Readers: St. Louis Has Too Many Stop Signs
Sixty percent of those who voted in the poll last week picked the two answers indicating we have too many stop signs, with twenty-three percent saying “about right” and just over eight percent saying we don’t have enough. Here are the numbers:
Q: The number of stop signs in St…
- Excessive 38 [44.19%]
- About right 20 [23.26%]
- A little too many 14 [16.28%]
- Unsure/No Answer 7 [8.14%]
- Not enough 5 [5.81%]
- A little too few 2 [2.33%]
Clearly most feel we have too many, with not quite half saying the number of stop signs is excessive. I think this depends on where you live and the route you take. Some parts of the city have so many 4-way stops that drivers mostly ignore the stop signs block after block. This has happened because our aldermen like to say yes to constituent requests for more stop signs.
The Federal Highway Administration addresses stop signs in a FAQ:
A stop sign is an inconvenience to motorists. Because of this, stop signs should only be placed if they meet a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrant. Stop signs are frequently violated if unwarranted. Before warrants are even considered, however, less restrictive measures (such as a yield sign) are usually considered. In certain cases, the use of less restrictive measure or no control at all will accommodate traffic demands safely and effectively.
Warrants for a stop sign
Because a stop sign is an inconvenience to through traffic, it should be used only where needed. A stop sign may be warranted at an intersection where one or more of the following conditions exist:
- intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the regular right-of- way rule is hazardous;
- street entering a through highway or street;
- unsignalized intersection in a signalized area;
- other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted view, and serious accident record indicates a need for control by the stop sign.
A yield sign can also be considered where a full stop is not necessary. Existing sign installations should be reviewed to determine whether the use of a less restrictive control or no control at all could accommodate the existing and projected traffic flow safely and more effectively.
WHERE SHOULD A STOP SIGN BE INSTALLED?
Stop signs should be installed/located where the vehicles are to stop or as near to that point as possible. The sign may also be supplemented with a stop line and/or the word STOP on the pavement. A yield sign is erected in the same manner. Where there is a marked crosswalk, the stop or yield sign should be erected approximately four feet in advance of the crosswalk line.
When only one stop or yield sign is used on an intersection approach it should be on the right side of the roadway. At wide intersections, however, violations of the yield or stop sign may be reduced by the erection of an additional sign on the left side of the approach. If two lanes of traffic exist on an approach, at least one stop sign should be visible to each lane of traffic.
Ok, so we have a lot of stop signs. No harm, right? Wrong! Back to the FHWA FAQ:
Many studies have shown that stop signs are not an effective measure for controlling or reducing midblock speeds. In fact, the overuse of stop signs may cause drivers to carelessly stop at the stop signs that are installed. In stop sign observance studies approximately half of all motorists came to a rolling stop and 25 percent did not stop at all. Stop signs can give pedestrians a false sense of safety if it is assumed that all vehicles will come to a complete stop at the proper location. A study conducted by Beaubien also showed that placing stop signs along a street may actually increase the peak speed of vehicles, because motorists tend to increase their speed between stop signs to regain the time spent at the stop signs.
It’s possible our excessive use may be having negative consequences, still speeding cars plus increased pollution. Any alternatives?
Traffic circles are commonly used in intersections in some other cities, I’m most familiar with the ones in Seattle. However, some say these are dangerous to cyclists. I think we need to look at our stop signs and determine if changes need to be made to reduce their use in some areas.
— Steve Patterson
The fundamental problem is that we’re letting politicians, and not trained traffic engineers, decide where to place stop signs. A secondary issue is that we’re using 4-way stops (likely because they’re cheaper) at some locations where traffic signals would be more appropriate. We don’t let our aldermen do building inspections or restaurant inspections, nor do we let them take control of fire department operations or police investigations, so why do we continue to let them play traffic gods? The Board’s job is to set policy and manage the city’s budget, not to micromanage infrastructure decisions.
Safe and efficient traffic movement relies on looking at the big picture, then balancing the desires of individual constituents with the needs of the larger community. Sometimes, no is the best answer, even if it may be unpopular, and it’s easier for a city staff member to say no than an elected official. Like many things St. Louis, this is a cultural issue, not a legal one – we don’t need a new city charter to make things better, we just need to have our aldermen cede responsibility for stop signs, citywide, to the Streets Dept., then let them do a citywide study, adjusting / removing / replacing / even adding traffic control signs to create a safer, better-functioning, cohesive system, much like how we let the Fire Department decide how to best fight fires!
A circus/parade is a marvelous alternative to a stop sign and they work very well. The problem is that in STL nearly all drivers have absolutely no idea how to use them. None at all! They don’t yield when they are supposed to or they yield when they don’t have to. No one ever signals entry or exit either. Bloody nightmare. Additionally the city does not take care of them.
