"I would just like a safe and sane commute" through Pacifica, (comment from a coastside resident who drives through Pacifica daily). For highway improvement, he favors roundabouts. For various reasons, the Caltrans EIR has excluded roundabouts.
| Remember the fabulous quarry development, and highway 1 overpass mitigation Peebles Corporation proposed in 2006? This roundabout might have been great at Rockaway. |
"Carmel has become internationally known for its roundabout network. Since the late 1990’s Camel has been building and replacing signalized intersections with roundabouts. Carmel now has more than 60 roundabouts, more than any other city in the United States.
Carmel builds roundabouts because of their safety record, their compatibility with the environments, their aesthetics and their ability to make it easier for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate. In Carmel, where roundabouts have replaced signals or stop signs at intersections, the number of injury accidents has been reduced by about 80 percent and the number of accidents overall by about 40 percent. Our numbers are similar to those reported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."
Roundabout Information. All about Roundabouts Brochure [PDF], Roundabout Demonstration, Carmel, Indiana hosted the 2011 National Roundabout Conference.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
70 comments:
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20121019/NEWS/121019918
Incline Village Roundabout Preliminary Utility Work Begins
Date Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Contact: Meg Ragonese
Phone: (775) 888-7172
Title: Incline Village Roundabout Preliminary Utility Work Begins
Story Text:
On Sept. 19, the communities of Incline Village and Crystal Bay, Nev. will see the first steps in action to support its new Incline Gateway ‘Roundabout’ at the intersection of State Routes 431 and 28. The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) will start initial preparation of the site with utility re-alignments underway for the next three to four weeks.
The official groundbreaking and actual construction of the Incline Gatewaywill begin in spring of 2012 with a final estimated completion date scheduled for late fall of 2012.
Incline Gateway
Location - History - Design - Goals - Completion - Project Partners - Contact
The TTD acted as in-Basin facilitator for this Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) project.
Location
The intersection of State Routes 28 and 431 at the west end of Incline Village.
back to top
History
Multiple and severe traffic accidents (some fatalities) occurred at this location. High seasonal traffic volumes also created congestion here. Both resulted in delays and queues of idling cars. Incline Village resident Don Kanare first proposed a roundabout (traffic circle) solution to the intersection's problems at a community-visioning meeting in 2007.
With the Incline Village General Improvement District Board of Trustees and the Incline Gateway Committee (Don Kanare, Jim Clark and Jim Nowlin) advocating and the TTD facilitating, NDOT responded to the community's needs, becoming the managing partner for design and construction. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and Washoe County also partnered in the $2.4 million project.
back to top
Design
After analysis of various possibilities, including research on successful roundabout implementations, the roundabout design was selected as the preferred solution. The Incline Gateway Committee, with TTD Outreach support, spearheaded an aesthetic component for the center.
Artists were invited to submit ideas from which community members selected a wildlife theme by renowned sculptor June Towill Brown. Ms. Brown donated her time and local residents contributed over $100,000 for the artwork's materials, maintenance and insurance.
back to top
Goals/Benefits
The main goals of the Incline Gateway project were:
•Improved Intersection Safety - reducing the frequency and severity of traffic accidents.
•Less Traffic Congestion - preventing traffic congestion and side-street traffic overflow as a secondary benefit
•Better Tahoe Basin Air and Water Quality - minimizing the number of idling vehicles and resulting emission and noise pollution by avoiding delays due to accidents or traffic congestion. Smoother traffic flow will also alleviate some roadway deterioration and associated erosion/runoff, helping protect the lake's clarity. Additionally, two erosion control projects were completed in conjunction with the roundabout project.
As an added benefit, the community-supported art installation at the center of the roundabout, featuring life-size bronze wildlife sculptures, creates an aesthetically appealing entrance to the Basin.
back to top
Completion
After a series of community meetings and workshops to share ideas and gather feedback, the project was approved by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for utility relocation. Construction was completed in September 2012. The roundabout was dedicated in a ceremony featuring Beach Boy Mike Love on October 17.
