DEAD END vs NO OUTLET vs NOT A THROUGH STREET
Gary E. Ansok
"DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
They seem to be used pretty interchangably around here
(southern California).
To me, at least, DEAD END is more likely not to have a paved
turn-around area at its end -- but I'm not sure whether that's
a regular distinction or just my impression.
(Also, should one of these be used for a circle that loops
around and meets the same road at a different point?)
Gary
--
Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error code
"418 I'm a teapot". The resulting entity body MAY be short and stout.
-- RFC 2324, Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP)/1.0
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Is there any difference between the usage of the signs
> "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
>
> They seem to be used pretty interchangably around here
> (southern California).
>
> To me, at least, DEAD END is more likely not to have a paved
> turn-around area at its end -- but I'm not sure whether that's
> a regular distinction or just my impression.
DEAD END is a typical sign at the physical end of the road.
NO OUTLET or NOT A THROUGH STREET is a typical sign at the last
intersection before the road that has a dead end.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Marc Fannin
> an...@alumni.caltech.edu (Gary E. Ansok) wrote:
>
> > Is there any difference between the usage of the signs
> > "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
> >
> > They seem to be used pretty interchangably around here
> > (southern California).
> >
> > To me, at least, DEAD END is more likely not to have a paved
> > turn-around area at its end -- but I'm not sure whether that's
> > a regular distinction or just my impression.
>
> DEAD END is a typical sign at the physical end of the road.
>
> NO OUTLET or NOT A THROUGH STREET is a typical sign at the last
> intersection before the road that has a dead end.
I posed this question a decade ago ("Three sign questions prompted by
the MUTCD", http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/browse_frm/thread/4fffdfb5efb8abdc
,Message ID 6o8bva$khn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com , 7/11/98) and got some
interesting responses (I'm specifically thinking of #2 and #3 at the
link above).
_________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musxf579 @hotmail.com|http://roadfan.com/ (m.t.r FAQ, etc.)
Gary E. Ansok
Scott M. Kozel <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>an...@alumni.caltech.edu (Gary E. Ansok) wrote:
>>
>> Is there any difference between the usage of the signs
>> "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
>>
>> They seem to be used pretty interchangably around here
>> (southern California).
>>
>> To me, at least, DEAD END is more likely not to have a paved
>> turn-around area at its end -- but I'm not sure whether that's
>> a regular distinction or just my impression.
>
>DEAD END is a typical sign at the physical end of the road.
I usually just see END (on a yellow diamond) at the end of the
road, usually where the middle of the road would be if it continued.
>NO OUTLET or NOT A THROUGH STREET is a typical sign at the last
>intersection before the road that has a dead end.
I've seen DEAD END used like this, too.
Gary
(originally sent only to Scott in error - my apologies to Scott for the dup)
--
Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is
where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember,
my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future.
Steve Riner
> an...@alumni.caltech.edu (Gary E. Ansok) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is there any difference between the usage of the signs
> > "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
>
> > They seem to be used pretty interchangably around here
> > (southern California).
>
> > To me, at least, DEAD END is more likely not to have a paved
> > turn-around area at its end -- but I'm not sure whether that's
> > a regular distinction or just my impression.
>
> DEAD END is a typical sign at the physical end of the road.
>
> NO OUTLET or NOT A THROUGH STREET is a typical sign at the last
> intersection before the road that has a dead end.
>
> --
> Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
> Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
NOT A THROUGH STREET has long been California-speak for a dead-end
street. They may have used it for streets with side streets, all of
which loop back or dead end as well (the NO OUTLET situation) but I'm
most familiar with its use in place of DEAD END. My understanding of a
fairly recent discussion here of California's new MUTCD is that they
are dropping this sign in favor of the other two.
Steve Riner
Pueblo West CO
Explore New Mexico and Minnesota highways: http://www.steve-riner.com
John A. Weeks III
> an...@alumni.caltech.edu (Gary E. Ansok) wrote:
> >
> > Is there any difference between the usage of the signs
> > "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
> >
> > They seem to be used pretty interchangably around here
> > (southern California).
> >
> > To me, at least, DEAD END is more likely not to have a paved
> > turn-around area at its end -- but I'm not sure whether that's
> > a regular distinction or just my impression.
>
> DEAD END is a typical sign at the physical end of the road.
>
> NO OUTLET or NOT A THROUGH STREET is a typical sign at the last
> intersection before the road that has a dead end.
Those signs are used a bit differently up here in the great
north woods.
