ADOT will install continuous lighting on 89A regardless of support or opposition

By Tommy Acosta

SEDONA, AZ (October 29, 2009) - Arizona Department of Transportation representatives said at an Oct. 28 special city council work-study session on various street lighting systems for West Sedona that they would put continuous lighting on State Route 89A even if the city doesn’t want it.

Councilman Cliff Hamilton asked ADOT representative John Harper what ADOT’s response would be should the council withdraw its support.  Mr. Harper said ADOT would go ahead with it anyway.

“ADOT is willing to build it and maintain it and will go ahead,” Mr. Harper said, later admitting ADOT would pay for the electricity as well if it had to.

Visibly shaken, Councilman Hamilton asked Mr. Harper if even after an initiative by Sedona citizens to deny funding for the lights, would ADOT continue with their plans?

“Yes,” Mr. Harper replied, adding he hoped to go forward with the support of the community.

Said Councilor Hamilton, “I am stunned at your comment,” he said. “To hear you say you would stuff it down our throats…I was stunned. I can’t believe you said that.”

He also accused ADOT of having a “hidden agenda.”

“Why are we doing this?” the councilman asked. “This is not an unsafe road. The data is clear. The question is why? When people ignore data and facts you automatically know there is a hidden agenda.”

He said the work study session to discuss solutions was a trap and he would not fall for it.

“I will not be drawn into a discussion of picking option x or y,” he said. “I will not play your game. I am stunned the Federal Highway Administration has that attitude. I am stunned the consultants are OK with that attitude. I learned something here tonight.”

The council chamber was packed with citizens opposed to any kind of lighting along S.R. 89A, save traffic lights at crucial intersections like Andante and S.R. 89A; and Airport Road and 89A. It was near the Andante intersection where a number of nighttime pedestrian/vehicular accidents resulted in four people being killed over the years.

These deaths led to the council asking ADOT to study safety solutions; ADOT’s plan to install continuous lighting on S.R. 89A from Airport Road to Dry Creek Road; the creation of a pedestrian safety committee; and the council approving ADOT’s plan at its Aug. 13, 2009 meeting.

No one in the public spoke in favor of continuous lighting for 89A. The people present appeared unanimous in their opposition, many holding posters and wearing signs expressing their disfavor. Seventeen citizens spoke against the lighting.

Opponents also questioned whether the proposed lighting systems were dark sky complaint.

ADOT representatives stated they were, admitting there is no formal criteria available from which to verify dark sky compliance.

The public takes its anti-89A lights message inside City Hall wearing signs that say: "Where is the No Lights Option?"

Citizens did not express interest in reviewing the 68 lighting options presented by ADOT. The lighting options could cost the city anywhere between $150,000 and $3 million to install and range from $11,000 to $35,000 annually to maintain and operate. Costs go up in relation to the aesthetic value of the lighting system and the amount of poles and lumens required to maintain minimum-lighting standards set by ADOT.

According to City Manager Tim Ernster money for the lights could come from Capital Funds and General Fund reserves.

“Staff would have to look at the budget,” he said. “Right now revenues are heading in the wrong direction. Whatever the operating costs are would have to be addressed.

ADOT representatives said their standard system consisting of 35-foot high light poles would cost approximately $1.7 million. They said another $300,000 would be spent installing traffic lights at the Andante intersection. They said they have acquired approximately $2 million dollars in federal funding for the project.

Councilor Hamilton asked numerous times if the federal funding for the project was “in the bank.”

Mr. Harper said the money was part of an ADOT five-year program. He did not specifically say it was.

Councilor Nancy Scagnelli spoke in favor of lights, stating the city does not own S.R. 89A and that it has a legal responsibility to have them installed for safety reasons.

“89A is a state highway,” she said. “We do not own it. ADOT does. “We as taxpayers are legally responsible to provide a safe highway. There were four deaths in five years. The common thread is they occurred at night and the motorists couldn’t see them. ADOT has a responsibility to address that problem. This is an identified problem that has to be addressed.”

Doug Blackwell, a member of the pedestrian safety panel, presented current accident figures reflecting an improvement in nighttime safety on S.R. 89A due to the lowering of the speed limit and increased police enforcement.

He held up numbers he claimed represented evening accidents during the last 12 months ending Sept. 30, 2009. He said there were three at night versus 100 accidents during the day during the same period.

“We are shuffling under the chairs in the Titanic by not addressing daytime safety on 89A,” he said.

