GDOT May Be Open to Making Physical Changes To Slow Traffic on Scott Boulevard
Decatur Metro | July 8, 2015 | 10:10 am
The AJC reports this morning that the City of Decatur has recently met with the Georgia Department of Transportation and that while they likely aren’t open to lowering the speed limit on Scott Boulevard, they may be open to making physical changes to the road to deter high-speed travel through Decatur’s premier car sewer.
“They really don’t want to lower the limit, which we would like,” [Asst. City Manager David Junger] said. “But I think they’d be open to making physical changes, like narrowing the lanes, or maybe doing a series of medians in the middle. We want to make people less comfortable driving fast on Scott.”
As has been reported here previously, a large majority of speeding tickets given out in Decatur are along the Scott speedway. According to the AJC, Mr. Junger reported that a recent speed study by the city concluded that 85% of drivers went 49 mph or lower along Scott, well above the current posted 40 mph limit.
As we’ve discussed many times before, Scott Boulevard is a state road so any and all changes must be approved by GDOT. The department calculates speed limits by looking for the magic speed limit number where 15% drive faster and 85% drive slower, so it’s not all that surprising GDOT doesn’t want to lower the limit.
Related: It took three years for the installation of sidewalks along Scott in both directions to come to pass, so don’t hold your breath for any changes along Scott in the near-term, even if there’s general agreement among parties.
“a recent speed study by the city concluded that 85% of drivers went 49 mph or lower”
That’s an odd phrasing, though I know you’re just quoting the AJC. I wonder if it should read “49 mph or higher”? Or if they are trying to say 40-49 mph?
Otherwise it doesn’t tell us much, since what really matters is the percentage that are going faster than the speed limit. “49 mph or lower” would seem to include everyone who is traveling under the speed limit.
49 is the speed at which the magic 85% of all drivers fall at or under. Which means that, if they really wanted to stick it to us, GDOT would be justified in raising the speed limit to 45 or 50.
Thanks, that’s what I was thinking and couldn’t understand how the statistic was helpful to the city’s case.
Putting in medians may help slow traffic, but what really feels unsafe is walking along the sidewalks on Scott. In Decatur, Scott Blvd is largely residential. I would rather see wider sidewalks with maybe a planted buffer between the street and the sidewalk. The lack of turn lanes already slows traffic down since those in the left lanes have to pay attention to drivers turning left (though I don’t know if this is a cause of many accidents or not). But it is extremely nerve-wracking while walking to feel 50mph trucks rushing past. Us on Scott also like to take the (long) walk to the Square sometimes.
Absolutely. And with Westchester reopened and children using Scott Boulevard to walk to school, this ought to be a matter of some urgency with a compelling, universal hook: “think of the children!”
The DOT told us several years ago what they think of the children. There used to be metal barriers on each side of Scott between Coventry and Clairemont. They formed a buffer between the street and the sidewalk so that any vehicle veering out of lane would hit the barricade, not pedestrians. But DOT required that the safeguard be removed, because it could damage vehicles that hit it. You can’t make this stuff up.
Wow.
I wrote in a prior post about the metal barriers that were removed maybe 20 years ago. If similar barriers were reinstalled, we would all feel less uncomfortable walking on Scott Blvd. On a related subject: if the development at N Decatur and Scott can install an additional traffic-light-controlled crossing, why can’t Decatur put in a crosswalk at Westchester? a) it would shorten the kids’ trip to school; b) it would mean that many children would have to walk a shorter distance next to Scott traffic; and c) it might help to slow traffic.
That was my first thought when I saw the post about the new light at Decatur Crossing. How come that doesn’t take 3 years of GDOT negotiating?
If you’re referring to Fuqua’s development at Scott & Medlock with the new light at Blackmon, it’s because the developer will incur 100% of the cost of the light and crosswalk installation. Any improvements along Scott Blvd that do not include a new private development will be on the state’s dime, perhaps with a local match.
DeKalb’s Medline LCI shows a traffic light at that location. GDOT actively participated on the Medline plan.
(Not to take away from the combined efforts of GDOT, DeKalb DOT, commissioners and staff, the Fuqua folks and the CNC to address traffic related impact, but yeah. It was pretty much a given that GDOT would support it. :0)
They using LCI implementation funds or is the developer picking up the tab for the light?
