Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.A.1. Traffic Control Request at Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive Intersection 13. It. L CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Traffic Control for Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive Intersection DATE: April 6, 2010 INTRODUCTION: The City Council is asked to consider a neighborhood request for 4-way stop signs to be installed at Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive. BACKGROUND: The intersection of Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive was studied in 2008, as initiated by staff, and during the process a petition was received by residents by this intersection for a 4-way stop sign placement. Counts were taken in August, 2008 and the study presented to the City Council on November 3, 2008. From the meeting, Council directed further study on the traffic volumes and to get accurate pedestrian counts during the school year. The additional traffic counts were completed in November, 2008. Before presenting the November 2008 study to Council, staff had recommended the establishment of the TSRC, which was done on March 3, 2009. The first meeting was held on June 25, 2009 and the Committee's recommendation was as follows: 1. No stop signs were warranted at that time 2. Crosswalk signs should be installed for the sidewalk crossing at the east leg of Thrush Street 3. A 30 M.P.H. speed limit sign would be placed on westbound Thrush Street, from Independence Drive. 4. Increase police enforcement of the area. This recommendation was taken to the July 21, 2009 City Council meeting and was approved at that meeting. Attached is the Council memo and attachments, including an e-mail from neighborhood resident Tim Holzhueter stating their opposition of 2-way stop signs on Cardinal Drive. Since that time, two accidents have occurred with one on January 9, 2010 and one on February 16, 2010. Both of these accidents involved a southbound Cardinal Drive vehicle and an eastbound Thrush Street vehicle. After these accidents, Nicole Clough did request to be on the Council agenda to discuss stop signs at this intersection. Staff informed Ms. Clough that the city has a traffic safety review committee, and that they were scheduled to meet on March 4,2010. At that TSRC meeting, seven residents attended the meeting to discuss their concerns and to go over the City's Stop Sign Policy. The TSRC is made up of Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Mike Hullander, Public Works Superintendent; Brian Clark, Police Officer; and Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer. The Committee is assisted by Chuck Rickart, Traffic Engineer with WSB & Associates and Jeff Evens, Engineering Technician IV. After much discussion, the TSRC has the following recommendations: 1. Schedule this item for the April 6, 2010 City Council meeting 2. For staff to recount the traffic volumes and pedestrians crossing counts prior to the April 6th meeting and to see if there are changes. 3. Install stop signs on Cardinal Drive based on the information available in that the two way stop warrants are almost met for traffic volume and accidents, Thrush Street is the major street, as both accidents in 2010 are the type that can be corrected by right-of-way control. The majority of vehicles on Cardinal Drive are turning to get on Thrush Street. The main concerns from the residents at the meeting are the increased speed on Thrush Street and safety of children at the bus stop and crossing Thrush Street. In past studies, the speeds near the intersection were 23 to 24 M.P.H. with vehicles gaining speed after the intersection. The Police Department has done speed checks along Thrush Street and most of the vehicles were not in violation. These speed checks were done with both marked and unmarked police vehicles. The police have taken additional speed count information this past week and will have the results available at the council meeting. In regard to controlled speed, placing stop signs are not recommended, as speeds usually increase after 200 feet of the intersection, drivers develop disrespect of signs and high non-compliance takes place. A false sense of security is created for pedestrians, who assume that all vehicles will obey the stop signs. It is true that vehicles within 200 feet will go slower as a result of the stop signs. However, studies indicate unless warranted, stop signs will be disrespected and speeds may actually increase beyond the intersection, as drivers will seek to make up for lost time caused by the perceived unnecessary stop. Attached to this memo is the latest traffic counts and warrant analysis from the City's Stop Sign Policy. In reviewing the warrant analysis for a 2-way stop sign and a 4-way stop sign, the 2-way stop sign warrants for traffic volume is nearly met and the accident criteria would be met with one more accident. The traffic volume is such that it meets the two way criteria much closer than multi-way stop criteria. The TSRC is recommending stop signs to be placed on Cardinal Drive, based on the criteria being nearly met and due to both recent accidents could have been corrected by stop signs on Cardinal Drive. The TSRC would recommend the following be authorized: 1. 