Second Street Speed Control

The address of this web page is http://obri.net/2nd/Oct12.html

Click here for the index to this issue
This is my statement made to the second street stop sign issue during the Community Planning Advisory Committee Meeting On October 12, 2004:

Statement by Jay O'Brien:

We're here tonight because I wasn't happy with the County calling a sham election to impose stop signs on Second Street.

Thanks for coming. I appreciate it, regardless of your position on the stop signs themselves.

Thanks to Mark Manoff, the Interim Director for the County's new North County Service Area and to Hal Morris, CPAC chair, for making this meeting possible.

I have a lot to cover and so as to not miss anything and to keep my repeating to a minimum, I've prepared a statement I will read.

This is NOT brief, so make yourself comfortable.

We are here tonight to discuss speeding on 2nd Street and the effect of the new stop signs.

Just in case there is any question, I do not oppose the stop signs themselves; they may be the right answer. What I do oppose is the flawed and arbitrary process the County used to stick them in the ground.

Perhaps I'm obsessive about this issue; however, I feel compelled to press for what I think is good government working for me, not me being dictated to by government bureauacracies.

When I received the letter last month asking me to complete a questionnaire about the stop signs, I called the County Department of Transportation, or D. O. T.  or DOT. The postcard enclosed in the letter was identified on the postcard as a survey, not a questionnaire. The letter calls it a questionnaire, the card calls it a survey. But then I was told that it was was actually a vote; I was told that if over half of the cards came back supporting the stop signs, they would be installed, in spite of any objections I might have. I was told that if I didn't like it, I should testify to the Board of Supervisors, as DOT was only following the policy adopted by the Board.

DOT did not provide any rationale for using stop signs as a first fix for speeding, would not discuss speed bumps at all, wouldn't provide either a copy of the petition or a list of those people DOT decided should vote to put stop signs in front of my property.

As I explained in my letter that was published in the News, Mark Manoff, of the County's new Neighborhood Services Department, interceded and obtained an agreement from DOT that they would not install the stop signs until after convening a community meeting.

I told Mark that based on my previous experiences with DOT over the years, I didn't believe them. I said that I felt DOT would go back on their word as they had done to me in the past.

When the signs were put up announcing proposed speed control stop signs, I called Mark again and told him I didn't believe DOTs word. I told him that I felt this was already a "done deal". Mark again verified that the stop signs wouldn't go in until after a community meeting was held.

When the stop signs were installed a week later, I asked Mark to have the signs removed until a community meeting could be held. DOT refused, as I expected.

When I complained to Mr. (Randy) Foust, Principal Civil Engineer at DOT that the County had broken its word to the community by installing the stop signs before holding a public meeting, he corrected me. Foust said that the County's word was only broken to me, not to the community. He later explained that it wasn't the same as standing in front of 40 people, it was only a commitment to one person, me. Is that the County's policy, that a commitment made to only one constituent is to be ignored?

(I wonder if that would apply if my name was Tsakopoulos, Oates or Maloof?)

Foust reiterated the installation of the signs was compelled by a vote of the residents. This was a vote with the County selecting who can vote and keeping that information secret; with the County telling the voters it was a "questionnaire" and a "survey", and not explaining that their votes could impose the stop sign on others who were not causing the problem and who were not selected to vote. The County wrote both sides of the ballot argument, predisposing the vote. I complained to Foust that this was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question; he didn't disagree. He said, "we've been using that methodology successfully for 22 years, since 1982." The vote is a sham.

Had this meeting been held before the signs were installed, County staff would have advised us of the laws, of the County policies, and they would have described the tools that are available to combat the speeding problem. They would have told us what engineering studies had been done, and given us some traffic volume counts. We would have been briefed at that time by County staff and then debated the various solutions. We would have been able to discuss and suggest other solutions, including more speed limit signs, enforcement, speed bumps, speed humps or speed tables. Instead, the solution was selected for us by the County and imposed upon us by the County.

On speed humps, I'm going to pass around a picture I took of Pinedale Avenue, west of Rio Linda Boulevard. These work. When you look at it, see if you agree it looks a lot like Second street. [click here for picture]

Justifying the stop signs, Foust said, "they went in in accordance with the county adopted board policy at this time, met the criteria, and that's why they went in." Nearly two weeks ago I asked Foust to provide copies of the policy, the criteria and the work done to measure and validate the claim. I received them from him in Saturday's mail. The policy he sent was presented to the Board of Sups in 1986, not 1982. He did not include any documentation on the sham voting process.

The "policy" Foust sent is not a Board of Supervisors' policy. Instead, it is a recommendation dated November 25, 1986, to the Board, asking them to approve five items, including the expansion of a speed control program. Foust did not include a cover letter stating that the policy in that recommendation was adopted; I don't have a Board resolution, the actual date adopted, any changes the Board may have made, or the votes as cast by the Board. For now I will assume the recommendation Foust sent is actually the Board policy. However, I would appreciate receiving a "real" copy.

The traffic count he sent, taken August 19, when school was out, shows 842 trips in 24 hours on Second Street, with the highest hour being 6-7PM with 72 cars. With the stop signs in place, that's 842 fuel guzzling and noise making stops and starts per day that we didn't have before, not counting the school buses that weren't running when it [the traffic count] was taken. Not to mention the law abiding motorists that don't speed who now must stop. And these people didn't even get a chance to vote on the stop signs. 842 people must stop every day now that didn't have to stop before.

The speed survey was taken on August 24 between 4:30 and 5:30 PM and details a measured speed of only 40 cars. The fastest one was 51 MPH.

