Second Street Speed Control

This is a web page authored by Jay O'Brien.
The address of this web page is http://obri.net/2nd/

Jay O'Brien's home page


This web page describes my effort to assure meaningful action is taken to correct excessive vehicular speed on on the half-mile segment of Second Street in Rio Linda, California, between M Street and Q Street.

I attempted to secure local community input to finding a solution. However, Sacramento County seems to have a different idea. Please read on.
Click here to view a map of the area

Recent developments:

Correspondence from First District Supervisor Roger Dickinson: December 22, 2004   

Article in the Rio Linda News October 21, 2004; includes recap of October 12 meeting.

Article in The Sacramento Bee October 21, 2004 about the October 12 meeting.
    
Community Meeting, CPAC, October 12, 2004, meeting, and my statement to that meeting.

Article in The Rio Linda Elverta News October 7, 2004: Includes my letter to my neighbors.
The County says it only broke it's word to me, not to the community. September 29, 2004.


Reference links:

References, including the County's "questionnaire" and traffic engineering survey, pictures of successful installation of speed bumps on rural roads, plus federal, state and County regulations and statements on stop signs and speed bumps.


Documentary in date order:
Note: Where email addresses (other than mine) are included, I have obfuscated those addresses in an effort to provide privacy to the owners of those addresses.

September 1, 2004 (Wednesday):

I received an envelope in the mail with this return address:
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4100 TRAFFIC WAY
SACRAMENTO, CA 95827 - 3820
The envelope was sent to me at my Post Office Box address. It had a postmark of "08-31-04". In the envelope was a letter and a postage-paid postcard.  Click here to review the letter and postcard.  

The letter, signed by Associate Civil Engineer Steve Stosich, said that in response to a resident request, Second Street speed controls were investigated. The letter stated that "Due to the rural status of most of Second Street, speed bumps are not an option.", and "Speed control stop signs would be located on Second Street at Shady Woods Way." It requested that the "attached questionnaire" be completed, "indicating your opinion".

The "questionnaire" was the postcard, with only two responses possible, either supporting or opposing the proposed stop signs.

I called Mr. Stosich on the telephone. I asked him first about the "request from residents" he was responding to. He said he had received a petition from ten residents of Second Street in support of speed control. He refused to provide a copy of the petition, citing privacy constraints. (I opted to not invoke the Public Records Act at this time; in my opinion such a petition is a public document and legally available to me.)  He did, however, provide the name, address and phone number of the petition organizer, Mr. John Houk.

Stosich told me that if a majority of those queried by his mailing replied in favor of the stop signs, the stop signs would be installed, regardless of my concerns or objections. He told me that if I wanted to object, I would have to take it up directly with the County Board of Supervisors, not with him. He suggested that I should contact my neighbors and tell them to vote no, but he refused to provide the names and addresses of  those to whom he sent the ballots.

The addressees were not told by the letter that if over half responded in favor, the stop signs would be installed in front of my property. No reason for not considering speed bumps was given. No details on any attempt to obtain enforcement of the law was included. No other alternatives were proposed, and the "questionnaire" was not a questionnaire, but merely a means to collect a vote.

I objected to Stocich's conclusion that "speed bumps are not an option", and he said that was the policy of the Board of Supervisors, and that if I didn't like it I should get the Board of Supervisors to change their policy about speed bumps. He said that all he does is enforce the policy set forth by the Board of Supervisors.

I told Stosich that I objected to the message carried by the "ballot" he mailed. I told him that the ballot was a "have you stopped beating your wife" ballot, biased toward approval as no dissenting opinion was presented or available. No alternatives were discussed, and the problem itself was not articulated in his letter or on the "vote" card. I told him that in my opinion the voters were led to believe the stop signs were the only alternative, so that they would vote "yes".

I called Mr. Houk, the petition organizer, on the telephone. He said that he agrees with me that a stop sign will not help the problem identified by the petition. He said the petitioners were hoping for speed bumps to solve the problem in his portion of Second Street,. He agreed to call Mr. Stosich tomorrow and relate that position to Stosich.

September 2, 2004 (Thursday):
I sent an email to Mr. Stosich confirming our telephone conversation and specifically asking again for a mailing list. He responded by email on September 3. Click here to review the correspondence.  I sent a copy of my email to Mr. Mark Manoff, the Interim Service Area Manager for the new North County Service Area, part of the newly formed County Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS), dedicated to bringing local control to the members of the communities as I felt this was an excellent example of what the new DNS organization was attempting to resolve for the communities.

