Questions Raised on Traffic Safety After Accident Averted at Intersection of Roosevelt Island Motorgate Helix Ramp and Main Street By RIRA Planning Committee Chairperson - Is an All Way Stop Sign Needed at the Intersection?
Public Safety Officer Directing Traffic at Motorgate Helix
Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) Planning Committee Chairperson Frank Farance is concerned with traffic safety at the intersection of the Motorgate Helix Ramp and Main Street.
View Larger Map
Mr. Farance shares a message he sent this past Saturday to Roosevelt Island Public Safety Director Keith Guerra.
Director Guerra-A Public Safety Officer has recently been assigned to direct traffic at intersection of the Motorgate Ramp Helix and Main Street on Saturday's during the Farmers Market.
We have spoken about this several times, but this now requires quick attention.
Today at 12:51, I was returning to Roosevelt Island in a taxi. The officer at the bottom of the helix waved us on (we were turning left), meanwhile the red bus barreled through the intersection northbound oblivious to the traffic situation and the officer's instructions. Even though we had the right of way (because of the officer's direction), the red bus almost hit us. The PSD officer shouted at the red bus driver (with no effect).
I know you have received requests to have an officer on Saturdays at the base of the helix to improve safety and I'm not suggesting you change.
However, it has been the position of the Roosevelt Island Residents Association for several years that an ALL-WAY stop configuration is the best. It was an ALL-WAY stop for about three decades until circa 2005 when RIOC started removing stop signs on Main Street in the hopes that the red bus would run more reliably (the loss of stop signs had no positive effect on the red bus schedule).
One reason this intersection is dangerous is that it has unbalanced stop signs: one for southbound traffic, but none for northbound traffic. Thus, both westbound and southbound traffic believe northbound traffic will stop (and it won't).
This intersection is confusing because there aren't any others like in NYC. At the April RIRA Common Council meeting, I asked the commander of the 114th Precinct if he was familiar with any intersection like this in Astoria, Long Island City, or anywhere else and he couldn't think of one (Mr. Bryan attended and he can report on the discussion).
So today you had the extra benefit of a PSD officer, yet an accident almost occurred. The officer didn't do anything wrong, it was clearly the fault of (1) the red bus driver who was not paying attention to the officer in the intersection, and (2) the intersection itself is unsafe and prone to accidents.
You mentioned that the present configuration conforms to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2009), but that is not so. MUTCD sections 2B.05 and 2C.59 apply yet the present configuration violates those requirements (see excerpts below) that clearly acknowledge the driver's expectations when arriving in an intersection and require the use of ONCOMING-TRAFFIC/TRAFFIC-FROM-LEFT DOES NOT STOP plaques (plaques are missing).
I am requesting two things:
(1) Reconfigure the helix intersection to an ALL-WAY stop: northbound STOP sign, additional ALL-WAY plaques, and roadway markings would say STOP northbound. Do not continue use of unbalanced intersections, do not install traffic-does-not-stop plaques. The ALL-WAY stop would help pedestrians crossing the helix roadway because northbound traffic pushes its way through (unsafely) and an ALL-WAY would force a full stop prior to cars confronting pedestrians.
(2) Instruct the red bus drivers to pay attention to Public Safety Officers directing traffic.
Today's scenario (in theory) had the best: a PSD officer directing traffic, a taxi driver from Olympic Car Service who is familiar with Island traffic patterns, and a RIOC red bus driver thoroughly familiar with the traffic and regular Saturday help from PSD in the intersection. However, we still almost had an accident. Rather than continue to deny that the present configuration is safe, why not try a safer configuration that had worked well for three decades.
Thank you.
Frank Farance
RIRA Planning Committee Chair
Section 2B.05 STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P)
Standard:
01 When it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection, a STOP (R1-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be used.
02 The STOP sign shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a red background.
03 Secondary legends shall not be used on STOP sign faces.
04 At intersections where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs (see Section 2B.07), an ALL WAY supplemental plaque (R1-3P) shall be mounted below each STOP sign. The ALL WAY plaque (see Figure 2B-1) shall have a white legend and border on a red background.
