Narrowing Church Street Permanently
Decatur Metro | August 11, 2009Over on his blog, Mayor Bill Floyd asks for feedback on Church Street’s relatively new on-street parking. According to the post, the city commission will decide this fall whether to make the change permanent.
The on-street parking was originally added to Church during the renovation of Glenlake Park, but the city has made little secret that it was also a test to determine the effectiveness of slowing traffic by reducing road-width.
The mayor says he believes the changes are working “quite well” to reduce traffic, though he’d like to make “some modifications.”
Extend the reduction to two lanes all the way from Commerce Drive to North Decatur Road. Add bicycle lanes and parking on both sides of the road. I would also like to see the traffic lights at Fortner and Lucerne removed and “round-a-bouts” installed.
He wants to know your thoughts, so now’s the time to speak up!
Since my pedestrian brain tends to dominate over my automobile brain these days, I love it and can’t wait ’til Clairemont and Commerce get similar treatment.
Latest from Decaturish
If an intent was to slow traffic I am not sure it is working, Church Street is like a highway sometimes.
I like the roundabouts idea! That combined with narrowing the roads permanently will likely help slow down traffic. Would speed bumps be going too far? We live on church and traffic really is way too fast at times for what has essentially become a residentisl street.
Yes, speed bumps would be going way, way, way too far.
Melissa, traveling Church St on a regular basis, my impression is that traffic does move slower now than before the narrowing. Narrowing is a proven traffic control measure in use many places.
James, GDOT probably would have some say-so on the speed bumps and I imagine our emergency responders would not much care for them on such a major thoroughfare. I also disagree somewhat with your characterization of a residential street. It is a commercial street with 3 or so blocks of residential, primarily multiple unit, in the middle.
I live on Church as well…while getting in and out of my drive has been difficult at times, I would love to see the changes made permanent with a couple of modifications. The idea of roundabouts is also a brilliant idea as I think it will deter some of those off hour speeders who come flying down Church Street.
I like the idea of adding bike lanes to Church, Commerce and Clairmont, but don’t narrow the roads down to 2 lanes. If Church becomes only two lanes up to North Decatur, the hospital and Suburban Plaza area will be incredibly congested, particularly if the long-rumored new development happens at Suburban. Clairmont would be nightmare if you drop any lanes from Scott to Commerce. Besides Ponce, it is the main drag into the City and its neighborhoods.
I wish the City of Decatur did a major tweak of the traffic light patterns and added more traffic sensors. Commerce was supposed to be a bypass around the courthouse and city square, but the traffic lights are never in sync and I find it faster to use Ponce.
Unfortunately, Decatur’s traffic engineering is done by DeKalb County, whom I don’t believe can even install a stop sign correctly, so don’t hold out a lot of hope for improvements to timing, sensors, etc.
Oh, how I loathe the traffic lights on Commerce! I frequently hit three red lights within three blocks (Ponce, Swanton Way, and Trinity), even when traveling late at night or very early on weekend mornings. In general, I wish that more lights in Decatur went to flashing yellow/flashing red at off-peak times. It’s painful to sit through three light cycles and not see a single car on any of the cross streets.
Now is a good time to bring up that too many folks don’t know what a flashing yellow signal means:
Proceed with caution–not stop.
I agree with you, but, like the excessive speed problem, people will drive the way they drive, when they want to, and while they’re doing whatever else.
I say we widen all Decatur’s roads to four lanes each directions and give pedestrians hovercrafts that run on garbage and soy.
As long as we don’t get Segways
I’ll take a Segway–but only if I get a free fanny pack with it; I have to carry my comic books somehow.
How many accidents have there been on Church, such that slowing down and reducing traffic should be a priority worth the year-long headache and expense of a major construction project?
I’m not sure if the desire is to reduce accidents, but to make the city more friendly to pedestrian and bike traffic. Right now, Church is hard for pedestrians to cross.
DEM, there are more reasons to narrow a street than just accidents. Complete streets encourage active lifestyles, cut air pollution, slow traffic, increase transportation capacity, and encourage economic growth.
I’m all for reducing Church to 2 lanes permanently. I’d love to see bike lanes and roundabouts, too.
