|
City of Lincoln
Aldermen slated to vote September 8th on amendments to Elm Street
ordinance
[August 27, 2026]
Lincoln aldermen will entertain
a motion to amend a previous ordinance pertaining to North Elm
Street that will maintain a reduced speed limit but do away with
establishing one-way traffic between Eighth and Tenth Streets on
Tuesday, September 8th.
During the Tuesday, August 25th Committee of the Whole meeting, the
topic went full circle with Alderman Tim Becke standing firm that
the one-way should be kept in place, and Alderman Steve Parrot firm
on reversing that part of the original decision.
Discussion began with Becke delivering a speech on why the original
decision is the best. He went back to the recommendations of the
Lincoln Police Chief Joe Meister that have been reviewed at several
discussions in council. He said that Meister had identified the
issues in that two-block area and had recommended one-way streets
and reduced speed limits.
In the process, Becke said that the residents in the area considered
the street to be dangerous as well. He noted that there was no
center lining on the street and poor curbing. Alderwoman Robin
McClallen, Mayor Tracy Welch, Meister, Street Superintendent Walt
Landers, and he had met with the residents in the impacted area, and
that the group agreed that Meister’s recommendation was appropriate.
Becke said that the official recommendation did not address stop
signs, nor did it say that there needed to be new sidewalks.
Becke said that now, the change back to the original traffic flow
does not consider the safety of the neighborhood, but rather the
amount of inconvenience for motorists. The recommendation for one
way and reduced speed was not an “either or” it was a combined
recommendation that should be adhered to by the council. Becke
concluded by saying that the city has a responsibility to the
citizens and that it should be taken seriously. The determinations
for the traffic flow should be about the safety of the citizens and
not the convenience of drivers.
When he was finished Parrott asked
if those were his (Becke’s) words or someone else’s. Becke said they
were his words. Parrott pointed out that Chief Meister said North
Elm was no more dangerous than others. “South Elm is more
dangerous,” Parrott said. He continued that Becke had “made it sound
like all the residents down there want it. That is not accurate,
there are residents down there that don’t want the one way.” Parrott
concluded by saying North Elm was safer than South Elm and the
Meister had agreed.
Meister spoke up for clarification explaining he said North Elm was
not a hazardous situation, but he did not compare it to South Elm,
and there has been no traffic study done on South Elm. Parrott
apologized for misspeaking.
Alderman Kevin Bateman said that two weeks prior when Laura
Williamson had been asked if she would be satisfied with a reduction
in speed and maintaining two-way traffic, she said she would.
From LDN’s story of the August 11th
meeting: Williamson came back to the speaker table and said if that
was where they had to start she would be okay with that. She added
that she believes stop signs are needed, but the council “has to do
what they have to do.” She indicated that reducing the speed might
be the starting point with a return to topic later to add more
control to the road.
Bateman went on to say Williamson said she thought stop signs would
be helpful. He agreed and explained that it would force a stop,
which would slow down acceleration through that area.
Alderwoman McClallen said she did not recall saying she wanted a
one-way, and in fact she does not think it is a good idea.
Becke said he felt that there had been confusion and part of that
was fueled by comparing this situation to the situation on South
Elm. He said they were in different locations with different
concerns, and South Elm should not have entered the conversation.
Becke said the biggest difference between the two streets is that
the people on South Elm are not stating any concerns, while the
residents on North Elm are.
Mayor Tracy Welch said that there was a lot of “the chief said, the
chief said,” and he wanted the chief to speak for himself and
clarify what he believes. Meister once again explained his
observations of North Elm along with the observations given to him
by his officers. He said that he had identified that the street was
narrower than many in the city and that the speed limit was 30 miles
an hour. He recommended the one-way and the reduced speed and was
standing by those recommendations. He added, “I do think it is kind
of absurd to have a 30mph speed limit on that street with College
and Union on either side of it has 25.”
