I want to thank Joe Dumas for taking up this cause. I suspect that the
university administration might have been more receptive to the idea of
restoring Fifth Street to a two lane configuration if they entered and
exited the university via that street--especially if they had to fight
their way across the diamond lane into parking lot #10.

I have a different proposal about that street to make. Why not just
abandon the diamond lane designation? I have never seen anyone riding a
bike in that lane. The Carta buses could continue using the lane, but so
could the rest of us who want to turn right to enter a parking lot. We
could enter the lane early so as to avoid being passed on the right by
some aggressive driver. Asking Carta to accept that idea would be to
operate the same way that they do on most city streets--including
McCallie.

As for Bailey Avenue and McCallie, I agree that it would be preferable for
commuters to retain their status as one way streets. That consideration, I
realize, is complicated by merchants on McCallie who want incentives for
people to shop in their stores.

Mike Russell

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Dr. Joe Dumas wrote:

> Greetings faculty and staff,
>
> Yesterday afternoon (February 18th) I attended a meeting in Vice
> Chancellor Richard Brown's office.  Also attending were Faculty Council
> President Marvin Ernst, Facilities Planning and Management Director Tom
> Ellis, and Chattanooga Traffic Engineer John VanWinkle.  Dr. Ernst and I
> were invited to represent the faculty viewpoint on the Fifth Street
> configuration/safety issue and discuss options with the decision makers.
>
> At the meeting, I presented the other attendees with the final results
> of my e-mail survey of faculty and staff regarding the Fifth Street and
> McCallie/MLK/Bailey configurations.  Those results were:
>
> Regarding Fifth Street configuration:  (53 responding)
>
> In favor of restoring the original two-lane configuration: 42  79.2%
> In favor of keeping the current three-lane configuration:   1   1.9%
> Undecided or prefer some other alternative:                10  18.9%
>
> Regarding proposed reconfiguration of MLK/Bailey/McCallie:
> (23 responding)
>                                                                         In
> favor of changing to two 2-way streets:                  2   8.7%
> In favor of retaining current status as two 1-way streets: 18  78.3%
> Undecided or not concerned about it:                        3  13.0%
>
> I strongly advocated the view of the vast majority of the faculty and
> staff reflected above, namely, that for safety reasons Fifth Street
> should be returned to a two-lane street with one lane in each direction.
>   As it turns out, according to Mr. VanWinkle this view is strongly
> opposed by CARTA, which wants to keep the bus lane as they are afraid
> that their drivers would have a hard time getting back out into the
> single lane of traffic after stopping on Fifth Street to pick up or let
> off passengers.  Mr. VanWinkle presented two proposed solutions for us
> to consider, both of which would retain the three-lane configuration but
> make more room for the three lanes by deleting all the parking on the
> south (UC/Holt Hall) side of the street.  One plan was for two "normal"
> eastbound travel lanes with a median between eastbound and westbound
> traffic and with the buses and "regular" eastbound traffic sharing the
> right lane; the other kept the rightmost lane as a "bus/bike only" lane,
> but with several feet of buffer space marked and populated with "traffic
> buttons" to discourage cars from switching to the right lane to pass.
> Both plans also incorporated the idea of raising the existing crosswalks
> to a height of approximately 4 inches above the roadway, with a six-foot
> "ramp" area on either side, creating the effect of a "speed hump"
> (hopefully not the jarring "speed bump" typically found in parking
> lots).  Mr. VanWinkle stated that the idea of the raised crosswalks
> would be to force traffic on Fifth to slow down to the posted limit of
> 25 mph.  The crosswalk design he is proposing could be negotiated
> smoothly at that speed, but not at higher speeds.
>
> Considerable discussion of the various options ensued.  I continued to
> advocate returning to the original two-lane configuration as that was
> obviously the only way to not lose all the parking on the south side of
> Fifth Street and, as we all know, parking in the University area is at a
> premium.  However, Mr. VanWinkle appeared strongly committed to trying
> something that would preserve the third lane as requested by CARTA, and
> Dr. Brown stated that he felt we should give the third lane "the old
> college try" before giving up and returning to the two-lane
> configuration.  (If the proposed changes are implemented and don't
