MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 26, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Discussion: Final Road Design and Options of Prairie du Chien and Newport Road..................... 1
Discussion from the Public.................................................................................................... 10
Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Southslope Conference Center, North Liberty at 7:00 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Lehman said that the discussion tonight would center around design options. The four points of interest to be discussed with the consultants include: the overall road top and paved portion of the road, the S-curves in the Merryman Corbin area, the S-curve in the Kemp-Gable area, and the intersection at Prairie du Chien.
Anderson-Bogert Representative Jeff Morrow outlined his presentation, stating that he intended to touch on some of the project goals that were developed from the citizen advisory groups, to address speed limits, design speeds, and paved widths; and to show some of the plans for the various intersections on the computer.
Morrow said that in the original citizen advisory groups some residents indicated that their first preference was no roadway improvements. Some of the important goals for all groups were to maintain the rural aesthetic character of the roadway corridor; to keep roadway speeds low; to ensure the safety of the traveling public; to keep right-of-way acquisition to a minimum; and to save trees. The South Newport group had a couple of additional goals, primarily centered around the Kemp-Gable corner. These goals were to not take houses and to stay out of front yards.
Morrow proceeded to show a map of Prairie du Chien Road and the southern part of Newport Road. He said that the existing observed speeds along Prairie du Chien Road and the southern part of Newport Road are about 35 miles per hour. Morrow indicated that there is a location on Newport Road just north of the Vox Culvert where there is a long straight-away and a valley where some of the speeds are up over 40 miles an hour. Down on the new part of Prairie du Chien south of Newport Road, before the project was constructed at the 85th percentile, speeds were about 55 mph, which was not changed by the construction. On the north part of Newport Road near Highway One, observed speeds are between 43 to 50 mph. Towards Turkey Creek and Sugar Bottom Road, speeds are in the upper 30s. South of Turkey Creek, speeds are around 34-35 mph. He pointed out that this was the basis Anderson-Bogert used when they came up with design speeds. He said that people are driving about 45 mph even though the legal speed limit is 55 mph on the northern part of Newport Road which is flat and open. However, once on the southerly part of Newport Road and Prairie du Chien people are driving about 35 mph.
Morrow said that since Newport Road is not posted, its entire length is technically 55 mph, but people tend to drive about 45mph. Prairie du Chien is posted at 30 mph, but people are typically driving 35 mph. He said that for the proposed project, North Newport Road from somewhere south of the Dooley property and between where the gazebo is with the Hill property, motorists will transition from 45 down to 30 mph. From there to the north all the way out to Highway 1, they will reduce the speed limit from 55 down to 45. On the southern part of Newport Road and Prairie du Chien Road will be posted at 30 mph. He summed up by saying that previously the southern part of Newport Road is 55 mph, but most people drive about 35 mph, and that although most people drive 35 mph on the southern part of Prairie du Chien, they are proposing to keep the posted speed at 30 mph.
In regards to paved width, Morrow said that south Prairie du Chien is 36 feet of paving, which includes two 12 foot lanes and six feet of paved shoulders on each side, plus two feet of unpaved shoulder. He said they are looking at a total top width of 40 feet, which is the County’s design standard for Secondary Roads. Highway 1 at Newport Road is 24 feet paved, with ten feet of unpaved shoulders for a total top width of 44 feet. It currently carries around 8,000 vehicles a day in the vicinity of this intersection, so if it were to be redesigned using IDOT Super Two design standards, the entire top width would end up being paved. That provides two lanes at a total of 28 feet, one 14 feet each way and eight foot paved shoulders. He said that Highway 6 right at the Tiffin city limits has 24 feet paved, and a 13 foot unpaved shoulder. This means there is a 50 foot top-width. Similar to Highway 1 it would follow the same Super Two design and 44 feet would be paved. What they are proposing on the North Corridor projects is nowhere near any of these standards.
Morrow said he has been asked by the residents on a couple of occasions to talk to Polk County design staff, which he did today. He asked them what is done in Polk County and what their standards are, and how they seem to be using 3R standards and Johnson County doesn’t seem to be using that in this location. He said that Polk County has several differences from Johnson County. For one thing their paving threshold is 250 vehicles a day, and Johnson County’s is about 1,000 vehicles per day. Consequently, most of Polk County’s roads are paved. Polk County also performed a very aggressive grading program in the 1950s. They actually designed most of the roadways back at that time to eliminate a lot of the design and geometric deficiencies in their county. Generally, Polk County is flat. They have very few roads that have geometry issues, and in combination with their grading program, they just don’t have the type of problems that exist in Johnson County. Polk County historically has paved their roads 28 feet wide, with no unpaved portions. However, they have not typically accommodated bicycles in any way on their pavement. The Iowa Department of Transportation has recently issued a directive that the counties start to include bicycle design in their future roadway designs. Morrow said that when he asked Polk County what they might to do address this situation, the response was that they would do a four foot paved shoulder in addition to the traffic lanes. Morrow said that he suspects that they would probably go to a 30 foot paved, maybe 32 feet, and have 11 or 12 foot lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic and be in conformance with the what the IDOT mandates. He said that on new construction, Polk County does not construct any new roads because they feel that they are stretched way to thin with most of their roadways being paved. They require developers, if they develop a roadway segment that has a collector in it, to design it to a 30 foot paved width, which is exactly what Morrow is suggesting for the North Corridor Project.