[to top of second column]
|
Alderman Kevin
Bateman spoke saying that there are many streets in town where
that two cars cannot meet because of street side parking and
other issues. He noted that on North Elm, two cars going
opposite directions can meet. He still believes a stop sign is
called for. He said when you force drivers to stop, they are
more likely to be aware of traffic on restart, and that keeps
drivers from continuing to accelerate for the full four or five
blocks.
Welch offered his opinion on the matter. “Sidewalks aren’t going
to solve the problem. I live on that street, no disrespect to
Steve (Parrott) or Robin (McClallen), I live on that street. I
turn on that section every time I leave my house. People are
going to walk down that road. They do. As a matter of fact, some
of the people who came up here walk on that road, and I’ve seen
it. So, we can have Mr. Landers lay sidewalk in, that’s
beautiful, you’ll have a nice piece of sidewalk, and it won’t
get used. Don’t take my word for it. I’ll set a camera up and
we’ll document it.
“The speed down there, while we were there does indicate that
the people going were probably going around the speed limit. But
I would say they were doing so because we were there and we were
near the street. That is a narrow street and, take it from
somebody who goes through that pinch point all the time, it gets
awful narrow. You do have to stop and wait. As Kevin (Bateman)
said, you’ll slap mirrors and I don’t want to slap mirrors
because I don’t want to repair my truck, so I don’t do that.
“The concern was raised by people that worry about the safety of
their children. People that live in that section. They are the
ones that are concerned about this. I realize there is a lot of
traffic that goes through that intersection. They go through
because it’s the shortest distance between two points. They go
down that road because there are no stop signs. Chuck (Treasurer
Conzo) said that he goes down that section for that reason and
he doesn’t want to go on College because there are stop signs.
They are using it as a thoroughfare. The idea of the one-way was
to reduce some of that traffic. Take the 700 cars that are going
in that direction and have those 700 cars going in an alternate
direction, and there is a lower volume of vehicles. They are
going to find other paths. I did it when Pekin Street closed. We
figure it out, right?”
Welch relayed that there is going to be a street closure on
Union for the next week, because of a water main break. He
talked about another instance where motorists ignored a
construction area until the police were forced to sit at the
site and issue $300 tickets. The motorist then wanted their
tickets waived saying they didn’t see the signage. “People are
going to do what people do. Our approach is, hate to be the
bearer of bad news. Union Street is going to be closed that
entire week for the safety of the people down there, for the
safety of the construction workers, and to prevent people from
getting $300 tickets, and wasting the police officer’s time, you
know, patrolling. This situation that we’re talking about is no
different.”
Welch said there may well be people who are opposed to the
one-way, but he hasn’t seen any of them in council chambers. He
said he was not doubting that they reached out to aldermen, but
he has not heard it firsthand.
“We have people that live there that
are asking us for help, we have a chance to help them, or we don’t
help them. It’s really that simple. We’re not experts, they’re the
experts. They’ve given us their opinion, we don’t want to take their
opinion that’s fine but it’s not a matter of if something is going
to happen down there, it’s a matter of when.”
Welch ended his commentary, but discussion did not end there. It
continued, addressing the return of a stop sign in the mix. It was
suggested that if a stop at 10th was not feasible, maybe a four-way
stop at Ninth Street would help. Landers and Meister said that the
city street department and police use a federal highway code as the
guide for placing traffic control signs and that the North Elm
Street scenario did not qualify according to that code. Meister
added that the city could overrule that of course, but it would open
a door for others to request stop signs on their intersections that
were not warranted.
While there was much discussion, the final outcome was the same as
first stated, there will be a motion to eliminate the one-way street
provision from the previously passed ordinance. The motion will
maintain the reduction of speed limits on the street but will not
entertain any new stop signs.
The council will hold its first voting session in September on
Tuesday the 8th, due to the Monday Labor Day Holiday.
As is always the case, aldermen can elect to table a motion if they
feel they are not prepared to make an informed decision on the
topic.
[Nila Smith] |
