The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Packet 10-25-2016 Special CITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA SPECIAL COUNCILMEETING OCTOBER 25,2016,5:30p.m. MEDICINELAKE CONFERENCE ROOM 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.TOPICS A.Discuss Vicksburg Lane/Dunkirk Lane traffic concerns B.Set future Study Sessions 3.ADJOURN Special Council Meeting1of 1October 25, 2016 2A Agenda Number: To:Ü¿ª» Ý¿´´·¬»®ô Ý·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»® S PECIAL Prepared by:Ü±®¿² Ý±¬»ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Ð«¾´·½ É±®µ CM OUNCIL EETING Reviewedby: Ñ½¬±¾»® îëô îðïê Item:Ò±®¬¸©»¬ Ð´§³±«¬¸ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ý±²½»®² 1.AR: CTION EQUESTED Òñß[[449,1116,499,1172][11][,I,][Z@RAF6E.tmp]]ò 2.B: ACKGROUND ßº¬»® ¬¸» ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²» º®±³ ¬¸» Ì·³¾»® Ý®»»µ Ý®±·²¹ ¬± ëì¬¸ ßª»²«» ·² ¬¸» Í°®·²¹ Ó»¿¼±© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·² îðïíô ¬¿ºº ¿²¼ Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ¸¿ª» ®»½»·ª»¼ ¿ ²«³¾»® ±º ½±²½»®² º®±³ ®»·¼»²¬ ¿¾±«¬ ¬®¿ºº·½ ª±´«³» ¿²¼ °»»¼ò Ì¸» ³¿¶±®·¬§ ±º ½±²½»®² ½»²¬»®»¼ ±² ëì¬¸ ßª»²«» ¾»¬©»»² Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²» ¿²¼ Ê·½µ¾«®¹ Ô¿²»ô ¿ ³·²±® ½±´´»½¬±® ·² ¬¸» Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² Ð´¿² ·²½» ïçéðò É·¬¸ ¬¸» ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²» º®±³ ëì¬¸ ßª»²«» ¬± Ý±«²¬§ Î±¿¼ ìé ·² îðïìô ¬¸» ¬®¿ºº·½ ½±²½»®² º±½«»¼ °®·³¿®·´§ ±² Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²» ·² ¬¸» Ì·³¾»® Ý®»»µ Ý®±·²¹ ¿²¼ Ì»®®¿ Ê·¬¿ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô ¿´± ¿ ³·²±® ½±´´»½¬±® ·²½» ïçéðò É·¬¸ ¬¸» ½±²²»½¬·±² ±º ëé¬¸ ßª»²«» ¾»¬©»»² Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²» ¿²¼ Ê·½µ¾«®¹ Ô¿²» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º Þ®§²©±±¼ô ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ½±²½»®² ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ®¿·»¼ ±² ëé¬¸ ßª»²«» ·² Í»®»²·¬§ ±² ¬¸» Ù®»»²©¿§ò Ì¸» ½´±«®» ¿²¼ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º Ê·½µ¾«®¹ Ô¿²» ¾»¬©»»² Í½¸³·¼¬ Ô¿µ» Î±¿¼ ¿²¼ Ý±«²¬§ Î±¿¼ ìé ¸¿ »¨¿½»®¾¿¬»¼ ¬¸»» ½±²½»®²ò ×² ¿²¿¬¬»³°¬ ¬± ¿¼¼®» ±³» ±º ¬¸» ½±²½»®² ±² Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²»ô ¬¿ºº ·²¬¿´´»¼ ®¿¼¿® ¿½¬·ª¿¬»¼ °»»¼ ´·³·¬ ·¹² ©¸·½¸ ¼·°´¿§ ³±¬±®·¬ °»»¼ ·² ½±³°¿®·±² ¬± ¬¸» °±¬»¼ íð ³°¸ °»»¼ ´·³·¬ò Ì¸» ·¹² º´¿¸» ©¸»² ³±¬±®·¬ »¨½»»¼ ¬¸» °±¬»¼ °»»¼ò ×² ¿¼¼·¬·±²ô ¿ ¼±«¾´» §»´´±© ½»²¬»®´·²» ¿²¼ º±¹ ´·²» ©»®» °¿·²¬»¼ ±² Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²»ò Ì¸» ´¿²» ©·¼¬¸ ©»®» ®»¼«½»¼ ¬± ïï º»»¬ ¿²¼ ½¸±µ»® ©»®» ·²¬¿´´»¼ »²¬»®·²¹ ¬¸» Ì»®®¿ Ê·¬¿ ¿²¼ Ì·³¾»® Ý®»»µ Ý®±·²¹ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò ß °»»¼ ´·³·¬ ·¹² ©¿ ¿´± ·²¬¿´´»¼ ±² Ù¿®´¿²¼ Ô¿²» »²¬»®·²¹ ¬¸» Ì·³¾»® Ý®»»µ Ý®±·²¹ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ º®±³ Í½¸³·¼¬ Ô¿µ» Î±¿¼ò Ð±´·½» ¸¿ª» ¼±²» ¬¿®¹»¬»¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ »²º±®½»³»²¬ ·² ¬¸» ¿®»¿ò ×² ¬¸»·® ³±¬ ®»½»²¬ »ºº±®¬ ±² Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²» ¿¬ ¬¸» ¾»¹·²²·²¹ ±º ¬¸» ½¸±±´ §»¿®ô Ð±´·½» ·«»¼ ïï ½·¬¿¬·±² ±® ©¿®²·²¹ ·² ±²» ¸±«®ô ·¨ ±º ©¸·½¸ ©»®» ¬± °»®±² º®±³ ¬¸»» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸®»» ©»®» º®±³ ²»¿®¾§ Ó¿°´» Ù®±ª» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ò Ñ² Ö«´§ îèô îðïêô ¿ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ³»»¬·²¹ ©¿ ¸»´¼ ¬± ¼·½« ¬®¿ºº·½ ·«» ©·¬¸ ®»°®»»²¬¿¬·ª» °®»»²¬ º®±³ ¿´´ ±º ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ²±¬»¼ ¿¾±ª» ¿ ©»´´ ¿ Ì¿§´±® Ý®»»µô É±±¼½®»¬ ¿²¼ Ø¿³°¬±² Ø·´´ò Ì¸» ±«¬½±³» ±º ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ ©¿ ¬¸¿¬ »¿½¸ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ©¿ ¬± «¾³·¬ ¿ ´·¬ ±º ¬¸»·® ¼»·®»¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ ½±²¬®±´ ³»¿«®» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»§ º»»´ ©·´´ ¿¼¼®» ¬¸»·® ½±²½»®²ò Ì¸» ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¹®¿°¸·½ ¼»°·½¬ ¬®¿ºº·½ ª±´«³» ¿²¼ °»»¼ ¼¿¬¿ ±¾¬¿·²»¼ ¬± ¼¿¬» ¿ ©»´´ ¿ ¬¸» ®»¯«»¬»¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ ½±²¬®±´ ³»¿«®» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ´±½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸»·® ®»¯«»¬ ·º °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ®»·¼»²¬ò É¸¿¬ · ²±¬ ¼»°·½¬»¼ ¿®» ¬¸» ®»¯«»¬ ¬¸¿¬ ©»®» ³¿¼» ¿¬ ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ³»»¬·²¹ ·º ¬¸»§ ©»®» ¹»²»®¿´ ·² ²¿¬«®» «½¸ ¿ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹æ Ð¿¹» ï Ý®±©¿´µ ¿¬ ¿´´ ¾« ¬±° Í¬±° ·¹² ¿²¼ Ý¸·´¼®»² ¿¬ Ð´¿§ ·¹² Í¬±° ·¹² «° ¿²¼ ¼±©² Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²» Ü±²¬ ¿´´±© °¿®µ ±® °±±´ ±² ³¿¶±® ®±¿¼ Í±³»¬¸·²¹ ¬®«½¬«®¿´ ×²½®»¿» °»»¼ ´·³·¬ ±² Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²» ¬± íë ³°¸ ± °»±°´» ¿®»²¬ °»»¼·²¹ Û¼«½¿¬·±² »ºº±®¬ ¿¬ É¿§¦¿¬¿ Ø·¹¸ Í½¸±±´ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ °»»¼·²¹ Í«¾»¯«»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ ¿²¼ °®·±® ¬± ¬¸» ¬¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ½¸±±´ §»¿®ô ¬¿ºº ¿´± »²¹¿¹»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ØÑß ¬± »¼«½¿¬» ¼®·ª»® ·² ¬¸» ¿®»¿ ¿²¼ ¸¿ª» ®»¯«»¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¿´´ ®»·¼»²¬ ®»½»·ª» ¬¸» ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ º´§»®ò Ó«´¬·ó©¿§ Í¬±° Í·¹² Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±² Ì¸» Ó·²²»±¬¿ Ó¿²«¿´ ±² Ë²·º±®³ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ý±²¬®±´ Ü»ª·½» øÓÓËÌÝÜ÷ «¹¹»¬ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½®·¬»®·¿ º±® ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º ³«´¬·ó©¿§ ¬±° ½±²¬®±´æ É¸»®» ¬®¿ºº·½ ·¹²¿´ ¿®» ¶«¬·º·»¼ ¬¸»§ ½¿² ¾» «»¼ ¿ ¿² ·²¬»®·³ ³»¿«®» Ú·ª» ±® ³±®» ½®¿¸» ·² ¿ ïî ³±²¬¸ °»®·±¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ ª±´«³» º®±³ ¬¸» ³¿¶±® ¬®»»¬ ¿ª»®¿¹» ¿¬ ´»¿¬ íðð ª»¸·½´» °»® ¸±«® º±® è ¸±«® Ì¸» ½±³¾·²»¼ ª»¸·½´»ô °»¼»¬®·¿² ¿²¼ ¾·½§½´» ª±´«³» ±² ¬¸» ³·²±® ¬®»»¬ ¿ª»®¿¹» îðð °»® ¸±«® º±® ¬¸» ¿³» è ¸±«® ×º ¬¸» èë¬¸ó°»®½»²¬·´» °»»¼ ±² ¬¸» ³¿¶±® ¬®»»¬ »²¬»®·²¹ ¬¸» ·²¬»®»½¬·±² »¨½»»¼ ìð ³°¸ô ¬¸»² ¬¸» ª±´«³» »²¬»®·²¹ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¿¬ èðû ±º ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ Ó«´¬·ó©¿§ ¬±° ·¹² ¸±«´¼ ¾» «»¼ ©¸»®» ¬¸» ª±´«³» ±º ¬®¿ºº·½ ±² ¬¸» ·²¬»®»½¬·²¹ ¬®»»¬ · ®±«¹¸´§ »¯«¿´ò Í¬±° ·¹² ¸±«´¼ ²±¬ ¾» «»¼ º±® °»»¼ ½±²¬®±´ ¿ ¬¸»§ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² °®±ª»² ·²»ºº»½¬·ª» ¿¬ ½±²¬®±´´·²¹ °»»¼ ø»» ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ Ó«´¬·ó©¿§ Í¬±° Ý±²¬®±´ Î»»¿®½¸÷ò Ò±²» ±º ¬¸» ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² «¹¹»¬»¼ º±® ³«´¬·ó©¿§ ¬±° ½±²¬®±´ ³»»¬ ¬¸» ¿¾±ª» ©¿®®¿²¬ò Ý®±©¿´µ Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±² Ì¸» ÓÓËÌÝÜ «¹¹»¬ ½®±©¿´µ ¸±«´¼ ²±¬ ¾» «»¼ ·²¼·½®·³·²¿¬»´§ò ß² »²¹·²»»®·²¹ ¬«¼§ ¸±«´¼ ¾» °»®º±®³»¼ ¾»º±®» ¿ ³¿®µ»¼ ½®±©¿´µ · ·²¬¿´´»¼ ¿¬ ¿ ´±½¿¬·±² ¿©¿§ º®±³ ¿ ¬®¿ºº·½ ½±²¬®±´ ·¹²¿´ ±® ¿² ¿°°®±¿½¸ ½±²¬®±´´»¼ ¾§ ¿ ÍÌÑÐ ±® Ç×ÛÔÜ ·¹²ò Ì¸» »²¹·²»»®·²¹ ¬«¼§ ¸±«´¼ ½±²·¼»® ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ´¿²»ô ¬¸» °®»»²½» ±º ¿ ³»¼·¿²ô ¬¸» ¼·¬¿²½» º®±³ ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±²ô ¬¸» °»¼»¬®·¿² ª±´«³» ¿²¼ ¼»´¿§ô ¬¸» ¿ª»®¿¹» ¼¿·´§ ¬®¿ºº·½ øßÜÌ÷ô ¬¸» °±¬»¼ ±® ¬¿¬«¬±®§ °»»¼ ´·³·¬ ±® èë¬¸ó°»®½»²¬·´» °»»¼ô ¬¸» ¹»±³»¬®§ ±º ¬¸» ´±½¿¬·±²ô ¬¸» °±·¾´» ½±²±´·¼¿¬·±² ±º ³«´¬·°´» ½®±·²¹ °±·²¬ô ¬¸» ¿ª¿·´¿¾·´·¬§ ±º ¬®»»¬ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» º¿½¬±®ò Ì¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ¼·½«»¼ ½®±©¿´µ ¿º»¬§ ¿¬ ¬¸®»» ¬«¼§ »·±² ·² îðïì ¿²¼ îðïë ¿²¼ ³¿¼» ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ±² ·³°®±ª·²¹ ¿º»¬§ ¿¬ ½»®¬¿·² ½®±©¿´µ ¿²¼ ®»³±ª·²¹ «²©¿®®¿²¬»¼ ½®±©¿´µò Ò±²» ±º ¬¸» ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² «¹¹»¬»¼ º±® ½®±©¿´µ ©±«´¼ ²±®³¿´´§ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ º±® ½®±©¿´µ ¿ ²±²» ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¸·¹¸ °»¼»¬®·¿² «» ¿²¼ ³±¬ ±º ¬¸» ¬®»»¬ ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ´±© ª±´«³» ¬®»»¬ò Í°»»¼ Ø«³° Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±² Ñ² Ú»¾®«¿®§ ïíô îððïô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¿ ®»±´«¬·±² ©¸·½¸ ·³°±»¼ ¿ ³±®¿¬±®·«³ ±² ¬¸» ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ±º ²»© °»»¼ ¸«³° ø»» ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ³»»¬·²¹ ³·²«¬» ¿²¼ ®»±´«¬·±²÷ò Ð¿¹» î Ì»³°±®¿®§ °»»¼ ¸«³° ¿®» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» º±® °«®½¸¿» ¿²¼ ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±²ô ¸±©»ª»®ô ¬¸»§ ³«¬ ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ©·²¬»® ³±²¬¸ ¿ ¬¸»§ ¿®» ²±¬ ³¿²«º¿½¬«®»¼ ¬± ©·¬¸¬¿²¼ ¬¸» »ºº»½¬ ±º ²±© ¿²¼ ²±© °´±©ò Ý¸·´¼®»² ¿¬ Ð´¿§ Í·¹² Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±² Ì¸» Ý¸·´¼®»² ¿¬ Ð´¿§ ·¹² · ²±¬ ®»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÓÓËÌÝÜ ±® ¬¸» º»¼»®¿´ ÓËÌÝÜ ¿ ¿ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ·¹² ¿²¼ ¬¸»®»º±®» · ·²¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ¬± «» ±² °«¾´·½ ¬®»»¬ò Í¬«¼·» ¸¿ª» ¸±©² ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»» ·¹² ¿®» ·²»ºº»½¬·ª» ¿¬ ³±¼·º§·²¹ ¼®·ª»® ¾»¸¿ª·±®ò ß¬¬¿½¸»¼ · ¿ É·½±²·² Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¬«¼§ »²¬·¬´»¼ Ûºº»½¬·ª»²» ±º Ý¸·´¼®»² ¿¬ Ð´¿§ É¿®²·²¹ Í·¹² º±® ®»º»®»²½»ò Ì¸» Ý·¬§ ¼±» ²±¬ ½«®®»²¬´§ ¸¿ª» ¿²§ Ý¸·´¼®»² ¿¬ Ð´¿§ ·¹² ·²¬¿´´»¼ ·² ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¬®»»¬ ®·¹¸¬ó±ºó©¿§ò 3.BI: UDGET MPACT Í¬±° ¿²¼ ¿¼ª¿²½» Í¬±° ß¸»¿¼ ·¹² ó üëðð ·²¬¿´´»¼ »¿½¸ ´±½¿¬·±² Ý®±©¿´µ ¿²¼ ½®±©¿´µ ·¹² ó üèðð ·²¬¿´´»¼ »¿½¸ ´±½¿¬·±² Ý¸·´¼®»² ¿¬ Ð´¿§ ·¹² ó üîëð °»® ·¹² ·²¬¿´´»¼ Í°»»¼ Ô·³·¬ ·¹² ó üîëð °»® ·¹² ·²¬¿´´»¼ Î¿¼¿® °»»¼ ´·³·¬ ·¹² ó üìôððð °»® ·¹² ·²¬¿´´»¼ Ì»³°±®¿®§ °»»¼ ¸«³° ó üéôððð »¿½¸ °´« ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² 4.A: TTACHMENTS ×²¼»¨ Ó¿° Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² Ð´¿² Û³¿·´ô Ð»¬·¬·±² ¿²¼ ß²±²§³±« Ô»¬¬»® Ì®¿ºº·½ Ú´§»® º±® ØÑß Ý®¿¸ ß²¿´§· Î»°±®¬ Ò±®¬¸©»¬ ß®»¿ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ê±´«³» ¿²¼ Í°»»¼ Ü¿¬¿ Ò±®¬¸©»¬ ß®»¿ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ý±²¬®±´ Ý·¬·¦»² Î»¯«»¬ Ó«´¬·ó©¿§ Í¬±° Ý±²¬®±´ Î»»¿®½¸ Ûºº»½¬·ª»²» ±º Ý¸·´¼®»² ¿¬ Ð´¿§ É¿®²·²¹ Í·¹² Í¬«¼§ Ú»¾®«¿®§ ïíô îððï Ó»»¬·²¹ Ó·²«¬» ¿²¼ Î»±´«¬·±² Ð¿¹» í INDEX MAP NORTH SEGMENT MIDDLE SEGMENT SOUTH SEGMENT Ð¿¹» ì Ð¿¹» ê Ð¿¹» é Ð¿¹» è Ð¿¹» ç Ð¿¹» ïð Ð¿¹» ïï Ð¿¹» ïî Ð¿¹» ïí Ð¿¹» ïì Ð¿¹» ïë Ð¿¹» ïê Ð¿¹» ïé Ð¿¹» ïè Ð¿¹» ïç Ð¿¹» îð Ð¿¹» îï Ð¿¹» îî Ð¿¹» îí Ð¿¹» îì Ð¿¹» îë Ð¿¹» îê Ð¿¹» îé Ð¿¹» îè Ð¿¹» îç Ð¿¹» íð Ð¿¹» íï Ð¿¹» íî Ð¿¹» íí Ð¿¹» íì Ð¿¹» íë Ð¿¹» íê Ð¿¹» íé Ð¿¹» íè î÷óõôúíêôííøèêûööóù¦å÷ªê÷ûððóîèôóéèíõ÷èô÷ê åôûèèô÷ùóèãóéøíóîõ ½óÎÙÊ×ÛÉ×ØÌÛÈÊÍÐÉÛÎØÈÊÛÖÖÓÙ ×ÎÖÍÊÙ×Ï×ÎÈ ½ûØØ×ØÉÌ××ØÈÊÛÓÐ×ÊÉ ¦þê×ÏÓÎØ×ÊèÔ×ÉÌ××ØÐÓÏÓÈÓÉ ÏÓÐ×ÉÌ×ÊÔÍÇÊÍÎøÇÎÑÓÊÑ åôûèãíçéôíçðøøíóö ãíçé÷÷æóíðûèóíîé ½ùÛÐÐ ½åÍÊÑÅÓÈÔÃÍÇÊôíû ½ê×ËÇ×ÉÈÛÉÌ××ØÈÊÛÓÐ×ÊÍÊÊ×ÌÍÊÈÛ ÈÊÛÖÖÓÙÓÉÉÇ×ÈÍÈÔ×èÊÛÖÖÓÙçÎÓÈ ÌÐÃÏÍÇÈÔÏÎÕÍÆ ÛÈÃÍÇÊÉ×ÊÆÓÙ× ½øÍÎÍÈØÍÇÚÐ×ÌÛÊÑÍÊÈÛÑ×ÏÛÈÈ×ÊÉ ÓÎÈÍÃÍÇÊÍÅÎÔÛÎØÉ ¦þê×ÏÓÎØ×ÊöÓÊ×ÈÊÇÙÑÉÛÎØÖÓÊÉÈ Ê×ÉÌÍÎØ×ÊÉÎ××ØÈÍÖÓÈÈÔÊÍÇÕÔÓÖ ÈÔ×Ê×ªÉÛÎ×Ï×ÊÕ×ÎÙÃ èôóîõéèíñ÷÷ìóîïóîø ½èÔ×Ê×ªÉÛÐÍÈÕÍÓÎÕÍÎÓÎÃÍÇÊ Î×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØ¦ÑÓØÉÛÈÌÐÛÃÉÙÔÍÍÐ ÚÇÉÊÍÇÈ×ÉÛÎØÚÇÉÓ×ÊÓÎÈ×ÊÉ×ÙÈÓÍÎÉ ½ùÍÎÉÈÊÇÙÈÓÍÎÍÎæÓÙÑÉÚÇÊÕÓÉ È×ÏÌÍÊÛÊÃÛÎØÈÊÛÖÖÓÙÅÓÐÐÊ×ÈÇÊÎÈÍ ÎÍÊÏÛÐÐ×Æ×ÐÉÉÍÍÎ ½î×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØÈÊÛÖÖÓÙÓÎÈÔÓÉÛÊ×Û Õ×Î×ÊÛÈ×ÉÛÚÍÇÈ ÈÊÓÌÉÌ×ÊØÛÃ ãíçªê÷èô÷ñ÷ãèíûéûö÷î÷óõôúíêôííø ½å×ªÆ×ÔÛØÍÎ×ÛÙÙÓØ×ÎÈÊ×ÌÍÊÈ×ØÓÎ ÿûÌÐÛÙ×ÅÔ×Ê×ÑÓØÉÏÛÃÚ×ÛÈÌÐÛÃÉÇÙÔÛÉ ÈÔ×ÐÛÉÈÃ×ÛÊÚ×ÈÅ××ÎÉÈÛÎØÈÔ ÛÌÍÍÐÍÊÌÐÛÃÕÊÍÇÎØ ÛÆ×ÎÇ×É ÿéÙÔÍÍÐÚÇÉÉÈÍÌ èôûîñãíçöíê ÿçÉ×ÙÛÇÈÓÍÎ ãíçêìûèó÷îù÷ Ð¿¹» íç Ñ½¬±¾»® ïðô îðïê Î»¯«»¬ òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò î ß²²«¿´ Ì®»²¼ òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò î Í»¿±²¿´ Ì®»²¼ òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò ì Ù»±¹®¿°¸·½ Ð®±º·´» òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò é Ð¿¹» ï ±º ç Ð¿¹» ìð Î»¯«»¬ Ì¸· ®»°±®¬ ©¿ °®»°¿®»¼ ·² ®»°±²» ¬± ¿ ®»¯«»¬ º±® ¿ ½®¿¸ ¿²¿´§· ·² ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¿®»¿ ¾±¿®¼»¼ ¾§ ÝÎìé ¬± ¬¸» ²±®¬¸ô Í½¸³·¼¬ Ô¿µ» ¬± ¬¸» ±«¬¸ô Ê·½µ¾«®¹ ¬± ¬¸» »¿¬ô ¿²¼ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ Ü«²µ·®µ ¬± ¬¸» ©»¬ò Ì¸» ¾±«²¼¿®§ ®±¿¼ ©»®» »¨½´«¼»¼ô °»® ®»¯«»¬ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ®»°±®¬ º±½«» ±² ½®¿¸ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ±½½«®®·²¹ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸· ®»¹·±²ò ß²²«¿´ Ì®»²¼ Ý®¿¸ ·²½·¼»²¬ ¼¿¬¿ ©»®» ¯«»®·»¼ º±® îðïê ¿²¼ ¬¸» °®·±® º·ª» §»¿®ô ·² ±®¼»® ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿² ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ¸·¬±®·½¿´ ¾¿· º±® ½±³°¿®·±²ò Î»«´¬ ±º ¬¸» ¯«»®§ ¸±©»¼ ´·¬¬´» ¬± µ²±© ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ±² ¿ ³±²¬¸´§ ¾¿·ô ± ¿²²«¿´ ¬±¬¿´ ©»®» ¬¿´´·»¼ ¿²¼ ¿®» ¸±©² ·² Ì¿¾´» ïò Ì¸» °¿¬ º·ª» §»¿® ¸¿ª» ¿ª»®¿¹»¼ ¬¸®»» ½®¿¸» °»® §»¿®ô ¾«¬ ¿ ½¿² ¾» »»² ·² ¬¸» ¬¿¾´» ¬¸» ¿²²«¿´ ¬±¬¿´ ¿®» ¸·¹¸´§ ª¿®·¿¾´» ©·¬¸ ¬±¬¿´ ®¿²¹·²¹ º®±³ ±²» ¬± º·ª» ½®¿¸» °»® §»¿® øÌ¿¾´» î÷ò Ì¸»®» ©»®» ¿ ¬±¬¿´ ±º ·¨ ½®¿¸» ·² îðïëô «° ëðû º®±³ îðïìò Ì¸« º¿® ·² îðïêô ¬¸®±«¹¸ ïðñëñîðïêô ¬¸»®» ¸¿ ¾»»² ¿ ¬±¬¿´ ±º »·¹¸¬ ½®¿¸»ô ¿´®»¿¼§ «®°¿·²¹ ¬¸» º·ª» §»¿® ¸·¹¸ ±º ·¨ º®±³ îðïëò Ô±±µ·²¹ ¿¬ ¬¸» ¼¿¬¿ô ¾±¬¸ îðïë ¿²¼ îðïê ³¿§ ¾» ¿²±³¿´±« §»¿®ò Ü¿¬¿ ©¿ ¬¸»®»º±®» ¯«»®·»¼ º±® îðïð ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿ º·ª» §»¿® ¼¿¬¿»¬ ·² »ª¿´«¿¬·²¹ ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ½®¿¸» ·² îðïëò Ì¸· °®·±® º·ª» §»¿® ¾¿· °®±¼«½»¼ ¿² ¿ª»®¿¹» ±º ¬©± ½®¿¸» °»® §»¿® ©·¬¸ ¿ ²±®³¿´ ®¿²¹» ¾»¬©»»² ¦»®± ¿²¼ º±«® ½®¿¸» °»® §»¿® øÌ¿¾´» î÷ò Ì¸»®» · ·²«ºº·½·»²¬ ½±®®»´¿¬·±² ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ½®¿¸» ¿²¼ °¿¿¹» ±º ¬·³» ø§»¿®÷ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿ º±®»½¿¬ º±® îðïê ±® îðïéò Ì¸» ¬»³°±®¿®§ ²¿¬«®» ±º ´·µ»´§ º¿½¬±® º±® ¬¸» ®»½»²¬ ·²½®»¿» º«®¬¸»® ½±³°´·½¿¬» º±®»½¿¬·²¹ ©·¬¸±«¬ ³±®» ¬«¼§ ¾«¬ ®»º»® ¬± ¬¸» »¿±²¿´ ¿²¿´§· ®»«´¬ô ¾»´±©ô º±® ³±®» ¼»¬¿·´ò Ð¿¹» î ±º ç Ð¿¹» ìï ß ½¿«¬·±² · ¿¼ª·»¼ ·² ¬¸» ·²¬»®°®»¬¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» °»®½»²¬¿¹» ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ·² ¬¸· ®»°±®¬ò É¸»² ¼»¿´·²¹ ©·¬¸ ³¿´´ ²«³¾»®ô ³¿´´ ½¸¿²¹» ·² ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ®»«´¬ ·² ´¿®¹» °»®½»²¬¿¹» ½¸¿²¹»ò îðïìóîðïë îðïìóîðïë îðïð îðïï îðïî îðïí îðïì îðïë Î¿© Ý¸¿²¹» û Ý¸¿²¹» îðïêö Ì±¬¿´ Ý®¿¸» ð ì ï ï ì ê õî õëðû è [[330,1086,380,1137][10][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ö [[351,1086,873,1137][10][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ïñïñîðïê ¬¸®±«¹¸ ïðñëñîðïê [[844,1086,894,1137][10][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] [[300,1142,1855,1188][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]Ì¿¾´» ïò ß²²«¿´ ½®¿¸ ¬±¬¿´ º±® îðïðóîðïë ©·¬¸ §»¿®ó±ª»®ó§»¿® ½¸¿²¹» ½¿´½«´¿¬»¼ º±® îðïëò öÌ±¬¿´ ½ [[1821,1142,1918,1188][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]®¿¸ [[1887,1142,1955,1188][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]» [[1920,1142,2186,1188][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] º±® ¬¸» °»®·±¼ [[300,1188,943,1234][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ïñïñîðïê ¬¸®±«¹¸ ïðñëñîðïê · ·²½´«¼»¼ [[913,1188,1211,1234][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] º±® ½±³°¿®·±²ò ßª»®¿¹» ß²²«¿´ Ò±®³¿´ Î¿²¹» Ì±¬¿´ Ý®¿¸» ±º Ì±¬¿´ Ý®¿¸» îðïðóîðïì î ðóì îðïïóîðïë í ïóë [[451,1622,594,1668][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]Ì¿¾´» î [[562,1622,621,1668][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ò [[579,1622,1355,1668][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ßª»®¿¹» ¿²²«¿´ ½®¿¸ ¬±¬¿´ ¿²¼ ²±®³¿´ ®¿²¹» øï [[1344,1622,2052,1668][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]÷ º±® ®»º»®»²½» °»®·±¼ îðïðóîðïì ¿²¼ îðïïó [[2014,1622,2140,1668][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]îðïëò [[2099,1622,2149,1668][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] Ð¿¹» í ±º ç Ð¿¹» ìî Í»¿±²¿´ Ì®»²¼ ß »¿±²¿´ ¬®»²¼ ¿²¿´§· ©¿ °»®º±®³»¼ ·² ¿² »ºº±®¬ ¬± »ª¿´«¿¬» »¿±²¿´ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ò Ó±²¬¸´§ ½®¿¸ ¬±¬¿´ ©»®» ¿ª»®¿¹»¼ ±² ¿ »¿±²¿´ ¾¿· ¿²¼ °´±¬¬»¼ ·² Ú·¹«®» ï ¿²¼ ¬¸» ½¿´½«´¿¬»¼ ²±®³¿´ô ³±²¬¸´§ ®¿²¹» ©¿ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ¦»®± ¬± ±²» ½®¿¸ °»® ³±²¬¸ò Ì¸» º®¿½¬·±² ±º ¿ ½®¿¸ ·²½·¼»²¬ ¿®» ½¿´½«´¿¬»¼ ®»«´¬ô ¸±©»ª»®ô ©¸»² ¿²¿´§¦»¼ ·² ¬¸· ©¿§ ¬¸» ®»«´¬ ½¿² ¸±© ¿ ¼·¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ·²¼·½¿¬» ©¸»¬¸»® ¹·ª»² ³±²¬¸ ³¿§ ¾» ¿¾±ª» ±® ¾»´±© ²±®³¿´ º±® ¬¸¿¬ ¬·³» ±º §»¿®ò Ì¿µ·²¹ ¿ ¾¿· ±º îðïï ¬± îðïëô ®»«´¬ ¸±© ¬¸¿¬ ½®¿¸» ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¿¾±ª» ²±®³¿´ ·²½» ß°®·´ò ß ª¿´«» ½¿² ²±¬ ¾» ½¿´½«´¿¬»¼ º±® Í»°¬»³¾»® «²¬·´ ¿º¬»® Ñ½¬±¾»®ô ¾«¬ ½«®®»²¬ ½®¿¸ ¼¿¬¿ ·²¼·½¿¬» ¬¸¿¬ »ª»² ·º ¬¸»®» ¿®» ¦»®± ½®¿¸» ·² Ñ½¬±¾»®ô Í»°¬»³¾»® »¿±²¿´´§ ¿ª»®¿¹»¼ ª¿´«» ©·´´ ¿´± ¾» ¿¾±ª» ²±®³¿´ò Ý±³°¿®·±² ±º Í»¿±²¿´´§ ßª»®¿¹»¼ ×²½·¼»²¬ Ì±¬¿´ îðïê ª Þ¿· ±º îðïïóîðïë î ï ð Ö¿²Ú»¾Ó¿®ß°®Ó¿§Ö«²Ö«´ß«¹Í»°Ñ½¬Ò±ªÜ»½ ëóÇ»¿® Ò±®³¿´ Î¿²¹»ëóÇ»¿® Í»¿±²¿´ ßª»®¿¹»îðïê Í»¿±²¿´ ßª»®¿¹» [[408,2708,876,2754][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]Ú·¹«®» ïò Ð´±¬ ±º îðïê »¿±² [[846,2708,916,2754][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]¿´ [[874,2708,1741,2754][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]´§ ¿ª»®¿¹»¼ ½®¿¸ ¬±¬¿´ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ²±®³¿´ ®¿²¹» °®±º·´» [[1699,2708,1760,2754][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]øï [[1749,2708,2094,2754][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]÷ ±º ¼¿¬¿ º®±³ îðïïó [[2056,2708,2182,2754][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]îðïëò [[2142,2708,2192,2754][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] Ð¿¹» ì ±º ç Ð¿¹» ìí Ù·ª»² ¬¸» ®¿© ¿²²«¿´ ¬±¬¿´ ²±¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ß²²«¿´ Ì®»²¼ »½¬·±² ¿¾±ª»ô ¬¸» ¾¿· ±º îðïï ¬± îðïë ½±«´¼ ¾» ¾·¿»¼ ¸·¹¸ ¿²¼ ©·¼» ¼«» ¬± îðïë ½®¿¸ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ·º ®±¿¼ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² · ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¿ °®·³¿®§ º¿½¬±®ò Ú·¹«®» î · ¿ ·³·´¿® °´±¬ ¾«¬ «·²¹ ¿ º·ª» §»¿® ¾¿· ®¿²¹» ±º îðïð ¬± îðïìò Î»«´¬ º±® ¬¸» ²»© ®»º»®»²½» °»®·±¼ ¸±© ¿ ²±¬·½»¿¾´§ ´±©»® ´»ª»´ ±º ½®¿¸ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ±ª»® ¬¸» «³³»® »¿±² ©·¬¸ ´» ¼®¿¬·½ ¼·ºº»®»²½» ±ª»® ¬¸» ®»¬ ±º ¬¸» §»¿®ò Ý±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸· ±¾»®ª¿¬·±²ô ¬¸» «³³»® ³±²¬¸ ±º îðïë ¸±©»¼ ¿² ¿¾±ª» ²±®³¿´ ²«³¾»® ±º ½®¿¸»ô ¾»¬©»»² Ó¿§ ¿²¼ ß«¹«¬ò Ú±® ½±³°¿®·±²ô îðïê ³±²¬¸´§ ª¿´«» ¿®» ½±ó°´±¬¬»¼ò Ý±³°¿®·±² ±º Í»¿±²¿´´§ ßª»®¿¹»¼ ×²½·¼»²¬ Ì±¬¿´ îðïë ¿²¼ îðïê ª Þ¿· ±º îðïðóîðïì î ï ð Ö¿²Ú»¾Ó¿®ß°®Ó¿§Ö«²Ö«´ß«¹Í»°Ñ½¬Ò±ªÜ»½ ëóÇ»¿® Ò±®³¿´ Î¿²¹»ëóÇ»¿® Í»¿±²¿´ ßª»®¿¹» îðïë Í»¿±²¿´ ßª»®¿¹»îðïê Í»¿±²¿´ ßª»®¿¹» [[2217,2304,2267,2365][12][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] [[333,2316,487,2362][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]Ú·¹«®» î [[456,2316,515,2362][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ò [[474,2316,1816,2362][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]Ð´±¬ ±º îðïë ¿²¼ îðïê »¿±²¿´´§ ¿ª»®¿¹»¼ ½®¿¸ ¬±¬¿´ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ²±®³¿´ ®¿²¹» °®±º·´» [[1775,2316,1836,2362][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]øï [[1825,2316,1886,2362][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]÷ [[1845,2316,1914,2362][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]±º [[1875,2316,2170,23 62][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] ¼¿¬¿ º®±³ îðïðó [[2132,2316,2220,2362][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]îðï [[2189,2316,2258,2362][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ìò É¸·´» ¬¸»» ¿®» ª»®§ ³¿´´ ³±²¬¸´§ ²«³¾»® ·¬ · »ª·¼»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ·²½®»¿» ·² ½®¿¸» ·² îðïë ¿²¼ îðïê · ¼«» ·² °¿®¬ ¬± ½®¿¸» ±½½«®®·²¹ ·² ¬¸» «³³»® ³±²¬¸ò Ì¸· · ¬¸» »¿±² ©¸»² ®±¿¼ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² · ³±¬ ´·µ»´§ ¬± ·³°¿½¬ ¬®¿ºº·½ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¿®»¿ ¿²¼ Ü«²µ·®µ ©¿ ½±³°´»¬»¼ ¿ ¿ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ®±¿¼ ·² ´¿¬» îðïìò Ø±©»ª»®ô Ö¿²«¿®§ ¿²¼ Ú»¾®«¿®§ øîðïë÷ ¿´± ¿© ¿¾±ª» ²±®³¿´ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ¿²¼ · ¿ ¬·³» ±º ¬¸» §»¿® ©¸»² ®±¿¼ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ·³°¿½¬ · ¾»´·»ª»¼ ¬± ¾» ´·³·¬»¼ò Ì¸»®» ¸¿ ¾»»² ½±²·¼»®¿¾´» ®»½»²¬ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸· ¿®»¿ ¬¸¿¬ ½±«´¼ ¾» ¿ º¿½¬±® ¿ ³±®» °»±°´» ³±ª» ·²¬± ¬¸» ²»© ¸±³»ò Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¸¿ ¬¿µ»² °´¿½» ´¿®¹»´§ ·²½» îðïí ¾«¬ ·¬ ¿°°»¿® ¿ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ²«³¾»® ±º ¸±³» ©»®» ¾«·´¬ ·² îðïìô ¾¿»¼ ±² Ð¿¹» ë ±º ç Ð¿¹» ìì ¸·¬±®·½¿´ ¿¬»´´·¬» ·³¿¹»®§ò Ð»®³·¬ ¼¿¬¿ ·³·´¿®´§ ¸±© ¿ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ·²½®»¿» ·² ²»© ½±²¬®«½¬·±² °»®³·¬ ·«»¼ ·² îðïí ¿²¼ îðïì øÚ·¹«®» í÷ò ×¬ · °±·¾´» ¬¸»®» · ¿² ·²½®»¿·²¹ ¬®»²¼ °®»»²¬ º®±³ °±°«´¿¬·±² ¹®±©¬¸ô ¾«¬ ¬¸» »¿±²¿´ °®±º·´» ±º ½®¿¸ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ¿´± ·²¼·½¿¬» ¿² ·²½®»¿» ·² ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ½±²½±³·¬¿²¬´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» »¨»½«¬·±² ±º «®®±«²¼·²¹ ®±¿¼ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ©±®µò Ý´±«®» ±º ³¿¶±® ®±¿¼ ¾±®¼»®·²¹ ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¿®»¿ ½±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ·³°¿½¬»¼ ¾±¬¸ îðïë ¿²¼ îðïê ½®¿¸ ¬±¬¿´ò ß¼¼·¬·±²¿´´§ô ¬®¿ºº·½ ¿²¼ °»»¼ ¬«¼·» °®»ª·±«´§ ®»°±®¬»¼ ¸±©»¼ ¿ ¸¿®° ·²½®»¿» ·² ¬®¿ºº·½ ª±´«³» ¿º¬»® ¬¸» Ó¿®½¸ îðïê ½´±«®» ±º Ê·½µ¾«®¹ô ©¸·½¸ ³¿¬½¸» ½´±»´§ ¬¸» ¬·³»´·²» ±º ¿¾±ª» ²±®³¿´ ½®¿¸ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ·² îðïêò É·¬¸ ¬¸» »¨°»½¬»¼ ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º ³«´¬·°´» ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ °®±¶»½¬ô ·¬ · ´·µ»´§ ¬®¿ºº·½ ª±´«³» ³¿§ ¼»½®»¿»ò ×¬ · ®»¿±²¿¾´» ¬± »¨°»½¬ ¬¸¿¬ô ¾¿®·²¹ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ½´±«®» ¿´±²¹ ³¿¶±® ¾±®¼»®·²¹ ®±¿¼ô ½®¿¸» °±·¾´§ ¼«» ¬± ·²½®»¿»¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ ®±«¬·²¹ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸· ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¸±«´¼ «¾·¼»ò Ì± ©¸¿¬ »¨¬»²¬ · ½«®®»²¬´§ «²µ²±©²ò Ò»© Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² Ð»®³·¬ øîðïðóîðïë÷ ïêð ïìð ïîð ïðð èð êð ìð îð ð îðïðîðïïîðïîîðïíîðïìîðïë [[1787,2638,1837,2689][10][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] [[2387,2638,2437,2689][10][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] [[764,2642,1740,2688][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]Ú·¹«®» íò Ý¸¿®¬ ±º ²»© ½±²¬®«½¬·±² °»®³·¬ ·«»¼ º®±³ îðïðó [[1701,2642,1808,2688][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]îðïë [[1777,2642,1827,2688][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ò Ð¿¹» ê ±º ç Ð¿¹» ìë Ù»±¹®¿°¸·½ Ð®±º·´» ×³¿¹» ±² ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ °¿¹» ³¿° ±«¬ ½®¿¸ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¿®»¿ò Ú·¹«®» ì · ¿ ¼»²·¬§ ³¿° ±º ½®¿¸ ·²½·¼»²¬ º®±³ îðïï ¬¸®±«¹¸ îðïëò ×²½·¼»²¬ ¼»²·¬§ ©¿ ¹®»¿¬»¬ ¿´±²¹ ¬ Ù¿®´¿²¼ô ¾»¬©»»² Í½¸³·¼¬ Ô¿µ» ¿²¼ ëï Ð´ò Î»³¿·²·²¹ ½®¿¸» ©»®» °®·³¿®·´§ ½»²¬»®»¼ ¿´±²¹ ¬¸ ëì ßª»ò Ì¸» ´±½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸»» ¼»²·¬·» · ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»½»²¬ ¬·³»´·²» ±º ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ±«¬ ±º ®±¿¼ ¬®«½¬«®»ò îðïê ½®¿¸» ¿²¼ ¼»²·¬·» ¿®» ³¿°°»¼ ·² Ú·¹«®» ë ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¼»²·¬§ ¼·ºº»® ½±²·¼»®¿¾´§ º®±³ ¬¸¿¬ ±º ¬¸» °®»ª·±« º·ª» §»¿®ò Ì¸»®» ©»®» ¬©± ½®¿¸» ¿¬ ¬¸» ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ±º ëç¬¸ ßª» ¿²¼ Ü«²µ·®µô ´»²¼·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» ¹®»¿¬»¬ ¼»²·¬§ ±º ·²½·¼»²¬ò ß´´ ±¬¸»® °±·²¬ ±² ¬¸» ³¿° ¿½½±«²¬ º±® ¿ ·²¹´» ½®¿¸ »¿½¸ò Ò± ½®¿¸» ±½½«®®»¼ ¿´±²¹ Ù¿®´¿²¼ô ©¸·½¸ ©¿ ¿ ¸±¬ °±¬ ±º ½®¿¸ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ·² îðïï ¬¸®±«¹¸ îðïëò ß ²±¬»¼ ¿¾±ª»ô ¬¸· »¨½´«¼» ¿²§ ½®¿¸» ¬¸¿¬ ±½½«®®»¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ±º Í½¸³·¼¬ Ô¿µ» ¿²¼ Ù¿®´¿²¼ò Ð¿¹» é ±º ç Ð¿¹» ìê Ý®¿¸ ×²½·¼»²¬ Ü»²·¬§ Ó¿° º±® îðïïóîðïë [[300,2714,2288,2760][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]Ú·¹«®» ìò Ü»²·¬§ ³¿° ±º ½®¿¸ ·²½·¼»²¬ º®±³ îðïïóîðïëò Ì¸» ½±´±® °»½¬®«³ ®«² º®±³ ´·¹¸¬ °«®°´» ø®»´¿¬·ª» ´±© ¼»²·¬§÷ ¬± ®»¼ [[300,2760,679,2806][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ø®»´¿¬·ª» ¸·¹¸ ¼»²·¬§÷ [[1230,2760,1280,2806][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] Ð¿¹» è ±º ç Ð¿¹» ìé Ý®¿¸ ×²½·¼»²¬ Ü»²·¬§ Ó¿° º±® îðïê [[300,2714,454,2760][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]Ú·¹«®» ë [[423,2714,482,2760][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ò [[441,2714,1044,2760][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]Ü»²·¬§ ³¿° ±º ½®¿¸ ·²½·¼»²¬ º®±³ î [[1013,2714,1101,2760] [9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ðïê [[1070,2714,1908,2760][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ò Ì¸» ½±´±® °»½¬®«³ ®«² º®±³ ´·¹¸¬ °«®°´» ø®»´¿¬·ª» [[1867,2714,1925,2760][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]´± [[1895,2714,2200,2760][9][ ,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]© ¼»²·¬§÷ ¬± ®»¼ [[640,2748,690,2809][12][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]] [[300,2760,680,2806][9][,I,][Z@RBFA4.tmp]]ø®»´¿¬·ª» ¸·¹¸ ¼»²·¬§÷ò Î»°±®¬ °®»°¿®»¼ ¾§ Ö¿®»¼ Ù·´¾»®¬ô Ð«¾´·½ Í¿º»¬§ ß²¿´§¬ Ð¿¹» ç ±º ç Ð¿¹» ìè Ò±®¬¸©»¬ ß®»¿ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ê±´«³» ¿²¼ Í°»»¼ Ü¿¬¿ ÒÑÎÌØ ÍÛÙÓÛÒÌ ëçïð Ü«²µ·®µ Ô² ìñîèñîðïë îéòç ³°¸ ïìðé ßÜÌ ïêêëë ëç¬¸ßª»ò ëñëñîðïëïêòî ³°¸ ïê ßÜÌ ëçðð Ü«²µ·®µ øëç¬¸ßª»ò÷ ëñëñîðïë ïìòî ³°¸ éëè ßÜÌ ëèèð Ü«²µ·®µ Ô² ìñîèñîðïëîèòë ³°¸ ïëîé ßÜÌ ëèïë Ü«²µ·®µ Ô² íñïéñîðïê ìîòí ³°¸ ïïêî ßÜÌ çñîîñîðïë ìðòï ³°¸ ïíéè ßÜÌ êñèñîðïë ìîòï ³°¸ ïíéç ßÜÌ ëéðð Ü«²µ·®µ Ô¿²» ïîñíñïë íç ³°¸ çíë ßÜÌ ïêìïð ëé¬¸ßª»ò éñïçñîðïê îèòî ³°¸ ïíéî ßÜÌ Ð¿¹» ìç Ò±®¬¸©»¬ ß®»¿ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ê±´«³» ¿²¼ Í°»»¼ Ü¿¬¿ Ó×ÜÜÔÛ ÍÛÙÓÛÒÌ ¬¸ ïêðíð ëëßª»ò éñïîñîðïê íðòë ³°¸ çéè ßÜÌ íñïìñîðïê íïòí ³°¸ ïðíë ßÜÌ ¬¸ ïêêîë ëìßª»ò ïðñîçñîðïì îçòé ³°¸ ïíîí ßÜÌ ìñîéñîðïê îçòê ³°¸ ïééé ßÜÌ ïêîðë ëì¬¸ ßª»ò ìñîéñîðïê îçòë ³°¸ ïîîì ßÜÌ ïêìðë ëì¬¸ ßª»ò êñïëñîðïê îèòë ³°¸ ïêèê ßÜÌ ëîîë Ü«²µ·®µ Ô² ëíðë Ü«²µ·®µ Ô² çñîîñîðïë íêòé ³°¸ ïëèì ßÜÌ éñïçñîðïê íèòé ³°¸ ìïïê ßÜÌ ïðñîèñîðïì íìòë ³°¸ èðï ßÜÌ íñïéñîðïê íçòì ³°¸ ïïðç ßÜÌ êñïïñîðïì íìòï ³°¸ ëëé ßÜÌ Ð¿¹» ëð Ò±®¬¸©»¬ ß®»¿ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ê±´«³» ¿²¼ Í°»»¼ Ü¿¬¿ ÍÑËÌØ ÍÛÙÓÛÒÌ ¬ ëïßª»²«» çñïêñïë íîòé ³°¸ ïôïêð ßÜÌ Ü«²µ·®µ ¬± ÝÎ ìé ½±³°´»¬»¼ ¬¸ èñéñïí îéòï ³°¸ ëìî ßÜÌ Ü«²µ·®µ ¬± ëì ½±³°´»¬»¼ êñîðñïî îçòé ³°¸ êîì ßÜÌ Ü»ªò ¬± ²±®¬¸ ¬¿®¬»¼ êñîëñðè îèòé ³°¸ íèì ßÜÌ Ò± Ü«²µ·®µ »¨¬»²·±² Ð¿¹» ëï Ò±®¬¸©»¬ ß®»¿ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ý±²¬®±´ Ý·¬·¦»² Î»¯«»¬ ÒÑÎÌØ ÍÛÙÓÛÒÌ Í¬±° ß¸»¿¼ Í·¹² Ý®±©¿´µ ß´´ É¿§ Í¬±° Í¬±° ß¸»¿¼ Í·¹² Ì»³°±®¿®§ Í°»»¼ Ø«³° Í°»»¼ Ô·³·¬ Í·¹² Í°»»¼ Ô·³·¬ Í·¹² Í°»»¼ Ø«³° Ð¿¹» ëî Ò±®¬¸©»¬ ß®»¿ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ý±²¬®±´ Ý·¬·¦»² Î»¯«»¬ Ó×ÜÜÔÛ ÍÛÙÓÛÒÌ Í»ª»®¿´ Ý¸·´¼®»² ¿¬ Ð´¿§ Í·¹² Í»ª»®¿´ Ý¸·´¼®»² ¿¬ Ð´¿§ Í·¹² Í´±©»® Í°»»¼ Í·¹² Í´±©»® Í°»»¼ Í·¹² Ý®±©¿´µ ©ñ ÎÎÚÞ Ò± Ð¿®µ·²¹ Í·¹² Ð¿¹» ëí Ò±®¬¸©»¬ ß®»¿ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ý±²¬®±´ Ý·¬·¦»² Î»¯«»¬ ÍÑËÌØ ÍÛÙÓÛÒÌ ß´´ É¿§ Í¬±° ¿²¼ Ý®±©¿´µ Ý®±©¿´µ ß´´ É¿§Í¬±° ¿²¼ Ý®±©¿´µ Ð¿¹» ëì Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct! W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E.