Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee denies request for rapid‑flashing beacons at two Bay Settlement Road crossings
Summary
Following a staff traffic review and pedestrian counts, the Improvement and Services Committee on Oct. 29 voted to deny installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons at Bay Settlement Road crossings at Bay Highlands Drive and Highland Center Drive.
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Green Bay Improvement and Services Committee voted Oct. 29 to deny requests to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at two pedestrian crossings on Bay Settlement Road after city staff told the committee the locations did not meet criteria for installation.
Public Works staff described the factors used to evaluate RRFB requests — roadway speed limits, number of lanes, medians, pedestrian volumes, accident history and proximity to signalized crossings — and said both crossings had features that argued against RRFB installation. The crossing at Bay Settlement and Highland Center Drive is within 300 feet of a signalized intersection; staff said that proximity weighed against adding an RRFB there. At Bay Settlement and Bay Highlands Drive, a traffic and pedestrian count conducted Oct. 23 during a two‑hour window (3:20–5:20 p.m.) recorded five pedestrians; staff reported they observed adequate gaps in traffic and that pedestrians were able to cross with minimal or no delay, and therefore did not recommend an RRFB at that location.
The traffic engineer's report and photos were provided to the committee. Staff estimated an RRFB installation would cost roughly $15,000–$20,000 per crossing. The initial request had been routed through the council and the committee; staff said the item had returned to the committee with additional information.
A motion to deny the RRFB installations was made by Alder DeLay and seconded by Alder Ritterbush; the motion carried.
During adjournment staff noted there were three people in the virtual waiting room who indicated possible interest in speaking (one committee member observed they may have been calling about the beacon request), but the committee proceeded to adjourn after offering to reopen the item if desired. The committee's denial is a recommendation to the Common Council for final action on Nov. 11.