2-way Stop signs on Cardinal Drive 2. Crosswalk striping on east leg of Thrush Street Staff will make a presentation of the data at the Council meeting. The residents desire to address the Council with their concerns. A summary of attachments for this item are as follows: 1. July 21, 2009 Council memo with email from resident stating opposition to 2-way stop signs on Cardinal Drive 2. Memo from Jeff Evens on March, 2010 traffic counts with warrant analysis 3. Overall map with proposed recommendations 4. Bus stop location map 5. Affected speed zone map if Multi-way stop signs are installed 6. Multi-way stop sign research report 7. Sign-up sheet from March 4,2010 TSRC meeting ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a motion approving the following recommendations from the TSRC: . 2-way stop signs on Cardinal Drive . Crosswalk striping on eastleg of Thrush Street 2. Approve a motion directing staff to place stop signs and markings as recommended and/or as modified by City Council. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No.1. ACTION REOUESTED: Approve a motion approving the following recommendations from the TSRC: . Insta1l2-way stop signs on Cardinal Drive . Crosswalk striping on east leg of Thrush Street ~Lo~ Public Works Director ENGR/2010-PROJECTS/2010-COUNCnJ1NTERSECTION-CARDlNAL-THRUSH CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 2008 Traffic Study Update for the Intersections of Cardinal Drive and Thrush Street and Omega Drive and Thrush Street DATE: July 21,2009 INTRODUCTION: At the November 3, 2008 City Council meeting, traffic studies were presented to the City Council for their review and approval. Two of the studies at the intersection of Cardinal Drive and Thrush Street and Omega Drive and Thrush Street were reviewed and further study was directed by the City Council. The main purpose of further study was to redo the traffic volumes and get accurate counts on pedestrian traffic. Attached to this memo is the study update for these intersections. BACKGROUND: From the November 3, 2008 City Council meeting, City staff did recount the traffic volumes in the intersections mentioned previously and did count pedestrian movements at the time from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and from 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. Staff also did recount the traffic volumes in this area and did review the method of counting traffic so that traffic was not double counted that was going through the intersection. The results of this further study is as follows and as shown on attached memo from Dale Gade, Graduate Engineer: Cardinal Drive and Thrush Street Au!!ust November Cardinal Drive 1170ADT 614 ADT Thrush Street 1496 ADT 992 ADT Omella Drive & Thrush Street Omega Drive 1188 ADT 329 ADT Thrush Street 1729 ADT 736 ADT Intersection of Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive From further study done, the traffic volumes are such that the main street, being Thrush Street, does not meet the requirements for consideration of an all-way stop intersection. The traffic volume is very close to meeting a two-way stop sign warrant and also the amount of pedestrian counted in the peak hours, previously mentioned, were above the threshold due to this being a major bus stop location. As part of this update study, staff did review the traffic information with the newly found Traffic Safety Review Committee along with Traffic Consultant, Chuck Rickart of WSB & Associates, Inc. The Committee's review had the following recommendations: 1. No stop signs are warranted at this time. 2. Crosswalk signs should be installed for the sidewalk crossing at the east leg of Thrush Street. 3. A 30 m.p.h. speed limit to be placed on westbound Thrush Street, from Independence Drive. 4. Increase police enforcement of the area. Attached also for Council's review is an e-mail from the resident who organized the petition and their recommendations. Intersection of Thrush Street and Omella Drive At this intersection, the traffic volumes are lower than what was previously measured due to recounting and the pedestrian counts do not meet any of the warrants. On the basis of this further study, the warrants for an all-way stop are not met. Currently a two-way stop does exist on Omega Drive and staff has prepared a drawing with the signage and striping improvements that could be made in this area to facilitate traffic and pedestrian movements. The Traffic Safety Review Committee reviewed this intersection on June 25, 2009. From this meeting, the Committee along with Janelle Swanson who resides at Omega Drive and Thrush Street had the following recommendations: 1. Install a 30 m.p.h. speed limit sign on eastbound Thrush Street, between Independence Drive and Omega Drive. 2. Place "Cross Street Does Not Stop" signs on existing stop signs on Omega Drive. 