Dead End is normally placed at the start of a road where
the road eventually comes to an end. You can usually see
the sign from the crossroad and know to not turn down that
road. If you are on a road and come to a dead end sign,
it means you just passed the last road that gets you out
of the area.
No Outlet is normally placed at the start of a network
of roads where this is the only connection to the rest of
the highway network. For example, a subdivision may have
only one connection to the city street grid. That subdivision
itself may have some dead end streets, and some streets
that connect between several dead end streets. But once
you turn in, no matter where you go, your only way out
was back past that No Outlet sign in the opposite direction.
I am less sure about the specific logic for Not A Through
Street. I see those signs where a former through street
has been closed (like for traffic calming or a freeway
is in the way). I also see them where a future through
street is planned, and where a major street suddenly
becomes a much less used street and comes to an end.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
roadman
> Is there any difference between the usage of the signs
> "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
Here in New England at least, the practice seems to be that "Dead End"
is used on those streets that don't intersect with any streets beyond
the intersection where the sign is posted and that "Not a Through
Street" (or "No Outlet" - though that's much less commonly used around
these parts) is used where the street connects to other internal
streets within a neighborhood, but does not connect to any other
through streets beyond the intersection where it's posted.
Of course, there are cases where "Not A Through Street" signs have
been posted simply to discourage "cut through" traffic, but that's
another issue.
Steve A.
> "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
>
> They seem to be used pretty interchangably around here
> (southern California).
>
> To me, at least, DEAD END is more likely not to have a paved
> turn-around area at its end -- but I'm not sure whether that's
> a regular distinction or just my impression.
>
> (Also, should one of these be used for a circle that loops
> around and meets the same road at a different point?)
>
> Gary
At least around here, "dead end" and "no outlet" are basically
interchangeable. As said below, "no outlet" may also be used for
subdivisions whereas "dead end" is usually The Road Ends with no way
out. "Not a through street" generally means it IS a through street,
but they don't want you to go that way.
necromancer
That's what I usually see around here WRT to, Not a Thru Street: its a
street that has a connection to another road, but is designated, "not
a thru street," (or, "No Thru Traffic") to discourage people from
using it as a thru street (typically in neighborhoods that are between
major arterials - one that I can think of locally is Glynn Marsh
Drive/Circle/Court to S. Palm Drive between Altama Ave and US17 (see:
http://tinyurl.com/6dxzpw) where residents got up in arms over people
cutting through (and speeding through) their neighborhoods between
US17 and the shopping areas on Altama Ave.
Another common thing to see around here is not, "Not a Thru Street,"
but "No Thru Trucks," (or a a sign with an image of a truck in a red
circle with a slash through it).
--
"<motorcycle crashes through bar>
Fenderbaum: What in the hell was that?
Blake: Ohhh, that must be the entry for the
National Safety Council!"
H.B. Elkins
>Here in New England at least, the practice seems to be that "Dead End"
>is used on those streets that don't intersect with any streets beyond
>the intersection where the sign is posted and that "Not a Through
>Street" (or "No Outlet" - though that's much less commonly used around
>these parts) is used where the street connects to other internal
>streets within a neighborhood, but does not connect to any other
>through streets beyond the intersection where it's posted.
To me, the use of Dead End and No Outlet are interchangeable; however I think
the driving public has a better concept of what "Dead End" means vs. "No
Outlet."
>Of course, there are cases where "Not A Through Street" signs have
>been posted simply to discourage "cut through" traffic, but that's
>another issue.
This is the impression I get when I see a "Not A Through Street" sign; that thru
traffic is possible but discouraged.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
elaich
news:g9nli...@drn.newsguy.com:
> To me, the use of Dead End and No Outlet are interchangeable; however
> I think the driving public has a better concept of what "Dead End"
> means vs. "No Outlet."
When I moved to California in 1974, I was told that California does not use
"Dead End" because it might offend people who had lost loved ones.
Wondering if this is an urban myth, or is there a shred of truth to it.
I have never seen a "Dead End" sign in California.
Paul D. DeRocco
>
> That's what I usually see around here WRT to, Not a Thru Street: its a
> street that has a connection to another road, but is designated, "not
> a thru street," (or, "No Thru Traffic") to discourage people from
> using it as a thru street (typically in neighborhoods that are between
> major arterials - one that I can think of locally is Glynn Marsh
> Drive/Circle/Court to S. Palm Drive between Altama Ave and US17 (see:
> http://tinyurl.com/6dxzpw) where residents got up in arms over people
> cutting through (and speeding through) their neighborhoods between
> US17 and the shopping areas on Altama Ave.