(M) [[64,558,273,615][12][,I,][Times New Roman]]Abstract [[67,664,2506,721][12][,I,][Times New Roman]]This paper reviewed over 70 technical papers covering all-way stops (or multi-way stops) and their success and failure [[67,721,2403,778][12][,I,][Times New Roman]]as traffic control devices in residential areas. This study is the most comprehensive found on multi-way stop signs [[67,827,2505,884][12][,I,][Times New Roman]]The study looked at how multi-way stop signs have been used as traffic calming measures to control speed. There have [[67,883,2398,940][12][,I,][Times New Roman]]been 23 hypotheses studied using multi-way stop as speed control. The research found an additional 9 hypotheses [[67,939,1847,996][12][,I,][Times New Roman]]studied showing the effect multi way stops have on other traffic engineering problems. [[67,1046,2346,1103][12][,I,][Times New Roman]]The research found that, overwhelmingly, multi-way stop signs do NOT control speed except under very limited [[67,1102,2075,1159][12][,I,][Times New Roman]]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) describes warrants for installing multi-way stop signs. However, it (16) 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. 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. The seventy-one references are shown in Appendix A. There was a problem finding the 14 papers found in literature searches. The 14 papers are listed in Appendix B for information only. Most of the papers were from old sources and are probably out of print. Multi-Way Stop Signs 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. [[1648,3071,1814,3119][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]51, 55, ( Reference 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 39, 45, 46, 61, 62, 63 and 64 ). Ð¿¹» ëë http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct 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" bystop signs. Positively controlled is meant to infer that the streets are controlled by unwarranted stop signs. 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 this to 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 ). 16. Multi-way stops can reduce cut-through trafficvolume 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 Ð¿¹» ëê http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct 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 68). Speed Control Issues 24. There area many ways to "calm" traffic. Cited by twenty-two references. (Reference 1, 14, 20, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, [[645,2078,695,2126][10][,I,][Times New Roman]], 40,41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 5153 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 of the roadway. Cited by five references. (Reference 1, 20, 39, 46 and 69). Ð¿¹» ëé http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct 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). 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 finesand 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 of 2 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 found that the average annual road user cost increased by $2,402.92 (1988 cost) per intersection (62) when converting from two to four way stop signs for low volume intersections. Ð¿¹» ëè http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct 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 studywas the only research paper that showed factual support for "unwarranted" multi-way stop signs. They were (6) found to be effective at reducing accidents at intersections that have sight distance problems and on-street parking. It is interesting to note that residential speeding problems and multi-way stop sign requests date back to 1930 The (63). 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 Appendix A References used in Research of Multi-Way Stop Signs 1. Gerald L. Ullman, "Neighborhood Speed Control - U.S. Practices", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1996, pages 111- 115. 2. Richard F. Beaubein, "Controlling Speeds on Residential Streets", ITE Journal, April 1989, pages 37-39. 3. "4 Way Stop Signs Cut Accident Rate 58% at Rural Intersections", ITE Journal, November 1984, pages 23-24. 4. Michael Kyte & Joseph Marek, "Collecting Traffic Data at All-Way Stop Controlled Intersections", ITE Journal, April 1989, pages 33-36. 5. Chan, Flynn & Stocker, "Volume Delay Relationship at Four Way Stop Controlled Intersections: A Response Surface Model", ITE Journal, March 1989, pages 27-34. 6. La Plante and Kripidlowkdki, "Stop Sign Warrants: Time for Change", ITE Journal, October 1992, pages 25-29. Ð¿¹» ëç http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct 7. Patricia B. Noyes, "Responding to Citizen Requests for Multi Way Stops", ITE Journal, January 1994, pages 43-48. 8. Chadda and Carter, "Multi-Way Stop Signs - Have We Gone Too Far?", ITE Journal, May 1983, pages 19-21. 9. Gary Moore,"Gwinnett County Legal Opinions on Unwarranted Multi-Way Stops", March 6,1990. 10. Chadda and Carter, " The Changing Role of Multi-Way Stop Control", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1983, pages 4-31 to 4-34. 11. Lovell and Haver, "The Safety Effect of Conversion to All-Way Stop Control", Transportation Research Record 1068, pages 103-107. 12. "Indiana Suggests Ways to Halt Stop Sign Misuse", Transafety Reporter, February 1989, page 7. 1978. 14. "State of the Art: Residential Traffic Management", US DOT, FHWA/RD-80/092, December 1980, pages 63-65, 22-23. 15. Dick Williams, "A New Direction for Traffic Dispute", Atlanta Journal, January 14, 1988, Section E, page 1. 16. "Warrants for Multi-Way Stop Signs" (2B-6), Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, US DOT , FHWA, pages 2B-3 to 2B-4. 17. "Stop and Yield Sign Control", Traffic Control Devices Handbook, US DOT, FHWA, 1983, pages 2-14 to 2-16. 18. La Pante & Kropidlowdki, "Stop Sign Warrants ", Presented at ITE Conference, San Diego, CA, September 18, 1989. 19. Walt Rekuc, "Traffic Engineering Study of Multi-Way Stop Signs", City of Roswell, February 15, 1988. 20. Homburger, etal, Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, ITE, Washington, DC, 1989. 21.Speed Zone Guidelines, ITE, Washington, DC, 1993. 22.A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 1994. 23. A.J. Ballard, "Efforts to Control Speeds on Residential Collector Streets", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1990,pages 445-448. 24. C.E. Walter, "Suburban Residential Traffic Calming", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1994, pages 445-448. 25. K.L. Gonzalez, " Neighborhood Traffic Control: Bellevue's Approach", ITE Journal, Vol. 43, No.5, May 1993, pages 43-45. 26. Brian Kanely & B.E. Ferris, "Traffic Diverter's for Residential Traffic Control - The Gainesville Experience", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, pages 72-76. 27. Marshall Elizer, "Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps", ITE Ð¿¹» êð http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Compendium of Technical Papers, 1993, pages 11-15[[1154,108,1204,165][12][,I,][Times New Roman]]. 28. T. Mazella & D. Godfrey, "Building and Testing a Customer Responsive Neighborhood Traffic Control Program", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1995, pages 75-79. 29. W.M. Bretherton and J.E. Womble, "Neighborhood Traffic Management Program", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1992, pages 398-401. 30. J.E. Womble, "Neighborhood Speed Watch: Another Weapon in the Residential Speed Control Arsenal", ITE Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2, February 1990, pages 1- 17. 31. Michael Wallwork, "Traffic Calming", The Genesis Group, unpublished. 32. Doug Lemov, "Calming Traffic", Governing, August 1996, pages 25-27. 33. Michael Wallwork, "Traffic Calming", The Traffic Safety Toolbox, ITE, Washington, DC, 1993, pages 234-245. 34. Ransford S. McCourt, Neighborhood Traffic Management Survey, ITE District 6, Technical Chair, unpublished, June 3, 1996. 35. Halbert, etal, "Implementation of Residential Traffic Control Program in the City of San Diego", District 6 Meeting, July 1993. 36. Anton Dahlerbrush, "Speed Humps & Implementation and Impact on Residential Traffic Control", City of Beverly Hills, California, District 6 Meeting, July 1993. 37. Firoz Vohra, "Modesto Speed Hump Experience", District 6, ITE Meeting, July 1993. 38. Patricia Noyes, "Evaluation of Traditional Speed Reduction in Residential Area", District 6 ITE Meeting, July 1993. 39. Cynthia L. Hoyle, Traffic Calming, American Planning Association, Report No 456, July 1995. 40. Sam Yager, Use of Roundabouts, ITE Technical Council Committee, 5B- 17, Washington, DC, February 1992. 41.Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Design, ITE, Washington, DC, 1993. 42.Residential Streets, 2nd Edition, ASCE, NAHB & ULI, 1990. 43.Traffic Calming, Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation, Australia, 1989. 