menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Court Street limited to Pedestrians
Page: 2 of 3
mail
person
MedinaCat
1/13/2016 9:14 AM
Aren't the old style traffic circles that are in Jersey and the Northeast different than the new roundabouts that being installed in many places?

What's your opinion of the Michigan left?(kidding)
mail
OhioCatFan
1/13/2016 11:38 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Circles create confusion as to who has the right of way. [/QUOTE]This may be true of "circles" but it's not true of European-style roundabouts as we have on Richland Avenue. If you know the rules, which are very simple, they are a breeze to navigate. You simple "give left" to anyone currently on the roundabout, and then once you are on the roundabout you have the right-of-way over anyone trying to get on it. You simply go around until you get to your exit and go on that road. If you miss it, you can simply circle around a second time, without missing a beat. My first exposure to roundabouts was in England in the previous decade where you had to "give right" because those Limeys drive on the wrong side of the road. But even there, after a lot of initial confusion, I got the hang of it. The only people now that I see having trouble with the Richland roundabout are people from out-of-town (like on Parents Weekend) who haven't had much experience with them. For the record, I was initially very skeptical about the Richland roundabout and thought the locals would never get the hang of it. I was wrong.

They are inefficient compared to a signalized intersection.
Completely untrue. The Richland roundabout shows this in spades. Traffic flow is 100 percent more efficient now than when it was signalized, even in peak flow periods.

They are also brutal on pedestrians, since most don't have the underground passage like Richland Avenue.
I would concur on this point. All roundabouts where there is also sufficient pedestrian traffic should have tunnels or bridges for pedestrians.

[QUOTE=rpbobcat] Then again, that underground passage increases noticeably the time you need to cross the circle.
Tough cookies. Most Americans need the exercise. ;-)
Last Edited: 1/13/2016 11:39:33 AM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
Mark Lembright '85
1/13/2016 4:28 PM
We have several circles here in the East side of Cleveland. I've never had a problem with them as they seem pretty easy to navigate, but for whatever reason the circles seem to drive Westsiders nuts!
mail
person
Alan Swank
1/13/2016 5:00 PM
I've never had a traffic backup since they put in the circle - used to back up all the time.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/13/2016 5:30 PM
The Richland avenue circle has been amazing!! Flow has been fabulous and for those having to enter or leave at peake times it's been a blessing of free flowing traffic. Same with the off-ramp with the double Round in Logan.
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/13/2016 5:36 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Circles create confusion as to who has the right of way.
This may be true of "circles" but it's not true of European-style roundabouts as we have on Richland Avenue. If you know the rules, which are very simple, they are a breeze to navigate. You simple "give left" to anyone currently on the roundabout, and then once you are on the roundabout you have the right-of-way over anyone trying to get on it. You simply go around until you get to your exit and go on that road. If you miss it, you can simply circle around a second time, without missing a beat. My first exposure to roundabouts was in England in the previous decade where you had to "give right" because those Limeys drive on the wrong side of the road. But even there, after a lot of initial confusion, I got the hang of it. The only people now that I see having trouble with the Richland roundabout are people from out-of-town (like on Parents Weekend) who haven't had much experience with them. For the record, I was initially very skeptical about the Richland roundabout and thought the locals would never get the hang of it. I was wrong.

They are inefficient compared to a signalized intersection.
Completely untrue. The Richland roundabout shows this in spades. Traffic flow is 100 percent more efficient now than when it was signalized, even in peak flow periods.

They are also brutal on pedestrians, since most don't have the underground passage like Richland Avenue.
I would concur on this point. All roundabouts where there is also sufficient pedestrian traffic should have tunnels or bridges for pedestrians.

Then again, that underground passage increases noticeably the time you need to cross the circle.
Tough cookies. Most Americans need the exercise. ;-)
Where to begin ?

1.As far as the European model,its 100% anecdotal, but I recall a number of films that make use of the confusing nature of European roundaboouts.

2.If you know and follow the "rules of the road",have relatively low traffic volumes and are familiar with a particular roundabout it might work.
But without all of those things,a roundabout, especially in high traffic areas,like New Jersey,don't work well and cause more accidents then signalized intersections especially during rush hour.

3.Sorry but I have to disagree on capacity.Every traffic study I've seen, as well as actual traffic counts, show that a properly signalized intersection not only has greater capacity,but also has a better "level of service" which takes into account a number of factors.

4.I agree 100% about exercise.
Then again,running across traffic lanes to avoid being hit is great exercise.

As to Allen's comment.
If that was happening,the signals weren't properly timed/phased.
That can also been an issue,depending on how the pedestrian button "over rides"
work.
mail
OhioCatFan
1/13/2016 10:14 PM
Alan, et al:

What we have on Richland is not a circle but a roundabout., They are not the same thing.

See: http://tinyurl.com/halbb9m
Last Edited: 1/13/2016 10:16:42 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/14/2016 4:04 PM
This topic really piqued my curiosity so I talked to a friend of mine who's a Traffic Engineer.

He's been involved with a couple of roundabout projects in South Jersey.

What he said was:

1.A roundabout can work well,but only if the traffic volumes from all approaches are about the same.

2.They work best for relatively low volume intersections.