I can only think of one place in SoCal where I ever saw a "Not a Through
Street" sign on a road that you could actually drive through, and they
eventually put up a barrier to prevent that. (Rainbow Glen Dr. in Santa
Clarita)
In my experience around SoCal, "No Outlet" always refers to a network of
roads where eventually you have to come out the same way you went in. "Dead
End" refers to a single such road, but I think I've only seen that
terminology out in rural areas; in "civilized" areas, they prefer the less
morbid "Not a Through Street".
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com
Mike Carlson
The only "No Outlet" sign I ever recall seeing in Massachusetts is posted
at the beginning of a street that is not a physical dead end. The street
forms a right angle with another street, which is one-way towards the
common endpoint. You can't make the left turn at the end of the street
(you're faced with a Do Not Enter sign) so you have to turn arround.
This is in Worcester, where "Not a through street" is used in several
situations where there is technically a public way (or at least, on paper,
an easement for a through connection to another street) but it is
impassable. (Most likely, never improved in the first place.)
Cameron Kaiser
>I have never seen a "Dead End" sign in California.
There used to be one at the stub of Cajon Blvd north of Cleghorn Rd in the
Cajon Pass, but it was, how you say it, "unofficial."
--
Cameron Kaiser * cka...@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
Laurence Sheldon
My take:
It depends on where you are--different parts of the country do different
things.
But in general I expect the following meanings (and get fooled sometimes):
"Dead End" Either in the middle of the pavement at the literal end of
the road (where its meaning is pretty obvious) of at the intersection
beyond which the street ends (and I don't expect to find anymore
intersections of any sort.
"No Through Street" and "No Outlet" (and "Not a Through Street") all
mean (to me, remember) that while I may find twisty little mazes, loops,
and cul-de-sacs, when all is said and don't I WILL be return to where I
saw the sign.
"No Through Traffic" means the road is not a closed system, but if your
destination is not in the immediate neighborhood (probably defined by a
similar sign on the other side) you are in violation of a local
ordinance. A round here they achieve that by installing one-way
streets, no left and no right and no turns to remove many advantage to
using the streets for anything but garbage collection.
Laurence Sheldon
watching television for the first time in forever last night) wrote:
> My take:
>
> It depends on where you are--different parts of the country do
> different things.
>
> But in general I expect the following meanings (and get fooled
> sometimes):
>
> "Dead End" Either in the middle of the pavement at the literal end
> of the road (where its meaning is pretty obvious) oR at the
> intersection beyond which the street ends (and I don't expect to find
> anymore intersections of any sort).
>
> "No Through Street" and "No Outlet" (and "Not a Through Street") all
> mean (to me, remember) that while I may find twisty little mazes,
> loops, and cul-de-sacs, when all is said and doNE I WILL be return to
> where I saw the sign.
>
> "No Through Traffic" means the road is not a closed system, but if
> your destination is not in the immediate neighborhood (probably
> defined by a similar sign on the other side) you are in violation of
> a local ordinance. Around here they achieve that by installing
> one-way streets, no left turn, no right turn and no turns to remove
> many advantage to using the streets for anything but garbage
> collection. See downtown San Francisco for the classical
> implementation.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
Lepidopteran
-- In Michigan, I remember a "Road Ends" sign at the end of a residential
street.
-- In Ohio, there was a standard highway STOP sign with "Dead" and "End"
stenciled in white above and below the word STOP respectively.
-- In Brooklyn, NY, I seem to recall a yellow diamond sign that read "Dead
End Street" at the intersection leading in, and a diamond reading simply
"End" where the road physically stopped, often with a guardrail and/or a
pair of steady red lights. Here's an example (you may have to go into
Street View yourself)
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=40.629735,-73.953243&panoid=pBBFoXW2nJdfj8uTAUnGPg&cbp=1,347.36749170723874,,0,-1.130481965604606&ll=40.631534,-73.952837&spn=0.003591,0.007414&z=17
If you backtrack to the nearest intersection, notice the sign they use on
both corners.
Marc Fannin
> -- In Michigan, I remember a "Road Ends" sign at the end of a residential
> street.
