RE: CALTRANS' PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT INCREASE – OPPOSITION
We are writing with great concern regarding Caltrans' recent proposal to increase local speed limits in the community of Sierra City, a rural mountain community, one of many wherein the State Highway is also identified as Main Street.
As residents of Sierra City for 62 and 40 years respectively, we are well familiar with the safety issues that endanger the community and visitors thereof. We live on Main Street at the east end of the town limit, have operated a business that fronted directly onto Main Street Sierra City for 34 years before relocation, and have property and residential history on Wild Plum Road, a challenging intersection and location of ever so many accidents, which unfortunately for the community, are not considered by the Traffic Engineers if they occurred over 3 years ago.
Additionally, I (Miriam) was privileged to work for the Sierra County Department of Transportation for 31 years. I served as the Executive Secretary to the Sierra County Transportation Commission for 17 years. I attended years' worth of annual collaboration meetings with Caltrans. The topic of concern that was consistently discussed in our “Collaboration” was concern with community speed limits for these rural towns that share Main Street with State Highways. In fact, one very satisfying project was the pursuit and installation of speed feedback signs on the State Routes in the communities. It hasn't resolved the safety issues, but it helps. These proposed increases fly in the face of the years of work and collaboration to gain funding and approval for the signs.
Our focus in protesting the speed limit increase is the safety of people, people in vehicles and pedestrian traffic. We feel remiss, however, if we don't include concerns for pets and wildlife. Again, I appeal on the basis of the nature and culture of rural communities wherein animals are in the road: deer, mountain lion, bear, coyote, bobcat, fox, raccoon, occasional skunk and more. I can name with sadness many of the pets that I've known of who met their accidental end on Highway 49 right in town, right in the 25 MPH zone. Increasing the speed limit will not be an improvement, but will exacerbate this sad issue.
It shouldn't bear reminding but Caltrans' Mission Statement is “Improving lives and communities through transportation.” The stated Caltrans' Core Values are listed as:
- Collaboration Equity (improving outcomes for all)
- Innovation (take informed risks)
- Integrity (ethical actions)
- People First (We consider how our work impacts people within the organization, within our communities, and throughout California)
- Pride (be proud of work and strive for excellence in public service)
- Stewardship; and,
The first of Caltrans' Stated Goals is Safety.
Looking at the mission, values and goals, it is our great hope that the improvement of lives is not done by “dis-improving” the communities in which these speed limit increases are proposed. Additionally, by aiming to increase a speed limit determined by a potential 3-day speed study that clearly cannot be representative of actual ongoing conditions as well as the inclusion of the consideration of the nature/culture of rural communities that improved outcomes for all includes the highly concerned local residents and visitors. It is hard to imagine for instance, that have been many appeals from the residents of the State of California to increase the speed limits in these tiny communities.
Additionally, it seems as if there is a lack of awareness by the state agency of the nature of available services/resources in these remote, rural communities. Emergency Services are volunteer and limited; Sheriff's Office has limited personnel and availability for speed/safety enforcement; the CHP comes out of Grass Valley, 60 miles away. To be clear, this is not a commentary against any of those services or public servants. Instead, it is an appeal to the State to consider what they are up against and not to add unnecessary burdens or additional challenges.
We feel certain that the school bus stops, the blind driveways, the intersecting County highways, and the pedestrian traffic (with no pedestrian facilities) have not been considered well in the evaluation that led to the proposed speed limit increases.
As to “informed risks”, “collaboration”, and “people first” we respectfully request your great consideration of the valuable information offered to you through the public hearing process and the appeals that are submitted that express great concern. Some of the communications made over the years and in this current process and from many of the best and brightest minds, longtime residents, visitors, community leaders, and trusted public servants. The collective wisdom providing input on this alarming proposition should give pause to the implementation of speed zone increases. We understand that there is a “formula” of sorts based on the speed study, but we are loath to believe that the intent of the formula is against safety of the local population.
