37 Responses to “4-way stops for Venable Street: not yet”

1. posted by stephen at March 13, 2008 9:05 am :
   

   I would personally prefer speed bumps.

2. posted by Jennifer C. at March 13, 2008 2:04 pm :
   

   I’d really like to see people go the speed limit. Then nobody would want speed bumps *or* stop signs!

3. posted by JES at March 14, 2008 7:31 am :
   

   I hate this idea. The stop signs on Broad are ridiculous. It is not necessary. Put some cops out there for a while and folks will slow down.

4. posted by UnionHill RVA at March 14, 2008 7:55 am :
   

   I know not everyone likes the stop signs on Broad.

   But as a frequent pedestrian in that area (especially around Chimborazo Park), I’ve noticed it’s a helluva lot safer to walk those blocks and cross the intersections of Broad from 25th to 33rd since those signs went up a few years ago.

   I can’t count the times we almost got creamed by speeders on Broad while trying to cross the street…especially cause it’s one of the few 2-way main thoroughfares left in town.

   As a driver, when the signs on Broad first went up, yeah, it was a drag. But now I’ve gotten used to it, and don’t even think about driving down Marshall St to avoid the stops.

   We all want a more “walkable” pedestrian friendly city right?

   The folks who have the most important voice in this issue are the folks who live on Venable. If they feel that stop signs will improve their quality of life and pedestrian safety, then bring ‘em on.

   Disclosure: my family doesn’t live on Venable, but we drive it often, and will walk it more often as it continues to get safer.

5. posted by john_m at March 14, 2008 8:10 am :
   

   It is very difficult to cross Venable at Pink/24th on foot, bike, or in a car. I’d love to see a 4-way there.

6. posted by tiny at March 14, 2008 11:41 am :
   

   I think the four-way stops are good, too. Although I really hated it at first. Before they went up, a kid was hit (but not seriously injured) walking to Chimborazo Playground.

7. posted by JES at March 15, 2008 1:47 pm :
   

   I bike back and forth to work everyday using Venable and I have never once encountered any problem with traffic.

   I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that the stop signs on Broad were, in part, because the folks in those pretty houses wanted to live on a quieter neighborhood-like street. You would think one might consider that before buying a house on “one of the few 2-way main thoroughfares left in town”.

   As UnionHill RVA indirectly indicated, the stops signs on Broad just create more traffic on Marshall. I guess the folks on Marshall don’t deserve a quiet neighborhood-like street. Or, perhaps, they just can’t afford one.

8. posted by carl at March 17, 2008 2:34 pm :
   

   Yeah, What about 4 way stop signs on 26th and M streets. I have lived around there for 5 years and have seen about a dozen accidents and too may close calls.

9. posted by Bob at March 17, 2008 3:53 pm :
   

   Several reasons why they put stop signs on Broad. The obvious was to slow traffic on Broad, but more importantly, tractor trailers continuously came down Broad to avoid the weight scales. Success!

10. posted by DJ at March 17, 2008 4:16 pm :
    

    How do the stop signs prevent truckers from avoiding scales?

11. posted by Crystal at March 17, 2008 4:30 pm :
    

    Speed bumps do more damage to the underside of all the pretty low riders around here so people are much less likely to ignore them like they do stop signs, especially at 4 way stops.

12. posted by Bob at March 17, 2008 6:00 pm :
    

    Stop signs don’t prevent truckers from avoiding scales. the stop signs were put on Broad street to deter the trucks from using Broad Street. Before the stop signs, trucker’s frequented Broad Street as an alternate route to the interstate so they could avoid the weight scales. Since the signs have been put up truckers don’t frequent Broad as much.

13. posted by william at March 17, 2008 8:10 pm :
    

    Where is there a weight scale within a mile of the City limits on any interstate? The only one that comes to mind is on 64 (East of the Airport Exit). The 4-way stops on Broad Street were a pain when installed but they were almost immediately effective in reducing speed and traffic on Broad. I would support an effort to install them at 31st and every block heading East. This would further deter the residential area of Broad Street being used as a cut-thru to Williamsburg Road. Main Street would become the preferred route.

14. posted by JES at March 18, 2008 10:26 am :
    

    William, you live in a city. If you wanted to live in a neighborhood with no street traffic, why did you move to an inner-city neighborhood???

15. posted by beth at March 18, 2008 11:34 am :
    

    With the new development in Varina, Main street is soon going to be overburdened. Besides, that is way out of my way to go to Williamsburg road. That is a absurd argument.

16. posted by Bob at March 18, 2008 12:25 pm :
    

    Where is there a weight scale within a mile of the City limits on any interstate? The only one that comes to mind is on 64 (East of the Airport Exit).
    That’s the one. And they would get back on 95/64 via the Broad Street ramp. Stop signs seems to have deterred this for the trucks. Braking at every block wasn’t worth it.

