An occasional update on items from Motordom – the world of auto dominance.
AN INQUIRING READER
Mike Jones, UBC student, asks:
Why is Kitsilano and Point Grey populated with two-way stop-sign intersections?
I live on the corner of Vine and 3rd in Kits; the intersection stops traffic going north-south, but not east-west. Almost everyday I see someone getting in trouble or angry because of this wacky traffic pattern. People expect there to be a four-way stop, so some people stop when they shouldn’t while others zoom by.
I don’t see the advantage of letting cars get up to speed with an extra block between stops in a residential neighbourhood. Shouldn’t we be discouraging people from driving off the main roads? Should people be zig-zagging across kitsilano to avoid stopping altogether?
Am I missing a hidden advantage? What’s the rationale here?
Anyone have any idea?
_________________________________________
BUY MORE GAS, BUILD MORE ROADS
The Sightline Institute (of which I am a director) got a lot of press for its research on gasoline use in the Pacific Northwest. And B.C. in particular:
As gasoline prices fell from their 2008 highs, BC drivers went back to the pump. Reversing a decade-long trend of decline, per capita gasoline consumption in the province soared 10 percent in 2009—the largest year-over-year increase in at least three decades. It’s likely that economic activity spurred by preparations for the Winter Games contributed to the increase.
Consumption rose in the province despite its landmark carbon tax shift—suggesting the high volatility of global fuel prices can outweigh modest carbon-pricing policies. However, without the carbon tax shift, the province would likely have used even more gas.
In the short-term, policymakers looking to decrease gasoline consumption could make smart investments in local transit. In the long run, they should take a careful look at mega-transportation projects like the Port Mann Bridge that lock the region into a future of dirty fuels.
Glad they mentioned Port Mann. The bridge and highway widening are well underway.
It’s a tragic moment. Our civilization is becoming ever more vulnerable, as the collapse of the financial system and the failure of technology in the Gulf of Mexico have so apocalyptically illustrated in the last two years. Yet we are spending our resources on a transportation system dependent on an economically volatile resource, the pursuit of which threatens the biological systems on which we depend.
And because we are so dependent, we can’t acknowledge that. Failure is perceived to be unlikely because the consequences would be so catastrophic. Therefore, we deny – and double-down.
Prior to the 1990s intersections in residnetial areas didn’t ahve any stops signs in any direction – they were termed “courtesy” corners – where no one would barrel through. But due to legal wrangling over accidents, etc., the City installed stop signs.
Of course installing two signs at each intersection would be cheaper than 4 signs at each intersection and the alternating east-west then north-south pattern of stop signs prevents one street from becoming a major arterial.
The nature of the residential streets (narrowness) lends themsleves to the common sense notion that you don’t speed down them – although the ICBC campaign from a few years ago suggests that some people do.
Having 4 way stops at all residential streets would be excessive as those are typically used when high volumes of cross traffic requires more even cross flows.
My understanding is that Vancouver has a goal of posting stop signs at ALL city intersections so that all of the former “courtesy corners” are eliminated. I believe that the basic purpose of this is to eliminate any ambiguity about who has the right of way as well as to calm residential traffic.
In most places in the absence of a clearly busier street the stop sign N/S vs. E/W orientation is interleaved such that if you drive straight down one street you would typically have to stop at every other intersection.
Re: zig zagging to avoid stop signs, when I lived at 15th and Ontario, I used to have a route that did just that, thanks to the odd stop sign pattern.
The problem with 4-way stops everywhere is that many people don’t actually stop, but instead slow down and roll into the intersection, or try to bully their way in. In Toronto where I live, the entire system is built on a 4-way stop pattern and you see this all the time.
With a two-way stop system, drivers facing a stop sign are more careful since they know the other drivers have the right of way and will not be stopping. In my years in Vancouver as a cyclist, I much preferred the two-way stop system.
Years ago there was a study that showed that excessive stop signs actually increased the speed of vehicles. Kind of makes sense, with no signs you kind of coast along the street, but if you have to stop, you then have to step on the accelerator and may end up going faster than you were before.
That being said, I remember a few accidents at my local Kits courtesy corner, after the stopsign infill I don’t recall any. Of course, the way cars and bikes treat the signs, “Yield” signs would have served the same purpose, and it’s certainly true that one quickly learned that “zig-zagging” would get you from 4th to 7th without having to stop.
Maybe the two-stop situation is a matter of perspective.
As pedestrian that never drives, I find it hard to imagine a few extra stop signs between your home and a main road would be a huge problem.
I live on an intersection, during the olympics I saw every family and pedestrian walk on to 3rd ave like there should be a stop sign. Most traffic stopped, but the occasional local driver got up speed and didn’t stop because there is no stop sign.