Too many stop signs everywhere!

[Pete from Boston]

That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.

Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.

That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.

Trouble is, residents often try to lower speed limits, add stop signs, etc. not because of safety, but because "we don't want them damn motorists going down our street".

Politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points." 

We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason.  The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape.  That's its job.

[vdeane]

That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.

Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.

That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.

Trouble is, residents often try to lower speed limits, add stop signs, etc. not because of safety, but because "we don't want them damn motorists going down our street".

Politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points." 

We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason.  The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape.  That's its job.

And if their neighborhood already is (and possibly always has been) the thoroughfare and they're just in denial?

Complaining residents is one of the reasons why there are so many there are so many all-way stops in this country.  Traffic devices should not be used for speed control!

I would go so far as to say that once one gets to the state and federal level (and sometimes possibly even local) that politicians are elected to serve the corporations/special interests that contributed their campaign dollars and lobby them in office and don't give a crap about the people.  If Mr. Politician is in bed with the insurance lobby, for example, he's going to lower the speed limit regardless of what the public wants and what engineering judgement demands, ultimately making the roads less safe.

[myosh_tino]

In the mid-80s, before CA-85/West Valley Fwy was constructed, commuters (mostly from Saratoga) would frequently use Bubb Rd and Stelling Rd, both two-lane streets through a predominately residential area.  The city of Cupertino installed two stop signs on Bubb at Hyannisport Drive and Columbus Avenue and two more on Stelling at Huntridge Lane and Orion Lane in an attempt to persuade through traffic to use De Anza Blvd.

[Pete from Boston]

That is why it should be illegal for political officials to intervene like that.

Couldn't disagree more. While I'd rather see speed limits set by the 85th percentile or something similar, placement of signals and such are decisions that need to be made in the best interests of the traveling public. If the public presses for a signal to be placed somewhere for safety reasons, even if it doesn't meet standard criteria (which is the plain-language term I prefer over "warrants"), then it's incumbent upon the elected or appointed officials to do what their bosses (the voters and taxpayers) demand. I know one signal in my area that was installed, even after being denied repeatedly by the engineers, because the locals demanded it and got politicians involved.

That's also why I prefer the agency head not be a PE. Engineers feel compelled to use only engineering judgment in making decisions instead of other factors that are important. A non-PE cabinet secretary can make those decisions.

Trouble is, residents often try to lower speed limits, add stop signs, etc. not because of safety, but because "we don't want them damn motorists going down our street".

Politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points." 

We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason.  The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape.  That's its job.

And if their neighborhood already is (and possibly always has been) the thoroughfare and they're just in denial?

Complaining residents is one of the reasons why there are so many there are so many all-way stops in this country.  Traffic devices should not be used for speed control!

I would go so far as to say that once one gets to the state and federal level (and sometimes possibly even local) that politicians are elected to serve the corporations/special interests that contributed their campaign dollars and lobby them in office and don't give a crap about the people.  If Mr. Politician is in bed with the insurance lobby, for example, he's going to lower the speed limit regardless of what the public wants and what engineering judgement demands, ultimately making the roads less safe.

We get the government we consent to.

[GaryV]

Politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points." 

We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason.  The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape.  That's its job.

But what if the rest of the residents of the city - who are also represented by the same politicians - want to be able to take the shortest path between two points?

Or on zoning, what if some residents want the new shopping center that the other residents are trying to get the politicians to ban?

That's why we want professionals making these recommendations and decisions, sometimes with the oversight of the politicians.  Not policy made by whoever can yell the loudest.

[Pete from Boston]

Politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points." 

We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason.  The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape.  That's its job.

But what if the rest of the residents of the city - who are also represented by the same politicians - want to be able to take the shortest path between two points?

Or on zoning, what if some residents want the new shopping center that the other residents are trying to get the politicians to ban?

That's why we want professionals making these recommendations and decisions, sometimes with the oversight of the politicians.  Not policy made by whoever can yell the loudest.

We have these things called legislative bodies, where interests are debated, weighed, and voted upon.  Therein lies the capability for a municipality as a whole to weigh in. 

