Unwarranted Stop Signs are Bad and Costly

[XLFD]

Stop signs keep on getting added around Ludington.  Recently,  two were added to Washington at Bryant (making it a 4-way stop), two were added to Sherman at Woodlawn intersection and one was added to N James at Court Street (making both of the T-intersections a 3-way stop), among others.  On Monday, another one on Stearn’s outer loop was proposed by Chief Barnett, who swears by stop signs.  After all, stop signs slow traffic down, cost little to maintain, and make things safer.  Right?

 Let’s check the research.  The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the bible of traffic engineering, and is fairly precise on where a stop sign is warranted, though a little more vague on where one is not.  An abstract of an article I read  recently said:

This paper reviewed over 70 technical papers covering all-way stops (or multi-way stops) and their success and failure as traffic control devices in residential areas.

This study is the most comprehensive found on multi-way stop signs.   The study looked at how multi-way stop signs have been used as traffic calming measures to control speed. There have been 23 hypotheses studied using multi-way stop as speed control. The research found an additional 9 hypotheses studied showing the effect multi way stops have on other traffic engineering problems.

The research found that, overwhelmingly, multi-way stop signs do NOT control speed except under very limited conditions. The research shows that the concerns about unwarranted stop signs are well founded.

 A link to the complete paper is at the end of this brief summary, and is a good read for those who are intrigued by this counter-intuitive concept.  The findings among the various studies:

1) Multi-way stops do not control speeds, nor do they reduce speeds on  residential streets.
2) Stop compliance is poor where a sign is unwarranted (meaning it is there despite the MUTCD’s rules) at a multi-way stop.  Speeds actually increase at a distance from the intersection as motorists “make up that time”.  Overall, speed decreases when such stop signs are removed!
3) Safety of pedestrians at such unwarranted signs is decreased, esp. for children, as they expect the vehicles to stop, while many motorists have gotten in the habit of running the sign.  Yet, people “feel” safer with the sign, warranted or not.
4) Unwarranted multi-way stops may present potential liability problems for a governing unit’s undocumented exceptions to accepted warrants.  Many times the unwarranted stop signs are installed without a warrant study or some documentation.
5) Stop signs increase noise and pollution in the vicinity of an intersection. The noise is created by the vehicle braking noise at the intersection and the cars accelerating up to speed. The noise is created by the engine exhaust, brake, tire and aerodynamic noises.
6) Multi-way stop signs have high operating costs based on vehicle operating costs, vehicular travel times, fuel consumption and increased vehicle emissions.
7) Unwarranted stop signs do not significantly change the safety of an intersection.

The only positive effect on safety that an unwarranted stop sign may have, according to these studies, is if there are limited line-of-sight issues caused by objects at the street corners or parked cars.  It may be best to remediate those issues, however, and then remove the unwarranted signs.

The Economics of Multi-way Stop Signs

The most profound piece of this study comes from reference 55 which determines the economic impact of having an unwarranted stop sign.  Presuming 8000 cars pass through such an intersection each day (probably close to the total that goes through the Washington-Bryant signs per day during the summer) the yearly costs added to the traveling public is $210,061 in 1990 dollars (over $350,000 inflation adjusted).  Since the multi-stop at Washington-Bryant was introduced mid-April, the traveling residents/visitors of Ludington have been burdened with about $150,000 extra costs just due to these two new signs!

Operating Costs (1990)             $ 111,737/year
($.04291/Stop)
Delay & Travel Costs (1990)         $ 88,556 /year
($.03401/Stop)
Enforcement Costs (1990)       $ 837/year
Cost of Fines (19 per year)         $ 1,045/year
Cost of 2 stop signs (1990)         $ 280
Costs of increased insurance (1990)     $7,606/year
Total (1990)     $210,061/year/intersection

 The study summarizes its findings:

 Researchers found that multi-way stop signs do not control speed. In analyzing the 23 hypotheses for multi-way stop signs, five were favorable and 18 were unfavorable toward installing unwarranted all-way stop signs. The Chicago study (6) was the only research paper that showed factual support for "unwarranted" multi-way stop signs. They were found to be effective at reducing accidents at intersections that have sight distance problems and on-street parking.  Benefits to control speeds by installing multi-way stop signs are perceived rather than actual and the costs for the driving public are far greater than any benefits derived from the installation of the multi-way stop signs.

