The Cook County ATV Road Ordinance was modified to allow Class 1 all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on two additional sections of the Gunflint Trail on July 28, 2015. Signs warning motorists of possible ATV traffic and cautioning ATVers where they can and cannot ride went up in the last few weeks. The county board heard complaints this week that there are too many signs on the Gunflint Trail, a scenic byway.
How many road signs are enough? And, how many are too many?
That was a major topic of discussion at the Cook County Board of Commissioners October 13, 2015 meeting when the new ATV signs posted on the Gunflint Trail brought several dissatisfied citizens to the meeting.
Complaints ranged from too many signs, to the height and placement of signs, and the color of the signs.
Commissioners were put on notice following a flurry of signs (68) that were erected along two sections of the Gunflint Trail that were recently opened up for Class 1 ATVs. The entire Gunflint Trail has been open to Class 2 (side-by-side) ATVs since 2009.
As soon as the signs were up calls came in to the county board, and the Gunflint Trail Scenic Byway Committee (GTSBC) sent a letter to commissioners voicing its displeasure. Even the Cook County ATV Club, who lobbied for two, two-mile sections located near Mid-Trail to be open for all ATV riders, sent a letter saying the area was both over signed and incorrectly signed.
When commissioners were making the decision whether to open or not open the Gunflint Trail to more ATV use, the GTSBC took no official stance because, as stated in its letter to the board, “The GTSBC was under the impression that any new roadway signage associated with this move would be minimal and of aesthetically low intensity in keeping with the scenic and historic character of the byway. In fact, depending on how one reads the ATV committee recommendations, there were to be somewhere between four and eight new signs associated with this move. …”
“We now see that this recommendation has not been followed and instead an extraordinary amount of signage is being erected along the whole scenic byway. … While it is acknowledged that some highway signage is necessary for direction and safety, the GTSBC has previously stated that there are times when such signage may be overused or inappropriate, leading to the visual degradation of the scenic nature of the byway with a corresponding reduction in byway user experience.”
But according to County Highway Engineer David Betts, the Gunflint Trail is not over signed, and is in compliance of the law. Betts held up a large yellow book that was twice as thick as most Twin City telephone books, and said it contained the laws and instructions for where and how to place signs, and what color the signs should be.
Betts also said his first order of business was to make the roads as safe as he could, and posting signs where they were called for was part of his job.
As far as the Cook County ATV Club (CCAC), their letter to commissioners in part stated, “The CCAC is requesting that modifications be made to the signage that has been installed on the Gunflint Trail regarding ATVs. … We agree with the GTSBC that there are far more signs than necessary. We do not believe it is necessary to have so many ‘No ATVs’ signs in the areas where ATVs are not allowed. … In addition, the verbiage on the No ATVs signs is actually incorrect.
“Under Minnesota state law Class 2 ATVs (side-by-side machines) are allowed in the sections closed to Class ATVs. The ‘No ATVs’ signs could cause confusion for people driving Class 2 ATVs. If these signs remain, there should be an additional notice of some sort that the section is closed only to Class 1 ATVs.”
The letters from both the Scenic Byways committee and local ATV club both went further, and each asked to work with the highway department to come up with a way to decrease the “visual pollution” as the Scenic Byway Committee called the signs. Commissioner Heidi Doo-Kirk said volunteers were ready to help take down the signs, but Engineer Betts said no, because of liability issues that wouldn’t be allowed.
Commissioner Garry Gamble said if the county board asked Betts to remove all the signs, it would be asking him to “abdicate his responsibility.”
County Attorney Molly Hicken asked Betts if “there was any wiggle room for removing signs.”
Betts said yes, he could take down the Mid-Trail signs, but added, “That’s four signs.”
It was pointed out that the Gunflint Trail Scenic Byway Committee was an advisory group, and not a regulatory group. But Doo-Kirk said it was important for Betts and the GTSBC to meet to discuss why signs were so important to him and why less signs were so important to the committee members and find a middle ground.
Betts said he would be fine with that, adding he didn’t want to come before the board every time he wanted one of his crew to put up a sign. “At some point we have to be trusted to do our job,” he said.
Commissioner Moe agreed, “I don’t want to be nit picking signs.”
“Dave listens. He’s trying to find a balance,” said Gamble. “If it’s wide open, we can do anything we want because of public opinion. Dave can’t take the heat for putting the signs up and then taking the heat for taking them down. That’s not fair to Dave.”
Betts said the county could write a sign policy to fit what it would like to see, tilting the windmill, he said, but he doubted it would be legal in the eyes of the law.
Betts is a member of the Gunflint Trail Scenic Byways and was asked to continue to meet with that group.
Leave a Reply