3 ms·

If the "No Through Traffic" was approved by the local government, it would carry the same weight of law as any other traffic sign. It sounds like this is the ca

If the "No Through Traffic" was approved by the local government, it would carry the same weight of law as any other traffic sign. It sounds like this is the case, since their councilman is on their side. The wording does make it sound like the neighbors had an arts and crafts party and decided to create some signs though.

jimktrains2 10y ago
But if it's a road paid for with public money, how can use like this be restricted?
- justin66 10y ago
  Toll roads are also a thing. The horror... The horror.
  - jimktrains2 10y ago
    I don't get your comment. Yes they are. Often they're not federal interstate highways. Alternatively, there are private roads, paid for by the home owners, and usage can be restricted. Can you please stop trying to be witty and express yourself coherently?
    - justin66 10y ago
      The notion that because a road was paid for with "public money", that ought to guarantee unfettered access to that road is just a fundamentally juvenile, silly idea.
      - jimktrains2 10y ago
        I didn't say unfettered access, I said access. Unless there are specific, justifiable reasons, public things should be publicly accessible. i.e. you can't rifle through your mayors paper's or freely walk in prison, though many are sickeningly privately owned. You should, however, be able to use a public park. Would it be wrong to limit the use of a park to only the people within a block of it? Look, my street is used as a through street and I hate it, but at the same time unless cars begin to consistently pose safety problems, there isn't much that can be done, and arguably should be done about it. Some go to fast, but on the whole most follow the posted limits . Even if they didn't, traffic calming measures would be more appropriate than cutting off access. Once again, please state your opinions rationally instead of once sentence quips. Everything is a "fundamentally juvenile, silly idea" when summarized into a few words.
        justin66 10y ago
        You used "a few words" when floating your idea, so... Wanting to minimize traffic on a residential side street for the privacy and safety of its residents is a specific, justifiable reason for putting up a "No through traffic" sign. You might not like it but it meets your criteria. The funny thing is, whether you're talking about speed bumps or Berkeley street dividers when talking about "traffic calming measures," a simple sign (and possible but unlikely consequences for not heeding the sign) might often be an infinitely more user friendly option for both the residents and the would-be shortcutters. Turning onto a street and discovering speed bumps or barriers sucks, and they suck even more if you have to live there. I lived in Berkeley and the sign strikes me as a gentle first step to take before altering the streets. On the other hand, I'm really, really doubtful one solution or the other is going to be universally more effective. I don't think the "no through traffic" signs one sees where I live now would have worked in Berkeley, for example, even though they seem effective enough here. Different crowd, different traffic patterns.
- Declanomous 10y ago
  The roads are administered by the local governments. A lot of the time it is not the local residents who are using these shortcuts. Either way, the town I grew up in had a number of "No through traffic" signs. Generally in areas where people would cut through a neighborhood for a right hand turn instead of going through a light-controlled intersection. There is a moving violation in many jurisdictions called "Avoiding a traffic control device" that allows officers to ticket people who cut through parking lots and alleys to avoid traffic lights, etc. Laws that restrict the use of smaller roads are consistent with this philosophy. Regardless of who pays for the road, residential streets are not designed to handle the larger traffic volumes of major streets. The road surfaces are not as durable as major roads, and traffic control devices that are safe for a residential area are not safe for higher traffic loads. People are not entitled to use things just because their taxes paid for some proportion of that thing. You can't show up at an armory and ask to borrow a gun to shoot some squirrels. Without rules and incentives regulating the use of public goods, public goods are abused, leading to the tragedy of the commons. This might seem like a design issue, but you can design residential streets to be poor shortcuts by making them curve all over the place and installing traffic calming measures, except these measures also typically make neighborhoods less bike-and-pedestrian friendly when compared to normal gridded streets. One-way streets and traffic restrictions work just as well though. You also avoid the issue of entitled drivers honking every time they go over a speed bump or are obstructed by a pedestrian they think is taking too long, or a USPS truck that blocks one lane every day at the same time.
- c0nducktr 10y ago
  Tons of things are paid for with public money and still restricted.
- superuser2 10y ago
  The same way the doors of public schools can be locked at night, and a property tax receipt does not get you a set of master keys. I think this is something a local government should not do, but it's certainly within its authority (assuming it is the sole funding source - federal or state money may - and IMO should - come with overriding strings attached).
  - jimktrains2 10y ago
    I'm talking specifically about a road. There are reasons buildings are locked, &c. Also, no muni pays for roads alone. They all get state and fed dollars.

