Loading...
561 PINE ST.PDF12776 561 PINE ST October 28, 1994 Mr. Lars Olsson 561 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Your letter of September 28, 1994 re: traffic control on Pine St. Dear Mr. Olsson: Your comments continue to be appreciated. The neighborhood meeting was indeed on August 8, and it was unfortunate that you were unable to attend. You should note that the Engineering Division has a long history of listening to residents and tries to accomplish projects and achieve success by doing as the residents wish, especially with regard to traffic issues, as those residents are typically the people most affected. Your comments regarding the placement of the temporary stops will be noted and will be taken into consideration a's further discussions take place regarding the ultimate locations of traffic control devices. I expect that there will be another meeting with the Pine Street Playfield neighborhood before Thanksgiving. The Edmonds Police Department is aware of your comments on the truck traffic. It is their responsibility to enforce the laws as regarding truck and other traffic. Please direct your enforcement concerns to them. The Neighborhood Traffic Control Group proposal was given to Bell Walker together with comments from many other citizens. They incorporated concerns expressed into draft reports, which as you know, are now under revision by the Edmonds Planning Commission. I would suggest that you continue to follow this issue and give your input into the process. Again, thank you for taking the time to express I your opinions. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contract me at 771-0220. Sincerely, Gordon C. Hyde, Engineering Coordinator cc: Mayor Laura Hall John Nordquist, City Council President OLSSONIDOC 9 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works e Planning * Parks and Recreation * Engineering October 26, 1994 Mailed 16/26./94 Mr. Lars Olsson 561 Pine St. -, Edmonds, WA 98020 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR Subject: Your letter of September 28, 1994 re: traffic control on Pine St. Dear Mr. Olsson: Your comments continue to be appreciated. The neighborhood meeting was indeed on August 8, and it was unfortunate that you were unable to attend. You should note that the Engineering Division has a long history of listening to residents and tries to accomplish projects and achieve success by doing as the residents wish, especially with regard to traffic issues, as those residents are typically the people most affected. Your comments regarding the placement of the temporary stops will be noted and will be taken into consideration as further discussions take place regarding the ultimate locations of traffic control devices. I expect that there will be another meeting with the Pine Street Playfield neighborhood before Thanksgiving. The Edmonds Police Department is aware of your comments on the truck traffic. It is their responsibility to enforce the laws regarding truck and other traffic. Please direct your enforcement concerns to them. The Neighborhood Traffic Control Group proposal was given to Bell Walker Engineers, together with comments from many other citizens. They incorporated concerns expressed into draft reports, which, as you know, are now under revision by the Edmonds Planning Commission. I would suggest that you continue to follow this issue and give your input into the process. OLSSON2'.DOC 9 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 ' - Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Mr. Lars Olsson October 26, 1994 Page 2 Again, thank you for taking the time to express your opinions. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, lot" Hyde, Engineering Coordinator GCH/sf Alberts c: Mayor Laura Hall John Nordquist, City Council President Paul Mar, Community Services Director Bob Alberts, City Engineer Tom Miller, Chief of Police OLSSON2.DOC 89 0 CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL CIVIC CENTER * EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0200 - FAX (206) 771-0208 MAYOR. POLICE DEPARTMENT @ A STATE ACCREDITED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY October 11, 1994 Mr. Lars Olson 561 Pine Street Edmonds, WA 98020-4028 Dear Mr. Olson: Following your comments at City Council last week, I received a copy of a letter that you wrote on September 23, which appears to express the same concerns. Since I have not heard from you after we spoke, I thought I would take this opportunity to respond based on your letter. The first issue raised by you concerned a commercial vehicle traveling on Pine Street. Both officers that you spoke with were correct in telling you that this type of violation (infraction) must be witnessed by a police officer for enforcement action to be taken. State law provides for some exceptions to this, such as reckless or drunk driving; however, there are no such exceptions for overweight vehicles. The license number given (213 1 TX) returns to Allied Building Supply here in Edmonds. I have asked our traffic supervisor, Sergeant Mark Marsh, to contact this business and advise them of overweight restrictions and the potential of being cited for this violation if not adhered to. The next issue raised by you is what you have referred to as "leniency" in issuing citations. Unfortunately, it appears that you have misconstrued what the officers said to you. State law provides that all vehicles shall not be driven "at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. (RCW 46.61.400(l)). This section specifically provides for officer discretion in what speeds may be unsafe, and it is corroborated by engineering studies done throughout the city establishing the 85th percentile of speed on most arterials. Officer. discretion is a critical task, and it is used predominantly because of lack of resources in dealing with a myriad of violations. The removal of officer discretion in traffic enforcement, or any other area of our responsibilities, would result in an overwhelming deluge of arrests and citations for ambiguous or obsolete laws. 