Councilman Hilbert on the roundabout
Update #2
AHowever, if you look at the AM and PM peaks, you have 255 illegal left turns in the AM and 252 in the PM, when left turns are not allowed.
Look at the PM numbers. Almost all are left, northbound on Hermitage from people getting off I-64.
Doesn’t change the ratio of overall traffic, but that means almost 10% or AM and PM traffic is driving illegally and that’s why you have so many accidents. You put in a roundabout and the illegal left turns disappear.
It is a safety issue that no rumble strip or raised crosswalk will solve.
Does anyone actually know when which turns are illegal?
Update
One of the worries about the proposed roundabout is the uneven traffic flow between Laburnum/Hermitage. DPW cites the numbers as 55/45 and Hilbert sites them as 66/33. Here is the PDF with the actual numbers (PDF) if you want to take a look at it yourself. It supports Hilbert’s worry:AM peak traffic
- Laburnum: 1883, Hermitage: 978, ratio: 66/34
Noon peak traffic
- Laburnum: 1019, Hermitage: 655, ratio: 61/39
PM peak traffic
- Laburnum: 2035, Hermitage: 1012, ratio: 67/33
Average
- Laburnum: 1645, Hermitage: 881, ratio: 65/35
Original
This was posted as a comment on the previous post and sent to NRN from Hilbert’s council liason:
Subject: ROUNDABOUT-Please post to the community web groupsThird District residents and fellow Northsiders,
Some folks are complaining about the $70,000 already spent which may not be reimbursed by the state. Is their argument that we should spend $300,000 of the states’ money on a flawed plan to save the city $70,000 ?. I think that we are all state taxpayers as well, aren’t we ? The number was $50,000 last year. The Acting CAO asked me why city personnel would continue to spend money on a project that was pending before council. I think that is an excellent question !
Please allow me to state the issues that I have with the proposed roundabout:
1) All examples of roundabouts presented to the community had significant traffic calming before the intersections. My requests to have this issue addressed were rebuffed, with statements that VDOT would not allow such measures. Then when DPW personnel got in front of the Land Use committee of council, they changed their story. Subsequently they changed it back. Avon, CO, cited in the community presentations, instituted traffic calming measures such as blinking lights and raised sidewalks, features that our traffic engineering department say VDOT will not approve. Further, bicyclists in Avon are advised for their own safety to use the sidewalk when coming through the intersection. Finally, the speed limit at the Avon, CO roundabouts is 15 MPH. Our intersection has a 35 MPH speed limit.
2) The complete lack of an education plan. There is essentially NO plan to educate the public on how to navigate a roundabout. After a dual lane roundabout was installed in Avon, IN, (different from the Colorado city cited above) the traffic accidents were up to 4 a month
Education of the public should not be an afterthought.
3) All studies cited about this roundabout design were based either: a)
designs from Australia b) 9 years old or c) located in Avon, CO. There were NO official traffic studies done on this intersection and the roundabout was the only alternative considered.4) According to their own estimates, DPW admits that the people in the 1600 block of Laburnum Ave. will have approximately 10 seconds to back out of their driveway during rush hour due to the removal of traffic lights. These houses do not have alleys. I suppose that they could park on the street but given the 10 second window, are they to get into their vehicle via the passenger side ? I don’t accept this as adequate and suspect that no one who faced a similar situation would think it satisfactory.
5) Roundabouts work best when the traffic flow is somewhat even and the Laburnum/Hermitage flow is 55/45 respectively, was the information given at the public presentations. However when given the actual traffic count, I found it was actually 67 to 33 (or 2 to 1–no where near even).
6) No answers were forthcoming regarding the possibility of large trucks to remain in their lane and possibly “crowding out” other vehicles inside the roundabout.
7) Numerous times the Dept of Public Works wrote or said that the city would lose this grant from the state if it weren’t used within a certain time frame. They have now admitted to Acting CAO Chris Beschler that this was untrue.
8) While I would love to leave traffic matters to the “experts,” as you can see from the above, it is difficult to rely upon the information that was given to the community when a little research has shown their information to be, at best, misleading.
Mr. Beschler has offered to host a meeting with VDOT and city personnel to explore alternatives to a roundabout. Mr. Beschler is someone who is very objective. His willingness to seek alternatives to the proposed roundabout would seem to add credibility to my concerns.