Fuqua is paying for it.
Gooooooooooood.
Actually the guard rail was only on the Westchester side (no sidewalk on the other side) and it was removed about 20 years ago. How time, and traffic, flies!
Maybe they can help us pay for the Peavine Creekwalk so fewer kids need to walk down that stretch. I know J_T is ready to start pouring the concrete!
Left turns into oncoming traffic are a huge cause of accidents, mostly in the form of rear-end collisions (Following Too Closely citations).
Depending on how it’s done, narrowing the lanes could result in more space between traffic and the sidewalks. For instance, they could put in bike lanes (so they can act as a buffer between cars and pedestrians).
Make it a double deck .
Put light rail down two lanes.
turn it into a canal and only allow kayaks and sailboats
We can’t have each individual paddling his own kayak! It will clog the canal! And it hardly foster equality or community for the rich to paddle fancy kayaks while the middle class struggles with leaky, inferior boats.
No, the only answer is the galley ship. Each citizen grabs an oar, helping the collective reach its destination.
But it’s a US highway, so we’ll have to allow container ships…
I never understood how after Scott joins Ponce at the Olmstead Linear Park it narrows to a squirrely four-lane.
Because Ponce is a much older street and was built that way. Scott, believe it or not, it a relatively new street compared to Ponce. At one time, there was no intersection of Ponce and Scott – Ponce just ran into Decatur.
I am not sure that is correct Steve. I was told a while back by some older decatur residents that the part of the street called W Ponce did not always connect to old ponce near parkwood. It just stopped near the bottom of the hill. If you look at this old aerial map,from 1949 as they were beginning to develop the 50’s neighborhoods of parkwood and w ponce (pinetree isn’t even on it yet), it looks to me like Nelson Ferry was the old way to get out of town.
http://dlgcsm.galib.uga.edu/StyleServer/calcrgn?browser=ns&cat=gaph&wid=740&hei=740&style=default/gaph_lg.xsl&item=/dekalb/1949/ati-2f-183.sid
I hope this link will work. I love these old aerial maps. It is hard to figure out where you are since there are no street names, but as best I can tell, the parkwoods are in the lower left corner.
You may be correct on what you say, but Scott Blvd as we know it is still a much newer road than Ponce and that’s why Ponce is narrower. You don’t see anything in terms of buildings along Scott that are much older than the 50s.
Ooooh. You’ve touched on a key question I’ve long had about Ponce and Nelson Ferry. What else did your older Decatur residents say about West Ponce and Nelson Ferry? I’m pretty sure Nelson Ferry ran all the way to the Chattahoochee – why else would there be a “Ferry” road in Decatur?
Here’s a quote from an Atlanta Bulletin I picked up a few years ago regarding Nelson Ferry…
Shallowford Road, which led to the Shallow Ford, has been renamed Clairmont Avenue, probably because it does not go to, from or past any place called Clairmont. Covington Road is now Sycamore Street, probably because it leads to Covington and has no Sycamores on it. Nelson’s Ferry Road, named after the local family which ran the ferry at the Chattahoochee end of the road, has been named Ponce de Leon after a family prominent, before Castro, in Havana, Cuba.— Mitchell, Stephens, “A Tentative Reconstruction of the Decatur Town Map of 1823”, Atlanta Historical Bulletin, No.30, p.8, 1965.
Sorry DM, I got nothing from the older resident on Nelson Ferry and they have since passed. But that is a pretty interesting theory. If Nelson Ferry was an old road that went all the way to the river long long ago, I wonder if it got turned in to Ponce when that part of Atlanta was being developed in the 20’s? The houses on that street are about 20’s age also, so maybe that doesn’t make sense, or does it? There is a book of the history of Ponce de Leon Ave, but it doesn’t really go east past the linear parks as far as I recall. Maybe someone else on here has some idea?
I have a couple of articles – or I did at one point – that referenced crimes on “Old Nelson Ferry Road” north of Atlanta. Also, I believe I had a lede that seemed to suggest that Nelson Street in Castleberry Hill was also part of old Nelson Ferry Road. All very interesting.
