Comments on: Councilman Hilbert on the roundabout

By: North Richmond News » Roundabouts roundup - Richmond, Virginia

North Richmond News » Roundabouts roundup - Richmond, Virginia — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:52:23 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: David

David — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:50:06 +0000

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.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:43:59 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:31:07 +0000

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.

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:56:44 +0000

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.

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:41:41 +0000

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.

By: Scudder

Scudder — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:28:28 +0000

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.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:33:09 +0000

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.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:07:19 +0000

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.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:43:48 +0000

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. ;-)