79 replies to this topic

[renamerusk]

 

Might be reading too much into this one, but notice the cars on Belknap. It's shown as a 2-way street. Calming Belknap/Weatherford's vehicular traffic would do a lot to help pedestrians working their way north from Sundance into the park.

Yes.... I love it. I agree that the 2 way street will help slow the traffic down. That's a great idea.

 

 

I have been giving some thoughts to the favoritism being given to changing once 1-way streets into 2-way streets; and finds myself questioning whether this really makes sense in terms of efficiency.  I currently think that one way streets are more efficient in moving traffic than are two way streets.
 

[Austin55]

 

In 2011, Louisville converted two one-way streets near downtown, each a little more than a mile long, back to two-way traffic. In data that they gathered over the following three years, Gilderbloom and William Riggs found that traffic collisions dropped steeply — by 36 percent on one street and 60 percent on the other — after the conversion, even as the number of cars traveling these roads increased. Crime dropped too, by about a quarter, as crime in the rest of the city was rising. Property values rose, as did business revenue and pedestrian traffic, relative to before the change and to a pair of nearby comparison streets. The city, as a result, now stands to collect higher property tax revenues along these streets, and to spend less sending first-responders to accidents there.

 

 

https://www.washingt...m=.ed635b9684e3

 

 

Also keep in mind that Weatherford and Belknap's intersection with Henderson is one of the most accident prone in the entire region.

 

Also check out what AT&T asked of Dallas to keep thier HQ downtown - smaller and 2 way streets.

[renamerusk]

Without attempting to discount the accident statistics, there are a handful of corridors that serve the added purpose of facilitating crosstown traffic routes.  Both Belknap and Weatherford Streets serve as alternatives to the freeway to connect east and west sectors of the city. 

 

The reduction in lanes will slow down traffic to allow right and left turns; and will create greater congestion and gridlock.

[rriojas71]

 
 
The reduction in lanes will slow down traffic to allow right and left turns; and will create greater congestion and gridlock.

I kinda disagree that more congestion will be created. Once Belknap & Weatherford streets become 2 way streets they will serve the same purpose as a single one way street.

That is the problem I believe they are trying to solve. "How to slow down people who use one way streets downtown as a freeway going at freeway speeds."

[renamerusk]

Didn't realize they were planning to make Belknap two ways.

 

As a pedestrian in downtown areas, I much prefer one way streets. That way, you only have to worry about cross traffic coming from one direction.

 

 You know what you speak of.  

 

Add the "left turn" to that mixture and you have the perfect "witch's brew".

[Doohickie]

I think the one-way streets in downtown are about right.  I wouldn't mess with them, especially around the courthouse.

[renamerusk]

I don't think it would to be honest... I think flashing pedestrian lights embedded in the street has been the best solution that I have seen here. Dallas has a couple and it really helps to make drivers more conscious about crossing pedestrians.

 

 

Well they are meant to be noticed... they are not aesthetically pleasing but they sure look better than the lights of ambulances at the scene of a pedestrian/auto altercation.

I guess from the opposition on this forum to the solutions being proposed is to just keep things the way they are now on both streets and just put the onus on the pedestrian to take their safety and well-being into their own hands and hope for the best.

IMO people drive way to fast on both streets coming into and out of downtown and I have seen many cars run the red lights making this area feel very unsafe even when I'm in a vehicle. If Heritage Park is to become the meeting place we envision it to become then changes to the vehicular pattern needs to change. If not then I believe many tragedies that could have been avoided will occur.

 

  Perhaps what is needed is the "Human Factor" aka motorcops and bicycle patrol to cover the 6 blocks encompassing Weatherford and Belknap Streets.  I'm old enough to remember the day when there were traffic cadets in Downtown intersections.  Even mounted police.  Nothing slowed down cars like the sight of law enforcement.

 

Traffic Cadet a top of a tower.

[Austin55]

Most of the W7th area going one way

 

https://www.wfaa.com...rowds/545883223

 

[Doohickie]

Not sure about this.