One day I need to take a day or two off and figure it all out!
Sycamore Street does have quite a few sycamore trees on it
Scott Blvd didn’t exist in 1930 when this map was made.
http://disc.library.emory.edu/atlanta1928topo/#zoom=16&lat=33.77783&lon=-84.30005&layers=BT
Yeah, the earliest I’ve seen is in the 1949 map linked above. I suspect it was pretty new then. I actually thought it came a little later, but the 1949 map don’t lie.
I think Buford Highway is a good example of what Scott Blvd. can be. I travel the part between N. Druid Hills Road and Shallowford Road every day, and I rarely see people drive more than 5 mph over the 45 limit.
The reason? Extremely robust enforcement. The police are hyper alert there, and daily commuters know it. That road, like Scott, has the potential for very high speeds, but the enforcement keeps everyone under control. The recent installation of lighted pedestrian crosswalks also helps to slow things down.
They have also been putting in concrete medians, reducing left turns into traffic.
But it is also rare for people to do 50 on Scott. The data cited above shows that 85% of cars are doing 49 or less. High speeds therefore represent a small portion of overall traffic.
My own experience driving home on Scott is that exceeding 50 mph is not likely to happen due to all the lights plus the heavy volume. The traffic generally moves in the low to mid-40’s. I am not denying that you have the occasional nutcase who is hell-bent on 55+, but not much can be done to stop that. Lawbreakers are going to break laws, after all.
Moreover I think 40-45 mph is totally reasonable on Scott under most conditions. If road modifications can keep traffic moving while successfully deterring truly excessive speeds, then great — go ahead and make them. But we don’t need to indulge the “progressive” anti-car ideology — i.e., “car sewers” — by reducing Scott from 40 to 35 (or lower).
“I am not denying that you have the occasional nutcase who is hell-bent on 55+, but not much can be done to stop that”
You don’t think a $200+ ticket would deter people from doing it?
“Lawbreakers are going to break laws, after all.”
Agree. I’ve often argued that murder laws should not be enforced because murderers are going to break murder laws anyway.
“But we don’t need to indulge the “progressive” anti-car ideology — i.e., “car sewers” — by reducing Scott from 40 to 35 (or lower).”
“Ideology” = something you disagree with: got it. Maybe we should prioritize the views of people who live and walk on Scott (usually to an elementary school) over those of non-residents who use it to commute.
“Maybe we should prioritize the views of people who live and walk on Scott (usually to an elementary school) over those of non-residents who use it to commute.”
dingdingdingding
Why should we should prioritize the views of those 100 people who consciously chose to live on Scott, knowing it was a 5 lane US highway, to the detriment of the thousands of people that use the 5 lane US highway for its intended purpose?
It’s not just those who live right on Scott who are affected but everyone who lives in the neighborhoods to each side of Scott, a fairly large population. And tons of students walking to Westchester, Renfroe, and DHS.
Decatur residents who live on the other side of Scott (and there are a lot of us) must cross the road on foot, by car, or on bike to access the rest of the city.
Infrastructure upgrades on Scott can calm traffic without clogging the artery and will greatly improve safety for all road users.
Why should we prioritize the views of transient commuters who consciously choose to drive this route when there are other options available? And 100 people? You may want to recount. There are dozens of single-family homes, but many more condo, townhome, and multifamily units between N Decatur and E Ponce.
This isn’t like buying near an airport. Most homes abut a public road. I’m not saying do away with the road, it’s state or US highway designation, or ban cars from it.
And I’m laughing at the “intended purpose” line. Most public rights-of-way were not built solely for cars. Did I miss a sign somewhere along Scott Blvd that says “No Pedestrians”? You are confusing Scott Blvd with an interstate. Scott has certainly become car-first because of GDOT’s priorities, but Decatur residents can ask for higher standards. Look at Peachtree Street in Buckhead. It was a 5-lane state highway and the residents and investors demanded a higher quality design. It still is 4 lanes, but it has medians, larger sidewalks, nice streetscape, and crazy amounts of investment today that equals higher values.
I’m saying maybe there are some improvements that would make the road work for those that invest in the area and not only for those who want to get to Atlanta quickly.