The one at Riverview and 367 in North City is a good example of this. It is a 2 lane parade but there are no lane markings. Some folks are going more than 1 intersection on the outside lane, not signaling, acting like everything is just fine. Rediculous! The city needs to put the lines back on the road and put up some educational signs….then 30 days later they need to write tickets.
I don’t know what the rules are at Riverview/367, but in general the international best practice is that all traffic entering the roundabout has to yield to traffic in the roundabout. This may not be clear to Americans, so you could put up a yield sign at each entrance to the roundabout…
I have heard that STL is under some kind of court order/injunction/regulatory status with EPA to not allow any more stop signs. The reason is that idling cars add to air pollution. So we couldn’t get the stop sign we wanted on our corner. At least that’s what our alderman told us. No more stop signs for our ward.
Most likely, a convenient excuse / scapegoat, but I like it. But enlighten me, why do you think that either you or your alderman should expect to “get the stop sign we want on our corner”?! Just because you think that it’s a good idea or “needed” to make things safer? Is traffic so busy that it’s difficult to turn onto or off of your street? Are your neighbors driving too fast? For your tastes, or are they actually exceeding the posted speed limit? Do you have family members (young, old, disabled) who are having difficulty crossing the street at the corner? Are vehicles parking too close to the corner? Is overgrown vegetation blocking your view of cross traffic? As Steve describes in his posting, another stop is not a silver bullet that will instantly make your family, your street or your neighborhood “safer”. It’s a tool that needs to be used appropriately, otherwise its effectiveness becomes diminished. And if other laws are being broken, the best course of action is to request better enforcement, not just another stop sign!
The neighbors want it because just about every other four-way intersection in our part of the neighborhood has one, but not ours, so it creates confusion. Speeding is not that much of a problem. Personally, I don’t really care one way or another. I treat stop signs inside the neighborhood as more of a suggestion/yield sign/look-both-ways-before crossing sign than anything else.
“Some parts of the city have so many 4-way stops that drivers mostly ignore the stop signs block after block.”
So that means we should just remove the signs?! That’s like saying some people rob banks so we ought to just leave the vaults open and unattended all night.
I suspect St. Louis has close to the appropriate amount of stop signs and yield signs. And if a person can’t understand a four-way stop (or a cross-stop, yield sign, etc.), then they probably shouldn’t have a license. Pretty sure it’s one of the questions on the driving test…like, the very first one.
It’s not the number of stop signs, it’s the insane number of 4-way stops! With a two-way stop, you pretty much have to stop and look both ways. With a 4-way stop, you can usually safely assume that you can safely roll thru at 5-10 mph because you can stop if you have to. Unfortunately, that defeats the “safety” argument, especially for kids and pedestrians, since they’re not as pedictable or visible as moving vehicles. Since few streets are truly equal (when it comes to traffic volumes), two-way stops are actually safer than 4-way stops, when the secondary street has to stop and the primary street is allowed to flow smoothly.
One example I can think of near a relative’s is the installation of stop signs on Loughborough at Trainor.
In the past there was only the stop sign leading off of Trainor onto Loughborough. Last year they added one for each direction of Loughborough there — presumably so pedestrians crossing into the Park had a safe right-of-way (rather than running frantically across the street).
The old system worked great, but the new system has helped improve park access and slow down speeding on Loughborough once folks got use to the new set-up.
Just one example, I know, in a City that probably has several thousand, both good and bad.
This is a draft of a letter that I never sent to Alderman Conway or Streets Director Waelterman. By picking two examples, my intent was to start a conversation about (1) the lack of a big picture, (2) using stop signs as a political tool, (3) the insanity of a process that allows the installation of stop signs at intersections with no merit, and (4) the lack of a procedure for having them removed. St. Louis is notorious nationally for its overabundance of these dangerous and wasteful nuisances. They reflect a deeper underlying issue with the balance of power in our city.
Alderman Stephen Conway, Streets Director Todd Waelterman:
The excessive use of stop signs for traffic control is a well documented detriment to the environment and to public safety.
http://www.gpwmi.us/Docs/Departments/DPS/Traffic/stopSignProgram.pdf
Regarding stop signs for north/southbound traffic on Brannon Avenue at Magnolia Avenue at Reber Place:
1. What purpose do these stop signs serve?
2. What is the process for requesting stop signs?
3. Who requested the installation of these stop signs?
4. What is the process for having these stop signs removed?
These are only two examples of thousands of three or four-way stop
signs across the city of St. Louis. What is the plan for addressing
this issue on a city-wide basis? I would hope that this is a function
of the streets department, and not an aldermanic privilege.
Thank you for your feedback on this serious issue. Meanwhile, the
needless toll on our city, both economically and environmentally,
continues to grow exponentially.
Chris Burbach
Resident, 23rd Ward, and
Concerned 6th-Generation St Louisan
Well said – wish that you would have sent it (and you still can)!