September 3, 2004 (Friday):
I forwarded the email from Stosich to Manoff along with my statement that  I am not opposed to speed control means; I just find it hard to believe that a stop sign at an intersection that doesn't have a history of safety problems that is out of sight from the petitioners area will have an effect.  I said that I'm open to hearing all sides, but BEFORE I cast a vote, not after.

I asked if there shouldn't there be some kind of public outreach before the arbitrary installation of stop signs by a vote of people not informed of the specific problem being addressed before they vote?  And, if the speed laws are being violated, shouldn't there be some effort  put forth to enforce the law before adding to someone's discomfort to solve someone else's problem?

I asked Manoff, "Can you arrange a public meeting where the problems can be discussed by all who are involved, including a report on the enforcement efforts that must have failed before stop signs would be considered as a speed control measure? Of course the meeting should have been called before the vote, not after the vote. Asking someone to vote causes them to take a position they may now wish to defend, rather than approach the issue with an open mind."

I said, "I am most irritated by the process and the apparent attitude of the County. I haven't seen the petition, but as I understand what it said, the petitioners really want speed bumps in their part of the road. Instead, the County proposes a stop sign in my part of the road."

Manoff replied on September 7,  "I'm working on this with Transportation.  Yes, I will set up a community meeting. Lupe Rodriguez who is managing the Neighborhood Traffic Management program is the person I'm  working with on these kind of things. He suggested that because the survey already went out that we have the meeting immediately after we get the results back."

My email to Manoff and his September 7 response may be reviewed by clicking here.

September 7, 2004 (Tuesday):
After the Chamber of Commerce meeting in Rio Linda, Mark Manoff, the County's Interim Service Area Manager, accompanied me on a tour of the problem area on Second Street. I explained to Manoff that I was preparing to address the Board of Supervisors to argue against the imposition of stop signs on my property without what I considered to be appropriate community input and debate. He assured me that the meeting he had arranged with Rodriguez would provide appropriate community input. Based on Manoff's assurance, and my past experience with Manoff, I accepted his word and decided to drop my work to address the Board of Supervisors, in favor of the community meeting Manoff said he would convene before the stop signs were installed.

September 20, 2004 (Monday):
I received email from Steve Stosich, stating that of the 14 vote cards returned, 11 were in favor of installing the stop signs. I forwarded this to Mark Manoff, with the comment, "I'm looking forward to the community meeting on this subject. As the property owner who will be most affected should a stop sign be installed, I want to see that all other alternatives are considered before Stosich's proposal is implemented."
By this time signs had been installed telling the public "speed control stop sign proposed", with Stosich's phone number on the signs. Mark responded, still optimistic about the promised community meeting to be held prior to the installation of the stop signs. I responded to Mark, concerned that this was a "done deal", based on the signs that had been installed in preparation for the stop signs themselves.

My email forwarding Stosich's email to Manoff, Manoff's response, and the signs may be reviewed by clicking here.

September 22, 2004 (Wednesday):
I told Mark Manoff that I had encouraged members of the Rio Linda Net to attend the Focus Group Community meeting that would discuss the new Community Councils proposed by his department. Mark responded, again mentioning the meeting on the stop signs. I asked Mark to have the Rio Linda News informed, as others may be interested that are not residents of Second Street. All was very positive at this time, even though I had predicted it was a "done deal".

 The September 22 email may be reviewed by clicking here.

September 27, 2004 (Monday):
Confirming my worst fears, the stop signs were installed exactly as I predicted they would be, and without the benefit of the community meeting promised by Mark Manoff.

I called Manoff. He did not know the signs had been installed, and he was very apologetic. He called Lupe Rodriguez, the responsible County Department of Transportation supervisor, and Rodriguez called me on the telephone. Rodriguez apologized profusely, taking full responsibility for the mistake. Rodriguez offered to meet with Manoff and me on the issue.

Click here to see the stop signs and today's accompanying email to Manoff.

September 28, 2004 (Tuesday):
I  called Mark Manoff and told him that I wanted the signs removed, and removed today. I told him that my experience so far with people running the stop signs and the noise of motorcycles, automobiles and trucks running through the gears accelerating  in front of my house was a new problem created for me by the county that was inappropriate. I told him that if the County could put the signs in by accident, they surely could remove them.