3.They have to be heavily signed and striped or they can be confusing,especially to people who are unfamiliar with roundabouts in general or a roundabout at a particular intersection.
Its also essential that speed restrictions be enforced.

He said there is a "learning curve" and that once people in an area get used to a new roundabout the traffic flow through them improves.

4.Overall,signalized intersections with proper phasing and timing will out perform a roundabout.
mail
DelBobcat
1/14/2016 4:13 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Circles create confusion as to who has the right of way.
This may be true of "circles" but it's not true of European-style roundabouts as we have on Richland Avenue. If you know the rules, which are very simple, they are a breeze to navigate. You simple "give left" to anyone currently on the roundabout, and then once you are on the roundabout you have the right-of-way over anyone trying to get on it. You simply go around until you get to your exit and go on that road. If you miss it, you can simply circle around a second time, without missing a beat. My first exposure to roundabouts was in England in the previous decade where you had to "give right" because those Limeys drive on the wrong side of the road. But even there, after a lot of initial confusion, I got the hang of it. The only people now that I see having trouble with the Richland roundabout are people from out-of-town (like on Parents Weekend) who haven't had much experience with them. For the record, I was initially very skeptical about the Richland roundabout and thought the locals would never get the hang of it. I was wrong.

They are inefficient compared to a signalized intersection.
Completely untrue. The Richland roundabout shows this in spades. Traffic flow is 100 percent more efficient now than when it was signalized, even in peak flow periods.

They are also brutal on pedestrians, since most don't have the underground passage like Richland Avenue.
I would concur on this point. All roundabouts where there is also sufficient pedestrian traffic should have tunnels or bridges for pedestrians.

Then again, that underground passage increases noticeably the time you need to cross the circle.
Tough cookies. Most Americans need the exercise. ;-)
Where to begin ?

1.As far as the European model,its 100% anecdotal, but I recall a number of films that make use of the confusing nature of European roundaboouts.

2.If you know and follow the "rules of the road",have relatively low traffic volumes and are familiar with a particular roundabout it might work.
But without all of those things,a roundabout, especially in high traffic areas,like New Jersey,don't work well and cause more accidents then signalized intersections especially during rush hour.

3.Sorry but I have to disagree on capacity.Every traffic study I've seen, as well as actual traffic counts, show that a properly signalized intersection not only has greater capacity,but also has a better "level of service" which takes into account a number of factors.

4.I agree 100% about exercise.
Then again,running across traffic lanes to avoid being hit is great exercise.

As to Allen's comment.
If that was happening,the signals weren't properly timed/phased.
That can also been an issue,depending on how the pedestrian button "over rides"
work.
Hmmm I'm going to have to step in and counter your Engineer opinion with my Urban Planner opinion. Roundabouts are so much safer than signalized intersections and that's why they are superior. They remove the deadliest points of conflict, which are left turns. Just using the Athens one as an example, that intersection used to be one of the most dangerous in the state and now it is very safe. What you have in NJ are not roundabouts, by the way. New Jersey traffic circles are a completely different animal, and I agree they are confusing and need to go.

Also, to your point about parking in downtowns. How did you come to the conclusion that one-way streets are best or that removing on-street parking is a good idea? One way streets encourage speeding and are a huge hazard to pedestrians as a result. More recently, their ability to move traffic faster (the only reason they are ever cited as good) has even been questioned. Likewise, parallel parking provides a buffer between traffic and the sidewalk creating a safer pedestrian environment. Academic research has shown positive correlations between parallel parking and economic vitality of a commercial area. I should also note that surface parking has the opposite effect, gobbling up land that could be used for a better use while also increasing distances between destinations (which kills pedestrian life and hurts businesses).

It seems from your comments that your only concern is moving traffic through an area as quickly as possible--which is a very old school way of thinking. We now realize that a little bit of congestion is okay, because congestion means that people want to be in your downtown (i.e. Manhattan is much more congested than downtown Detroit).

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/01/case-against-one-w... /

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/17/wh... /

http://articles.philly.com/2012-05-19/news/31766282_1_lim...
Last Edited: 1/14/2016 4:14:04 PM by DelBobcat
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/14/2016 6:02 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Circles create confusion as to who has the right of way.
This may be true of "circles" but it's not true of European-style roundabouts as we have on Richland Avenue. If you know the rules, which are very simple, they are a breeze to navigate. You simple "give left" to anyone currently on the roundabout, and then once you are on the roundabout you have the right-of-way over anyone trying to get on it. You simply go around until you get to your exit and go on that road. If you miss it, you can simply circle around a second time, without missing a beat. My first exposure to roundabouts was in England in the previous decade where you had to "give right" because those Limeys drive on the wrong side of the road. But even there, after a lot of initial confusion, I got the hang of it. The only people now that I see having trouble with the Richland roundabout are people from out-of-town (like on Parents Weekend) who haven't had much experience with them. For the record, I was initially very skeptical about the Richland roundabout and thought the locals would never get the hang of it. I was wrong.

They are inefficient compared to a signalized intersection.
Completely untrue. The Richland roundabout shows this in spades. Traffic flow is 100 percent more efficient now than when it was signalized, even in peak flow periods.

They are also brutal on pedestrians, since most don't have the underground passage like Richland Avenue.
I would concur on this point. All roundabouts where there is also sufficient pedestrian traffic should have tunnels or bridges for pedestrians.

