Sight Distance/Development Woes

Idiot Bureaucrats

It would be nice to imagine a world where they did not exist.

I would pay special attention to what criteria they are using for sight distance.

When looking at intersections (driveways included), I believe the correct criteria would be corner sight distance (as opposed to stopping sight distance).

I wonder if they are using the AASHTO Green Book for their standards?

Ask them if you can put in a video camera and display monitor next to the STOP sign to see around the corner. Sight distance on a driveway seems a bit stupid to me. What's the hourly traffic count on this driveway. Is the speed limit over 60 mph? Maybe all way STOP signs will work.

Good luck with the suit. When you win, what do you get, at what cost?

Ugh, city hall.

> Sight distance on a driveway seems a bit stupid to me.

Once you have either collided with someone pulling out of a driveway or have a family member pull out in front of an on-coming car because of lack of sight distance, you will change your mind. I had a cousin that nearly died because of an overgrown juniper tree that was blocking the corner sight distance.

When new driveways are being constructed or development is being considered ,that is the time to make sure there is a safe encroachment to the public road.

I would have to look, but usually the sight distance is based upon some sort of speed table. I wonder if the current speed limit is appropriate given the number of driveway connections or the accident history further away from your project? That may be something to look into if they are properly measuring the sight distance.

I can see your point.

What about parking lots? Talk about a place for little fender benders. I suppose we could increase the driveway's between the stalls to 50-60 feet.

this is from a long way off, and I don't know what your distances refer to.
But is it helped by lifting the drive (build it up with fill/ gravel) to increase site distance?
Also I assume they are giving you a verdict in writing?
One thing I learnt here with all planning decisions if its a verbal negative then I ask (by letter/ email) can they please put it in writing stating why it's not acceptable, on what basis is their decision and ask what would they suggest would make it work.

I have found this causes the planning officer (or other) to seriously consider their decision.
We also have a a tribunal that can be called into play if we disagree with a verdict, but best not rely on that option as their decision is binding and often they like to play God and really mess with a heap of other things not currently an issue.

It sounds a bit like here where it's okay to have a situation that has been like so for ages but the moment you want to change something on the property they find what was yesterday quite okay, now suddenly substandard.

I do concur with the comment re site distances and accidents etc. To try and bluff/ fudge ones way through it could have unfortunate consequences.

> One thing I learnt here with all planning decisions if its a verbal negative then I ask (by letter/ email) can they please put it in writing stating why it's not acceptable, on what basis is their decision and ask what would they suggest would make it work.
>
> I have found this causes the planning officer (or other) to seriously consider their decision.

Good advice.

A very elegant solution if it works.

This one always scares me

Zero site distance at a bank drive thru. I can feel the pain already of the kid who gets hit as he's riding his bike here as someone is pulling out. Ouch! I also feel for the driver who hits the kid. These situations should absolutely be avoided OR the private entity should be required to install convex mirrors here.

I know of another blind corner (also happens to be a bank) just like in the picture which doesn't have any warning signs, not even a stop sign in the driveway. For sure those are accidents waiting to happen.

Well, a fender bender is a little different than getting T-Boned by a truck going 55 MPH or more.

I agree the local gov. are a little over zealous about making you meet standards they don't sometimes understand or properly apply.

This one always scares me

You know the funny thing is, the situations that look the worst on paper and really stand out are the ones where people generally take extra caution.

I would bet that condition has existed for 50 years or more and there probably has never been a serious accident in that time frame.

Very common for older sections of town.

If somebody was doing 55 on a driveway that's a problem that is hard to fix. I suppose we could require all driveways to meet freeway sight and stopping distance then you'd have some idiot in a sports car doing 130 on the drag strip.

I'd say part of the problem was not requiring the adjacent lot owner when they got their lot permitted to have a sight easement put on the lot at that time. Making the current owner get an easement from the neighbor for a sight easement really puts the crunch on doesn't it. I'd tell the city to use their eminent domain powers to get it and see what they say. Whose error is this anyway?

This one always scares me

This situation is common in urban areas. In Oregon state law requires that you stop before entering the sidewalk and the street.

I guess we have a different understanding of the problem here.

The corner sight distance is the distance the driver can see either way up the main highway before they pull out of the driveway onto the highway (potentially in front of a vehicle traveling 55 MPH). The distance 12' or 14.5' is the distance from the edge of the traveled way (on the main highway)to the driver's eye when parked on the driveway (getting ready to pull out). There are specific heights for the drivers eye and the vehicle they are trying to detect on the highway.

It's usually a condition of the encroachment permit from the agency controlling the right of way.

Maybe so. The way I read the original post was for access onto a 900 foot long driveway easement. The city wants a sight easement from the lot entry onto the driveway easement along the driveway from an adjacent landowner. Maybe I didn't understand it.

If access was onto a highway from the lot then like you say that's a different situation, traffic on the highway could be very high speed and being able to see the traffic on the highway requires a sight distance. Not that being able to see onto a driveway is not important but it could be handled by all way stop signs if critical.

OK - Maybe I read though it too quickly. I think we are both on the same page, just crossed our wires.

Around here, when doing a subdivision, they require a road that is practically good enough to be a public highway. They don't let you "carve" off a piece every year without going through the full blown subdivision procedure.