Decatur Floats Idea of Roundabout at Glenlake Park Entrance
Decatur Metro | September 27, 2011 | 10:37 amPatch and Dateline: Decatur both report that the city showed a mock-up of a roundabout at Church and Lucerne Streets – at the entrance of Glenlake Park – at last night’s community workshop addressing ped and bike safety along Commerce, Church and Clairemont. (Patch has a pic of the roundabout mockup HERE)
Patch reports that Deputy City Manager Hugh Saxon explained at the meeting that a majority of the project would be paid for by GDOT, since they believe that roundabouts improve traffic flow. As for the larger scope of the C-Streets project, Patch’s Ralph Ellis adds…
Overall, officials said, the streets will get narrower because bike lanes will be added in places. Sharrows, bike boxes and other safety measures for bicyclists would be added.
Dateline: Decatur has a nice video of the evening, including interviews with Mr. Saxon and City Commissioner Fred Boykin. In the video, Mr. Boykin notes that implementation of any of these plans is at least 5 years away, as is the cast with any GDOT project. (McDonough Street improvements, anyone?)
And before anyone brings up the West Ponce/Nelson Ferry/Northern roundabout idea again, I remind you of Planning Director Amanda Thompson’s reply to us on that…
This project is not identified in the Community Transportation Plan or the 2010 Strategic Plan. So it would need significant community support to become part of our transportation program and for the City to pursue funding. Occasionally, the Georgia Department of Transportation will help fund roundabouts if the City prepares a concept study showing whether or not the roundabout will work.
Related Posts:
-
April 21, 2015 City Commission and School Board To Hold Work Session Next Monday To Discuss $75M Bond (0)
-
April 28, 2015 DeKalb, PATH and CSX Negotiating to Close Stone Mountain Trail Gap Over I-285 (3)
-
April 21, 2015 UPDATED: Tree Falls on City Garbage Truck; No One Hurt (12)
I’m the first to say that I spend more time at traffic lights in this city than actually traveling to where I’m going. If more of the intersections were stop signs and not traffic lights, I feel like traffic would move a lot better and you could get where you’re going in a reasonable amount of time. If roundabouts would help, then let’s do it!
For me, the main issue is whether the roundabout would improve the crossing for pedestrians and cylists, especially children, between the Great Lakes area and Glenlake Park/Forkner, or not. That’s a major crossing for folks cycling or walking to/from anywhere west of Church and north of Ponce to go to/from Glenlake Park, the Forkner/Sycamore area, Glendale area, Glennwood Elementary, west Ponce, and Avondale because it avoids having to travel along high traffic thoroughfares like Clairemont, Ponce, and Church. Right now, the crossing isn’t great but it’s pretty safe if pedestrians use the crosswalk signals, especially when the crossing guard is there. Meanwhile, the roundabout in Emory Commons is great for ambience and traffic, IMHO, but not yet all that safe for children crossing alone.
I must have missed something. What exactly is the problem we are trying to solve with another $250,000? It looks to me like the City is dying to find a place to build a traffic circle just so they can say “We have traffic circles in Decatur”.
Have you read the transportation plan?
It was a simple question. I go through that intersection almost everyday and have for more than 40 years. I’m trying to understand the problem without digging through the transportation plan.
How many times in those 40 years have you negotiated that intersection on foot or on a bike? If the answer is never or not many – maybe you try to look at this from another point of view.
Smith, I did some calculations and this is just an estimate so give me a little slack but I would estimate that I have walked or biked through that intersection between 540 and 650 times, maybe more. Do you know what the problem is that we are trying to solve?
To me the problem is this. Before the lane reduction many people were going upwards of 60 mph when they had the green light. Now its maybe 50 mph. A circle makes everybody slow down which makes it safer for everyone.
Actually it was more than a question. But never-mind that.
Here’s a couple paragraphs from the 4 year old transportation plan that reference issues with Church Street, though it’s talking specifically about the intersection with Commerce…
Problems Addressed with the Recommendations:
The intersection is too big and intimidating for most pedestrians. Church Street and Commerce Drive are not “complete streets” because they do not include facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. There is excess automobile capacity on all but the west leg of the intersection, as identified in the LOS analysis. Residents living north of downtown are not likely to walk here unless they must, although the LDS analysis identified a significant unmet demand for both walking and biking routes through this intersection.