Are legislatures corruptable?  Yes, on this issue just like those concerning taxes, health care, education, morality, and more.  They are nevertheless one of the main avenues by which we have collectively agreed to make policy.

Technocrats find this level of public involvement to be irksome meddling in expert matters.  But when you put all "expert matters" outside the purview the public has through representative government, you end up with them doing what, rewriting the flag code?

Winston Churchhill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, so sometimes you have to put up with a few extra stop signs."

[hbelkins]

Let me weigh in with the particulars of the traffic signal situation I mentioned upthread.

In this case, the intersection in question is located in Booneville, Ky., at the intersection of KY 28 and KY 3347. KY 3347 leads to the local high school/middle school complex which is located north of KY 28. A few years ago, a new entrance to the elementary school, which is located on the south side of KY 28, was built. That new entrance aligns with the KY 3347 intersection. After it was built, traffic became a problem twice a day, during the morning and afternoon "school rush" hours. Booneville is a very small town, and Owsley County is traditionally known as one of the five poorest counties in the nation. The local elected officials and school officials repeatedly requested a traffic light at the intersection. (Disclosure -- I've known the school superintendent there for more than 30 years and he's a very good friend of mine). Other than twice a day, the intersection didn't meet warrants (there's that engineering term again) for a signal. It also didn't have a crash history, but the locals were trying to prevent wrecks from happening. The local leaders contacted state legislators. State legislators got the same answer -- the intersection didn't meet warrants. So they went to Frankfort and Frankfort overruled the district office and had the signal installed. This may not have been the correct engineering decision, but it was what the local people wanted, so installing it was the right thing to do.

[bzakharin]

Politicians are elected to carry out the will of the people, which sometimes is "We prefer this neighborhood not be the thoroughfare, even though it might be the shortest path between two points." 

We also don't assign zoning duties purely to technicians for the same reason.  The public has every right to decide what kind of community it wants to shape.  That's its job.

But what if the rest of the residents of the city - who are also represented by the same politicians - want to be able to take the shortest path between two points?

Or on zoning, what if some residents want the new shopping center that the other residents are trying to get the politicians to ban?

That's why we want professionals making these recommendations and decisions, sometimes with the oversight of the politicians.  Not policy made by whoever can yell the loudest.

I can confirm that this is an issue. We have a road in the neighborhood with an apparently intentional "dip" at one of the intersections. I was talking to someone who lives on that street and he was complaining that a 4-way stop sign would be a much better deterrent of traffic on his street, but that the township refuses to install any such assemblies. Meanwhile, I just wish there would be a decent way out of the neighborhood (his street is the most direct exit onto a major state highway) without unnecessary dips and stop signs. I doubt it would increase traffic from outside the neighborhood much, since, in order to cut through the neighborhood between two major streets, one would have to make 4 turns, with one stop sign in one direction and 3 in the other.

[Rothman]

Let me weigh in with the particulars of the traffic signal situation I mentioned upthread.

In this case, the intersection in question is located in Booneville, Ky., at the intersection of KY 28 and KY 3347. KY 3347 leads to the local high school/middle school complex which is located north of KY 28. A few years ago, a new entrance to the elementary school, which is located on the south side of KY 28, was built. That new entrance aligns with the KY 3347 intersection. After it was built, traffic became a problem twice a day, during the morning and afternoon "school rush" hours. Booneville is a very small town, and Owsley County is traditionally known as one of the five poorest counties in the nation. The local elected officials and school officials repeatedly requested a traffic light at the intersection. (Disclosure -- I've known the school superintendent there for more than 30 years and he's a very good friend of mine). Other than twice a day, the intersection didn't meet warrants (there's that engineering term again) for a signal. It also didn't have a crash history, but the locals were trying to prevent wrecks from happening. The local leaders contacted state legislators. State legislators got the same answer -- the intersection didn't meet warrants. So they went to Frankfort and Frankfort overruled the district office and had the signal installed. This may not have been the correct engineering decision, but it was what the local people wanted, so installing it was the right thing to do.

Nah.  I disagree with this.  Leave it to the experts, not the ignorant public.