A full decade around the roundabout: Traffic circles prove safer for Truckee
Article
Comments
SmallerLarger
Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services
Expand PhotoEmma Garrard/Sierra Sun A street sign prepares motorists for a roundabout on Highway 89 North and Donner Pass Road. Construction will soon start on another roundabout on Highway 89 North and Alder Drive. ALL |
Emma Garrard/Sierra Sun A street sign prepares motorists for a roundabout on Highway 89 North and Donner Pass Road. Construction will soon start on another roundabout on Highway 89 North and Alder Drive.
It's been 10 years since Truckee's first roundabout, and new ones are still popping up.
The town's initial roundabout was built on the western entrance to downtown Truckee in 1998, and the circular intersections have since appeared on Brockway Road, Highway 89 - both north and south - and elsewhere as a part of new development and growing traffic. And as the town continues to grow, even more roundabouts are planned to aid intersections and replace stop lights, Truckee officials said.
"I know when we built the first one, there was a lot of skepticism," said Dan Wilkins, Truckee's director of public works. "After about a year, we heard a lot of comments from skeptics who overcame their skepticism."
From a technical standpoint, both Wilkins and Truckee police Sgt. Jason Litchie said they are working.
"They're considerably safer, and that's especially true on Highway 89 south," Litchie said. "They've greatly improved traffic flow, and we used to get a couple very serious collisions their every few months, and now we have zero."
Litchie said the main benefit is that roundabouts make people slow down.
Wilkins said the biggest issue is the learning curve - getting used to a type of intersection still relatively new to the country.
"The whole element of lack of familiarity goes away, but because we get so many first-time visitors on our roadways we have a constant lack of familiarity," Wilkins said.
Local resident John Gotgart, who said he likes the roundabouts, had a similar observation.
"I don't think they're bad, it's just a lot of people don't know how to operate the things - that's the problem," he said. "But I like that they keep things moving."
But John Fraser, a downtown business owner, said he hasn't come around to them yet.
"I think they're a pain in the neck. They certainly confuse people," Fraser said.
Cyclists have also had to figure out the best way through a roundabout, said Dan Warren, a local bicycle commuter.
"It was initially daunting figuring out where we were supposed to be," Warren said. "We've found we have to establish the lane as our own going through - once you do that, it works well."
Jim Sayer, a former Truckee resident and cycling advocate, said there are fewer points of conflict in a roundabout than an intersection with signals.
"For drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, once they get used to it, it's a lot easier to get through," said Sayer, executive director of Adventure Cycling Association. "And you don't have to wait for a signal."
With roundabouts reducing both the number of accidents and their severity, Wilkins said Truckee will continue to add roundabouts at intersections in need.
As new development brings more traffic, roundabouts could appear on Donner Pass Road between downtown and Interstate 80, at Donner Pass Road and Coldstream, and on the other side of the overpass, at Brockway and Highway 267, accessing the Hilltop development, at Pioneer Trail, and Highway 89 south and Donner Pass Road, Wilkins said.
"They're a work in progress and I think with every new roundabout we learn a little more whether it be on landscaping or lane widths," Wilkins said.
Jeez, on a recent trip to Ireland, I found the roundabouts confusing and difficult to navigate. Relieved to be back in California, I almost killed myself up in Sonoma County, when suddenly, I encountered a roundabout on some back country road coming out of Lakeport. I'm sure that there must be others in California, but this was the first and only one that I've encountered. Guess one gets used to them, they're probably alright. I can imagine though that a lot of the 4x4 guys will just drive right over them just as they do now entering Hwy 1 south from Pedro Point by the Ace Hardware.
9:07
Too many pints??
Roundabouts take a time or two driving through to get used to. The first time I went through it in Truckee I thought who in the *&*$ came up with this stupid idea.
You have to remember first into the roundabout has the right of way.
I was dealing with roundabouts in Florida this past winter. They were a pain, even with minimal traffic.
Caltrans was right in deciding they wouldn't work on Highway 1.
The Truckee Police sergeant says the roundabout's main benefit is that they slow people down. Any slower on 1 and we're going backwards. Perfect for Pacifica!
We had them in New Jersey. They are replacing them with signals now.
Roundabouts make people pay attention while driving.
Paying attention is something in Pacifica, very few people do!
There are several roundabouts in the Bay Area. One I go thru often is Marin Circle in Berkeley. Seems to work fine.
Marin Circle isn't exactly Highway 1 when it comes to traffic.