44.Traffic Calming in Practice, Department of Transport, etal, London, November 1994. 45. Todd Long, "The Use of Traffic Control Measures in the Prevention of Through Traffic Movement on Residential Streets", unpublished, Masters Thesis, Georgia Tech, September 1990. 46. Patricia Noyes, "Evaluation of Traditional Speed Reduction Efforts in Residential Areas", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, District 6 Meeting, 1993, pages 61-66. 47. G.E. Frangos, "Howard County's Speed Control in Residential Areas Utilizing Psycho-perceptive Traffic Controls", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, pages 87-92. Ð¿¹» êï http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct 48. Halbert, etal, "Implementation of Residential Traffic Control Program in the City of San Diego", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, District 6, 1993, pages 23-60. 49. Radwan & Sinha, "Gap Acceptance and Delay at Stop Controlled Intersections on Multi-Lane Divided Highways", ITE Journal, March 1980, page 38. 50. Borstel, "Traffic Circles : Seattle's Experience", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, page 77. 51. D. Meier, "The Policy Adopted in Arlington County, VA, for Solving Real and Perceived Speeding Problems on Residential Streets", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, page 97. 52. Jeff Clark, "High Speeds and Volumes on Residential Streets: An Analysis of PhysicalCharacteristics as Causes in Sacramento, California", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, page 93. 53. Wiersig & Van Winkle, "Neighborhood Traffic Management in the Dallas/Fort Worth Area", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, page 82. 54.Improving Residential Street Environments, FHWA RD-81-031, 1981. 55. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., "Effectiveness of Stop Signs When Installed to Control Speeds Along Residential Streets", Proceedings from Southern District ITE Meeting, Richmond, Virginia, April 17, 1993. 56. Arthur R. Theil, "Let Baton Rouge's Traffic Engineers Decide Whether SignsAre Needed", State Times, LA, August 30, 1983. 57. Gary James, "Merits Being Totally Ignored in This Instance", Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, July 30,1983. 58. James Thomason, "Traffic Signs Allow Crossing", Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, July 30, 1983. 59. "City-Parish Must Move Stop Signs", Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, 1983. 60.Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic Control and Roadway Elements, Vol. 2, FHWA Washington, D. C., 19982. 61. B.H. Cottrell, Jr.,''Using All-Way Stop Control for Residential Traffic Management", Report No. FHWA VTRC 96-R17, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia, January, 1996. 62. Eck & Diega, "Field Evaluation at Multi-Way Versus Four-Way Stop Sign Control at Low Volume Intersections in Residential Areas", Transportation Research Record 1160, Washington, DC, 1988, pages 7-13. 63. Hanson, "Are There Too Many Four-Way Stops?", Traffic Engineering, November 1957, pages 20-22, 42. 64. Beaubien, "Stop Signs for Speed Control", ITE Journal, November 1976, pages 26-28. 65. Antwerp and Miller, "Control of Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods : SomeConsiderations for Implementation", Transportation 10, 1981, pages 35-49. 66. Lipinski, "Neighborhood Traffic Controls", Transportation Engineering Journal, May 1979, pages 213-221. 67. Richardson,"A Delay Model for Multi-Way Stop Sign Intersections", TransportationResearch Record 1112, Washington, DC, 1987, pages 107-114. 68. Briglin, "An Evaluation of Four-Way Stop Sign Control", ITE Journal, August 1982, Ð¿¹» êî http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct pages 16-19. 69. Ullman and Dudek, "Effects of Reduced Speed Limits in Rapidly Developing Urban Fringe Areas", Transportation Research Record 1114, 1989, pages 45-53. 70. Robert Rees, "All-Way STOP Signs Installation Criteria", Westernite, Jan-Feb 1999, Vol 53, No. 1, pg 1-4. 71. Wes Siporski, "Stop Sign Compliance", posting on Traffic Engineering Council List Serve, Jan 15, 1999. Appendix B Additional References for Multi-Way Stop Signs Not included in Analysis - Reports not available 1.Improving Traffic Signal Operations, ITE Report IR-081, August 1995. 2. Kunde, " Unwarranted Stop Signs in Cities", ITE Technical Notes, July 1982, page 12. 3. "In search of Effective Speed Control", ITE Technical Notes, December 1980, pages 12-16. 4. "Stop Signs Do Not Control Speed", ITE Technical Notes, July 1978, pages 6-7. 5. "An Evaluation of Unwarranted Stop Signs", ITE San Francisco Bay Area, February 1979. 6. "Cost of Unnecessary Stops", Auto Club of Missouri, Midwest Motorists, 1974. 7. Nitzel, Schatter & Mink, "Residential Traffic Control Policies and Measures", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1988. 8. Weike and Keim, "Residential Traffic Controls", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, Washington DC, August 1976. 9. Landom and Buller, "The Effects on Road Noise in Residential Areas", Watford, United Kingdom, October 1977. 10. Wells and Joyner, "Neighborhood Automobile Restraints", Transportation Research Record 813, 1981. 11. Byrd and Stafford, "Analysis of Delay and User Costs of Unwarranted Four Way Stop Sign Controlled Intersections", TRR 956, Washington, DC, 1984, pages 30-32. 12. Marconi, "Speed Control Measures in Residential Areas", Traffic Engineering, Vol. 47, No. 3, March 1977, pages 28-30. 13. Mounce, "Driver's Compliance with Stop Sign Control at Low Volume Intersections", TRR 808, TRB, Washington, DC, 1981, pages 30-37. 14. Orlob, "Traffic Diversion for Better Neighborhoods", Traffic Engineering, ITE, Vol. 45, No. 7, July 1975, pages 22-25. Ð¿¹» êí http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Count: C:\WPERF60\MARTIN\MULTIWAY.WPD Ð¿¹» êì http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm[8/9/2012 11:42:34 AM] Effectiveness of “Children at Play” Warning Signs [[1165,848,1433,896][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Prepared for Bureau of Highway Operations Traffic Engineering Section, Traffic Design Unit [[1170,1039,1428,1087][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Prepared by CTC & Associates LLC WisDOT Research & Library Unit September 25, 2007 [[375,1279,2112,1327][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Transportation Synthesis Reports are brief summaries of currently available information on topics of [[375,1327,2161,1375][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]interest to WisDOT staff throughout the department. Online and print sources for TSRs include NCHRP [[375,1375,2115,1423][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]and other TRB programs, AASHTO, the research and practices of other transportation agencies, and [[375,1423,2181,1471][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]related academic and industry research. Internet hyperlinks in TSRs are active at the time of publication, [[375,1470,1102,1518][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]but changes on the host server can make [[1063,1470,1434,1518][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]them obsolete. To re [[1403,1470,1779,1518][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]quest a TSR, e-mail [[1739,1470,2197,1518][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]research@dot.state.wi.us [[375,1518,806,1566][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]or call (608) 261-8198. Request for Report WisDOT is engaged in an effort to reevaluate and update its policies regarding roadside warning signs related to children, such as “Children at Play,” “Blind Child,” “Deaf Child,” etc. We were asked to review research on the effectiveness of these types of signs to better ground WisDOT’s policy decision. Summary There is no evidence that special warning signs of this sort reduce driver speeds or crash rates. This is the unanimous conclusion of the many credible sources we located on this topic. This claim is supplemented by a number of often-cited “common sense” observations that such signs do not give clear and enforceable guidance to drivers, provide a false sense of security to parents and children that may increase risk, expose the government to liability, give the false impression that areas without such signs do not have children, represent an unnecessary cost that then propagates as additional signs are requested and violate the principle that signage should be based on engineering, not political, decision making. These arguments are used most frequently against Children at Play signs, and many of them—such as the arguments that CAP signs encourage playing in the street and that if in one location with children they should properly be in all locations—do not apply to Deaf Child, Blind Child, Handicapped Child or Autistic Child signs. These latter signs receive much less explicit discussion in the sources we located. National Research and Guidelines Thesection of this TSR presents positions on child-related traffic warning signs with papers