[renamerusk]

 

Not sure about this.

 

Fort Worth Star Telegram - "Since the growth of bars and restaurants in the corridor, the city and police have fielded numerous complaints about noise, drinking, traffic hazards and a lack of parking. At times, it's been difficult for emergency vehicles to maneuver through the crowded streets".

 

And with all of this none, the city plans to add the Trail Drive Connector to the mix.

[renamerusk]

Road Diet coming to Sylvania soon ~30-60 days. From Belknap to 28th St. Ann Zedah announced it last night at the Oakhurst NA meeting.

 

There will not be bike lanes initially as the street is too torn up from all the traffic during the 35W construction.

 

 

Great news! This has been a big grassroots project for a while now.

 

Probably more a "road topic" than a Forest Park Blvd topic.

[John T Roberts]

For the record, I have split Sylvania Avenue into its own thread.

[renamerusk]

Still think this would be the coolest location for a traffic circle + statue:

 

https://www.google.c...m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Doohickie]

Yep, they blew it when they didn't make that a traffic circle/roundabout/spinnerama/whatever.

[renamerusk]

The recently proposed changes coming to 7th Street between the river and University Drive ought to include among the changes  a circular design that would more efficiently management vehicular flow at this heavily trafficked intersection.

[John T Roberts]

I agree that a traffic circle should have been designed when the intersection was redone.  It's a shame that all the money was spent on an intersection that doesn't function very well, when a traffic circle would have solved the problem.

[Doohickie]

I wonder if there's enough room for a roundabout that could handle the traffic that goes through there?  I'm kind of thinking maybe not, and there are several buildings that would prevent any growth in the right of way.

[renamerusk]

Eminent domain can be utilized in the case where the "public good" is served. 

 

The traffic/congestion that occurs at this intersection is largely created by the 5-mins delays caused from a cycle of multiple signalization.  A combination of a the proposed calming of 7th Street plus the slower flows of traffic due to having to negotiate the circle will decrease the time spent idling at this intersection.

[elpingüino]

This thread has lots of good discussion about the roundabout proposals at the Seventh/University/Bailey intersection. http://www.fortworth...opic=333&page=2

[Doohickie]

Eminent domain can be utilized in the case where the "public good" is served. 
 
The traffic/congestion that occurs at this intersection is largely created by the 5-mins delays caused from a cycle of multiple signalization.  A combination of a the proposed calming of 7th Street plus the slower flows of traffic due to having to negotiate the circle will decrease the time spent idling at this intersection.

 
That's going to be really tough when there are buildings built right out to the sidewalk such as the Eyeworks building and Museum Place on the opposite corner which is a bit further back.  Could a viable traffic circle be built between those two pinch points?  If not, I don't think eminent domain could be used for newer building like that, at least not without an extended legal battle.
 
How many lanes wide would a circle need to be?  I'm not sure 2 is enough for the traffic flow.  Two works at the Weatherford circle because it's huge and traffic is highly directional based on time of day (commutes).  When the University/W7th area is busy, it's busy from all sides.
 
Also... it would not not a geometrically balanced circle; of the 6 streets feeding the circle, 4 of them are contained within about 120° of arc.  Think about how you would filter those out without cars crossing each others' path trying to get to the correct lane.  Prior to Museum Place buildings, that could have been spread out a bit by pushing the boundary of the circle out to nearly Barden Street, but that ship has sailed.

[renamerusk]

I think that it is quite possible to construct a traffic circle at this intersection.  IMO, engineers could actually design a circle without needing to take up much more room than already exists at this intersection.   Currently there are turning lanes coming from each street into the intersection.  These turning lanes can be eliminated because in a traffic circle, left turning lanes are not needed.  Left turns are also the most problematic turns in traffic as motorists are crossing into the path of oncoming vehicles.

