I was in a meeting today with Spanish Fork's Traffic Safety Committee about this dangerous school crossing.
They effectively said nothing can be done to improve student safety because vehicle speed is the priority. Their preferred "solution" is to simply remove the crosswalk. 🧵
Conversation
The road was recently widened from 3 lanes to 5. Multiple drivers each day blast through the crosswalk when students & the crossing guard are in the walk.
The crossing guard has been ringing the alarm for over a year. "It's only a matter of when. Someone WILL get hurt or killed"
6
20
1,169
The crossing guard suggested a HAWK signal.
This was dismissed because the MUTCD (the car-centric 'bible' of traffic engineering) says there aren't enough pedestrians to warrant a HAWK signal. And UDOT doesn't usually like cities using HAWK signals anyway.
read image description
ALT
6
19
839
The crossing guard suggested a modal filter across the north-south road similar to some UDOT intersections in Provo.
This was dismissed as a political "non-starter" (despite north-south traffic numbers being so low they aren't even counted).
read image description
ALT
1
9
678
The crossing guard suggested a pedestrian refuge island.
This was dismissed because it would prevent drivers making southbound left turns (again, very few drivers do this). And because it's less convenient for snowplow drivers.
5
13
807
The crossing guard suggested a raised crosswalk.
This idea was hardly acknowledged, because the priority of this 5-lane road is vehicle speed.
read image description
ALT
1
12
851
The crossing guard suggested moving the crosswalk away from the intersection by ~100 ft to remove turning vehicles from the equation.
This was dismissed because it might occasionally disrupt the ordinary flow of cars through the intersection & would conflict with some driveways.
1
7
742
The crossing guard suggested they try one of the above solutions on a temporary basis. If it works it can be made permanent, if it fails it can be easily removed.
This was dismissed because the materials they use for temporary installations aren't robust enough for winter.
1
10
754
They acted concerned and assured us they were listening and anxious to solve the problem.
But the only solution they seriously entertained was removing the crosswalk and putting up signs telling kids to walk three blocks out of their way to the nearest traffic signal.
2
22
908
The crossing guard told them he didn't like that idea because some children will continue to cross at this location & they were merely absolving themselves of blame in the event of a collision.
They agreed with his point but cited similar examples on UDOT roads as justification.
4
22
921
The crossing guard repeatedly told them that a child WILL be hit. But they didn't feel the urgency, because "this is only a problem for 15 minutes at the start and end of every day."
They suggested maybe he should put out more cones.
10
27
791
Time and again they cited UDOT and the MUTCD to explain why they weren't willing to use any creative solutions to protect kids from traffic violence.
"Our hands are kind of tied." (Which isn't true)
6
15
796
They ended by asking about collisions at the intersection. With enough injuries or deaths they might be able to add improvements.
The priests of the MUTCD demand blood sacrifice before they're willing to act.
WHEN a child is hit or killed here it cannot be called an accident.
12
124
1,437
P.S. I should clarify that a decision hasn't yet officially been made.
I made this thread mostly so that when a child is hit or killed there will be a record of their unwillingness to deviate from outdated, car-centric practices and they can't say it was an accident.
36
50
1,524