Morrow summed up by saying there are a lot of differences, as well as some similarities. He said it is important to examine each situation on a case by case basis. He went on to say they have heard a lot of about the 3R standards, particularly the question of why the project can’t be designed as a 3R project. He presented an excerpt of the Department of Transportation’s memorandum that covers the 3R guidelines. It says that it’s apparent that available funding is insufficient to approve County roads to the geometric requirements desirable for new construction. It assumes that the County doesn’t have enough money to design it correctly, so that being the case, some improvement is better than nothing. It also assumes that the County is adding on to what’s already there, not doing new or total reconstruction. If they have the money to do total reconstruction, they should design it according to the latest standards. He said that it is kind of like remodeling a house: if you have the money to do it you have to bring it up to current codes. He said that it is not the intent of the road performance standards to use 3R guidelines and they don’t have the current funding situation to construct the road to current standards. 3R design guides are intended for roadways which were designed in the past. He said that the roads in question have evolved over time; they started as trails, got some rock on them, and eventually got seal coated. He said that there never has really been any engineering design applied to them. He said that is not really an appropriate application of 3R. Polk County redid a lot of their roads in the 1950s, and applied some grading and did some of the engineering back then, so they do have an advantage plus their terrain, that they can add on to their existing roads. He said that on the road in question this advantage does not exist. Furthermore, if they just build on to the existing road, this will require the removal of more trees and the acquisition of more right-of-way. Without the flexibility to lower the road or move it from side to side to avoid trees and yards, they will certainly have more impacts on trees and yards.
Morrow said that paved width for this project is a 34 foot road width. He said that it is less than what the County standard is. The County is looking at paving 30 feet of that, which is 11 foot lanes, providing four foot shoulders. He said that the shoulders provide a multi-purpose function, for cyclists, pedestrians, and the room for a car to pull over. He said that it also provides edge stability so that there is not rutting or the edge of the pavement being too close to the wheel loads and losing stability. He said they also have two feet of turf on the edges as well, trying to make the pavement look not quite so wide. He said they would put pavement stripes at the 11 foot lane lines, which makes it look a little bit narrower. These proposed paved widths were recommended on December 13, 2005 in the original presentation by Anderson-Bogert, Prairie du Chien Road and South Newport Road 30 foot paved, 34 foot top-width; North Newport Road 34 foot paved, 34 foot top-width. He said that one thing they are working on with Secondary Roads is possible reducing the paved width on North Newport to 30 feet, and everything being the same. This is a detail they will work out during final design.
Morrow went on to discuss some of the issues with the corner at Newport and Prairie du Chien. He said they would recommend Newport Road to be the through alignment, and have Prairie du Chien be the side street alignment, realigning the intersection so that the Prairie du Chien traffic would stop and allow Newport to be the through movement. He said they tried to keep the roadway off of existing properties as much as possible. They therefore moved the existing roadway off the existing alignment so that it ends up about halfway between the houses on the north and south sides of the road. This means that Newport Road would be centered between the existing houses. This does help, since it moves the edge of pavement about 15-20 feet away from the Sedlacek house on the corner, but still means that a fair amount of the property on the corner would have to be acquired and the roadway will be closer the Sedlacek house. He said that other options give some serpentine alignment in the roadway. He said that other options would be taking the problem off of one property owner and moving to another property owner. Therefore, they then looked at another alternative, and showed different options for a roundabout at the Gogle and Sedlacek and Jedlicka acre. He said that there are some advantages and disadvantages to roundabouts. It would provide an opportunity for some sort of entry feature to the area, however it is not really in keeping with the rural character. A roundabout is really an urban feature. Also, roundabouts work well in the midwest if it’s the same people using it every day. He said there is a learning curve, and roundabouts are not widely accepted in the midwest, and people have to be trained to use them. He said that in this situation there is a park, and therefore new people all the time. He said that a lot of people in the midwest don’t know how to drive roundabouts, so it would not be his first choice. Part of the point of looking at a roundabout was trying to save right-of-way or get it off of the Sedlacek property, and this gain doesn’t happen.
Morrow then went on to discuss the Kemp-Gable corner. He said the existing roadway has a tight curve. He showed the proposed design which was presented on December 13, 2005. Some of the things they looked at were to try and balance this roadway alignment so that it minimized the impacts to front yards. They kept the roadway pretty much on the existing alignment, but at the Kemp corner, it is so tight that it really is about a 20-25 mph speed. One of the things that they looked at was a roundabout in the location, which creates an intersection where there isn’t one. The point of the project, since Newport Road is a collector road, is to promote the safe, continuous flow of traffic through this corridor. He said that any time there is discontinuity there is a potential for accidents. He recommended against a roundabout because it would occupy a lot of the developable area on the lot. Another alternative some people suggested was to make a T-intersection. He said that again, this would mean creating an intersection where there isn’t one. Morrow said that all this would be doing is creating an even more substandard curve at the corner. This would mean that people would approach it too fast, and if there was a driveway connected in that could create accidents as well.
Morrow discussed the S-Curves near Merryman and Baumgartner. For the most part they have been able to follow the existing roadway alignment with the proposed road until just across from the Baumgartners, where they do drift off of the existing road. He said they hit a gap between Merryman’s house and all the trees along Baumgartners. One of the directives from the citizen’s advisory group was to save trees, which they have tried to do wherever possible. He said they must have a straight section between the curves. He said that right now with the existing S-curves, there is no banking in part of the curve where it is needed. The high side of the curve is very flat, and it needs to have 6-8% banking on it. He said that since the goal is to save trees, it seems like trying to stay as much with the existing alignment as possible is an important goal. He said that the layout Anderson-Bogert proposed is the best fit with the priorities of the citizens advisory groups.