Then again, that underground passage increases noticeably the time you need to cross the circle.
Tough cookies. Most Americans need the exercise. ;-)
Where to begin ?

1.As far as the European model,its 100% anecdotal, but I recall a number of films that make use of the confusing nature of European roundaboouts.

2.If you know and follow the "rules of the road",have relatively low traffic volumes and are familiar with a particular roundabout it might work.
But without all of those things,a roundabout, especially in high traffic areas,like New Jersey,don't work well and cause more accidents then signalized intersections especially during rush hour.

3.Sorry but I have to disagree on capacity.Every traffic study I've seen, as well as actual traffic counts, show that a properly signalized intersection not only has greater capacity,but also has a better "level of service" which takes into account a number of factors.

4.I agree 100% about exercise.
Then again,running across traffic lanes to avoid being hit is great exercise.

As to Allen's comment.
If that was happening,the signals weren't properly timed/phased.
That can also been an issue,depending on how the pedestrian button "over rides"
work.
Hmmm I'm going to have to step in and counter your Engineer opinion with my Urban Planner opinion. Roundabouts are so much safer than signalized intersections and that's why they are superior. They remove the deadliest points of conflict, which are left turns. Just using the Athens one as an example, that intersection used to be one of the most dangerous in the state and now it is very safe. What you have in NJ are not roundabouts, by the way. New Jersey traffic circles are a completely different animal, and I agree they are confusing and need to go.

Also, to your point about parking in downtowns. How did you come to the conclusion that one-way streets are best or that removing on-street parking is a good idea? One way streets encourage speeding and are a huge hazard to pedestrians as a result. More recently, their ability to move traffic faster (the only reason they are ever cited as good) has even been questioned. Likewise, parallel parking provides a buffer between traffic and the sidewalk creating a safer pedestrian environment. Academic research has shown positive correlations between parallel parking and economic vitality of a commercial area. I should also note that surface parking has the opposite effect, gobbling up land that could be used for a better use while also increasing distances between destinations (which kills pedestrian life and hurts businesses).

It seems from your comments that your only concern is moving traffic through an area as quickly as possible--which is a very old school way of thinking. We now realize that a little bit of congestion is okay, because congestion means that people want to be in your downtown (i.e. Manhattan is much more congested than downtown Detroit).

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/01/case-against-one-w... /

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/17/wh... /

http://articles.philly.com/2012-05-19/news/31766282_1_lim...
First off,in addition to an engineer,I'm also licensed as a professional planner in N.J.

What I've seen in the Downtown Revitalization Projects I've worked on is that "convenience" seems to be a primary factor in people using a Downtown Business District (DBD) ,as opposed to malls.

I work primarily in Bergen County,the shopping center capital of the world it seems.
Malls killed the DBD's in most Towns around here and they've been trying to reverse the trend since the early 1970's.

Most of our DBD's have 2 lane roads through them.

With two way traffic, anyone pulling into,out of, or waiting for an on street parallel parking space stops traffic in that direction until the parking maneuver is completed.Thats not congestion,that's grid lock.

With a one way street there is the ability for some traffic flow to be maintained with on street parallel parking.
Obviously this only works if you have 2 parallel streets to handle traffic each way.

The situation is further improved by the use of "tandem" parallel spaces.

By the way,as far I know,most of midtown Manhattan is one way.

As far as speeding,most of the DBD's have traffic lights every couple of blocks.
Combine that with "Traffic Calming" and the sheer number of vehicles in this area and speeding hasn't been an issue.

We also found that promoting multi-use buildings with residential,retail and office in the same building or complex combined with convenient off street parking helps a lot.

There are a number of options for Downtown Redevelopment.
Some of my approaches may be "old school",but I've seen and continue to see them be successful.
mail
OhioStunter
1/15/2016 12:31 AM
Back to the original point of this post, what are the reasons for wanting to turn Court Street into a pedestrian mall? Are the sidewalks not large enough? Are people being hit crossing the street? I like to think of things in problem-solution terms and I don't understand what the problem is. But the solution is to spend money to change it?
mail
The Optimist
1/15/2016 7:46 AM
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
Back to the original point of this post, what are the reasons for wanting to turn Court Street into a pedestrian mall? Are the sidewalks not large enough? Are people being hit crossing the street? I like to think of things in problem-solution terms and I don't understand what the problem is. But the solution is to spend money to change it?
I think creating a pedestrian mall creates an atmosphere more friendly to being a social gathering place and retail-friendly area.

At the core of it, I think the "problem" is that Court Street just isn't an automobile-centered retail area. The bulk of the people and money flowing through that area not to mention the people LIVING above the shops rely on walking more than cars. Making it an area catered to walkers will enhance what is already a pretty great area IMO.

I would point to places like some of these large outdoor malls in CBUS, Bourbon Street, and maybe the best example being East Fourth in Cleveland. Very similar to East Fourth in Cleveland was 4th Street Live in Louisville which I remember from playing there in football. The pedestrian-centered zone opens up a lot of opportunities.