 

Approaching the traffic circle is key to properly mixing the flow of traffic.  Motorists position their vehicles in the designated lane(s) that will lead them in the direction that the motorists intends to travel.  Merging traffic is a simple maneuver when the traffic is slowed to such a state and will not be that complicated.  If necessary, continuing in the circle until you can carryout the lane change and getting into the proper lane for the direction that the motorists intends to travel is always a possibility.

[Austin55]

I'm curious how any future circle might alter the dedicated bus lanes. The W7th rebuild money is coming from the last bond and was specifically stopped just short of the intersection.

[renamerusk]

I'm curious how any future circle might alter the dedicated bus lanes. The W7th rebuild money is coming from the last bond and was specifically stopped just short of the intersection.

 

 Presumably, busses would enter and exit the circle as other motorists.  A westbound bus would shift into lane to continue west bound; and an eastbound bus would clear the circle and take the dedicated bus lane towards the river.

Traffic circles are common all around the world; busses not excluded. 

 

Slow and easy; its not as frightful as you would think.

[Doohickie]

Approaching the traffic circle is key to properly mixing the flow of traffic.  Motorists position their vehicles in the designated lane(s) that will lead them in the direction that the motorists intends to travel.  Merging traffic is a simple maneuver when the traffic is slowed to such a state and will not be that complicated.  If necessary, continuing in the circle until you can carryout the lane change and getting into the proper lane for the direction that the motorists intends to travel is always a possibility.

 

As someone who commutes through the Weatherford circle two times a day:

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

People are idiots, starting right from their approach to the traffic circle.  The number of people who enter on the left lane when they want to get off at the first turn is disheartening, and it just goes downhill from there.

[Doohickie]

 

I'm curious how any future circle might alter the dedicated bus lanes. The W7th rebuild money is coming from the last bond and was specifically stopped just short of the intersection.

 

 Presumably, busses would enter and exit the circle as other motorists.  A westbound bus would shift into lane to continue west bound; and an eastbound bus would clear the circle and take the dedicated bus lane towards the river.

Traffic circles are common all around the world; busses not excluded. 

 

Slow and easy; its not as frightful as you would think.

 

This is where the lack of space would be a problem.  I believe there would not be enough physical room for a bus to get around a circle at this intersection without impinging on the neighboring lanes. 

[renamerusk]

As someone who commutes through the Weatherford circle two times a day:  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

People are idiots, starting right from their approach to the traffic circle.  The number of people who enter on the left lane when they want to get off at the first turn is disheartening, and it just goes downhill from there.

 

This is where the lack of space would be a problem.  I believe there would not be enough physical room for a bus to get around a circle at this intersection without impinging on the neighboring lanes. 

 

 

 Granted there are idiots; however, idiotic behavior is not exclusive to traffic circles. 

 

The Weatherford Traffic Circle is broad and the speed limit is "appropriate" for the road conditions.

 

This particular traffic circle will require a speed appropriate for this intersection.  After all, speeds on all roads is governed by the conditions.  A curve requires you to have a speed less than a straight road.  In the end, there are motoring laws and the aversion by a majority of drivers to keep their accident and insurance rates in check.

 

Bus drivers are much better drivers than motorists in general.  I have marveled at the way bus drivers perform turns,  maintain speed compliance, etc. while doing all of these and maintaining their lane or while not impinging on other motorists; in fact it is the other motorist who usually impinges on the bus.

[Doohickie]

I don't doubt bus drivers' abilities.  I'm saying that geometrically, when you look at the space a bus occupies, there simply won't be enough room in the lanes because the traffic circle will be too small and have radii that are too sharp for the buses to navigate.

[renamerusk]

There are not any left turns in a traffic circle; all vehicles can maintain their lane position.  Motorist must signal their lane change; and motorists must yield allowing changes to from left to right; I believe it is the law.

 

I am not an engineer, but it does appear that there is room possible at this intersection.  Each feeder road has 3 existing lanes (1 turn, 2 forward).  I can see a circle consisting of three lanes and motorists driving at the posted speed being able to navigate the circle, busses included.  It has been scientifically proven that traffic circles are safer than signaled intersection: it just safer to merge with traffic than to cross in the path of oncoming traffic.  Traffic circle operate regardless of signal failure or power outages.