Morrow said that if they were to design a 35 mph curve, because of having to have some straight areas between the curves, they still wind up almost in the same place, except for at the very end it would be within 30 feet of where the alignment would be for a 50 mph design speed. This means that not much is saved by doing this, since people aren’t driving at 35mph. He said they should be designing the road for the actual speed people are driving.
Morrow went on to address questions about all way stop control. He said that a traffic engineer in Michigan went through all kinds of papers and studies that have been done on all-way stop control. He said that the evidence showed that multi-way stops do not control speeds, stop compliance is poor at unwarranted stop signs, before and after studies show that multi-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential streets. Unwarranted multi-way stops increase speeds some distance from intersections. The studies hypothesis that motorists are making up time they feel they lost at an unnecessary stop sign. Multi-way stop signs have high operating costs, and safety of pedestrians is decreased at unwarranted multi-way stops, especially for small children. Pedestrians expect vehicles to stop at stop signs, but many vehicles have gotten in the habit of running the unnecessary stop sign. He said that the advantages are that at congested intersections they do help keep traffic moving. It would be slightly less right-of-way requirement than the current proposed design, although it would be pretty close. He said it also provides an opportunity for an entry way feature. He said that when they talked to the citizens advisory groups they made it plain that they did not want monuments, and if there was going to be a feature they wanted some kind of planting. Disadvantages are that traffic always moves in a roundabout, so it’s hard for pedestrians to negotiate. Visually impaired pedestrians have difficulty determining pedestrian-vehicle priority, bicyclists often feel at risk in roundabouts. Interior roundabout must be wide enough for large vehicles, but are still difficult for large vehicles to negotiate. It increases delay for all movements. Based on the recommended design, traffic on Newport Road will just flow through without any delay whatsoever. Traffic on Prairie Du Chien would stop. If a roundabout is put in, now delay has been introduced for everybody, which comes back to the same issue with the unwarranted stop signs, and people start to speed up in between some of these measures to make up for lost time. Roundabouts are not widely understood or accepted in the midwest, and this does not reduce property taking from Sedlacek, and do not maintain rural character.
Lehman asked about the Corbin and Merryman curves. He asked whether one of the reasons they would design them at a higher speed is because the speed to the south of that is going to be a little bit higher. He wondered if the Board asked Morrow to retain some of the angles in the curves, whether there were some things south of that area that they might not adjust quite as much either, and therefore could keep the speed limit at 35 mph all the way up to Turkey Creek. Morrow replied that when looking at the overall picture, there is a very long straight away along Stebrals’s and coming into the curves. Even on the small straight-aways the observed travelling speed was 45mph. He said they talked about having a discontinuity in the system. It is important to keep uniform flow as much as possible. He said they could design the curve at 35 mph, but people aren’t going to drive that speed.
Lehman asked about the 34 foot paved top, and asked if it was reduced to a 30 foot paved top whether that would alter the design. Morrow replied that the curves themselves are primarily a safety issue which keep vehicles on the road even under wet conditions. He said that whether they have 30 feet paved or 34 feet paved, the actual driving lanes are the center 22 feet. So whether they pave more or less doesn’t really affect the horizontal challenge.
Harney said there was real concern about school buses stopping in the area. He asked what design would best fit the visibility of the stopped school bus. Morrow said that right now if you go out there, approaching from the south, you have a hard time seeing around the corner and into the S-curve. Similarly, if you were to come from the north to the south, it is very difficult to see in the area. By providing a straight section, this improves long-distance sight distance, and also maintain the scenic, rural nature of the roads.
Neuzil said that people drive what they feel comfortable. He said that if they design roads to make people feel more comfortable people will drive faster. He said that some members of the Board of Supervisors have said that maybe it’s alright to have some continuity that’s a little different from what an engineer would want, and to design it so that people will slow down. He said that designing the road for 35 mph makes sense rather than designing it at a higher speed. He said that it moves the road over 30 feet, which is good, and it could also make people slow down. He said that the Board wants this area designed differently than other areas of the county.
Lehman mentioned traffic calming. He said that people asked about the straighter part of Newport Road coming up Highway 1, and said that they would not buy right-of-way to put curves in, but there are curves here that they could work with to do some traffic calming. Bill Bogert said that so much of Newport Road is straight, and there is one small piece of curve in there that is substandard. He said that this will slow people down because they have to. He said that if that curve is straightened, people will drive faster. However, no traffic engineering literature recommends that you leave or add substandard corners to control traffic speed. What this would mean is adding a safety problem to control speed, and he is not recommending that. Morrow added that typically traffic calming is not recommended on collector roads or higher. He said that like it or not, North Newport Road is a high speed roadway, high speed being defined as anything over 40 mph. He said he was concerned about putting an inconsistency right in the middle of that high speed section.
Harney said that on the surface he agrees with Neuzil. However, past experience has showed him that when motorists come in to a curve quickly, they are being forced off onto the shoulder where there will be pedestrians and cyclists. Stutsman added that there was something to be said about consistency and speed along this road, because there is nothing more confusing than differential speed limits on one road. Neuzil said that nobody is suggesting that nothing be done. He said that if the road was left the way it was, he could understand the argument about the curve being substandard. However, he said that the engineers and the County are looking at correcting some of that corner but still reducing the speed in that area, that is some middle ground.
