Responses to Questionnaire 2010Return to previous page. What is your position with regard to the lights on 89A?Dan McIlroy -- I am in favor of providing pedestrian traffic safety. However, continuous street lighting along 89A will not achieve this goal. Two traffic studies by the Arizona DOT and the City of Sedona have concluded that lowering the speed limit, adding cross walks, installing medians and a traffic light at Adante, seem to effectively address the problem. Continuous street lights, that will disrupt the businesses during construction, cost between two and three million dollars, and have no impact during daylight hours, do not appreciably contribute to pedestrian traffic safety. I would rather see that money spent on other pressing city needs.Michael Ward -- There is no question that there is a safety problem on SR 89A, but the problem lies with the Adante Dr. intersection. The city has an interagency agreement with ADOT in which ADOT accepts the financial responsibility of constructing raised medians along West Sedona. The cost of medians in West Sedona would be approximately $1.5 million, and not the $20 million alleged by a number of our City Councilors. For whatever reason, ADOT secured federal highway funding for safety enhancements along SR 89A that specified continuous roadway lighting. After the report of the Highway 89A Safety Panel, ADOT amended their request to include approximately $500,000 for a traffic signal at Adante Dr. Although continuous roadway lighting is ranked lowest among the strategies identified by the Highway 89A Safety Panel (ADOT had six representatives on the panel), ADOT’s upper management is insisting on using the federal street lighting funds for just that. Had I been a City Councilor, I would have insisted that ADOT work with the our community to place traffic signals and targeted lighting at Adante Dr., invest in raised medians in troublesome sections of SR89A and invest in protected pedestrian crosswalks at the locations identified by the Highway 89A Safety Panel. Rob Adams -- I am opposed to continuous roadway lighting on SR89a. I believe it is a band-aid solution to a larger issue. It does nothing to address daytime pedestrian safety; it creates visual and dark sky pollution and was not found to be the best overall solution by the Pedestrian Safety committee. I would support the redevelopment of that corridor to be something similar to the SR179 corridor with bike lanes, pedestrian lighting, turn medians and roundabouts. Let’s do this right the first time. Barbara Litrell -- I am opposed to continuous roadway lighting on 89A because it has been shown not to be the most effective safety improvement measure; in fact it has been shown to be the least effective of a long list of safety improvement measures. It will unnecessarily impact our dark skies with light pollution and the poles will impact our daytime vistas. When SR 89A is redeveloped in the future, lower pedestrian sidewalk lighting may be appropriate as we have in the Village and uptown. Meanwhile, I continue to work with a group of concerned citizens to urge ADOT to stop the lighting project and install the signalized intersection at Andante Dr. Dennis Rayner -- I am against the ADOT and present City Council-voted safety solution of continous roadway lighting. Safety is problem both day and night for pedestrians. Sedona needs a context sensitive safety solution on 89A as worked out by the 89A Safety Panel. West Sedona residents want no less consideration than was given on SR179 construction. The lighting in uptown and SR179 (except at roundabouts) is much the lower sidewalk lighting, which alerts drivers to sidewalk activity. A traffic light and crosswalk at Andante should be the next cost-effective safety step after the already enacted and enforced lower speed limit, which has already made the night safety problems disappear. : If we then want any further safety solutions, we must press for fulfillment of a City-ADOT pre-existing agreement which says ADOT is fiscally responsible for median construction AND that the estimated median cost is signifcantly lower than that suggested by the opposition members on City Council. It must also be remembered that ADOT initially said a traffic light was not warranted at Andante and did not even apply for that grant money. ADOT applied only for lighting money; the question here should be why? Finally it must be remembered that after much study the 89A Safety Panel which was stacked against any solution other than continuous roadway lighting (composed of many ADOT employees, City business people and only 2 residents) put lighting at the bottom of their extended list. They recommended speed limit reductions, enforcement, judicous medians, and a traffic light and crosswalk at Andante – the area where the problems were localized and where a safe crossing is needed both day and night. Any further solutions (such as sidewalk lighting) were to be assessed during City discussions on re-development of the west 89A corridor. Nancy Scagnelli -- After numerous nighttime pedestrian fatalities on 89A, the City Council asked ADOT to address the problem in 2006. ADOT did a study and determined that there were approximately 1000 pedestrians and 200 bicyclists crossing the highway each day during daylight hours, and an unknown number at night as it was too dark to count them. 50% of pedestrian crossings occurred outside of signalized crosswalk areas. The one common thread in each nighttime fatality was that the motorist could not see the pedestrian until just before impact. As a solution, ADOT agreed to install dark-sky compliant lighting along the commercial corridor between Dry Creek Rd and Airport Rd, and to install a traffic signal at Andante. ADOT would pay for the project, and the City would pay for any upgrades, such as painting the poles or picking a designer style of light fixture. A contingent in the community, led by KSB, objected. A committee was formed and a compromise solution brought forward: ADOT would install lights between Rodeo and Harmony, and the City would install raised medians, with pedestrian barriers that funneled pedestrians to signalized crosswalks, everywhere else. Such a project would cost millions of dollars and would lead to redesigning the highway with roundabouts to allow U-turns. There is no identified source of City funding for a redesign of 89A and it would be another multi-year construction project in our business corridor. Hence, the council decided to go with the installation of dark-sky compliant lighting throughout the corridor. The lights will be attractive like those on Hwy 179, approximately 290’ apart and emit 40% less lumens than those now installed at the “Y” roundabout. They will not damage our dark skies. Remember, Flagstaff is an international Dark Sky City, home to several renowned observatories, and Flagstaff has streetlights. Dan Surber -- The issue is pedestrian and vehicle safety, the safety of our citizens and our visitors. We brought forth the best plan that provided safety for day-time and night-time conditions. We approved a plan that was fiscally responsible. The safety plan includes seven of the pedestrian safety committee recommendations along with dark sky compliant lighting. All of the lighting selected is accepted by The International Dark Sky Association, a worldwide leader in protecting our night skies. Jeffrey Sietz -- No response! Jerry Frey -- No response! Return to previous page.
 Check out our Events Calendar  Our NEW office Suite B-5 Sedona Center 2030 West State Route 89A
P. O. Box 1165
|
