Stop signs to discourage trucks

[realjd]

We are going to put in more stop signs to keep the truck traffic from coming down there, because they don't want to go three blocks and stop and shift 12 gears again.

From this article: http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013309080068

I like the complete streets concept, but using stop signs as a way to discourage trucks is completely stupid IMO. Has anyone else ever heard of this? I've heard of using stop signs to slow traffic down but never to discourage trucks. Why not just put up "no trucks" signs instead?

Edit: fixed link

[Thing 342]

Based on the way they described it, 'Complete Streets' sound like traffic hassles simply for the sake of being traffic hassles. But I agree, if they want to discourage trucks, just put up a sign that says: 'No Trucks'

[jeffandnicole]

"Complete Streets" is really the bicycle community finding a way to suit things the way they want it.

In this example, they want to discourage trucks.  At that point, it's not a complete streets project if you're purposely discouraging a certain class of vehicle.  And car drivers really don't want to constantly stop either. 

[SidS1045]

Placing stop signs for other than their intended purpose (establishing right-of-way and/or controlling conflicting traffic movements at an intersection) will practically guarantee they'll be ignored.  Thing 342 is exactly right: Let the jurisdiction pass an ordinance banning trucks in that area.

There are numerous studies out there which prove that unnecessary stop signs actually decrease safety, the latest of which was done by a traffic engineer from Georgia.

[seicer]

No, complete streets is a proven concept to ... connect streets, encourage walkability, cycling and other forms of non-motor transportation and encourage more efficient uses of motoring transportation. Cul-de-sacs and winding wide roads may look great to a realtor, but are largely inefficient and expensive to maintain. And so on and so forth.

Some goals include,
* Pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks; traditional and raised crosswalks; median crossing islands; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 compliant facilities including audible cues for people with low vision, pushbuttons reachable by people in wheelchairs, and curb cuts; and sidewalk bulb-outs.
* Traffic calming measures to lower speeds of automobiles and define the edges of automobile travel lanes, including a road diet, center medians, shorter curb corner radii, elimination of free-flow right-turn lanes, angled, face-out parking, street trees, planter strips and ground cover
* Bicycle accommodations, such as protected or dedicated bicycle lanes, neighborhood greenways, wide paved shoulders, and bicycle parking.
* Mass transit accommodations, such as Bus Rapid Transit, bus pullouts, transit signal priority, bus shelters, and dedicated bus lanes.

A good description can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_streets

I wish we could have a sensible and intelligent discussion on here without having "traffic hassles" or "bicycle community finding a way to suit things the way they want it."

[jeffandnicole]

No, complete streets is a proven concept to ... connect streets, encourage walkability, cycling and other forms of non-motor transportation and encourage more efficient uses of motoring transportation. Cul-de-sacs and winding wide roads may look great to a realtor, but are largely inefficient and expensive to maintain. And so on and so forth.

Some goals include,
* Pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks; traditional and raised crosswalks; median crossing islands; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 compliant facilities including audible cues for people with low vision, pushbuttons reachable by people in wheelchairs, and curb cuts; and sidewalk bulb-outs.
* Traffic calming measures to lower speeds of automobiles and define the edges of automobile travel lanes, including a road diet, center medians, shorter curb corner radii, elimination of free-flow right-turn lanes, angled, face-out parking, street trees, planter strips and ground cover
* Bicycle accommodations, such as protected or dedicated bicycle lanes, neighborhood greenways, wide paved shoulders, and bicycle parking.
* Mass transit accommodations, such as Bus Rapid Transit, bus pullouts, transit signal priority, bus shelters, and dedicated bus lanes.

A good description can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_streets

I wish we could have a sensible and intelligent discussion on here without having "traffic hassles" or "bicycle community finding a way to suit things the way they want it."

Using the Wiki page, first paragraph: "Complete Streets allow for safe travel by those walking, bicycling, driving automobiles, riding public transportation, or delivering goods."

So how does trying to discourage trucks accomplish the goal?

Sure, it's a concept...but a 'proven' concept is more opinion than fact. 

[agentsteel53]

* Traffic calming measures to lower speeds of automobiles and define the edges of automobile travel lanes, including a road diet, center medians, shorter curb corner radii, elimination of free-flow right-turn lanes, angled, face-out parking, street trees, planter strips and ground cover

these are actually pretty sensible solutions - much better than "stop signs for the hell of it", and - the worst - speed bumps.

whoever invented the speed bump needs to be glued to an otherwise flat road and used as one.

that said, there will always be roads that need to be used primarily by automobiles and trucks.  even if residential and downtown streets are redone to 20mph, there will still always be a need for 50mph arterials to connect things.  it's a good idea to have bike lanes and whatnot on roads like that, but putting them on a diet, and making the radii of the curves sharper, is not the solution in those situations.