Lain, narrowing Church to one lane won’t make a much of a dent in emissions. I’m also very skeptical that it would encourage more active lifestyles. I guess that, at most, some people who live on Church but won’t or bike it might do so if it were one lane. But the impact of that is so negligible that it hardly seems worth the effort. And Church is not really unwalkable now, with sidewalks on both sides. I see people walking it all the time, and I bike it quite frequently.
That leaves us with safety concerns. Hence my question about just how dangerous it really is.
Finally I find some time to argue!
DEM, the Church Street narrowing is just one component of the city’s transportation plan. And a very important part. So, what you’re suggesting is that if accident rates haven’t decreased enough over a few months, that the city abandon it’s entire plan? (which would in totality do all the things that Lain mentioned, btw)
If anything, the burden of proof is on the nay-sayers to explain why the city shouldn’t pursue a key element in a plan that was adopted by the city commission.
No, what I am suggesting is that there should be a good reason for spending a bunch of money to rip up and redesign Church (not to mention the inconvenience of a a year long construction project, a la North Decatur Rd). And it seems that the reason being put forth is mainly safety, hence the references to reducing speed and traffic flow. And so my question was not how many accidents have there been since the conversion to 2 lanes, but how many accidents were there when it was four lanes? In other words, if the numbers don’t suggest Church was dangerous before, why fix what wasn’t really broken?
Also, you may be right about this being a very important part of alarger transportation plan, but my understanding was that the 2 lane conversion was a trial, and that’s why the Mayor is soliciting feedback. Thus, it’s not the sort of done deal that would place the burden on “naysayers” to prove that an adopted plan is a bad idea.
I understand the desire to have a walkable community, but Church already has sidewalks on both sides and people walk it all the time. It can be easily crossed in several places, though of course jaywalking there is dangerous.
As for the bike lanes, I’m not sure they are necessary. And I say that as someone who bikes several hundred miles a month, including regular trips up and down Chruch. I’m not really against them, though perhaps we can add them without reducing Church to 2 lanes of car traffic.
I think people focus first and foremost on safety because it’s the most tangible and easily related to others. Does that mean it’s the only thing they care about? I doubt it.
But if we’re going to talk about accident rates, wouldn’t it be better to look at something like all 4 lane vs. 2 lane roads in Decatur over the past 5 years or so, as opposed to only looking at just a few months on Church? We just saw a pedestrian get hit on a 4 lane road (Commerce) the other day. Does that mean anything?
I don’t claim to know or push the mayor’s opinion. But mine is that the city commission voted the approval of the Community Transportation Plan for a reason. And a key element of that plan is road-narrowing. Even so, the city didn’t just go ahead and start making permanent changes to road widths without first doing an on-the-ground test and also gauging resident feedback. Why? Because sometimes, widespread theory is just wrong and sometimes people say they want one thing, but after seeing the effects they change their mind. IMO, that’s why they conducted the test. But I still argue that the burden is on the nay-sayers at this point, because saying no to narrowing Church, essentially negates the entire plan.
I really like this idea. My impression is that traffic has calmed considerably with the temporary narrowing. I’m not a big fan of bike lanes as they are commonly done in this country but this would be a great opportunity to do a “complete street” makeover coming into Decatur.
While I endorse bike lanes and more pedestrian-friendly streets, I don’t think Church St. is the right street for narrowing. As an above-poster pointed out, this is a major artery for emergency vehicles, especially since the hospital is at one end. I spent half the summer at the Glenlake pool with my kids, and I can’t tell you how many times I heard tires screeching and saw near-collisions. I think with the volume of traffic, narrowing Church St. is sort of a silly idea. I’d much rather see more sidewalks on some of our sidewalk-less residential streets, and certainly more bike lanes around town.
Make it permenant. As an early skeptic I am won over to the idea. The design has proved it slows traffic yet does not cause unreasonable delays or congestion. A good idea well implemented. Leave out the speed bumps, too anoying and do little to slow traffic. I like the idea of roundabouts wherever feasible. Another good idea to “calm” traffic.
I don’t have any real problem with the narrowing down to 2 lanes, but I think the current signage advising of the narrowing (especially traveling NE on Church away from Downtown Decatur) is placed entirely too close to the actual lane merging area. In other words I’m saying the warning comes too late.
I like roundabouts in theory – but they’re so rare in this city, that people seem to freak out and stop when they’re not supposed to or fail to yield when entering the roundabout.