Perry says 30,000 cars and buses find the Circle a day; to be among them take the Buchanan Street exit off I-80. It connects to Marin Avenue, which passes through Albany and into Berkeley. Two miles up is the Circle, with two- hour parking. That's just about right for an architectural tour of the north corner of Northbrae and a picnic on Indian Rock with a view from San Pablo Bay to San Francisco Bay.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Under-the-Grizzly-Fountain-Marin-Circle-tells-2880398.php
Pretty common in other countries and even in heavy-traffic situations. Potential fix or just another stall? They sure look cheaper and faster to build than what is being proposed.
Note: this roundabout resides over a highway underpass which has through traffic.
Just get the cars through here as fast as possible. Pacifica is best viewed from a speeding car.
If you look at Marin Circle on Google Maps, you can see it's in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It's not a major thoroughfare.
If there was a roundabout on Highway 1 at Reina Del Mar, during commute hours there's no way the cars would be able to enter the roundabout from Reina Del Mar. It would be too jammed with cars.
This is why there should be an overpass/underpass at Vallemar. It would eliminate the light and the congestion in one fell swoop. Problem solved.
Instead, Caltrans wants to create 2 bottlenecks with 3 lanes going down to 2 at either end. Look at the other places where lanes go from 4 to 3 or 3 to 2. All have traffic backups. This does not solve the problem, it makes it worse.
30,000 cars and buses a day is a major thoroughfare!
Does anyone know the traffic counts on Highway 1 through Pacifica?
Well, if it's going to create such a problem, let's just widen the next segment, too. That'll take care of the bitchin' from Pacifica commuters.
The traffic
count on the Pacific Coast Highway at Linda Mar Boulevard was 33,000 vehicles per day in 2009.
Height of the recession. Should be more by now, a little more.
anything to monkey-wrench the commute for another 25 years. Kindly recognize the Gang of No will propose anything to throw the safety widening off schedule; delay or lose funding; jack up costs; throw many new "ideas" into the mix; claim the schools should buy buses (schools refused); time the lights (light time company said it would not work); takes buses ( no one does now); walk to work (ahahah).
So, flirt with the best new idea on the block--circles. Gang of No will find fault with them when it suites their strategy. Paralysis by analysis folks..
We need a coalition of the willing to say yes to a solution in town.
"30,000 cars and buses a day is a major thoroughfare!"
That's one car every 3 seconds. No way do I believe that number is correct for Marin Circle.
safety widening hahaha
Even Caltrans says it's not a safety widening.
6:33
Why don't you do a traffic count. Stand there all day and count cars.
I'm all for alternatives, but not this one.
I've lived in two European countries and fell in love with roundabouts. They keep traffic moving (even if slowly) during complex intersections, and avoid the stop-and-go headaches of traffic lights.
I'm not sure that we have the real estate to add them in Pacifica (or the similar "jug handle" exchanges common in New Jersey), but if we did, I'd sign up.
Ian
Which alternative? Splitting the quarry into two? That will just cause more back up.
The regulars in the gang of no are all spewing more spin over on Riptide.
Snort! We're all above that on Fix.
Yup, never happen here.
1233 Roundabouts are for sissies, but I'll take one of those German Autobahns anyday. Crespi to Reina Del Mar in 4/10ths of a second.
I'm spelling out the 4/10ths because I don't want a repeat of that embarrassing sea-rise discussion.
"Which alternative? Splitting the quarry into two?"
I'm not sure what that means, but I do want a frontage road in the quarry which would connect Rockaway and Vallemar, and facilitate some development in the quarry.
The General Plan calls for a frontage road through the quarry.
Ian
Define "some developement in the quarry"
Define "some developement in the quarry"
I am in favor of developing the flat area of the quarry adjacent to Rockaway, with a mix of business and residential, but no more than 100 residential units. (Peebles proposed 355). A frontage road would provide access for developing that area, whereas the highway widening would probably preclude development.
The hilly area across from Calera creek should not be developed, it needs to be properly restored to provide additional habitat for SF garter snakes.
You didn't ask me, but my definition of "some development in the quarry" that I would support would include mixed-use commercial and residential, but the residential part would have to be a lot less than the 355 units that Peebles wanted approval for before he even submitted a plan. If a developer could do a site plan that had commercial space, especially including a hotel, and say 100 units of residential incorporated within a village concept, that would probably be supported by a majority of voters. But anybody who tries to get approval for several hundred units of residential without a specific plan is going to come up against a ton of resistance.