[seicer]

Agreed, and not all roads need to be dieted. But that wasn't the point some were making. There is still a need for trucks to be able to manuever, but they are not needed on all types of roadways. There was a time when 28' trailers could make their way into cities, but it's laughable to think a 53' can fit into a cramped, dense environment. And yet, some try. I see 53' trailers trying to thread through some residential streets in my neighborhood and try to access one particular building, and they are constantly running over the curbs, abusing other people's driveways, hitting trees, running over signs, etc.

The article goes to a broken link by the way.

[realjd]

The link worked from the airport (LHR) this morning... I fixed it so it should work now.

[Alps]

Having worked quite a bit with Complete Streets, including the NJ application thereof, it's an attempt to go well beyond the speed bumps and stop signs of the past. The idea is to keep through streets as through streets, but still make them accessible, while altering the character of non-through streets to make them less throughish. I don't agree with making streets one-way on alternating blocks with planters and chicanes, which I've seen in Baltimore, because a true grid system works very well, and subdivisions with one way in and out do not work very well. On the other hand, I do support, WHERE APPROPRIATE, countermeasures like bicycle and parking lanes replacing through lanes, planted medians, bulbouts, etc.
The problem is, Complete Streets gets abused far too often. Lanes are reduced on important arterials that need the extra capacity. While it makes things nicer for bicycles, it becomes a nightmare for traffic, that creates spillover effects on other streets. But whoops, those streets are now blocked off, creating problems rippling throughout neighborhoods. So no, don't diet your main street. Improve the sidewalks, sure. Add beautification, absolutely. But please don't make decisions that affect the base capacity of the road without consulting a traffic engineer and making sure it's going to work. (A real traffic engineer, not a planner or an architect or a politician.)
Oh, back to the main point - the MUTCD forbids the use of STOP signs for traffic calming. They are only to be used for traffic control where warranted.

[PHLBOS]

Oh, back to the main point - the MUTCD forbids the use of STOP signs for traffic calming. They are only to be used for traffic control where warranted.

Are you sure about the forbids part of the above as opposed to discourages the use of... STOP signs for speed control?  If it were the former, then nearly every non-PennDOT road in the 5 southeastern counties of PA would be in violation of such.

Over a decade ago, Ridley Township (Delaware County) actually requested (& got) PennDOT to remove Franklin Ave. between Kedron Ave. (PA 420) and South Ave. from its SR road system (it was part of SR 2010) so that they (the township) could erect STOP signs at 4 intersections, one of them an intersection w/a DEAD END/NO OUTLET road.

When I first moved to southeastern PA 23 years ago, it took me nearly a year to get used to stopping at multiple STOP-signed intersections.  I had to replace my car brakes within that same year as a result.

[jeffandnicole]

Oh, back to the main point - the MUTCD forbids the use of STOP signs for traffic calming. They are only to be used for traffic control where warranted.

Are you sure about the forbids part of the above as opposed to discourages the use of... STOP signs for speed control?  If it were the former, then nearly every non-PennDOT road in the 5 southeastern counties of PA would be in violation of such.

Over a decade ago, Ridley Township (Delaware County) actually requested (& got) PennDOT to remove Franklin Ave. between Kedron Ave. (PA 420) and South Ave. from its SR road system (it was part of SR 2010) so that they (the township) could erect STOP signs at 4 intersections, one of them an intersection w/a DEAD END/NO OUTLET road.

When I first moved to southeastern PA 23 years ago, it took me nearly a year to get used to stopping at multiple STOP-signed intersections.  I had to replace my car brakes within that same year as a result.

It wouldn't surprise me if they are illegal in some way.  The problem is, the hassle and the fight would be so expensive and lengthy that it wouldn't benefit anyone from putting up the fight.

NJ recently gave towns a little leeway in erecting some 3 or 4 way stop intersections.  Reading the articles, usually the residents want the stop signs to slow down speeders, which would be a prohibited use of the signs.  The council members voting to approve the all-way stop intersections are very careful talking about the signage though, usually refering to pedestrian safety as a reason.  Then again, as some of the intersections I've seen these all-way stop signs installed, there are no curb cuts, no pedestrian striping, etc. You know - stuff that would make the intersection safer for pedestrians.

[briantroutman]

Are you sure about the forbids part of the above as opposed to discourages the use of... STOP signs for speed control?

It is a should and not a shall...

YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.

[PHLBOS]

It is a should and not a shall...

YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.

As I suspected.

Here's an example of clearly speed-control-induced STOP sign in Darby Twp. (Delaware County), PA along Green Lane; this one's not even at an intersection.

http://goo.gl/maps/I97Mt

[Duke87]

What is the fascination suburban dwellers have with complaining about drivers going too fast down their street? I fail to see how this is in any way a nuisance to anyone.

It's one thing to calm (auto) traffic in places where there are significant amounts of pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic. But if you're doing it in places where auto traffic is pretty much the only traffic then it's just dickish. The former is actually about safety. The latter is just about removing the slightest tarnish from entitled assholes' little slices of heaven at everyone else's expense.