Much of the congestion at Forkner could be solved if the traffic lights didn’t trip so quickly for cars turning right off Forkner – I’ve been stopped many times coming down Church street just after someone has pulled up and turned right.
The current 2 lane portion of Church doesn’t cover that many driveways – if it were 2 laned all the way to N. Decatur, I suspect that we’d end up spending a lot more time waiting for people to make left turns. I’d prefer to see (at least at Lucerne and Forkner) some parking taken away right at the intersections to provide dedicated left turn lanes.
Mayor Floyd’s website isn’t letting me leave a comment, so I’ll post my $0.02 here:
Mayor Floyd,
Good call on your proposed changes. The four-lane to two-lane to four-lane transition is a bit confusing. Adding bike lanes would make that section of road much more friendly to commuters (ask me how I know). I also think round-a-bouts are a great idea.
Thanks for your thoughts on this & your continued work for the betterment of our City!
I tried to post this comment to Bill’s website and got an error:
I am not a fan of the reduced lanes at all. It was a good temporary situation but my experience has been that it would dramatically affect those who live in the Great Lakes who use Church Street. Taking a left out of Church Street from Geneva is dangerous. People speed up to avoid getting “pinched” by the road pins and the lights are not timed to allows for an escape window in either direction. And people speed to make up for the lost time. I’ve seen more than my share of people almost hitting those pins. Sad. It makes my morning commute pure misery.
The parking on-street looks very strange with the large spaces and stray paint marks/and scraped pavement. I say return it to the way it was before and put down speed grates near the pool/tennis area.
Also got an error on Bill’s blog trying to post a comment . . .
As a resident of the Great Lakes, the changes have been a mixed bag. It is now quite dangerous to make a left turn on Church from Geneva, and is sometimes almost impossible. The light at Lucerne takes far too long to change, so turning there also has issues. When we’re walking to the pool or tennis courts, the length of time it takes the light at Lucerne to change is also an issue. Those matters need to be addressed if the road is left at two lanes.
I don’t have any issues with leaving the road at two lanes, but residents in the bordering neighborhoods need to be able to leave their neighborhood safely, whether driving, biking or walking. I would want to see a detailed plan of round-abouts before understanding how residents in adjacent neighborhoods could cross Church St. when walking or biking.
You make a good point, DG. I’m in favor of the lane reductions for sure, but the roundabouts will take some study. Roundabouts are a great tool for processing a lot of cars at lower speeds on fewer lanes by keeping the flow of traffic moving more consistently.
That’s good for moving traffic but it’s bad for pedestrian crossings because there are no dedicated breaks. Given the draw of the pool, I’m not sure how Lucerne could work for peds without a light or designated crossing of some kind. Would like to hear more on that.
I live on Church Street and am indifferent to the question of having 1 or 2 lanes. I think that traffic is slower, though not enough slower for the current set up. I often have people whip around me using empty parking spaces, as I slow down to turn into my driveway. My primary concern, however, is that the current parking configuration leaves me with a very dangerous blind driveway when all of the parking spaces are filled. I live in the Willow Park condos and I if the parking spaces are here to stay, I would like them to be moved back a bit on each side of the driveway!
Is the mayor a professional traffic engineer?
If not, maybe the mayor should engage a professional engineer to design possible solutions for traffic calming. The mayor’s suggestions may be dead on, but traffic engineering would probably be facilitated by … uh.. an expert traffic engineer.
Engineering decisions made exclusively by politicians is probably not a “best practice” for policy formation.
I don’t think the mayor was planning on making the decision himself. He’s soliciting input in the Decatur tradition. I’m sure that any change would involve professional engineers, hopefully not employed by DeKalb County.
Seems backwards. IMHO, I would think the process would work better if professionals drew up some options, presented the pros/cons of the options, then solicit public input. Otherwise, the myriad ideas become too noisy.
I’m in favor of 2 lanes, bike paths, and especially roundabouts.
I live off of Church between the Roly Poly and Glenlake. It’s noticeably quieter since the temporary change, easier to turn left in the AM, easier to ride (especially north) and easier to cross on foot.
