|
Manila
tackles traffic
By Matt Kapko
Eye Reporter
The Arcata Eye
June 10, 2003
When the Safety
Corridor was established on U.S. Highway 101, it led to unintended consequences
for residents among the rural communities that hug State Route 255.
Since the speed limit in the safety corridor was changed to 50 mph, SR
255 presented not only an alternative route for travel between Arcata
and Eureka, but also a higher posted speed limit. Those qualities have
proven reason enough for some commuters to change their route.
What residents of Manila are most concerned with, however, is the speed
at which many drivers traverse the section where SR 255 bisects the unincorporated
town. The community has not quieted down on the issue, so many residents
and employees of the Manila Community Services Districts have worked steadily
to pursue a traffic safety study of the situation.
The fruits of their labor ripened last Thursday, June 5, when Steve Weinberger,
traffic consultant, with Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation Inc. (based
in Santa Rosa) presented some initial results of the Manila Community
Transportation Plan.
The Humboldt County Association of Governments is funding this first phase
of the project at $25,000. Step one is to conduct community outreach and
develop a plan.
Weinberger said he is trying to determine what type of improvements residents
desire.
Caltrans a no-show
Results from a survey showed that six of the top seven concerns residents
had were related to SR 255. Speed passing came in highest at 21 percent.
Pedestrian crossings, traffic volume and turning safety came next at 15,
10 and 9 percents, respectively.
While acquainting himself with area roads and traffic situations, Weinberger
noticed evidence of unplanned development as the highway evolved. Random
left-hand turns are a clear example of that, he said.
Reasons for the current situation are the direct result of “design
standards that are not as highly regimented as now,” Weinberger
explained.
Aside from studying traffic on SR 255, Weinberger looked at traffic situations
throughout Manila. He noted numerous locations on Peninsula Drive that
have an impaired line of sight. Lighting was also a concern.
Manila resident Jerry Martien explained that the problem is the process
needed to make changes, specifically concerning the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans).
Martien reminded the audience of the situation 10 years prior. He said
when Caltrans was asked about making changes then, it replied that there
weren’t enough casualties to make improvements. Unfortunately, someone
has to die to get notice from Caltrans, Martien concluded.
A recurring concern among residents was Caltrans’ absence from the
meeting. Weinberger said that an observer from Caltrans was expected,
but no one made it known if they were there for that purpose.
Simple safety
After receiving comments from the community and seeing how Manila looks,
Weinberger said he understands that residents want to maintain the rural
characteristic of the community, keep the roads narrow and not make anything
“too fancy.”
One possibility that Weinberger categorically dismissed was a pedestrian
overpass, as cost and future implications go against community desires.
For SR 255 crossings, Weinberger suggested a pedestrian median or pedestrian
corral that would force residents, by design, to look at oncoming traffic.
He also presented the full range of other traffic-calming measures such
as lighting, speed bumps, roundabouts and more.
After giving residents the options, Weinberger asked them to paste stickers
alongside which measures they found most accommodating to their needs
and concerns.
Support ran high for a rail trail, pedestrian medians, overhead street
lighting, traffic signals, roundabouts, left turn lanes, entry treatments
and rural edge treatment/maintenance.
Support was low, or mostly against, speed bumps, pedestrian overpasses/underpasses
and residential traffic calming in residential areas.
Residents: lower speed limit
In sticking to their true objective, residents added an unlikely option:
reduced speed limit with double fines and radar – exactly like measures
in place in the Safety Corridor.
When asked for a count of how many are in favor of reduced speed limits
on the highway, support was unanimous among the crowd. Residents pounded
home their hope that such desires will be evident in the final report
expected later this month.
Although the second phase of this project, which is expected to finalize
the plan, is yet to be funded, Weinberger offered optimism. He said, communities
that outreach to residents and develop a plan are more likely to receive
funding.
Weinberger added, “this district is the most progressive district
in the state,” and because of that reason and the “innovative
community based ideas for improvement” he enjoys working here most.
Full report on this phase of the project will be presented in early July.
|