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]

Personally, and with their LACK of evidence to support a 4 way poopage/stoppage, just leave the damn thing alone Lud. C.C.. Find something "USEFUL TO DO", create some new industry/jobs, fix our poor/totally deteriorated sidewalks/streets/sewers that are collapsing all over town, cut your extravigant budget, cut salaries of overpaid peons, re-employ the lifeguards for safety at the beach, quit cozying up to foreigners trying to wreck our treasured Lk. Michigan scenery with false claims and bribes, try being townies, though most of you really aren't, and never will be. I like a person/man with an analytical mind, then backs it up with MUTCD evidence. Quite the thread here X, by gosh, by golly, you've done it again Mr. Magoo! Salutes to the fireman again, and again! Sorry, I get a tiny bit carried away with the local stuff at times, cause I just luv Ludville, but, it's getting thinner every year as time goes on.

[Mary A.]

Great post, Aqua.

[Edie Lindsey]

Amen, A-Man.

[Mary A.]

I wonder how many council members bother to do their homework like you do, X.

[XLFD]

Mary, three of the current councilors are former LEOs so they should know better. The guidelines for stop signs are generally common sense rules, further fleshed out by state statutes. They are seemingly overlooked by local officials, who had a dozen dangerously misplaced stop and yield signs (positioned beyond the crosswalk) pointed out to them, and most of them were finally moved last year after months of constant carping by me, thanks to the state DOT. Our traffic engineer, LPD Chief Mark Barnett has never addressed this issue to me, though I've brought it up to him several times. Is he a coward or just a realist who knows his position (do nothing) is contrary to law?

The two remaining of note are the ones at the W corner of William and Loomis, and the one at the S corner of Ludington and Lakeshore. Anybody up to getting a petition going, and getting signatures?

[Edie Lindsey]

Hey X, your best buddy, Shoreline Media Inc. themselves, queried the members at LT about this issue. Lifetime Torch member RJE proffered your solution, which makes damn good sense, and it seems to be taking root. I may have doomed it by telling them you floated the idea.

[XLFD]

RJE probably realized that Edie, that's probably why he didn't. Thanks guys, now more than ever, common sense needs to prevail even when we discuss something as innocuous as stop sign placement. Could save your life, somewhere down the road. (Pardon the pun).

[Willy]

I did not see this topic before I commented on LDN. Although XLFD has given very sound and insightful reasons. I have thought for years that stopping on Bryant and giving Washington traffic the right of way made little sense. There may be times when traffic is heavier than normal at that intersection but there is not enough to warrent a 4 way stop.

[XLFD]

I'm glad I'm not the only looney tune that can independently come to this conclusion, and I have to admit coming to that same conclusion everytime I travel on Bryant. As of now, you could stop at Bryant and start up without seeing traffic coming from the north, coming at 25-35 mph, that may just hit you. If that traffic stopped they could easily see up Bryant both ways, and proceed when safe.

[AQUAMAN]

Only trouble with this situation is this: 1) about 100+ employees of the Foundry are usually travelling N-S on Washington to or from work day to day, 2) same with the school kids/parents/buses during the school year, 3) how about the other 100's of employees working at Dow and downtown and elsewhere, 4) Bryant is pretty exempt of traffic, much more so than Washington, most of the day, and most of the year, 5) how many townies, like me driving that for 40+ years, are now going to automatically remember to stop on Washington Ave. without forgetting and having a needless accident there, due to being programmed for over 40 years to do 35mph on that straitaway Washington? Bottom line: there isn't enuf evidence to support the change is required, petitioners need to start petitioning the City Council for alot of other priorities than this imho, as I listed already. Sorry, I must agree to disagree with some friends here. JMO

[XLFD]

Aquaman, your dissent only makes me like you more, for you are a serious thinker, and a worthy debater. The first three instances you mentioned are valid-- but remember a change in the orientation of the stop signs from E-W on Bryant to N-S on Washington will still affect all travellers going to and from work/school in the area, but at the opposite point in the day-- you will still stop once. As for 5), the townies will just have to be notified and pay attention for the first couple months until they are re-programmed.

4) is debatable-- I think Bryant might be more travelled, that's where the traffic study would come into play. Even if it is fairly close for traffic amounts, the study would likely find a greater number of Washington Street drivers turn onto Bryant, and thus need to slow down for a turn anyway; whereas a greater percentage of Bryant travelers planned to go straight-- and that number would likely increase if the stop sign wasn't there.

Totally agree, that the priorities of this city and its motor-pedestrian traffic are misguided. But I've read all the material on this intersection by the paper and the council, and have found nobody besides myself looking at the actual guidelines that should be followed, just their gut instincts.

[XLFD]

Here's another problem I see with the status quo-- and a main reason why I think the citizens petitioned. When you come from the West on Bryant and stop at the sign, you look to the south and see this:

You then look to the North and see this:

During the summer the view south is not so bad, however the view north is just as bad as it is now due to foliage. If you stop fully, and then proceed you could easily find yourself T-boned by a vehicle from the north just out of your sight range.