All Communities

Forget_Me_Not gets the concessions!

OK, all you Arrowhead Highlanders - get your lawn chairs ready - this is gonna be fun!!!

Can I sell Beer too? Double the price to Cal Tran workers( as they are going to need it) LOL...This is really going to be a fun filled Jam..hooray, Day!

When can we buy tickets? We should put an ad in the papers...sell more tickets that way.

Scot - we had a text message inquiring as to the address of a meeting on Sunday to take place at the Club? I assume this is arranged by you - we had no idea how to respond - can you give a call please?

Bobcat sitting and waiting for further instructions

Never mind Scot, Brenda and I solved the mystery

Hi 2muttsmom. Sorry, I haven't been on that much today. It's a brutal time of the year for guys in my business. Everyone is doing their Black Friday ads and we have been very busy.
It looks like you got the issue worked out though. Let me know if not.

http://www.rimoftheworld.net/4350

The agency also has presented statics about accidents at that intersection showing there were at least five accidents per year in five of the six years between 2003 and 2008.

That number will really multiply with a light...

So, what's going on with this? Anyone have an update?

Actually, I do have an update.
We have obtained accident statistics directly from CHP in Sacramento. We have been crunching through them, and here is what we have discovered:
The numbers that were given us by CalTrans do not match the numbers given us by CHP. There is a particular data point that is erroneous which was used to justify the safety project. That one number, representing a broadside accident, simply does not exist in the numbers from CHP. There is also an incident that does exist that CalTrans failed to report. Why is this important? Well, CalTrans was attempting to justify their safety project by numbers of broadside accidents. Their measure was a 12 month rolling basis. In other words, they are not measuring by calendar year, but they measure the 12 month period from the first accident in the 12 month period.
First of all, this method of measurement is really just statistical shenanigans, but, OK, I can play along.
Once we corrected the data to match the CHP numbers, there is only one period of 12 months in which there have been 5 broadside accidents. That period was that period was between 11/05 and 7/06. Subsequent to that time, there has been no 12 month period in which there have been 5 accidents in a 12 month period.
Now, I have taken the time to graph out the data from CHP and Caltrans and have also found that there is a disticnt down trend in broadside accidents in that intersection.
Brodaside accidents are what they say they are concerned with. CalTrans, and every study under the sun concerning signalization agree that broadside accidents are the ones that have potential to be mitigated by a signal, and that other accidents, like rear end and left turn related accidents will increase due to signalization. Why would Caltrans want to put a light in an intersection where there is a clear down trend in broadside accidents and those broadside accident rates do not meet minimum standards for signalization, when they know that other accidents will increase?
I cannot imagine why they would do this. The only thing I can tell is that they seem to have a complete disregard for the safety of the people here.
Additionally, in the MAC meeting, the question was asked, "does the intersection at SH18 and Lake Gregory Drive have the highest broadside accident rate of any intersection along SH 18"? Caltrans could not answer that question and didn't seem to be particularly concerned with it, even though it was a very valid question.
Now that we have the real numbers from CHP, I can answer that. The answer is no, the intersection does not have the highest rate of broadside accidents on SH18. There is one that has a significantly higher rate. I have no intention of saying which one, because I don't want them focusing on that intersection either.

We will be holding a public meeting soon to present all these facts. We will invite Caltrans to be there because it is fair. We will give them the exact same courtesy that they gave us, they will be able to ask questions, and then give a 3 minute comment at the end, just as they did for us.

I should point out that there was only one 12 month period in which broadside accidents exceded 5. That year was a statiscal anomoly. Every other year, whether measure by a 12 month rolling methodology, of by calendar year has been below the threashold. 2004 was a particularly anomolous year.
One of the factors left out by Caltrans is; what were the root causes of these accidents? Were they DUIs?, What, exactly were the causes? This is important in making a determination of whether a signal will be effective in mitigating the issue.

Check out the front page story in the Mountain News. This light may not be legal... or at least the methods to get it there may not.

Jim, that is another of the aspects we are examining. The light is not legal on lots of levels but the statements by Patrick Marley are correct. We have also pulled the CEQA and examined it. The Categorical Exemption that Caltrans obtained does not apply in this case. It assumes that a signal will be placed in a location that is not a wildlife zone. It also assumes that it will be a location that does not have value as an historical site. If CalTrans fails to cancel this project based on the fact that their numbers don't work to qualify it and it will, therefore cause a safety hazard, then we will have to go down the road of legal action based on the environmental issue.

By the way, I also want to thank the annonymous citizen who mailed me the package of information regarding the possible root causes and players involved in this whole thing. Obviously, that package of information was quite the eye opener for us and will be handled delicately. That package was quite informative and it further convinces me of the need to make sure this light is not successful. We will use that information strategically and will handle it carefully as it is extremely sensitive.
Thanks very much, whoever you are for your careful and detailed research into this.

What? Something possibly rotten in Denmark on a County Contract?When over a MILLION BUCKS is being tossed around?

Oh I find that soooo hard to believe. NOT!

If the accident rate were the reason for the light then there would be a light put up at Panorama Point area. In the fog when most accidents occur up here, the light won't make any difference because no one will see it and in the winter the cars sliding into each other on the hill will make the light a new hazard that will need to be addressed. Should be lots of fun trying to get off of 189 with a light at the 18 & Lake Gregory lining all the cars up. I think the light will be short term once they try it out and get a few lawsuits stacked up.