05 The ALL WAY plaque shall only be used if all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs.
06 Supplemental plaques with legends such as 2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, or other numbers of ways shall not be used with STOP signs.
Support:
07 The use of the CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4P) plaque (and other plaques with variations ofthis word message) is described in Section 2C.59.
Guidance:
08 Plaques with the appropriate alternative messages of TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP (W4-4aP) or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4bP) should be used at intersections where STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection, unless the only non-stopped approach is from a one-way street.
Option:
09 An EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (R1-10P) plaque (see Figure 2B-1) may be mounted below the STOP sign if an engineering study determines that a special combination of geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it possible for right-turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the intersection without stopping.
Support:
10 The design and application of Stop Beacons are described in Section 4L.05.
------------------------------------------
Section 2C.59 CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP Plaque (W4-4P)
Option:
01 The CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4P) plaque (see Figure 2C-9) may be used in combination with a STOP sign when engineering judgment indicates that conditions are present that are causing or could cause drivers to misinterpret the intersection as an all-way stop.
02 Alternative messages (see Figure 2C-9) such as TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP (W4-4aP) or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4bP) may be used when such messages more accurately describe the traffic controls established at the intersection.
Guidance:
03 Plaques with the appropriate alternative messages of TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP should be used at intersections where STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection, unless the only non-stopped approach is from a one-way street.
Standard:
04 If a W4-4P plaque or a plaque with an alternative message is used, it shall be mounted below the STOP sign.
UPDATE 1:30 PM - Mr. Farance follow up his message to Director Guerra.
More information here
Director Guerra-
As a followup on street signage, the new "[STATE LAW] STOP FOR PEDESTRIANS WITHIN CROSSWALK" signs are the wrong signs and provide conflicting instructions to drivers -- drivers might believe they don't have to stop at all. According to the MUTCD 2009, the Stop/Yield For Pedestrian Within Crosswalk signs are to be used at "uncontrolled multi-lane approach" (see MUTCD 2009 Section 2B.11). The emphasis here is on "uncontrolled", which is incorrect for the Roosevelt Island crosswalks where there is a STOP sign (543 Main, 591 Main, 645 Main, etc.). By using the "STOP FOR PEDESTRIANS WITHIN CROSSWALK" (sign R1-6a) drivers believe they can proceed an NORMAL speeds (i.e., no full stop) UNLESS THERE IS A PEDESTRIAN IN THE CROSSWALK. Certainly, we INTEND for drivers to make a full stop at these intersections, but the new signage is wrong.
If you'd like, I can show you a video of how other NYS drivers treat these signs (i.e., driving through at normal speeds).
As for the remainder of the Island, there is no distinction between the STOP (R1-6a) and YIELD (R1-6) variants of "[STATE LAW] STOP/YIELD FOR/TO PEDESTRIANS WITHIN CROSSWALK" because the driver must STOP (regardless of STOP or YIELD) if there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Elsewhere in NY State, I've seen the STOP version used at crosswalks like the ones at 510 Main and 564 Main.
Regardless, the signs present a confusing picture of NYS law: are we supposed to STOP or YIELD to pedestrians in a crosswalk? The law is one or the other, not both, right?
I make the recommendations:
(1) Replace all present R1-6 "[STATE LAW] YIELD FOR PEDESTRIANS ..." with R1-6a "[STATE LAW] STOP FOR PEDESTRIAN ..." if that is in fact the correct NYS law.
(2) Immediately remove the present "[STATE LAW] STOP FOR PEDESTRIAN ..." because they conflict with other signage and give drivers the impression they don't need to stop at all (regardless of whether or not there are pedestrians in the crosswalk).
(3) For crosswalks with STOPs, immediately return the mid-street STOP SIGNS and plan for a better long-term solution on reminding drivers to stop (flashing lights, etc.).
15 comments :
We can say this in less than 25 words --
Restore the ALL WAY FULL STOP signage at the bottom of the ramp as soon as possible and before someone is killed.
