Last night at the Hagerty Center Ian Lockwood and URS proposed a re-design for Division St that removes all the traffic lights from and including 14th Street to Grandview Parkway, and replaces them with two lane roundabouts.
I will admit, when I heard about the roundabouts I thought, “oh no, here we go.” But the presentation was pretty persuasive, based on the greater capacity of those intersections to move traffic with the two-lane roundabouts than with the existing lights according to the traffic model. The examples from Vail and Clearwater and Bellingham, Washington helped make the case in my opinion. I also thought Ian Lockwood answered the questions about tractor trailers and the geometry of the roundabouts quite well.
This morning just after 5 am I drove Division from Grandview Parkway to 14th Street at 20 mph but with no stops because the lights are set to yellow blinking. Granted there was no traffic but I was just trying to get a sense of a different pace in the corridor. It was smooth and quick even though my speed was slower. This afternoon in E. Lansing I drove two lane roundabouts that handle traffic on MSU football Saturdays, and they work pretty well.
I’m not saying this is the solution, or the only solution, but it deserves some open minded consideration. John Seratelli’s comment – that if the cars keep moving they won’t have reason to cut E-W through the neighborhoods – was insightful as well.
I will get some more info on this topic when available, in the meantime you can find discussions and info on www.mywheelsareturning.com and www.facebook.com\tcchamber.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 1, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Rachel G
Can’t the timing of the lights be changed? Barely a left arrow onto 14th. There has to be more solutions/more ideas. I am not convinced of a roundabout, too much traffic, trucks, pedestrians, and tourists. Roundabouts cause confusion with this mix of a crowd. I dont care how long roundabouts have existed/worked in other areas, usually roundabouts that work have a vast circumference, they take up a lot of space, The only way a roundabout would work at that intersection would mean cutting into wetland/parkland. It would take away the beauty, and destroy ecosystems around the commons. I am against that this happening to the commons.
March 31, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Mary Jean McLin
Living in Sedona, AZ for a month, which is quite parallel to TC with tourists and population, the roundabouts I find are easy, and safe to maneuver, and the positive outcome of continuous traffic flow are an added benefits to motorists and pedestrians. No stoplights, poles, and wires only add ambiance to this type of traffic management plan. This group’s plan should be “a good thing” for our neighborhoods.
April 1, 2010 at 10:21 am
Del Kelch
If you like added traffic in your neighborhoods then you should jsut love them.
There are no othere main arteries that run paralell or around the areas of Division (norther south) or Grandview Parkway (east west) both of which are State and US highways that are main roads to othere areas.
Yes, you must love traffic in your neighborhoods. Major truck traffic and tourism/commerace coming and going daily.
Roundabouts are a joke as an overall solution.
March 29, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Jason Brehmer
This seems to be more a reality than an option. I just don’t like the idea of roundabouts.
I want to point out another stretch of road, Woodward Ave in Royal Oak. Airport rd. at Logan’s Landing is somewhat of an example and Woodmere Ave as well. These roads are almost the same concept but using a meridian the size of at least one lane would reduce a lot of problems.
I think there really should be two options TC should consider; to keep to what Michigan seems to be known for (“Michigan Lefts”) or go to a new concept, even one not seen throughout Michigan.
However, all these options come with a problem starting around 5th st. to Grand View Parkway; not enough space. What is the plan for this stretch of road even if you consider ‘turnabouts’ in the more congested parts of Division?
This link below is an overhead of Woodward Ave. and 11 mile rd. in Royal Oak, Mi. This is huge stretch of highway. If you haven’t driven on it, I think the speed goes from 40mph to 50mph (in the more open areas).
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=woodward+ave+11+mile+road+royal+oak,+mi&daddr=&hl=en&geocode=&gl=us&mra=ls&sll=44.733386,-85.604468&sspn=0.01099,0.019162&ie=UTF8&ll=42.49326,-83.16243&spn=0.001426,0.002395&t=h&z=19
March 28, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Rob Franzo
We lived in Bellingham WA and the roundabouts there were on a secondary road that has no significant truck traffic.
I can tell you that when my wife and I would drive that road, we were very cautious and often found entering the roundabouts to be a bit harrowing and we were fortunate to never travel them during high traffic time of the day.
I have seen trucks enter a roundabout we had in Surey BC on a truck rout where the primary flow was on the short quarter (the side route as depicted in the first picture of the reference link http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/round/ColoradoSpringsRoundaboutDesignStandards.pdf) and
what you saw in these two lane roundabouts was scary as cars would be blocked from entering and trucks would often cut traffic off that really had the right-of-way as they were already in the roundabout – when trucks would traverse the roundabout they would often go up on the skirts as the navigated the turn for their rig.
Simply, trucks (of any size, but we have many 18 wheelers on division) and roundabouts do not mix.
Also, there is not a large seasonal tourist flow through the roundabouts in Bellingham WA.
Please do not take something that works in another area of the county or world and apply it as a solution to our traffic flow concerns without fully understanding the dynamics and differences in the make-up of the traffic and dynamics.
I also lived out east and roundabouts were used significantly in New Jersey, again, on road with no significant truck flow it was a good solution (although getting directions from locals was always fun – (what is the difference between taking the exit at 310 and 320 degrees in a roundabout? Usually about 30 minutes of being lost but if in the day, you get to see some nice scenery).
During harvest we have many large trucks moving down Division – think 18 wheel trucks going through a roundabout with cars – not a pretty picture.
A better solution would be to consider flow sequencing of lights and also perhaps contra flow lanes with lights (have experience these systems and they work very well to move traffic along).
Roundabouts work where people understand the etiquette for using them – when I first heard about this at a TC TALUS meeting I could not imagine the truck traffic and auto traffic comingled without collision.
