3 stop signs at 4-way intersection

[7/8]

Sorry if this topic has been posted before, but I couldn't find anything through searching.

These seems to be fairly common in malls, at least where I live in Kitchener; my local mall (Fairview Park) has one of these intersections. As the title suggests, they're simple 4-way intersections, but only 3 legs have stop signs. I think it goes without saying why this is a poor setup; people are used to 2 stop signs when a minor road intersects a major road, or all-way stops, but these intersections are different and catch drivers by surprise. Also, the sides with stop signs sometimes make no mention that traffic entering the mall has no stop sign (for example, at my mall), so many people assume it's an all-way stop. As you can expect, I've seen many near-misses driving through it! Even my brother, who doesn't share my same passion for roads, specifically mentioned this intersection as being terrible.

And what's even the point of these? Just to funnel more people into the mall, but make it hard for them to leave? Is it really worth the risk to safety? Just make these 4-way stops, or choose two legs to have stop signs (across from each other)

I found another example, this time outside of a mall, at Main St and St. Lawrence St in Merrickville, ON. What I found even more interesting is that in addition to three stops signs (which thankfully have "3-way" tabs), this 4-way intersection also has a single flashing ball for each approaching leg. The 3-sides with stop signs of course have flashing red balls, but the side with no stop sign has a flashing green ball, which in Ontario is used to signify an advanced green. This makes sense since the side without a stop sign essentially has an advanced green (though how does this affect pedestrians?), but I don't think I've ever seen a single flashing green ball before (I've only seen them on 3-ball signal heads), so it caught me off guard. Again, even with the "3-way" tabs on the stop signs here, I still think this could be replaced with a 4-way stop, to avoid surprising drivers from out-of-town, or install proper signals.

Have you seen many of these intersections before, and what are your opinions on them? I'm tempted to call these my least favourite intersection, but maybe you guys will convince me otherwise.

[Revive 755]

It seems to be somewhat common around Iowa City, Iowa, to have all but one leg of an intersection stop controlled.  I only recall one on 12th Avenue in Coralville, Iowa that meets the 3-way stop at a 4-way intersection criteria (Streetview.  All the others are 2-way stops at 3-way intersections.  Most of them I think probably have the one stop sign on the main road for speed control.


I have also seen a couple variations on this theme, one being a 4-way intersection with 2 legs stop controlled, 1 uncontrolled, and 1 controlled by a yield sign - there used to be a couple of these in Rolla, Missouri, where the main road turned at the intersection (which have either been removed or I just cannot find them today).  The other is the 4-way intersection with a 3-way stop, but with a railroad crossing on the uncontrolled leg (example from Deerfield, Illinois, with one of these on each side of the crossing

[kalvado]

I guess it has something to do with entrance.. ramp? leg? capacity. One spot with such setup  I can remember would surely have entrance leg of intersection full before all left-turning traffic can get in if there was a 4-way stop.  Not having a stop for one leg basically allows that traffic to enter mall.
Entrance is a protected turn on a major 55 MPH arterial with green and red arrows. And red arrow in NY fully prohibit the move - you cannot turn left on red arrow even if there is a green ball for straight through. So those who didn't make it on green arrow have to wait - and oncoming traffic is heavy and fast (so red arrow definitely belongs there)
Having a longer entrance could work as a buffer, but (at least in that particular spot) at a cost of convoluted pattern.

[freebrickproductions]

Decatur, AL at the intersection of Bank Street and Church Street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6134701,-86.9842414,3a,49y,60.92h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skkGjRwcEZPyP9689KpoWog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Portland, TN at the intersection of McGlothlin Street, Russell Street, and Wheeler Street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.581523,-86.5144121,3a,75y,246.44h,84.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSUWnKCnA3ERzX6NY0CRTzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Though the one leg not having one is due to the railroad crossing, which is explained on these signs below the stop signs:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5817209,-86.5149837,3a,15y,168.56h,87.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAlXhTHUOaeB5GUVnuWfYNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[kphoger]

And what's even the point of these? Just to funnel more people into the mall, but make it hard for them to leave? Is it really worth the risk to safety? Just make these 4-way stops, or choose two legs to have stop signs (across from each other).

Yes, the point is to funnel more people into the mall but make it hard for them to leave.  A long line of traffic backing up into a parking lot is not a huge deal, but a long line of traffic backing up into a major avenue is a big deal.

Eliminating a stop sign means one of two things:

(1) Making traffic entering the area stop, which defeats the purpose of the setup.  In this scenario, moderate to heavy exiting traffic can cause entering traffic to back up into the road.