Leslie, Fernando, RIOC Board & Keith -- once again, this is not brain surgery or rocket science.
It worked well for the first 30 years or so -- so bring the FULL STOP in all directions back.
I doubt a stop sign would have prevented this. Looks like the driver just didn't pay attention at all. I must say, there is currently a driver who concerns me a bit. He/she (I don't want to out anybody here) just doesn't care one bit about the job and especially about the passengers.
Dear 9:42 Poster --
A FULL STOP is exactly that -- A FULL STOP. And having a 3-way Full Stop, with occasional RIPSD presence would go a long way to preventing even more near misses than we are having.
The morning and afternoon shift changes at the 2 hospitals, the school bus situation twice a day, our Saturday GreenMarket, the increase in bike use on and off the ramp, etc, all cries out for all vehicles coming to a complete full stop at all 3 points.
RIOC must stop dickering around on this and restore the signage, and the sooner the better.
10:34am: Yes, I understand what a three way stop is. My point was plain and simple: what Frank experienced in his narrative has nothing to do with this. The driver didn't pay attention. Who would not notice a traffic cop directing traffic? Do you really think the driver would have come to a full stop if there was a stop sign?
RIOC has traffic cops?
Worse, those neon traffic signs imply that this island is only subject to state, not city laws, and if so, residents should not pay city income tax nor should the vendors charge sales tax!
I've had 2 close calls myself--once in a taxi and once driving. This seems to be a very common problem. We really need an all way stop sign asap!
What is an "almost accident"? That's like being almost pregnant. I work for DOT in the Manhattan Traffice Division. I researched that intersection going back three years, and there have not been any accidents there during that time frame.
As for the 3-way Stop, it is not the best idea for that intersection. You have one direction with 2 traffic lanes going northbound. That should have first right of way, and it does - the way it is now.
Frarance may know plenty about a lot of things, but he knows nothing about Traffic Control devices in New York City, and his quotes in the MUTCD are not applicable either.
RIOC does not like stop signs.
Look how they put a speed limit sign literally next to the bus stop AND a stop sign at the pedestrian crossing to/from the Plaza!
I work at the Hospital & it already takes too long to get off this island during our shift change. You don't need more stop signs to slow the traffic even more. People just have to learn how to drive & pedestrians have to learn to look in all directions before just stepping into the street. Thank you.
To Anonymous 12:08 PM, your likening "almost accident" to "almost pregnant" is incorrect and lacks understanding of transportation safety. For several decades, our national policy on methodology for reducing transportation accidents includes reporting both actual accidents and "almost accidents" (see NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board). My explanation is the common sense of how many humans (excluding those winning Darwin Awards) make things safer: it doesn't take an actual accident to discover that something is unsafe.
Regarding your claim that I've misinterpreted the MUTCD, could you provide the provisions, citations, and formal interpretation that substantiates your claim? I think it is pretty clear from the MUTCD that the present configuration does not comply with their requirements, including improper signage.
I also point out that there is something wrong with the intersection (signage, layout, traffic direction by PSD, etc.) when two drivers approach the same intersection with one driver (the car service) having the impression that the PSD officer has authority over the intersection (which means right-of-way rules and traffic signage does NOT apply) while another driver (the red bus) has the impression that the intersection is NOT under the authority of the officer (thus, not paying attention to his instructions). That is a recipe for accidents in any intersection.
Considering the number of complaints of pedestrians about being almost hit since the removal of the ALL-WAY stop, could you explain how having FEWER stop signs makes for a SAFER intersection?
Finally, RIRA has always felt that safety was the higher priority, not the speed in which hospital traffic could depart the Island. We had suggested returning the stop signs at the crosswalks at Gristede's, 625 Main, 564 Main, and 510 Main. Many of us remember the days of no stop signs at all and how dangerous Main Street was, including serious injuries. In the past, RIRA has suggested a traffic light for the helix intersection, which could improve safety and increase the flow of traffic -- this is another potential solution.
Frank Farance
RIRA Planning Committee Chair
Almost is never recorded, if its not recorded then noone will listen.