Recommendations:
Although vehicular speeds are high on Church Street, it functions as a gateway to downtown Decatur. As such, the pedestrian and bicycle level of service should be on par or better than the vehicular LOS. The recommendation is to widen sidewalks on all four corners, widen the width of crosswalks, install countdown signals for pedestrians, implement traffic signal timing changes to reduce pedestrian delay, and change the traffic lanes as shown in Figure ___.
All that said, I’m also curious where this intersection roundabout idea came from. I’ve never heard it referenced before in any city discussion or document.
Well I live right near this area (and i mean right near) and I do not really see the point of a traffic circle. I like the stuff about improvements for pedestrians and like you, I don’t see how they got from that to a traffic circle. I think the suggestions/recommendations at the end there are perfect – improve the sidewalks, crosswalks, and get the proper lights in place for pedestrians. I’m not against traffic circles, the one at emory is great, and the reason it is great is because that was a wacky, busy, more-than-four-way intersection. This is just your run of the mill 4 way intersection, so better sidewalks, crosswalks, and lights would do it for me.
Scott or anyone else – if you’re out there – do you know off-hand what are the prime conditions for a roundabout? Are there certain intersections that would benefit more from one than others? I feel like someone may have mentioned this before, but I’ve forgotten.
North Decatur Road brings more than 21,000 vehicles per day through the Emory Village roundabout. The computer models predicted the roundabout would function about the same as the signalized intersection during peak hours. By all accounts the roundabout has performed better. This seems to indicate a flaw, or lack of experience in modeling roundabouts. Also remember a road diet was instituted that reduced the lanes from four to two on North Decatur Rd.
Traffic speeds have been reduced in Emory Village without causing significant back-ups. Drivers recognize that the driving conditions have changed and they are more aware of pedestrians and cyclists. In general the roundabout has helped clam traffic and drivers recognize that pedestrians have the right-of-way at the intersection.
Alternative Street Designs, the roundabout consultant hired by the Alliance to Improve Emory Village has experience in roundabout installations near schools. He claims they are as safe, if not safer for pedestrians than conventional traffic signals. I don’t know the volumes he was working within the school district. Obviously children must be taught how to use a roundabout, but it is …err.. elementary.
I’m frequently a pedestrian using the Emory Village roundabout. I’m also friends with people who drive the roundabout every day. Everyone (pedestrians and drivers!!) agree that the roundabout is a huge improvement. And I have to admit that a number of us were skeptical during all the construction.
It’s extremely pedestrian friendly, particularly with the way the lanes are split. This setup allows you to focus on only a single direction of traffic when crossing to the midway point. Then you can rest or wait for idiot drivers while focusing on the other direction of traffic. This is obviously antecdata, but I’ve noticed a significant uptick in pedestrian traffic around Emory Village, but that is certainly just my observation and not based on any insider knowledge of how the businesses are doing.
The throughput from a vehicle standpoint is also significantly better. I have yet to see westbound traffic on N. Decatur backed up all the way to Clifton the way it routinely did when the intersection was on the traffic light. This is in spite of decreasing the number of lanes on N. Decatur to accommodate new bike lanes. I think this lack of backup also contributes to the pedestrian friendliness as drivers are less hellbent on making it through the light when it changes.
In short, I’m thrilled with the Emory Village roundabout. It functions well and has made the intersection less of a nightmare for both drivers and pedestrians. If that’s not a win-win in Atlanta, I don’t know what is.
Please observe the awful back every Tuesday and Wednesday when I travel there at 4:25 to get to Callonwolde.
Also people do not know how to use a roundabout!
Emory has two roundabouts, one at Lullwater and one in front of Everybodys Pizza. The Lullwater roundabout is nice with the inside being nicely landscaped with possibly a small tree and tall ornamental shrubs.
Including the roundabout is a great idea. Also, I’m an avid road cyclist and pay attention to my surroundings. I don’t think the round about should be a concern to cyclists.
When cyclists go to Stone Mountain to ride, they go around the roundabout at the grist mill just like all of the other vehicles. The vehicles are going slow enough to allow the cyclist plenty of room.