3. Consider the construction of a sidewalk on the north side of Thrush Street, from Independence Drive to Omega Drive. 4. Increase police enforcement of the area. This would conclude our study on these two intersections and staff would ask that Council review and approve the signage and marking improvements as identified. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Approve a motion directing staff to install the signs, as recommended in the memo and report for the intersections at Cardinal Drive and Thrush Street and Omega Drive and Thrush Street. 2. Approve a motion directing staff to install stop signs and markings, as recommended and/or as modified by the City Council. 3. Approve a motion providing direction to staff on a sidewalk connection on the north side of Thrush Street, from Independence Drive to Omega Drive. 4. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend Alternative No.1 and No.3, to place signage improvements to the intersections as identified on the drawings attached to this memo. Also, direction is needed on a sidewalk connection on the north side of Thrush Street, from Independence Drive to Omega Drive. ACTION REOUESTED: 1. Approve a motion directing staff to install the signs, as recommended in the memo and report for the intersections at Cardinal Drive and Thrush Street and Omega Drive and Thrush Street. 2. Approve a motion providing direction to staff on a sidewalk connection on the north side of Thrush Street, from Independence Drive to Omega Drive. b~'P.E. Public Works Director BUpmp ENGR/2009-PROJECTS-2009-COUNCII/fHRUSH-STREET-STUDY ~ CITY OF SHAKOPEE DATE PREPARED: SHAKOJPJE]E Turning Movement/Ped Count 11-24-08 Ctl8mNn'Yl'IlIIESIN:ll1lll7 w (fJ > 0:::: 0 NORTH .-J 10 I \7 I 134 I <( z 0 0:::: 7AM - 9AM <( J . " u @] .JI -- [0 [ill ..... +- [ill CO -- ~ OTI THRUSH STREET '\ t f 15 Peds 13 I 113 I I 47 I Volume Observed at Intersection: 221 North - 18.6% Cardinal Drive = 104 East - 20.8% Thrush Street = 117 South - 28.5% West - 32.1% INTERSECTION CARDINAL DRIVE & THRUSH STREET SHAKOPEE FROM 11 5 08 TO 11 7 08 SOURCE Traffic Counts ~ CITY OF SHAKOPEE DA TE PREPARED: SHAKOJPlEE Turning Movement/Ped Count 11-24-08 Ctl8mNn'Yl'IlIIESlla1lll7 w (fJ > 0:::: 0 NORTH .-J 13 I 119 I 114 I <( z 0 0:::: 3PM - 5PM <( J l \t u [2] ~ "- [}D QIJ ..... +- @] CD -- ". ~ THRUSH STREET '\ t f 24 Peds 13 I 112 I I 28 I Volume Observed at Intersection: 231 North - 15.6% Cardinal Drive = 79 East - 48.5% Thrush Street = 152 South - 18.6% West - 17.3% INTERSECTION CARDINAL DRIVE & THRUSH STREET SHAKOPEE FROM 11 5 08 TO 11 7 08 SOURCE Traffic Counts ,...---~.__.._' i i Bruce Loney From: Tim Holzhueter [tholzhueter@cseced.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 23,20099:57 AM To: Bruce Loney; Elisa Holzhueter Cc: Brian Clark; Mike Hullander; Mark McNeill Subject: Re: Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive Thanks for the information Bruce, We can't attend the meeting, but we just want you to remember that we are NOT in favor of a two-way stop sign on Cardinal. We need a 4-way stop or a 2-way stop on Thrush at our intersection. Our last choice would be doing nothing & leaving it uncontrolled. There are no sidewalks on the westward stretch of Thrush and the street is filled with kids under the age of 10. It would be a nightmare for the young families in our neighborhood if you put up stop signs on Cardinal and not on Thrush, essentially giving all of the thru traffic on Thrush a license to speed up their runs down our street. In my driveway/front yard alone (the first house east of the intersection, I often have 6 to 10 kids playing. It really scares all of us that you were considering putting just a 2-way on Cardinal in at our intersection. The stop sign criteria that the city is using is not sufficient in addressing the needs of all of Shakopee's young, suburb- type neighborhoods. The last thing 95% of the families in the new neighborhoods want is traffic flow. There are just too many young children and roads without sidewalks to sight "traffic flow" as a reason not to be using 4-way stop signs. I hope that your new committee discusses the fact that the safety of kids in neighborhoods around the studied intersections needs to play into these stop sign decisions. Thanks - Please let me know what you decide, Tim Tim Holzhueter Carver-Scott Educational Cooperative District 930 401 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 (952) 368-8859 tholzhueter@cseced.orC! >>> "Bruce Loney" <BLoney@ci.shakopee.mn.us> 6/8/2009 3:39 PM >>> Mr. and Mrs. Holzhueter, it has been awhile since we last communicated about the above referenced intersection and I want to inform you of what the city has done since last year. We have now formed a traffic safety review committee that is comprise of the City Administrator, Police Officer, Public Works Superintendent and the City Engineer. We will be meeting on June 25, 2009 to discuss the intersection studies done last year and the additional counts taken last year as well as other traffic related issues in the city. This committee was formed so residents