45th, Rockhill & W Gilham

[pash]

.

[smh]

AI tried using the address for the 311 call center that the city's website instructs you to use, but their mail server returned a "recipient not found" error.  Way to go, KC.

Ha ha. But to answer your question: Yes, I have thought that this is an accident waiting to happen. Although I'm usually the one heading down Gilham, so I hate to see the configuration change, i.e., I don't want to have to stop.

[kclofter]

I've been driving through that intersection since August of 1974 and have never seen an accident (which of course, doesn't mean it hasn't happened).   Seriously, the cars just seem to obey and behave properly.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.

[kcjak]

What's Mr McMillan going to argue if someone dies at 45th & Rockhill?

Drivers need to pay attention to what they're doing.

[chrizow]

I just looked at all the stop signs at the intersection on Google Street View and there are no "all way" signs on there.  If they are present now, the city must have installed them very recently. 

I live very close to this intersection and drive through it probably 10-15 times per week.  I personally have never seen an accident or even a near-accident - or, for that matter, any manifestation whatsoever that anyone is confused by the intersection at all.  It is an unusual setup, though, and I am sure it does confuse some folks.

[scooterj]

Like others, I've been driving though this intersection a long time (since 1987 for me) and have never had a problem nor heard of a problem.  However I do agree that if the city has recently added "ALL WAY" signs then that is a serious error that needs to be fixed ASAP.

Have you filled out the online 311 request form?

http://webfusion.kcmo.org/coldfusionapp ... stForm.cfm


(Can't believe the city still uses ColdFusion.  Sheesh.)

[pash]

.

[cdm2p]

I will drive through there today and report what I see.
Imo, a stop sign on the west bound leg would be dangerous.  Cars coming up the hill don't have enough time as they come up the hill.

[pash]

.

[carfreekc]

I drive through this intersection a lot going south on Gillham/Rockhill. While I haven't seen any numbers from traffic counts, I'm guessing it's set up the way it is because the majority of traffic travels north/south along Gillham/Rockhill, and the point is to keep that moving, especially with the visibility issues of that sharp turn. I haven't ever had problems going through this intersection - seems to work from what I can tell. But then like most people, I'm not usually at one of the other approaches.

I looked yesterday when I drove through, and there are ALL WAY signs on the STOP signs, which you're right, don't make sense in that context. The solution probably isn't to add stop signs to the other approach - look at the rest of what you quoted from the MUTCD:

2B.05

...

05  The ALL WAY plaque shall only be used if all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs.

...

Guidance:
08  Plaques with the appropriate alternative messages of TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP (W4-4aP) or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4bP) should be used at intersections where STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection, unless the only non-stopped approach is from a one-way street.

It looks like a great location for ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP signs at the other approaches. This seems to work with yield signs over on Oak around 45th and on Gillham around 25th.

[cdm2p]

Went by and did notice th "all way" stop sign.  Seems dangerous because people on one of the legs that stops will assume that incoming east-bound lane from Gillham will also stop.

[chrizow]

(a) call 311 to give the city notice.
(b) rig a fake "serious accident" the next day.
(c) sue the city for $200,000.

[bahua]

(d) delete this conspiratorial post.

[mean]

I have taken a screenshot, you're all screwed.

[carfreekc]

Just sent a request to the Action Center using the online form.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.