community pressure for stop signs may be misguided

According to a report prepared by consulting firm Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (City of Oshawa Neighbourhood Traffic Management Guide, March 2002), stop signs are not all they are cracked up to be. This report is not available online, so here are the facts:

"Many people perceive stop signs as the panacea or 'cure-all' to all community traffic problems. However, stop signs result in drivers accelerating and braking, leading to greater fuel consumption, increased air and noise pollution, and higher mid-block speeds. In fact, on a roadway carrying 4,000 vehicles per day, over 15,000 litres of extra fuel would be consumed and over 2,500 kg of extra carbon monoxide would be emitted annually, due to each additional stop sign. (Calculations based on the Canadian Capacity Guide for Signalized Intersections, 2nd Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1995.) In addition to the environmental effects, City staff are concerned with increased mid-block speed and the potential of non-compliance, which in the long term compromises vehicular and pedestrian safety."

Other studies (Beaubien, Richard F., "Stop Signs for Speed Control?", Traffic Engineering, November 1976.) reinforce the consultant's conclusion that stop signs should not be used as a form of traffic calming. Where they are not warranted for other reasons, all-way stop signs can also result in poor levels of driver compliance (traffic rarely comes to a full stop), with increased conflict and safety hazards. (See also Pennsylvania's Traffic Calming Handbook, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Publication No. 383, January 2001.)

Residents may be satisfied that motorists at least slow down at stop-controlled intersections, but drivers tend to increase their speed between stop signs to make up for lost time. The consultant report cautions that, over time, regular users of the intersection will take more and more risks, thus increasing the potential for collisions.