions are rejected then the intersection reverts to its former configuration.
Bottom line: Both 204-06 and 203-06 should be given leave to withdraw. The reason is there is a lack of supporting evidence for the redesign. A comprehensive study of the area is required to determine how the redesign affects not only the intersection being redesigned but the entire area around the intersecton. The study needs to examine traffic levels, and accident rates and severity for Clarendon and Daniels as well as for the roads and intersections where traffic may have been or may be diverted to as a result of the redesign. Lacking such a comprehensive study there can be no conclusion for or against the redesign. It is not only a waste of money but a later analysis could put the city at risk of being sued if the accident rates here or at adjacent intersections increased in number or severity of collisions.
Anyone care to predict what will happen to these two petitions when they're sent to the public works committee, which is chaired by councilor Boisvert?
210-06. Councillor Ted E. DeSalvatore, to evaluate the city street by street having to do with its winter parking needs and ban. Where alternate parking is necessary for snow removal, an alternate parking area must be designated and where an alternate parking area can not be designated, no such ban can be applied to that area.
(Public Works Committee)
Three problems here.
- The parking ban is about keeping streets clear for emergency vehicles. That's a public safety issue not a public works issue. This should be going to Public Safety.
- "Where alternate parking is necessary for snow removal, an alternate parking area must be designated and where an alternate parking area can not be designated, no such ban can be applied to that area." I find this second sentence disturbing. It represents a move of the responsibility to find off street parking from vehicle owners to the city.
- It totally ignores the public safety aspect of the issue.
posted by noway @ 6/06/2006 08:27:00 AM
1 Comments:
At 6/10/2006 02:24:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
The public safety committee should be renamed the joke committee. First they never read the reports then when the get an opinion they do the opposite. 15K for an electric stop sign by the Water Street Funeral Home? Hey what about my street, ever try to cross Electric Avenue to go walking on the bike path? Forget walking, you need to run like a deer! The city public safety jokers couldn’t figure out how to save this city for all the tea in China!
Post a Comment
<< Home