As it stands now, two lanes of traffic and parking on both sides takes up a lot of VALUABLE space. That space could be used better.
Last Edited: 1/15/2016 7:49:01 AM by The Optimist
mail
DelBobcat
1/15/2016 12:32 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Circles create confusion as to who has the right of way.
This may be true of "circles" but it's not true of European-style roundabouts as we have on Richland Avenue. If you know the rules, which are very simple, they are a breeze to navigate. You simple "give left" to anyone currently on the roundabout, and then once you are on the roundabout you have the right-of-way over anyone trying to get on it. You simply go around until you get to your exit and go on that road. If you miss it, you can simply circle around a second time, without missing a beat. My first exposure to roundabouts was in England in the previous decade where you had to "give right" because those Limeys drive on the wrong side of the road. But even there, after a lot of initial confusion, I got the hang of it. The only people now that I see having trouble with the Richland roundabout are people from out-of-town (like on Parents Weekend) who haven't had much experience with them. For the record, I was initially very skeptical about the Richland roundabout and thought the locals would never get the hang of it. I was wrong.

They are inefficient compared to a signalized intersection.
Completely untrue. The Richland roundabout shows this in spades. Traffic flow is 100 percent more efficient now than when it was signalized, even in peak flow periods.

They are also brutal on pedestrians, since most don't have the underground passage like Richland Avenue.
I would concur on this point. All roundabouts where there is also sufficient pedestrian traffic should have tunnels or bridges for pedestrians.

Then again, that underground passage increases noticeably the time you need to cross the circle.
Tough cookies. Most Americans need the exercise. ;-)
Where to begin ?

1.As far as the European model,its 100% anecdotal, but I recall a number of films that make use of the confusing nature of European roundaboouts.

2.If you know and follow the "rules of the road",have relatively low traffic volumes and are familiar with a particular roundabout it might work.
But without all of those things,a roundabout, especially in high traffic areas,like New Jersey,don't work well and cause more accidents then signalized intersections especially during rush hour.

3.Sorry but I have to disagree on capacity.Every traffic study I've seen, as well as actual traffic counts, show that a properly signalized intersection not only has greater capacity,but also has a better "level of service" which takes into account a number of factors.

4.I agree 100% about exercise.
Then again,running across traffic lanes to avoid being hit is great exercise.

As to Allen's comment.
If that was happening,the signals weren't properly timed/phased.
That can also been an issue,depending on how the pedestrian button "over rides"
work.
Hmmm I'm going to have to step in and counter your Engineer opinion with my Urban Planner opinion. Roundabouts are so much safer than signalized intersections and that's why they are superior. They remove the deadliest points of conflict, which are left turns. Just using the Athens one as an example, that intersection used to be one of the most dangerous in the state and now it is very safe. What you have in NJ are not roundabouts, by the way. New Jersey traffic circles are a completely different animal, and I agree they are confusing and need to go.

Also, to your point about parking in downtowns. How did you come to the conclusion that one-way streets are best or that removing on-street parking is a good idea? One way streets encourage speeding and are a huge hazard to pedestrians as a result. More recently, their ability to move traffic faster (the only reason they are ever cited as good) has even been questioned. Likewise, parallel parking provides a buffer between traffic and the sidewalk creating a safer pedestrian environment. Academic research has shown positive correlations between parallel parking and economic vitality of a commercial area. I should also note that surface parking has the opposite effect, gobbling up land that could be used for a better use while also increasing distances between destinations (which kills pedestrian life and hurts businesses).

It seems from your comments that your only concern is moving traffic through an area as quickly as possible--which is a very old school way of thinking. We now realize that a little bit of congestion is okay, because congestion means that people want to be in your downtown (i.e. Manhattan is much more congested than downtown Detroit).

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/01/case-against-one-w... /

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/17/wh... /

http://articles.philly.com/2012-05-19/news/31766282_1_lim...
First off,in addition to an engineer,I'm also licensed as a professional planner in N.J.

What I've seen in the Downtown Revitalization Projects I've worked on is that "convenience" seems to be a primary factor in people using a Downtown Business District (DBD) ,as opposed to malls.

I work primarily in Bergen County,the shopping center capital of the world it seems.
Malls killed the DBD's in most Towns around here and they've been trying to reverse the trend since the early 1970's.

Most of our DBD's have 2 lane roads through them.

With two way traffic, anyone pulling into,out of, or waiting for an on street parallel parking space stops traffic in that direction until the parking maneuver is completed.Thats not congestion,that's grid lock.

With a one way street there is the ability for some traffic flow to be maintained with on street parallel parking.
Obviously this only works if you have 2 parallel streets to handle traffic each way.

The situation is further improved by the use of "tandem" parallel spaces.

By the way,as far I know,most of midtown Manhattan is one way.

As far as speeding,most of the DBD's have traffic lights every couple of blocks.
Combine that with "Traffic Calming" and the sheer number of vehicles in this area and speeding hasn't been an issue.

We also found that promoting multi-use buildings with residential,retail and office in the same building or complex combined with convenient off street parking helps a lot.

There are a number of options for Downtown Redevelopment.
Some of my approaches may be "old school",but I've seen and continue to see them be successful.
Definitely not trying to question your credentials or knowledge, it's just that a lot of what you're saying doesn't ring true to me. Surely different planners can have different opinions but there is pretty substantial research out there refuting some of these things.

North Jersey may be an atypical case since they are so in love with their malls, maybe more so than anywhere else in the country.