 

Lane changing and motorists merging happens all the time on freeways and at much higher speeds.

[Doohickie]

Seriously, what would the design look like for the NW portion of the circle, where 4 roads come off in 120° of arc?  I just can't picture it, especially when it's the last of those four (Camp Bowie) that would handle the most traffic.

[txbornviking]

I've often wondered what traffic counts are on Bailey between 6th & the intersection in question.

Might it make sense to close that bit of street?

[renamerusk]

Seriously, what would the design look like for the NW portion of the circle, where 4 roads come off in 120° of arc?  I just can't picture it, especially when it's the last of those four (Camp Bowie) that would handle the most traffic.

 

 Maybe it is impossible; and again, maybe what it takes are the skills of an excellent engineering team.  My guess is that there was a similar configuration somewhere that was engineered into a circular traffic node.

 

I tend to put my faith in the skills of the planners and the professional who do this from experience.

[Volare]

 Maybe it is impossible; and again, maybe what it takes are the skills of an excellent engineering team.... 

 

 

 

Given what we have seen of the road engineering skills available in this area (35W debacle), we should be very afraid.

[renamerusk]

 

 Maybe it is impossible; and again, maybe what it takes are the skills of an excellent engineering team.... 

 

Given what we have seen of the road engineering skills available in this area (35W debacle), we should be very afraid.

 

 Are we only limited to engineering firms that are in this area?
 

 A simple and quick search produces numerous traffic engineers firms within the U.S. that specialize and have proven experience in developing a traffic circle.

[Austin55]

I swear at one point there was a plan view of a concept on this. I can't find it anywhere.

[Doohickie]

You're probably right, but I bet it pre-dates Museum Place and the Eyeworks buildings.  I think they "pinch" the circle to the point that it may not be viable.

[elpingüino]

I swear at one point there was a plan view of a concept on this. I can't find it anywhere.

Internet Archive to the rescue: https://web.archive..../cp20010806.asp

(Scroll halfway down)

[Doohickie]

Yeah, that's not going to work with the recently developed buildings.  In the end, they make it difficult to bring the four North/West streets into the circle.

[renamerusk]

Foul. The 2001 Roundabout was a draft proposal.  You should not overlay one atop of the other to prove a negative.

 

Today's actual street layout is different in shape, size and placement. There is actual room to alter the intersection by reducing the amount of green space away currently present at the intersection that it is not out of the realm to put in 3-4 standard spherical lanes.

[Doohickie]

The recent buildings developed around the intersection have done two things that make a traffic circle difficult, if not impossible:

1.  They squeeze the space available from the NW and SE sides.

2.  They eliminate the possibility of spreading out the 4 streets that currently come into the intersection in the NW 120° of arc, putting too many entries/exits in too small of an area.

 

No, I'm not a traffic planner, but I am a mechanical engineer and I've developed a lot of component layouts, optimizing the use of available space.  I have my doubts that the old "cartoon" concept design would be feasible, but with the additional constraints of the new buildings, in my opinion as an engineer, a traffic circle at that site is now impossible.

 

You don't have to believe me, that's fine, but your opinion and my opinion don't mean doodly squat anyway, since neither one of us is a public official.

[george84]

I think you are right, bailey and west 7th are extremely close together with just a thin sidewalk in between. Camp Bowie is not much further. Theres no way people could merge into a traffic circle from streets so close together. I live a few blocks from this intersection but I never use it because the lights are so long. I always go around using 5th street, which is much quicker. Also much bumpier, I wish they would repave it.

[renamerusk]

This kind of issue makes for interesting debate, whether or not a traffic circle is feasible at this horrendously manufacturer 5-Point Intersection (5PI) and is an issue similar to the feasibility of a regional airport for the City.  Things do not become feasible until at least an attempt is made; nothing ever happens if you don't try.

