Traffic calming measures are a minor solution to a major problem we created
Late last month, the city of Marysville initiated a pilot project to help ease speeding along 14th Street that is mostly caused by cut-through traffic from Highway 70.
The plan, which will include construction through the end of July, is to install several traffic calming measures to “reduce volume and speed on non-local traffic along the 14th Street Corridor,” according to officials. The affected area is between B and H streets.
As part of its effort to discourage cutthrough traffic, the city implemented a temporary “right-in right-out conversion” of D Street. The temporary installation will deny westbound highway traffic the ability to cut through the local street.
While most residents in the area seemed to welcome the news that the city was getting serious about increased traffic on local city streets caused by those traveling along Highway 70 and Highway 20, critics of the news bemoaned the fact that another 2-3 minutes could be added to their travel time because of traffic lights that regulate the flow of traffic – some already pointing out that those lights themselves cause backups because of their timing.
It’s probably safe to say the majority of vocal anti-traffic calming measure opinions come from those who don’t actually live in Marysville – especially its downtown area.
To get an idea of just how bad things are, spend about 5-10 minutes watching the intersections of 3rd and D streets or 3rd and C streets – you’ll see countless cars failing to stop at stop signs or yield to pedestrians. Spend some time watching vehicles run red lights at the intersection of 9th and D streets or Highway 20 and B Street. For those that travel these routes each day, it’s not uncommon to see large semi-trucks – and others – blocking an intersection or speeding dangerously through a red light.
The city of Marysville is in a tough position here. Limited in size by physical conditions and with a population of about 12,000, the city’s revenue base is not currently substantial enough to deal with the constant flow of highway traffic and everything that comes along with it.
Along with an oversized need for enforcement – which the city is illequipped to handle – the city also must consistently deal with road conditions on city side streets that worsen because vehicles that wouldn’t normally travel on them consistently do so in an effort to navigate around traffic lights.
The biggest contributor to backups, pollution and overall traffic problems are the big rigs. Those that haul agriculture products, lumber or everyday goods.
These behemoths take up an enormous amount of space and impact not only the roads they travel on, but the air city residents breathe.
“In addition to health impacts, highways and trucking corridors create significant negative economic impacts in communities. Some of these include public health care costs, transportation infrastructure costs, global warming impacts, increased demand for highway patrol, fire department, paramedics, city inspectors, and regulatory agency inspectors,” according to a report published by USC Environmental
Health Centers. “Road damage also has an economic impact. Environmental justice organizations state that the public has been subsidizing transportation infrastructure costs, through funding for repair and construction of highways, bridges, and corridors. Infrastructure costs include maintenance, repair, upgrades, expansion, and replacement. Infrastructure is typically designed and built to last many years, and the length of time that it will last is based on estimated number and weight of the trucks that will use it. When the freight volume and weight increases, this dramatically decreases the life expectancy of infrastructure. Cities and public agencies bear these costs, instead of the retailers importing the products.”
The city of Marysville has been bearing these costs and is actively looking at ways to curb them.
A bypass, which is desperately needed, won’t happen anytime soon. A third bridge? Voters have rejected the idea, most notably in 1994.
On Nov. 9, 1994, the Appeal-democrat reported the failure of a half-cent tax increase, leaving “major transportation” projects in doubt. According to reporting, Measure Y – which failed in both Yuba and Sutter counties – would have raised about $129 million in the two counties to pay for the “local share of a third Feather River Bridge, Marysville Bypass and other projects.”
Unofficial results reported in the November 1994 article showed that 61% of Sutter County voters rejected the measure, with 12,741 opposed and 8,105 in favor. In Yuba County, 55% voted against the measure, with 7,321 opposed and 5,897 in favor.
Supporters of the tax said it was important for the area’s future – which we are now in and paying the costs for. Critics, much like today, didn’t want to pay that miniscule amount for the larger good.
“People are against all taxes now, even for things that are worthwhile,” Measure Y opponent Bob Cloer was quoted as saying in the 1994 article.
Proponents of the tax, however, saw the benefit in looking forward and setting up future generations for success. In a letter to the editor that was published on Aug.
28, 1994, the area’s past and what was ahead was highlighted brilliantly by Bill G. Warfield of Yuba City.
“Thank you to the governmental officials, the engineers, the construction workers and even more important, the taxpayers of past years who had the foresight and tenacity to develop the bridges we all use today,” Warfield wrote. “The community, the Yuba-sutter area, is one community as a result of those people, and the ability of those people to visualize the future needs of the bi-county community. … A onehalf cent sales tax over a 20-year period will allow the building of the third bridge, the improvement of Highway 70 and Highway 99, the reconditioning and improvement of county and city roads and streets, resulting in relieving traffic congestion of those area(s). … The need for a third bridge has been debated for at least 30-plus years. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent (your tax paying dollars) in studying this issues – location, traffic flow, projected costs and all of the other aspects of a major project. …
Yes, we are committing our future generations to paying for the benefits of this improvement project, but they will reap most of the benefits so it is only fair to spread the costs over the proposed 20-year period.”
We are now that future generation. And instead of reaping the benefits of past decisions, we are paying the costs for them. Let’s hope our current generations are more forward-thinking and willing to pay now for a better life for our children and grandchildren.