Resident urges return of emergency call boxes and multilingual river signage in Kern River Canyon

A Wofford Heights resident told the Transportation Planning Policy Committee on Tuesday that the removal of emergency call boxes and the absence of cellular service have created “truly unsafe” conditions in the Kern River Canyon, and urged officials to reinstall call boxes and add multilingual river-safety signs.

Vicky Vega, who said she has been driving the canyon for about 50 years, said the call boxes that once provided specific location numbers for first responders were removed after the spread of cell phones, but that much of the canyon has no cell service. “If someone is injured in an accident, you have to wait until someone reaches one end of the canyon or the other and gets a cell contact so that they can call first responders,” Vega said. She added that the canyon attracts international visitors and recommended signage in several languages beyond English and Spanish.

The committee’s responding official described past legal and financial reasons for removing most call boxes. The official said a lawsuit by an advocacy group representing deaf residents required a TTY (text telephone) retrofit for call boxes, which the speaker said made widespread retention prohibitively expensive; the official also said maintenance and repair costs ran “upwards of $40 to $50,000 a month.” The official said some call boxes were kept in locations without any cell coverage at the time, and that additional loss of a local cell tower in the Erskine Fire further reduced coverage.

Committee members did not adopt a formal action at the meeting, but several members and staff said they would pursue follow-up steps. One committee member said, “Let us see what we can do about that. I don’t know if we can do anything, but we can try.” A public attendee suggested satellite-based systems such as Starlink as a possible option.

The discussion distinguished between the community’s request (reinstall call boxes and expand multilingual signage) and the historical reasons officials gave for removal (accessibility litigation and recurring maintenance costs). No firm timetable, funding source, or vendor was identified at the meeting for replacement infrastructure, and no formal motion was taken.

Committee staff and members said they would seek additional information, including who owns the downed tower and whether providers can be persuaded to restore coverage, and would report back at a later meeting.

Impact and next steps: The committee asked staff to investigate options; staff or members did not describe a formal procurement path, funding source, or schedule at the meeting.