Believe me, no one wants this to be resolved more than me. But this isn’t about me. It’s about you and what we should expect from our government. I think that we got less than we deserved: a thorough analysis of how we could make this intersection safer at a reasonable cost.
Chris Hilbert
Thank you for your detailed response, Mr. Hilbert.
I respectfully disagree that any of us including you know more about traffic engineering, though. We may not like their answers but sometimes that is how government works.
I must ask you, however, why in the world did you not bring these questions up 11 months ago when you introduced the ordinance?
There have been 11 opportunities to address this before now and while I know government moves slowly, there is no excuse for this coming to a head almost a year after you introduced it.
Councilman Hilbert’s comments seem reasonable to me. I have no problem if the process is still being worked. My concern was that the broad goal of “make this dangerous intersection safer” would die a bureaucratic death, and that concern has been allayed for the present.
North Side should consider itself very lucky it has such a smart, communicative Councilperson.
Agree with him or not, Hilbert is SO much better than what other districts are stuck with.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a turn from East Bound Laburnum to North Hermitage is not illegal at any time of day.
Illegal AM left turns? The only restrictions I am aware of are 4-6pm for 3 directions. Traffic from 64 has no restrictions.
I think you are correct, but not sure. I frequently ride my bike by there on way to the park and see the red no left turn signs like they have on Boulevard but not sure if they come on or not anymore during rush hour.
Carpetbagger!! :)
I know that left turns are forbidden on some approaches at certain times but unsure of exactly which approach and what times. It would be very good to know in order to properly analyze those traffic numbers. With a roundabout, left turns that are currently forbidden would be allowed and the numbers would increase for those movements. It seems that Chris and others are rightly unhappy with DPW for not being 100% forthcoming with data and information. I would like to note, though, that a traffic split of 60/40 or 70/30 does not mean the roundabout wouldn’t work well. It would work better at 50/50 but that ideal is rare. Mostly, you want to avoid something like an 85/15 split or greater.
I would think that no left turn signs result in two things: people that do them illegally anyway and make it unsafe, and people that need to turn left that end up using the side streets to get where they need to go. Scudder you are right: roundabout eliminates both of those issues.
Scudder:
Just asking: are the splits you indicate as being acceptable for the roundabout functioning properly your numbers or documented numbers?
David, those are numbers I threw out as generalities but they are based on my experience and knowledge as a transportation planner. Ideally one should do a detailed analysis of the traffic using the FHWA handbook to compare the entry volumes to the circulating volumes. I’ve done a preliminary analysis on my own and it appears the roundabout could strain capacity during the AM and PM peaks leading to some queuing for SB Hermitage in the AM and northbound Hermitage in the PM. A more thorough analysis would be needed, though, to properly compare to the existing situation and any proposed alternative.
I go through that intersection every day, it is NOT illegal to turn left onto NB Hermitage during rush hour coming from 64.
PM rush hour that is…..
Well if this aroundabout is built I will be using neighborhood streets to get around it.
So folks that live near I hope you get used to increase of traffic in your nieghborhood.
Considering that with time most people will get used to a roundabout, and that it would allow the left turns now forbidden during peak hours, the neighborhoods streets around there would most likely see a decrease in traffic even if you drove through there many times per day Richard.
I really hope that this round about is not built. I travel this route several times a day, every day. This intersection was a round about before, why did they change it back then to a stoplight intersection? Does anyone know? Richmond drivers will need to be taught how to use a 2 lane round about, they are just slow learners when it comes to different driving conditions, this coming from a lifetime Richmonder. I travel Lombardy and even drivers going though that small roundabout have a difficult time. I don’t think I have been through that intersection but a couple of times that it was a smooth transaction. I can tell you that if it is built and it is the “cluster….” that I think it will be, I hope that Bellevue and Laburnum Park residents are ready for a lot of drivers cutting through their neighborhoods avoiding this intersection. I can tell you that I will be one of them, cutting through several times a day. I have asked quite a few folks that do not live in the city, but travel this intersection daily, they too have stated that they will probably try it once, if it the headache they think it will be at rush hour, they will be diverting through the neighborhoods also. I really think that by building this round about, you will be making many more problems than the ones that exist. Of course, this is just my opinion, take it for what it is worth, everyone has one.
Scudder: Thanks for your response.