Frank, I voted for you at the RIRA elections but I must say that I take the DOT employee's comment as more authoritative. And common sense, at least my kind of common sense, tells me that this is really more a problem with drivers not paying attention or being reckless than street signage. The bus driver would have run a STOP sign just as likely as he or she ignored the PSD officer.
Relax Frank, you were elected into a nonsense RIRA post. It doesnt make you an attorney and it sure as day doesnt allow you to be a vigilante law maker or enforcer.
Sit back and let the professionals deal with the issues at hand. That is if there are any issues documented. Professionals such as the DOT poster, RIOC, the state and PSD.
Copying and pasting from the internet and attempting to decipher what they wrote wont win you a re-election, thats for sure.
How about you worry about cleaning up criminal RIRA members first and then perhaps we can move forward with other issues. How delightful that I have individuals with criminal histories a mile long representing me. I know I wouldnt want a criminal being my state senator.
I'm not really sure how the DOT poster achieved authoritativeness by his/her mere self-claim. Maybe the DOT poster could reveal his/her name, title, and experience, they we'd all be able to evaluate the source of the DOT comment. Maybe they could reveal which database and what query they used to assert there have been no accidents. Given PSD's incident reports (which, largely, don't seem to propagate elsewhere), the DOT might have little information because the events were recorded in PSD's incident history and nowhere else. It's unclear if every PSD incident tagged as "Vehicle Accident" is reported to DOT. For example, according to PSD's incident database, PSD has reported 5 accidents in the January-February period. Can we find these corresponding 5 entries in the DOT database? Maybe the DOT poster can give us the search on the DOT database.
In response to Anonymous 5:13 PM, if there were an ALL-WAY STOP, then the red bus driver most likely would have seen the sign and, more importantly, he/she would be accustomed to stopping there. Part of the problem here, I believe, was the positioning of the PSD officer: he was in the helix crosswalk so the red bus driver might have not seen the PSD officer until it was too late. Had there been an ALL-WAY STOP, the red bus driver would have approached at slower speeds, so the PSD officer might have been more visible.
One main problem is that three people (bus driver, PSD officer, taxi driver) had different understandings of whether or not the intersection was under control of the officer -- that is really dangerous (anywhere!).
No matter how you slice it, having an ALL-WAY STOP (or even a traffic light) would make it safer than its present configuration.
Regarding the comment from Anonymous 7:49 PM "It doesnt make you an attorney and it sure as day doesnt allow you to be a vigilante law maker or enforcer", I think the residents expect us to do our best, certainly we're not trying to enforce the law ourselves. What is wrong with researching this, spending our (volunteer) time to get a better understanding, and trying to make things safer? I doubt you are saying that only attorneys can interpret technical specifications because that would mean traffic engineers, roadway construction people, engineering managers, and virtually all DOT employees would be off limits for reading and interpreting technical specifications. If you go to traffic court and provide citations to MUTCD, the judge doesn't dismiss your points because you're not an attorney. In fact, much of the MUTCD is intended to be understood without special expertise because most of the users (drivers, construction workers, etc.) are not specialists in normative provisions and their interpretation.
When you say "Sit back and let the professionals deal with the issues at hand", you are implying that the residents should have no input and we should defer to government. That doesn't work, and that's not what people want. Maybe you're a RIOC insider, so you might feel you already have sway. Could you let us know who you are? Regardless, the residents want us to be involved. Maybe you'll come to a RIRA meeting and voice your opinion at the Public Session?
In RIRA's meeting (Matt Katz, Aaron Hamburger, myself) on Monday with RIOC (Fernando Martinez and Cy Opperman), there was agreement that something was wrong here and RIOC will work on correcting the intersection.
Finally, I point out that RIOC seems to be fine with RIRA's research and citation of MUTCD. So far it has been collaborative/cooperative with constructive dialog. I'm certain that RIOC would report that RIRA has provided much valuable insight on transportation issues.
Frank Farance
RIRA Planning Committee Chair
Post a Comment