> improve the situation, Vice Chancellor Brown said he would support
> "punting" and going back to two lanes.)  He also said that most of the
> parking on the south side of the street would be lost soon anyway due to
> the construction required for the UC expansion.  After some discussion
> it became apparent that faculty/staff views notwithstanding, the city is
> committed to doing all it can to keep the three-lane configuration and
> that for safety reasons this would require the elimination of parking on
> the south side of Fifth.  Recognizing that I had lost that battle for
> now at least, I continued the discussion with the goal of reaching the
> best and safest compromise possible given a three-lane configuration.
>
> Discussion focused on Mr. VanWinkle's proposal to keep the bus lane but
> move it over to the far right (south) side of the street, overlapping
> the former parking area.  This would allow for a 7-foot buffer between
> the two 11-foot eastbound lanes.  (The westbound lane is 12 feet wide.)
>   Mr. VanWinkle said that this boundary could be populated with
> "buttons" that would strongly discourage automobile drivers from
> crossing it to pass in the right lane.  I suggested reducing the buffer
> zone between lanes to 5 feet so that the traffic lanes could all be 12
> feet wide (better accommodating the width of the buses), and Mr.
> VanWinkle indicated that this was possible.  This would make the new
> configuration of the 48-foot-wide street, from north side to south side,
> as follows:
>
>   7 foot space for parking on the north side
> 12 foot westbound travel lane
> 12 foot eastbound travel lane for normal traffic
>   5 foot buffer zone (with markings and buttons to discourage changing
>     lanes to the right)
> 12 foot bus/bike lane
>
> Past the last crosswalk (in front of Holt Hall), the bus/bike lane would
> end and the right lane would become a turn lane for accessing Lot 10.
>
> I commented that the right turn lane as it exists now is rather short
> (sometimes cars back up turning into Lot 10) and suggested moving the
> existing crosswalk from the east side of the north parking area to the
> west side.  This would shorten the bus/bike lane by a few feet and
> correspondingly lengthen the Lot 10 turn lane.  Mr. VanWinkle saw no
> problem with this and speculated that this move might allow us to get by
> with two raised crosswalks instead of three since it would reduce the
> spacing between crosswalks.  As the raised crosswalks are projected to
> cost at least $3000 each to construct, this is not insignificant.
>
> I am not completely satisfied with the results of this meeting, but I
> feel that I represented the concerns of faculty and staff to the best of
> my ability and obtained the best and safest compromise possible given
> the determination of the city and CARTA to keep three lanes on Fifth
> Street.  I do believe that the raised crosswalks, if correctly
> implemented to allow traffic to proceed smoothly at the posted limit but
> not beyond it, will significantly improve the safety of motorists and
> pedestrians on Fifth Street whether it has two lanes or three.  And
> while I regret the loss of the parking spaces on the south side of the
> street, it turns out that the upcoming UC construction would have
> claimed many of them anyway; however, giving up those spaces should
> improve safety by increasing visibility of pedestrians on the south side
> of the street and by providing a buffer zone between the bus/bike lane
> and the "regular" lane.
>
> If you have read this far, thank you for your patience.  I will close by
> saying that my experience with the Fifth Street situation (specifically
> the city's unwillingness to revert to the original state of affairs) has
> driven home to me the necessity for anyone and everyone who opposes the
> reconfiguration of McCallie/MLK/Bailey to SPEAK UP LOUDLY and SPEAK UP
> NOW.  Once they are reconfigured as two-way streets it won't matter how
> big a disaster it is, how much traffic is snarled, or how many people
> trying to get in or out of the downtown area are inconvenienced.  The
> city will have spent the money, done the work, and gotten the press
> coverage, and there is NO WAY they will return those streets to their
> present state.  The only way to stop this next misguided experiment in
> traffic mismanagement is to stop it BEFORE IT IS DONE, in the same way
> concerned citizens spoke up and stopped the city's takeover of the water
> company.  If enough people speak up BEFORE the changes are made, it
> MIGHT be possible to stop this from happening (even though I have been
> told by long-time area residents that the "fix is already in" and,
> "independent study" or not, it is a done deal).  It is DEFINITELY a done
> deal, and one that WILL NOT BE REVERSED, if we sit back and do nothing.
>
> Joe Dumas
>