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Mr. Lars Olson Page Two October 11, 1994 Another issue you addressed is the suggestion of photo radar. Currently, this is not allowed in the United States, although I am aware of its prevalence in Europe. The primary concern by our legislators with this has been the accuracy of the system and the fact that the citation is mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle, who may not necessarily be the driver who committed the violation. Finally, you address the Bell -Walker study and concerns that you have. A revised draft of this study was published in May, and the Planning Board made preliminary recommendations in an August 17 report for inclusion in the final Comprehensive Plan. I encourage you to continue providing input to the Planning Board as this progresses. Thank you for taking the time to write and express your concerns. urs truly, ru homas "AMille Chief of Police TAM/aec c: Mayor Hall (6-, September 28.' 1994 To: City of Edmonds, de Traffic Department Gordon H� cc Laura Hall Mayor Bob Alberts City Engineer John Nordquist President City Council Paul Mar Re: Your letter dated September 26. Dear Mr. Hyde, RECtr[VF- 0 f'T 5 1991. U, IV to 4�6 'e I.-U - C4,16,' 'to "Cos. Thanks for your letter. It was my recollection that the meeting took place on August 8, a date unfortunately spent out of town. But on this date I may of course be mistaken. My letter of August 5, for which no response has ever been logged is repeated below for the record. It is nice to hear that the Edmonds traffic department now takes "engineering" decisions according to consensus, whatever that may be. I still do not think that the placement of the STOP signs on Pine Street are optimal from a local traffic control objective, unless the consensus was arrived at by a very' local to 'A' Avenue and Pine ST set of residents. I would also like to know what actual consideration has been given to the proposal compiled by the Neigborhood Traffic Control Group and submitted to the City of Edmonds on September 8, 1993, a copy included for your reference. After attending several public hearings on the subject of traffic, I find little evidence of consideration of this proposal in the current traffic studies promoted by the city. Does the city of Edmonds not care to consider successful implementations elsewhere with respect to our own perceived traffic scenario. I have within the last few days reported two 80,000 GVW trucks to the police on Pine Street. In my opinion it is unfortunate that commercial through traffic is not discouraged more effectively, and traffic enforcement on Pine Street is ... rare, as it should be, given the current availability of traffic officers. Permanently installed traffic control devices are likely to deal with the majority of residential complaints. August 5, 1994 816P C) C1 VQj To the City of Edmonds, 0 0 R[CO Re: letter dated July 26 from Gordon Hyde. Dear concerned City politicians and Staff I am unable to attend the meeting on August B. Nevertheless I should like my opinion to be heard on the subject of installing ,speed bumps'. My primary concern is that of Pine Street, from 'A' avenue to 5th avenue, directly across from the Pine Street playfield. There are several contributing factors to dangerou.s traffic conditions here. Cars' travelling well in excess of the speed limit can be observed regularily on this stretch of road. The park is well frequented by local children, as well as more organized sporting events, which have definitely increased in frequency and utilization since I moved here (1985). The organized sporting events cause a level of traffic that is well above what one should normally expect from a residential neighborhood, and parking congestion, noise, and interference with local right of ways are quite common. I would welcome any efforts by the city to decrease the speed in this local neighborhood, and physical obstacles are in my opinion a good alternative. They 'enforce' the speed at all times, contrary to the sporadic enforcement by the salaried and scarce enforcement available from the police department. In addition to physical barriers, I should also like to see the speed limit posted to 20 MPH when children are present, similarily to what is done within school zones. This park is heavily used by children. Sincerely, Lars Olsson 561 Pine St Edmonds WA 98020-4028 672-1633 September 23, 1994 0 5 To: City of Edmonds, Laura Hall Mayor N-1 Bob Alberts City Engineer Gordon Hyde Traffic Department VED John Nordquist President City Council Paul Mar 3 P REC, Chief of Police 0 Sue Kidd The Enterprise offc,,, Re: Traffic policy in Edmonds. Today as I departed from my house, a large truck, licensed weight 80,000 came down Pine Street traveling west. I followed it across 5th Avenue where it ignored the 5 ton limit sign. The truck then proceeded across 3rd Ave., turned right into the ferry holding lanes and entered the ferry terminal. The license number is 2131 TX, and the name on the door is Applied Building something ... carrying a large load of tar paper and other building materials. I reported this to the officer directing traffic at the ferry. His response was that I should report it to the Edmonds police, notwithstanding his clearly visible shoulder badge. Clearly he had better things to do, and since he purportedly was working for the state DOT (found that out at the police station), it is understandable that he couldn't, or wouldn't do anything. If this officer is off duty free-lancing for DOT, what is he doing in the uniform that is supplied by my tax dollars? Should like a reasonable answer to this, since it was so easy to mistake him for an Edmonds police officer, which he evidently was not at this time. Would it be reasonable that an Edmonds police officer could also free-lance as a security guard elsewhere on his off duty hours wearing his Edmonds police uniform, or does the DOT assert special privileges? In light of the response at the police station, it is perfectly clear that a DOT employee could do nothing, because they could not do anything at the police station either. The officer that came to the desk made that perfectly clear. Unless he witnessed the infraction, which is so rarely possible on Pine Street due to the infrequency of any traffic enforcement,.no action could be taken. A comment was made that the registered owner would be contacted. I am certainly