(2) Making only cross traffic (neither entering traffic nor the opposite direction) stop.  In this scenario, entering traffic still has to yield (read: stop) to opposing exiting traffic, again defeating the purpose of the setup.

[wxfree]

There's only one I can think of right away on public streets, and it seems to have a reason for being set up that way.  In Whitney, Texas, FM 933 southbound has a right turn at an intersection with a signal, and then has a left turn at the next intersection.  This is a four-way and the other three ways have stop signs.  My guess is that it has to do with preventing traffic from backing up to the signalized intersection, which isn't far back.  One green phase for right turns on FM 933 and then a green phase for straight-ahead traffic on Spur 180 could easily fill the next block if every car has to stop.  Going northbound, you have a stop sign at the right turn.  If the traffic is backed up you just wait at the stop sign until the green signal lets it clear.

Here it is, going south with the free left turn.  https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9518482,-97.3221203,3a,75y,261.31h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shjIZ6QMn-bv4q5LdwfAN5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

I always thought of the mall situation as similar.  The ones I've seen allow traffic entering the mall to proceed freely, which keeps it from backing up into the street.

[1995hoo]

This is fairly common at shopping centers around here and I suspect part of the reason is to prevent entering traffic from backing up onto the main road. I'll usually use a different exit than the one with this configuration if it's possible to do so.

[CtrlAltDel]

I've also seen something like this near railroad crossings. I assume that it's to make sure traffic doesn't back up onto the tracks when a train is coming.

See for example here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Elmhurst,+Illinois+60126/@41.8981364,-87.9301503,3a,90y,3.34h,87.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shUuP28kntgZkb7tPRYjBNQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DhUuP28kntgZkb7tPRYjBNQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D120.67072%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x880e4cae444218b1:0x7e5e57de113e33e0!8m2!3d41.89137!4d-87.9432837

[vtk]

There's a non-mall example I can think of, and I'm pretty sure it's because the predominant movements are between two adjacent legs of the four-way intersection. The approach from which most traffic turns left does not have to stop; the approach from which most traffic turns right has a stop sign, but it's only a trivial delay for most traffic because the right turn conflicts only with the other stop-controlled approaches, which are also less busy.

The intersection I'm referring to is 8th & Harmon, in Portsmouth, Ohio.

[peterj920]

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2070528,-88.3634766,3a,75y,0.1h,76.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sso2_DGlcE47F6E6xrIVlcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Fire Lane 8 at Old Highway Rd in Harrison, WI.  The intersection is close to a traffic signal so traffic exiting the signalized intersection has right of way so traffic on Fire Lane 8 exiting the intersection with 10/114 doesn't slow traffic down on the four lane roadway nearby.

[7/8]

Thanks for all the responses. You guys bring up a fair point about keeping traffic from backing up on the road, which gives me more respect for this intersection type. One thing I wish Ontario would use is a diagrammatic sign like Quebec uses (though I'm sure other states/provinces use this as well):

Photo credit: user glenmazza at picssr.com


Of course, I would take out the one stop sign not applicable, and change "Arrêt" to "Stop". In fact, I think using this would help a lot with all stop-sign intersections.

---------

One question I would like to bring up again is the issue of pedestrians. Let's say that the south leg of a 4-way intersection is the only one without a stop sign. I'm assuming traffic coming from the south leg turning left or right would still have to yield to pedestrians, but what about traffic going straight? I would find it strange to have to yield to pedestrians in this case, but if I don't, then pedestrians could be waiting a while to find a gap in traffic and cross.

Even more confusing is the intersection in Merrickville that I mentioned in the OP. The north leg has a permanent advanced green, which to me suggests that traffic coming from the north leg never has to yield to pedestrians. This seems strange and dangerous to me.

[wxfree]

Where I've seen this arrangement in mall parking lots, it's out at the edge, where there shouldn't be a lot of pedestrian traffic.  Stopping for an occasional pedestrian is still a lot less than having every car stop.  I don't know the correct answer, but I'd see pedestrians as yielding to straight-through traffic without a stop sign.  At the intersection with the road, the signal cycles should provide gaps for pedestrians to cross.  I don't live in or frequently visit an area with relentless traffic, but that's just how it seems to me.

[UCFKnights]

The community I used to live in has a 3 way stop right in the entry to prevent entering traffic from backing up onto the main road.

Pedestrians would have to deal with it the same way as if it were the common 2 way stop.