Lehman suggested that the Board move on to discuss the intersection at Newport Road and Prairie Du Chien. He asked whether if there was consensus or interest in keeping the stop signs in the position they are currently in whether Morrow would recommend buying right-of-way as traffic might dictate an adjustment there in the future. He said they have no way of knowing if there is going to be more of an increase in traffic coming from the North on Prairie Du Chien or from Newport Road. He said that it depends on what might develop faster or first. Morrow said they did look at this as a potential option, to leave the existing intersection in place since the County has recently reconstructed it and therefore has some investment in it. He said that the realignment is focused towards future traffic, so at such time as traffic would require this adjustment the construction could be done at that time. He said that he would recommend acquiring the right-of-way now for this as part of the project, keeping the existing T in place. At such time if North Newport road doesn’t pan out as much as they anticipate and Prairie Du Chien continues to be more traffic, ultimately maybe it would stay they way it is. He said that he strongly suspects since Newport Road is the connection now into the north part of the Corridor that the traffic is going to grow on Newport Road. Lehman said that if it was left as it is, he asked what some of the criteria that might dictate the threshold where it needs to be. Morrow said it would be based on traffic counts and how the intersection is operating. He said that it may also be based on accident data, if accident problems arise because of an increase in traffic. R. Sullivan asked why they would take right-of-way now if it’s not known to be needed. Morrow replied that the reason was to make sure that the right-of-way had been secured so that nothing would get built there. R. Sullivan said that if it was a future need, why they would not just take it in the future. He said that it is possible that it could be determined that it is not needed after it is acquired. Morrow said that as long as the project is being done and going through the right-of-way acquisition process, working with the property owners, it’s just as well to get the property now because it’s not going to get cheaper.
Harney said that he is not a fan of roundabouts but he thought it was interesting that Morrow showed this as an option. Harney clarified that there were two roundabouts in Coralville. He said they are putting one at the school at 12th Avenue and Forevergreen road, claiming that this is safer for the children. Morrow said that usually on roundabouts pedestrians cross before the roundabout, which creates a mid-block crossing which isn’t the greatest, and violates driver expectation. He said that his information about roundabouts was published by the Federal Highways Administration. Harney said that Mike Sedlacek gave up quite a bit of property for the first section of Prairie Du Chien Road, and now he is being asked to give up some more for this curve. He asked if this would have to be done in the next five to ten years. Morrow replied that was his guess.
Lehman directed the discussion to the Kemp-Gable curve. Lehman clarified that there had been discussion and questions about signage trying to slow it down, driver’s expectations, large vehicles. He asked Morrow to discuss more of the pros and cons of making the curve a little more acute and not quite a smoothed out as it is now. Morrow replied that leaving the existing curve and just adding signage and striping, it does raise awareness but still leaves a facility in place that is about a 20 mile an hour design speed curve. Traffic is approaching at 35 mph. He said that there have been people who have driven this and who have lost control. He said it is a likely spot where someone might lose control. He said that what happened in the past was a head-on collision. He said that by leaving the curve the way it is this potential continues to exist, and as traffic increases exposure to that situation increases. He said that this has been okay in the past because there is not much traffic out there today. However, if there is more and more traffic and residents out there it is much more likely that a head-on collision could occur. Lehman asked Morrow to discuss the pros and cons of having guardrails in that area. Morrow said that a guardrail would assist motorists from leaving the roadway, keeping a car from going down a steep embankment, protect from fixed objects beyond the guardrail, but it still doesn’t address the problem of the curve being too tight and a driver losing control. He said that a guard rail wouldn’t have prevented the accident that did occur where the vehicle lost control and couldn’t regain control in time to prevent hitting somebody head on.
Lehman said that there was some discussion today about the built-in safety problems with these roads. He said that these roads are unlike those in southern Johnson County where it’s a grid pattern. He said the parcels weren’t very square. He said that Morrow mentioned that Polk County had done some adjustments to their roads back in the 1950s, but the roads in Johnson County have never had those updates done to them, which is why they are now dealing with what some people consider extreme changes. He said that this is what the County is forced to do if they want to bring the roads up to the standards that Polk County has. R. Sullivan mentioned that his in-laws live in the northern part of Polk County where it is fairly similar to the area in question. He said that they live on a paved road that has a 20 mph curve. He went back to Morrow’s five goals. He said that they haven’t maintained aesthetics, and suggested that they lower the speed. He said they were debating safety aspects, they are clearly taking a lot of right-of-way and trees. R. Sullivan said that as far as he could see, four out of five goals, and maybe five out of the five, were missing on this corner. He said that Morrow has stated the reasons for not wanting to deviate from the speed, and that there have to be special circumstances to justify doing so. R. Sullivan said that it was very clear to him that these are the special circumstances they are talking about. He said to him it is a no-brainer to not go around the corner at 25 mph. Neuzil said that a couple of things that were missing from the presentation include whether there could be a design of at least five miles less, ten miles less, etc. to see how many trees and how much right-of-way that saves. Neuzil also asked about the retaining wall option.
Morrow pointed out that they can’t decide some of these issues tonight because a lot of the issues are specific to the individual who owns the property, whether they want to save or not save trees. He said some of those negotiations and discussions have to occur with each individual property owner. He said that it is surprising what people will tell you what they want done with their property. Morrow said that they could look at a retaining wall along the road, which would save some trees. He said that a lot of trees along the bottom of the ravine are being affecting by the grading that has to chase down that slope, and a retaining wall put in there could save some of them. He said that it would still have a significant impact. He said that just as up at Corbin’s corner, drastically reducing the speed from 50 mph to 35 mph did not have a big impact. Because of the tight geometry in this case, the situation would be similar. He said they could reduce this down quite a bit but it would not save a whole lot of trees, since it is a big ravine. Bogert added that the corners are the most difficult portions. He said that it comes down to safety, and in the citizen’s advisory group they got tired of hearing about it. However, he said that engineers design to a safety standard. Some of the tight corners are the most difficult safety issues out there. They are the most unsafe portions of the road, and as engineers they have a hard time recommending designing the rest of the road safely and leave out some of the most glaring safety issues. He explained that this is why they keep coming back to the same recommendation.