Manoff said that he would relay my request to Mr. Randy Foust, Mr. Rodriguez's supervisor.

Manoff later called to say that he had arranged that the Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC) meeting on October 12, 2004, would host the community meeting on the stop signs. Manoff told me that the signs, now up, could not be removed!

Click here for today's email correspondence to and from Mark Manoff

September 29, 2004 (Wednesday):
The County Department of Transportation (DOT) hosted an "open house" at 2500 Marconi Avenue to discuss their proposed new Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). I attended and determined, based on a response to my question from DOT's consultant, that speed control stop signs were not part of their new "toolbox", and that urban speed bumps (lumps, humps, cushions) were, in fact, recommended parts of the NTMP. This disagrees with what I was told previously by DOT; the new program would suggest speed bumps (lumps, humps, cushions) for the Second Street problem, and not suggest speed control stop signs.

After the meeting, I talked to Mr. Randy Foust, Principal Civil Engineer. He said it was "unfortunate that that work order slipped through the cracks before we retracted it after we had agreed to meet with you. That's unfortunate and we apologize for that. The fact that the stop signs went in, they did not go in inappropriately, did not go in incorrectly, they went in in accordance with the county adopted board policy at this time, met the criteria, and that's why they went in. The only unfortunate circumstance is that we did agree to meet with you before the stop signs were actually installed, in the event there was some community sentiment that we were unaware of that wasn't apparent in the survey that could become apparent at a neighborhood meeting. And unfortunately the work order slipped through the cracks and got into the field crew's hands. It wasn't intentional, and we apologize for that."

I told him that the word of the county that was given to the community was broken. He said "No, to you, not to the community."   It was clear to me that in his mind it was ok to break the County's word to an individual, but not to the community.

I told him that in my opinion the "vote" card that was sent out was biased, that it was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. He said, "And we've been using that methodology successfully for 22 years. Since 1982."

I asked Foust if I must testify to the Board of Supervisors to get this stop sign out that shouldn't have been put there. Foust said that was not true; I argued that as I received a commitment that the sign wouldn't go in until we had a public meeting, it was true. Foust responded firmly, "70 percent of the people on your street voted for that stop sign." 

Foust agreed to call me the next day to continue the discussion.

 Click here for email correspondence with DOT's consultant confirming the NTMP direction, and references to NTMP.

September 30, 2004 (Thursday):
As agreed, Mr. Randy Foust, Principal Civil Engineer for the County Department of Transportation (DOT) called me on the telephone. He confirmed that if , "due to community sentiment", the stop signs are to be removed, then it will take an action of the Board of Supervisors to remove them.

Foust again apologized for the installation of the stop signs. He said, "We acknowledge that and apologize for that, sincerely. It was an error in our process that the work order slipped through to the field crews and unbeknownst to them they just went ahead and installed it, when we had made a commitment to meet with you." 

Foust agreed to provide, "next week", to me the following information:
I brought up his statement the day before that the commitment was only broken to me, not to the community. He said, explaining, "we didn't stand before 40 people and make a commitment and then not meet that commitment."  Mark Manoff made the commitment only to me, and I communicated Manoff's commitment to many other members of the community. I disagreed with Foust's position, and I told him so. I told him there was no difference between making a commitment to one person and making a commitment to the community; Foust, however, disagrees.

As Mr. Foust called me from a telephone that registered as "blocked call" on my caller ID, and as Foust had not shared his email address or telephone number with me, I followed up the conversation with a confirming email to Mark Manoff, asking Mark to forward my message to Foust.

 Click here to review my email sent to Mark Manoff.

October 7, 2004 (Thursday):
Article published in Rio Linda Elverta News, including my letter to my neighbors. Click here to review the article in The NEWS; please use the "back" button on your browser to return here.

October 9, 2004 (Saturday):
 I received an envelope in the mail with this return address:

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4100 TRAFFIC WAY
SACRAMENTO, CA 95827 - 3820

Enclosed were documents with no cover letter. This appears to be from Mr. Foust, in response to my request to him on September 30 (see above). The documents received are:
October 12, 2004 (Tuesday):
A community meeting was held in Rio Linda as part of the Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC) meeting. This meeting was held at my request and was arranged by Mark Manoff, the County's Interim Service Area Manager, and Hal Morris, the CPAC chairman. Click here for my statement made at this meeting; please use the "back" button on your browser to return here.