I’m not against necessarily the idea of a roundabout. What does trouble me are the following:
1) at a presentation, I was told by Dept staff that there would be an educational campaign to inform residents of the roundabout. A brochure and info on Ch 17 (whose sound seems to be missing) does not an educational campaign make.
2) There will be no traffic calming measures placed before the round about. Drivers are able to get up a good amount of speed leading up to all four entrances to the roundabout. This seems to be a problem.
3) I live in an area near the roundabout. There have been many concerns raised about entering and exiting both Laburnum and Hermitage once the roundabout goes in. The response was to shrug off the concern.
While I do not dispute or argue that the current intersection is less than ideal, a badly thought out replacement is not necessarily more ideal.
I hope that this discussion will continue to be thoughtful and civil as it has been so far.
David, Scott and Richard,
I too hope to keep this discussion civil and reasonable. My last comment was a bit sarcastic but I hope you understand I was just trying to point out that it is more likely to reduce cut through traffic than to increase it. I understand many people may have a gut negative reaction to this because it is unfamiliar, but experience in other places shows that most drivers will learn and adapt, even without an education campaign (not that there shouldn’t be one, it would be advisable). I am not trying to say this is the absolute best solution and there may be some design changes that could improve it, but I do think given the constraints at that intersection and the likely higher costs of other improvements this is probably the “best” overall solution to balance the mobility needs of drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and the issues of costs, safety and neighborhood cut through traffic.
Three other points I want to make.
1) Regarding the Lombardy/Admiral Roundabout, I travel that regularly as I live near there. Some people do get confused and stop, but most times I travel through it, people navigate it fine. I think most people simply remember the times that other drivers screw up better thus developing an illusory correlation.
2) Traffic calming in the vicinity of the roundabout is not necessary to slow traffic entering the roundabout. The entry curves and width, curb radius around the central island and other design elements are designed to force drivers to slow down. Like any other roadway element, someone can try to drive faster than the design allows for and that would create a dangerous situation, but with a roundabout design such a situation is less dangerous than a traditional intersection because all traffic is moving in the same general direction around the central island, thus the much less dangerous sideswipe type collision is the more probable to occur under that circumstance than the very dangerous T-bone or head on collision. I’m not saying traffic calming couldn’t be useful here, I’m just saying it’s not absolutely necessary.
3)I can’t speak directly to the issue of vehicles entering and exiting Laburnum or Hermitage upstream or downstream from the proposed roundabout. Generally, downstream traffic will tend to be more randomly dispersed as opposed to platoon-like which could make it more difficult. To really analyze the question I would want to see a micro-simulation traffic model of the roundabout to gauge its operational characteristics. Nevertheless, I have heard a number of something like 10 seconds of gap in traffic downstream from the roundabout on Laburnum in the peak hour. I live on Overbrook Road and often have far less than 10 seconds to cross the street, get into my car or turn onto the road if I parked in the alley. I know 10 seconds does not sound like a lot of time, but in traffic gap terms, it’s not nearly as short as you’d think. I do think this deserves more than a shrug though.
Scudder, Living on Overbrook, I am sure you can see how the small turn circles have greatly improved slowing people down on that street. Me being sarcastic. ;-)
Scudder…My understanding of the a roundabout was to slow traffic but at the same time keep it moving. I think that roundabout are a good idea if put in the right area.
The issue I have is that 1. Holton School is right there. Children are going to understand rules of the road. 2. People that have homes closest to the roundabout don’t have alley access they only have drive access. So during rush hour and on race day, these people are not going to have 10 seconds to pull of thier driveways. 3. If this is installed and doesn’t work, the City said they would revisit it 3 to 5 years. The cost of removing it will be about 200K to 300K and will have to be paid for by the City. 4. If lived near the A.P. Hill roundabout I would put my house for sale before it went in. Cause once it goes in it going to be very hard to sell those houses.
The little circles on Overbrook are not the same cause they are not really roundabouts. And even if they were considered roundabouts they would be one lane and not two lane like the one at A.P. Hill. Two lane roundabouts are much different then one lane. The roundabouts on Overbrook are not working in slowing down traffic cause the police have been out on Overbook pulling people over for speeding. Also, the one circle on closest to North has been run over so many times I can’t even count.
As stated before roundabouts can work with the right application but not in this location. There are too many other factors the city traffic dept and VDOT has not taken into considertion.