Again you talk about traffic flow, but that shouldn't be our focus at all with Court Street. We should view it as a destination, not as a thoroughfare to get from campus to State Street. In fact East State Street's problem is that it is more of a thoroughfare than a destination. We also disagree on tandem parallel spaces. I think normal parallel spaces work just fine and the tandem spaces just take up more valuable space. But I do believe that is an issue on which reasonable people (and even professionals) can disagree. In regard to Manhattan, I would say that the one-way streets are actually a huge barrier and that they would be better off to convert them to two way. Again, I recognize that it has the potential (though it is debated in the literature) to decrease capacity. But I think the benefits outweigh the positives.

Multi-use buildings is something we can agree completely upon, so cheers to that!

Back to the original discussion, I don't see the benefit in making Court Street pedestrian-only. I would rather see the road diet be applied to Union and add the outdoor space there. I'd also like to see if there are other ways to make Court Street more pedestrian-friendly, rather than ban cars completely. I believe that the properties north of State Street have to provide more parking because they can't get credit for the city parking garage. That's why the character is different north of State Street. I'd like to see that changed. Eliminate parking minimums and let the market decide. This may have already happened though, I'm not sure.
Last Edited: 1/15/2016 12:34:00 PM by DelBobcat
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/15/2016 1:44 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Circles create confusion as to who has the right of way.
This may be true of "circles" but it's not true of European-style roundabouts as we have on Richland Avenue. If you know the rules, which are very simple, they are a breeze to navigate. You simple "give left" to anyone currently on the roundabout, and then once you are on the roundabout you have the right-of-way over anyone trying to get on it. You simply go around until you get to your exit and go on that road. If you miss it, you can simply circle around a second time, without missing a beat. My first exposure to roundabouts was in England in the previous decade where you had to "give right" because those Limeys drive on the wrong side of the road. But even there, after a lot of initial confusion, I got the hang of it. The only people now that I see having trouble with the Richland roundabout are people from out-of-town (like on Parents Weekend) who haven't had much experience with them. For the record, I was initially very skeptical about the Richland roundabout and thought the locals would never get the hang of it. I was wrong.

They are inefficient compared to a signalized intersection.
Completely untrue. The Richland roundabout shows this in spades. Traffic flow is 100 percent more efficient now than when it was signalized, even in peak flow periods.

They are also brutal on pedestrians, since most don't have the underground passage like Richland Avenue.
I would concur on this point. All roundabouts where there is also sufficient pedestrian traffic should have tunnels or bridges for pedestrians.

Then again, that underground passage increases noticeably the time you need to cross the circle.
Tough cookies. Most Americans need the exercise. ;-)
Where to begin ?

1.As far as the European model,its 100% anecdotal, but I recall a number of films that make use of the confusing nature of European roundaboouts.

2.If you know and follow the "rules of the road",have relatively low traffic volumes and are familiar with a particular roundabout it might work.
But without all of those things,a roundabout, especially in high traffic areas,like New Jersey,don't work well and cause more accidents then signalized intersections especially during rush hour.

3.Sorry but I have to disagree on capacity.Every traffic study I've seen, as well as actual traffic counts, show that a properly signalized intersection not only has greater capacity,but also has a better "level of service" which takes into account a number of factors.

4.I agree 100% about exercise.
Then again,running across traffic lanes to avoid being hit is great exercise.

As to Allen's comment.
If that was happening,the signals weren't properly timed/phased.
That can also been an issue,depending on how the pedestrian button "over rides"
work.
Hmmm I'm going to have to step in and counter your Engineer opinion with my Urban Planner opinion. Roundabouts are so much safer than signalized intersections and that's why they are superior. They remove the deadliest points of conflict, which are left turns. Just using the Athens one as an example, that intersection used to be one of the most dangerous in the state and now it is very safe. What you have in NJ are not roundabouts, by the way. New Jersey traffic circles are a completely different animal, and I agree they are confusing and need to go.

Also, to your point about parking in downtowns. How did you come to the conclusion that one-way streets are best or that removing on-street parking is a good idea? One way streets encourage speeding and are a huge hazard to pedestrians as a result. More recently, their ability to move traffic faster (the only reason they are ever cited as good) has even been questioned. Likewise, parallel parking provides a buffer between traffic and the sidewalk creating a safer pedestrian environment. Academic research has shown positive correlations between parallel parking and economic vitality of a commercial area. I should also note that surface parking has the opposite effect, gobbling up land that could be used for a better use while also increasing distances between destinations (which kills pedestrian life and hurts businesses).

It seems from your comments that your only concern is moving traffic through an area as quickly as possible--which is a very old school way of thinking. We now realize that a little bit of congestion is okay, because congestion means that people want to be in your downtown (i.e. Manhattan is much more congested than downtown Detroit).

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/01/case-against-one-w... /

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/17/wh... /

http://articles.philly.com/2012-05-19/news/31766282_1_lim...
First off,in addition to an engineer,I'm also licensed as a professional planner in N.J.

What I've seen in the Downtown Revitalization Projects I've worked on is that "convenience" seems to be a primary factor in people using a Downtown Business District (DBD) ,as opposed to malls.