 

There is a DOT (U.S.) manual on the construction of Roundabouts and Circles.  A link below is provided fyi (it is technical in nature so beware).  Two immediate requirements must be met:: Diameter and Speed.  The standard Inscribed Circle Diameter Range (ICDR) is 150-180ft and Speed for Two Lane Circle is 25mph. 

 

If the 5PI has a diameter to build an ICDR of 150-180ft, then the 5-Point Traffic Circle (5PTC) is feasible.

Obviously, speed can be reduced to 25mph.  The obstacles that remain to designing the 5PTC is the approaching streets and their reconfiguration.

 

I personally do not have any idea of the actual diameter of the 5PI.  Until that is determined, there is really not anyway to prove the negative.

 

https://www.fhwa.dot...0067/000676.pdf

[Doohickie]

This kind of issue makes for interesting debate, whether or not a traffic circle is feasible at this horrendously manufacturer 5-Point Intersection (5PI) and is an issue similar to the feasibility of a regional airport for the City.  Things do not become feasible until at least an attempt is made; nothing ever happens if you don't try.

 

There is a DOT (U.S.) manual on the construction of Roundabouts and Circles.  A link below is provided fyi (it is technical in nature so beware).  Two immediate requirements must be met:: Diameter and Speed.  The standard Inscribed Circle Diameter Range (ICDR) is 150-180ft and Speed for Two Lane Circle is 25mph. 

 

If the 5PI has a diameter to build an ICDR of 150-180ft, then the 5-Point Traffic Circle (5PTC) is feasible.

Obviously, speed can be reduced to 25mph.  The obstacles that remain to designing the 5PTC is the approaching streets and their reconfiguration.

 

I personally do not have any idea of the actual diameter of the 5PI.  Until that is determined, there is really not anyway to prove the negative.

 

https://www.fhwa.dot...0067/000676.pdf

 

Let me guide you through my thought process:

1. This is a six point intersection:  7th St. (both ways), Unversity (both ways) Camp Bowie, Bailey.

2. The 150-180 feet diameter is for a 4 point roundabout per footnote 1 on the table on page 13 of the manual.

3. The one depicted in the manual indicates that entry and exit lanes line up (i.e., no circumferential space in between).

4. For a 6 point roundabout, the diameter would need to be increased to provide two additional entries/exits.  Roughly speaking, the circumference would need to increase 50%, and diameter is proportional to circumference.  So the inscribed circle diameter would need to be 50% larger 225-270ft.

5. The distance between the Eyeworks building and the Museum Place building between Bailey and 7th is 266 feet (per Google Map measurement).

6. So under the most ideal conditions, the inscribed circle diameter of a 6 point traffic circle would *barely* fit in the space available.

7. Although the roundabout itself would fit, there is not enough room for the entry/exit lanes.

 

Geometrically, as soon as the Eyeworks building was built there was no longer enough room for a roundabout meeting the DOT guidelines there.

 

Even with the assumption that Bailey is cut off at the knees to make it a 5 point intersection, the inscribed circle becomes 188 - 225 ft and it's still a very, very tight fit once you attempt to add in the entry/exit lanes.

 

The inscribed circle of the concept drawing looks like it's right around 260-270 feet in diameter and my cobbled together picture is supported by my thought process points 1-7.

[george84]

I'm no traffic engineer or anything, so I don't know if this would be feasible, but the only thing I can think of is if somehow the intersection can be "shifted" so to speak a little bit to the east/northeast, taking land from the suburban-style shopping center with the Chipotle in it. That is the only building at the intersection that isn't a nice, high-density urban structure. Of course the owner of that land would have something to say about that, and my brother-in-law who is in commercial real estate has told me the owner of that center has a clause in all tenant leases allowing for a 180 day notice to vacate, because long-term they do plan to go vertical on the site. So probably just a pipe-dream, but it's the only land at the intersection with a big parking lot. 

