Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Works outlines new traffic‑request workflow; council seeks clearer timelines and appeals path
Summary
Public Works previewed a new intake workflow using OpenGov EAM for traffic concerns, explained triage steps (safety triage, engineering review, possible pilot tests, Traffic Commission referrals), and acknowledged a backlog of requests and staffing limits. Council asked for better timelines, status communication to requestors, and clearer appeals to Traffic Commission.
Urbana Public Works presented a new workflow for traffic‑concern requests at the March 23 council meeting, explaining how requests will be triaged in an asset-management system (OpenGov EAM), evaluated for immediate safety, moved to engineering review, then either closed, piloted, or referred to the Traffic Commission for items that require ordinance action (no‑parking, stop signs, updates to traffic schedules).
Staff described the intake process: requests enter EAM, staff evaluate immediate public‑safety threats and either take field action or move to engineering review; engineering then uses MUTCD criteria, crash reports, sight‑distance checks and other tools and provides written responses to requestors. If an engineering solution requires a legal change (for example, a no‑parking ordinance), the issue is sent to the advisory Traffic Commission (city engineer or designee, police chief or designee, and a council representative) and then to council for ordinance action.
Council members raised several operational concerns: a backlog of requests spanning older systems (Lucidity and spreadsheets) and roughly 2,000 logged items, limited current staffing, lack of consistent response timelines, and the challenge of capturing near‑misses or anecdotal reports that don’t generate police reports. Staff said some items will remain open in EAM for ongoing evaluation, they are prioritizing immediate safety issues, and they plan to document decisions and create a response timeline going forward. Staff also discussed use of speed‑feedback signs, potential grant funding (Safe Routes to School), and constraints on vertical traffic‑calming measures (maintenance and plowing impacts).
Council asked staff to provide clearer criteria for speed‑monitor sign placement and to help constituents refile older requests so they appear in the new system. Public Works asked councilors to contact the department or Director when items appear to have fallen through the cracks so staff can follow up more quickly.