Yep, it's an official MDOT sign, W14-2a. See, from these large files:
http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_signs_e02_warning.pdf
(.pdf page 141 of 212, original document page 2-118.1 (M))
http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mmutcdsupplement.pdf
(.pdf page 107 of 466, original document page 2C-25, or just read the
transcribed text:
"Section 2C.MI55 (Michigan) ROAD ENDS Sign (W14-2a)
Option:
If desired, a ROAD ENDS (W14-2a) sign may be erected to supplement the
End of Roadway Marker (OM4-1
OM4-2, or OM4-3)." )
DandyDan
Whereas "Dead End" and "No Outlet" are interchangeable, and which one
gets used depends on which municipality you are in, "Not A Through
Street" means the street is a through street, but its not one where
certain types of traffic are encouraged. Here in Omaha, the one place
I know offhand where "Not a Through Street" is used is G Street at
42nd Street. G Street is a residential street going west from 42nd to
about 45th. G Street is also an industrial street going east from
50th Street looping north to F Street. The two parts are not
connected to each other directly. (At one point in time, there was a
railroad between the two sections.) The use of that sign prevents
truck traffic from going down a residential street that will not get
them anywhere they would be interested in going.
John David Galt
> Is there any difference between the usage of the signs
> "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
DEAD END and NOT A THROUGH STREET are equivalent. They mean that the
street you are on goes only one block and then ends, with no branches.
You'll have to turn around and come back to get out again. New signs
in this situation always say NOT A THROUGH STREET. I don't know why
the wording DEAD END is no longer used.
NO OUTLET has a subtly different meaning: this road does lead to other
roads, but they are all contained within an area from which the road
you're on now is the only exit, so you'll still have to come back here
to get out again. The contained area may go just two or three blocks,
or it may be a fairly large neighborhood.
In Sunnyvale, you'll see a third version: NO THROUGH TRAFFIC (this is
a yellow diamond like the other two). In this case the road really
does go through, so it's a FAKE dead-end. (The city may have intended
it as a regulatory sign, but that can't legally be true because it's a
yellow diamond).
> To me, at least, DEAD END is more likely not to have a paved
> turn-around area at its end -- but I'm not sure whether that's
> a regular distinction or just my impression.
I'm not surprised that it's true, since any street with a DEAD END
sign probably hasn't been considered for improvement since about 1960.
> (Also, should one of these be used for a circle that loops
> around and meets the same road at a different point?)
That would normally qualify as NO OUTLET.
Gary E. Ansok
DandyDan <dandanda...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Sep 3, 5:47=EF=BF=BDpm, an...@alumni.caltech.edu (Gary E. Ansok) wrote:
>> Is there any difference between the usage of the signs
>> "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
>
>gets used depends on which municipality you are in, "Not A Through
>Street" means the street is a through street, but its not one where
>certain types of traffic are encouraged.
Not that I've seen in California -- NOT A THROUGH STREET was the standard
sign when I grew up in Northern California. DEAD END was rare, and if I
saw a NO OUTLET sign, it was as others have described -- a street with
branches but no other connection to the main network.
Now I'm living in Southern California, and I've seen all three on
streets that end with no branches. NO OUTLET does seem to becoming
the standard on new developments, though.
If residents are having a problem with through traffic around here,
they usually push for speed bumps or turn restrictions ("No Right Turn
3-6pm", for example). NO THROUGH TRUCKS is also used in some cases
(either over N axles
or over N pounds).
It wouldn't seem generally useful to put up a warning sign to deter
through traffic -- regular drivers would know from maps or from the
grapevine that a street actually went through, and take it anyway.
You'd want some sort of an enforcable limitation.
Gary
Revive755
<snip>
> "No Through Traffic" means the road is not a closed system, but if your
> destination is not in the immediate neighborhood (probably defined by a
> similar sign on the other side) you are in violation of a local
> ordinance. A round here they achieve that by installing one-way
> streets, no left and no right and no turns to remove many advantage to
> using the streets for anything but garbage collection.
Such ordinances ought to be prohibited for public streets. If my tax
dollars (assuming here I live under the same government entity) help
keep that street up, I should be able to drive on it. If the
residents living on the street don't want through traffic they can:
A) make it a private street and take all responsibility for repairs
and snow clearing, and fund both all by themselves.
B) have the street cut off with large, ugly concrete flower pots (St.
Louis City does this).
C) have their local planners fix whatever is causing so much cut-
through traffic, such as an overloaded arterial or intersection
nearby, or perhaps just a plain lousy street system that is missing a
connection but is otherwise provided through the neighborhood in
question.
Laurence Sheldon
The problem with all the throw-down-the-gauntlet plans you mention is
that tends to hinder fire and rescue and such.
As I've said before, the usual way here (the Q street scenario not
withstanding--I have not been down there in quite a while) is to make
the turns the through traffic wants to make illegal, in a nutshell.
One of the big problems with your tantrum is that the locals pay the
taxes, not the through-traffic folks.
