No Thru Traffic

[NE2]

It's open to public travel since anyone going to the airport is free to use it.

The same is true of any driveway, yet you don't call a driveway a public road. The DAAR is simply a long driveway.

[deathtopumpkins]

Yes but the difference there lies in the first criterion: being owned by a public authority.

Someone's driveway is not owned by a public authority, unless said someone is a public authority.

[NE2]

Yes but the difference there lies in the first criterion: being owned by a public authority.

Someone's driveway is not owned by a public authority, unless said someone is a public authority.

Back to kphoger's example: a prison driveway is not a public road.

[cpzilliacus]

Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only  - Other uses prohibited."

This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.

Isn't it though? The Toll Road and Access Road (as opposed to the Dulles Greenway) are owned by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is a public agency, so wouldn't that make them public roads?

I actually believe that the land under both is (still) owned by the federal government.  The Access Road may still be owned by the FAA (the FAA built it to provide access to Dulles, and the Airports Authority leases Dulles and National Airports from the federal government).

Government can restrict public roads if it has a good legal or public policy reason to do so (consider "true" parkways which exclude trucks and sometimes other commercial vehicles and HOV lanes - and government can impose tolls on certain roads, bridges, tunnels and ferries, and can mandate that the toll be paid in order to use them).

In this case, government has decided that the Dulles Airport Access Road is for persons having business at the airport only (and signs are pretty clear about that), so government has the right to enforce that restriction (which I believe is codified into the Code of Virginia).

[empirestate]

Presumably if a cop follows you from one end of the road to the other and you don't stop, they could demonstrate that you had used the road as a "through" road and could stop you then.

Still, a lot of effort for little gain. Easier to just run radar.

But the end of the road is dozens of miles away; this is old NY 17. That's why I wonder at what point exactly I become Thru Traffic.

[deathtopumpkins]

Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only  - Other uses prohibited."

This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.

Isn't it though? The Toll Road and Access Road (as opposed to the Dulles Greenway) are owned by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is a public agency, so wouldn't that make them public roads?

I actually believe that the land under both is (still) owned by the federal government.  The Access Road may still be owned by the FAA (the FAA built it to provide access to Dulles, and the Airports Authority leases Dulles and National Airports from the federal government).

Government can restrict public roads if it has a good legal or public policy reason to do so (consider "true" parkways which exclude trucks and sometimes other commercial vehicles and HOV lanes - and government can impose tolls on certain roads, bridges, tunnels and ferries, and can mandate that the toll be paid in order to use them).

In this case, government has decided that the Dulles Airport Access Road is for persons having business at the airport only (and signs are pretty clear about that), so government has the right to enforce that restriction (which I believe is codified into the Code of Virginia).

...It's still a public road. Just like the Blue Ridge Parkway is a public road. Just like NYS Parkways are public roads. Just like any other road that is owned by a public agency and open to the public. Sure, only certain traffic is allowed to use it, but that traffic may freely use it. I would not consider it open to the public if there were gates on it or if you needed special permission or a permit to drive on it. Which is why things like prison roads, and the driveways at government facilities (like the infamous VA 318 - the State Capitol driveway) are not open to the public even though they may still be owned by a public agency. In a similar vein, I don't consider roads like the Dulles Greenway as public roads because, even though they are open to all traffic, they are not owned by a public agency (and yes I include long-term leases).

[kphoger]

How about the parking lot at a federal court house with a sign at its entrance stating "court house parking only", but without gates or required permits?  If I were to drive into the lot and park, then walk across the street and eat at a restaurant, I wouldn't be surprised to find a ticket on my windshield.

[cpzilliacus]

...It's still a public road. Just like the Blue Ridge Parkway is a public road. Just like NYS Parkways are public roads. Just like any other road that is owned by a public agency and open to the public. Sure, only certain traffic is allowed to use it, but that traffic may freely use it. I would not consider it open to the public if there were gates on it or if you needed special permission or a permit to drive on it. Which is why things like prison roads, and the driveways at government facilities (like the infamous VA 318 - the State Capitol driveway) are not open to the public even though they may still be owned by a public agency. In a similar vein, I don't consider roads like the Dulles Greenway as public roads because, even though they are open to all traffic, they are not owned by a public agency (and yes I include long-term leases).

