Just west of Scottville in Amber Township lies a north-south path called Gordon Road.  The stretch of that road that lies just south of the US 10/31 highway has a railroad overpass about midway between the highway and First Street.  You've probably seen it before and went under the railroad tracks if you've been here for any amount of time.  If not, prepare for a virtual tour where we start from the highway heading south after turning onto Gordon.  If you haven't driven there lately, you may see something unfamiliar in the picture below.

You'll notice more signs than you may remember.  The stop ahead sign seems out of place since the stop sign at First Street is still a ways away.  The second sign indicating a narrow bridge and a reduction of speed to 25 mph is another recent add.  Once you start going downhill after these signs, you see the driveways and just beyond the driveways a freshly planted stop sign placed modestly to the north of the overpass, positioned past two private driveways in the foreground.

Those who come from the other side turning down Gordon off First Street heading north, you see the same set up, the three new signs that were added on the other side:

The new stop sign on this side has a flag to indicate its newness, one can also see one of the two driveways on the opposite side:

This may seem very weird if you're used to seeing stop signs only at places where two roads/streets/drives intersect.  The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the bible for street and traffic engineers as it gives guidance and explains warrants for erecting various signs and other traffic control devices.  Is there any guidance for putting a stop sign at such an overpass?

Instead of presenting the whole manual, Dearborn's Warrants for Traffic Control Devices defines a "warrant" for any traffic control device (sign, signal or pavement marking) is the minimum criteria that must be met before such a device can be installed:

STOP SIGNS have their own set of criteria:


1) Intersection of a less important road with a main road where the normal right-of-way rule is unduly hazardous,
2) Street entering a through highway or street,
3) Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area, or
4) Other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted view, and
serious crash record indicates a need for control by the Stop sign

It continues:  Prior to the application of these Stop sign warrants, consideration should be given to less restrictive measures, such as a Yield sign. In addition to being warranted, regulatory signs (Stop, Speed Limits, Parking, etc.) must also have an official Traffic Control Order signed by the authoritative body and filed with the local clerk to be enforceable.

Stop signs are meant strictly for intersections as the warrants indicate and the complete section on stop signs in the MUTCD indicate.  The signs used in this instance seems to be placed to provide the two nearby driveways an additional measure of apparent safety, but if any stop signs were ever placed in this area, it would need to be at the end of the driveways-- and that's rather superfluous.

If these stop signs were used to control speed, they only make things more dangerous as noted by the MUTCD and more succinctly by the Dearborn link:

The limited amount of traffic I observed while taking the above pictures verify those observations.  Few vehicles stopped completely, most varied speeds erratically making the situation more dangerous for all. Vehicles on both sides can see whether traffic is coming from the other way and should be able to understand that it's problematical that the width under the bridge can accommodate two vehicles.  This is why you didn't have accidents there before the new signs.  

So with all of this data seeming to contradict the placement of these new signs, I wrote the Amber County Superintendent Jim Gallie to find out what the thought and political processes behind this was.  The record showed that the topic of Gordon Road safety issues came up in the August meeting of the Amber Twp. Board, it also showed that the Mason County Road Commission (MCRC) has also looked into the matter on August 12th:

... and approved the unwarranted stop signs unanimously.  Here was my reply from Mr. Gallie:

"... the residents living north of the railroad underpass, requested something be done to reduce the speed of traffic traveling Gordon Road, at this location. In addition, it is a narrow roadway that allows only one vehicle at a time to pass safely underneath the railroad. Also, two driveways on the north side of the railroad have limited visibility to the south, and a hill that impairs visibility to the north.
MSP Tpr. A. Avery of Traffic Safety, was contacted, and he indicated that the speed limit wouldn't be changed, but the County Road Commission has the authority to install traffic safety devices within
the county. He also suggested contacting the local law enforcement agency to advise them of the issue. Sheriff Kim Cole took a look at this location. He indicated that it is a traffic safety issue. The
Mason County Road Commission addressed this issue and voted to have stop signs placed at this location in order to make it safer.

The MCRC conducted a speed/traffic study at this location prior to installing the stop signs. I hope this information will help you with your inquiry. James Gallie, Amber Twp. Supervisor."

All officials involved in this move seem to believe that using stop signs at non-intersections as speed controls was the way to proceed, when that is totally against the warrants and real traffic safety.  I look forward to eventually seeing this speed/traffic study conducted by the MCRC which supposedly justified the move.  Additionally, the latest posted  meeting minutes of Amber Twp indicates that there has been no traffic control order passed for these stop and stop ahead signs by the local authority, meaning that they are unenforceable at this point as they are presently illegitimate. 

A crazy coincidence.  The owner of one of the driveways is Dan Rodhe and his wife Amber Township Clerk Theresa Rodhe (she signed the minutes above).   Dan is also the Mason County Drain Commissioner.  

Views: 307

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Everyone was in favor of a paved road would imagine and now are in favor putting back the slower speed to when it was a graveled road.   Sometime we wish for things not knowing what will change..  They would have all got used to their road being paved but just liked it the way it was nice and slow.  

This situation should be treated like a narrow bridge. Problem solved.

Perfect solution, though I would put the sign further away, like at the top of the hill on this side, and perhaps add a "yield to oncoming traffic" on the opposite side so that in the very rare case where two vehicles would pass each other near the bridge, the one traveling the least traveled side would have a duty to yield.  Right now, the two vehicles would stop and they might just try to go through at the same time, likely losing some paint and a mirror on their driver's sides.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service