Jan. 12, 2012 Update: Student parking will no longer be available on the high school campus during the school day beginning January 18. Student parking will only be available off-site, during the school day, at the Mt. Lebanon United Lutheran Church on Washington Road and in the Dixon Field Parking Lot on Cedar Boulevard. Parking in either off-site lot is available only to students with valid student parking permits and will be on a first-come, first-serve basis. Read more below.
This is the only construction related change scheduled at this time. All traffic patterns around the high school campus will operate as normal.
Mt. Lebanon High School Traffic Updates
20 comments:
The map shows a left turn from Lebanon Ave. westbound to Horsman Dr. southbound, but left turns are prohibited at that intersection.
Will the sign be changed in time?
The District may need to hire a police officer to direct traffic at that intersection during school traffic hours.
David Huston
David, I understand that a couple of commissioners met with Steve Feller and Keith McGill to discuss the HS traffic pattern. I introduced the person who drew the alternate map shown on this blog to Matt Kluck and Kelly Fraasch and they discussed it with Steve and Keith yesterday. The person who created the first map, submitted a second hand drawn version which was presented to Steve and Keith. According to Kelly, Keith made a copy of the drawing. Evidently, this entire traffic plan was news to the commissioners.
Elaine
Commissioners Matt Kluck and Dan Miller voted against the traffic circulation (including pedesterian) plan for the HS project when completed, and required a formal review of that plan several after project completion to see if it was working and appropriate. The matter was very controversial, and the Muni traffic engineer, Mark Magalotti of Trans Assoc. was unable to validate it without question. The District was very aware of issue and the fact that the Muni had and has final word on the entire matter.
To then find that the HS principal issued a *policy* letter to parents on this matter, apparently unilaterally, during construction,
without prior consultation with and approval of the Muni is yet another example of a District that is out of control. The HS principal himself has no credentials or credidation as a traffic engineer and has no authority whatsoever to dictate traffic circulation on public streets...Horsman & Stadium are designated public streets as are all surrounding neighborhood and Main Park streets and roadways. If the District relied on the traffic consultant they utilized for project approvals during 2009-2010, Wilber Smith & Assoc., one would assume that firm would have had the professional common sense to confer with the Muni beforehand.
SB officers continue to refuse to hold Joint Steering Committee meetings with Commission counterparts in public...does that surprise anyone ?
Bill Lewis
I have to assume they completed a traffic impact analysis. Is there a quick link to it somewhere?
James, I'm not sure. VP Elaine Cappucci said at the last SB meeting that they don't post every document online when she was asked about the latest parking agreement for student parking. You may have to submit a Right To Know, like everything else.
Elaine
Is there a formal Shared Parking Agreement for the exclusive school day/school year use of the public Dixon Field Lot for the 4-year construction period ? If so, when was it discussed and approved by both Muni & District in a public meeting ? If no Agreement, why not ? There is one for the church lot. Does it not require prior Commission approval for such use whether a formal Agreement or not ? Who is going to monitor the use (tickets)/abuse of the Dixon Lot and pay for damages and restoration ?
Futhermore, the parking *scheme* will allow for only some 140 +/- parking spaces for students (about 100 at the church lot and 40 at Dixon)during construction. I seem to recall that about 250 +/- student parking permits are currently issued. Where are over 100 students currently issued permits going to be parking...and you know they will try, permit or not ? Is the Muni going to take down all the restricted weekday parking signs along the 10 or more residential streets immediately surrounding the HS property that were intended to prevent student parking in the 1st. place ?
I feel very sorry for residents and taxpayers living on Lebanon, Towercrest, Atlanta and Hollycrest particularly. This will be a nightmare for them.
Bill Lewis
Bill, after all approvals are granted, the district should consider split schedules like they did in the early 70's. Another solution might be that the students park in the South lot and the teachers/staff should park in the church lot. This avoids students having to cross Washington Road and paying a crossing guard. When I was in sales, I was required to park at the outer edge of all parking lots.
Elaine
The proposed parking *scheme* during construction is suspect with regard to the Muni Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance requires 226 parking spaces for students and 302 spaces for teachers, staff, visitors onsite with allowances for additional spaces offsite, to fill any gaps, if in accordance with a formal Alternate Parking Plan (e.g. Shared Parking Agreements) approved by the Muni/Commission..a total of 528 committed spaces for the HS.
Therefore, the proposed *scheme* during 4-years of construction violates the Zoning Ordinance requirement in perhaps two ways :
1) there does not seem to be a formal Alternate Plan or Agreement approved by the Muni/Commission for the Dixon Lot, unless it occured behind the scenes ; and,
2) there are only 140 +/- spaces being allocated for students v. 226spaces required by Zoning. And, a number of the 302 spaces for teachers, staff, etc. will seemingly be taken by contractors employees and construction vehicles & equipment since their parking on neighborhood residential streets will be prohibited (or will it ?). In any event, the total parking spaces for students, teachers, staff and visitors during construction will be considerably less..perhaps 100-125..than the 528 required by law.
It would seem the Muni should cite the District and require a Zoning Hearing Board hearing review of the matter, don't you think ?
Elaine, split sessions would resolve this problem and issue.
Bill Lewis
Bill, it was an inconvenience for us students to have a split schedule, but we made the sacrifice to have a beautiful Building C.
This is just one example why I suggested that the new commission review the plans before the groundbreaking. It will be on their watch. The school district will try to call the shots.
Elaine
It's also going to be a nightmare for residents living on Cochran and Washington roads (a U. S. highway, in case anybody forgot), as well as those residing in Mission Hills.
