Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Iowa DOT Director Paul Trombino Denial of Cedar Rapids ATE Decision Appeal

    Uploaded by

    IOWANEWS1
    31 views11 pages
    The City of Cedar Rapids appealed an order by the Iowa Department of Transportation that Cedar Rapids remove automated speed cameras from a state-controlled highway. In this letter, Iowa DOT Director Paul Trombino denies the appeal and cites the grounds for the agency's authority and reasoning.

    Original Title

    Iowa DOT Director Paul Trombino Denial of Cedar Rapids ATE decision appeal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The City of Cedar Rapids appealed an order by the Iowa Department of Transportation that Cedar Rapids remove automated speed cameras from a state-controlled highway. In this letter, Iowa DOT Director Paul Trombino denies the appeal and cites the grounds for the agency's authority and reasoning.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    31 views11 pages

    Iowa DOT Director Paul Trombino Denial of Cedar Rapids ATE Decision Appeal

    Uploaded by

    IOWANEWS1
    The City of Cedar Rapids appealed an order by the Iowa Department of Transportation that Cedar Rapids remove automated speed cameras from a state-controlled highway. In this letter, Iowa DOT Director Paul Trombino denies the appeal and cites the grounds for the agency's authority and reasoning.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    @IOWADOT SMARTER | SIMPLER I CUSTOMER DRIVEN iowa. goy Directors Office 800 Lincoln Way | Ames, IA 50010 Phone: 515-290-1111 | Fax: 515.289-1120, May 11, 2015 Elizabeth D, Jacobi City Hall 101 First Sect SE. (Cedar Rapids, 1A 52401 Fe: Appeal of Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) Evaluation Dear Ms. Jacobi (On April 16, 2015, the Department of Transportation (DOT) received your appeal of the lowa DOT evaluation of your ATE annual report. Specfically, you are appealing al ofthe Resulting Actions from the DOT Evaluation which include disabing the speed detection from the camera atthe 1* Avenue and 10” Street Intersection, move the northbound cameras on I-380 near Diagonal Drive, removeldisable the northbound ‘cameras on 1-380 at J Avenue, mave the southbound cameras on I-380 near J Avenue and remove/disable ‘the southbound cameras on 1-380 near 1* Avenue. Your appeal also raises issues rating to DOT's legal authority to implement its ATE rule; the City's home rule authority; and the procedure DOT followed conceming its ATE rules. Lot me first address these issues. OTIS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE THE USE AND PLACEMENT OF ATE UNITS ‘THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Jowa DOT has legal authority to regulate the use and placement of Automated Traffic Enforcement (*ATE") units on municipal extensions of he primary highway system and to implement such administrative rules, by Virtuo ofthe following toga authositoe: lowa Code section 307.2 creates the state department of transportation and provides that it “shall be responsible for the planning, development, regulation and Improvement of transportation in the state as, provided by law." (Emphasis added). The director ofthe DOT is expressly authorized to ‘Adopt rules in accordance with chapter 17A as the director deems necessary for the ‘administration of the department and the exercise of the director's and department's powers, ‘and duties. lowa Code §307.12(1}(). In tum, the lowa Transportation Commission is directed to approve the DOT ‘administrative rules. lowa Code §307.10(15) awa DOT is vested with jurisdiction and control over the primary highways. lowa Code §308.4(1). Iowa Code section 306.4(4)(2) establishes concurrent jurisdiction between the DOT and the Cty with respect to “the municipal extensions of primary roads in all muricipalies” and further allows them to consult with each cther as to the “kind and type of construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance’ and enter into ‘agreements concerning such. h. Thus, the concurrent jurisdiction exception for municipal extensions of primary highways is limited to matters involving the "kind and type" of construction and maintenance under section 306.4(4). Further, the DOT is just required to “consult with the city and the partis are to agree on a 3 Can By » oon 2 143 2022 Lise To gota better understanding of the crash history for this section of -380 through the downtown area, the lowa DOT summarized all crashes over 11 years. Here is that information: ‘Since the cameras were activated between June and December 2010, years 2010 and 2011 wore not used in the evaluation. The above crash data is summarized in the table below. ‘Average Annual Number of Crashes Tou! Severty of Crash Crashes Fatal-Major Minor PossUnk POO Before (2004-2009) $2.17 Wot wl ‘After (2012-2014) 82.83 ooo 10 30 «67 (17 Based on the above crash information: + Total and Major Injury crashes stayed the same - Fatal, Minor, and Possibia‘Unkrawm Injury crashes went dawn - Property Damage Only crashes went up In the past few years the lowa DOT has installed many safety countermeasures to this section of :360; many ‘of them as a result of the :380 Safety Auait (inal report March 2008). Some ofthese include instaling cable ‘median barter, placing a high-ricion surface treatment on the west curve, replacelupgrade andor instal ‘new warning signs including curva warning signs, upgrade pavement markings, install delineation on bariors and bridge ras, and replace burred-out roadway lighting. Because ofthese many safety countermeasures it |s not possible to datermine the safaty benefit of any one safety countermeasure, ‘Based on the new crash informaton, total crashes essentially stayed the same after the cameras were. installed. Severity of those crashes decreased some. Many safety countermeasures have been added to - 380 in adition to the ATE cameras therefore it snot possible to determine the impact of any one safety Countermeasure. lemoval of “Outbound” Cameras on | The appeal states thatthe outbound cameras should stay o help keep vehicle speeds lower through the S ‘curve and to allow future averaging of speeds betwoen the cameras. Itis common practice in highway safety to provide a warning to motorists n advance of an “area of concern”. Such a warning could be a curve ‘warning sign in advance of a cure, work zone signs in advance of a lane closure, or a police vehicle on the shoulder in advance of a crash aeana Thea ara dona ta get the divers attantion, expacting hina ta slow

    You might also like