Deseret News | Reader comments: Is Provo traffic light needed?

Reader comments
Is Provo traffic light needed?

Beaurocrats | 12:54 a.m. April 16, 2008

If someone gets killed they will get it done next week. That or they'll just remove the crosswalk like they did by Wyview after the student was killed. Monkeys I tell ya.

wyview | 8:28 a.m. April 16, 2008

did not need a crosswalk in the first place. There is a perfectly good, lighted intersection half a block away. When they use that area to cross pedestrians for games they can mark it like they used to with cones and a BYU student-cop. It was tempting fate to put that crosswalk there on a highway in the first place.

Z | 8:35 a.m. April 16, 2008

Hey, sometimes they get it right. Why, here in South Jordan they quickly spent millions of dollars to build a pedestrian bridge by South Jordan Elementary when 10400 South was widened a few years back. Of course, there was already a light at that corner... And the school was already scheduled to be replaced within 2 years due to traffic concerns... and no one ever uses the bridge now, since the facility is now a private school and none of the kids are local. But, hey, let no one say that UDOT isn't responsive!

Comments continue below

Provo Traffic Lights Outdated | 8:42 a.m. April 16, 2008

As a BYU student 30 years ago, we wondered why there were so few left hand turn signals in the city of Provo. They are abundant and very useful in almost every city large or small in America-but not in Provo.

A few years ago, we returned to Provo to drop off children at BYU and were amazed to find the city still stuck in the middle 1950's without any (or at most a very few) left hand turn signals at many major intersections. Just try and turn left on University Avenue on a busy afternoon. Just like 30 years ago, you may still have to sit through an extra cycle of lights or two.

Rick | 11:29 a.m. April 16, 2008

Why go to the expense of installing a traffic light? No one in Utah pays attention to them anyway.

Traffic Engineer | 11:41 a.m. April 16, 2008

There are very specific guidlines that are followed in determining if a traffic signal is the appropriate fix. UDOT needs to cross their t's and dot thier i's. A hasty decision based on what people think or on politics rather than hard data will not produce the best solution. The problem is that most people think that a drivers license makes them an expert on traffic issues. With a little thought and research you may be able to figure out when left turn arrows are appropriate and what criteria should be in place before the installation of a traffic signal. I assure you that Provo City is very on top of there signal technology. Be a little more thoughtful and do some research rather than assume you know everything.

The Wolf | 1:40 p.m. April 16, 2008

Provo City is most certainly NOT "on top of the signal technology!" Provo city is the worst run city I have ever seen, and their traffic solutions are only part of the problem.

Hey, Traffic Engineer | 4:21 p.m. April 16, 2008

First, quit being so condescending and arrogant.

Second, a bit of forethought and preparation on the part of Provo and UDOT would result in the traffic study being complete already. How long have they been planning and building this school? At least long enough for a study to be complete. Why do they wait until AFTER the school opens to BEGIN a study? That's my big beaf with the process.

However, being a frequent driver on Geneva Road, I don't believe a light will guarantee the safety of children crossing at that point. Personally, I'd rather see them driven across the road than walk across it.

Hey, Traffic Engineer 2 | 7:44 p.m. April 16, 2008

What city do you work for? Please tell me so I can avoid living in it. You come across as extremely arrogant. Please comment no further until you learn to have a little compassion.

I've noticed in my short sojurn in life that the "experts" are often wrong. Their arrogance prevents them from realizing how wrong they are.

BearOne | 10:37 p.m. April 16, 2008

If it isn't UDOT's idea, they can drag it out forever.
As I recall, when they built the new North Cedar City interchange, they put the lights in immediately. No traffic study after the interchange was completed. No 1 or 2 year delay.
Notice when a new shopping center is built--usually the lights go in immediately! No waiting for a new traffic study--
I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time!) but when IKEA was built, weren't traffic signals put in immediately.
If it were UDOT's idea, they would already be in!
But because it is not their idea, you've got a long wait (and several fatalities) before you will see the lights. And, by the way, after the study, you will still wait--for design, environmental studies, advertising for bids, awarding bids, time for mobilization of the contractor, etc, etc,etc.
The kids that would benefit from it now may be parents themselves by the time you get that light!

Just the way it is dealing with some people in the UDOT hierarchy.

Anonymous | 8:41 a.m. April 17, 2008

Why do does anyone build a school by a busy street?

Chad | 4:23 p.m. April 17, 2008

Sorry folks, I don't think Traffic Engineer came across at all condescending. Instead, I think you are the ones who sound arrogant. You think that solving your problem RIGHT NOW should trump solving anyone else's problem. There are only so many hours in the day and only so many engineers working for UDOT. Let's let the engineers solve the problems that they are already working on before jerking them off of those projects to start work on your project. Doing otherwise might negatively affect the safety of many people driving on the roads that are now at the top of their To Do lists.

And no, I am not Traffic Engineer, nor do I have any idea who he is. Nor am I any kind of engineer or an employee of UDOT or any other governmental organization.

Disagree with Chad | 7:02 a.m. April 18, 2008

Chad,
I disagree. If you lived on that street perhaps you'd sing a different tune.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.