Residential without significant commercial, meaning 'name' retail and hotel, will not work. Retail and hotel to draw from Pacifica and neighboring communities. The cost of providing services will continue to climb. We'll need a lot more than property tax to pull out of this death spiral.
Can a developer make money off a 100 houses? Better question, can he make more money more easily somewhere else?
That was not Ian who said 100 houses, that was me. I'm anonymous just like most other people on this blog.
100, 500, it's so very unlikely to happen.
Oops, I see that Ian also mentioned 100 houses. Great minds think alike. :) But you shouldn't focus on the number of houses. Focus on the concept of mixed use only on the flat area, like Ian said, with the emphasis on commercial.
You should focus on developing Mars. The likelihood of development there is far greater than that of development in the quarry. Spacecraft loaded with realtors leaving soon!
"...But you shouldn't focus on the number of houses."
I know you weren't talking to me, but we do need to focus on the number of houses, because that's the part that has to be approved by the voters. We've already learned that no amount of money can convince us to vote for 300 plus houses. 100 houses could pass easily and 200 would have a chance, if it was the right project.
A lot of us would like a chance to vote yes on an appropriately sized quarry plan, but so far we've just had one that was too big and another that was even bigger.
Back to the topic at hand, the highway widening is another example of something that is too big. It more than doubles the width of the highway, and going from two lanes to three shouldn't do that!
Ian, excuse me but that vote against 300+ houses was extremely close. Please don't try to act like it lost by a landslide. I believe it would easily pass today because we see the stagnation the anti development folks have brought to Pacifica. Much has changed since 2006 including the ouster of a city council that coddled the hippie NIMBY's. The people spoke loud and clear when they pretty much ignored Rich Campbell the EPA lawyer environmental candidate. Don't be so sure voters wouldn't approve a large project now.
Hutch, you mean Richie Campbell the EPA hippie lawyer reappointed to the PC by the all new oh-so-different City Council? That Richie Campbell?
Pacifica has Nimby DNA. It shows up in every election. People that voted for Campbell also voted for Nihart and Ervin. Why do you think Nimbys find them acceptable? Thank God for O'Neill's name recognition at the polls.
Peebles couldn't buy a victory. He got closer than Trammell Crow, but it was a clear loss. You think Pacifica has learned its lesson, wants to mend its way and welcome development? Nah. Look at what's happening at Beach Blvd. What a farce. This council blithely goes ahead with a library and council chamber without even attempting to see if a developer will want the whole parcel or nothing at all. What they've done is what this town always does. They've saved another prime parcel from development. Quarry, Beach Blvd, the poop pit, and others. It's in the DNA.
Measure L 7,180 yes 7,689 no
Pretty friggin close. It would pass today.
I wonder what happens to the poison pill in the quarry now that redevelopment agencies and zones are gone?
Remember who put in the poison pill in the quarry? Ians, good buddy Peter Loeb.
Look at the people who indorsed Mary Ann and Ervin, the very same people who bankrupted the city.
Anon 939, I was talking about voters rejecting an environmental candidate as a city leader, not the council appointing one on a commission. That's a big difference.
Yes, measure L was pretty close, losing by about 400 votes. But remember that Peebles spent $1.3 million to lose that election, which dwarfs all other campaigns in Pacifica's history, outspending the No on L campaign 500 to 1. I guess if another developer could spend that much they would have a shot, but it would be cheaper to just downsize the project to the point that most of us would want it.
Sorry Ian, there is no size that anyone one of Pacfica's Environmental Family would accept. The quarry plan was developed through the charette process and the largest number of participants are the very same people that led the No on L campaign. They vetted it, they designed it, they decided against it from day one. I was there, I was involved, and it happened. The mix and size of the housing units proposed was to balance the community, from apartments to live-work units to townhomes to single family homes. it was to balance the community and provide for all income levels. You reduce the size to 100 single family homes, and you don't get a socio-economic mix that is vital to a new community. The plan is now used as teaching tool for new urbanism classes on "what could have been". The quarry is an environmental nightmare that would have taken 5 years to get through all the entitlements and all the State Mining Board mandated clean-up and repair issues. It would have taken another 5 to 7 years to build and the developer would have been responsible for the traffic mitigation plan. But, that's old news. Its a very dead horse, let the bones turn to dust and leave it be.
