Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Transportation/SR-211-Roundabouts/i-XHCNmdL/0/395dbf8e/5K/SR%20211%20RAB%20CONCEPT%20012020-5K.jpg)
Two major Riverside/Avondale Historic District intersections are headed for a radical makeover. A public hearing will be held Wednesday, January 22 on a project to transform where Herschel Street and St. Johns Avenue meet.
Full article: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/roundabouts-proposed-for-fishweir-creek-intersection/
I think overall it's better, but drivers going north on Herschel trying to either make a left on Woodmere or going to the shopping center with Harpoon Louie's are expected to use the roundabout at St John's/Geraldine.
No way that happens in practice. Instead, they'll spin a U-turn on the Fishweir Creek bridge which could be dangerous. I'd argue that moving the southern roundabout to Woodmere would be more practical.
My main concern would be the omission of dedicated bike facilities. If they aren't included here, you're looking at Roosevelt being the next north/south corridor.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 22, 2020, 12:49:52 PM
My main concern would be the omission of dedicated bike facilities.
This! I live on Herschel and this is a huge omission.
Quote from: Steve on January 22, 2020, 12:34:31 PM
I think overall it's better, but drivers going north on Herschel trying to either make a left on Woodmere or going to the shopping center with Harpoon Louie's are expected to use the roundabout at St John's/Geraldine.
No way that happens in practice. Instead, they'll spin a U-turn on the Fishweir Creek bridge which could be dangerous. I'd argue that moving the southern roundabout to Woodmere would be more practical.
I see your point about turning left onto Woodmere, but it seems you could use the St. Johns roundabout to get to the Harpoon Louie's parking lot.
My question is, if you are coming south on Herschel, or coming out of Geraldine, or out of the elementary school, with the tear-drop shape of the north roundabout, how do you go north on St. Johns? Looks like you will have to cross the bridge an use the southern roundabout. I think this might encourage the impatient types to U-Turn on the bridge. Of course, the solution to that is to extend the raised median all the way across the bridge.
How about no roundabouts? Seems that you could maintain the signals and make safety improvements to the existing intersections. Sometimes I think we get a little overboard with the roundabouts in trying to force them into places where they aren't totally necessary.
Right Size Avondale!! There are Million Plus houses that will be impacted by this.
No consideration for bike/pedestrian access and will certainly encourage driver's to behave in unintended manners. Yep, sounds like an FDOT design.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 22, 2020, 01:27:13 PM
My question is, if you are coming south on Herschel, or coming out of Geraldine, or out of the elementary school, with the tear-drop shape of the north roundabout, how do you go north on St. Johns? Looks like you will have to cross the bridge an use the southern roundabout. I think this might encourage the impatient types to U-Turn on the bridge. Of course, the solution to that is to extend the raised median all the way across the bridge.
I missed that one - you're right.
And yes, I agree about the bike thing. I can't make the meeting but I wrote into FDOT about my issue and no bike facilities.
While I'm okay with roundabouts and in concept I like the idea here, the more I look at this I feel like unless we can address these issues, we're trying too hard in my opinion.
The ironic thing: FDOT has no bike considerations here, yet look at Hendricks avenue - between two projects they removed a ton of on street parking in order to install bike lanes. I'd argue in that section the parking is more valuable than the bike lane, especially on the older segment from the Square to Riverplace blvd.
I don't get it.
Quote from: Steve on January 22, 2020, 01:59:43 PM
The ironic thing: FDOT has no bike considerations here, yet look at Hendricks avenue - between two projects they removed a ton of on street parking in order to install bike lanes. I'd argue in that section the parking is more valuable than the bike lane, especially on the older segment from the Square to Riverplace blvd.
I don't get it.
So far, the Bike Lobby hasn't chimed in on the Herschel project, like they did on the SR 13 project?
