The Latest Stop Sign Debate in Ludington

[XLFD]

As reported by the LDN in today's edition, and the Saturday edition (see below) the Ludington city council spent a lot of time discussing what to do with stop signs at the corner of Washington and Bryant.  Currently, stop signs exist only on Bryant Road and the council was considering adding them to Washington St. too.  Apparently 144 people in the area signed a petition asking for the intersection to be a 4-way stop.  After debate, an abstention, a split vote found for the new stop signs.  They will be installed there contingent on the Mason Co. Road Commission's approval.

 

While it is impressive that 144 citizens of this city signed a petition to install new stop signs for safety at this intersection, I think they have got it wrong.  I think it's likely to be less safe and contrary to guidelines set up by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  Here's how I got there. 

 

A traffic study done at this intersection would likely show that E-W traffic on Bryant is greater than N-S traffic on Washington.  The MUTCD says (2B.05) STOP signs should be used if engineering judgment indicates that there is the intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law. 

 

No other guideline indicates otherwise, thus the two stop signs already there would be better placed on Washington, rather than Bryant, if Bryant's traffic volume is greater.  If you are familiar with this intersection, and its visibility issues, doesn't it make more sense to stop on Washington rather than Bryant? 

 

Perhaps thats a factor in that during a five year period, there has been 6 accidents caused by a failure to yield the right of way.  One a year is not much according to the MUTCD.  In fact, when road commissions follow the MUTCD, they generally don't consider putting in a multi-way stop until you get to 5 accidents per year.  Here's what they say:

 

The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multiway STOP sign installation:

1. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.
2. A crash problem, as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
3. Minimum volumes:
   1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and
   2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour.

A four-way stop is not the panacaea its advocates would think it is.  It would slow traffic down, but there would still be failure to yield accidents.  The best way to prevent those would be to put the stop signs on Washington, as per the US Dept. of Transportation guidelines, and remove the Bryant stop signs. 

 

 

[AQUAMAN]

Well now X, does that not get back to our earlier posts with regard to trimming foiliage and trees in the city limits? By the LDPW? Which has been duly ignored for many a year? You and I have already showed tons of pics. that prove that, all over town. Yeah, we're on the same page alright as usual, just a few paragraphs either ahead or behind one another, on this particular one, 10-4?

[XLFD]

It all is one big vicious cycle of incompetence and apathy for the public safety. And Aq, just so you and others know, the only reason the 4-way stop has not been made into a traffic control order just yet by Traffic Engineer Barnett is because the NE sector (where Northside Market is) is not part of the city of Ludington. Hence this is why the MCRC needs to approve this also. I hope they follow the guidelines and base their decisions on traffic studies, rather than a knee-jerk reaction to a petition. JMHO.

[XLFD]

Coming from the south on Washington, your visibility is vast to the east and west, which may be a reason to even consider just a three-way stop like Washington-Dowland and Dowland-James intersections, with this being the thru way. Coming from the north on Washington, is another matter-- virtually no visibility until the last second-- a stop sign is most warranted here according to guidelines. When stopped at where the stop sign should be you would see this view both ways right now-- unobscured views up both ways:

[AQUAMAN]

Oh, pleeeze, let's not get into the S. Washington Ave./Dowland St. intersection. That is a true fiasco, except for the locals that know about it. You'd be surprised how many going South on Wash. do NOT give yield to the Northbound Wash. traffic in the summer. They think once they've stopped, the guy coming up the hill is supposed to stop too. Many a close accident for me in the heat of summer there. Cause, at best, it's a confusing intersection, esp. for out of townies. But, then, they are confused about alot of other things too.

[AQUAMAN]

Pleeze, X, don't take the pics of the proposed 4-way now, wait till July or August, for all the tourists, to see their reactions, without snow impedage. And the non-stoppers that never stop for any traffic sign completely.

[XLFD]

Agreed, on Washington/Dowland; I come from the south on bicycle or vehicle clearly signalling a left, and have Jaspers pull out from any side, thinking I need to stop. As you say, it seems to be only a problem in warm months.

[AQUAMAN]

That housing area, north of the school woods, north of Bryant, East of Wash., is where I suppose most of the petitioners are from. Used to be sparcely populated, now it's built up pretty well. Plus, the majority of the population north of Bryant on the west side, now have mostly retired, and isn't quite as popular a place to live anymore. Except for the new development, and that too isn't very populated yet either. Since the Northside Market increased it's stature there with alot more groceries, deli, and meat market, it too is a fav. of the locals nearby wanting to avoid the Wal-Mart/Lud. Ave. crowds.

[XLFD]

That area has seen a lot of changes and will see more in the future. I can empathize with the parents who live north of Bryant and have their kids walk to and back from school and other activities that demand a 4-way stop. But what is the harm of doing a traffic study and/or looking at what guidelines to use in making this a truly safer area for all? Ludington Traffic Engineer/LPD Chief Mark Barnett are you too busy disclosing other people's confidential information around to their bosses to actually look into this yourself?

The stop signs on Bryant are used more for temporarily slowing traffic down on Bryant, and that is not a guideline for when to use a stop sign, though many local areas may choose to do so. The petitioners think more stop signs equal more safety, but I bet in confidence that we will find more accidents happen at this intersection in the 5 years after a 4-way stop is agreed to.

[AQUAMAN]

That particular way into and out of town is one of my favs too. If they mess that up with a 4-way stop, I'll probably try to avoid it in the future. Too bad, it really isn't all that busy when I travel it. And, it keeps me off the main drags, where accidents are frequent in the summer months.

[XLFD]

I read the City Council notes the other night and marvelled at the discussion of this intersection. Some councilors proposed to install yield signs on Washington, to go with the Bryant stop signs. Hoo boy, that would be a disaster. Have you ever seen yield and stop signs in tandem like that? There's a good reason for why you don't see that, and the MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices) never even considers such a setup.

The 4-way question really should have stayed in committee, as the committee was deadlocked at 1-1 on what to do there. Never was there any discussion about what the laws or the MUTCD (the traffic engineering standard) suggested, just what they thought might be best. This is the main reason our city is so messed up-- little regard to the rule of law, and the safety/well-being of the citizenry.

[snide]

More stupidity ! Did we really need a sign at the top of the hill north of Dr. Sitler's office....? Here's an idea , don't let your kids play in the street !
Did we really need the stop sign on Monona (how many have ran it.?.)
Did we really need a 3 way stop on James north of the plaza.....? Plus two stops on the plaza where no cars can intersect....? Why don't we get the stoplights in town timed.....? THAT would save everybody money including the city................
Plus the saftey factor, i.e., ....how many people will run these new signs (causing accidents or near misses) because they are not used to the sign being there......? I'd say whoever makes these decisions needs more to do.......

[XLFD]

You're right, snide. When localities decide to throw stop signs up due to trying to slow traffic down or because of irrational public pressure for 'safety', they inevitably can make a bad situation worse if they don't abide by federal guidelines. The answer is 'no' to your first three questions, extra signs were put up to slow local traffic, and goes counter to the general guideline that at a 'T' intersection, you put up a stop sign only at the street where they already have to slow down to turn.

When they created the Plaza, they changed the dynamics of that intersection, but never changed the signs to reflect that change. They still haven't; that place would be more safe with the sign on James, but no signs on Court. They had it reversed until this last summer, when many griped.