I work primarily in Bergen County,the shopping center capital of the world it seems.
Malls killed the DBD's in most Towns around here and they've been trying to reverse the trend since the early 1970's.

Most of our DBD's have 2 lane roads through them.

With two way traffic, anyone pulling into,out of, or waiting for an on street parallel parking space stops traffic in that direction until the parking maneuver is completed.Thats not congestion,that's grid lock.

With a one way street there is the ability for some traffic flow to be maintained with on street parallel parking.
Obviously this only works if you have 2 parallel streets to handle traffic each way.

The situation is further improved by the use of "tandem" parallel spaces.

By the way,as far I know,most of midtown Manhattan is one way.

As far as speeding,most of the DBD's have traffic lights every couple of blocks.
Combine that with "Traffic Calming" and the sheer number of vehicles in this area and speeding hasn't been an issue.

We also found that promoting multi-use buildings with residential,retail and office in the same building or complex combined with convenient off street parking helps a lot.

There are a number of options for Downtown Redevelopment.
Some of my approaches may be "old school",but I've seen and continue to see them be successful.
Definitely not trying to question your credentials or knowledge, it's just that a lot of what you're saying doesn't ring true to me. Surely different planners can have different opinions but there is pretty substantial research out there refuting some of these things.

North Jersey may be an atypical case since they are so in love with their malls, maybe more so than anywhere else in the country.

Again you talk about traffic flow, but that shouldn't be our focus at all with Court Street. We should view it as a destination, not as a thoroughfare to get from campus to State Street. In fact East State Street's problem is that it is more of a thoroughfare than a destination. We also disagree on tandem parallel spaces. I think normal parallel spaces work just fine and the tandem spaces just take up more valuable space. But I do believe that is an issue on which reasonable people (and even professionals) can disagree. In regard to Manhattan, I would say that the one-way streets are actually a huge barrier and that they would be better off to convert them to two way. Again, I recognize that it has the potential (though it is debated in the literature) to decrease capacity. But I think the benefits outweigh the positives.

Multi-use buildings is something we can agree completely upon, so cheers to that!

Back to the original discussion, I don't see the benefit in making Court Street pedestrian-only. I would rather see the road diet be applied to Union and add the outdoor space there. I'd also like to see if there are other ways to make Court Street more pedestrian-friendly, rather than ban cars completely. I believe that the properties north of State Street have to provide more parking because they can't get credit for the city parking garage. That's why the character is different north of State Street. I'd like to see that changed. Eliminate parking minimums and let the market decide. This may have already happened though, I'm not sure.
A couple of things.

Most of the DBD's in Bergen County were developed in the early 1900's.
The buildings are right on the street and the roads are narrow.
That really limits what you can do,absent knocking everything down and starting over.
Main Street in Hackensack was the first place I saw the one way model for streets used.
That was in the late 1970's.
The City also used grants to buy dilapidated properties,knock them down and build off street parking.
It was successful in the beginning,then in the late 1980's they were looking for ways to increase revenue.The City started leasing the off street parking to offices during the week.
That eliminated weekday shopper parking and pretty much killed any "high end" retail.
They still haven't figured out a way to revitalize the DBD so they are now finally allowing multi use buildings.

I was taught that one of the reasons for pedestrian only plazas is to encourage pedestrian traffic.
That's not an issue with Athens.
Sometimes there are too many pedestrians.

So I agree 100% with not making Court street pedestrian only.

College towns are also unique in that businesses have to attract students and,especially during breaks,locals.
That's a "hard nut to crack" as they say.

There also seems to be a perpetual problem with parking that I don't think will ever be solved.
mail
person
Ohio69
1/15/2016 3:57 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
There also seems to be a perpetual problem with parking that I don't think will ever be solved.
I think some of this problem is a perception or cultural problem. When it is not under construction, I almost always can find a spot in the upper decks of the Athens parking garage. And then I walk down a few flights or take the elevator and I'm in the heart of uptown. What parking problem?

I'm curious about others experiences on this. Am I overstating this? Is the parking garage full more than I think?
Last Edited: 1/15/2016 3:58:35 PM by Ohio69
mail
OhioCatFan
1/15/2016 4:50 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
. . . I would say that the one-way streets are actually a huge barrier and that they would be better off to convert them to two way. Again, I recognize that it has the potential (though it is debated in the literature) to decrease capacity. But I think the benefits outweigh the positives. . . .
I agree that it would be better to make Court and Congress two way again, as well as the section of Union between them. I'm one of the few on here old enough to remember when they were two-way and why they were changed to one-way streets. The reason given at the time was that it would improve through-town traffic flow, since Rt.50 and Rt. 33 went right through the center of town. Rt. 50 came into town from the east down State Street and then exited west at the "South Y" at the end of Richland. Rt 33 came into town from the north (labeled west) and then exited town at the same South Y to the south (labeled east). Since the opening of the Athens Bypass in the late 1970s, this rationale went out the window. But, government, as usual succumbed to the typical inertia and no one seriously re-examined the traffic flow issue.
Last Edited: 1/15/2016 4:51:46 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
The Optimist
1/15/2016 6:31 PM
Within 20 years, >50% of the American population might be being "driven" by a computer rather than "driving" a vehicle. That is going to change habits in a MASSIVE way and that is something planning like this needs to factor.