Richmond drivers are the worst drivers I’ve ever seen. They are either too slow or too fast. Both are dangerous and annoying. For example, I am always either being tailgated and/or watching someone take 30 seconds or more to move after the light turns green. Of course, they are also usually talking on the phone.
Richmond drivers are not ready for a large roundabout.
Well, at the risk to banging my head against the wall one too many times, I’m going to keep trying to respond here.
Richard, yes a roundabout is generally designed to maintain a consistent but slow flow of traffic.
1) Certainly the school is a complicating factor. I think, however, a properly designed educational program would include ways to teach children and parent at Holton how to navigate the roundabout as a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorist (for parents). The existing crosswalks are well over 100 feet long whereas the new ones will be 26 feet long with a refuge median in the middle. True, there will not be a stop light to hold traffic, but right now with the left turn movements the way they are, it is almost more dangerous than it would be with a roundabout because motorists are so focused on watching for gaps in the opposing traffic while getting around the statue. Also, I thought there was a crossing guard to help students cross Laburnum.
2) As to the driveway access, the 10 second figure I have heard supposedly refers to the peak hour. Again, I can’t really make a reasonable judgment without more information. As to race day, well there’s not much that any redesign could do about that no matter what. It’s not really possible to design a roadway or intersection for such a large, special event. That requires proper management by the police no matter what kind of intersection design you have.
3) If there are operational problems, it does not mean the roundabout would have to be removed. I recommend you check out the FHWA roundabout guide, available at http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00068.htm. Check out page 214 regarding metered entrances and pedestrian signals. Both could be added should operational problems arise. I think that VDOT and DPW would prefer not to install them upfront to see if it works without them first.
4) Yeah the mini-circles on Overbrook are a complete failure, but that is because they are not real roundabouts. They are not yield controlled at all entrances, they have no splitter islands or curved entrances to force vehicles to slow and there are no real curbs on the islands to deter vehicles from running over the center island. I have a whole set of ideas for Overbrook, but don’t get me started.
Scudders comments seem quite reasonable. It may be that DPW and VDOT have not answered all questions as well or promptly as they should, but looking over the presentation notes to the Bellevue Civic Association (which, along with Rosedale Civic Association, voted in support of the roundabout), it looks like DPW did a decent job of presenting the relevant info. Contrary to Hilbert’s claim, they included information on two-lane roundabouts (which they call high-capacity or something like that, maybe that’s where the confusion lies). They clarified that canceling the project would not directly keep Richmond from getting such funds in the future, although it could impact the city’s chances of getting them. Another thing that I don’t see in Hilbert’s remarks is that DPW seems to have good evidence that the Monument/Allen roundabout (also 2-lane) has been successful. It may be that DPW has not been totally forthcoming or savvy, but that does not justify an ordinance PROHIBITING a roundabout. Could we have something a bit less drastic?
I’m happy in principle to have a council rep who is willing to press for answers. On the other hand, it’s not clear to me that a _majority_ of district residents are opposed to this, and the fact that some have concerns does not by itself justify canceling the project.
I forgot one thing: Mr. Hilbert makes much, it seems, of Mr. Poole on the Planning Commission voting against the roundabout, which he lives near. That does not amount to a reason to oppose the plan. Tell me why Poole opposes it and maybe I’ll consider it a valid reason.
Jason – your points are all very good ones, esp. the one about who is opposed to it. If you listen to the audio tape on the previous roundabout post on NRN, Hilbert says the vast majority of those that are educated about this proposal are against it. Yet there is little if any proof of that statement other than that unsubstantiated statement.
And your point on Mr. Poole is VERY valid. If one person on the Planning Commission is opposed but the entire Planning Commission is in favor (which it is of the roundabout), then that is how government works.
I’m afriad we have a case here of the minority halting the majority and that is never good government.
The minority halting the majority is never good government when you are in the majority. Remember that things shift.
Minority rights in a republic are hard, and the filibuster is a powerful tool for both good and ill.
Of course, the simplest answer to this is to remove the monument and relocate General Hill’s remains to the base named in his honor. Traffic Engineering can then proceed from there.
[...] I assume that DPW is talking more about these temporary traffic circles seen in Church Hill and less about the proposed roundabout at Hermitage and Laburnum. [...]