can voice their concerns on traffic safety issues with the committee. This email is to invite you or other representatives to discuss the intersection study at the June 25th meeting. We do meet in the afternoon from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm. Please let me know if this time and date works for you or other representatives of the neighborhood. Bruce Loney Public Works Director office no.: 952-233-9361 mobile no.: 612-369-7488 1 Jl''9 1 Interoffice Memo To: Bruce Loney From: Jeff Evens RE: Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive - Traffic Counts 3/29/2010 Staff conducted a warrant analysis in March 2010 to possibly upgrade or modify the intersection of Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive to a two-way or all-way stop control operation. Traffic movements at this intersection are currently un-controlled, meaning there are no stop signs on any of the four legs of the intersection. Background In 2008 staff conducted a warrant analysis which collected traffic volumes and speed at this intersection. The average daily traffic volumes (ADT) at the intersection were 992 on Thrush. Street and 614 on Cardinal Drive. The 85th percentile speed approaching Thrush Street from the east was measured at 28 MPH and from the west was 27 MPH. The 85th percentile speed approaching Cardinal Drive from the north was measured at 23 MPH and from the south was 20 MPH. The speeds average 25 MPH at the intersection. In 2010 staff conducted a warrant analysis which collected traffic volumes and speed at this intersection. The average daily traffic volumes (ADT) at the intersection are 960 on Thrush Street and 599 on Cardinal Drive. The 85th percentile speed approaching Thrush Street from the east was measured at 24 MPH and from the west was 23 MPH. The 85th percentile speed approaching Cardinal Drive was not collected due to field observations and the close comparisons between 2008 and 2010 ADT's. 2008 2010 Notes Thrush Street ADT 992 960 Cardinal Drive ADT 614 599 Average speed at 25 MPH 24 MPH intersection Pedestrians on Minor *Unknown 4 24 on all legs leg peak hour between 3-5 PM Pedestrians on Major *Unknown 14 24 on all legs leg peak hour between 3-5 PM Bus Stops A bus stop is located at the southeast comer of Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive. Five (5) bus stops times were identified by the busing company, 7: 10 A.M., 8:05 A.M., 2:50 P.M., 3:00 P.M., and 3:23 P.M. Staff observed all of these bus stop times in the field during the week of March 15-19,2010. The amount of students at the bus stop ranged for (0) zero to (13) thirteen. The peak bus stop activity was at 8:04 A.M. and 3:23 P.M. 13 students were observed at these bus stops times with 5 to 7 crossing the intersection with the remainder walking on the sidewalk, roadway or lawn areas adjacent to the curb. All buses observed in the A.M. and P.M. were traveling north on Cardinal Drive. There are other bus stops in the close proximity of this intersection with the closest one just south of this intersection located at Cardinal Drive and Williams Street and another on Mathias Road at the west loop of Cardinal Drive. <]123 2008 counts ..... 123 2010 counts . 235 239 V I 960ADT I 240 THRUSH STREET T ..... 281 ..... 625 <]686 306 [> 335 ~ 580 ~ . ~ 359 ~J..... 320 D CQ ~~ T 379 ~O\ ~~ )( (3 J SHAKOPEE ~ MINNESOTA , Co;! THRUSH STREET &- CARDINAL DRIVE DAlE: MARCH 2010 DRAWING No. COUNTS BY: JTE A --- AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC SHAKOPEE ENGINEERING DEPAJmAENT March 30, 2010 Does the Intersection of Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive Meet the Warrant for a Two- Wav Stop Si~n? A stop sign is warranted if two of the following four conditions exist: (Conditions are from the Shakopee Signing Manu~l, October 26, 1998 which includes the January 19,2010 revisions) 1.) If the major street traffic volume approaching the intersection for each leg adds up to more than 1,000 vehicles per day and the minor street traffic volume is less than 50% of the major street traffic volume (500 - 750 vehicles per day). Thrush Street has an ADT of 960 and Cardinal Drive has an ADT of 599. This intersection does not meet the traffic volume requirement. 2.) There have been more than two reported crashes, per year in the previous two years or, three reported crashes in the previous year of a type correctable with stop sign installation. The intersection of Thrush Street & Cardinal Drive had two (2) reported accidents in the previous years, (0) reported accidents in 2008, (0) in 2009, and (2) in 2010. The intersection does not meet the accident requirement. The reported accident potentially may have been correctable by a stop sign. 3.) The pedestrian volumes across the minor approach (that which would be stopping) is more than 15 pedestrians per hour during peak traffic hours. The intersection of Thrush Street & Cardinal Drive does not meet the pedestrian volume requirement. 