Some may think that is fantasy talk, but I consider my estimation incredibly conservative. That shift is going to start in the next few years.
mail
TWT
1/16/2016 10:19 AM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
There also seems to be a perpetual problem with parking that I don't think will ever be solved.
I think some of this problem is a perception or cultural problem. When it is not under construction, I almost always can find a spot in the upper decks of the Athens parking garage. And then I walk down a few flights or take the elevator and I'm in the heart of uptown. What parking problem?

I'm curious about others experiences on this. Am I overstating this? Is the parking garage full more than I think?
I've never used that garage. That garage was never well advertised in Athens or by the university.
mail
TWT
1/16/2016 10:36 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
. . . I would say that the one-way streets are actually a huge barrier and that they would be better off to convert them to two way. Again, I recognize that it has the potential (though it is debated in the literature) to decrease capacity. But I think the benefits outweigh the positives. . . .
I agree that it would be better to make Court and Congress two way again, as well as the section of Union between them. I'm one of the few on here old enough to remember when they were two-way and why they were changed to one-way streets. The reason given at the time was that it would improve through-town traffic flow, since Rt.50 and Rt. 33 went right through the center of town. Rt. 50 came into town from the east down State Street and then exited west at the "South Y" at the end of Richland. Rt 33 came into town from the north (labeled west) and then exited town at the same South Y to the south (labeled east). Since the opening of the Athens Bypass in the late 1970s, this rationale went out the window. But, government, as usual succumbed to the typical inertia and no one seriously re-examined the traffic flow issue.
Athens bypass I thought opened in the early 80's. As much as I don't like a one way Court St. I think two ways would be encourage more traffic. Congress going two ways would reduce traffic through the middle of campus. Keep Court Street one way but add the slant parking to slow down traffic flow more for pedestrians.
mail
DelBobcat
1/18/2016 6:38 PM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
There also seems to be a perpetual problem with parking that I don't think will ever be solved.
I think some of this problem is a perception or cultural problem. When it is not under construction, I almost always can find a spot in the upper decks of the Athens parking garage. And then I walk down a few flights or take the elevator and I'm in the heart of uptown. What parking problem?

I'm curious about others experiences on this. Am I overstating this? Is the parking garage full more than I think?
I don't think you are wrong here. I always use the garage and never have a problem. There is also always free parking available on West Washington, which is not a far walk at all. Now you want to talk parking problems? Come to Philadelphia. I don't own a car, but I sometimes use a friend's car and then have to find a place to park it when I'm done. I usually end up parking a mile or more from my apartment.
mail
DelBobcat
1/18/2016 6:42 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
. . . I would say that the one-way streets are actually a huge barrier and that they would be better off to convert them to two way. Again, I recognize that it has the potential (though it is debated in the literature) to decrease capacity. But I think the benefits outweigh the positives. . . .
I agree that it would be better to make Court and Congress two way again, as well as the section of Union between them. I'm one of the few on here old enough to remember when they were two-way and why they were changed to one-way streets. The reason given at the time was that it would improve through-town traffic flow, since Rt.50 and Rt. 33 went right through the center of town. Rt. 50 came into town from the east down State Street and then exited west at the "South Y" at the end of Richland. Rt 33 came into town from the north (labeled west) and then exited town at the same South Y to the south (labeled east). Since the opening of the Athens Bypass in the late 1970s, this rationale went out the window. But, government, as usual succumbed to the typical inertia and no one seriously re-examined the traffic flow issue.
Exactly. One-way streets are implemented with one goal in mind: move more cars. Research is just now confirming the benefits of two-way streets in downtown areas so it doesn't surprise me that local governments haven't caught on yet. I travel around to townships and boroughs in the Philadelphia area and present the evidence, but traffic engineers and local officials are a barrier. I've seen things start to change though, and more and more traffic engineers are coming around on these types of issues.
mail
Sean Gallagher
1/18/2016 7:30 PM
Football season must be over. This is page 2 of a thread about Athens traffic. We all need to get lives.

I live in Cleveland, but have a house in Athens and a sophomore on South Green, so as an outsider I'm pretty familiar with Athens traffic. I think Union (reduced to one lane east bound because of the fire) should remain a one way lane (I guess that's thanks to the fire) from N. Congress to Court. That would allow The Union and Jackie O's to expand patios out into the currently blocked off street, but allow traffic from West Union and N. Congress to still access Court St.

I like Bobcatbob's idea of no parking on Court St. and extending the sidewalks into the existing parking spaces, but still allowing traffic to continue in the existing two lanes Northbound. Again, this would allow for patio seating in many establishments that would promote pedestrian traffic, while maintaing traffic flow.

Under any plan, you're going to need additional parking. Assuming the parking garage (now under repair) cannot be expanded, you need to find parking elsewhere. What about the lot to the west of the Armory? Or those parking /business locations on the North side of Carpenter between Court and where E. State and Stimpson meet Carpenter? Could something be done there for parking? I know, I guess you're gong to have to buy out Prokos for that land.
mail
The Optimist
1/18/2016 11:41 PM
Sean Gallagher wrote:expand_more
Football season must be over. This is page 2 of a thread about Athens traffic. We all need to get lives.