Sedona resident Dimitri Wagner said the root causes of the pedestrian deaths leading to the lights proposal no longer exist, the lights were no longer needed.

“What if the reason for your lights doesn’t exist anymore?” he asked ADOT. “I owned the Casa Rincon during that period and right across the street there was a bar and people would walk from my place to the bar and back. They were drunk. The bars are not there anymore. There are no more deaths. We don’t need continuous lighting anymore because the situation doesn’t exist anymore.”

Cliff Ochser, a member of the pedestrian safety panel, warned of legal and political consequences should ADOT go through with lighting the community does not want.

“Just know that we are organized,” he said. “We are funded. We are committed. We are strong. We intend to elect candidates in the next election who will vote to reverse the decision of the council to install lights on 89A and to expedite the installation of the real safety treatments of the 89A Safety Panel. We have retained legal council to bring the issue to court at the appropriate time to get justice for the community.”

Keep Sedona Beautiful President Stephen DeVol said the community’s opposition is a factor that will be considered during the National Environmental Policy Act study on the impact the project will have on 89A, a study that must be completed before the project can begin.

“One aspect of a NEPA study is to consider public controversy,” he said. “We have a lynch mob here and you are sitting here designing the gallows. The driving issue here is pedestrian safety. Why not address that first by installing a traffic light at Andante.”

Former Sedona Mayor Dick Ellis questioned the intelligence of putting the lights in considering opposition to them and that studies show lights at night do not improve safety.

“If those lights go in on 89A, it will be a monument to stupidity,” he said.

Dr. Dennis Rayner said he spent a total of 24 hours wearing an anti-continuous lighting on 89A sign, walking along S.R. 89A and soliciting public input. He said he spoke to pedestrians and motorists alike and the response against the lights was overwhelming.

“It was 100 to 1 against continuous lighting on 89A,” he said.

He also said ADOT must immediately put traffic lights up at the Andante and Airport Road intersections.

We need to get traffic lights on Andante,” he said. “It is negligence that borders on the criminal. Making a left turn from Airport Road onto 89A is like playing Russian Roulette. Let there be the light of reason and common sense.”

Dr. Dennis Raynor walks alsong 89A soliciting community input on the lights.

Councilor Hamilton also expressed concern for the trees on 89A that could suffer because of trenching and boring to lay in the power lines. He also noted the negative impact construction would have on a struggling West Sedona business community during this economy.

“Our business will be at the bottom of the hill,” he said. “To put six more months of construction on them will be enough to push them over the brink. And the trees, you can’t replace what’s there at this time. They are going to be lost.”

Councilor Pud Colquitt said the city’s growth during the years means people need to accept the consequences. She also said the city is not in a financial position to make whatever choices it wants on the various lighting systems presented by ADOT.

“Things change,” she said. “There are two things we have to keep in mind. It is the responsibility of the city whether we like it or not. It’s an emotional issue we have to come to terms with. This is not a question of how much it’s going to cost but what we can afford.”

Vice Mayor John Bradshaw, serving his last day on the council after resigning to possibly run for mayor in the 2010 election, asked ADOT to consider moving forward with putting in traffic lights at Andante and Airport Road and not go forward with continuous lighting.

“I think this all started with the council wanting a signal light at Andante,” he said. “This has been a disaster. If we could just go back to signal lights at intersections, that would make us all happy and the community happy.”

Vice Mayor Bradshaw’s yes vote was the tie breaker at the Aug. 13 meeting when the council voted to give ADOT the go ahead to put in the lights. At that meeting Councilman Hamilton and Mayor Adams voted against it.

Mayor Adams re-affirmed his opposition to continuous lighting.

“I haven’t heard an overwhelming support for continuous lighting,” he said. “I heard we don’t need the lights because the problem that led to them does not exist. There have been no accidents since the implementation of a speed limit. I heard our businesses can not afford it. I heard about the dark sky compliance criteria. I heard about the impact light poles will have on trees and vegetation. This goes against the will of the majority of the people. It’s not about lights or no lights. It’s about pedestrian safety. Lights were never the solution and I will continue to oppose continuous lighting on 89A.”

Vice-Mayor Bradshaw expressed concern of dire consequences in the next election for the majority should ADOT continue its plans for continuous lighting on 89A.

“I feel if we don’t bend on this issue, we are going to find the face of this council will change [after the election]. We need some wiggle room. The council shouldn’t change because of one issue.”