There were definitely individuals who chimed in about the bike paths at the meeting. Hopefully, FDOT will make some modifications to the plan.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 22, 2020, 09:47:25 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 22, 2020, 01:59:43 PM
The ironic thing: FDOT has no bike considerations here, yet look at Hendricks avenue - between two projects they removed a ton of on street parking in order to install bike lanes. I'd argue in that section the parking is more valuable than the bike lane, especially on the older segment from the Square to Riverplace blvd.
I don't get it.
So far, the Bike Lobby hasn't chimed in on the Herschel project, like they did on the SR 13 project?
I live in the immediate area- my Trek Marlin hardly ever hits the neighborhood road, pretty crude and unsafe biking area.
Would the lack of Cycling component be cause for Roundabout legal challenge/ Comp Plan Element grounds?
At one time Duval county had a full time Cycling administrator?
Quote from: Steve on January 22, 2020, 01:59:43 PM
The ironic thing: FDOT has no bike considerations here, yet look at Hendricks avenue - between two projects they removed a ton of on street parking in order to install bike lanes. I'd argue in that section the parking is more valuable than the bike lane, especially on the older segment from the Square to Riverplace blvd.
I don't get it.
a) If people want parking, they should pay for it. FDOT shouldn't be in the business of giving it away.
b) I'm not sure what parking was lost on Hendricks? How many --> decades<--- back does this go?
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on January 26, 2020, 01:50:55 PM
a) If people want parking, they should pay for it. FDOT shouldn't be in the business of giving it away.
Umm...nearly EVERY road in Jacksonville had parallel parking on it through the 1930's. Nearly every other city also has this.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on January 26, 2020, 01:50:55 PM
b) I'm not sure what parking was lost on Hendricks? How many --> decades<--- back does this go?
Hendricks between the Square and Prudential drive was parallel parking on nearly the entire stretch from as far back as I've seen pictures until when FDOT completed the terrible reconstruction. Was that 2010?
It was around 2006.
For decades plain OL' traffic light signals were sufficient.
Why now the considerate Roundabouts?
........projected increased density/ traffic.......
^ could be simply because they work better and are far safer
They take up a ton of land though, making it pretty much non tax revenue generating. Sometimes we tend to force them into places they don't fit. I long for the day when when we kill signals and roundabouts at some of these urban core intersections and go for four way stop signs. Superior traffic calming, less long term maintenance and no extra right-of-way needed. Just have to be willing to live with a bit more traffic congestion.
In this case, it looks like the Fishweir Roundabout fit within existing right-of-way; maybe some corner-clips.
And, from my experience, fewer people know how to navigate 4-way stops than know how to use a roundabout.
^Difference is they all tend to completely stop at some point, which is best for pedestrians and cyclist.
No R/W is being taken from looking at the drawings. That will speed up the time it takes to start building it.
My bringing up R/W was a general statement about roundabouts. Not for this particular project which doesn't have a R/W issue but also excluded bicycle facilities initially (I've been told it will be modified to include bicycle lanes now). I see too many of them (roundabouts being proposed) on a consistent basis at work that I question the merits or need in certain situations.
Just exactly what the neighborhood didn't ask for.
The latest neighborhood buzz has been " traffic calming", some residents would rather see attention, and funds applied to " Traffic Calming".
DOT attributes the Roundabout idea to DOT Jim Knight, for Pedestrian Safety.
Quote from: Florida Power And Light on January 29, 2020, 05:39:51 AM
DOT attributes the Roundabout idea to DOT Jim Knight, for Pedestrian Safety.
I drive on this road every weekday, morning and afternoon at varying times and sometimes more than twice a day. I've never thought the traffic at these intersections was bad, and I don't think it's too hazardous for pedestrians currently. I often see parents crossing the road with their kids from the new apartments towards the flower shop and if they followed the crossing signals they got through just fine without having to hurry.
Do you think these roundabouts would potentially make it more dangerous for parents to cross with their children? That corner is pretty blind and people go through pretty quickly, 30 mph or so. And it looks like people could get up to 30 mph from the plan that they've provided us.
I think someone already mentioned that to go from Geraldine to St Johns they would need to make a u-turn at the southern roundabout, which looks pretty annoying.
Add crossing lights to the roundabouts for the pedestrians.
For the few people that would have to go all the way around the 'bouts, oh well, they're side streets anyway, would probs cut back on the number of people using those intersections anyway. To go North on I-75 from the Flint airport you have to go all the way around a roundabout, it replaced a jug-handle (still on satellite view), works fine there.
The problem with the current design requiring drivers to go across the bridge to turn around at the next roundabout is that plenty of drivers will choose not to, and will simply make an illegal U-turn on the bridge as long as there is no median or something else to prevent that.
Quote from: Josh on January 29, 2020, 12:11:42 PM
The problem with the current design requiring drivers to go across the bridge to turn around at the next roundabout is that plenty of drivers will choose not to, and will simply make an illegal U-turn on the bridge as long as there is no median or something else to prevent that.
That can be 'fixed' by extending the raised median/traffic separator across the bridge to connect the two roundabouts.
District 14 Town Hall Haul meeting this evening.
District 14 Councilwoman in learning curve mode. After all she had a full plate.
Dot referenced earlier present at meeting.
Cause for Roundabout was Traffic Study that arrived at grade C/D
I asked question- was projected traffic increase / ADT ( average daily traffic) a consideration in Roundabout implementation?
To this, was informed will need to get back to me on this.
Regards C/ D Trafific study grade, some noted that all seems fine at the old fashioned signalized intersections, pretty much like what experienced for the past decades.( although St Johns Village occupancy rate not discussed)
Councilwoman noted Roudabouts might " increase value" of the neighborhood, " just like the San Marco".
A thought occurred, something not to be interjected or tolerated at the meeting:
The area is already over rated. A nice place......
The neighborhood prestige and value could be compromised thanks to a soon to begin botched Fishweir Creek Dredge project, unmitigated increasing traffic/ speed/ calming and eventually the West Side flows in to Western RAP District, at the edge of The Upscale Roundabouts.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 22, 2020, 12:49:52 PM
My main concern would be the omission of dedicated bike facilities. If they aren't included here, you're looking at Roosevelt being the next north/south corridor.
I actually really love this plan generally. I think it will beautify the streetscape in the area and can potentially have some public art in the roundabouts.
I think the pedestrian level looks pretty good. I would hope they would insert some of the lighted crosswalks similar to the one by the Shoppes at Avondale.
The inclusion of bike lanes would not be difficult. They could also just double track the bike lanes down Herschel where the old trolley tracks were once south of the final traffic circle on St. Johns. There is plenty of room to keep the parking spots and make bike lanes on that side. You would just need an appropriate barrier for dedicated lanes.
I think the tough thing would be business traffic for Harps and the Hardware store on Geraldine. Might cause traffic into the neighborhood from business traffic. For the most part though, huge improvement for the area and potentially the beginning of streetscaping the remainder of that business district.
Is that C/D grade LOS or Level of Service? Also was that operating under today's traffic conditions or some future year? I ask because a LOS D is acceptable on FDOT facilities.
Bike Lane has been added.
I wish I had asked the Dot Rep at the Town Hall meeting why Bike Lanes were not part of the original plan.
By the way- today is the last day for formal public comment in the proposal.
Lake- as to LOS/ ADT , I do not know.
My question at Town Hall as to forecast projected increased ADT ( average daily traffic) could not be answered at the meeting.
Very interesting. Typically these types of projects/solutions aren't proposed without an evaluation of existing and projected traffic conditions.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 01, 2020, 06:47:30 PM
Very interesting. Typically these types of projects/solutions aren't proposed without an evaluation of existing and projected traffic conditions.
Any other thoughts on some improvements?
Maybe expanding the sidewalk near the retail areas down Herschel and improving the lighting?
Also, maybe creating parallel parking rather than slanted parking down Herschel and increasing the almost "linear park" nature of where the old street car line was with more green space?
I would also be interested to see where the bike lanes were put. This area could be a great walkable environment if this is done correctly by FDOT.