SEELEY LAKE - As Chair of the Seeley Lake Community Council’s Traffic Project, I feel it’s my civic duty to ensure that the public is informed of all the facts surrounding the Council’s Traffic Project. This article is a direct response to the article in the Pathfinder last week about opposition to the reduced speed limits [entitled “Petition Demands Speed Limit Change Reversed]. My purpose here is to provide clarity with facts since the Council was never contacted for comment as part of last week’s article.
The genesis of the Council’s Traffic Project was a conference in Bozeman, Mont. about small rural Montana towns and their economies. Studies presented at the conference described that one strategy for improving rural economic activities was slowing traffic in small towns which encourages travelers to stop and spend time and money there, thus boosting local commerce and providing a safer environment for both residents and visitors alike.
Discussions also touched on the fact that Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is going through a transition period of looking at small rural communities from a different perspective; i.e. considering reduced speeds for the promotion of business rather than viewing the road as simply means to move traffic from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible. MDT Director Mike Tooley was a speaker at this meeting as well and endorsed that approach.
In the Pathfinder article last week, Bruce Friede states that “The SLCC’s requests did not fit with the engineering study for Highway 83. In some cases, the requested speed limits were 15 miles per hour lower than those recommended by the engineers.”
For the sake of clarity, we did request the reduction of speed limits based on the logic and rationale of the presenters at the Bozeman Conference. The entire premise for this proposal was to enhance our local economy and any comments that we had a plan to use the speed limits as a catalyst for bringing in the sewer system or to implement zoning as Friede suggested in an earlier letter to the editor [Council Misrepresents Community, Nov. 3, 2016 Pathfinder] is solely his conjecture and had nothing to do with our Traffic Project. In fact, the Council is prohibited from taking action on or expressing support for any ballot issue.
There is always the danger when vetting a process via public input that a segment of the community doesn’t engage for various reasons until after action is taken, which is clearly what happened here. I regret that some community members didn’t participate during the information gathering phase, which included a three month window and was published in the Pathfinder along with signature gathering tables across town. This was a two-year process that was publicly conducted, and our monthly meetings have always been open to the public for comment as required by Montana’s public meeting laws.
In the article last week it stated, “While the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) established two new temporary crossings in the spring of 2016 at Riverview Drive and Boy Scout Road, they would not lower the speed limit.” We submitted a proposal that included both the crosswalks and a reduction of speed limits. MDT split our initial proposal into two parts on the basis that the crosswalks are a regional issue to be determined between the Council and the Regional Office in Missoula, while the reduction of speed limits which were outside the perimeters of the engineers study required the action of the Montana Traffic Commission (MTC). The crosswalks were a regional issue and the speed limits were a state level issue.
While the speed limits were reduced per the order of the MTC on Sept. 22, 2016 in Helena, the crosswalks were addressed in the spring as the article stated. The review for the crosswalks is still ongoing and the outcome will be determined by MDT’s regional office. If the crosswalks receive permanent status, MDT is required to make them ADA accessible with build-up approaches and they would implement the flashing signs per the discussion we had at the meeting with the regional officers. That was always the final goal.
It’s important to note that the Council’s Traffic Project enjoyed the support of the Missoula County Sheriff’s Office in our Sept. 22 appearance at the MTC with our local Sergeant Robert Parcell offering testimony in favor of reducing speed limits. The Council’s Traffic Project also had the support of the County Commissioners, Senator Sue Malek and Missoula County Public Works Director Greg Robertson.
The final issue I would like to address is the accusation that we as a Council have been engaged in “selling us [the Seeley Lake community] a bill of goods…They tried to sell us something that was not true and that’s wrong.” While I respect Friede’s opinion, I disagree.
This was a petition that produced overwhelming support for a reduction of speed limits. I started this project without any idea how contentious it could become, and once the community responded to our petition, I simply acted on behalf of those who chose to engage in the process. To suggest that I had any ulterior motives is disheartening and disappointing.
An important component of Friede’s petition to revert to the old speed limits must be considered; on one hand his petition is asking for the very thing our own petition included and was acted upon: the implementation of crosswalks with flashing lights.
On the other hand the new petition is requesting that speed limits be increased to their levels prior to October 2016. A major concern for MTC was that while the new crosswalks were temporary, the speed limit was 45 miles per hour (mph) on one of those crossings, at Riverview Drive. A 45 mph speed limit at a crosswalk was a problem for MTC and they felt that traffic would be going too fast for a safe pedestrian crosswalk. We had requested a 40 mph limit at Riverview Drive but MTC overrode our request and decided to implement a 35 mph speed limit reduction immediately prior to Riverview Drive out of a concern for public safety.
The Council debated the Traffic Project for a total of two years at its open meetings to which the entire community is always invited. Flyers, press releases and many articles in the Pathfinder widely disseminated information on the project. It is unfortunate that not everybody took the opportunity to provide input. We started this project with no preconceived notions and the final outcome was dictated solely by the responses we received from community members.
Reader Comments(0)