Three Way Stops at Four Way Intersections in Ludington

At the second special Ludington City Council meeting held on November 9th to discuss what was important from the first special (listening session) meeting, Councilor Kathy Winczewski brought up a topic involving local traffic that deserves to be addressed: the three way stop situation at the corner of Dowland Street and Washington Avenue.  For those unfamiliar with the territory, it effectively has stop signs on Dowland and one stop sign on the north of that intersection on Washington.

Having travelled through the intersection, I can say that on numerous occasions there has been confusion, primarily from those who stop at either of the three signs and fail to realize that traffic coming from the south does not stop.  Here's what the minutes relate was stated at the meeting:

It should be noted that at the end of the meeting, County Commissioner (former LPD Chief and city councilor) Wally Taranko acknowledged  that, contrary to Winczewski's assertion, the three-way stop was set up to accommodate the seven car ferries running and the additional rail traffic that came across on the railroad tracks that used to run on Washington about a block south of the intersection.  

Taranko's claim has merit; the sign on Washington to the north would have been there to prevent traffic from moving too swiftly south down the hill if there was a train across the street and a line of cars behind the railroad gate.  It may have been a good idea then in order to prevent such type of accidents.  But not only are the train tracks gone, so is the volume of traffic since Dow/Oxychem has downsized.  Is this three way needed now?

The authority for traffic engineers is the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices", which lays out scientifically what sort of traffic control is to be used for traffic applications.  The Manual explains what studies must indicate to install two or four way "yield" and "stop" signs at four-way intersections, but the only time it warrants a "three way stop" intersection is if there is a "T-intersection", that is, a three way intersection.  For traffic engineers, a three way stop on a four way intersection is never warranted. 

Even back in the day, they would have likely suggested a different traffic control than a stop sign at the north end of the intersection, like a railroad track sign and a "Be prepared to stop" warning sign, for example.  For the last sixteen years LPD Chief Mark Barnett has been the Traffic Engineer for Ludington and the best reason he can warrant for the continuation of the three-way over a two-way status is that sight lines may not be sufficient for those travelling south-- which is irrelevant since they wouldn't need to stop anyway.  

Those going east on Dowland (as the person above would be, looking north) may have some issues with the parallel parking at the east of Gunberg's restricting their sight lines to the north, yet this problem can be minimized if they gradually move out into the intersection; there is not a lot of traffic going south on Washington there.  Barnett seems willing to make it into a four-way intersection if the council wants to go that way despite having not done any type of study to come to the logical conclusion that a four-way stop would assuredly not be warranted due to conditions, crash history (which he accedes is minimal), and traffic volume. 

The traffic study would likely find instead that the two stop signs on Dowland are properly placed, and any additional stop signs would be harmful to not only traffic flow, but for safety as well.  I'm definitely willing and able to help in any study if they should decide to do things scientifically rather than by their feelings and prejudices.  

The only 'confusion' I get when proceeding through this intersection is whenever I come from the south and see a car stopped at the north stop sign.  I have signaled left turns coming into the intersection and have had those people pull out right in front of me three times, violating my right-of-way.  Fortunately, I yield the intersection to prevent an accident, as have many more.  The removal of that stop sign would alleviate the problem of wondering whether that stopped car stays at home or not.  

Just down the street is the other three-way stop in town at the corner of James and Dowland Streets.  If you ever get the chance, go to that intersection in the summer around 7 PM when the SS Badger comes in and count how many times you see the cars coming from the boats take the right-of-way from people coming from the north (their viewpoint is seen in the above picture) where they don't have to stop.  It's another case where having three, rather than two, stop signs creates problems.  Once again a proper study and proper analysis of the results should reveal that the intersection is best with two stop signs on Dowland.  

One thing is for sure: any study done on these four way intersections will not yield the result that what is warranted is the continuance of the three-way stops.  So why don't we make Ludington safer and have its traffic flow better by doing what's warranted at these intersections?  Perhaps it's the same reason we have these wise village elders desiring to change Ludington Avenue from five to three lanes to achieve those same results.

Load Previous Replies
  • up

    shinblind

    These Ménage a trois intersections in Ludington do have a use. 

    I am surprised that Chief Barnet and the council missed their obvious utilitarian value.

    In the case of the South Washington/ Dowland Street intersection, it is to allow someone heading North from the 4th Ward bridge and turning left at the top of the grade the right of way so that they do not have to pause for oncoming traffic heading South on Washington.  

    In dry weather this is not a problem but in winter vehicles lose traction heading up the grade if it is not plowed and salted down to  bare pavement. I have seen everything from autos, trucks and tractor trailers have to back down the grade to get a running start to make the turn when someone heading South from Washington doesn't wait for traffic to clear.

    The same problem turning left happens at South James and Dowland. Someone traveling on James and turning left could be trapped at that intersection backing up traffic until the carferry empties.

    Perhaps a few of these would be a useful visual to Chief Barnett...

    Image result for oncoming traffic does not stop sign

    3
    • up

      stump

      Shinblind,  I would have thought that a NOTICE SIGN  like that would have been posted years ago.  Been missing for over 50 years that I have been driving. Maybe it's something new in the traffic control signage catalog. LOL  

      1
      • up

        stump

        I guess the winter might be to short for some and the city might sand / salt the Washington hill. Just thinking of the trucks and cars with stick shift transmissions would not like stopping up hill no matter what the road conditions were. Not all vehicles are equipped with the automatic transmissions. You should try to take off from a stop on a hill , holding your foot on the brake, the other holding in the clutch while your other foot gives it some gas to get going without stalling. OH wait, not enough feet.

        1