17. posted by the other mike at March 18, 2008 2:21 pm :
    

    As a parentI say the more stop signs in residential areas the better. If I have to add a minute or two to my commute to make the streets safer so be it…

    What could possibly be a rational argument against them?

18. posted by elphaba at March 18, 2008 4:32 pm :
    

    people who speed and run stop signs are ALWAYS going to speed and run stop signs. if you have pedestrians trying to get across a street without a stop sign, they will be extremely careful, if there IS a stop sign, they will assume that the car will stop for them and go right ahead. i have a feeling that putting more stop signs on venable could actually have the reverse effect.

    i suppose only time will tell.

19. posted by beth at March 18, 2008 4:39 pm :
    

    No way, elphaba. Most cars at least pause for the stop signs. I have taught my kids to always cross at the corner, rather than running in the middle of the street. The stop signs really help - they go to the corner and wait to see if the car is going to stop. And the people in the cars tend to notice that there are people that want to cross as the slow down at the sign.

20. posted by JES at March 18, 2008 4:46 pm :
    

    I don’t have children, so I haven’t really looked at it from a parents’ point of view.

    However, it seems to me that if a person chooses to raise their child in a city environment, they should teach them the cautionary measures appropriate for such an environment. What could possibly be the rational argument for letting your children get into a situation in which they are near a city street without your supervision?

    I do, however, have dogs. Cars can kill dogs. I have accepted this and take the appropriate steps to make sure that my dogs don’t cross streets without my supervision. That’s being a responsible dog owner and happy inner-city resident.

    I find it ridiculous that we are trying to rid our neighborhood of traffic. In a city, there are cars - lots of them. If you choose to live there, you should accept that and not purposefully make a drive through your neighborhood annoying in the hopes that people will just avoid it.

    If the stop signs were put up because of traffic congestion, I would totally back down. There are a few intersections, here and there, that need such traffic control. I would say that 80% of the time I am the only car at the intersection when I stop for a 4-way stop on Church Hill. I think it’s clear that Church Hill does not have enough traffic to justify all of the 4-way stops that we currently have.

21. posted by beth at March 18, 2008 5:09 pm :
    

    Oh, come on. They are not that annoying. Now, if they went all down Broad as william suggested, that would be a pain. But, they really do make the roads safer for pedestrians, which includes “tourist” that are exploring our historic neighborhood.

    My kids regularly cross the road to go to the playground off of 29th. It is so much safer now.

22. posted by Bill Hartsock at March 18, 2008 5:42 pm :
    

    Let me add another perspective on the discussion. I live in the 2200 block of Marshall St. A 4-way stop was posted at the corner of 23rd and Marshall.Besides slowing traffic down in that area, it also provided us a safe way to pull out from 23rd St. because it was difficult to impossible to see traffic on Marshall St. because of parked cars near the corners. There is still a problem with sight lines at 22nd and Marshall, but that would be overkill to put a sign there. Our real problem, now, is that many drivers don’t stop at that sign, including city buses. I’ve asked the police to monitor that intersection, like they do on Broad St., periodically. So far, nothing has been done.

23. posted by william at March 18, 2008 8:34 pm :
    

    JES…there are many reasons why I choose to live in the inner city…however, traffic is not one of them. I’m not certain that I agree with your assertion that they go hand-in-hand. They don’t– there are a great deal of streets (in the inner city) that do not have a great deal of traffic. The type of issues that were common on Broad Street prior to the stop signs were cars racing at upwards of 50 MPH
    down that straightaway. Sorry, but that’s unacceptable in a residential area with many kids and pets close to the street. Truck traffic was also an issue…having 18-wheelers rolling down Broad was completely unnecessary when there are truck routes all around the area. Broad Street in Church Hill is the only residential area of Broad…it should not be considered a highway.

    The 4 way stops had a noticeable and immediate impact on the amount of traffic including speeding and truck traffic. The overall goal was met, it slowed folks down. So Beth, if you wish to travel Broad Street to get to Williamsburg Rd….you will be forced to travel at a rational speed. We would so hate for YOU to be inconvenienced in any way.

24. posted by the other mike at March 19, 2008 7:04 am :
    

    JES do you just pick the contrary argument to everything?

    How does “I want safe intersections for everyone” to “I hate traffic therefore I should live in the west end?” To expand on your argument lets remove stop lights and have crash-em up derby on the streets.

    You must not have children otherwise you wouldn’t have said something as stupid as “However, it seems to me that if a person chooses to raise their child in a city environment, they should teach them the cautionary measures appropriate for such an environment. What could possibly be the rational argument for letting your children get into a situation in which they are near a city street without your supervision?”

    Obviously parents do that but they are children.. they dart of just like pets do. The have the attention span of pets. And as a parent I want to remove any POTENTIAL threat to them. The fact that you would dismiss this offhand with a “well I have a dog” argument shows just how out of touch with reality you are.

