No Stop Sign for Now, But Questions Persist

Anticipating continued discussion of the intersection of Yale and Cornell avenues, approximately 15 people showed up at Monday night’s meeting of the Swarthmore Borough Council Public Safety Committee. Eric Johnson of Pennoni Associates, the borough engineer, presented a study he conducted over several days in February. He was trying to determine whether the intersection meets the formal warrant for a four-way stop, as outlined in Pennsylvania’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and PennDOT Publication 212, Official Traffic Control Devices. He concluded that it does not.

According to Johnson, the main criterion for a four-way stop is whether the traffic volume on the two streets is approximately equal. But the traffic volume on Yale, averaging 4,500 vehicles per day, is much greater than on Cornell, which averages only 850 vehicles per day.

Johnson did find that sight distances for northbound cars entering the intersection from Cornell were insufficient. This in itself would not be enough to warrant a four-way stop, however. PennDOT regulations state that bad sight lines should be, if possible, corrected by other methods. In this case, for example, a long hedge along the south side of Yale Avenue, just west of the intersection, could be trimmed back out of the right-of-way

A utility pole in the same general area may also make it hard for northbound drivers on Cornell to see eastbound drivers on Yale who are approaching from their left. Borough Manager Jane Billings agreed to contact PECO to see if anything could be done about the pole. She will also contact the owner of the hedge.

Johnson’s report states that the number of accidents at the intersection for the 12 months preceding his report — four — was less than the number that would be one of the warrants for a four-way stop, according to  the MUTCD. That manual lists five “reportable” accidents — accidents in which a person is injured or a car must be towed from the scene — as the minimum. 

Proposed modifications to the intersection of Yale and Cornell avenues.

Continued Questions 

Several neighbors had questions for Johnson, particularly around the issue of accidents. As Swarthmore Police Chief Ray Stufflet reported to the committee last November, there were six reportable accidents at Cornell and Yale between November 4, 2018, and November 4, 2019. The MUTCD does not specify that the period used in the analysis must be the 12 months immediately preceding the traffic study.

Eric Iversen, who lives on the corner, argued that unique features of the intersection demand a four-way stop. His concerns include the speed of eastbound traffic on Yale Avenue, the bad visibility for drivers heading north, the many families and commuters who cross the street on foot, and what he calls “the uniquely violent nature of accidents here.”

Committee member Betsy Larsen observed that Johnson’s point about traffic volume was key. The intersection of Yale and Park avenues, for example — several blocks to the east — does have a four-way stop, because both streets are designated by PennDOT as collector streets, or what a layperson might call a major thoroughfare. (Major for Swarthmore, anyway.) Cornell Avenue, by contrast, is designated a “local road.” Larsen made a motion that the committee take the traffic study as determinative, putting the question to rest. No one seconded the motion.

Committee member Ross Schmucki said that he was in favor of putting stop signs on Yale Avenue to make the intersection a four-way stop, regardless of what happened with the hedge or the utility pole. He cited the speed of cars traveling down Yale Avenue and the irregular shape of the intersection as concerns.

The committee will continue to work on the issue, and neighbors will continue to try to build community support for improvements to the intersection. As three residents wrote in a notice circulated on nearby streets in advance of the meeting, “Listening to constituents’ concerns is the basic function of our elected officials, and we should leave no doubt in their minds about our thoughts regarding this issue.”

The next meeting of the Public Safety Committee is Monday, March 23, at 7:00 p.m.