4 pedestrians were observed crossing the minor approach (Cardinal Drive) and 14 pedestrians were observed crossing the major approach (Thrush Street) during the A.M. peak hour. 4 pedestrians were observed crossing the minor approach (Cardinal Drive) and 3 pedestrians were observed crossing the major approach (Thrush Street) during the P.M. peak hour. 4.) If the safe stopping sight distance of the minor approach is restricted by less than 100 feet by horizontal and/or vertical roadway alignment or by other permanent obstructions. Sight distance is not a concern at this intersection. The intersection does not meet the sight distance requirement. Does the Intersection of Thrush Street and Cardinal Drive Meet the Warrant for an All Wav Stop? A stop sign is warranted if three of the following five conditions exist: (Conditions are from the Shakopee Signing Manual, October 26, 1998 which includes the January 19,2010 revisions) 1.) If the major street traffic volume approaching the intersection for each leg adds up to more than 1,500 vehicles per day and the minor street traffic volume approaches the intersection for each leg adds up to be greater than 750 vehicles per day. Thrush Street has an ADT of 960 and Cardinal Drive has an ADT of 599. This intersection does not meet the traffic volume requirement. 2.) There have been more than two reported crashes, per year in the previous two years or, three reported crashes in the previous years of a type correctable with stop sign installation. The intersection of Thrush Street & Cardinal Drive had two (2) reported accidents in the previous years, (0) reported accidents in 2008, (0) in 2009, and (2) in 2010. The intersection does not meet the accident requirement. 3.) If the pedestrian volumes crossing any approach is more than 15 pedestrians per during peak traffic hours. The intersection of Thrush Street & Cardinal Drive does not meet the pedestrian volume requirement. 4 pedestrians were observed crossing the minor approach (Cardinal Drive) and 14 pedestrians were observed crossing the major approach (Thrush Street) during the A.M. peak hour. 4 pedestrians were observed crossing the minor approach (Cardinal Drive) and 3 pedestrians were observed crossing the major approach (Thrush Street) during the P.M. peak hour. 4.) If the safe stopping sight distance on the uncontrolled approach is restricted by less than 100 feet by horizontal and/or vertical roadway alignment or other permanent obstructions. Sight distance is not a concern at this intersection. The intersection does not meet the sight distance requirement. 5.) If the 85th percentile speed in the intersection is greater than 35mph and highest reported speed with two or more observations greater than 45mph. The 85th percentile speed approaching Thrush Street from the east was measured at 24 MPH and from the west was 23 MPH. The 85th percentile speed approaching Cardinal Drive was not collected due to field observations and the close comparisons between 2008 and 2010 ADT's. In 2008 the 85th percentile speed approaching Cardinal Drive from the north was measured at 23 MPH and from the south was 20 MPH. The speeds average 25 MPH. There were zero (0) reported speeds greater than 45 mph. The intersection does not meet the speed requirement. _l--- __. ,_ __. ___ _ _._ __no __ __' -__ ~ __ _ __. __.- _-,__ - -- -..- - _.-- --- -- -- - - - " .- PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS *' .. ., "" THRUSH STREET 'PROPOSED SIGNS kill'<< it I 50 0 50 ~ I SCALE 1 I I I ... \,. , .if SHEET NO. ..~ CARDINAL DRIVE & THRUSH STREET 2 SHAKolP'JRE PROPOSED CtI.IW:IIft~ ----- I I I I I i 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I ! I I 1 I \ \ I Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct! W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E.(M) Abstract This paper reviewed over 70 technical papers covering all-way stops (or multi-way stops) and their success and failure as traffic control devices in residential areas. This study is the most comprehensive found on multi-way stop signs The study looked at how multi-way stop signs have been used as traffic calming measures to control speed. There have been 23 hypotheses studied using multi-way stop as speed contro/. The research found an additional 9 hypotheses studied showing the effect multi way stops have on other traffic engineering problems. The research found that, overwhelmingly, multi-way stop signs do NOT control speed except under very limited conditions. The research shows that the concerns about unwarranted stop signs are well founded. Introduction Many elected officials, citizens and some traffic engineering professionals feel that multi-way stop signs should be used as traffic calming devices. Many times unwarranted stop signs are installed to control traffic. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)(l6) describes warrants for installing multi-way stop signs. However, it does not describe many of the problems caused by the installation of unwarranted stop signs. These problems include concerns like liability issues, traffic noise, automobile pollution, traffic enforcement and driver behavior. This paper is a result of searching over 70 technical papers about multi-way stop signs. The study concentrated on their use as traffic calming devices and their relative effectiveness in controlling speeds in residential neighborhoods. The references found 23 hypotheses on their relative effectiveness as traffic calming devices. One study analyzed the economic cost of installing a multi-way stop at an intersection. The reference search also found 9 hypotheses about traffic operations on residential streets. 1 The literature search found 85 papers on the subject of multi-way stops. There are probably many more references available on this very popular subject.There was a problem fmding 14 papers found in literature searches. The 14 papers are listed in the appendix for information only. Most of the papers were old sources of information. Multi-Way Stop Si2ns as Speed Control Devices A summary of the articles found the following information about the effectiveness of multi-way stop signs and other solutions to controlling speeds in residential neighborhoods. 1. Multi-way stops do not control speeds. Twenty-two papers were cited for these findings. (Reference 1,2,7,8,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,39,45,46,51,55, 62, 63, 64, 66 and 70). 2. Stop compliance is poor at unwarranted multi-way stop signs. Unwarranted stop signs means they do not meet the warrants of the MUTCD. This is based on the drivers feeling that the signs have no traffic control purpose. There is little reason to yield the right-of - way because there are usually no vehicles on the minor street. Nineteen references found this to be their finding. (Reference 7,8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19,20,39,45,46,51,55,61,62,63 and 64 ). 3. Before-After studies show multi-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential streets. Nineteen references found this to be their finding. (Reference 19 (1 study), 55 (5 studies), 60 (8 studies) and 64(5 studies)). 4. Unwarranted multi-way stops increased speed some distance from intersections. The studies hypothesizing that motorists are making up the time they lost at the "unnecessary" stop sign. Fifteen references found this to be their finding. (Reference 1,2,7,8,10,13,14,17,19,20,39,45,46,51,55,70 and 71). 5. Multi-way stop signs have high operating costs based on vehicle operating costs, vehicular travel times, fuel consumption and increased vehicle emissions. Fifteen references found this to be their finding. (Reference 3,4,7,8,10,14,15,17,45,55,61,62,63,67 and 68). 6. Safety of pedestrians is decreased at unwarranted multi-way stops, especially small children. It seems that pedestrians expect vehicles to stop at the stop signs but many vehicles have gotten in the habit of running the "unnecessary" stop sign. Thirteen references found this to be their finding. (References 7, 8, 10,13, 14, 15, 17, 19,20,45,51,55 and 63). 7. Citizens feel "safer" in communities "positively controlled" by stop signs. Positively controlled is meant to infer that the streets are controlled by unwarranted stop signs. 2 Homeowners on the residential collector feel safer on a 'calmed' street. Seven references found this to be their finding. (Reference 6, 14,18,20,51,58 and 66). Hypothesis twelve (below) lists five references that dispute the results of these studies. 8. Speeding problems on residential streets are associated with" through" traffic. Frequently homeowners feel the problem is created by 'outsiders'. Many times the problem is the person complaining or their neighbor. Five references found thisto be their finding. (References 2, 15,45,51 and 55). 9. Unwarranted multi-way stops may present potential liability problems for undocumented exceptions to accepted warrants. Local jurisdictions feel they may be incurring higher liability exposure by 'violating' the MUTCD. Many times the unwarranted stop signs are installed without a warrant study or some documentation. Cited by six references. (Reference 7,9,19,46,62 and 65). 10. Stop signs increase noise in the vicinity of an intersection. The noise is created by the vehicle braking noise at the intersection and the cars accelerating up to speed. The noise is created by the engine exhaust, brake, tire and aerodynamic noises. Cited by five references. (Reference 14, 17,20,45,55). 11. Cost of installing multi-way stops are low but enforcement costs are prohibitive. many communities do not have the resources to effectively enforce compliance with the stop signs. Five references found this to be their finding. (Reference 1,10,45,51,55). 12. Stop signs do not significantly change safety of intersection. Stop signs are installed with the hope they will make the intersection and neighborhood safer. Cited by five references. (Reference 55, 60, 61, 62, 63). Hypothesis seven (above) lists seven references that dispute the results of these studies. 13. Unwarranted multi-way stops have been successfully removed with public support and result in improved compliance at justified stop signs. Cited by three references. (Reference 8, 10, 12). 