Anything that is done should take into consideration the overall system.
March 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Gearge Preston
The engineer they hired takes his dog and pony show on the road, for hire to any municipality that needs their planning department to look like they are doing something. Period. This is such hogwash. Coming in from Leelanau your roundabouts will be nothing but a traffic nightmare. I agree, with earlier commenters about the need for area wide representation.
These are our roads too (state highways that lead to us and others), they just happen to be badly routed through your town.
March 26, 2010 at 7:45 pm
GLHowe
The engineer that was hired for Division St and the accessibility issues to the bayfront is not your typical traffic engineer. Ian Lockwood is considered one of North America’s top engineers specializing in challenging arterial roads like Division St & Grandview Parkway. These arterials are challenged because they run through neighborhood & parkland contexts; it is not acceptable to most city residents to simply treat them as high speed thoroughfares.
The roundabouts were proposed because they could improve the corridor for all the current needs: maintaining/improving current traffic volume while calming the street to allow for improved pedestrian access, reduced accident rates, reduced causality rates, long term cost reductions and enhancing the neighborhood character of Traverse City. We, as a community, do not have to implement them, however, I do believe they deserve our informed consideration. We’d be silly to dismiss them with out doing our homework.
The facts provided by study after study do not support the claims that Roundabouts are anymore more dangerous for pedestrians, elderly drivers or the uninitiated than the current signalized intersections. In fact, they suggest the complete opposite. Two of the key reasons are: the removal of left turns across on coming traffic and for those on foot, the ability to cross the road where cars must yield and pedestrians only have to look one way at a time.
The task of finding a solution that solves both MDOT’s (and the region’s) needs for a highway and the city’s need for ‘livable’ streets (safe, convenient, usable access that doesn’t de-value the city’s assets) is a monumental challenge. The city will be presented with a context sensitive solution that has MDOT’s support; if only the city asks for it.
Next time you are waiting for 90 seconds at Grandview and Division, try to picture not having to wait in line for one or two light changes. Instead, imagine that you are moving along at a steady, comfortable pace and getting to your destination, more than likely, a lot sooner.
Typical response to roundabouts, repeated again and again across the country
March 27, 2010 at 11:50 am
Jordan Letish
Imagine all you want, roundabouts are just a song that is played out by the kumbiya “new urbanism” not from here crowd.
Then adding MORE streets to Division is insane! Just clean up the bayfront and take responsibility for keeping it that way!
March 25, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Matt
I’m all for using the parkland in that area for the proposed roundabouts.
I wouldn’t normally say that, but lets face it. I never see anyone using it. I use all of the parks in traverse city. I have yet to use that area west of divison, and I have lived on Seventh St. for 8 yrs. Don’t get me wrong I would not want a a gas station or a Burger king there,but for what they have planned, I’m all for it. If roundabouts and the use of the park land goes to a vote, will it only be decided on by Traverse City residents?
March 25, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Tim Orthe
Mat you obviously do not see the value of in-city parkland. this would be terrible for a roundabout type plan.. Roundabouts are nothing but vehicle parts catchers.
March 22, 2010 at 10:45 am
Peter Payette
Is there a proposal out there to divide the Women’s Walk with 8 1/2 Street between Division and Elmwood?
March 22, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Tim Werner
Yes, a future 8 1/2 St. could intersect the Women’s Walk. Ian Lockwood make excellent points regarding how 8 1/2 St. could benefit that NE corner of the Commons. I can’t come close to the excellent way he presented it, but here is how I have it stored in my head – a well thought out 8 1/2 St. could fit very well in a park like setting; would bring eyes to this corner of the commons; eyes bring awareness, use, care, and interaction.
I spent a couple of hours exploring that corner of the commons on Saturday with my young kids. Our experience had me shaking my head in agreement with Ian Lockwood. We picked up a garbage bag full of litter, and probably could have filled a dozen. I know that the Women’s Walk has historical value, but if that aspect is set aside the area just seems like a neglected overgrown park. Bringing a well thought out 8 1/2 St. along with eyes, awareness, use, care, and interaction could greatly enhance that portion of the commons. If done right, the Women’s Walk could be saved/improved, but might have a crosswalk to get across 8 1/2 St.
March 22, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Del Kelch
You have got to be kidding!! 8 1/2 and 71/2 sateeets? No way! Any “taking” of wetland and parkland at that location is out of the question!
Those streets would serve one purpose: to keep Elmers busy and to qualify the opinion of a consultant from Florida to his next victims! Get your heads on straight and stop taking parkland for more streets. That is one great inter-city parkland. Once it’s chewed up or gone….. it’s gone!
March 24, 2010 at 9:52 am
Del Kelch
Unfortunately it is one of the many little seceet rarely seen plans atthe city planning office. Adding those streets does nothing for the area.
Roundabouts are a sham at MSU too. Be there during rush hour and its crash up derby!
March 21, 2010 at 9:04 pm
John Urbain
I drove those roundabouts at MSU on Thursday, too! Granted, the traffic wasn’t ‘game day’ bad, but they did handle the traffic well. Plus, they are well signed to indicate that pedestrians have the right-of-way. I also drove through one on the west side of Lansing the following day on Lake Lansing Road, which is fairly busy.
Last week, I travelled to the northern suburbs of Detroit and noticed that MDOT has place a couple of roundabouts at the interchange exits/entrances, in place of traffic lights (don’t recall which street). Again, it was busy, but there were no traffic back-ups. My personal experience has been good. It’s better than waiting for three lights to make a left turn. And it they can make crossing Division Street easier, all the better. I think pedestrian traffic will only increase as the State Hospital grounds are further developed.