With our fellow residents of Sierra City, the Sierra County Board of Supervisors, and the Sierra County Director of Transportation, the Sierra City Volunteer Fire Department, and the community of Sierraville who is facing the same decisions, we respectfully request reconsideration by Caltrans of the proposed change. Please, leave the speed limits in place as they are. We also request that our elected representatives seek legislative solutions for potential enforcement issues that arise that necessitate speed studies, and legislative solutions for the remote, rural communities who share Main Street with the State of California.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Miriam and Tom Dines
445 Main Street
Sierra City, CA
530-913-4937 - mobile
cc: Sierra County Board of Supervisors
Bryan Davey, Director of Transportation
Sierra County Transportation Commission
Mike Fisher, Sierra County Sheriff
Board of Supervisors,
Like many other previous commenters, my wife and I use Wild Plum Road to enter Highway 49 from our cabin. We are concerned for our safety after reading Caltrans' recommendation to make our entry onto Highway 49 even more dangerous. You all know Wild Plum Road is just below a blind curve. Because the curve is lined with trees and shrubs, drivers approaching Wild Plum Road only have about 250 feet of sight distance to react and stop if they see a vehicle entering the highway. Caltrans' own Highway Design Manual, Table 201.1 shows the minimum stopping sight distance is to be used for designs at the proposed 55 mph speed limit is 500 feet, but only 250 feet at 35mph. Of course a 35 mph speed limit and 250 feet of sight distance correlates to what we have now. We have to show Caltrans how to make the safe decision and keep the current 35 mph speed limit entering town from the east.
I'm a retired Civil Engineer with many years of experience working as a private design engineer, City Engineer, and finally Public Works Director for a large California City. Because of this experience, I'm very familiar with the challenges of balancing public concerns with regulations and studies. When a result obviously looked really wrong, I learned to check the applicability of the data and the data analysis to search for a more appropriate analysis result still fitting within regulations. I see that opportunity here.
The brief Caltrans Speed Zone Justification Study reports raised several issues for me. First, it's not clear which survey points were used to obtain the data resulting in measured 48 and 53 mph speeds on the east end of town. The graphics show survey locations approximately 200 feet northeast of the 35 mph speed limit above town and two near Butte Alley. I don't believe the above town survey location is a proper representative location. A survey location uphill and outside of the 35 mph speed zone doesn't make sense to me. The survey locations need to be inside the study zone. I've observed that many cars driving towards town are still slowing down on the downhill section approaching the 35 mph sign and even as they start rounding the curve just below the sign. Survey points at Wild Plum Road and just after the flashing speed sign would certainly result in lower observed speeds for this upper section of town.
Another recommendation is to add a speed transition zone above town as discussed in Section 3.4.1 of the Caltrans Manual for Setting Speed Limits. Above the existing 35mph zone, we need a half mile long 45 mph transition zone stepping down the speed limit from 55 to 45 mph. This would be very helpful at the Kentucky Mine entrance and for PCT hikers. It would also get drivers to start their downhill speed reduction earlier so that they more easily comply with the 35 mph zone when they see it.
The final issue is that Section 3.4.1 states that speed zones of less than 0.5 miles in length should be avoided. This study recommends two short sections of 0.25 miles and 0.29 mile at the east end of town. If you simply follow the Caltrans manual, you would merge the two sections and make the 0.54 mile section all the lower speed of the two. This makes sense, because as you approach town from the east, Wild Plum Road is an unseen hazard that needs to be mitigated. Simply relying on the 35 mph advisory curve warning sign is not adequate. Advisory curve speed signs are only guides and not regulatory. Modern vehicles routinely exceed posted curve speeds. A sight distance study wasn't included in their forwarded reports, but I'm sure Caltrans doesn't want to make an unseen hazard worse and be responsible for a tragedy. The resolution to this conflict is easy in this case because Caltrans would be complying with its own standards by following the 0.5 mile policy. This would eliminate the need for a new speed study with sensors placed at appropriate locations.
Respectfully,
Norman Hughes P.E.
124 Wild Plum Road
