The city intends to spend more than $750,000 in tax dollars to wipe-out the wye and put in a suburban-style T-junction in its place. Apparently city traffic employees, even in these times calling for aggressively prudent financial decision-making, cling to the notion that there’s a pot of anonymous taxpayer dollars sitting in Sacramento just waiting for them to dip into and siphon off to turn their ideas into reality.
That the present wye intersection works efficiently, and has proved to be one of the safest in Santa Barbara, would seem to argue for leaving well enough alone. There hasn’t been a documented case of a pedestrian accident at the intersection in more than a decade according to the City—at least 22 years according to the recent accident analysis of Santa Barbara Police Department records prepared by Associated Traffic Engineers. The ATE analysis also indicates the number of traffic accidents at the intersection has decreased in the past seven years, and the rate of accidents here is less than the statewide average. Anecdotally, the only bicycle-related accident occurred there a couple of years ago when a distracted cyclist plowed into a parked car.
In the absence of evidence proving safety concerns, common sense indicates it’s certainly the wrong time and surely the wrong place to consider, much less push for an expensive, extreme makeover. To my eye, that intersection has been somewhat neglected aesthetically: the crosswalks in all directions could use some sprucing up. A low-cost, low-impact alternative to the City’s plan would involve a few community volunteers, some paint, plants and a little elbow grease—maybe the installation of a couple of signs—all easily accomplished over the course of a weekend.
Don’t be fooled by doublespeak; this is not infrastructure repair. The city’s determination to “fix” what isn’t broken is just another aspect of its agenda to implement aspects of “smart growth” that many have realized is awfully dumb.
The same folks who brought the dysfunctional concept of “shared parking” at the nearby parking lot where patrons of Trader Joe’s and the Surgery Center jockey for position—creating shared traffic and parking nightmares by the hour—are advocates of this plan, too. In order to get rid of the wye, they will destroy the 85-year-old deodar cedar that stands in the middle of one of the ivy-filled islands; relocate the highly visible sign signifying the historic old stagecoach route placed in the wye a decade ago by Goleta Valley Beautiful; and eliminate yet another vestige of old Santa Barbara’s familiar sense of place.
If they get their way, the westbound lanes on State Street will be narrowed, the turning radii will be drastically sharpened all round—raising concerns about how huge delivery trucks will negotiate them—and the free right turn that allows traffic to flow smoothly will be eliminated. Instead of three short crosswalks to two islands, pedestrians—especially the young, the slow and the elderly—will be challenged with a single 60-foot crosswalk. The likely effect on the surrounding neighborhood will be a marked increase in traffic by those drivers who want to avoid the reconfigured intersection.
The city has already spent $88,500 in a grant obtained to study the plan; two years ago the estimate to complete the work was $750,000. With a state that’s downright broke, and a city that’s millions of dollars in debt, I can’t imagine where the grant money will come from to pay for this project, or why it’s of such importance with so many other pressing local issues looming.
Counter to all reasonable concerns about facts and financial reality—the City Council is scheduled to spend their valuable time reviewing this project during a special session on February 10 at 6 p.m.
I shudder to think how many thousands of dollars in salary have already been paid to the city’s transportation planners, supervisors, engineers and support staff in the planning and transportation departments to dream up this project. Or how many volunteer hours have been spent by the Architectural Board of Review, the Transportation and Circulation Committee and interested citizens who have gone round and round about this project for years.
Oddly, in a city where history is supposed to mean something, no city employee ever bothered to research, or present, any information about the history of the distinctive design of this intersection to determine whether they even had the right to mess with it, much less obliterate it.
In fact, it took the recent efforts of dedicated historic preservationist Kellam de Forest, who researched and wrote up the history as the cover story for “The Capital,” the publication of the Pearl Chase Society. He noted the visionary design created by Stephen Rutherford, who purchased the entire Ontare Ranch in 1917. He concludes his piece, “The 1924 De la Vina wye remains as a tribute to Rutherford’s foresight and street designs that avoided the conventional street grid with its mundane four-way intersections.” (To read de Forest’s complete account, go to EdHat) De Forest has also has requested review by the Historic Landmarks Commission; their findings remain in question.
Like the rest of us who have to re-think our plans for remodeling and redecorating in difficult economic times—and accept the reality that the old stuff will do just fine—it’s time for the City to do the same. The cost-benefit analysis of this project just doesn’t pencil out; it looks like a make-work scheme developed to keep the transportation staff busy—something this community can no longer afford.