My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 09/09/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1996
>
Agenda - Council - 09/09/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 3:35:08 PM
Creation date
9/24/2003 11:22:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
09/09/1996
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
314
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
STQP SIGN REMOVAL <br /> <br /> In many communities, stop signs are often <br /> instal.led in locations where they are not war- <br /> ranted. The MUTCD (Manual on Uniform <br /> Traffic Control Devices).has established <br /> specific warrants for such installations. How- <br /> ever, due to political or other r&asons, unwar- <br /> ranted stop signs are still installed. The signs <br /> are often installed with the perception that <br /> sp~ed and traffic volume will be reduced, <br /> safety will be enhanced, etc. After installa- <br /> tion, it is often found that the unwarranted <br /> signs are not solving the problems, and in <br /> some cases, have created new problems. The' <br /> questions of then removing the unwarranted <br /> stop sign(s) becomes a new issue. <br /> <br /> Removal of a stop sign can often be as sensi- <br /> tive an issue as installing a new stop sign, <br /> sometimes even more so. Different percep- <br /> tions and objectives often exist between <br />dividuals who reside by the street and the <br />motorists from outside the neighborhood <br />who'drive the street on a regular basis. When <br />considering the removal of a stop sign, care- <br />ful consideration of MUTCD warrants, acci- <br />dent histories, and traffic counts and speeds <br />must be studied carefully. In addition, the <br />general public and decision makers must be <br />educated as thoroughly as p3ssible. <br /> <br /> Effects <br />Volttmes. Litile impact. <br /> <br />Neighborhood Traffic Con pro] <br /> <br />January 1994 <br /> <br /> Speed. Speed at or near intersections max. <br /> increase. However, m_id-block areas will <br /> perience little impact. <br /> Traffic Noise, Air Quality and Energy Cot <br /> sumption~ Usually improves. <br /> Traffic Safety. Not clearly defined as tI <br /> whether or not safety wili~'L~prove or worsen. <br /> Each situation is unique. Typically, safety irr~ <br /> proves in the long run when tmwarrante <br /> signs are removed.[] <br /> Commzmity Reaction. Mixed. Differin~ <br />view points are often expressed bet-wee <br /> ! <br />citizens residing adjacent to the roadway an <br />motorksts traveling on the roadway dailY, a <br />Removal of inplace stop signs is often <br />difficult to accept for residents used to having <br />them there, even when the signs are unwa~ <br />ranted. It is imperative that traffic enginee <br />and other decision makers determine the be~ <br />traffic control measures under specific c <br />cumstances based on reasonable guidelines. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.