    So far you have used your socio-economic baiting, complaing that the signs are broad were for rich people and that poor folk don’t deserve them. Well these are going on Venerable, not the most affluent street. How does your argument work now?

    Put police at these stops? What’s cheaper, paying police to monitor speed limits at these stops or signs? Next you would be bitching about the fact they are sitting there doing nothing.

    Yes, you can leash your dog but I can’t leash my kid… although I can think of one person that needs a muzzle.

25. posted by JES at March 19, 2008 8:51 am :
    

    The Other Mike, I thought the whole point of this blog was so that neighbors could communicate their thoughts. If you muzzle everyone that has a conflicting thought to yours, then it defeats the entire purpose of this blog.

    You’re for the stop signs - I’m against them. We can both present our sides of this argument without being rude and nasty. I haven’t said anything that directly attacked you or anyone else here. Lighten up, dude. It’s just a fucking blog.

26. posted by beth at March 19, 2008 11:54 am :
    

    Of course I would like to travel at a rational speed. Where did you get the idea that I wouldn’t? But Main street is out of the way.

27. posted by stephen at March 19, 2008 12:18 pm :
    

    Any more thoughts on speed bumps? I think they’re a great compromise. I believe (but am no expert) that speed bumps are easier on a car’s engine and breaks. Slowing instead of stopping would also help cars burn fuel at a more consistent rate, which would prove better for the environment.

28. posted by the other mike at March 19, 2008 1:56 pm :
    

    Stephen:

    With speed bumps you cannot plow or clean the roads.

29. posted by john_m at March 19, 2008 5:07 pm :
    

    Tom Flynn (city traffic engineer) spoke at last night’s CHA meeting, and spoke to this issue. He said that there are problems with 4-way stops, and suggested a more appropriate way to calm the traffic along Venable.

    I forget the term that he used, but there is a way to bump out the curbs at intersections. This pushes the parked cars away from the intersection a little and allows the sidewalk to come into what was car-only area before. The sense of the road narrowing ought to slow cars a little as well.

    He cited a particularly good example of this in the MCV area, and this was done along Ellwood Avenue in the Museum District about 10 years ago.

30. posted by Jennifer C. at March 19, 2008 5:32 pm :
    

    Stop signs are something that traffic engineering should have responsibility for, not city council members who’re just trying to appease their constituents. Of course they’re not going to say it in a meeting, but the TE folks hate those stop signs. People run them, then speed up to make up the difference in the middle of the block…I guess they’re nice if you’re on a corner.
    The best way to stop speeders is enforcement, but good luck with that.

31. posted by ann at March 19, 2008 6:40 pm :
    

    can anyone say why someone from traffic engineering spoke about a venable street issue at a church hill meeting? is the cha weighing in on the problem?

32. posted by john_m at March 19, 2008 7:49 pm :
    

    He was speaking on what the city has planned to address anticipated growth in demand along Main Street due to development in the county. This came up in a question from the audience (along with the 4-ways on Broad Street).

33. posted by elaine odell at March 19, 2008 8:58 pm :
    

    The residents of Venable Street (god bless them all) really want stop signs on their street. Why not let em have em?

    So what if if inconveniences some of us who occasionally travel the street. Venable would be a lot safer for the kids, dogs, sober and not-so-sober adults who stroll the street if cars had to stop along the way.

    Extended curb “elbows” like those in the Museum District help slow down cars turning corners. But they’re WAY more expensive to build (and eliminate atleast 4 to 6 parking spaces per block). Stop signs are relatively cheap by comparison. Money is tight, so why not go for the most cost effective option?

34. posted by william at March 19, 2008 11:25 pm :
    

    Hate them or not….they work. Ask anyone who has lived on Broad for a number of years. If the goal is to slow the traffic, they do a great job. As far as those claiming folks just run through them–that’s the exception…not the majority. The police do a pretty good job at randomly setting up watches for the “runners” on Broad fairly regularly. Give them their signs.

35. posted by Church Hill People’s News » on the Council agenda for Monday - Richmond, Virginia at March 21, 2008 6:42 am :
    

    [...] City Council meeting has a few items of specific neighborhood interest, including the request for all-way stops on Venable, the installation of telecommunications equipment on 38th Street, waiving setback requirements on [...]

36. posted by UnionHill RVA at March 25, 2008 9:18 am :
    

    Yippee! Council passed the ordinance last night. 4 new stop signs for Venable between Mosby and 25th. Congrats to all the residents of Venable who got all those petition signatures and worked with our council person, Dolores McQuinn and her liason, Sam Paterson.

37. posted by Church Hill People’s News » CHA April newsletter now available - Richmond, Virginia at April 12, 2008 10:14 am :
    

    [...] the James River, minutes of the Feb.25/Mar.18 meetings, and a letter to the editor on the effect of 4-way stop signs. Posted at 10:14AM under community | Tags: [...]

Leave a Comment