Fifty people attended the meeting. The County apologized again for installing the stop signs before having the promised community meeting. Mark Manoff committed to having another meeting, in the spring. The stop signs remain.

Please review the article in The October 21 Rio Linda Elverta News for more information on this meeting. See also an article by Dirk Werkman in the Sacramento Bee on October 21, 2004.

October 14, 2004 (Thursday):
CHP officer Andrew Silcox stopped by at my request. Officer Silcox said that to be able to use radar to enforce the Second Street speed limit, he would first need a speed survey from the County of Sacramento. He said that he would then be able to cite motorists travelling at a speed over the "85th percentile" as determined by the speed survey. He encouraged me to have those who wish CHP enforcement ask the County to send a speed survey to the CHP; he said the County's speed survey I showed him is the proper form; he would be able to use it to ticket motorists exceeding 45 MPH if it were officially sent to the CHP by the County.

October 15, 2004 (Friday):
I spoke to Mr. Greg Edwards, Transportation Engineer for CalTrans. Mr. Edwards explained the Federal and State regulation relative to the posting of speed limit signs.  He explained that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), paragraph 2B.18, "...Additional Speed Limit signs shall be installed beyond major intersections and at other locations where it is necessary to remind road users of the speed limit that is applicable." is what applies to the posting of additional speed limit signs on streets like Second Street where traffic enters from a residential street like Shady Woods Way. He explained that the "points of change from one speed limit to another" provision applies to changes of speed limit on a single street, not a change when entering one street from another. To review the MUTCD, click here and scroll to Section 2B.18; please use the "back" button on your browser to return here.

October 17, 2004 (Sunday):
I sent email to Mark Manoff, asking him to accept requests from me for information.
Click here for this email correspondence to and from Mark Manoff

October 21, 2004 (Thursday):
Article published in Rio Linda Elverta News, including a review of the October 12 community meeting. Click here to review the article in The NEWS; please use the "back" button on your browser to return here. See also an article by Dirk Werkman in the Sacramento Bee.

October 24, 2004 (Sunday):
I sent email to Supervisor Dickinson's Chief of Staff Cortez Quinn, asking for copies of County policies related to speed control stop signs..
Click here for email correspondence with Cortez Quinn

October 25, 2004 (Monday):
I sent email to Lupe Rodriguez, following up on the request he was given October 12th for the exact locations where Second Street traffic counts and speed surveys were taken. Click here for my email and Rodriguez's November 15 reply.

November 2, 2004 (Wednesday):
I sent a followup email to Cortez Quinn, as he did not respond to my 10/24/04 email. Quinn responded but provided no answers.

November 17, 2004 (Wednesday):
I received a large envelope in the mail from Randy Foust. It consisted of the following:
Letter to me (Jay O'Brien), responding to my emails to Mark Manoff and to Cortez Quinn.
Copy of email I sent to Mark Manoff October 17, 2004.
Copy of email I sent to Cortez Quinn October 24, 2004.
Action summary, Board of Supervisors, November 25, 1986: Item 33 approves staff recommendation Nos. 1-5
March 29, 1994 recommendation by Douglas Fraliegh to Board of Sups, petition process for Residential Speed Control Program
Action summary, Board of Supervisors, March 29, 1994: Item 38 approves staff recommendation re petition process.

November 18, 2004 (Thursday):
Query sent to Cortez Quinn, asking for correspondence relating to coordination of survey limits.

November 24, 2004 (Wednesday):
I sent a followup email to Cortez Quinn, as he did not respond to my 11/18/04 email.

December 3, 2004 (Friday):
I sent a third email to Cortez Quinn, as he did not respond to my 11/24 or 11/18/04 emails.

December 10, 2004 (Friday):
I sent a fourth email to Cortez Quinn, as he did not respond to my 11/24 or 11/18/04 or 12/3 emails. Quinn responded, defines survey area, claims 80% in favor.  I replied, asking for confirmation that 52 affected residents were not included in Dickinson's coordination.

December 18, 2004 (Saturday):
I sent a another email to Cortez Quinn, again asking for the communication with DOT expressing coordination of survey limits.

December 22, 2004 (Wednesday):
Email received from Supervisor Roger Dickinson, responding to my emails to Cortez Quinn.


Jump to the top of this web page