[vdeane]

It's because they want to pretend cars don't exist despite using one to go everywhere.  And maybe if they complain loud enough they can get out of the responsibility of actually teaching their kids what a road is.

[realjd]

What is the fascination suburban dwellers have with complaining about drivers going too fast down their street? I fail to see how this is in any way a nuisance to anyone.

It's one thing to calm (auto) traffic in places where there are significant amounts of pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic. But if you're doing it in places where auto traffic is pretty much the only traffic then it's just dickish. The former is actually about safety. The latter is just about removing the slightest tarnish from entitled assholes' little slices of heaven at everyone else's expense.

Trucks are loud. That's the reason to ban them from a residential area. As for fast cars, noise is part of it. More though, suburban neighborhoods DO include a large number of pedestrians, bicycles, and kids using the streets. Low speeds are good in residential areas, suburban or otherwise.

[Big John]

What is the fascination suburban dwellers have with complaining about drivers going too fast down their street? I fail to see how this is in any way a nuisance to anyone.

It's one thing to calm (auto) traffic in places where there are significant amounts of pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic. But if you're doing it in places where auto traffic is pretty much the only traffic then it's just dickish. The former is actually about safety. The latter is just about removing the slightest tarnish from entitled assholes' little slices of heaven at everyone else's expense.

Trucks are loud. That's the reason to ban them from a residential area.

Another reason for no thru trucks in residential areas is that the pavement structure is not designed for them.  The higher cost to build pavement that can withstand the weight of the trucks is reserved for the more major streets or industrial roads.

[Alps]

Are you sure about the forbids part of the above as opposed to discourages the use of... STOP signs for speed control?

It is a should and not a shall...

YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.

I bet that a few politicians are all that's preventing the should from becoming a shall. After all, stop signs bring stop sign running brings tickets brings revenue.

[cpzilliacus]

Oh, back to the main point - the MUTCD forbids the use of STOP signs for traffic calming. They are only to be used for traffic control where warranted.

That is the point that gets ignored by government (usually at the municipal, sometimes at the county level).

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of unwarranted STOP signs across the District of Columbia that were installed at the request of elected officials or the D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commissions with no engineering study or analysis of any kind.  Some jurisdictions adjoining D.C. have gotten in on the unwarranted STOP sign game as well.

What unwarranted STOP signs do is encourage drivers to ignore the STOP signs.

[kkt]

It's one thing to calm (auto) traffic in places where there are significant amounts of pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic. But if you're doing it in places where auto traffic is pretty much the only traffic then it's just dickish.

This is a chicken and egg problem.  As long as there's cars and trucks going by at high speed, especially where there are no sidewalks, there will be no option but to drive and you won't see any pedestrian or bicycle traffic.

[vdeane]

Here's a lovely little intersection I drive by every single day: http://goo.gl/maps/e9DCM

Hangar Rd has a the stop while NY 825 is through.  However, due to the curve, traffic on NY 825 has to slow down, and people on Hangar Rd turning right often take advantage of this to cut in front of traffic by blowing through the stop (and over the section of pavement that's striped over) at 30 mph.

[NE2]

Found one
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.746547,-78.123382&spn=0.003045,0.007086&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.746558,-78.12371&panoid=2TBr9Scmx7cOiUw-_Cg1eA&cbp=12,319.62,,2,1.12

[Duke87]

suburban neighborhoods DO include a large number of pedestrians, bicycles, and kids using the streets.

Occasionally yes, but not "a large number". Anyways, yes, you should slow down when you encounter these things. That doesn't mean you should have to slow down every time you pass a particular spot because there's a speed bump, which 99 times out of 100 will not coincide with encountering a person using the street.

It's one thing to calm (auto) traffic in places where there are significant amounts of pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic. But if you're doing it in places where auto traffic is pretty much the only traffic then it's just dickish.

This is a chicken and egg problem.  As long as there's cars and trucks going by at high speed, especially where there are no sidewalks, there will be no option but to drive and you won't see any pedestrian or bicycle traffic.

Doesn't matter when the destination of interest is too far away to walk to, which in suburban areas is very often the case.

And if lack of sidewalks is the problem, then that is solved by building sidewalks, not by slowing cars down. You may note that the street with the mid-block stop sign in PHLBOS' link has no sidewalks.
You may also note if you look around that that street has a speed limit of 15 and a sign explicitly stipulating "no thru traffic". All of this exists because the entitled assholes in that neighborhood do not want drivers using their through street as a through street, not because traffic blazing down the block at 20 MPH makes them scared to walk or bike anywhere.

[PurdueBill]

I recall reading in the paper once in Peabody, Mass a child of less than 10 years of age observing that in her neighborhood more traffic went through an intersection on the street without the STOP signs and that they could get traffic to slow down by reversing the signage so that street got the STOP signs.  She went to the city council and they went along with it....busier street gets the STOP signs and the one with much less traffic now flows freely.  Why do an engineering study when you can have a kid make a backwards recommendation and push it through?