Navigation Apps Are Turning Quiet Neighborhoods Into Traffic Nightmares

[Mergingtraffic]

I can see putting up restrictions if it's a safety or legit issue, like no trucks b/c of a low underpass or No Left Turn Weekdays between 7am-9am because of a school bus traffic where it helps traffic flow in that intersection.

I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets.  It reeks of NIMBYism.  I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right.  It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route.  It's like shunpiking.  If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.

[Alps]

I can see putting up restrictions if it's a safety or legit issue, like no trucks b/c of a low underpass or No Left Turn Weekdays between 7am-9am because of a school bus traffic where it helps traffic flow in that intersection.

I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets.  It reeks of NIMBYism.  I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right.  It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route.  It's like shunpiking.  If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.

No, it's your privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

[jeffandnicole]

I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets.  It reeks of NIMBYism.  I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right.  It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route.  It's like shunpiking.  If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.

I like how you used major state routes in your example...except that's not the issue here.  Go from I-280 to NJ 3 using nothing but 25 mph residential streets with driveways every 65 feet and stop signs every block.

Better yet, involve a route that involves your side street or development.  Then imagine it jammed every day.  That's the issue. 

[Brandon]

I can see putting up restrictions if it's a safety or legit issue, like no trucks b/c of a low underpass or No Left Turn Weekdays between 7am-9am because of a school bus traffic where it helps traffic flow in that intersection.

I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets.  It reeks of NIMBYism.  I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right.  It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route.  It's like shunpiking.  If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.

No, it's your privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Actually, that routing has nothing to do with driving privileges.  Sorry, but Mergingtraffic is right, that is a right within his driving privileges.

[empirestate]

I can see putting up restrictions if it's a safety or legit issue, like no trucks b/c of a low underpass or No Left Turn Weekdays between 7am-9am because of a school bus traffic where it helps traffic flow in that intersection.

I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets.  It reeks of NIMBYism.  I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right.  It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route.  It's like shunpiking.  If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.

No, it's your privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Driving may be a privilege, but traversing a public way is indeed a right.


iPhone

[hbelkins]

Surprised I have seen no discussion of this here.

[kalvado]

No surprises.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21829.0

[cpzilliacus]

NorthJersey.com: Leonia's ban on commuter traffic along local roads: Is it legal?

LEONIA – Residents cheered. Commuters cursed.

But as Leonia's new law, which bans commuters from using backstreets during rush hour to reach the George Washington Bridge, took effect Monday, a key question remained unanswered: Is it actually legal?

Borough officials think so. They point to a 41-year-old Supreme Court decision affirming local governments' right to restrict commuter parking in residential neighborhoods as proof of their authority over the more than 60 roads they're closing to pass-through traffic.

"We believe we're on pretty firm ground,"  said Judah Zeigler, the borough mayor.

Despite the mayor's confidence, others – including legal experts and the law's opponents – are less sure it will survive a court challenge.

"No, it is illegal,"  said Steve Carrellas, head of the New Jersey chapter of the National Motorists Association. "Any municipality ... can get away with anything they want until they're challenged in court."

[CtrlAltDel]

It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.

[wanderer2575]

It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.

https://goo.gl/maps/y2hQ6M3kPUC2
(Bird Ave in Birmingham, MI -- cutting off a neighborhood routing between M-1 Woodward Vvenue to 14 Mile Road)

[PHLBOS]

It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.

https://goo.gl/maps/y2hQ6M3kPUC2
(Bird Ave in Birmingham, MI -- cutting off a neighborhood routing between M-1 Woodward Vvenue to 14 Mile Road)

The only issue with that type of action is that such would impede the movements of local emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulances, etc.) as well.

[cl94]

It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.

https://goo.gl/maps/y2hQ6M3kPUC2
(Bird Ave in Birmingham, MI -- cutting off a neighborhood routing between M-1 Woodward Vvenue to 14 Mile Road)

The only issue with that type of action is that such would impede the movements of local emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulances, etc.) as well.

Which is why a lot of places that cut off roads like this use gates instead. Such as this case near Buffalo.

[jeffandnicole]

In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.

It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.

[kalvado]

In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.

It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.

And not ticketing cars with local registrations can achieve the same purpose.
However the biggest can of worms is with public access to public owned roads. And I wouldn't be surprised if the matter ends up in supreme court...

[Brandon]

In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.

It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.

And not ticketing cars with local registrations can achieve the same purpose.
However the biggest can of worms is with public access to public owned roads. And I wouldn't be surprised if the matter ends up in supreme court...

The problem is, when they start attempting to ticket non-resident vehicles, they can, and will run afoul of higher laws.  Who are they to determine that the person is using the road to cut through instead of going to a residence.  Then there's rental vehicles, which might be rented by a resident, but subject to ticketing under their scheme.

[jeffandnicole]

In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.

It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.

And not ticketing cars with local registrations can achieve the same purpose.
However the biggest can of worms is with public access to public owned roads. And I wouldn't be surprised if the matter ends up in supreme court...

Again, going back to legality: No Left/Right Turn signs are perfectly legal, and in the MUTCD.    The public still has access to the road if they make the proper turns.

Ticketing cars based on their registration status isn't legal, and you ignored those that work or otherwise conduct business on those streets.