I guess if another developer could spend that much they would have a shot, but it would be cheaper to just downsize the project to the point that most of us would want it.
More spin from the "gang of no"
Haven't you people done enough to bankrupt the town.
Please go away!
Postage stamp size development in the dreaded quarry would be acceptable.
Brownshirtanon @ 11:48 AM, spinners are as spinners do and beyond speaking ones mind openly, I see a lot of spinning coming from you! If you are so right... use your own identity. OOPS but that would require courage.
Dreams die hard. The quarry's role as an economic engine for this town has always been more fiction than fact. But it sure works well as a political issue. How would we be able to sort out the crowd without it?
Peebles dodged a disaster here and he knows it. Luck. He's got it. Pacifica is safe once again, under the dome of stupid.
Hutch, the problem with the appointment is that Council hasn't rejected the environmental candidate or the ideology. They seem to be choosing government by coalition and I suspect there's really not much difference between them. Not what I voted for. And, clearly, not what this town needs to move forward. Nimbyism in all its forms is in this town's DNA.
Todd, your constant comparison to Nazis is annoying and childish. I suspect that our blogmasters continue to condone this because it makes you look childish.
5:08
Nah punish a child a few times and they get the message. This guy thinks he is a local villain.
Too much time on his hands, with little to actually do.
Equating a few silly land use issues to the attempted extermination of an entire race of people is par for the course with the gang of no. They are the Fox News of Pacifica.
Yet another anonymous contributer complains, "Todd, your constant comparison to Nazis is annoying and childish. I suspect that our blogmasters continue to condone this because it makes you look childish."
Whether you are a Rantanon, Dramanon, Brownshirtanon or Bigotanon, you are still without identity so unlike the Dramanon comment above, there is no childish name calling.
Whether someone chooses to post their name or not, its still name calling. I don't care if you agree or disagree with what someone has posted, under their own name or not. You reduce your personal capital every time you resort to name calling.
2:01
Otherwise you lose credibility!
Ian, you don't get it that people have realized since 2006 that we must allow more development. Opinions have changed. A developer would not have to spend a lot of money to convince us. We are convinced that the old way of the environment is our economy doesn't work. And if you want proof just look to Rich Campbells huge loss or Sue Digre who was skipped over for Mayor by council. Two environmental icons who are now marginalized.
4:02
Take a look who endorced Mary Ann and Karen Ervin. The same people who helped Sue and Rich Campbell. In fact alot of the same people endorced Rich, Mary and Karen.
The council just has different no growth hippies on board.
Cynthia, couldn't agree more.
You mean the same Mary Ann, Karen and Len that got rid of the open space committee? Voted to move forward on the highway widening? Are they the ones you say are in the enviros pocket?
Please show where the council voted to move forward on the highway widening. The city attorney says the council never did that.
908 Damn good question. The vote I recall they took, in June 2012, was on what kind of median they wanted to request and to place the project in the funding queue with the SMC TA. O'Neill and Ervin were not yet on council. Throughout the meeting during which these votes were taken, the city manager and city attorney and several councilmembers stated repeatedly that the issues being voted on did not include or signify project approval.
During campaign interviews prior to the November 2012 election, none of the winning candidates (Ervin, Nihart, O'Neill) stated support for the widening. All took the safe and political approach...something's gotta be done, explore all alternatives, blahblahblah. As I recall, Nihart played it so safe she didn't respond to the Trib's candidate questionnaire at all. Stone is the only current councilmember who has clearly and publicly supported the widening. Oh, and former-councilmember Pete DeJarnatt was always vocal in his support, he voted for funding, but balked at the 'putting the cart before the horse' aspect of the median-choice vote. Digre opposed.
Anyone have reliable, public record info to the contrary? Can't help but think that a clear and official statement of project support from our electd representatives would help the cause. Of course, that would require a higher and politically riskier public profile on the issue, wouldn't it? Shyness or weaslely calculation, they need to get over it!
814 Got rid of the open space committee? Must of been accidental. Cheap thrills at this point. 60% of the town is dedicated to open space. Scraps left. Stick a fork in it.
Post a Comment