7/2/09
|
3 comments
EDITORIAL
Stop the stalling
on traffic signal
In “Patton,” actor George C. Scott hops out of his Jeep and starts directing traffic at a European crossroads where American troops dispute who has the right of way. The problem went away because Scott, as Gen. George S. Patton, took action. The state transportation department and Morgan County commissioners apparently need a Patton-type to get traffic flowing smoothly at Alabama 24, also known as Gordon Terry Parkway, and McEntire Lane outside Decatur’s western city limit. The dispute over erecting a traffic signal at the intersection to keep motorists from routinely ramming each other is supposedly over ownership of the roads. Johnny Harris, division engineer for the transportation department, said a study last year showed the intersection meets its criteria for a traffic light. The state won’t maintain the light because it doesn’t maintain lights on county roads. Doing so presumably would set a bad precedent. That’s assuming the intersection actually belongs wholly to the county and no part of it to the state. Commissioner Jeff Clark said the county has the $80,000 needed to buy and install the traffic signal. He wants the state to maintain the signal and pay the electricity bill of about $125. Maintenance is more of a concern than the electricity bill because equipment wears out and is damaged as a result of wrecks. Presumably, the signal would drastically lower the rate of accidents, so damage to the mechanism may never happen. But the intersection will continue to take a human toll unless the county and state work out an agreement, and do so soon. Decatur Police Sgt. Kevin Hunter said an accident occurs there almost weekly.
|
featured photo galleries
 |
Someone suggested a "RIGHT TURN ONLY sign ther and after looking at the intersection that looks like the best solution to this problem and is also the most inexpensive. That intersection should have been a "CLOVERLEAF" to begin with. But, the state was too cheap to buy the property there and do it right.
Whine, whine, whine.
First off, let me say that no price is as important as a human life. Now, that said, let's think about this for a minute. If the state were to actually "take charge" of this signal, it would be setting a bad precedent. Do you realize how many signals, there are just in North Alabama alone, that belong to counties or cities? By the state taking charge of this 1 intersection, you are opening a can of worms to let ALL counties and cities make the state take charge of intersections that cross state routes. Are you prepared to pay higher, much higher, taxes to pay for this? For many years now, the state has required other entities to maintain their own signals. In many cases, the state will pay for the signal, but then the city/county will take it over after construction. If Decatur City and Morgan County are so worried about the accident rates, then they should take charge of this intersection.
"Presumably, the signal would drastically lower the rate of accidents." This is a presumption people! I have been following this intersection for quite some time now and it seems that almost, if not all, of the accidents are due to human error. I would like to say driver stupidity, but I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt. There is no study that will prove that a signal will fix this problem. You would think that since EVERYONE knows, as most people claim, how dangerous this intersection is, they would be more cautious at it. I, for one, do not want my taxes raised so that every signal in the state can be maintained by state forces. If Decatur can't come up with the money, then raise the taxes in that area, not all over the state!!!