Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Signal Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public works outlines plan to bag and test removal of select traffic signals; council raises safety and growth concerns
Summary
Public Works presented a study identifying several traffic signals that may no longer be necessary; the department plans to bag two and monitor for 90 days as a safety test while council members urged caution at specific intersections.
Cecil Webb, director of public works, told the Hutchinson City Council on June 3 that the city has begun a study to identify traffic signals that may no longer be necessary and that staff plans to bag and test removal of selected signals for a 90‑day trial under MUTCD procedures.
Webb said the city’s signal inventory is above what typically would be expected for a municipality of Hutchinson’s size (research suggests 40–60 signals by population), and aging infrastructure and changing traffic patterns prompted a review. The initial evaluations recommended removing three signals; staff later retained one after line‑of‑sight concerns but will proceed with two where studies show the signal is no longer necessary.
The bagging process will leave the physical signal in place but covered for about 90 days to observe driver behavior and safety outcomes before permanent removal. Webb said the criteria used included traffic counts, sight lines and full traffic study results, and that removing unneeded signals reduces long‑term maintenance costs: rewiring/controls can run roughly $50,000–$60,000 and mast‑arm poles are substantially more (upwards of $100,000 each).
Councilmembers supported exploring cost savings but raised safety and economic development questions. One councilmember said Fourth and Washington should remain due to anticipated growth on that corridor and suggested using actuation (pre‑timed or vehicle detection) rather than removal. Staff responded that engineers and traffic studies will guide final decisions and that the city will follow MUTCD procedures and consider alternative, lower‑maintenance crossing treatments (such as pedestrian beacons) where appropriate.
Webb said the pilot approach lets the city assess real‑world effects without immediate permanent infrastructure removal and reduces immediate capital and maintenance risk if a signal later needs to be reinstalled. He also noted the high cost of replacing signal poles and electrical components if premature removals prove incompatible with changing traffic patterns.
