Red Hill full of snarls
Red Hill is brimming with traffic problems. Motorists speed, burn tires and plow through stop signs. Residents say their kids can't play outside and they can't walk their dogs. Even getting the mail is hairy.
The solution, according to a group of residents, is to close Red Hill Country Club Drive between Foothill and Calle Carabe. This, they said, will close off access to the hill from Foothill, discouraging short-cut fans from using the neighborhood to get to and from Base Line.
But Red Hill is not the Highland Avenue of 2009. The Highland folks may be just as passionate as the Red Hill clan but they were united. They had a leader. They spoke with, more or less, one voice. They even had the same T-shirts made. With the exception of Councilman Sam Spagnolo, former Mayor Bill Alexander and John Lyons, nobody really got in their way.
Red Hill is different. There are 622 homes in that neighborhood bordering Upland and it seems like there are 622 opinions. It's hard to get a consensus on the street closure and neighbors are getting frustrated.
Some want speed humps. But Traffic Engineer Jon Gillespie thinks once the locations have been set, those people living near a proposed speed hump would not be so happy. At the neighborhood meeting last night, Gillespie said some on the council said they were opposed to the speed humps last year but that doesn't mean they can't change their minds.
"But most of them don't have any minds," somebody yelled out.
Almost everybody was cynical; a few got snarky. Several people argued over the definition of "anecdotal evidence."
A typical City Council meeting produces five or six public comment cards. Gillespie on Tuesday got 20.
Bob Jones, the Debbie Downer of the group, had some kind of snide remark to offer after nearly every speaker. But Jones managed to say something that summed everything up: "I don't know if this is fixable."
The solution, according to a group of residents, is to close Red Hill Country Club Drive between Foothill and Calle Carabe. This, they said, will close off access to the hill from Foothill, discouraging short-cut fans from using the neighborhood to get to and from Base Line.
But Red Hill is not the Highland Avenue of 2009. The Highland folks may be just as passionate as the Red Hill clan but they were united. They had a leader. They spoke with, more or less, one voice. They even had the same T-shirts made. With the exception of Councilman Sam Spagnolo, former Mayor Bill Alexander and John Lyons, nobody really got in their way.
Red Hill is different. There are 622 homes in that neighborhood bordering Upland and it seems like there are 622 opinions. It's hard to get a consensus on the street closure and neighbors are getting frustrated.
Some want speed humps. But Traffic Engineer Jon Gillespie thinks once the locations have been set, those people living near a proposed speed hump would not be so happy. At the neighborhood meeting last night, Gillespie said some on the council said they were opposed to the speed humps last year but that doesn't mean they can't change their minds.
"But most of them don't have any minds," somebody yelled out.
Almost everybody was cynical; a few got snarky. Several people argued over the definition of "anecdotal evidence."
A typical City Council meeting produces five or six public comment cards. Gillespie on Tuesday got 20.
Bob Jones, the Debbie Downer of the group, had some kind of snide remark to offer after nearly every speaker. But Jones managed to say something that summed everything up: "I don't know if this is fixable."
I don't live in that area but I'm familiar with it. I was wondering if anyone has considered installing temporary speed humps for one to three months to test it out? Have another community meeting after the temporary installation period and see how everyone liked it. If it's well received, make it permanent. If everyone hates it, pull them out. I understand the City's concern that sometimes the installation of speed humps can result in unintended consequences such as constant braking noises annoying residents around the humps as cars slow down to pass over them, but this might be worth trying. The residents living near the humps may not have any problem with them near their house whatsoever and may prefer that to the constant threat of traffic collisions. While I also understand that the City doesn't want to set a precedent by installing speed humps in one part of the City because "everyone else will be demanding them too," I strongly disagree with that thinking. Some traffic conditions may justify road closures / speed humps, etc. and others definitely do not. It's staff and council's job to determine whether it's justified and take the appropriate action. In this case you have a residential area with a steep hill carrying "cut through" traffic going from major arterial roadway to major arterial roadway combined with a higher than average rate of collisions. This is a unique situation requiring a unique solution. Give it a shot!