very curious if that will ever happen. Small unofficial notations on a very tiny yellow pad could so easily be lost in shuffle of more pressing mandatory paper . work. Nice piece of showmanship though. Please drop me a line with regards to the response of the registered owner. Maybe I should have filed a formal complaint. Maybe the Chief of Police could inform me of whether a formal reporting environment exists for traffic infractions observed by private individuals, but not witnessed by an on duty officer exists. If such a procedure exists I shall willingly exercise my tax -dollars by filling out the initial -report. The officer also confirmed the practice of not ticketing speeders unless they were breaking the speed limit by a certain amount. It is at the discretion of the officer, if a ticket is to be issued, and for what number o7f mph the speed limit has to be violated. At a recent meeting of the NTCG (Neighborhood Traffic Control Group) this level of leniency' was quoted by one member of the Edmonds police department to be 11 mph. The officer at the desk today went as far as 15 mph. Exceeding the speed limit in a 25 mph zone by 11 mph is an infraction of 44 % (percent), an error of a magnitude that is likely to be noticed by observant people in just about any profession, regardless of subject matter. It is unfortunate, that arguments such as, "if I didn't give an allowance of this magnitude, I would be ticketing everybody" should have a bearing on traffic safety issues on residential streets. I personally do hot feel like I should have to put up with 36 mph traffic on my.residential- street before enforcement action is likely to pose a threat to violators, but on this subject I seem to be in conflict with at least two expert professionals of the Edmonds police force, who seem to have a problem noticing a 44 % error. Standard calibration of your radars might improve your ability. It is only a suggestion. Calibration of standard procedures might be another solution, but having been suggested by,a private individual, it may have to be ignored due to other overriding operating procedures (listen to the public, then do nothing). A 5 mph 'leniency' seems to me to be a reasonable margin of error in a 25 mph zone, but zero tolerance could also be a viable option if the accuracy of your measurement devices could be held to this level, and if the officers operating the equipment could learn to notice such Uminute" errors. At zero tolerance the speed limit would be the SPEED LIMIT. The actual amopunt of speed violations you encounter is proportional to your level of tolerance. .A number of concerns regarding traffic issues have been brought forth to various persons within the public structure of the city of Edmonds. A traffic proposal to the comprehensive plan is due sometime soon, and the'flawed Bell -Walker study seems to be the only contender. It is the only contender, since no other study has been ordered. The concerns of the citizen planning board do not seem to be taken seriously, and it would not be surprising if a badly white washed version of the Bell -Walker plan is finally adopted at the 11th hour by the council, due to lack of other input. The 2 years of input from the NTCG, and the recent opposition and concern from theplanning board can then conveniently be filed in the round file, disposed of, and the citizens will have been heard and ignored. But at least protocol and form has been adhered to, and the elected representatives can proceed with their self (or otherwise) motivated vision of what traffic in Edmonds should or should not be like. The 800+ signatures collected by the NTCG, and the turn -out at public forums and private meetings should leave no doubt that an actual citizen concern exists regarding local traffic planning issues, and that the BELL -WALKER study does NOT provide a satisfactory answer. Several suggestions have been made with respect to fixed devices that do control the flow and speed of traffic. Traffic devices of similar or identical nature are present in Seattle and do not seem to pose a threat to public safety, and some even exist on 7th Ave in Edmonds and do a marvelous job of slowing down traffic locally. I have previously mentioned the use of radar triggered cameras as a effective device to discourage violators from repeating their offense, and,so have others. I suggest that the city of Edmonds conduct a study of the cost effectiveness of speeding tickets issued by remote camera devices vs. the cost of tickets issued by patrol officers. I can understand how certain unions would object to the adoption of fixed enforcement devices of this kind, since they are on duty 24 hours/day, require little or no maintenance, do not draw a pension, and most of all do not vote and pay dues to the local union * ' My interest as a tax -payer and resident is however to achieve an end objective with respect to traffic safety, and I personally have very little regard for institutions that may have become an end in themselves, especially if their margin of error should exceed 44 percent, and their area of coverage and cost benefit ratio may be marginal compared to more modern ways to execute certain aspects of traffic enforcement. Si�6erely, Lars Olsson 561 Pine St Edmonds WA 98020-4028 672-1633 APPLICATION for The, City of Edmonds SIUDE SEWER PERfMT NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS E] EASEMENT No . .......................................... 104-04100 OWNER.................. Re .... Je .... sil.t.a.lar ...................................................... CONTRACTOR .................................................................................................. PERMIT No . ...................... ADDRtSS .............. 561 ... Pine ... Street .................................................... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BL4C)CK No . ............................................ NAMEOF ADDITION ......................................................................................................................................... LIJ— a DYE TESTED ON SEWER JULY9 1972 Approved: DATE................................................ By ......................................................................