Lehman said that one of the most difficult things is for people to picture what this is going to look like after it’s done. He said that there was a citizen up on 180th and Mehaffey Bridge Road who had rhubarb and asparagus patches. They got to the point where the road was getting graded out, and they were going to develop a rock retaining wall for the individual. As he saw it develop, he realized what an oddity it was going to be and asked the County to relocate it out of the right-of-way. Lehman said that one of the difficulties is trying to envision what things are going to look like when they are complete. Harney said that he did have concerns with what happens on that corner, but at the same time he thinks the Board of Supervisors realized this was a problem when they had to cut across to avoid the intersection and doing damage to these curves. He said that they made a decision a couple of weeks ago not to go through that cut across, and to help create this particular road. Harney said that he was going to support doing this in a safe manner, but said they need to be consistent with the road all the way through. Neuzil said it won’t be consistent all the way through because it will be both 45 and 35 mph speed limit. R. Sullivan said he didn’t buy that those were the only two choices. He said he didn’t think it has to be a brand new through virgin land cut across multi-million dollar road, or making people taking the curve at 35 mph. He said he didn’t understand why having a 25 mph speed limit was impossible. He understood that this was not the top choice of the engineers, but the bottom line is that this is the decision of the Board of Supervisors, and they have to factor in a lot of things. He said that he thinks this is a small concession to make.
Annie Gavin said she grew up on the Gable-Kemp corner. She said that the engineers keep talking about the speeds that people are currently driving. She said that the reason that people are currently driving those speeds is because they can, and this hasn’t really been discussed. She said that if they made the speed limit 35 mph then people couldn’t drive 45 mph anymore. She said that if they lower the speed limit and enforce it and have officers out there patrolling the area, then it would reduce the speed that people are driving. She noted that nobody had mentioned this. She also said that that the engineers had said that in regards to the Sedlacek corner, discontinuity causes accidents. She said that splitting up Prairie Du Chien Road can cause discontinuity and accidents. She said that she lives on Muscatine Road in Iowa City. Where Muscatine and Burlington come together there is discontinuity and it is very confusing. She said that she feels like this is the same kind of confusion that would be created on the Sedlacek corner. She added that Neuzil asked the engineers why they didn’t come up with alternatives at 25 mph, retaining walls, and other alternatives, and they didn’t really answer the question. She said that if the engineers would draw those things up that would be nice.
Kathy Gable thanked Stutsman, and Lehman along with County Engineer staff and representatives from Anderson-Bogert for meeting with her family today at her home. She said her family appreciated the time the engineers have taken to meet with them so they may hear their views on the issue, especially the curve in front of their home. She said that there are a few issues that are still of great concern. First of all, if this was strictly an issue of safety and there was clear evidence that the curve in front of her home is a major hazard, she would not be fighting the issue to such an extent. She said that it is true that an accident could happen at any time, but that is the way it is anywhere. She said that in the 23 years she has lived in the house, she has never felt that the curve or the road is hazardous and there have not been the accidents to prove this. She asked why they would change something that doesn’t appear to need fixing to such an extent, especially when the effect on the environment and their personal property will be drastic. She said that her family is not fully opposed to something being done, and have made the suggestions of putting up guardrails and additional signage to prevent any accidents from occurring. The response of some of the Board members has been that the North Corridor is an area in Johnson County that will see great increase in development, and that there will be an increase in traffic which will lead to the road and especially the curve in front of her home to be hazardous under current conditions. What is frustrating about this response is that no one has publicly come forward to back this up. The response from the Board members is that these people have felt too intimidated. If they were so passionate about their hopes then it shouldn’t be difficult for them to come forward. She said that that the Gable family is not bullies, they feel so passionate about this issue that they do feel it is necessary for their voices to be heard. She said that the majority of the residents of the North Corridor are against this plan, and said that she hoped the Board members, as the representatives of the people, will hopefully in the end take this into consideration. Finally, she said that she didn’t remember anyone suggesting roundabouts except for one lady who lived in town, and wondered why they put so much time and effort into diagramming a roundabout. She said they didn’t do one drawing of what it would look like if they slowed the traffic down on that curve. She said that they were not against development, but that it shouldn’t be at the expense of other personal property.
Paul Morff said that he appreciated all the questions directed at the speed on the S-curve, as well as the time the engineers have taken to visit with them about this issue. He said that the design speeds are for wet conditions, that people would drive faster on dry conditions. He said that he is concerned about Merryman turning left on this blind curve. He said that both the Corbins and Merryman would be happy if they could keep the speed limit down to 35 mph on this corner, and they would be able to live with the rest of the alignment. He said he did appreciate the attention given to this issue, and said he trusted the judgement of the Board.
Joe Corbin asked what the stopping distance is when driving 35 mph vs 45 mph. He said his children will be out there waiting for a bus, and he would like to see the speed limit at 35 mph. He said that signs would do a lot of good, and that right now there is an advisory sign for a 25 mph speed coming south from Highway 1. He said he thought that if there were chevrons or a traffic sign which indicated that the speed limit was 35 mph, that would help. Corbin said that when they first moved out to this area, he didn’t know what the speed limit was, and was surprised to hear that it was 55 mph. He said that he thought people would drive 35 mph if the speed limit was enforced. As far as losing the land, it would hurt because it is his front yard. He said they are planning on living on this property for the rest of their lives, so this would be a big loss.