The proposed stop sign at the east side of Ludington Avenue where it crosses Lakeshore Drive, was approved by the council 5-1, Monday.  Only Councilor Engblade saw the futility of this sign and asked the Chief whether there had been any accidents there (to which he replied "nothing recently").  The "determined hazard" was not even a hazard to start with.

 If we accept the validity of these 71 studies, the best way to improve the multi-way stops at Washington-Bryant is to unearth the two signs on Bryant.  At Sherman-Woodlawn, ditch the two signs on Sherman.  At James-Court, remove the two signs on Court.  And don't put one on West Ludington Avenue.  Only then will we be following the MUTCD and making the streets safer, travel more economical, and traffic more fluid.  It’s been proved!
http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm

[charlemagnetism]

is this new sign going to be on w ludington ave. otherwise i read through that study and learned a bit. get rid of stop signs for safety. blimey what a concept. did you know those two signs on sherman have been there for four years and still have there flags on them.

[XLFD]

According to the LDN they have placed this sign already, so I will check out exactly where that sign is and get back to you. The article should be required reading for Chief Barnett and anyone else who wishes to put up a stop sign with the intention of making an area safer or slowing traffic. Because the sign usually will just make it more dangerous, unless its warranted. I did not know the flags on top of the sign were still there, they are usually taken down after the first few months I hear. No harm in them, but kind of odd they are still there.

[Mary A.]

Great research, X. I never realized there was actually a "science" to placing stop signs. Next time I'm in Ludington, I'm going to pay more attention to the sign placement.

[Edie Lindsey]

I second that Mary. I have seen the "speed up to make up for lost time" happen on Stiles Road all the time before and after the 4-way stop around the Hansen Road intersection, though it's as bad up at the Fountain Road 4-way too, I wager.

If you took down those signs on Stiles Road at both places, you'd save a heck of a lot of brake pads and tires. I never really knew why those went up in the first place. You slow traffic down from 60 to nearly 0 mph for a hundred yards around a bunch of open fields. Out of control traffic control.

[XLFD]

Here is the new stop sign that was proposed by Chief Barnett. He determined that a hazard existed at this corner which required a stop sign, however, he neglected to note another, as of yet unnoticed, hazard which is created by the erection of this sign that will not make anyone more happier. Can you figure it out?

It is not the stop sign placed illegally beyond the sidewalk you see up the street, or the lack of pedestrian facilities on the side of the road or the fencing not allowing pedestrians to walk anywhere but on the road.

[charlemagnetism]

does it have to do with the sign being so far from the road.

[XLFD]

You're on the right track, but not directly. Anyone else?

[XLFD]

No other takers.

Take a look at the current parking lines. Michigan law (257.674(g))says you cannot park within thirty feet of the approach to a stop sign. That renders three of the current parking spaces useless, meaning there needs to be some serious repainting of the parking area to reflect this. It would probably be a good idea to nix the parallel parking if they want to be extra safe, with the resulting loss of even more parking.

At least 3 parking spots lost at the beach-- I guess that makes it safer down there, when less tourists stop at our major draw. Good work, Chief Barnett.

[Mary A.]

I walk around there when I'm in town, and it is rather challenging sometimes navigating the area safely. Not sure if that stop sign is of help, though. You've piqued my interest, so I want to check it out in person. I have a running list of all these issues you've cited over the past months.

[XLFD]

Next time you come up to visit the place, have a look around, but be careful. It is very dangerous to walk in a lot of areas around town. Traffic is down, and some of the leaves blocking the signs are off the trees, so it's probably safest over the next couple of months.

I welcome your 'take' on things, and as long as you're making lists, here's what I want for Christmas...

[Willy]

XLFD
Not only that but what if a van or a truck with a camper parks near the sign. The sign would not be visible and someone could easily run through the intersection without stopping. The sign placement is not a good idea and I don't believe it was properly thought out. Most cities do a traffic study before signs or lights are installed. I wonder if that was the case in this situation. It would make more sense to paint large "stop" words on the road at the intersection. Anyway I don't think a stop sign at this particular spot is warrented.

[XLFD]

True, and historically the campers and fifth wheels have parked in this area, and so the point you mention was the main reason I figured they might want to reconsider the parallel parking situation and likely nix it.

"Traffic study?! We don't need no stinking 'traffic study'.", according to Traffic Engineer Mark Barnett. Here's the official words from the 9-27-10 Ludington City Council Meeting:

I had to highlight the "proven fact" the clerk put down which contradicts the reason for this sign. Castonia, not surprisingly, adds the fallacy about the sign increasing pedestrian safety in the area.