jimktrains2 10y ago

But if it's a road paid for with public money, how can use like this be restricted?

justin66 10y ago
Toll roads are also a thing. The horror... The horror.
- jimktrains2 10y ago
  I don't get your comment. Yes they are. Often they're not federal interstate highways. Alternatively, there are private roads, paid for by the home owners, and usage can be restricted. Can you please stop trying to be witty and express yourself coherently?
  - justin66 10y ago
    The notion that because a road was paid for with "public money", that ought to guarantee unfettered access to that road is just a fundamentally juvenile, silly idea.
    - jimktrains2 10y ago
      I didn't say unfettered access, I said access. Unless there are specific, justifiable reasons, public things should be publicly accessible. i.e. you can't rifle through your mayors paper's or freely walk in prison, though many are sickeningly privately owned. You should, however, be able to use a public park. Would it be wrong to limit the use of a park to only the people within a block of it? Look, my street is used as a through street and I hate it, but at the same time unless cars begin to consistently pose safety problems, there isn't much that can be done, and arguably should be done about it. Some go to fast, but on the whole most follow the posted limits . Even if they didn't, traffic calming measures would be more appropriate than cutting off access. Once again, please state your opinions rationally instead of once sentence quips. Everything is a "fundamentally juvenile, silly idea" when summarized into a few words.
      - justin66 10y ago
        You used "a few words" when floating your idea, so... Wanting to minimize traffic on a residential side street for the privacy and safety of its residents is a specific, justifiable reason for putting up a "No through traffic" sign. You might not like it but it meets your criteria. The funny thing is, whether you're talking about speed bumps or Berkeley street dividers when talking about "traffic calming measures," a simple sign (and possible but unlikely consequences for not heeding the sign) might often be an infinitely more user friendly option for both the residents and the would-be shortcutters. Turning onto a street and discovering speed bumps or barriers sucks, and they suck even more if you have to live there. I lived in Berkeley and the sign strikes me as a gentle first step to take before altering the streets. On the other hand, I'm really, really doubtful one solution or the other is going to be universally more effective. I don't think the "no through traffic" signs one sees where I live now would have worked in Berkeley, for example, even though they seem effective enough here. Different crowd, different traffic patterns.
Declanomous 10y ago
The roads are administered by the local governments. A lot of the time it is not the local residents who are using these shortcuts. Either way, the town I grew up in had a number of "No through traffic" signs. Generally in areas where people would cut through a neighborhood for a right hand turn instead of going through a light-controlled intersection. There is a moving violation in many jurisdictions called "Avoiding a traffic control device" that allows officers to ticket people who cut through parking lots and alleys to avoid traffic lights, etc. Laws that restrict the use of smaller roads are consistent with this philosophy. Regardless of who pays for the road, residential streets are not designed to handle the larger traffic volumes of major streets. The road surfaces are not as durable as major roads, and traffic control devices that are safe for a residential area are not safe for higher traffic loads. People are not entitled to use things just because their taxes paid for some proportion of that thing. You can't show up at an armory and ask to borrow a gun to shoot some squirrels. Without rules and incentives regulating the use of public goods, public goods are abused, leading to the tragedy of the commons. This might seem like a design issue, but you can design residential streets to be poor shortcuts by making them curve all over the place and installing traffic calming measures, except these measures also typically make neighborhoods less bike-and-pedestrian friendly when compared to normal gridded streets. One-way streets and traffic restrictions work just as well though. You also avoid the issue of entitled drivers honking every time they go over a speed bump or are obstructed by a pedestrian they think is taking too long, or a USPS truck that blocks one lane every day at the same time.
c0nducktr 10y ago
Tons of things are paid for with public money and still restricted.
superuser2 10y ago
The same way the doors of public schools can be locked at night, and a property tax receipt does not get you a set of master keys. I think this is something a local government should not do, but it's certainly within its authority (assuming it is the sole funding source - federal or state money may - and IMO should - come with overriding strings attached).
- jimktrains2 10y ago
  I'm talking specifically about a road. There are reasons buildings are locked, &c. Also, no muni pays for roads alone. They all get state and fed dollars.