Jenny Mitchell of the Gable family spoke next. She said that the comment was made that people tend to drive based on what they feel comfortable with in this particular area. She said that as far as the curve in front of her parents’ home, if the road bed is improved and widened, people will drive faster on the curve. She said that the people slow down around the curve right now because of the road bed and the way the road is laid out. She said that if they improve the road people will drive faster, which will cause more accidents to occur.
Molly Gable commented that the Board said it was hard to envision what this road was going to look like when it was done, and that they encouraged people to envision the plant growth coming back. She said that on their corner, a lot of the trees are about 150 years old, so nobody alive today will be able to see it. She said that to talk about the S-curve right there, making it a 45 mph road, especially with teenagers and kids around there would not be safe. She said that she herself would probably speed up if the road was improved. She said that she thought that not improving it to a 45 mph road would be safer.
Mike Dooley said that the term roundabout would be a proper adjective to describe the flawed logic behind these projected changes to Newport Road and Prairie du Chien. He said he did have a begrudging admiration for the gentlemen from Anderson-Bogert because they’ve been given the impossible task of fixing something that isn't broken. He said that the cut-through is a bad idea, and this is another bad idea. It is unnecessary and would be an example of throwing good money after bad.
Meg Corbin said that she was curious about Dubuque Street, and said she likes the look of Dubuque Street, and the speed limit is posted at 35 mph. From her observations people go that speed limit. She asked why that was able to work even though there aren’t a lot of patrol cars on that stretch, and asked why they couldn’t therefore do a 35 mph speed on Newport. She asked how much it cost to put up signage, and suggested that maybe they put some up and see if it works before ruling it out as a possibility. Finally, she mentioned that 15-30 feet may not seem like a lot when it’s not your front yard, but it is a lot when it is yours.
Greg Pickett thanked Morrow and Bogert for working on these designs in the professional way they have done. He said that the South Newport Citizens’ Action Committee meetings that he was able to be part of still have some open items that need to be addressed. He said there were blank Iowa Department of Transportation instructional memorandums, 3.216 which were handed out to the Citizen’s Action Committee at the first meeting. He said that this is the economic analysis benefits to cost ratio. He said he has not seen any filled out versions of this form, and claimed that the form should be filled out showing the following benefits to cost ratios of the comparison of resurfacing the existing road versus the proposed plan, the 28 foot road top, versus the proposed 30 foot road top. Also the 32 foot road top, which according to IDOT item 3.214 and the JCCOG traffic projections is what the road top should be. He said that it should be 34, which came about in the meetings when the JCCOG traffic projections plus margin was being used. He said they should also look at 22 width of paving versus the proposed 30 foot because of the bike lanes. He said there are some open action items according to the notes from Anderson-Bogert. He said that Anderson-Bogert was to follow up on the status of the groundwater study being prepared by the County, and nothing has come about from that. They were also supposed to get turf shoulder recommendations. The changes to the current design of South Newport Road that were requested were to keep the stop sign on Newport Road at the corner of Newport and Prairie du Chien; no additional bike lane on Newport Road since it is not a Johnson County bike trail route nor a proposed trail road; revision of the design of the Gable-Kemp corner, and that the clear zone distances be reviewed. He said there were margins in the designs for how much clear zones to use. He said that they were 12-14 feet, but 14 feet was always picked. He said he hoped that that the Board of Supervisors would direct Anderson-Bogert to reopen the Citizen’s Action Committee Meetings so that these issues could be resolved. He expressed his hope that this time the Board of Supervisors would take part in the Citizens’ Action Committee Meetings.
Janet Koster spoke next about the speed limit. She said she really believed that as is noted with Prairie du Chien, it’s posted at 30 mph and people travel 35 mph. When you post a speed limit people generally travel about 5 mph above that speed limit. That supports the idea of posting the speed limit at 35 mph or lower on the whole length of that road. She said that her husband noted that he drove Scott Boulevard and noted that it was posted a 25, although you could very well go 55 mph, but people don’t because they don’t want to get a ticket. She said that the guys who hung out at her place said that they used to race up and down Newport Road, but slowed down at the curves. Finally she said that if there were concerns about farm machinery, she suggested the post signs with flashing lights during planting and harvesting season.
Tom Carsner said that his father is an engineer. He said he has met many engineers and architects. He said that one thing they learned eight years ago was that the way that the south part of Prairie Du Chien was designed was a disaster. He said that all it accomplished was to make people go faster, destroyed the rural nature of the area, drove bikers and pedestrians off the road, and is why they are all here tonight. He congratulated the Board for the willingness to listen and to go slowly, and said he had even seen some evidence of their understanding and desire to mitigate problems. He said that Prairie du Chien is a good learning tool. Engineers can do great things and they do every day. However, he said that engineers will do their best to please their customer. He said that tonight they are discussing the specific locations on the road and other concerns, and said they had seen a lot of designs and precise measurements, but engineers can do exactly what they are told to do. He said that the important thing in public projects is that the engineers won’t control you if you don’t control the engineers. He said that this was particularly important with the road decisions, because road design is a policy and political decision because it determines whether you are following the Land Use Plan. He said that if the Board were to continue the Prairie du Chien design through the rest of the North Corridor, a strong case could be made that the scenic nature of the area was not being preserved. He said it is important to preserve the scenic nature of the North Corridor, and the questions they have had about road width and speed may sound like micromanaging, but it is what the whole project is about. He said that Prairie du Chien proves that paved shoulders are not bike paths. There are no cyclists on Prairie du Chien because they know it’s too dangerous. Furthermore, if something wider, flatter and straighter is designed then speeds will increase. He found it hard to believe that the average speed on South Prairie du Chien had not increased. Anybody who lives near there will say that the speeds are distinctly higher than that. Prairie du Chien can teach everyone some lessons, and he said he hoped they could learn from them.