by U.S. DOT, FHWA, NCHRP and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Though these all discourage the use of such signs, none of them cites specific research demonstrating that these signs are ineffective, and one source, the ITE [[1234,2642,1974,2690][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities [[1939,2642,2208,2690][10][,,][Times New Roman]] entry below, implies that no such studies exist, stating that “No accident-based studies have been able to determine the effectiveness of warning signs.” State and Local Research and Practices contains a brief representative sampling of state and local positions on this topic. While many areas make use of these signs, we located no explicit defenses on Ð¿¹» êë engineering grounds for their use. A common theme is the ongoing struggle to explain to members of the public that their requests for these types of signs are based on faulty assumptions about their effectiveness. Many of the sources we located refer generically to multiple “studies” that have shown special warning signs to be ineffective, but despite extensive research we were unable to identify any specific projects meeting this description. National Research and Guidelines FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2000) http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium_06.14.01.htm A search of the MUTCD found no instances of “CAP,” “watch for children,” “slow children,” “blind child” or “deaf.” Related guidance includes the following: From Section 2C.02, Application of Warning Signs (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part2/part2c.htm#section2C02): “The use of warning signs should be kept to a minimum as the unnecessary use of warning signs tends to breed disrespect for all signs.” From Section 2H.03, Regulatory and Warning Signs (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part2/part2h.htm#section2H03): “All regulatory and warning signs installed on public roads and streets within recreational and cultural interest areas shall conform to the requirements of Chapters 2A, 2B, and 2C” (the chapters on general, regulatory and warning signs). CAP or other message signs are not specifically prohibited as long as they conform to the standard shape (diamond) and colors (black letters on yellow background) and as long as no symbols are used. Some state-specific MUTCD supplements (such as in New York) present the option of a CAP or similar sign. Institute of Transportation Engineers: Traffic Control Devices Handbook (2001) [[374,1663,1319,1711][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Paper copies are available from the WisDOT library. Page 444 states that “Agencies should avoid the use of CAUTION – CHILDREN AT PLAY or SLOW CHILDREN nonstandard signs since such signs may imply ‘that the involved jurisdiction approves of streets as playgrounds, which may result in the jurisdiction being vulnerable to tort liability.’” (This quote is reproduced and expanded in [[894,1854,1560,1902][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedest [[1521,1854,2108,1902][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]rian Transportation: Pedestrian [[375,1902,954,1950][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Signing and Pavement Markings [[920,1902,1011,1950][10][,,][Times New Roman]] at [[971,1902,2014,1950][10][,,][Times New Roman]]http://safety.fhwa.dot. gov/ped_bike/univcourse/swless14.htm [[1996,1902,2057,1950][10][,,][Times New Roman]].) To determine the original research basis for these claims, we noted that this source cites ITE’s [[1953,1975,2195,2023][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Design and [[375,2023,912,2071][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Safety of Pedestrian Facilities [[878,2023,2160,2071][10][,,][Times New Roman]] (below) for the claim that using CAP signs “may result in the jurisdiction being vulnerable to tort liability,” whereas this latter source, in its comments on CAP signs, refers back to this one. Page 444 also states that “there are conditions where selected traffic control devices may be considered, such as around parks, or conditions where children may have disabilities and drivers need to take extra care.” This implies that Blind/Deaf/Handicapped/Autistic Child signs may be appropriate in some circumstances, though no evidence is cited on the effectiveness of these devices. ITE: Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities (1998) http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/docs/designsafety.pdf Chapter 4, Pedestrian and Motorist Signing, states (page 42 of the PDF): “No accident-based studies have been able to determine the effectiveness of warning signs. However, this is understandable because of the complex nature of events leading into each accident.” Of the 41 agencies responding to a questionnaire used in preparing this report, four reported that “all types of pedestrian-related signs and pavement stencils were helpful,” while some agencies “responded that they use these devices in the hope that they will provide some benefit to pedestrians.” (See page 39 of the PDF.) Also on page 39: “Signs should only be installed when they fulfill a need based on an engineering study or engineering judgment. In general, signs are often ineffective in modifying driver behavior, and overuse of signs breeds disrespect and diminishes effectiveness. Unnecessary signs and posts represent a hazard to errant motorists and may cause an Ð¿¹» êê obstruction to pedestrians and bicyclists. Furthermore, unnecessary signs are a waste of taxpayer dollars, represent an ongoing maintenance cost, and are a source of visual blight.” NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 139: Pedestrians and Traffic-Control Measures (1988) [[374,540,1319,588][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Paper copies are available from the WisDOT library. This report, quoting an earlier version of the [[1124,588,1735,636][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Traffic Control Devices Handbook [[1704,588,2189,636][10][,,][Times New Roman]] than the one listed above, says “Nonuniform signs such as ‘CAUTION—CHILDREN AT PLAY,’ ‘SLOW—CHILDREN,’ or similar legends should not be permitted on any roadway at any time… the removal of any nonstandard signs should carry a high priority.” NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 186: Supplemental Advance Warning Devices (1993) [[374,852,1319,900][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Paper copies are available from the WisDOT library. This report gives examples of numerous related signs currently in use. A specific example of a CAP sign is given on pages 38-39: “The device is not considered effective, but installation of the sign satisfied parent and political leaders. Generally, the residents and homeowners’ organization must pay to have this sign installed. The use of this sign and its variations has been discouraged by many agencies because the message implies that it is acceptable for children to be playing in the street. It is nonstandard due to the use of a symbol not contained in the MUTCD.” U.S. DOT Message Points (February 11, 2002) [[374,1284,1794,1332][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Paper copies are available from the FHWA. Please send a request to Fred Ranck, . fred.ranck@fhwa.dot.gov This communication states U.S. DOT’s position on CAP signs, which is to conform to MUTCD standards. Highlights include: Studies of the effectiveness of CAP signs by ITE, TRB and FHWA to date do not demonstrate a reduction in crashes involving children nor a reduction in speeds. (Note: ITE and FHWA staff were unaware of any studies.) From an ITE “traffic tips” series that answers residents’ commonly asked questions about signs, etc.: “…studies made in cities where (CAP) signs were widely posted in residential areas showed no evidence of having reduced pedestrian crashes or vehicle speed.” Several cities report that measured speeds on residential streets experienced no decrease after the installation of CAP warning signs. Further, several cities reported no decrease in the incidence of traffic crashes involving a child hit in the street after the installation of CAP warning signs. Fred Ranck of FHWA also states that “Children at Play” is not an appropriate message for a warning sign; rather “Watch for Children” is an appropriate message consistent with other warning sign messages. State and Local Research and Practices We have included some comments on CAP and other signs by state governments; state DOT research programs, including tech transfer efforts; and communities. Most sources agreed with the information from national sources. We have presented such exceptions as we were able to locate. We did not find any references to research supporting the use of these signs or other cogent arguments against the national stance regarding these signs. Multiple States More or less identical arguments repeating the national points made above appear in a number of state DOT tech transfer documents, including Massachusetts (http://www.ecs.umass.edu/baystate_roads/newsletters/2001_fall.pdf), New Hampshire (http://www.t2.unh.edu/spring02/pg4.html), California ) and Minnesota (www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/05-1/signs.php ). (http://www.mnltap.umn.edu/publications/exchange/2001-1/atplay.html This source states that “most collisions involving children are not actually caused by driver behavior (which this sign has very little demonstrated effect on), but by unsafe, erratic actions by children… The CHILDREN AT PLAY sign may well be understood by kids and families as a suggestion that it is acceptable for children to play in the street, and thus, by producing a false sense of security, be Ð¿¹» êé counterproductive. Furthermore, CHILDREN AT PLAY signs tend to propagate through neighborhoods, popping up on every block that has a child living on it. Signs lose credibility with motorists when they appear too often. Instead of being extra diligent, drivers tend to ignore the signs, particularly if no children are playing near the CHILDREN AT PLAY signs. When these signs appear too often, they raise questions like: If there is no sign does that mean there are no children present and no need to watch for children?” Alaska Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, Traffic Department FAQ http://www.muni.org/traffic/FAQ.cfm This FAQ asks: “Are there any guidelines for the installation of Children at Play signs?” Alaska DOT answers: “Yes. Children at Play signs are typically posted on neighborhood streets directly located off higher speed roadways.” This approach may bypass many of the national arguments against the use of these signs. Colorado/Wyoming 2006 Section Activities Report: Colorado/Wyoming Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2007) http://www.ite.org/elected/Colorado-Wyoming%20Section.pdf This report states that “nonuniform signs such as ‘Caution—Children at Play,’ ‘Slow—Children’ or similar legends should not be permitted on any roadway at any time,” presenting the national reasons and citing the FHWA 1983 [[602,1259,1213,1307][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Traffic Control Devices Handbook [[1182,1259,1533,1307][10][,,][Times New Roman]]. According to the [[1491,1259,1734,1307][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]ITE Journal [[1696,1259,2162,1307][10][,,][Times New Roman]], May 1988, “Children at Play signs may make parents feel more secure but they don’t work and they carry no enforcement value.” Colorado LTAP Newsletter, Spring 2004 http://ltap.colorado.edu/newsletter/Newsletter_Spring04.pdf On page 3, this newsletter addresses the Web site question, “What does MUTCD say about ‘Children at Play’ signs?” It repeats the national arguments and gives the additional argument, drawing from the TRB report [[726,1589,1710,1637][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Maintenance Management of Street and Highways Signs [[1676,1589,2117,1637][10][,,][Times New Roman]] that deviating from the MUTCD (which does not include Children at Play and similar warning signs) is a bad idea because “about 29 percent of tort liability lawsuits against highway departments are related to traffic signing.” Florida Florida Technology Transfer Traffic Information Program Series (TIPS), from the Florida Section (District 10) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/transportationTopics/tips.htm Two TIPS are relevant to this TSR: “Won’t a Children at Play sign help protect our kids?” ) This tip states that “studies made in (http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/transportationTopics/tips.htm#4 cities where such signs were widely posted in residential areas show no evidence of having reduced pedestrian crashes, vehicle speed or legal liability. In fact, many types of signs which were installed to warn of normal conditions in residential areas failed to achieve the desired safety benefits. Further, if signs encourage parents with children to believe they have an added degree of protection—which the signs do not and cannot provide—a great disservice results… . Specific warnings for schools, playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly justified.” “Why are traffic engineers reluctant to install Deaf Child or Blind Child warning signs?” (http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/transportationTopics/tips.htm#74) This tip gives the following reasons against using nonstandard, highly specific signs of this sort: A Deaf Child or Blind Child sign does not describe where the child might be. Most o streets within a residential area have children who react in the same way, and each driver must be aware of all children in a neighborhood environment. These signs provide parents and children with a false sense of security that their children o are safe when playing in or near the street. When the novelty of such a sign wears off, the signs no longer attract the attention of o regular passersby. Ð¿¹» êè Unique or unusual warning signs are a target for vandals and souvenir hunters and have a o high replacement cost. Unique message signs have no legal meaning or established precedent for use in basic o traffic engineering references. Their use is discouraged because of both the lack of proven effectiveness and undesirable liability exposure. Many traffic engineers feel that special warning signs are warranted at a location o adjacent to a school for the deaf or for the blind, and have considerably more merit than those at a location where a deaf or blind person may only cross occasionally. Maine 3.6.3 “Special” Warning Signs: “Children At Play,” “Deaf Person,” “Disabled Person,” “Horse Crossing,” etc. http://www.maine.gov/mdot/working-with-dot/section3.php This regulation states that “…the driving public does not react favorably or positively to these signs in most cases. In the late 1990s, the MaineDOT changed its policy on the installation and maintenance of these signs. It is virtually impossible for the MaineDOT to keep track of every handicapped person, playing child and crossing horse in every town along all state roads…. Knowing that these signs are generally ineffective, MaineDOT does NOT advise the use of these signs because allowing one sets precedence and generates many more requests and creates a new financial burden on the municipality.” Michigan Speed Control in Residential Areas http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/tcir0053.pdf Page 24 of the PDF states: “Special warning signs such as ‘Children at Play,’ ‘Watch for Children’ or others that warn of normal conditions are not effective in reducing speeds in residential areas,” among other of the standard national arguments against these signs. It continues: “The MMUTCD provides standards for signs warning drivers that they are approaching recreational facilities such as parks and playgrounds. However, there is not enough evidence to determine the effect of these warning signs on vehicle speeds.” (Reference: Michigan Department of Transportation and the Michigan State Police, [[1776,1642,2171,1690][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Michigan Manual of [[375,1690,956,1738][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Uniform Traffic Control Devices [[923,1690,1228,1738][10][,,][Times New Roman]], 1994 edition.) City of Troy, Mich.: “How about a ‘Children at Play’ sign?” http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Children%20at%20play.html According to this document, “Studies made in cities around the nation where such signs were widely posted in residential areas show no evidence of having reduced pedestrian crashes, vehicle speed or legal liability.” According to research in the City of Troy: “Studies in the City of Troy have also shown very low effectiveness of the sign and therefore have not installed them in the past several years. Before and after studies showed no reduction in speeds.” Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions, Office of Traffic, Safety and Operations http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/faq/faq-signing.html#m Question: “I would like to have a ‘deaf child/blind child/slow children at play’ sign installed on my street/highway near my home. How do I get this accomplished?” Answer: “Mn/DOT does not install this type of sign on state highways since it is not enforceable (it is a warning sign) and it can lead to a false sense of security. If you are requesting signing on a city street, contact the city offices.” North Carolina Traffic Engineering Policies, Practices and Legal Authority Resources NCDOT will install these signs upon receipt of a formal written request meeting certain criteria: Blind Child Area Signing: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/teppl/Topics/B-10/B- 10_p.pdf Autistic Child Area Signing: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/teppl/Topics/A-18/A- 18_p.pdf Ð¿¹» êç Deaf Child Area Signing: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/teppl/Topics/D-02/D- 02_p.pdf This strategy seems typical of a number of states. According to http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/teppl/Topics/C-05/C-05_mm.pdf, “Children Playing warning signs are not approved for use on the state highway system right of way. These signs tend to promote a false sense of security for the children and encourage them to actually play in the roadway, since traffic is warned of their presence.” Ohio Slow Children at Play Signs http://dot.state.oh.us/dist1/planning/TrafficStudies/children_at_play_signs.htm According to this policy, “These signs are not used by Ohio Department of Transportation on the rural state highway system and ODOT discourages others from using them.” This text is repeated in the [[826,999,1830,1047][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Office of Traffic Engineering Traffic Engineering Manual [[1792,999,2198,1047][10][,,][Times New Roman]], page 19 of the PDF: http://dot.state.oh.us/traffic/Publication%20Manuals/TEM/Part_02/part_02_complete%20for%20072007.p df Virginia [[372,1234,1919,1281][10][B,I,][Times New Roman]]A Look at What Some States are Doing. “Deaf Child Area” Signs Available in Virginia [[1880,1234,2027,1282][10][,,][Times New Roman]](1988) From AASHTO QUARTERLY, Vol. 67, No. 4, p. 13. [[374,1330,1588,1378][10][,I,][Times New Roman]]Paper copies are available through the transportation library system. VDOT officials have developed a policy that allows the use of Deaf Child Area warning signs. Parents of hearing-impaired children can request these signs through the VDOT residency for the area where the sign is desired. The request must be supported by medical certification of the child’s hearing loss. The signs will be allowed on nonlimited access roadways of the primary or secondary system. Jurisdictions maintaining their own streets and highways are encouraged to use similar guidelines for the use of these signs. West Virginia Traffic Engineering Directive 225: “Children at Play” Signing (1999) http://www.wvdot.com/engineering/Manuals/Traffic/TED/TED225.pdf This directive states that “since the other signing alternatives convey to motorists specific regulations or warning or more permanent roadway conditions rather than conditions that may exist at unspecified times, Children Present signs should only be installed after all the other alternatives have been considered.” Ð¿¹» éð Ð¿¹» éï Ð¿¹» éî Ð¿¹» éí Ð¿¹» éì 2B Agenda Number: Ó¿§±® ¿²¼ Ý±«²½·´ To: S PECIAL Ü¿ª» Ý¿´´·¬»®ô Ý·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»® Prepared by: C M OUNCIL EETING Reviewed by: Ñ½¬±¾»® îëô îðïê Í»¬ Ú«¬«®» Í¬«¼§ Í»·±² Item: ×¬ ¸¿ ¾»»² «¹¹»¬»¼ ¾§ ¿ ²«³¾»® ±º Ý±«²½·´³»³¾»® ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ò±ª»³¾»® ïë Î»¹«´¿® Ó»»¬·²¹ ¿²¼ Í¬«¼§ Í»·±² ¾» ½¿²½»´»¼ ¼«» ¬± ¬¸» ÙÎÛßÌÛÎ ÓÍÐ ë¬¸ ß²²«¿´ Ó»»¬·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ »ª»²·²¹ò Ø±©»ª»®ô ¬¸» Ý±«²½·´ ²»»¼ ¬± ½¿²ª¿ ¬¸» ®»«´¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ »´»½¬·±² ©·¬¸·² ïð ¼¿§ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» »´»½¬·±²ò ×º ¬¸» Ý±«²½·´ ¼»·®» ¬± ½¿²½»´ ¬¸» Ò±ª»³¾»® ïë¬¸ Î»¹«´¿® Ó»»¬·²¹ô ¬¿ºº «¹¹»¬ ½±²¼«½¬·²¹ ¿ ë °ò³ò ³»»¬·²¹ ±² ¿²§ ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¼¿¬»æ Ó±²¼¿§ô Ò±ª»³¾»® ïë É»¼²»¼¿§ô Ò±ª»³¾»® ïê Ì¸«®¼¿§ô Ò±ª»³¾»® ïé Ð»²¼·²¹ Í¬«¼§ Í»·±² Ì±°·½ ø¿¬ ´»¿¬ í Ý±«²½·´ ³»³¾»® ¸¿ª» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¬«¼§ ·¬»³ ±² ¬¸» ´·¬÷æ Ò±²» ¿¬ ¬¸· ¬·³»ò Ñ¬¸»® Ý±«²½·´ ®»¯«»¬ º±® Í¬«¼§ Í»·±² Ì±°·½æ Ò±²» ¿¬ ¬¸· ¬·³»ò Ð¿¹» ï Ñ½¬±¾»® îðïê ÍËÒ ÓÑÒ ÌËÛÍ ÉÛÜ ÌØËÎ ÚÎ× ÍßÌ ÍËÒ ÓÑÒ ÌËÛ ÉÛÜ ÌØË ÚÎ× ÍßÌ éæðð ÐÓ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ êæíð ÐÓ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ Ý·¬§ Ê±´«²¬»»® ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Î»½±¹²·¬·±² Ûª»²¬ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® Ð´§³±«¬¸ Ý®»»µ éæðð ÐÓ Ý»²¬»® ÛÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÏËßÔ×ÌÇ ÝÑÓÓ×ÌÌÛÛ øÛÏÝ÷ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ [[2250,1556,2300,1593][7][,I,][Z@RF11A.tmp]] Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ ëæíð ÐÓ éæðð ÐÓ ïîæðð ÐÓóíæðð ÐÓ ÍÐÛÝ×ßÔ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÐßÎÕ ú ÎÛÝ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ú×ÎÛ ÜÛÐÌò ÑÐÛÒ ÝÑÔËÓÞËÍ ÜßÇ ßÜÊ×ÍÑÎÇ ØÑËÍÛ ÜÒÎ Î»¯«·®»¼ Ú´±±¼ó Ñ¾»®ª»¼ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ °´¿·² Î»¹«´¿¬·±² Ú·®» Í¬¿¬·±² ×× øÐÎßÝ÷ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ éæðð ÐÓ Ð´§³±«¬¸ ×½» Ý»²¬»® ÎÛÙËÔßÎ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® éæðð ÐÓ éæðð ÐÓ ÔÛßÙËÛ ÑÚ ÉÑÓÛÒ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÊÑÌÛÎÍ ÔÑÝßÔ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ÝßÒÜ×ÜßÌÛ ÚÑÎËÓ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® ëæíð ÐÓ éæðð ÐÓ ÍÐÛÝ×ßÔ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô êæðð ó èæíð ÐÓ ÝßÒÝÛÔÔÛÜ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ø¿´´±©»»² ¿¬ ¬¸» ØÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ Ê·½µ¾«®¹ Ô¿²»ñÜ«²µ·®µ Ý®»»µ Ô¿²» ¬®¿ºº·½ ½±²½»®² ÎÛÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ Ð´§³±«¬¸ Ý®»»µ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ ßËÌØÑÎ×ÌÇ øØÎß÷ Ý»²¬»® éæðð ÐÓ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ÎÛÙËÔßÎ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® ÝØßÒÙÛÍ ßÎÛ ÒÑÌÛÜ ×Ò ÎÛÜ [[162,2944,530,2981][7][,I,][Z@RF11A.tmp]]ðÎÙÔ×ÔØÙÎÏ ÝØß íìðð Ð´§³±«¬¸ Þ±«´»ª¿®¼ Ð¸±²»æ éêíóëðçóëððð ÑÚÚ×Ý×ßÔ Ý×ÌÇ ÝßÔÛÒÜßÎ Ð´§³±«¬¸ô ÓÒ ëëììé Ú¿¨æ éêíóëðçóëðêð Ð¿¹» î Ò±ª»³¾»® îðïê ÍËÒ ÓÑÒ ÌËÛÍ ÉÛÜ ÌØËÎ ÚÎ× ÍßÌ ÍËÒ ÓÑÒ ÌËÛ ÉÛÜ ÌØË ÚÎ× ÍßÌ èæðð ßÓóêæðð ÐÓ èæðð ßÓ ó íæðð ÐÓ èæðð ßÓóêæðð ÐÓ èæðð ßÓóêæðð ÐÓ èæðð ßÓóêæðð ÐòÓò ßÞÍÛÒÌÛÛñÜ×ÎÛÝÌ ßÞÍÛÒÌÛÛñÜ×ÎÛÝÌ ßÞÍÛÒÌÛÛñÜ×ÎÛÝÌ ßÞÍÛÒÌÛÛñÜ×ÎÛÝÌ ßÞÍÛÒÌÛÛñÜ×ÎÛÝÌ ÞßÔÔÑÌ×ÒÙ ÞßÔÔÑÌ×ÒÙ ÞßÔÔÑÌ×ÒÙ ÞßÔÔÑÌ×ÒÙ ÞßÔÔÑÌ×ÒÙ éæðð ÐÓ êæðð ÐÓ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÛÜß ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® éæðð ÐÓ éæðð ÐÓ èæðð ßòÓòóëæÑÑ ÐÓ Ü¿§´·¹¸¬ ÛÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÐßÎÕ ú ÎÛÝ ßÞÍÛÒÌÛÛñÜ×ÎÛÝÌ Í¿ª·²¹ ÊÛÌÛÎßÒÍ ÜßÇ ÏËßÔ×ÌÇ ßÜÊ×ÍÑÎÇ ÛÔÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÜßÇ ÞßÔÔÑÌ×ÒÙ Û²¼ Ñ¾»®ª»¼ ÝÑÓÓ×ÌÌÛÛ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ Í»¬ Ý´±½µ Þ¿½µ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚÚ×ÝÛÍ Ð±´´ ±°»² øÛÏÝ÷ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ øÐÎßÝ÷ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ï Ø±«® ÝÔÑÍÛÜ éæðð ßÓ ¬± èæðð ÐÓ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® ëæíð ÐÓ éæðð ÐÓ éæðð ÐÓ ïðæðð ßÓóëæðð ÐÓ ÍÐÛÝ×ßÔ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ØÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÐÔÇÓÑËÌØ ßÎÌÍ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ÎÛÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ Úß×Î Þ«¼¹»¬ñÝ×Ð ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ßËÌØÑÎ×ÌÇ øØÎß÷ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ Ð´§³±«¬¸ Ý®»»µ Ý»²¬»® Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ éæðð ÐÓ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ ÎÛÙËÔßÎ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® ïïæððßÓóìæðð ÐÓ ÐÔÇÓÑËÌØ ßÎÌÍ ÌØßÒÕÍÙ×Ê×ÒÙ ÌØßÒÕÍÙ×Ê×ÒÙ Úß×Î ØÑÔ×ÜßÇ ØÑÔ×ÜßÇ Ð´§³±«¬¸ Ý®»»µ Ý»²¬»® Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚÚ×ÝÛÍ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚÚ×ÝÛÍ ÝÔÑÍÛÜ ÝÔÑÍÛÜ ëæíð ÐÓ ÍÐÛÝ×ßÔ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ü·½« Ý±«²¬§ Î¼ ìé Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ éæðð ÐÓ ÎÛÙËÔßÎ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® [[162,2953,530,2990][7][,I,][Z@RF11A.tmp]]ðÎÙÔ×ÔØÙÎÏ ÝØßÒÙÛÍ ßÎÛ ÒÑÌÛÜ ÝØßÝØßÒÙÛÍ ßÎÛ ÓßÜÛ ×Ò ÎÛÜ íìðð Ð´§³±«¬¸ Þ±«´»ª¿®¼ Ð¸±²»æ éêíóëðçóëððð ÑÚÚ×Ý×ßÔ Ý×ÌÇ ÝßÔÛÒÜßÎ Ð´§³±«¬¸ô ÓÒ ëëììé Ú¿¨æ éêíóëðçóëðêð Ð¿¹» í Ü»½»³¾»® îðïê ÍËÒ ÓÑÒ ÌËÛÍ ÉÛÜ ÌØËÎ ÚÎ× ÍßÌ ÍËÒ ÓÑÒ ÌËÛ ÉÛÜ ÌØË ÚÎ× ÍßÌ îæðð ó ëæðð ÐÓ Ñ´¼ Ú¿¸·±²»¼ Ý¸®·¬³¿ Ð´§³±«¬¸ Ý®»»µ Ð¿®µ éæðð ÐÓ éæðð ÐÓ êæðð ÐÓ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÐßÎÕ ú ÎÛÝ ÞÑßÎÜ ú ÝÑÓÓ×Íó ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ßÜÊ×ÍÑÎÇ Í×ÑÒ ×ÒÌÛÎÊ×ÛÉÍ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ øÐÎßÝ÷ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® éæðð ÐÓ ëæíð ÐÓ ÝØßÎÌÛÎ ÍÐÛÝ×ßÔ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ßÒÒËßÔ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ Ü·½« Ë¬·´·¬§ Î¿¬» Í¬«¼§ éæðð ÐÓ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ ÛÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ éæðð ÐÓ ÏËßÔ×ÌÇ ÎÛÙËÔßÎ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÝÑÓÓ×ÌÌÛÛ øÛÏÝ÷ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® éæðð ÐÓ éæðð ÐÓ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ØÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ÎÛÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ßËÌØÑÎ×ÌÇ øØÎß÷ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ Ó»¼·½·²» Ô¿µ» Î±±³ [[1256,2410,1306,2447][7][,I,][Z@RF901.tmp]] Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚÚ×ÝÛÍ ÝÔÑÍÛÜ ÝØÎ×ÍÌÓßÍ ÜßÇ êæðð ÐÓ ó çæðð ÐÓ Ò»© Ç»¿® Ûª» Ûª»²¬ Ð´§³±«¬¸ ×½» Ý»²¬»® [[162,2935,499,2972][7][,I,][Z@RF901.tmp]]ðÎÙÔ×ÔØÙÎÏ ÝØßÝØßÒÙÛÍ ßÎÛ ÓßÜÛ ×Ò ÎÛÜ íìðð Ð´§³±«¬¸ Þ±«´»ª¿®¼ Ð¸±²»æ éêíóëðçóëððð ÑÚÚ×Ý×ßÔ Ý×ÌÇ ÝßÔÛÒÜßÎ Ð´§³±«¬¸ô ÓÒ ëëììé Ú¿¨æ éêíóëðçóëðêð Ð¿¹» ì