I am for the proposed roundabouts if it can be established that they will increase the safety of the Forkner/Medlock – Church Street intersection. Crossing from Medlock to Forkner at this intersection at the turn of that particular light is an exercise in taking one’s life into his own hands. Drivers heading to the city on Church routinely run or nearly run the red light at that intersection and often do so at relatively high speed. Part of the problem is that the proximity of the light itself makes it difficult to see from the outside lane.
[...] Shared Narrowing Church Street Permanently [...]
The problem I have with the narrowing of Church is that it’s not expected by drivers who aren’t regular travellers through Decatur. I almost had a wreck the other day when someone in the right lane didn’t pay attention to the cones, and before I new it, they were coming over into my lane. And they were flying fast…
I’m part of a fairly large group of parents and kids who walk to Clairemont Elementary via Church Street daily. Last year, we had to be very strict with the children so they wouldn’t get too close to part of the sidewalk nearest the traffic because there’s very little greenspace between the sidewalk and the street. Large trucks would zoom by with their wide mirrors seeming to just barely miss our heads. We feel so much safer with the parking lane and as an added benefit can actually converse while walking along Church now. With the schools cutting back on bus routes (you have to live over a mile from the school to get a bus now), more kids are walking to school on Church Street. Anything that makes this street safer and slower is welcome!
I’m all in favor of the changes. My only concern would be that slowing traffic on Church will encourage cut-through commuters and speeders to use more residential routes from Ponce to North Decatur, like Sycamore Dr.
After Church Street’s problems are addressed, I hope the city’s leader’s will devote more attention to South Candler. It’s another of Decatur’s raceways. I’ve made suggestions via written letters and emails but I’m always greeted with the same response. ‘Our hands our tied because it’s a state road.’ Does Church St. also qualify as a state road?
South Candler is a state road by virtue of being the designated route for Georgia Rt 155. There was discussion some years back about having the designated routing move over to Columbia Drive, but, as you could imagine, those people didn’t care for that.
Church St, to my knowledge, has no Georgia or US route designation.
Have lived within a block of Church St. for about 23 years and ALWAYS avoided walking or jogging there for all the safety reasons mentioned previously. A definite “Yes” to making the two lanes on Church permanent all the way to Commerce (as it was about 20 years ago) and adding bike lanes and roundabouts; this street IS primarily residential from about the cemetery back to the city limits. The issues are quality of life and safety. I’ve seen far too many reckless/careless/clueless drivers speeding into and out of the city via Church to believe otherwise. Narrowing W. Ponce de Leon to 2 lanes certainly hasn’t kept visitors from coming into town; narrowing Church won’t either.
Church and other raceways in our city were developed along old American traffic concepts of the “forgiving road” which fosters overspeeding and other traffic aggression. It’s long overdue that we rework these traffic artererials to “induce motorists to operate their vehicles in ways and at speeds that were appropriate for passage through urbanized areas.”
I found this very enlightened article regarding traffic engineering design philosophy that describes the concept.
http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/08/12/does-your-city-make-its-roads-look-big/
Thanks for the comments. Sorry the comment part of my blog is not working. We (meaning someone else) are trying to fix now. Thanks
I think these are great ideas, and would love to see the same on Clairemont and Commerce streets as well. (Church is so dangerous to cross. Last year my kids and I were nearly hit by a car as we crossed Church to get to Glenlake Park. We were crossing at the crosswalk with a walk signal. A car just barreled through the red light at full speed. My heart was pounding. Luckily we were not hit.)
bike lanes on church st
good idea
though there are quieter, parallel, alternatives to much of it
[sycamore for instance]
wle.
Unlike Church, Sycamore is already down to two lanes. Not much need for a “road diet” though it could use some calming. Who wants to tackle Scott Blvd?
. . . and Clairemont and E. Ponce and Howard and College and Candler . . . lots of tackling to do.
All great, wide roads, though, that have many futures, all of which I hope include fewer motor vehicle lanes, street cars (imagine!), and more thought given to the year 2030 than 2010.
Yes to traffic circles. They’re all over Europe and they work. There will need to be a “learning curve” but it’s worth it.
A six lane road can carry the same traffic as two lanes when intersections are replaced with a circle. The turn lanes are simply unnecessary.
Traffic is already a nightmare in Decatur, I think this adds to it. I’m all for slowing traffic down near the park, but to cut the whole road to two lanes is extreme.
