Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Signals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs staff signal recommendations, including new signal at Packers & Schliman after school‑crossing finding
Summary
After staff presentations on signal warrants, the commission unanimously approved four signal-priority recommendations. Staff recommended installing a signal at Packers & Schliman because the intersection meets a school-crossing warrant despite not meeting ordinary vehicle-volume warrants; commissioners debated the limits of MUTCD warrants and urged engineering judgment.
The Madison Transportation Commission unanimously approved staff recommendations on four intersections on March 18, endorsing installation of a traffic signal at Packers & Schliman based in part on a school-crossing warrant.
Traffic engineers presented a two-meeting study of the city's signal-priority list and gave detailed findings for four locations. Jerry Ship, traffic engineer for the City of Madison, told the commission that Packers & Schliman does not meet the conventional vehicle-volume signal warrants (1A/1B) but does meet the school-crossing warrant (warrant 5) because engineers observed more than 20 children crossing in an hour at peak times and documented instances with higher counts. "We are recommending installing a traffic signal here," Jerry said, adding staff also considered crash history and user experience.
Staff described alternatives and constraints for other studied locations: Denafhrio Drive & Westtown Way (recommend maintain two-way stop; study four-way stop options), High Crossing Boulevard & Lancaster/City View (no signal warrantee met; noted an angle‑crash trend probably due to sight-distance issues), and the Highway 30 westbound off‑ramp at Fair Oaks/Commercial Avenue (a high number of correctable crashes that requires further corridor study and WisDOT coordination).
The commission spent substantial time discussing how MUTCD signal-warrant thresholds interact with high-speed, multi-lane arterials and pedestrian safety goals. Commissioners noted that speed and lane counts raise pedestrian thresholds and argued for the exercise of engineering judgment when warrants appear to block safety improvements. "The basic thought behind the signal warrants is that they are a tool to avoid installing traffic signals," Kristoff said; Harold Gleams called the system "broken" for some urban crossings and urged more discretionary judgment to meet Vision Zero objectives.
After discussion, Commissioner Chris Mahill moved to approve the four staff recommendations; William Okovich seconded. The motion carried by unanimous consent. Staff said next steps include design, any needed coordination with WisDOT (for state routes), possible capital-budget or fast-track funding, and assessment-district work if applicable.
What it means: The Packers & Schliman recommendation signals the city's willingness to treat observed school-crossing data and crash history as sufficient grounds for a signal even where traditional vehicular warrants fall short. Other intersections remain slated for study or retention of existing stop control while engineers refine sight-distance, geometry and crash-mitigation strategies.