I fear this congestion will adversely affect the business district, too, because it'll be easier to travel in any of the other three directions.
I beg the commissioners to look out for this community because the school board is certainly not going to do so.
Carole Brown
It's going to be an inconvenience for everyone, but that's true with any project. I think the sooner we recognize that, the easier life will be for everyone. Look how long the Gateway T stop has been closed.
If we spend the next 4 years complaining about every aspect of this project it will feel like 8 years. Besides, I can't imagine that the traffic issues surrounding this project will be any worse than the current bumper to bumper gridlock that exisst on Cochran Rd every day between the Getgo and and Cedar Blvd.
Look on the bright side, school is only in session for 9 full months and these inconveniences are temporary.
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin, "these inconveniences are temporary", until there is a work stoppage due to the board's selection of multiple prime, contrary to the CAC recommendation.
David Huston
We are dealing with students, new drivers and rush hour traffic. That spells disaster to me. Is it ok to have a crossing guard on Washington Road, but we needed a bridge for Horsman? It would be so much safer if the church parking lot was designated for teachers and staff. It's for the kids, right?
Where are we suppose to park for the groundbreaking ceremony, if there is one?
Elaine
And if the world ends in 2012 like has been predicted I guess it's all irrelevant. Thousands of kids walk to and from school in Lebo - some with crossing guards, some without We do a pretty hood job of keeping kids safe.
Look, we can all sit around all day and predict the various calamities that may befall this project or we can focus on the important things like getting it done on time, on budget. Fretting over parking arrangements etc won't accomplish those objectives that I think everyone supports. Besides, if the parking/traffic becomes too much of a hassle maybe we'll see more carpools and more walkers, which I think is also a good thing.
Dave Franklin
I agree with the spirit of what Mr. Franklin is saying, but this comment deserves closer inspection:
Look, we can all sit around all day and predict the various calamities that may befall this project or we can focus on the important things like getting it done on time, on budget
What has set this project back more than anything else has been a stubborn insistence on “moving forward,” even when there was credible evidence that doing so would be harmful.
For example: What set the project back nine months? Was it the people saying that the original design was too expensive? Was it the people saying we would be better off with a less-expensive design? Or was it moving forward with a design that in reality we couldn’t afford, when there was credible evidence that the claims made about that design’s cost were hopelessly optimistic?
Yes, moving forward is important. And, yes, everyone agrees that needless delay hurts us all. But our desire to move forward sometimes blinds us to the evidence that we would be better off making a course correction. When moving forward becomes the goal in itself, rather than being a natural side effect of seeing problems and avoiding them, that’s when we get ourselves into trouble.
We can fool ourselves into believing that the problems we see aren’t really there, but that doesn’t move us forward any faster. It just means that we get set farther back when reality knocks us off our feet.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom,
I also disagree with Dave Franklin’s logic. Does this mean that if the project doesn’t come in on time or on budget that it will be the fault of others who may call attention to violations of zoning code? Why would it not be the ultimate responsibility of the board if the project were not in compliance and subsequently delays occurred?
What needs to be said is that the parking plan may affect more than students who could choose to carpool or walk to school. I believe I heard at a Commission meeting that some 24,000 cars travel Washington road each day (don’t quote me on that, but that is what I am remembering). It seems to me that there is other potential impact of alternative parking decisions than just what may affect students in this case.
If we should sweep our zoning ordinances and/or approval processes under the rug (or in this case cease to “nitpick” over parking arrangements) so those who are responsible for adhering to them can ignore them, then why do we have them in the first place?
-Charlotte Stephenson
To clarify, I agree with David Franklin, but think the focus shouldn’t be upon “moving forward” but upon actually moving forward, which is different. When the school board put to bid a design that, in reality, they couldn't afford, they believed they were moving forward, but they were actually moving backward 9 months. Very different.
Charlotte, I don't think my comment suggested that anyone other than those in charge should be responsible for mistakes or delays. I think that those in charge are also responsible for the decisions related to this project. That includes the municipal manager and the commissioners. If they believe that an ordinance has been or will be violated, they are tasked with addressing it.
I apologize if I have become immune to the complaining. It seems that some folks like to complain about everything the SB does, whether it is right, wrong or neutral. The fact of the matter remains that if those who are tasked with enforcing the ordinances need to do something, they can. Are we even sure that a violation has occurred?
I guess my other point was simply that there will no doubt be inconveniences over the next 4 years. I don't expect the SB, the contractors, the subcontractors, the Commission, etc to get every decision right. Some decisions, including the traffic/parking plans, may change through trial and error. That's OK. I see no benefit in dwelling on the negative or potential negative in everything just because we don't like the SB.
Dave Franklin
Well, it appears to me that decision-making that is not consistent with municipal zoning law may appear to be a move forward when in reality it can cost valuable time if those decisions are rejected. Those situations may be considered moving backward.
In any case, the responsibility for compliance rests with the school board. If they follow the rules any so-called nit-picking won't have an impact on the project
-Charlotte Stephenson
Wake Up Later and Your Grades Will Be Greater
With teenagers' busy schedules today, the first activity to give way is usually sleep. However, the sleep deficit of teenagers today is hampering high school students' achievement. To accommodate for teens' sleep needs, high schools should start later in the day than they do now (based on review of several newspaper articles, it appears that most schools starting times range from 7:00-8:30 a.m.). This action would better satisfy the sleep needs of teenagers, improve their academic performance, be beneficial for families of elementary school students, and increase safety.
Read more:
http://library.thinkquest.org/25553/english/well/ages/teen/hspro.shtml
Split schedules...
Sue Dixon
Post a Comment