I don’t disagree with you about traffic in Decatur, but I don’t know what is responsible for the traffic. I think the worst traffic is during rush hour and I think the main problem isn’t the lack of larger roads for Decatur residents, but the number of cut-through commuters who just want to get to the other side of the city. Rather than encourage those people, I’d rather we discourage them from using our city as a highway to somewhere else, and Church street was like a highway. If this change discourages cut-through commuters and encourages more Decaturites to bike and walk, it could reduce traffic in the city. Then again, if changing Church street just encourages people to cut through other residential roads (like Sycamore) then I agree that this would make traffic worse. I hope commuters move to other roads like North Arcadia, but that could be wishful thinking.
I’d also like to add that needs to be more of a police presence in Decatur. When people know that certain areas are speed traps, they’ll either slow down or find another route. But, I definitely feel like the police need to be seen more. I can drive around for several days before I see a City of Decatur police car. When drivers know the police aren’t around, the rules of the road go out the door.
Decatur has more police officers per unit of population or per square mile than most places. Our crime stats show that.
There is also a dedicated traffic enforcement unit, which include the motorcycle officer, which has been very effective. Check out the number of traffic stops on http://www.crimereports.com and see for yourself.
Just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they’re not there. I see them almost every time I’m out, but they can’t be everywhere all the time. If you have concerns about the police presence or lack thereof, I know Chief Booker’s door is always open.
I actually have talked to Chief Booker. In the 4 years that we have lived in Decatur our car has been broken into, our house robbed and most recently, our car stolen. I’ve had drug dealings in front of our house and we live near a city school. I’ve talked with the Mayor personally about my concerns – about the lack of police and I was told by Mayor Floyd that the city is short police. In fact, there was a drive by shooting right near the police station last month.
Just about every police department anywhere is short to some degree. It’s a combination of a tough job and low pay. Decatur has made good strides in making up for the shortage, but we are much more selective than most so it takes a while. I still point to our crime stats compared to others nearby and am glad I’m here and not there.
It also takes citizen involvement also – call if the least little thing looks or sounds out of sorts.
I travel through that area a lot and on balance, the narrowing seems to have been an improvement, mainly because traffic has slowed. It would also be nice for the pool to retain some Church St parking once the pool opens. But there are drawbacks, too. Turning left off Geneva is now much harder, and there are fairly frequent jam-ups on Church inbound in the morning — such as this morning, when the traffic was backed up north of Forkner for some distance. For some reason, drivers on Church all the way through town think it’s okay to fill the intersection after the light turns. This has been a long problem with no enforcement that I’ve ever seen at Sycamore and Ponce and now it’s arrived at Forkner at rush hour. A roundabout would obviously help, and I’m in general a fan of them. I don’t see that the narrowing does anything to promote pedestrian traffic, though bikers will benefit, nor will it reduce traffic. People need to drive into Decatur. My question is whether the benefit is worth the cost. How much would a permanent change cost? I assume roundabouts aren’t cheap. Any time we talk about the benefit of some public project, we need to hear the cost.
Clearly cost matters but, at this point, that’s just putting the cart before the horse. This is not currently a project. It’s just an idea.
Before something can be costed out, it needs to be spec’d; before that it needs to be designed; and before that it needs to be envisioned. That’s the stage we’re at now. The Mayor has a particular vision that varies a bit from what’s in the Transportation Plan. He’s throwing it out there for comments, suggestions, revisions, etc.
If the effort goes well, we may get a consensus for how such changes to Church Street could benefit — in terms of ped and bike safety, traffic flow, beauty, and economic development. Then designers and engineers can sketch it out and price it.
That’s the point where the community needs to decide: Does the value that will result warrant the cost? You can’t evaluate a cost/benefit scenario until you have something specific to evaluate. But once you do, I agree that cost is a conversation that needs to happen.
What a great number of people don’t realize is the danger posed by the traffic on Church Street. Speaking to the crossing guard for school children at Lucerene I was told there were over 400 tickets given in one day. With the pool, with children and adults walking to and from the schools, the city, the park, etc. there is an inherent need to address the situation on Church Street. There is also the benefit that the reduction to two lanes has cut down the through traffic and the speeders on cross streets such as Willow Lane allowing people to enter and exit their drives, their cars, etc without being mowed down by people crossing from Ponce to Church.