Scott is not five lanes through Decatur and it is not a highway. It is supposed to be a boulevard, or “broad street often lined with trees”.
Ha! Its GDOT designation is “highway.” Its functional classification is “arterial.” Its name says “boulevard.” Its street rep is “car sewer.” Its aspirational status is “transit corridor.” #identitycrisis
Agreed, DPD doesn’t enforce busy roads nearly as much as it could. As a result, College Ave., Candler, Scott, Church and others will continue to be racetracks.
This seems like a no-brainer. More income for the city. Within the city’s control without requiring permission from GDOT. Can be implemented almost immediately.
“Related: It took the city three years to get GDOT to approve the installation of sidewalks along Scott in both directions, so don’t hold your breath for any changes along Scott in the near-term, even if there’s general agreement among parties.”
DM, where did the 3 years info come from? Have you actually fact checked it with the City or is it one of those local lore things?
Deanne, I don’t know anything about the sidewalks on Scott but do know for a fact that it took seven years for the Oakhurst village streetscape improvement project to go from final design to breaking ground. I could be mistaken but I believe most or possibly all of that time was consumed by getting it through GDOT. And that project does not involve any speed limit changes or signalization, just moving around curbs and parking spaces.
smalltowngal, I was talking specifically about the sidewalk installations on Scott Blvd. I just recently coordinated (for the Cross-Neighborhoods Committee) with City Senior Engineer John Madajewski for DeKalb DOT and GDOT to use the same permit letter process for the remaining needed Scott Blvd sidewalk section (connecting Willow Lane to the package/tires store) that was used for the City’s sections along Scott Blvd. There was never a hint of any past problems or delays, nor did I run into any issues other than the usual tracking down of busy folks. (2 weeks start to finish.) Once the rest of the funding is found –Fuqua made a sizable contribution, DDOT and GDOT will make it happen.
On the Oakhurst Streetscape, what exactly did the City tell neighbors about GDOT causing this project to take so long?
I don’t remember the specific why’s and wherefore’s of why it took so long. I do remember when we arrived at a final design, a few of us were concerned about when work would begin since we had BBQ Fest coming on in August and Oakhurst Art & Music Festival in October. Hugh Saxon assured us that it would be several years before we needed to worry about construction impact on specific activities and events because it was going to take a while to get through whatever process GDOT required. Sure enough, it took almost exactly seven years.
Huh. I can’t help but wonder if it really took almost 7 years to make it through the GDOT process or if it occasionally got set aside by the City when other major building projects required immediate attention. The Oakhurst Streetscape is a complicated project, but not that dang complicated for GDOT.
Yes, STG is correct. The project took that long to get through the DOT approval and funding process.
Here’s an example from a Hugh Saxon update email dated July 18, 2014, about minor steps in the process that make it slow.
“The City has advertised the project and will take bids on August 5. The bids must be analyzed and submitted to the Georgia Department of Transportation for review prior to awarding a contract, a process that could take 30-60 days.”
GDOT might shoulda taken a bit longer with the bid reviews if folks now can’t open their car doors without scraping against the curb. :0)
Seriously, it definitely gets frustrating to wait while things move slowly through all the steps involved. Hopefully, Oakhursters are elated with the new streetscape.
The timing surely suffered as a result of prioritization but more likely on the GDOT side. The Oakhurst Village processes less than 5,000 pass-through cars daily and that number may even be reduced somewhat by the streetscape project; Scott Blvd. handles around 8 times that. Highway money and the attention that manages it generally go to high-capicity thoroughfares first. Ped and bike safety in conjunction with vehicle processing comes next. Environments where pedestrian activity is prioritized above automobiles (like Oakhurst Village) are last.
Remember, GDOT operated for more than a half century as the State Highway Commission. It will take at least that long to reorder the culture of how they operate.
Scott, glad you restarted this thread (map link above) since I dropped the ball on responding. Your points are good ones. Where you and I differ is on GDOT as partners. I see GDOT as being receptive to collaborating on solutions that also respect their objectives. You seem to be of the mindset (unfortunately, the popular one) that GDOT really isn’t interested in walkable and bikeable communities. It matters that we acknowledge and encourage the changes in GDOT’s culture that are already happening. And on the local level, wouldn’t it be silly to expect GDOT to prioritize CoD projects if it’s inevitable they’ll be scapegoated for any and all delays? Gotta work with folks in good faith.
