What’s with all the four-ways?

Dear Editor,

Can someone explain to me, without using the word safety, because drivers should know how to drive, if not, get off the road, why is it we all seem to be concerned about climate change, yet we keep putting up more and more four-way stops.

Please follow this logic or lack thereof by traffic controllers—we all know that stopping and starting uses more gas which leads to increased temperature on the planet, if this is part of the problem. This is shown by the city and highway mileage efficiency when you buy a new car. City driving is less efficient and about 40 per cent more fuel is being used, because of stopping and starting.

Now the newer cars are stopping the engine while sitting at a light and starting when you start to move. The engineers must think this is one advantage of using less gasoline while driving in the city. Just wait until we get the repair bills for wear and tear. Even with this, the mileage calculations are 40 per cent higher for city driving as opposed to highway.

The Ford government recently identified more than $480 million in infrastructure projects across Ontario that will make travel safer and faster.

So here is the question – why keep installing four-way stops instead of just two-way stops on the least traveled routes? Let the busy routes keep moving. If you keep moving you use less fuel.

Here are a few examples:

-In Whitby, on Lupin Drive there are two stop signs on a road that has no intersection. You can’t go around the corner at more than about 15 km/h.

-In Whitby, on Burns Street at Brock Street, there are six intersections, one with lights and 3 out of three with four-way stops. Why does the fourth and fifth one not have a four-way and if it is good enough for the two intersections why not all?

-Timing of stop lights should be a priority. In Ajax, when you leave Bayly and Harmony going west the next light is red just as you get up to speed and the intersection isn’t even a through road. It is just an entrance to the malls.

-Whitby put in a roundabout a few years back (to great fanfare) to move the traffic on Nichol. The next intersection is a four-way stop. If Nichol needs a roundabout, why not do away with the stop sign on Nichol and only have the stop sign on Glenn Hill which carries less traffic? The story from the municipalities on roundabouts is they reduce vehicle delay by allowing motorists to yield rather than stop, and reduce fuel consumption by eliminating idling at red lights or stop signs.

Other thoughts:

-Why are there not flashing amber lights at some intersections from midnight until 5 a.m.

-If we could save a fraction of an ounce (or a few ml) a week for every car on the road in Toronto it would amount to millions of gallons per year, less CO2 and less tax.

These are just a few examples in my area and I am sure everyone has many more than one. If this issue can become a priority, I am sure we could reduce greenhouse gases even a small per cent without having to tax our way out of it. Next question: Can someone also explain how more taxes cuts greenhouse gas emissions? The money must soak up CO2 gas, I hope this is a good assumption. 

Dave Repol