For the record, I hate the Dundee solution and if somebody wants to
interview the restaurants that no longer get the Creighton traffic, it
would make an interesting read.
But I don't get to make the rules or even vote on them--all I get to do
is pay the wheel tax in the off chance I might drive on their streets.
Revive755
Are you referring to Q Street between 72nd and 84th?
> One of the big problems with your tantrum is that the locals pay the
> taxes, not the through-traffic folks.
Definitely not true for one past example from southern St. Louis
County in Missouri. There was briefly a through traffic ban on a
street in the unincorporated area between MO 21 and I-55. The street
was more designed to be used for some cut through traffic since it was
much wider than the standard subdivision street (enough that parked
cars didn't provided any traffic calming). The ban had to be repealed
due to intense opposition, which included the signs marking it
disappearing at least once, maybe twice.
I can think of a couple other spots around St. Louis where such bans
were imposed, but the real problem never solved. Green Park, MO,
banned cut through traffic between US 50-61-67 and the road they
destroyed with an unwarranted stop sign every 500 feet, Green Park
Road. Never built the new connector road they planned for the cut
through traffic.
Laurence Sheldon
>> As I've said before, the usual way here (the Q street scenario not
>> withstanding--I have not been down there in quite a while) is to make
>> the turns the through traffic wants to make illegal, in a nutshell.
>
> Are you referring to Q Street between 72nd and 84th?
For the Q street scenario that I don't understand--I have not been down
there for a while--last time I was down there it was just a residential
street that was somewhat narrow, but I don't remember any thing odd
about it.
The "screw up the through traffic" thing that annoys me is in Dundee
where the have made Cumming(?) one-way opposing in adjacent blocks ,
won't allow right turns off of Happy Hollow, etc. Heck, I haven't been
in that neighborhood for some time either.
>
>> One of the big problems with your tantrum is that the locals pay the
>> taxes, not the through-traffic folks.
> Definitely not true for one past example from southern St. Louis
> County in Missouri.
OK.
Laurence Sheldon
> For the Q street scenario that I don't understand--I have not been down
> there for a while--last time I was down there it was just a residential
> street that was somewhat narrow, but I don't remember any thing odd
> about it.
I'm going to have to count the pennies ans see if I can buy a tank of
gas at Terror Free Oil and drive over there.
And I am going to have to see if I can find the original description of
here of the Q Street thing, because....
I just looked at the Google maps thing and don't see much that looks
familiar, beginning with Q street not going through between 72 and 84th.
I don't know how the hell I got to Builders Supply from here when L was
a zoo.
Laurence Sheldon
Now I see it--Highland (which I thought was Q) is to turn south at Miller.
Nasty.
Ed-M
> In article <D6ydnW3LzsUviSLVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dn...@comcast.com>,
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ======================================================================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"NOT A THROUGH STREET" can be used where a subdivision street (or
network of subdivision streets) doubles back to the main road it feeds
off of.
Also, "CUL-DE-SAC" can and should be used where a single dead-end
street has a turnaround at the end. Quebec does this.
And I know of a town in Massachusetts that uses "NOT A THROUGH [THRU]
WAY" religiously where any one of "DEAD END," "CUL-DE-SAC" and 'NO
OUTLET" would be far more appropriate. Arrrrrrgggghhhh.....
paul.s.wolf.pe
> Is there any difference between the usage of the signs
> "DEAD END", "NO OUTLET", and "NOT A THROUGH [or THRU] STREET"?
>
> They seem to be used pretty interchangably around here
> (southern California).
>
> To me, at least, DEAD END is more likely not to have a paved
> turn-around area at its end -- but I'm not sure whether that's
> a regular distinction or just my impression.
>
> around and meets the same road at a different point?)
>
When in doubt, RTFM. In this case, the MUTCD:
Section 2C.21 DEAD END/NO OUTLET Signs (W14-1, W14-1a,W14-2, W14-2a)
Option:
The DEAD END (W14-1) sign (see Figure 2C-3) may be used at the
entrance of a single road or street that terminates in a dead end or
cul-de-sac. The NO OUTLET (W14-2) sign may be used at the entrance to
a road or road network from which there is no other exit.
The "NOT A THRU STREET" sign is not in the MUTCD. It may be in some
state versions, of course.
--
Paul S. Wolf, PE, FITE mailto:paul....@alum.wpi.edu
Fellow, Institute of Transportation Engineers
Ralph Herman
> Fellow, Institute of Transportation Engineers
The "NOT A THRU STREET" sign is not in the current California MUTCD.
It was in the previous Caltrans Traffic Manual (1996).
Ralph