|
City of Lincoln
Stops signs on Elm Street a real “pinch point” for Lincoln Aldermen
[July 31, 2026]
On Tuesday evening at the Lincoln
City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting, the proposed stop signs
at the new one-way street designation on two blocks of Elm Street
resulted in a sometimes-lively debate. At the request of Alderman
Tim Becke, the council discussed the need for stop signs on Elm at
10th street just prior to the point where Elm transitions from
two-way to one-way.
Becke had asked for the topic to be placed on the agenda and said
that the week prior to the meeting he had emailed all the aldermen
documentation explaining his objection to the current plan.
On Tuesday evening it was the last item on the agenda when Lincoln
Mayor Tracy Welch gave the floor over to Becke.
Becke drew on his career as an insurance claim adjuster to outline
his objections to any stop signs on Elm Street at all. He said stop
signs should have a purpose and there is no purpose for them on Elm
at 10th Street. He added that while the intent of the one-way in the
blocks between 8th and 10th Streets is to ease traffic and relieve a
“pinch point” where the road narrows, the fact is that stop signs
will exacerbate the issue, not resolve it.
Becke began with a series of visual aids and said that when the
topic of the one-way and subsequent stops signs was up for vote
several months ago, he opposed the stop signs and he still does.
Currently he is asking that the council not necessarily throw out
the stop signs but at least delay them for the time being.
Becke reminded the council that at the original meeting, there had
been problems identified. The narrowing on the road from 8th to 10th
street was surveyed by Lincoln Police Chief Joe Meister and three of
his officers, counting traffic and observing speeds at various times
of day.
The council considered the issues
with the street to be narrowness, the speed at which drivers
traveled, and a pinch point created by the offset of the 10th Street
intersection.
Coming from the north or, Woodlawn
Road on Elm, there are two alignments of 10th Street. The north
alignment goes east toward Union Street, and the south alignment
goes west toward North College.
There are currently stop signs on the north alignment on 10th street
as well as on the south alignment. Traffic must stop coming from
either the east or west before turning onto Elm.
Becke said that even after voting, he was not clear last time where
the stop signs were supposed to go. It appeared that the north
version was the proposed location. He said regardless of where the
stop sign was located, it will create a clog of traffic at the area
referred to as the pinch point.
Becke said it was not clear where the one way was to end. He
referred to the starting point because it is one-way-north beginning
at the intersection of 8th, thus the ending would be at 10th, but
which 10th? He believes the one way should stop at the south
version, and that there is no need for any stop signs.
Alderman Steve Parrott asked why
the stop sign could not go at the north version, forcing traffic to
turn east onto 10th and proceed to Union. Becke responded that those
coming south on Elm with the intent of going south and west would
have to turn east, drive to Union Street, then go south to 9th
street and turn back. Traffic will get jammed up as there are
vehicles at two stops waiting for their turns, and people coming
from the south going straight through.
[to top of second column] |
Parrott said that
the real issue is not safety or speed, but the “pinch point”
with the jog in the road on 10th. He said the stop sign would
alleviate that problem. Becke disagreed, saying the stop sign
would make it worse.
Becke said that the city needed to trust the opinion of
professionals, in this case the police department, who in its
recommendations did not suggest any stop signs at all. Parrott
said he has been driving that street for 30 years and that makes
him an expert as well. Becke said it did not, that what Parrott
was offering was not a professional opinion but rather a
personal opinion.
While there is no question that the two-block area should be
one-way, Bateman did question removing the stop signs. He said
that drivers would ignore the one-way signs and “blow right
through” therefore a stop sign is needed. Chief Meiser said that
traffic control signs are basically the same. When drivers
ignore signage, they are breaking the law, whether it be a
one-way sign or a stop sign.
City Street Superintendent Walt Landers spoke about where to end
the one-way. While Parrott wants it at the north alignment,
Landers said that drivers wanting to go west will violate. He
said, “they will either blow the intersection and go turn west,
or they will go the entire block.”
At the end of the discussion, it appeared that there was still a
standoff whether to suspend placement of the stop signs. Welch
said, “Now that we have beat this dead horse, what would you
have us do?” Becke said he wanted to vote to suspend the
placement of stop signs.
There was then some discussion about where the one-way ends.
Landers said that he was of the understanding that the one-way
would stop at the north alignment. He feels that is not the
proper place.
Becke had also said that the ordinance passed the last time
specified stop signs, but others said it did not.
Parrott said the final decision at the last vote was confusing,
and Welch called on city attorney John Hoblit to read the
ordinance passed.
Hoblit said there was no mention of stop signs in the ordinance.
He was asked where the one way was to start and end. Hoblit said
the verbiage simply said 10th Street, with no specific
identifiers as to the north or south alignment.
Hoblit added that the placement of signs is typically left to
the discretion of the city superintendent, but remembers that in
this particular case, the council offered guidance on where the
stop signs should go.
Welch continued to work toward closing the conversation and said
that he was hearing that Becke wanted to place an item on the
agenda to suspend placement of stop signs.
Downs asked if there were other one-way streets in Lincoln with
stop signs. Welch said there is on State Street south of Fifth
Street. There was then disagreement on whether there was a stop
sign on that street, with Welch saying there is on the south
end.
The back-and-forth banter continued until Welch finally called
it all to a complete end. He commented. “I have to say this is
the most polarized topic. This one beat chickens by far; hands
down.” He said that a vote would be placed on the Monday, August
3rd Voting Session.
After that, there was a moment of continuation as Hoblit asked
about clarifying the stopping point for the one-way. A couple of
others chimed in, including Becke. When that happened Welch
asked if stop signs were the basis of the discussion brought up
by Becke. Becke indicated it was, and Welch said then discussion
would end with the stop signs.
He then moved on to announcements, and a few moments later
Alderman Stan Anderson made the motion to adjourn.
[Nila Smith]
|