Jim McCarragher said that he didn’t think that making Prairie Du Chien an entrance into Iowa City is a good idea. He said that if something is going to be done with this road, the least done is the better. He said that the two primary goals were appearance and slow speeds. He said that when somebody wants something, where they start is important. He gave some analogy to his wife rationalizing buying a dress and asking him whether that was okay. He said that in this case they were comparing Prairie du Chien to Highway 1, Highway 6, and the width of the roads compared how they look to highways. He said that these are roads through a residential area, not highways. He asked why they weren’t hearing comparisons to how this road compared to other roads in a more residential rural area rather than talking about areas that sit out there in open spaces of flat ground or on highways like Highway One and Six. He said he hasn’t yet gotten a good reason about why if they can’t just put a two foot shoulder on there. He said that the more pavement put down, the more you ruin what you want to preserve. He said that people will drive faster on wide open roads rather than narrow roads. He said that if you have the option of keeping a 28 foot top, or even going down to a 26 foot top, why you would add more. He said that less is what’s important here. He said that he keeps hearing about safety, and in all the studies he’s seen, nothing has said that these roads are a safety hazard compared to state averages. What he hears is that they are very good, either a third less or half less than the state averages. He said that he doesn’t think the concern about safety is realistic, and asked that the Board of Supervisors and the engineers consider these things.
Betty Sedlacek said that she talked to Anderson after the meeting. She said she didn’t like the cut off going through anyone’s yard. She said that when she rezoned, she wanted to rezone for all eight children. She said the County said she couldn’t do that because there were too many. She said that when she wanted to do it she rezoned it for Mike Sedlacek. She said that she didn’t like it when his property was cut through the first time, but now she really objects because she wants him to be allowed his acre.
Mike Sedlacek said that he appreciated his mother getting up and talking to the Board. He said that he would appreciate if they could leave his corner alone. He said that he drives about 10 mph faster than the posted speed limit, and if the speed limit is raised most people will drive faster than that. He said that if they want to buy his land now he will give them a hard time.
Mary Ferentz said that she appreciated Morrow calling Polk County. She said that some of Morrow’s comments in relaying the conversation were problematic. She read something from the instructional memorandum to the Johnson County Engineer set out by the office of local systems. She said it is three or four guidelines, and before these guidelines are scrapped she just wanted to read it. It read: it’s apparent that available funding is insufficient to improve existing County roads to the geometric requirements desirable for new construction. She asked how this says substandard safety, rather than just new construction. County roads constructed to previous design criteria are still capable of performing a useful transportation service and in many cases, minor improvements will make such roads serviceable for many years. The 3R program has been initiated to preserve and extend the service life of an existing highway, including the enhancement of safety. Rehabilitation, restoration and resurfacing are these “3R”s, and asked how adhering to these guidelines is sacrificing safety. She said it is the Federal Highway Administration’s guidelines which are approved, accepted and used all over the state and the country. The other point she wants to make is that these are accepted guidelines, and just because they have plenty of money doesn’t mean they need to use it all. She said that Johnson County should not commit the bulk of available road use taxes over several years to completely reconstruct the roadways. She said they have a valuable and stable base which, with the recommended design, would be wasted. The extra expense for these projects will only delay important and necessary work and other needs in the County. She said they should spread the money around rather than sinking it all into one project. She said these are not sub-safe design standards. She asked what the traffic count was on all the roads throughout other counties that are reconstructed to these 3R guidelines, and wondered how they compared to the traffic count the County was looking at for the growth some people hope to see in this area. She said that would be a question to have answered before just scrapping the 3R guidelines. She also noted that Morrow said the 3R guidelines do not apply because these roads have never had any design. She read another comment from an engineer that she has tried to learn from. She read: The County Engineer staff and the consultants have indicated that that the 3R guidelines are not appropriate because these roadways were never formally designed. As in many unpaved county roads throughout the state, their statement is probably partially accurate in that the roads have had no formal design plans of record. However, county roadways were constructed over the years with grading, base stabilization, oil and seal coat build ups and sometimes asphalt surfaces. These roadways didn’t just happen because all the previous work was informally designed and administered by county engineers. Consequently they can be said to exist in a design state that incorporated good engineering practice of the time. Ferentz said that Prairie du Chien and Newport Roads appear to have such a history. Design standards are constantly changing. She said that it could be argued that they were only getting one opinion. She went on to address a comment that was made about dropping back 28 feet rather than 30-32-34, more destruction would be done to the area than what was planned. She said that doesn’t make sense, and asked how a narrow road could be more destructive than a wider road. The reason given is that they have to lower the road grade. She said that in the 3R guidelines, it addresses restoration, which, as she read, is primarily for the major resurfacing or overlays which add a considerable amount of structure to the existing pavement. Usually resurfacing are overlays of a nominal four inches or more included. In addition, some pavement widening, short sections of pavement reconstruction, shoulder widening, flattening four slopes on high fills and grades curves or slight distance by construction or traffic control measures, in some cases minor or right-of-way acquisitions or other easements might be required. She said that seems to cover some of the problematic areas. Another point she made which she jotted down involved the S-curves. Morrow had said that he was simply designing these roads for the speeds at which people are travelling. She asked him to explain the traffic calming techniques that are being used all over the country on the more densely populated, heavily traveled roads. She said that in this case roads are being redesigned to slow people down, not designing roads for what people drive. She said that it is not necessary to design the roads for the speed at which people drive. Speed is a real concern on these roads. She asked what type of minor collector road this is, whether it is rural, residential, or rural/residential, and asked whether a 55 mph speed limit was really appropriate for a collector road of this nature. She said that unless Johnson County is in the position to maintain these shoulders on the road, if a cyclist gets into an accident and if they can blame it on debris, she wondered whether the county would be liable. She also asked whether they should be encouraging bicycle traffic on Prairie Du Chien if the traffic speeds are going to be 55 mph, particularly if the traffic flow is going to increase. She said she remembered a lot of people asking to see a reduced speed curve, and said she didn’t understand why they couldn’t still have one in this area. She gave one last suggestion that the do a value engineering analysis, where a team is put together and look at what’s been proposed and to talk about it. She said it would take two days, and the Anderson-Bogert engineers could collaborate with other engineers.