I live in Cleveland, but have a house in Athens and a sophomore on South Green, so as an outsider I'm pretty familiar with Athens traffic. I think Union (reduced to one lane east bound because of the fire) should remain a one way lane (I guess that's thanks to the fire) from N. Congress to Court. That would allow The Union and Jackie O's to expand patios out into the currently blocked off street, but allow traffic from West Union and N. Congress to still access Court St.

I like Bobcatbob's idea of no parking on Court St. and extending the sidewalks into the existing parking spaces, but still allowing traffic to continue in the existing two lanes Northbound. Again, this would allow for patio seating in many establishments that would promote pedestrian traffic, while maintaing traffic flow.

Under any plan, you're going to need additional parking. Assuming the parking garage (now under repair) cannot be expanded, you need to find parking elsewhere. What about the lot to the west of the Armory? Or those parking /business locations on the North side of Carpenter between Court and where E. State and Stimpson meet Carpenter? Could something be done there for parking? I know, I guess you're gong to have to buy out Prokos for that land.

I would think the cost of an additional parking lot is the barrier. If you go that route, ideally the lot where Cornwell Jewlery sits might give the most use. On that topic, always thought that lot might eventually be redeveloped. I don't mind the jewlery store... The building just doesn't fit and I would guess a mixed used lot with apartments above might get more cash for the landlord..
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/19/2016 7:45 AM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
. . . I would say that the one-way streets are actually a huge barrier and that they would be better off to convert them to two way. Again, I recognize that it has the potential (though it is debated in the literature) to decrease capacity. But I think the benefits outweigh the positives. . . .
I agree that it would be better to make Court and Congress two way again, as well as the section of Union between them. I'm one of the few on here old enough to remember when they were two-way and why they were changed to one-way streets. The reason given at the time was that it would improve through-town traffic flow, since Rt.50 and Rt. 33 went right through the center of town. Rt. 50 came into town from the east down State Street and then exited west at the "South Y" at the end of Richland. Rt 33 came into town from the north (labeled west) and then exited town at the same South Y to the south (labeled east). Since the opening of the Athens Bypass in the late 1970s, this rationale went out the window. But, government, as usual succumbed to the typical inertia and no one seriously re-examined the traffic flow issue.
Exactly. One-way streets are implemented with one goal in mind: move more cars. Research is just now confirming the benefits of two-way streets in downtown areas so it doesn't surprise me that local governments haven't caught on yet. I travel around to townships and boroughs in the Philadelphia area and present the evidence, but traffic engineers and local officials are a barrier. I've seen things start to change though, and more and more traffic engineers are coming around on these types of issues.
Personally,I don't think that moving more cars is necessarily a bad thing.

Say you have a 2 lane,two way street,with parallel parking through your Downtown Business District.
Something that is very common in the part of Northern N.J. where I work.

Any car entering, exiting or waiting for a parking space stops all traffic in that direction.

When Hackensack was looking into changing Main Street from two way to one way they spoke to a number of motorists.
The issue of being "stuck" by people parking or waiting to park was their number one complaint.
A number of people said the avoided that area completely because of it.

As I also said,going to one way on Main Street did work short term,until the City stopped making off street parking available to shoppers during the week.

Also,in this area,there is limited mass transit available,except for commuter routes,so everyone drives.
We've also found that they won't walk more then a block or to to shop.
People are also using malls as "baby sitters" and as a way to kill a day out of the weather.

Unfortunately in Northern new Jersey there are a lot of alternatives to shopping in a DBD,making it really tough to sustain retail.
mail
Sean Gallagher
1/19/2016 8:10 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
Football season must be over. This is page 2 of a thread about Athens traffic. We all need to get lives.

I live in Cleveland, but have a house in Athens and a sophomore on South Green, so as an outsider I'm pretty familiar with Athens traffic. I think Union (reduced to one lane east bound because of the fire) should remain a one way lane (I guess that's thanks to the fire) from N. Congress to Court. That would allow The Union and Jackie O's to expand patios out into the currently blocked off street, but allow traffic from West Union and N. Congress to still access Court St.

I like Bobcatbob's idea of no parking on Court St. and extending the sidewalks into the existing parking spaces, but still allowing traffic to continue in the existing two lanes Northbound. Again, this would allow for patio seating in many establishments that would promote pedestrian traffic, while maintaing traffic flow.

Under any plan, you're going to need additional parking. Assuming the parking garage (now under repair) cannot be expanded, you need to find parking elsewhere. What about the lot to the west of the Armory? Or those parking /business locations on the North side of Carpenter between Court and where E. State and Stimpson meet Carpenter? Could something be done there for parking? I know, I guess you're gong to have to buy out Prokos for that land.

I would think the cost of an additional parking lot is the barrier. If you go that route, ideally the lot where Cornwell Jewlery sits might give the most use. On that topic, always thought that lot might eventually be redeveloped. I don't mind the jewlery store... The building just doesn't fit and I would guess a mixed used lot with apartments above might get more cash for the landlord..
I agree with you on that Cornwell location. That existing building doesn't really fit. I think it was Luigi's Pizza back in my day.

There is one problem with my proposal that I didn't think about. Where would the delivery trucks stop for the businesses if the parking lanes are removed?
Last Edited: 1/19/2016 8:10:35 PM by Sean Gallagher
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 59
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)