The speed limit will surely be 25mph approaching the intersection. Can someone confirm this?
You haven’t caught Roundabout Fever yet?
Roundabouts are great, and I love and frequent Glenlake park. But I don’t know if the level of traffic there justifies the expense (still half a mil). There are times the area gets busier, but it doesn’t stay that way, and it’s pretty dead in the winter.
But if they pass on the roundabout for now, does that mean no bike lanes? Is this completely separate from, and in addition to, the C Street improvements?
So the possibility of a traffic circle on West Ponce needs “significant community support” (to quote Amanda) to even be considered for the Plan, but this proposal on Church Street somehow seems to come out of nowhere, and gets a public meeting called by the City and what appears to be serious consideration, including identification of possible funding sources. Why is that? My feelings are hurt!
Try living on the south side of town and be told, year in and year out, that there is no money for traffic calming measures (even making the on-street parking alternate from one side to the other — a speed-reducing measure recommended years ago by the Paid Consultants which would basically require at minimum some striping and maybe a few signs), while watching all kinds of things get installed elsewhere — sharrows, green boxes, zebra crossings, and now apparently a roundabout, maybe. Not opposed to anything anywhere that makes traveling through town safer and more equitable. But it is exceedingly difficult IMO to understand how the City decides where to put resources. Don’t like to think there’s favoritism, but hard put to understand some of the decisions otherwise.
I completely agree smalltowngal. Neighbors on Second Avenue have been complaining about calming traffic on that street for years and years and were told point blank that there was no money to do anything about it.
Rise up … Southside!!!
I’m following up on that, now that I’ve had a bit of time to digest it. While Church Street is certainly more prominently addressed in the transportation plan, this intersection is not. In fact, you could argue that a roundabout on Ponce would fall under this item in the transportation plan…
Ponce de Leon Avenue
-Rebuild the street west of Water Street and in spot locations such as at the intersection with Commerce Avenue.
-Add bicycle lanes and enhance pedestrian crossings west of West Trinity Place.
Please don’t have hurty feelings! You’ve combined info and gotten mixed up! The workshop was for Clairemont/ Commerce/ Church Street Improvements. The roundabout is one option being proposed for the intersection by the Park. Keeping the traffic light is the other.
Really? Being proposed by whom?
I missed the first few minutes of Hugh’s overview, so someone else will have to share who proposed what (if it came up). During the workshop, the City Folks weren’t trying to push the roundabout concept. ( Hugh was going around checking with folks to see if they had questions, John Madajewski was available- and sharing interesting tidbits like S.Candler and the Agnes Scott tunnel will soon be getting blinky crosswalks, and Fred was talking pros and cons with all the bike folks. Amanda Thompson wasn’t there.) The consultant stationed at the lone drawing with the roundabout concept did the info supplying . Poor guy! He looked dazed and stunned about midway through! (Nice guy, and he did say that signalized crosswalks could be added just before the roundabout approaches.) My guess is that the City requested it is a design option, and wanted to proactively address concerns like how to pay for it.
I really like the crosswalks, but I won’t support it.
You have to yield to enter the circle right? I anticipate a virtually non-stop flow of traffic from along Church Street keeping the circle clogged and backing up travel time for almost everyone traveling through the intersection.
For me, it brings to mind the game Centipede from the ’80s?
The roundabout at Emory, which has what are probably comparable or higher traffic counts than Church, seems to show the opposite of this. They had back-ups before. Now the flow is pretty smooth, even with a fair amount of pedestrian traffic moving from the college to the village and back again.
I have to agree, it moves a lot better and is far easier to bike through that intersection now than pre circle. I do wish the circle was a bit wider so a bike had more of a shoulder through the circle, but that’s not a big deal.
I get the fact that the City of Decatur can only really implement these roundabouts on intersections within our city that do not involve state routes. But this is small potatoes.
The big, awesome, perception-changing roundabouts that absolutely need to happen are on North Decatur – at the Clairemont and Scott Blvd intersections. N. Decatur has already added two roundabouts at Lullwater and Emory, setting the stage to extend them out to those traffic nightmare spots.