Living on Church Street I suffer the 10 minutes it takes to get in and out of my drive some mornings but for me it is worth the sacrifice. After all, isn’t Decatur billed as a pedestrian city?
What’s puzzling me is this – have the reasons that originally drove the expansion of Church Street from two to four lanes changed? Has the volume dropped? Is there now an alternative route that’s reduced the amount of traffic on Church since the original expansion to four lanes?? From personal observation, it seems to me that at peak times – rush hour, lunch time etc. – the road is fully utilized.
I’d like to see a real survey of the volume done and compared to the one that drove the original expansion. If the volume’s dropped then it would seen to indicate making some of the temporary changes permanent. If it hasn’t then it should be back to the 4 lanes. Either way, let the numbers do the talking …
I shouldn’t speak for Lynn at the city of Decatur, but I recall hearing her address why the city changed Church from 2 lanes to 4 lanes and back to 2 again. She said the road was originally changed from 2 lanes to 4 lanes because that was the thinking during America’s highway building phase. The theory at that time was that no city could survive without 4-lane access to a major highway. Church was our 4-lane access to 285. Now, however, city planning is the opposite, and general thinking is that highways don’t bring shoppers into a city but quality of life and walkability and a vibrant streetscape. She summed up by saying anything worth doing, is worth doing twice.
I remember Church Street when it was two lanes and what a nice street it was. Lots of trees. I don’t remember the exact details, but the City was not in favor of widening Church St. the way it turned out – but they got out voted by GDOT. Hugh Saxon went downtown and pleaded with them not to design it the way it turned out, but they wouldn’t listen. So we got a high speed, four lane arterial design that completely ignores the context of the area in which it’s built. Same with the Church/Commerce and Clairemont/Commerce intersections – those are surburban designs that don’t belong in in an urban area like downtown Decatur where efforts are now being made to encourage residents to walk downtown. They”ve become barriers to anyone except drivers.
The Decatur Community Transportation Plan spells out the City’s vision for transportation changes to enhance the ability for people to walk and bicycle around town and recognizes that the automobile is not king of the road. It also looks at transportation options from a health perspective and makes a number of far reaching recommendations. I was closely involved in the plan, fully support it, and proud to have voted for it as a City Commissioner. I encourage residents to read it – the plan is the basis for future connectivity considerations. It will help determine how we get around and how we rank our options and our choices.
Adding parking and bike lanes on Church is one recommendation, so is reconfiguring Commerce Dr. and major intersections to be more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. There is a wealth of information and guidance in the plan. Please read it sometime and you’ll better understand the city’s transportation goals. It’s posted on the City website:
http://www.decaturga.com/cgs_citysvcs_dev_transportationplan.aspx
Unfortunately, Clairemont’s 4 travel lanes are too narrow to be narrowed any further and since it is a state road, GDOT standards apply. The traffic volume is too high for the street to be considered for a “road diet” (four travel lanes to two with a center turn lane). And for the life of me, I can’t figure out much of an option to make the street “friendlier” except speed enforcement. I’d almost settle for getting GDOT to mill the asphalt and repave it so we at least have a curb again!
Roundabouts. I’m for giving them a try. Took a training course on them a few years back – they’re more common in America than people think and GDOT did okay them awhile back. Designed properly, they can accomodate multiple travel modes and are very effective at moving traffic. There is a definite learning curve, but think back on what complaints we got when the City narrowed Church St. from Ponce south to Trinity. People were shocked at how narrow it looked in front of Leon’s – now it’s the new normal. And I ask you – which is the more functional community street – Church St. north of Ponce or south?
What is refreshing is that we’re hearing both sides of the argument now and people are tending to speak in favor of multiple options – much different discussion than even ten years ago.
“And I ask you – which is the more functional community street – Church St. north of Ponce or south?”
Thank you, Fred. Could not be clearer. When automotive throughput is your only criteria for building streets, you get what you deserve. Your support of urban context, and all the recreational joys it fosters, is much appreciated.
We can’t expect the private sector to buy into building pedestrian-friendly projects if the city doesn’t pony up with pedestrian-friendly streets. It’s a collaborative effort and, personally, I think the city has done a helluva job.