I don’t think pointing out their present priorities is a value judgment and I think you mischaracterize what I’m saying when you suggest I believe that GDOT really isn’t interested in walkable and bike-able communities. What I said is that, in the distribution of dollars (and with them, human capital), such community investments presently fall near or at the end, behind the scenarios I mentioned. Folks can read into that what they choose.
I’m happy to applaud GDOT’s evolving priorities, but they’ve still a long way to go (if you happen to share my priorities, of course; others’ mileage may vary). I’ve worked with state DOTs across the US for years and I’ve watched the culture shift unfold at varying speeds throughout them. From that, I can say this: Pretty much consistently across the board, change is being driven by rogue idealists on the inside and those folks (I’ve met many of them) sally forth heroically despite being almost perpetually demoralized.
This has nothing to do with the helpful intentions of GDOT folks or the importance of working with what we’ve got rather than what we wish we had. It’s just the reality of an enormous and powerful institution that’s undergoing a change in course but, like all big ships, is doing so very slowly. That’s not really a criticism. It’s more a form of Zen-like acceptance on my part.
Thanks for weighing in again. I apologize for mischaracterizing your take on GDOT (which I drew from your 50 years to change GDOT, not GDOT’s priorities). Hopefully, what you’ve added will give other folks some good food for thought too. What I’d ask is that you pitch in to help change the way we discuss GDOT so that the rogue idealists do feel the uphill battle’s worth it. And to boost our karma! :0)
Driving along busy State Route 141 on Sunday at 8pm, it struck me how Suwanee and John’s Creek have managed to work with GDOT to create what we’re after for Scott Blvd. Beautifully planted center medians, miles of bike lanes, sidewalks and paved paths, plenty of safe pedestrian crossings. Folks were out strolling, I passed by a few cyclists, and traffic was flowing. I’d love to see the same happen here.
I would point out that those roads were 2 lane highways in the not so distant past, whereas Scott Blvd was designed and to some degree right-of-way constrained almost 70 years ago. When it was designed, Scott Blvd was probably considered an advanced design and not expected to handle anywhere near the traffic that it now has. The roads you reference in N Fulton benefit from having been designed much later with urban planning input that did not exist for Scott Blvd.
I agree, Steve. However, that GDOT, the involved Governments, the property owners and developers ( and possibly, the community) have all worked together to achieve such a cars/bikes/pedestrians friendly transformation is to be commended.
(Also cool is when they have those golf tournaments and bring in the temporary elevated pedestrian bridge. I’m always tempted to pull over and give it a try! :0)
As someone with a child who walked along Scott to the old Westchester, DM’s accounting rings true. In fact,I would have guessed 5 years.
The 3 years was from when the Mayor first asked for input on it and when it actually happened. So you’re right, I need to change the onus here. I don’t actually know why it took so long. Done and done. 🙂
Just put a traffic light at the entrance to Westchester Elementary.
This is needed. It might mess up all us commuters but oh well. Children walking to school should come first. And the Clairemont/Scott intersection is already a hot mess. In fact, a Westchester traffic light that was synchronized properly with the Clairemont/Scott light could possibly improve things. Not that I’ve ever seen a properly synchronized system of traffic lights in Georgia.
A Hawk light for pedestrians on Scott Blvd at Nelson Ferry would allow the kids walking to Westchester from south/east of Coventry to reduce their time spent on Scott’s unsafe sidewalks (they’d take Merrill right into the Westchester/Chelsea Heights neighborhood). Not to mention helping out the Venetian Pool users darting across Scott from Pinetree and Nelson Ferry where they park their cars. It would be great if Venetian could contribute toward a Hawk (along with funds from GDOT and CoD) for a more permanent solution, instead of paying officers on swim meet days to enforce the existing crosswalk that drivers ignore.
I’m a Venetian member who would certainly support the use of some Venetian funds to make the Scott crossing safer. Easy for me to say since I know nothing of Venetian’s budget.