Letters to Editor - May 30, 2019
Let’s hear it for teachers!
On May 1, I was excited to take my three children in 5th, 7th and 10th grades on a field trip to experience our democracy in action. We traveled to the State House in Columbia with 10,000 teachers and supporters for the SC for Ed rally.
It was incredible. The energy was high, the crowd was at once joyful and focused, and the speakers were encouraging, forthright and motivating. These teachers are committed - committed to a high-quality education for every child in South Carolina; committed to fully funding schools; committed to achieving the highest level of success for their schools and their students. They are a powerful force who are leading a new movement of parents, community members, and residents invested in raising up generations of students equipped to lead us in the 21st century!
Reader circles back on the roundabout
If the old saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant is true, then the May 7 DINA meeting was full of sunshine. Literally for years residents have been trying to get answers from politicians to questions about the roundabout. Fortunately, the two engineers at the meeting were more forthright in their answers.
1. Who voted for it: NOBODY. It became clear at the DINA meeting that when we voted for the 1 cent tax increase we voted for the roundabout. NOT TRUE. We found out that what was in the official language was for this intersection to be improved without stating a specific solution.
2. Who pushed the roundabout? That remains unclear. What happened to the approved concept of adding turn lanes and re-signalizing the intersection. Still no one will admit to knowing about that process, but the engineers did put an interesting spin on the choices for the intersection. A two lane roundabout was the best choice, second was the additional lanes and third was what we get - a one lane roundabout.
3. All were based on traffic efficiency. So for $2.4 million we get the third choice, which, in my opinion, is the least efficient for vehicle traffic and a concern to most parents. And we could have had the second best choice for vehicle safety two years ago for $1.7 million less.
4. All of the discussion was about vehicle traffic through the intersection, not about pedestrian safety. The engineers seemed sincere that they are trying to keep pedestrians as safe as possible with the hand they are being dealt. BUT, to the best of my recollection, the engineer did admit that the traffic at “rush hour” might not be any better and could be worse.
5. The engineers had no answer to questions on how this will affect the intersection at Seven Farms and River Landing Drive, nor the exit from Pierview or 254 Condos. If a traffic signal is going in at Refuel to protect pedestrians why is taking out a traffic signal good for this intersection?
6. No one had a baseline as to how many traffic accidents there are at this intersection in a given year. They could only remember one pedestrian accident.
7. So unless one of the thousand attorneys on this island decides to file a class action suit to halt construction, we are left with a $1.7 million boondoggle. All of the unyielding drivers will continue to fly past crosswalks and our kids, bikers and seniors.
8. I only ask for our fine group at TEAM 5 to dedicate police to be at the roundabout in the morning, lunch and afternoon kid rush hour. Maybe that will cause drivers to yield to pedestrians when the lighted crosswalks don’t.