[renamerusk]

Technically, this is over my head. 

 

However, it does seem that you are not willing to allow that the 6PI can be shifted and the feeder roads can be aligned to fit the new configuration; even eliminating one feeder road is a possibility in the name of efficiency.

 

Of course, if the 6PI is determined on what exists today and not what it could be with a new configuration which likely entails the use of ED, then the conclusion is that it is not feasible.

 

To me, there does appear to be usable space that now is being used for landscaping and surface parking at 6PI that should be included in the final determination about a 6PTC.  Ultimately, measurable proof that the required diameter does not exist is the only way to definitively state that it is impossible. 

 

I hope that it is accepted that the current 6PI is a dreadful, energy wasting, less safe and and intersection lacking in esthetics; and that a better 6PI is needed.

[Doohickie]

Technically, this is over my head. 

 

However, it does seem that you are not willing to allow that the 6PI can be shifted and the feeder roads can be aligned to fit the new configuration; even eliminating one feeder road is a possibility in the name of efficiency.

 

Of course, if the 6PI is determined on what exists today and not what it could be with a new configuration which likely entails the use of ED, then the conclusion is that it is not feasible.

 

To me, there does appear to be usable space that now is being used for landscaping and surface parking at 6PI that should be included in the final determination about a 6PTC.  Ultimately, measurable proof that the required diameter does not exist is the only way to definitively state that it is impossible. 

 

I hope that it is accepted that the current 6PI is a dreadful, energy wasting, less safe and and intersection lacking in esthetics; and that a better 6PI is needed.

 

I provided measurable proof... see point 5.

 

I'm not saying that a professional traffic planner couldn't make it work, but it sure would be ugly.  One key for roundabouts as evidenced by the cartoon concept and backed up by the DOT guideline, is that entry/exit points need to be more or less evenly spaced around the roundabout, and the Museum Place and Eyeworks buildings preclude that.  In retrospect, I bet that was part of the consideration for *not* going with a roundabout back then... they looked at it and decided it really doesn't fit.

[Doohickie]

I think if one point were eliminated, it should be W7th Street, west of the intersection.  I would terminate W7th one block west at Barden St.  Camp Bowie could shift north and enter the roundabout somewhere close to the current W7th.  The roundabout could be elongated into an oval or ellipse, with the major axis on a SW to NE line, including possibly taking some of the parking lot on the NW corner of the intersection.  It would still take some wizardry to make it work I think.

 

Keeping W7th and eliminating Bailey doesn't really help too much geometrically.  Between the Post Office and the Museum Place building north of W7th, the space gained by removing Bailey couldn't be used for one of the other entrance/exit lanes.  The buildings are in the way.  But the building south of W7th is back a bit which would allow Camp Bowing to shift northward, away from S University to spread things out a bit.

 

The downside is that W7th would no longer be continuous.  A driver would need to detour up to W6th St. or down Camp Bowie to Van Cliburn Way to go to/from the western portion of 7th Street.  I'm not sure that would be well received.

[txbornviking]

while the data is quite "old," NCTCOG has some traffic counts for these areas.

 

as of 2010, West 7th (main thoroughfare) had 21,543 vehicles per day

as of 2009, Bailey (between 6th and the intersection) had 5,057 vehicles per day

as of 2004, West 7th (between Barden and the intersection) 4,480 vehicles per day

 

https://www.nctcog.o.../traffic-counts

[renamerusk]

Agreeing with you and much of your analysis; and yes it will require loads of wizardry.

 

Among other things, I believe motorists and cyclists will be able to navigate a 6PTC; not so sure about foot traffic. 

 

All in all, its complicated and would , should it ever happen, be a challenge that upon completion is worthy of some kind of an engineering award.

[Austin55]

Evidently Dash and presumably route 2 will have signal jumps enabled, so they would get a chance to go ahead of the cars. In a roundabout situation this would help them as well so they wouldn't need to merge.

[renamerusk]

Can someone please explain what is "signal jump?"