Re: Main and Lauder/Styner

["Philip Cook" <pcook@uidaho.edu>]

>Does someone need to get killed first?  If there is anything that I can
> do as a citizen, I'd like to know how to proceed.  Thanks. 
> 
> Mark Miller
 
Mark,

The smartass answer to your question is "Yes," and volunteer ;-).

The more serious answers are (1) that the Idaho Transportation 
Department is concerned about trucks having to stop and restart 
on the uphill sections of U.S. 95 on either side of the intersection, 
particularly in winter, and (2) the intersection currently does not 
meet any "warrants" for a signal.

Warrants are the reasons used by traffic engineers to justify 
installing signals. These warrants are spelled out in the Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the "bible" for signs, 
signals, and other roadway markings. The current edition of the 
MUTCD is available on the web at

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium_06.14.01.htm

Chapter 4C contains the warrants for signals. Traffic engineers tend 
to stick closely to what the MUTCD says because legally they are 
required to do so and it lessens their chances of being held liable if 
something goes wrong. 

>From a pedestrian point of view, unfortunately in many instances, 
the MUTCD is geared toward keeping vehicle traffic moving 
uniformly (for their safety) at the expense of other roadway users 
(i.e., pedestrians). For example, read the Pedestrian Volume 
warrant (#4) in the MUTCD. To meet it, 100 people would have to 
cross U.S. 95 at Styner in a 4 hour period. This seems to me to be 
highly unlikely to happen with (1) the current mix of business and 
retail near the intersection and (2) people's current aversion to 
crossing the intersection due to the lack of a signal. (It's a chicken-
egg argument.) The intersection will probably not meet the 
Pedestrian Volume warrant anytime in the near future, but perhaps 
the backup of vehicular traffic on Styner/Lauder will meet one of the 
other warrants.

ITD will soon begin widening and "improving" U.S. 95 from Sweet 
Avenue to Palouse River Drive. ITD's current "theory" (which I don't 
buy) is that the Palouse River Drive intersection will meet a signal 
warrant first. ITD then will time the lights at Sweet Ave. and 
Palouse River Drive to "platoon" traffic so there will be sufficient 
breaks to relieve vehicle and pedestrian problems at Styner/Lauder. 
They're hedging their bets though; the reconstruction of the 
Styner/Lauder intersection will include laying conduit and making it 
"signal ready." We'll see how long it takes before the intersection 
is signalized. Any bets?

The situation for pedestrians may get worse before it gets better. 
The Styner/Lauder intersection will have 2 travel lanes in either 
direction, a turning lane, and bike lanes on U.S. 95. That's about 
70 feet curb-to-curb, farther than it is now. Using the MUTCD's 
numbers for pedestrian speed (4 ft/sec), you'll need 17 seconds to 
cross the street. How many 17 second gaps in traffic will there be? 
I don't know if ITD has even considered that question.

I don't know that making noise to ITD will help at all, but it's your 
right as a citizen to make your voice heard. The name and address 
of our district engineer is:

James F. Carpenter, District 2 Engineer
Idaho Transportation Department
PO Box 837, Lewiston, ID 83501-0837
Office # (208)799-5090 

Unfortunately, the City of Moscow has little say in the situation 
because U.S. 95 is a state highway, so please don't take your 
frustrations out on your city council reps, city staff, or those of us 
on advisory commissions (I serve on the Transportation 
Commission). We're doing the best we can.

Philip Cook