Lehman said that Anderson-Bogert has a contract, and that they would like to have some indication of the direction in which they should proceed. He said that the road-top is proposed at 30 foot paved from Prairie Du Chien and Newport up to the Dooley property, and then 34 foot on from that area. He asked the Board to weigh in on that. He said he would like to see it be a 30 foot paved width all the way through with two foot rock shoulders. Stutsman said she would be supportive as well, as did Harney.
Lehman asked about the intersection and Prairie du Chien and Newport Road. Stutsman said she would like to see it stay the way it is for the time being, and said that she would support continuing to look at buying right-of-way there. She addressed R. Sullivan’s concern about this by saying that part of the reason they are in such an emotional issue here is because people have been building in right-of-ways. She said that if it is possible to give people the notification that this is the right-of-way in the future, it would resolve a lot of problems. Lehman said that he supported looking into this, but would leave the final recommendation up to the County Engineer. Harney said he didn’t mind leaving the stop sign there, but wondered if they could just state that there would be a corner where nothing could be built in the future, rather than buying right-of-way. Lehman clarified that they had done this in other areas, where an area has been preserved by putting property owners on notice that before the build anything the County would like to discuss location with them. Neuzil said he would be comfortable with this. R. Sullivan agreed.
Lehman summarized that they had come to consensus to leave the stop signs in place, look at purchasing the right-of-way or preserving the area. R. Sullivan asked if they were going to buy it or preserve it. Lehman said that the whole thing is unique. Normally the Board gives approval on a project and doesn’t make these specific decisions. Harney said he would support preserving this land. Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell asked how many feet into the yards they were looking at going, regardless of which option was chosen. Morrow said that it would be about 30 feet. Chappell said that the current County setbacks wouldn’t allow property owners to put any structures within 40 feet of that road today, regardless. He said that he didn’t have any concerns that Sedlacek would be putting any structures in that area. Neuzil said that possibly if residents hear that the County may want to buy the land in the future, they would want the money now. He said that mapping out a potential corridor, there is direction from the Board to keep the existing alignment as is. Lehman said that some of the concern was that if the building is placed within the alignment’s 40 foot setback, it may, if this does become a reality in the future, hinder the operational access to a building.
The next item is the Gable-Kemp corner, which Lehman said is probably the most difficult one. He said he would like to see it done correctly, and hopefully there would be some adjustments. Throughout this program the worst case scenario has been showed. He said he hoped that some tweaking would go on. Neuzil said there was still some ability to find some compromise. He said the Board could give some direction to the consultant to not design the curve greater than 30 miles per hour. He said that if the Board says the parameter is no more than 30 they could move the curve in a bit. Stutsman agreed with both. She said that if they are going to redo the corner it should be done right so that they don’t create more of a problem than what exists now. She said she was very comfortable in instructing the engineers to reduce the speed and change the alignment to save the trees. Harney said that he thinks it would be good to slow the curve down. R. Sullivan said it didn’t make any sense to go above 25 miles per hour, whatever it takes to leave this as it is. He said that this is the decision of the Board, not of the engineers. He said that it’s not that the engineers couldn’t do it, it’s that they don’t want to. He said he thought that they could make the curve 25 mph and save all of the trees. Morrow replied that as a design professional, he does have to hold public safety as his top priority regardless of what he is directed to do by the Board. He said that at some point it could be that he could not fulfill his obligations. R. Sullivan said that if Morrow drew it up and said that they couldn’t do it, the Board would either find someone who could or come up with new ideas. Lehman said that Board would ask Anderson-Bogert to design the curve as slow as possible and they would take it from there.
The next item is the Merryman-Corbin curve. Neuzil said it’s been pretty clear from most that this curve could be designed at 35 mph. The setbacks would be a little more in favor of the residents who have their front yards in that area, and he though that 35 mph makes sense. Stutsman agreed. Harney said that if they are going to do this he would request that designs be made so that there was signage at every entrance that indicated that pedestrians and cyclists share the road. Lehman supported this as well. He said that sight distance was mentioned. He said that one of the trade-offs here was sight distance versus speed. He said he would support a lower speed. R. Sullivan said the other reason he supports this is because it slows down the whole roadway. Morrow said that his concern is that people aren’t going to drive 35 mph, they are going to drive 45 mph. R. Sullivan said that is the choice that the Board will make. Morrow said he just wanted to make his concern known. Harney added that he would like this to be done correctly and safely.
Harney said that the 11 foot roadway is not really one that they could live with, since all the snow plows are 12 foot plus a wing on the side. He referenced an accident that happened and warned that they needed to take safety into account. A member of the audience said that bicyclists don’t want to use this road anyway. Harney replied that casual bicyclists do. R. Sullivan said that the head of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition wrote an email that said that nobody can speak on behalf of all cyclists, but he didn’t think that paved shoulders worked. Lehman thanked everyone for their patience and attendance.
Adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary