The intersection of High Street and North Broadway is in the news again. This time, it’s an alternate proposal from the community to build a roundabout at the intersection.
High Street roundabout sought
Some on North Broadway favor circle over adding left-turn lane
Monday, June 22, 2009 3:11 AM
By Bill Bush
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCHA Clintonville task force is proposing what members say would be the first urban traffic roundabout in Franklin County, at High Street and E. North Broadway.
In suburbs such as Dublin and Hilliard, roundabouts have reduced injury accidents and process traffic more efficiently than traffic lights, officials say. Columbus city officials say only that they are studying the Clintonville proposal.
The idea surfaced after Columbus proposed a $385,000 widening of a small stretch of E. North Broadway to accommodate a left turn lane onto High Street.
Westbound motorists who want to turn south onto High use side streets because North Broadway does not have a turn lane, said Mike McLaughlin, a Clintonville Area Commission member.
The seven-member task force that McLaughlin led recommended that the turn-lane project go forward, but that a roundabout should eventually be built, he said.
…The project would cost about $1 million, not including acquiring about 30 parking spaces from a Kroger parking lot on the northwest corner and land from a Starbucks parking lot at the northeast corner and demolishing a vacant commercial building on the southwest corner, Blazer said.
The complaint by residents that adding a westbound left turn lane could somehow increase the likelihood of North Broadway being widened all the way to Indianola hasn’t resonated with me. I think a turn lane could be added with very minimal impacts that would reduce delays at the intersection and solve the cut-through traffic problem for the residential streets in the neighborhood.
Despite that, this is an interesting proposal since there aren’t many examples of multi-lane modern roundabouts in urban locations in the US. The proposed drawing shows a big chunk of the already small Kroger parking lot gone along with the building on the southwest corner of the intersection. I wonder how Kroger feels about that? The estimated cost of the roundabout is $1,000,000, not including land acquisition. The proposed left turn lane is just $365,000. Other economic costs to consider include the cost of crashes at the intersection, vehicle delays, and fuel use.
From the safety perspective, roundabouts reduce crashes by 37% on average and injuries by 50%. Depending on the number of crashes that currently take place at the intersection, that could be a significant cost savings that would make up for the difference in land acquisition and capital costs over time. On the other hand, there is a big debate in the transportation engineering community about the safety of multi-lane roundabouts in an urban context. The sticking point seems to be visually impaired pedestrians. We’re not sure that drivers yield consistently enough to keep a blind pedestrian safe.
I would need to do some detailed traffic modeling, which means I would need turning movement volumes, to determine if delays will be reduced at the intersection or not. Roundabouts usually compare favorably with signalized intersections though. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in Clintonville.
At the cost of tearing down another urban commercial building on the corner, of course. This is more of the same. Nevermind making the street more attractive to businesses, residents, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. The main reason for doing this is the holiest of all that is holy: traffic flow. Nevermind that there are highways, let’s accommodate stupid decision making and ensure that people can choose to live several miles out and speed on through High and lower property values, create high noise pollution to make it less pleasant to live nearby, maintain a hostile pedestrian environment, dissuade businesses from moving in, scare off cyclists from riding on the road, etc. How about lowering the speed limit and adding another light at Clifton Heights or Longview. One thousand feet with nowhere to cross between Broadway and Como is ridiculous. Severity and likelihood of crashes can go down without widening or adding a roundabout.
Roundabouts are very dangerous, particularly to pedestrians. If Columbus wishes to ease access for human beings, avoid roundabouts at all costs. Do you realize the traffic never stops?
I drove down N Broadway today and saw a bunch of homemade signs advocating the roundabout. These people have no idea what they will end up with, one sign says, ‘tired of traffic’, it should say, ‘if you hate the traffic now, just wait until they destroy a high volume intersection and put in a suicide circle’, you ain’t seen nothing till you’ve seen a roundabout traffic jam, with COTA buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians all trying to navigate a traffic solution designed for a small residential area.
If you would just do some due diligence and research this idea you would find out that most roundabouts in heavy traffic are removed. Every been to Boston? Well they have had about 100 yrs to adjust to it. I doubt if many Columbusites would tolerate one day with a roundabout traffic jam.
This is a VERY BAD IDEA, just put in the dedicated turn lanes and adjust the traffic light timing to allow for more even traffic flow. Everyone would be much happier.
I wait anxiously to see the traffic meltdown and the angry mob looking for the traffic engineers who came up with the stupid idea so they can stone them.
Enjoy Clintonville, be careful what you wish for.
$17-19 Million for Just One Intersection in Clintonville?
Posted by columbusite under Transportation
$17-$19 million for a possible roundabout…and what economic investment are we expecting? Well, none, because if it’s for cars it’s no-questions-asked. Whereas (just under) $8 million paid for extensive traffic calming on Gay St from Wall St to Grant Ave (includes curb extensions, bumpouts, additional pedestrian crossings and priciest of all: medians). That’s approximately the same length as N Broadway down to Tulane in Clintonville, except Gay St also needed revamped traffic lights for two-way conversion and saw development in the form of large-scale condo development with Neighborhood Launch and Carlyle’s Watch. If a roundabout is installed here, not only will yet another urban commercial structure be unnecessarily knocked down, but it will not improve High St here to attract development and more visitors. If it does calm traffic it will only be around the intersection; people will just speed up once through. That’s because this is not a “fix” as the article describes it; this will not address the root of the problem which is speeding traffic on this stretch of High. If the city is willing to spend up to $19 million on one inetersection then someone needs to be fired so they can save themselves half the cost of this theoretical roundabout. The estimated $385,000 to widen N Broadway to turn left onto High isn’t a good idea for the same reasons, minus the high price tag. What the city needs to do is make High between N Broadway and Tulane Rd a great destination and make it possible to attract development and more businesses a la High St in the Short North or Gay St Downtown.
Carol,
Roundabouts are less dangerous than regular intersections, although I also have a concern about mixing high vehicle and pedestrian traffic volumes at a multi-lane roundabout in an urban location. I think if drivers were more likely to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks it could work, but I don’t think that is the case in Columbus.
Realist,
Could you post a link to a Google Map of the locations in Boston to which you are referring? I suspect that you are confusing large traffic circles with roundabouts. They are designed differently and operate differently.
Columbusite,
It’s actually for four intersections, not one. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t advocate spending the money on this idea either. I do think the turn lane could be a good idea though.
Here is a very good website that explains the differences between roundabouts and traffic circles.
http://www.alaskaroundabouts.com/mythfact1.html
Thanks for the reply, I will refer any further comments to this discussion:
http://clintvilleroundabout.blogspot.com/
Let’s think about this and have an open dialog.
Clintonville Realist
PS
Would the ’roundabout’ be a solution to the widening of North Broadway? It surely would not alleviate the traffic which continues to grow.
Thanks for the link, but I think your site needs some more direction. First, you haven’t posed any questions for discussion. You’ve just posted a bunch of links. Second, you misspelled “continuious” in the opening sentence and said the Boston metro is smaller than Columbus while also posting a link saying it’s not.
BTW, who suggested widening North Broadway?
A roundabout could alleviate traffic congestion. It’s really not possible to say without more detailed traffic modeling.
Now, the left-turn lane onto High won’t require demolition of a building, but they would need to talk with whoever owns the parking lot on the corner. Aside from that, what’s your opinion on just turning the left hand lane into a straight-forward and left-turn lane instead of not allowing turns onto High. And also install a new light with a left turn signal? How effective would that be and how much would it cost vs an additional lane?
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=clintonville+columbus&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=FwpJSrzECIig8wSo1eGTDQ&ll=40.03155,-83.015469&spn=0.001195,0.003996&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.031557,-83.015581&panoid=0CJ_ok__Wr8Ydey2d5kSLA&cbp=12,301.92,,0,9.92
The left-through lane option is worth considering, but I expect that it would back up traffic in the WB through lane, which is probably why they banned left turns to begin with. The back-ups would increase the chances of WB rear end and sideswipe collisions.
You could fix the WB back-up problem by implementing what we call “split signal phasing,” meaning the EB and WB traffic go separately so there’s no conflicting EB traffic when WB traffic is turning left. BUT, that means there’s four signal phases instead of three. So you’re basically stealing time from High Street to accommodate N. Broadway. That increases congestion on High and would probably screw up signal coordination all along High too.
If there are public meetings, it’s worth asking about though.
[...] looks like the proposed Clintonville roundabout, and all the controversy it stirred up is now a non-issue. There’s no money to build it [...]
someone earlier said about residential areas i just got back from carmel indiana a suburb of indianopolis and they are building roundabouts a lot of them in neighborhoods very confusing in my opinion but i cannot for the life of me why do you want to build one in the middle of a busy intersection? sounds just as absurd as the light rail idea.sure do have a lot of money to waste in these hard economic times !!!!
The roundabout proposal is not “doa.” The Dispatch article stating as such was mistaken.
There are so many misconceptions and assumptions regarding this proposal and roundabouts in general. Please check out
http://www.nbroadway.com/2009/07/roundabout-q.html
for a list of common concerns and responses. If you have any additional, respectful, questions or concerns, please feel free to email NBSA at nbsacolumbus@live.com.
Regards,
Communications Team
North Broadway Street Association
http://www.nbroadway.com
Just to point out an error of fact. There is no vacant building on the SW corner of that intersection. That building is a rehabilitation center I believe. Also, the majority of the hubub is coming from the rather affluent residents of E. North Broadway…basically they have too much money and time on their hands.
John,
Yeah, I can’t spell very well but the point was made that, IT WAS A BAD IDEA. Seems like others thought so too.
Ta Ta
Bad idea?!? MORONIC idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will try to be brief and respectful @ the same time but honestly,folks,are any of you as sick of these round-abouters as I am? Have any of the supporters actually gone out to SEE AND DRIVE the monstrousity the City created @ Morse and 62? I used to work out there and I can tell you ( as a “Jersey Girl”) the infamous Jersey Circles are straight-aways compared to THAT mess…..and the amt of time and land this thing took…well ENB residents won’t know what hit their precious property values…and Ms Tompko,Pulease dearest…anyone literate knows how YOU feel…enough editorials already!!!!!! ONE stinking turning lane with a turning signal coordinated to the turning lane on the opposite side of the street ( or make the entire intersection a 4-way street-each side goes on it’s own) and give it a 6-8 month trial run. What’s the harm,Madam? If the City spends ONE DIME of the new tax on this stupid roundabout,I will march on City Hall with a torch & I invite anyone so inclined to come with me! Comments?
I drive through 62 and Morse often. I don’t find driving through it to be no hustle at all. “One stinking mess” — really? I actually kind of like it. I am not arguing here that an intersection with right turn lane is better or worse than the roundabout (I’m not a traffic engineer, just a driver), but I honestly don’t have any difficulty with using the particular roundabout you are talking about. Nor have I heard about any serious traffic accident at the roundabout.
“March on City Hall (meaning, Gahanna or Cbus?) with a torch” — seriously?
I am so sick of these “roundabouters” and their yard signs, ribbons, etc.
They really have provided no convincing evidence that a roundabout would be safe for visually impaired pedestrians.
They chose to live on Broadway. At no time in the 20+ years I have lived in Columbus (15 of those years in Clintonville) has Broadway not been a busy street.
Get over it already. The issue is dead and most of us just don’t care (although they would have you believe that there is some huge groundswell of support for the roundabout).