Stop Sign Study Released

Two years after the proposal to reconsider four way stop signs, the County Council met (10/6 - no minutes available, but Neil Anderton's report below) and decided 5-2 to continue the use on 1200 South and 2400 South.


Contrary to the local action, Cottonwood Heights (with input from GILSON ENGINEERING, INC.)  has adopted a Stop Sign Removal Policy declaring "it is very important to use stop signs only in locations that warrant their use. . . . As explicitly stated in the MUTCD, stop signs should not be used for the purpose of calming traffic. Some of these signs are poorly or improperly placed, and, as a result, many motorists fail to stop, which decreases safety and increases the potential for an accident."  . . . 


Further they cite:

• "STOP Signs should not be used for speed control."
• "STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the number of  vehicles having to stop."
• "In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped."
• "A stop sign should not be installed on a major street unless justified by a traffic engineering study"

The vote was theoretically based on the report done by Civco Engineering from Vernal and public input.  The report issued 15 September has the appearance of the same study done in 2003 which initially recommended all way stops.  The charts with the report all bear the 2003 date, with a recent revision date.


The "study" itself states, "The placement of stop sign recommendations will  be based upon . . . a field review of sight distances, . . . traffic volumes" and some other items.  "data . . . will be . . . analyzed and tested against AASHTO design standards. . . "information based upon the AASHTO design . . . will (be) included . . . "

Immediately following that description of what will be studied and reported, the report continues by giving the recommendations that ALL, but one, of the intersections on 1200 and 2400S should have ALL way stop signs.  The reasons given:  "sight distance from all directions . . . is good" = 4 way stop; "sight distance . . . is fair to poor" = 4 way stop; ". . . is good" = 3 way stop (ALL directions); ". . . average to poor" = 3 way, 4 way stops, etc. etc.



The only intersection recommended as a Two Way stop is 1200 East and 2400 South with "a sight distance of average to poor" - which is exactly what currently exists and what was recommended in 2003.



The report given to the public (me) includes NO traffic information, and no designated standards referenced to AASHTO.   (Those standards are not readily available, except by purchase for $233, and are not available in the local planning office.)


No mention on traffic volumes other than they "indicate these roadways are classified as residential usage."   No mention that the East West traffic on both streets accounts for 80 to 90% of the traffic.  No mention that the current stop stop signs (east and west) are treated, at best, as 'yield' signs. No mention that these streets are designated as Major Collectors in the County general plan.


Questions:

• Why not use a local company for the study? 
• Did the Council actually read the study?
• How much money was paid for the study?
• Why wasn't the Planning staff involved in the process?
• Was there more to the study than the 4 page report and 4 page of stop sign pictures?
• Why doesn't Wasatch County adopt Cottonwood Heights policy?

A companion study on speed limits in the county was also submitted (dated Aug. 31, 2010).   Recommendation for 1200 South  -  40 MPH (one can only assume, with the 4 way stops)  It is unknown whether that recommendation was accepted by the County Council.


Anderton Report of meeting: "The Council reconsidered the study and report completed by CivCo Engineering firm of Vernal, Utah. Their recommendation was to keep everything the same as now exists on 1200 So, 2400 So as well as other travel patterns in the County. Yours truly and Mike Kohler on the Council argued that there are still concerns by citizens that at least the 4-way signs at 1200 So and 4800 East, 3600 East and 2400 East ought to be only 2-way signs. The Sheriff, Tod Bonner and Kent Berg, County Director of Public Works spoke in favor of keeping the 4-way signs intact due to the safety of many including children who ride bikes and walk on the road way since the area has no side walks. Several other citizens gave their view in favor of keeping the 4-way signs. After some discussion the motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation of the engineering company completing the study. The vote was 5 aye votes and 2 nay votes. Yours truly and Councilman Kohler opposed wanting further study done. The data given by the company doing the study will by requested by yours truly to see what additional material was given from the original study."