Traffic Control Anomalies of South Ludington 2023

[XLFD]

At the last Ludington City Council meeting, they finally made some traffic control orders (TCO) that eliminated a couple of now-redundant stop signs on the north and south approaches to Haight Street on Lewis Street, and the stop sign for eastbound traffic on Foster Street just before the block with Foster School on it.  The latter reminded me about the other traffic control oddities littered around the south side of town, which we will discuss here and view with pictures taken this weekend showing the issues that present themselves to those travelling in town below Ludington Avenue.

Let's start off with the intersection that was adjusted this last Monday with the TCO.  Looking east, we see the two stop signs on Foster about to be removed and stop signs with placards on Lavinia.  The TCO only removes a stop sign, one would think they would remove both, but there's more that needs to be done beyond that to make this intersection right. 

The stop bar which goes across the street will need to be removed (fortunately, road degradation in that area has helped remove some of it) and the placards of the signs on Lavinia need to be either removed or amended from "3-way" to "2-way".  Councilor Les Johnson appears to be correct in saying that the Lavinia signs should be "yield" signs now, in that this is consistent in this area which features 'one way' streets throughout.

The same issue happens on the other side of Foster School, where stop signs should be replaced by yield signs on Emily Street to match the double-yield signs on the four other intersections between Ludington Avenue and Dowland.  

Then there's the Filer Street turnoff from Washington, yes, that's Foster School again in the background.  Can you see the problem here?  One way traffic begins here and goes all the way down to Harrison, like it has for longer than I can remember but look what's on the side opposite the sign indicating the one way traffic.  A stop sign.  You don't need a manual to tell you that a stop sign is not warranted where traffic is not legally allowed to go.  But it gets worse.

Two streets down on Washington, Danaher Street starts its westbound one-way course, you can tell that by the vehicles all pointing that way parked down the street.  But you can't tell that by any one-way street sign indicator, it's conspicuously absent anywhere.  In fact, one sees the same stop sign they saw back on Filer Street ready to see traffic headed east, which should never happen, if not by TCO, at least by convention.  Craziest thing you'll see in Ludington, as far as TCOs are concerned.

Then there's the end of Madison Street at Sixth Street.  The opposite side is effectively a private drive into Oxychem, whereas Sixth Street is a through-street and part of a truck route and the main entrance into the city going through the Fourth Ward.  The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices would classify this as a T-intersection whose main artery is the top of the 'T'.  The stop signs in such situations would be better placed on Madison Street and the Oxychem access street.  Not only would would this accommodate trucks and commuters to and from Oxychem from points south and/or east of the city, but also would allow for someone to get to downtown Ludington from Old 31 without seeing one stop sign.  

At the end of Dowland Street is Rath, Rath also ends at Dowland Street.  If this was a simple bend, no TCO would be needed, but an entrance/exit to the carferry is to the west, so it would seem that this should be regulated as a T-intersection by the manual and so the stop sign would be better placed at the end of Rath rather than Dowland.  

Finishing off this less-than-comprehensive overview of the odd traffic situations in the southern section of Ludington is the end of South William Street, which continues into the parking area of the Waterfront Park and playground area.  The picture above shows that entrance and the signs you will see if you try to use that entrance to get out instead of the designated exit further east.  

I've always thought that the "One way:  Do not enter" signs are self-contradictory, but they are supposed to mean not to travel that way.  If you're too oblivious to note that sign, they put one of those stop signs further down, as if you'll obey that one.

Thanks for reviewing the traffic control anomalies noticed in my travels in south Ludington, if you have noticed any that I haven't touched upon, please add them to the discussion, and if you happen to know of any to the north of Ludington Avenue, feel free to share and I may add them to a future article.

[Willy]

This is an interesting topic and i think you are correct regarding your observations. I always considered the gates on Foster to be a brilliant solution for the school.

Thinking about the different odd traffic situations in Ludington, I have found several more but I will post one that has bothered me for some time. That would be the corner of Washington and Dowland. I know it's a busy intersection but I can't understand why there are 3 stop signs. 2 on Dowland and 1 at the NW corner  on Washington. It seems to me that the stop sign on Washington is not required. I can understand stopping on Dowland on the West and East sides of Washington but the stop sign on Washington has no purpose that I can see. As many times as I have driven thru there it still is confusing as to why south bound traffic on Washington needs to stop. Anyone know why?

[XLFD]

Six years ago, I looked at that with a fair amount of LT involvement in 3 Way Stops at 4 way intersections and I have no disagreement with you that I would be more comfortable with that arrangement.  The fair point that the stop was configured to accommodate the sometimes-massive trucks coming up the hill after the bridge from Dow and elsewhere was produced.  The thinking was that if these trucks had to stop up an often-icy hill, that problems may be created.  I'm not sure that line of thinking flies in 2023, but I'd like to see the debate with people who know what modern trucks are capable of.

I would also like to see the 3-way stop at Dowland and Ludington reconsidered.  I have actually warmed to having a two-way stop there with the signs on James Street rather than Dowland, which I was recommending back then.  

[Willy]

Thanks for the link "3 way stops at 4 way intersections". I think the R/R crossing reasoning makes sense. That's something I did not even consider. Now that the carferry business has slowed down it would seem prudent to remove the stop sign on Washington. The reason I would suggest it is the fact that Washington slopes downhill which may cause vehicles stopping to slide on wet or icy roadway while attempting to brake.

[XLFD]

That's a fair reason for the change, but an even stronger reason is that the manual (MUTCD) doesn't ever seem to consider three way (or one way) stops as the best option for 4 way intersections.  I'm sure one could figure out exceptions, but it's probably not warranted here.  I've seen a lot of near misses when southbound traffic thinks northbound traffic needs to stop too.