[1995hoo]

I think with pedestrians it probably depends on the jurisdiction's law about unmarked crosswalks.

I like the Quebec-style all-way stop (all-way arrêt?) as well. Can't say I've ever seen that style anywhere outside Quebec.

[mrsman]

The mall closest to my house in Wheaton MD has the following sign:

"incoming traffic has the right of way"


https://www.google.ca/maps/@39.0366485,-77.0519518,3a,75y,115.99h,75.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2UD-5a3Js41K_J9PVJXO0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1


I've seen other signs for similar intersections that read'  "Traffic on the left does not stop"


I feel that any intersection of this type should have a special warning like this and would prefer that none of these intersections exist, because they seem inherently dangerous.  Yet, I understand the concerns about traffic backing up onto the main roads.

[roadfro]

I feel that any intersection of this type should have a special warning like this and would prefer that none of these intersections exist, because they seem inherently dangerous.  Yet, I understand the concerns about traffic backing up onto the main roads.

As of the 2009 MUTCD, there are standard designs for these warning signs ("Cross traffic does not stop", "Oncoming traffic does not stop", "Traffic from left/right does not stop") and they are encouraged for use in exactly these situations where 'all-way-but-one' stop control is used.

[jbnv]

Independence, LA. In this situation, the stopless approach is right over rails.

[Rothman]

Schenectady, NY.  At a large shopping center.  As someone else said, probably to prevent backups to the next stop sign up the rung and then the traffic light.

[JCinSummerfield]

The first one I thought of is in Adrian, MI, at the corner of Beecher & Parr.  All four legs are public road, and there is no warning other than the small "3 way" tab underneath the stop signs.  The west-bound traffic has right-of-way, although it is unclear to me why.  That are coming up a small incline, but nothing drastic.  It should be a 4-way stop.

[Mrt90]

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5660686,-87.929155,3a,75y,170.85h,83.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saWsP9W7bfgUml2bDo_sIVA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Here is one that I dislike, in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin. I think there is plenty of room between the main road and where the 4th stop sign should be so that there would not be a problem with cars spilling out onto the main road. The other problem here is that there is a slight "hump" as you go south into the shopping center so everyone that doesn't have the stop sign ends up slowing down for the hump and because they are entering the shopping center, but that makes people at the 3 stop signs think they are going to stop.

There are actually two more 3 way stops as you go east (turn left from the perspective that I posted) but the google maps at those two intersections are old and they were not 3 way stops before the area was developed.

The other thing that bugs me is that the Village of Pleasant Prairie has been replacing 4 way stops with roundabouts in a number of places, more aggressively than most cities/villages/towns in SE Wisconsin, but in this relatively new development where single lane roundabouts would be perfect, they chose to put in 3 way stops.

[kphoger]

with pedestrians it probably depends on the jurisdiction's law about unmarked crosswalks.

I'm not aware of any state in the USA that doesn't require drivers to yield to pedestrians at four-way intersections, whether the crosswalk is marked or not. My knowledge is limited, but I believe the simple answer is "All drivers would yield to all pedestrians at the intersection," same as any other four-way intersection, regardless of any lack or presence of stop signs.

[DrSmith]

Another example of 3 way stop and one-way proceeds. Eastbound Chestnut St climbs a hill with curve right to the top with the intersection, so it does not stop (yellow flasher). Other three sides are stop signs (red flasher). Geometry/terrain make it a challenging intersection. But then again, East Longmeadow also has the rotary with 7 roads

East Longmeadow: Chestnut St & Prospect St
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0540142,-72.5119001,3a,75y,94.77h,81.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgLYP7TZ7PEkeS5yUstdKEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[1995hoo]

with pedestrians it probably depends on the jurisdiction's law about unmarked crosswalks.

I'm not aware of any state in the USA that doesn't require drivers to yield to pedestrians at four-way intersections, whether the crosswalk is marked or not. My knowledge is limited, but I believe the simple answer is "All drivers would yield to all pedestrians at the intersection," same as any other four-way intersection, regardless of any lack or presence of stop signs.

In Virginia, at least, it depends on the speed limit. The "unmarked crosswalk" statute restricts it to roads where the speed limit is 35 mph or lower.

[roadman]

In Melrose, MA, there's 3 stop signs at the 4 way intersection of West Emerson Street, Essex Street, and Tremont Street.  West Emerson Street eastbound does not have a stop sign to prevent traffic from backing up onto an adjacent grade crossing with an active commuter rail line.

[kphoger]

adjacent grade crossing with an active commuter rail line.

This might be the best way to search for locations.