14. Unwarranted multi-way stops reduce accidents in cities with intersection sight distance problems and at intersections with parked cars that restrict sight distance. The stop signs are unwarranted based on volume and may not quite meet the accident threshold. Cited by three references. (Reference 6, 18, 68). 15. Citizens feel stop signs should be installed at locations based on traffic engineering studies. Some homeowners realize the importance of installing 'needed' stop signs. Cited by two references. (References 56, 57 ). 3 16. Multi-way stops can reduce cut-through traffic volume if many intersections along the road are controlled by stop signs. If enough stop signs are installed on a residential or collector street motorists may go another way because of the inconvenience of having to start and stop at so many intersections. This includes the many drivers that will not stop but slowly 'cruise' through the stop signs. This driving behavior has been nicknamed the 'California cruise'. Cited by two references. (Reference 14,61). 17. Placement of unwarranted stop signs in violation of Georgia State Law 32-6-50 (a) (b) (c). This study was conducted using Georgia law. Georgia law requires local governments to install all traffic controls devices in accordance with the MUTCD. This is probably similar to traffic signing laws in other states. Cited by two references. (Reference 19,62). 18. Special police enforcement of multi-way stop signs has limited effectiveness. This has been called the 'hallo' effect. Drivers will obey the 'unreasonable' laws as long as a policemen is visible. Cited by two references. (Reference 39, 46). 19. District judge orders removal of stop signs not installed in compliance with city ordinance. Judges have ordered the removal of 'unnecessary' stop signs. The problem begins when the traffic engineer and/or elected officials are asked to consider their intersection a 'special case'. This creates a precedent and results in a proliferation of 'special case' all-way stop signs. Cited by two references. (Reference 59, 62). 20. Some jurisdictions have created warrants for multi-way stops that are easier to meet than MUTCD. The jurisdiction feel that the MUTCD warrants are too difficult to meet in residential areas. The reduced warrants are usually created to please elected officials. Cited by two references. (Reference 61 and 70). 21. Citizens perceive stop signs are effective as speed control devices because traffic "slows" at stop sign. If everybody obeyed the traffic laws, stop signs would reduce speeds on residential streets. Cited by one reference. (Reference 55). 22. Removal of multi-way stop signs does not change speeds but they are slightly lower without the stop signs. This study findings support the drivers behavior referenced in item #4, speed increases when unwarranted stop signs are installed. Speed decreases when the stop signs were removed! Cited by one reference. (Reference 64). 23. Multi-way stops degrade air quality and increase CO, HC, and Nox. All the starting and stopping at the intersection is bad for air quality. Cited by one reference. (Reference (8). 4 Other Speed Control Issues 24. There area many ways to "calm" traffic. Cited by twenty-two references. (Reference I, 14, 20,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,40,41,42,44,45,46,47,48, 50, 51, 53 and 66). They include: (a) Traffic Chokers (f) Sidewalks and Other Pedestrian Solutions (b) Traffic Diverters (g) Neighborhood Street Design (c) Speed Humps (h) On-Street Parking (d) Roundabouts (i) One Way Streets (e) Neighborhood Speed Watch (j) Street Narrowing 25. Other possible solutions to residential speed. Most speeding is by residents - Neighborhood Speed Watch Programs may work. This program works by using the principle of 'peer' pressure. Cited by seven references. (Reference 2, 30, 31, 36, 42, 48 and 53). 26. Reduced speed limits are not effective at slowing traffic. Motorists do not drive by the number on the signs, they travel a safe speed based on the geometrics ofthe ... roadway. Cited by five references. (Reference 1,20,39,46 and 69). 27. Local streets should be designed to discourage excessive speeds. The most effective way to slow down traffic on residential streets is to design them for slow speeds. Cited by two references. (Reference 43, 52). 28. Speeding on residential streets is a seasonal problem. This is a myth. The problem of speeding is not seasonal, it's just that homeowners only see the problem in 'pleasant' weather. That's the time they spend in there front yard or walking the neighborhood. Cited by one reference. (Reference 2). 29. Speed variance and accident frequency are directly related. The safest speed for a road is the speed that most of the drivers feel safest driving. This speed creates the lowest variance and the safest road. Cited by one reference. (Reference,47). 30. The accident involvement rate is lowest at the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the speed that most drivers feel comfortable driving. The lowest variance is usually from the 85th percentile speed and the 10 mph less. Cited by one reference. (Reference 47). 