[kalvado]

In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.

It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.

And not ticketing cars with local registrations can achieve the same purpose.
However the biggest can of worms is with public access to public owned roads. And I wouldn't be surprised if the matter ends up in supreme court...

The problem is, when they start attempting to ticket non-resident vehicles, they can, and will run afoul of higher laws.  Who are they to determine that the person is using the road to cut through instead of going to a residence.  Then there's rental vehicles, which might be rented by a resident, but subject to ticketing under their scheme.

Ticketing based on address is illegal - if t can be proven it is indeed based on address. Implementing such policy informally is fairly easy, though. ANd that is what I'm actually afraid of...

[empirestate]

It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.

https://goo.gl/maps/y2hQ6M3kPUC2
(Bird Ave in Birmingham, MI -- cutting off a neighborhood routing between M-1 Woodward Vvenue to 14 Mile Road)

The only issue with that type of action is that such would impede the movements of local emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulances, etc.) as well.

I assume it will come down to New Jersey's legal duty to keep public ways open for public passage. Presumably they can't completely restrict any member of the public from traversing a road without going through an official process of abandonment. In other words, if the road is public, it has to be open to all of the public.

Now, they may indeed be allowed to restrict travel by certain modes of transportation–such as motor vehicles–by erecting gates, curbs, bollards etc. However, I suspect that if they try to do this wholesale across the borough, it will likely be argued that they are using an ostensibly legal action to effect an illegal restriction against certain members of the public. The same argument might even be made against turn restriction signs, I'd bet, if it can be shown to have a nefarious purpose.

[bzakharin]

So are the "local traffic only" signs I see everywhere illegal? I mean unenforceable sure, but illegal?

[SignBridge]

I've been watching the news reports about Leonia and now Weehawken too. It will be interesting to see how this issue evolves. For one thing it must be costing these towns for police manpower to enforce the new rules. How much depends on whether they're just using on-duty personnel or paying overtime for extra staffing.

Another question is whether these towns have the legal authority to restrict public roads to residents only like they're doing. I understand someone is already taking Leonia to court over this. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule.

And now business owners in Leonia are complaining about lost business 'cause people are afraid to drive into that area for fear of being ticketed. Of course this may be just a case of potential customers not understanding when and where the restrictions apply. Maybe some public education and/or better signing is in order.

[kalvado]

And now business owners in Leonia are complaining about lost business 'cause people are afraid to drive into that area for fear of being ticketed. Of course this may be just a case of potential customers not understanding when and where the restrictions apply. Maybe some public education and/or better signing is in order.

For me personally, any strong restriction like that is a clear message - "you're not welcomed here!" - regardless of signs and/or newspaper articles. Most, if not all, small downtown businesses have competitors, in many cases amazon is also an option.
In my particular case, downtown nominally has plenty of interesting businesses. But they have some complex parking restrictions and red light cameras... so I've been there twice over past 12 months, since museums are not as abundant as retail or restaurants.

[cpzilliacus]

So are the "local traffic only" signs I see everywhere illegal? I mean unenforceable sure, but illegal?

Can they be found in the federal MUTCD? No.

Can they be found in any state MUTCD supplement?  Not sure (I have some familiarity with a few of them, but not all of them). But probably not.

[GenExpwy]

So are the "local traffic only" signs I see everywhere illegal? I mean unenforceable sure, but illegal?

Can they be found in the federal MUTCD? No.

Wouldn't it be covered under Sections 2A.06 and 2B.02? (I am referring to the legality of the sign itself, not of the underlying local ordinance.)

Option:
13 State and local highway agencies may develop special word message signs in situations where roadway
conditions make it necessary to provide road users with additional regulatory, warning, or guidance information,
such as when road users need to be notified of special regulations or warned about a situation that might not be
readily apparent. Unlike colors that have not been assigned or symbols that have not been approved for signs, new
word message signs may be used without the need for experimentation.

Option:
02 Regulatory word message signs other than those classified and specified in this Manual and the "Standard
Highways Signs and Markings"  book (see Section 1A.11) may be developed to aid the enforcement of other laws
or regulations.

[empirestate]

I have been hearing updates on this fairly often in the news. Notably, the only angle I've been hearing is that of local business owners fearing the loss of traffic, nothing about the legality of the restriction. Most recent reporting is that the borough government is willing to revise the signs to appease business owners; as far as the traffic-dodging out-of-towners using the local streets, well, just plan your fuel stop at a Leonia gas station, and you're all set. :-)

[cpzilliacus]

I have been hearing updates on this fairly often in the news. Notably, the only angle I've been hearing is that of local business owners fearing the loss of traffic, nothing about the legality of the restriction. Most recent reporting is that the borough government is willing to revise the signs to appease business owners; as far as the traffic-dodging out-of-towners using the local streets, well, just plan your fuel stop at a Leonia gas station, and you're all set. :-)

Courts may not move all that fast, and it may be possible that a lowest-level "traffic and misdemeanor" court cannot nullify a law (though I presume they can dismiss any tickets issued, which ends up being the same thing for people that challenge them in court).

In the case of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority ban on photography (apparently part of the New Jersey Administrative Code) as described in Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike, the case had to end up before a New Jersey state appellate court before that ban was definitively declared unconstitutional and thus vacated.