There are roads on  the campus of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia that are obviously government-funded and maintained, but are definitely not open to the general public, so we agree with each other in that regard. 

Another (infamous) case involves the road that leads to the presidential Camp David compound within Catoctin Mountain Park (owned and managed by the National Park Service) in Frederick County, Maryland.  The late CBS-TV correspondent Andy Rooney did a "60 Minutes" segment where he went to the front gate of Camp David and was rewarded with a decidedly less-than-warm reception (described at the bottom of this Web page)

He decided to see how close he could get to Camp David. He turned in off the main road and kept gong a few hundred yards to the guardhouse at the gate. He received a very cool reception from some of the company of Marines guarding the place.

Then he asked if could get permission to take pictures. He was denied permission and was asked to turn off his camera.

"The Marines frisked our car, had us fill out intruder forms and asked Bob Peterson, the cameraman, to turn over the tape in his camera," says Rooney.

"We have those pictures you saw because by mistake Bob gave them a blank tape."

Regarding roads that are operated by a private-sector concession but open to all motorists, I still regard those as part of the public highway network.  I recall reading someplace that the TCA toll roads in Orange County, California are all owned by Caltrans, even though the TCA issued the revenue bonds that got them built, and collects the tolls from vehicles that use them.

Not sure who owns the Dulles Greenway - it may be the private investors that collect the tolls, but  I am not at all confident about that. I do know that when the Greenway concession  expires, then the  road will (supposedly) become the property of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).

[deathtopumpkins]

Now that I think about it, I guess roads that are privately owned or leased to a private company, like the Dulles Greenway and the TCA toll roads, but still carry a state route number should probably be included as well... because the presence of a signed, publicized number indicates that the road is part of the public system, even though the pavement itself is not publicly-owned.

This is quite an interesting subject.

[Kacie Jane]

This is quite an interesting subject.

...that should probably be split.

Presumably if a cop follows you from one end of the road to the other and you don't stop, they could demonstrate that you had used the road as a "through" road and could stop you then.

Still, a lot of effort for little gain. Easier to just run radar.

But the end of the road is dozens of miles away; this is old NY 17. That's why I wonder at what point exactly I become Thru Traffic.

To get back to the original topic...

My assumption (you know what they say about assuming) would be that there's an eastbound No Thru Traffic sign somewhere, and the two signs mark the boundaries of a "No Thru Traffic Zone", so that if you pass through the zone without stopping, you are prohibited thru traffic.

[Revive 755]

Still strikes me as unenforceable.  As long as traffic follows the limit, stops at stop signs/signals, etc, it is unenforceable.  We have similar signs around here, but they are on a black on yellow diamond.

Some of the northwest suburbs have the black on white rectangle, usually on side streets near an overloaded intersection.

As for the example at the start of this thread, it sounds to me the local village is a bit full of itself.  They want no through traffic, then NYDOT should get rid of the stoplight and make Sullivan right in/right out to the west of US 209, or shut the street completely and just have the west leg be for gas station access.

[NE2]

I would not consider it open to the public if there were gates on it or if you needed special permission or a permit to drive on it.

A gate is simply one way of enforcing restrictions. Posting signs and watching for violators is another.

[deathtopumpkins]

I would not consider it open to the public if there were gates on it or if you needed special permission or a permit to drive on it.

A gate is simply one way of enforcing restrictions. Posting signs and watching for violators is another.

No, there is a difference between a gate and a sign or visual enforcement of restrictions. A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate. A signed or visually enforced restriction does not. Roads with gates are not intended for random people to use them, whereas roads with signed or visually enforced restrictions are open to any random traffic that meets those restrictions.

[NE2]

A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate.

Er no. If the gate is manned, policy may be to let anyone in who says they're going to whatever's beyond the gate.

[empirestate]

My assumption (you know what they say about assuming) would be that there's an eastbound No Thru Traffic sign somewhere, and the two signs mark the boundaries of a "No Thru Traffic Zone", so that if you pass through the zone without stopping, you are prohibited thru traffic.

