What the Road Commission says, and what we say back
We’re not going to caricature their case. Here it is, in their words, with our answer under each one. Everything we cite is their own document.
They’re right that lane-departure crashes are the county’s most serious problem, and right that fatal and serious crashes here run above the state average. We’re not disputing either.
What we dispute is what the money buys. In their own presentation, centerline rumble strips are credited with a 55% crash reduction and shoulder rumble strips with about 20% — and centerline rumble strips are going onto all 130 miles of this project regardless of what happens to a single tree.
At the County Board hearing, Chairperson Jen Strebs asked the county engineer directly why so much money was going to tree removal when rumble strips are less expensive and more effective. The minutes record his answer: the improvement percentage shown “was a combination of all the added safety measures.” That is not an answer to the question she asked.
They already wrote the rules. Read them.
Their Roadside Vegetation Management Policy. Adopted 1989, amended three times since. It is the agency’s own standing statement of how it manages vegetation in the right-of-way. Read it beside a 130-mile clear-cut and decide for yourself whether one describes the other.
Their Natural Beauty Road guidelines. The Road Commission maintains a program for roads designated for their natural beauty, and has designated four of them. So the agency’s own written position is that the appearance of a Kalamazoo County road is a thing worth protecting. It is simply not applying that position here.
To be clear about what this is and isn’t: the Natural Beauty Roads program covers county local roads, and it does not legally restrict maintenance by the agency with jurisdiction. We are not claiming it binds them. We are pointing out that they wrote it.
Talking to a neighbor who thinks the trees are dangerous
You will have this conversation. It usually goes badly, because the other person is arguing safety and it feels rude to argue back about trees. So don’t argue about trees.
Agree first, and mean it. “You’re right that people have died on these roads.” They have. Say so.
Then move to the same ground they’re on. “That’s why I want the rumble strips. Their own numbers put centerline strips at a 55% crash reduction, and those are going in on all 130 miles no matter what happens to a single tree.”
Then the one fact. “On these eleven roads, over five years, their own action plan found three serious or fatal crashes involving trees. The chairperson of the County Board asked them about it on the record.”
Then stop. Ask what they think. You are not trying to win the conversation — you are trying to be someone they can talk to again next week.
What not to do: don’t call it a clear-cut in the first sentence, don’t bring up the money, and don’t get into who owns the trees. And if someone is angry, “thank you for telling me” ends it better than anything else you could say.
“More people have drowned in Lake Michigan. We are not draining Lake Michigan.”
What we’re actually asking for
Not “do nothing.” A different program, using their own money and their own numbers:
- Rumble strips on all 130 miles. Already funded, already planned, 55% crash reduction by their own figure. Do that first and measure it.
- Remove the trees that are actually dangerous — dead, dying, leaning, or inside a documented crash location — instead of everything within a formula.
- Curve signage, delineation, and edge lines where the crash record points to curves.
- Segment-by-segment justification. If a stretch has no crash history, no widening and no drainage work, explain why the trees on it are coming down.
- Publish the list, and let someone independent check it.
Every one of those alternatives is in the Road Commission’s own presentation. If you think that is worth them explaining in public, the next chance is Tuesday.
I'll be there September 8