If you’ve ever driven in the UK, the traffic circles are most valuable at major crossroads – equivalent to our state routes. Not so much in neighborhoods, or smaller streets.
A roundabout there would be life-changing. And just in time for Walk and Roll to the newly re-opened Westchester!
A great spot for a traffic circle. Emory and the CDC should pay for it. I imagine ROW, if needed, would be costly.
The Emory traffic circle would be great if not for the inner ring for pedestrians. I understand that pedestrians need to cross also, but that plan seems flawed…. Mixing vehicles, pedestrians and traffic circles that not 100% of our fellow drivers understand the workings of seems a little…dangerous?
I’ve found it dangerous so far. I keep wondering if there’s additional development coming that will make it safer for pedestrians. I wouldn’t want school children negotiating that alone on bikes or on foot on their way to Fernbank.
This location is NOT a priority. The city is just seeing candy and wants to spend the money. I don’t see how this location needs a roundabout. i mean, normally cities build roundabouts at intersections that have significant traffic in multiple directions. 99 percent of this traffic is going down church. spend the money on the schools, sidewalks or anything better than this. A more appropriate location is at ponce de leon and northern. that is one wicked intersection and we could slow traffic down on ponce at the same time.
Sheesh. Something must be in the water with all this anti-goverment stuff. “The city is just seeing candy and wants to spend the money.” Really? Disagreeing with roundabouts is one thing. Having an opinion that another intersection is a better choice under constrained funding scenarios is fine too. But an argument against that includes this? Come on.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t it the case that issues like this are often pitched and pushed by members of the community that are effected by that perceived problem? Not just bureaucrats sitting around a fire with twisted faces as they burn all your hard-earned money.
There’s always been a contingent in Decatur who believe that. Right or wrong, it’s always been well represented on this site. Go to a Strategic Plan meeting and you’ll hear little of that. But here, it’s a bit different.
That said, Tom makes a good point about traffic on Church. When I was asking Amanda about the Ponce/Nelson Ferry Roundabout idea, one of the things I learned is that traffic circles work better at intersections with more equal amounts of traffic flow from the feeder streets. So that’s a question too.
Yeah, I’d like some follow-up on that point about equal flow from all feeders. I’ve heard quite a few traffic engineers who do roundabout design discuss their strengths and weaknesses and don’t think I’ve ever heard this point before (which is not to say it’s not true; just that it’s more obscure).
Plus, the N Decatur feed of the Emory circle is by far the dominant stream, and that still seems to be working out well.
I’ve posted this previously, but here it is again. Part of Amanda’s reply to the Ponce/Nelson Ferry roundabout issue..
“I contacted one of our local traffic engineers, Sean Johnston with Kimley Horn, to give me a quick opinion on the feasibility of a roundabout at Northern/West Ponce/Nelson’s Ferry.
He stated, “I think a modern single-lane roundabout, similar in scale but a little larger than the one on North Decatur Road at Lullwater near Emory, might work here. There are some challenges – you’d probably need some right-of-way from the church playground and the post office, the grade on Northern is steep, and roundabouts work better with relatively even traffic volume distribution among intersecting streets.””
I do recall the previous post. I’m just not clear what it means.
Is the suggestion that equal flow of traffic from all feeds works better because constant entry from all sides helps keep speeds down? Because if that’s the case the same thing can certainly be accomplished through lane widths and other design features. Or is it just the ease of entering the circle when there’s not a constant flow in one general direction? Because Emory seems to suggest that, while even flow all around might be preferred, it’s clearly not required for effective performance.
I guess that’s my question: What’s “better” about it?
DM: “… Go to a Strategic Plan meeting…”
Or folks could go to the PUBLIC INPUT WORKSHOPS the City holds for these projects!!!
At this workshop a consultant said to me, “ You don’t often see public input sessions at the beginning of a project.” I replied, “Well, you don’t usually find as many noisy and complaining folks in one place either! Better to go ahead and try to get it out of the way!” When he made the same remark to Hugh Saxon, Hugh being the nice guy he is, replied, “ I wouldn’t know any other way to do it but from the start.”
Maybe the grumbling folks should trust that our City Folks want what we want, and let us all get on with mulling over the possibilities for these projects.