31. Psycho-perceptive transverse pavement markings are not effective at reducing the 85th percentile speed but do reduce the highest speed percentile by 5 MPH. Cited by one reference. (Reference 47). 5 32. The safest residential streets would be short (0.20 miles) non-continuous streets that are 26 to 30 feet from curb to curb width. The short streets make it difficult of drivers to get up to speed. Cited by one reference. (Reference 52). Economics of Multi-Way Stop Signs Studies have found that installing unwarranted stop signs increases operating costs for the traveling public. The operating costs involve vehicle operating costs, costs for increased delay and travel time, cost to enforce signs, and costs for fines and increases in insurance premiums. The total costs are as follows (Reference 55): Operating Costs (1990) $ 111,737/year ($.04291/Stop) Delay & Travel Costs (1990) $ 88,556 /year ($.03401/Stop) Enforcement Costs (1990) $ 837/year Cost of Fines (19 per year) $ 1,045/year Cost of2 stop signs (1990) $ 280 Costs of increased insurance (1990) $ 7.606/year Total (1990) $210,061/year/intersection The cost to install two stops signs is $280. The cost to the traveling public is $210,061 (1990) per year in operating costs. This cost is based on about 8,000 vehicles entering the intersection per day. Another study (62) found that the average annual road user cost increased by $2,402.92 (1988 cost) per intersection when converting from two to four way stop signs for low volume intersections. Summary of Stop Signs as Speed Control Devices Researchers found that multi-way stop signs do not control speed. In analyzing the 23 hypotheses for multi-way stop signs, five were favorable and 18 were unfavorable toward installing unwarranted all-way stop signs. The Chicago study (6) was the only research paper that showed factual support for "unwarranted" multi-way stop signs. They were found to be effective at reducing accidents at intersections that have sight distance problems and on-street parking. 6 , It is interesting to note that residential speeding problems and multi-way stop sign requests date back to 1930 (63). The profession still has not "solved" this perception problem. Summary of Economic Analysis Benefits to control speeds by installing multi-way stop signs are perceived rather than actual and the costs for the driving public are far greater than any benefits derived from the installation of the multi-way stop signs. W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E. Chief Engineer, Traffic Studies Section Gwinnett County Department of Transportation 75 Langley Drive Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045 770-822-7412 brethema@co.gwinnett.ga.us 7 l ~ ,~ rn ~Q) 1-> cE ~ rJJ ~~~<~ ~V)a ~ t Q~ t ~E ~ ~i . ~r,t;; ~ \#J F.--~ 1 l~ ~~ ~ ~ f ~ ). . ~ ~ ~~ -t t. j -6 r ~\) ~ \- ":t-- ~ ~ ~ ...... '":r'" t'I") ~ ,r-- o r- .:J ~ ~ ~ ,1\ ~ * ...... - , , I . ~ ~ r<\ ~ ~~ '" ..3 ~ ~ 9- r<\ ~ ~ = . , ~ \ ~ ~ N . " . . ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ C'-<J '" :?J :?J 0 u ~ = . ~ ~ ~ -c ~ .~ ~ ~ = V) $: == M", rnS . ~ ~ ~ 00 'Il!f' ~ ~ == rn \A ~ 1 ) ~~ ~ :s ~ > Z Q ~ ~~ ~t ;S; ~ ~ ~~ ~ 'ft; ~oo ~ -< 00 ai \fl e u - :r e- N) () ~ ::r ~ ~ r- "'0 oS) ~ N "::r ~ ~ "" '- ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ - - f S <0 ~ ~ i (J &- j ;l "q., , ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '- "- ~ ~ From: Bob Wood [mailto:RWoodl@LifeTimeFitness.com] 13.A./. Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:53 PM To: Administration (Incoming from Citizens) Subject: 4-Way Stop At Thrush/Cardinal Proposal I'm am writing to inform the city council that 1 DO NOT support a 4-way stop at the intersection of Thrush and Cardinal, as a few of my more vocal neighbors do. Thrush 5t is one of the few streets in the neighborhood that will allow a driver to get from one end of the neighborhood to the other without stopping. I would prefer to keep it that way. 1 do understand there have been two accidents at that intersection. However, both of those accidents occurred when a driver on Cardinal failed to give right-of-way to a vehicle on Thrush. If traffic control is necessary at this intersection, I would prefer it be a two-way stop on Cardinal. Finally, many of my neighbors complain that speed is an issue on Thrush 51. I do not disagree that the rare car can be seen traveling at an excessive speed for a residential neighborhood, however, a 4-way stop will not slow these drivers down. Most of the speeders I see are making a left turn from Pheasant Run onto Thrush, where they are able to maintain most of their speed through the corner. A 4-way stop at Cardinal and Thrush, would only control speed in one direction, if at all. Unfortunately, I am unable to make the April 6th City Council meeting. I hope this email is enough to show the council that not everyone in the neighborhood is in support of a 4-way stop, as the attendees may lead the council to believe. Thank you for your time. Bob Wood 2303 Thrush 5t 5hakopee, MN 55379 ,