That's a reasonable theory. Of course, as I was headed westbound, I wouldn't have seen the sign marking the end of the thru section, assuming it faced eastbound traffic.

It would also probably really tick off somebody who lived just past the second sign, and who just wanted to pop over to that gas station for some groceries...or gas.

The whole thing is all just so silly!

[kphoger]

A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate. A signed or visually enforced restriction does not.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to obey signs that say, basically, "You can't drive here".  A gate, yes, physically prevents unauthorized people from driving down a road; but, in another manner, a sign also prevents them.  On the parkway example mentioned upthread, we don't need a ten-foot clearance barrier to keep commercial trucks off cars-only parkways.  Rules, signs, and police officers are all that is needed.

The fact that you would only heed a prohibitive restriction if there were a physical barrier doesn't mean it's unreasonable to expect others to disregard less imposing restrictive measures.

[deathtopumpkins]

A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate.

Er no. If the gate is manned, policy may be to let anyone in who says they're going to whatever's beyond the gate.

If that's the policy then by my previously stated definition the road becomes public, because if the policy is to let anyone in then the "gate" is no different than a toll booth or entrance gate for a national park or something similar.

A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate. A signed or visually enforced restriction does not.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to obey signs that say, basically, "You can't drive here".  A gate, yes, physically prevents unauthorized people from driving down a road; but, in another manner, a sign also prevents them.  On the parkway example mentioned upthread, we don't need a ten-foot clearance barrier to keep commercial trucks off cars-only parkways.  Rules, signs, and police officers are all that is needed.

The fact that you would only heed a prohibitive restriction if there were a physical barrier doesn't mean it's unreasonable to expect others to disregard less imposing restrictive measures.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that I would ignore a prohibitive restriction unless there were a physical barrier.

[NE2]

A gate prevents ALL traffic from using the road except for people who have the ability to open the gate.

Er no. If the gate is manned, policy may be to let anyone in who says they're going to whatever's beyond the gate.

If that's the policy then by my previously stated definition the road becomes public, because if the policy is to let anyone in then the "gate" is no different than a toll booth or entrance gate for a national park or something similar.

The policy is not to let "anyone" in. It's to let anyone in who's going to the facility. If the driver is lying they can probably be prosecuted for trespassing.

A national park is different, in that you can drive through without stopping. It will cost you, but sometimes the alternative is significantly longer (e.g. Tioga Pass).

[Scott5114]

The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.

[NE2]

The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.

If you see the same guy getting on at the airport, not stopping there, and exiting at the east end every day for a week, you know he's using the DAAR improperly.

[deathtopumpkins]

The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.

If you see the same guy getting on at the airport, not stopping there, and exiting at the east end every day for a week, you know he's using the DAAR improperly.

But at that point is it really worth the cost to bother enforcing it at all?

[NE2]

The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.

If you see the same guy getting on at the airport, not stopping there, and exiting at the east end every day for a week, you know he's using the DAAR improperly.

But at that point is it really worth the cost to bother enforcing it at all?

Since the MWAA does enforce it, apparently so.

[deathtopumpkins]

The attempt could be made to prosecute, but it would probably be extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that someone is not intending to go to the airport? If someone was going to the airport and realized they forgot something at home and turned around without stopping at the airport, can you find them guilty for that? They were intending to go to the airport, but changed their plans midway through.

If you see the same guy getting on at the airport, not stopping there, and exiting at the east end every day for a week, you know he's using the DAAR improperly.

But at that point is it really worth the cost to bother enforcing it at all?

Since the MWAA does enforce it, apparently so.

But do they enforce it by following people every day for a week, as you said?

Contrary to what some people here seem to think, the fact that it is supposed to be for airport use only would be enough to keep me from using it unless I were going to the airport (unless maybe I used it to commute and there was a terrible traffic jam on the Toll Road or something)

[NE2]

But do they enforce it by following people every day for a week, as you said?

I don't know. They would only have to follow until the last possible in-airport exit.

[deathtopumpkins]

But do they enforce it by following people every day for a week, as you said?

I don't know. They would only have to follow until the last possible in-airport exit.

Which is what I thought they did until you specified every day for a week.