Archives

Spotsylvania News

Jeff Branscome writes about Spotsylvania County.

Share
RSS feed of this blog

New Traffic Light for Safety

The county plans to finish on May 21 the new traffic signal at the intersection of Harrison/Kingswood/Beauclaire.  This is the second 2005 bond referendum project completed for the major secondary roads listed.

 

The County’s PPTA Design-Build Team, Spotsylvania County Infrastructure (SCI), is comprised of Shirley Contracting Company, English Construction Company and Dewberry engineers.  The scope of the intersection project includes adding turning lanes on the side streets of Kingswood Blvd. and Beauclaire Blvd., and installing a new traffic signal.

 

Heavy traffic volumes on Harrison Road made turning into and out of the subdivisions difficult, making this one of the county’s "High Accident Locations."  The project is fully funded from the 2006 bond issuance approved by the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors.  All of the work was done within the existing right of way, with the total construction and utility work adding up to just under $500,000.

Post tags: |

Permalink: http://news.fredericksburg.com/spotsygovt/2009/05/15/new-traffic-light-for-safety/

  • lgross

    Here’s another example of how growth imposes costs…..

    500K for a traffic signal… who should pay?

    should the folks in those subdivisions pay – a pro rata share?

    or is this a cost that all taxpayers should pay – not matter how much growth we have and how many new
    500K traffic signals are needed?

    If you were going to calculate the transportation part of a proffer – say for a subdivision that would need
    a traffic signal – what would it be?

    If you have say 500 homes is that subdivision then each home could be assessed $1000 ?

    that’s a question ….. is it fair to charge the people in a new subdivision for a traffic signal?

    or should that cost be absorbed by all taxpayers (as this one was via referendum)?

    what if you had instead of one 500 home subdivision… several subdivisions.. that when combined
    traffic-wise …would add up to 500 homes and a traffic signal needed?

    How should that cost be allocated?

    anyone have any thoughts on this?

  • southwest

    There is no question that growth has a cost associated with it. However, these two sibdivisions are located exactly where they should be, within the primary settlement area. I’m sure over the years the residents that live within these two subdivisions have paid their share of county taxes that more than paid for the cost of the traffic signal. I firmly believe that all who live within a society should share in the cost of making that society/community a better place to live. I don’t have school age children, yet my taxes go towards the education of someone else’s child, and yes I’m more than gold to be able to say that I support that “responsibilty.” Good job Spotsylvania County, you did what the taxpayers said they where willing to pay for in the 2005 bond referandum. Hopefully the must needed light will prevent accidents and save lifes “regardless of who pays.” And if that happens as a taxpayers who doesn’t live in either subdivision I’m more than willing to pay my share…..

  • lgross

    I agree that the two subdivisions are in the
    primary growth area but does that mean that
    everyone in the county including those that are
    not in the growth area are to pay taxes to
    provide signals for those who live int he growth
    area when folks in other parts of the county also
    have road needs?

    or should all those who are in the primary
    settlement areas pay for those improvements
    rather than the folks who live out in the county –
    many on unpaved and substandard roads that
    also need upgrading?

    Would you expect the folks that live in these two
    subdivisions that are getting their signal to pay
    for signals for other subdivisions in the future ?

    What I was pointing out was that a 500K traffic
    signal is not cheap… and a good way to
    appreciate it.. is to look at it on a share cost
    basis.

    The folks in Hunter Lodge just agreed (April 14)
    to have their subdivision paved and accepted
    into the state system on a cost-share basis that
    amounted to about 10K per lot..

    http://tinyurl.com/poqdhv

    would you want all taxpayers to pay for these
    kinds of situations?

    If Hunter’s Lodge said they wanted a traffic
    signal .. would the rest of us pay?

    I’m asking Devils’ Advocate type questions here
    - rather than advocating one direction or the
    other except to point out that road infrastructure
    is pretty expensive and the county is going to be
    picking up more and more of the road costs for
    the foreseeable future.

    Do you think that things like this should be
    included in the proffers for new development or
    that taxpayers should pick up the cost?

  • thelama

    Larry,

    Don’t we all sometimes pay taxes for things that don’t directly benefit us? Some people don’t use FRES, but they still pay for the benefit. Likewise with schools, or the sheriff. We even pay for things we vehemently disagree with – such as the misguided war in Iraq. Isn’t that just the price we pay to live in this country?

  • lgross

    we do. I pay thousands of dollars a year for
    schools that I don’t use and libraries that I don’t
    use… but I consider both reasonable
    investments.

    but we need to separate out operational costs
    and capital costs….

    for instance, water&sewer has hookup-fees and
    monthly use fees but we do not charge citizens in
    the county who are not hooked up to
    water/sewer.

    We charge the folks who are hooked up to it for
    it and … we offer those with unpaved roads the
    deal that was offered to Hunter’s Lodge residents
    - 10K per home to have their road brought up to
    state standards and taken over by the state for
    maintenance.

    New development also has to pay proffers – for
    schools, libraries, fire and rescue AND… traffic
    signals and accel/deccel lanes…

    we COULD say that they don’t have to pay and
    do away with the proffers.

    so how does that fit into your idea that we all
    should pay even if we don’t use?

    Should all citizens pay for new infrastructure -that
    is specific to the subdivisions that need it?

    yes or not? … or explain further.

  • lgross

    If we do …”sometimes” then what was the limit
    growth to 2% deal all about?

    Wasn’t it about the fact that growth imposes
    costs – both dollars and quality of life if it does
    not fully mitigate it’s impacts?

    Isn’t that the idea behind requiring proffers for
    new growth?

*/