Descrição
I find it ridiculous that the right of way is given to two buildings on the water that is a private drive. Thousands of people use the Greenway and cross this daily. The road should have a stop sign and the Greenway should have right of way. Just a few hundred feet up the path at Driftwood the road has stop signs and the path has right of way. Please correct as I watch 80 path users cross this without a single car using it.
32 Comentários
Fix BTV (Utilizador Registado)
Fix BTV (Utilizador Registado)
Reconhecido DPW Pine Customer Service (Oficial Verificado)
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
Burlington Parks (Oficial Verificado)
Fechado Burlington Parks (Oficial Verificado)
Reopened Fix BTV (Utilizador Registado)
Burlington Parks (Oficial Verificado)
RJ Lalumiere (Utilizador Registado)
Damon Lane (Utilizador Registado)
It's not about vehicles vs pedestrians right of way, it's cycle vehicles and car vehicles. The cycles are using a throughway, the cars are using a driveway, so it seems quite clear the driveway should have the stop signs. I think about this whenever I pass by here, which is usually on foot.
Earlier comments say it is how it is because of standards and laws: "it's out of our control." Then, asked why the next intersection is different, it's because each intersection is different. That's why I think we can compare this driveway to this section of path, and give the path the right of way.
That Guy (Utilizador Registado)
That Guy (Utilizador Registado)
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
That Guy (Utilizador Registado)
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
RJ Lalumiere (Utilizador Registado)
Burlingtonian, which "state law"? Please reference the specific statue supporting your claim so we can all have a look.
The one that seems relevant to me is what to do at stop signs, 23 V.S.A. § 1048(a)(b). That is stop. Where they are installed facing the street (like also at North Ave Ext) traffic there stops and yields right of way. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
Joclatis (Utilizador Registado)
@Burlingtonian - are you referring to this report that BTV Parks shared?
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/DPW/TransportationProjects/2014%20Bike%20Path%20Intersection%20Scoping%20Study%20FINAL.pdf
Page 21: "The primary near term solution is to eliminate the stop signs on the path. It is recommended that the stop signs be moved to the roadway instead."
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
Joclatis (Utilizador Registado)
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
Joclatis, do you live near one of the intersections? It was bad enough years ago they ignored their stop signs. Now that the path has STOP written on the path, cyclists are actually following the rules and I hope it stays that way!
I'm not in favor of changing any intersections to accommodate cyclists.
Joclatis (Utilizador Registado)
I do. I've lived in the NNE for 10 years and used the path longer. I think it was a missed opportunity not to give the right of way to Greenway users at all NNE intersections.
The reality of these intersections is that vehicles feel inclined to stop and do so even if cyclists or pedestrians stop at the intersections themselves. The result is a confusing situation for everyone and the signage implemented at these intersections is causing an unpleasant experience for motorists and path users alike.
Your position is abundantly clear but lacking in substance. Do you just not like cyclists? Have you ever used the path yourself? What is your motivation here to refute your neighbors experiences in light of upholding a state law?
RJ Lalumiere (Utilizador Registado)
"I'm not in favor of changing any intersections to accommodate cyclists."
Right, you have an intractable bias that is immune to common sense, like that the thoroughfare that sees SUBSTANTIALLY MORE traffic should get priority, which is how these things are typically handled. This case is ONLY an exception due to historical issues.
P.s., directly from the report you keep claiming to have read...
"The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 9B.03 provides the following
guidance for placement of stop vs. yield signs on shared -use paths:
“Guidance:
Where conditions require path users, but not roadway users, to stop or yield, the STOP or YIELD sign should be placed or shielded so that it is not readily visible to road users.
When placement of STOP or YIELD signs is considered, priority at a shared-use path/roadway
intersection should be assigned with consideration of the following:
A. Relative speeds of shared-use path and roadway users,
B. Relative volumes of shared-use path and roadway traffic, and
C. Relative importance of shared-use path and roadway.
Speed should not be the sole factor used to determine priority, as it is sometimes appropriate to give priority to a high-volume shared-use path crossing a low-volume street, or to a regional shared-use path crossing a minor collector street.
When priority is assigned, the least restrictive control that is appropriate should be placed on the lower priority approaches. STOP signs should not be used where YIELD signs would be acceptable."
Which clearly shows that priority may in fact be given to the path via traffic controls on the roadway, as has been done at several other intersections.
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
Well there is this part:
The laws are different for cyclists however. The Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Coalition compiled the Vermont Bicycling Laws and within their summary they state that “Bicyclists do not have the right-of-way in crosswalks under state law unless they dismount and walk.”
So the cyclists should have stop signs and cyclists need to stop at them.
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
My motivation? I just don't like the cyclists in this town. I don't like their entitled behavior, the lack of accountability, and their inability to follow traffic laws. Maybe if I saw a change for the better Id feel different.
Joclatis (Utilizador Registado)
Reconhecido Burlington Parks (Oficial Verificado)
Burlington Parks (Oficial Verificado)
This is a link to the reason why the greenway has stop signs at that intersection. The City does not own the land. We do have a thirty plus year easement, whose terms were written very long ago as RJ commented. When the City was attempting to renegotiate this easement agreement with the owners and their representatives, the owners requested larger stop signs with flashing lights, no access for maintenance equipment/ vehicles, trailers or otherwise through this section. After a year plus of negotiating, what you see is what we got.
Driftwood Lane - This section of path is owned by VTrans. The City has a lease, that could not be negotiated, however, they agreed to switch the stop signs to yield signs. This section is also complicated because a portion of Driftwood Lane is not an accepted City street and does not attain the standards of such. There is still the debate of whether to formally accept the street via DPW's process.
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
Joclatis,
What would be the fun in moving? This is where I have lived for many years.
KingOfTheApples (Utilizador Registado)
Burlingtonian, it’s not a crosswalk. A crosswalk is a pedestrian (explicitly) right of way to cross a road.
Your quote about crosswalks does night apply to the shared use recreation path.
Burlingtonian (Utilizador Registado)
Fechado Burlington Parks (Oficial Verificado)