The apparent criteria met in the policy, supported by the traffic study sheets Foust sent me, was the fact that the average speed measured of those 40 cars was 37.8 MPH, meeting the criteria of "5 MPH or more above the posted speed limit."

By the way, had this survey been instead used to set the speed limit, the 85th percentile would set the speed limit at 45 MPH, not 30 MPH.

Only 40 cars behavior in one hour caused the stop signs to be installed, causing 842 new stops per day, using the County's figures.

Had the fastest 8 cars of those 40 been going 30 MPH, the average speed would have been 34.65 and we wouldn't have the stop signs. The bottom line is that 8 cars in one hour on August 24th have inconvienced 842 people every day from today on, forever.

Had we been shown this information at the promised pre-meeting we didn't have, I would have had the opportunity to challenge the study, as I believe it is flawed. The key words are "above the posted speed limit". The 30 MPH speed limit is not properly posted now, and I would have insisted that the study be repeated after the speed limit was properly posted.

I will explain.

If Second street north of Shady Woods Way did not have a posted speed limit, I suggest it would carry the County's unposted maximum speed limit of 55 MPH. However, 30 MPH speed limit signs are posted on Second near Q on the north and M on the south [shown on map] and this whole area [Shady Woods Way] is 25.

Shady Woods Way is a residential street and carries the prima facie speed limit of 25 MPH. Thus there is a different speed limit on Shady Woods Way than there is on Second Street.

Federal and State standards require that "Speed Limit signs shall be located at the points of change from one speed limit to another." They also say "At the end of the section to which a speed limit applies, a Speed Limit sign showing the next speed limit shall be installed."

As no speed limit signs are posted for traffic entering rural Second Street from residential Shady Woods Way, I believe that the speed limit can't be enforced on Second Street, as a motorist entering Second Street from Shady Woods can reasonably assume, in my opinion, that the 55 MPH unposted maximum speed limit applies on Second Street.

The signs that should have been installed first on Second Street are the required additional speed limit signs, not speed control stop signs.

By the way, after receiving the study on a Saturday of a three day weekend, it didn't give me much time to verify some of my conclusions. I asked the CHP POP officer to meet me today and review my conclusion about the incomplete posting of the speed limit; unfortunately, he couldn't make it on such short notice, apparently; he didn't show up.

Now, about Stop signs. Here's what we should have been told at the pre-meeting.

Federal and State regulations say "STOP signs should not be used for speed control. STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop. A STOP sign should not be installed on the major street unless justified by a traffic engineering study."

The County stop sign web page says, "Because stop signs cause a substantial inconvenience to motorists, they should only be installed where traffic conditions meet engineering warrants."

The County continues, "Unwarranted stop signs unnecessarily increase congestion, commute time, fuel consumption, and noise and air pollution.
The proliferation of unwarranted stop signs contributes to the disrespect of all stop signs and promotes 'rolling stops'."

And finally, the County says, "Stop Signs for Speed Control. The installation of stop signs for speed control must be carefully evaluated to avoid causing additional traffic problems, such as:
Wouldn't it have been nice to have heard these County policies at the pre-meeting before a decision was made to install the speed control stop signs first?

And if nothing else, the stop signs could have been installed on a trial basis.

To wrap this up, I can live with the stop signs, even though I believe proper speed limit signage, enforcement, and perhaps speed bumps, should have been tried first. However, I would have rather been first shown that it was the right action to take and shown that my inconvenience from the 842 stops and starts a day is offset by a benefit to those who petitioned. 

Here's what I would like the County to do.

First, without any other changes, perform another count and survey, using the same time of day for the survey. Oh yes, as based on past and present experience, I don't trust DOT.  Thus I ask that an impartial observer, designated by Mark Manoff, observe the speed measurements made for any subsequent speed surveys.

Next, I would like the County to install additional 30 MPH speed limit signs; for traffic entering 2nd street from Shady Woods and another set half way between Shady Woods and Q Street. And, as there is some leeway on the exact siting of speed limit signs, please discuss the location with the property owners before arbitrarily poking a sign in the ground in front of somebody's front room window and then blaming me for it.

After a week or two with the new signs, perform another count and survey.

I want to see a proper post-construction evaluation before a final decision is made on the stop signs.

As the new County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is likely to set a precedent that future speed control devices be installed for a trial period before they are considered permanent, I suggest that concept be used here and the stop signs be considered to be on a three month trial period, to be revisited in January with a "real" survey that allows community input, through Mark Manoff, proposing the questions to be asked.

In addition, about the voting methodology. This is a request for a copy of the County policy that established the voting procedure, including the use of what is identified as a "questionnaire" or "survey", yet is actually a binding vote compelling a County action.  I want to see the policy that identifies how voters are chosen, how returned ballots are secured and tallied, and how the ballot language is written and approved. I want to see the policy that did not allow me to either write an opposing ballot statement or lacking that, prevented me from finding out who was empowered to vote to install the stop signs. I want to see the policy that prevented me from presenting my side of the issue to voters before they cast their ballot.

What has been crammed down my throat is wrong. Mr. Foust told me he was following Board policy and that they have been using that methodology successfully for 22 years, since 1982. I want to review that policy, as it has been wrong for 22 years and needs to be changed.

The issue isn't just the stop signs. The issue is about the County's lack of credibility, their inability to follow their own policies and their lack of concern for individual constituents. We need County staff working for us, not against us. This is another example of why we need local control.

We are here today because Mark Manoff wouldn't take this lying down. Thanks, Mark, for doing your best. I appreciate your efforts, but based on how you were blindsided, I sure wouldn't want your job as middle man between the community and the bureaucrats that have been doing things the same way for 22 years. Since 1982.

Thank you.
Click here to jump to the top of this page