Study: Roundabout or turn lanes needed on PT Parkway near MHS

Tue, 05/30/2006 - 3:35pm
By: John Munford

The Peachtree City Council will again consider how to improve the intersection of Walt Banks Road and Peachtree Parkway at its regular meeting Thursday night.

The city’s traffic consulting firm has recommended two options: either create a roundabout so traffic can flow smoothly or add left-turn lanes in both directions on the parkway and a right-turn lane on Walt Banks for westbound vehicles approaching the parkway from McIntosh High School.

The roundabout would cost about $350,000 while the turn lanes would cost $460,000, according to estimates from the firm, Qk4.

The city could also build the turn lanes and add the traffic signal at a later date (estimated cost: $90,000), as it will likely be needed in the next five years, the firm has indicated.

The firm also produced a roundabout design that would route a golf cart tunnel under the intersection diagonally from the southeast corner of the intersection to the northwest corner of the intersection, but that would cost an estimated $870,000 including the roundabout construction.

When the matter was first presented by staff several months ago, some council members had concerns about how the roundabout would affect the safety of the at-grade golf cart crossing on the parkway since vehicles would be encouraged to keep moving through the intersection, perhaps making it more difficult to stop quickly for a golf cart crossing the road.

The crossing is used by students to get to and from McIntosh, and Qk4 noted that the traffic on the crossing is concentrated during one hour in the morning and in the afternoon, coinciding with school activity.

The roundabout design would relocate the parkway golf cart crossing a bit further south, and the Walt Banks crossing a little further west.

In other business, council will also consider adopting an ordinance that formalizes the process for dealing with traffic complaints and determining whether action is necessary or not.

The proposed traffic calming ordinance allows for city staff to conduct a traffic study of the area. If it is determined that a speed or traffic volume problem meets certain standards, the city would first use any non-physical deterrents such as declaring a street a “designated residential zone” so a speed limit of 25 mph can be enforced by radar and other traffic enforcement actions by police. Also the city can consider additional signs, an educational program for the area and using the police department’s radar trailer which shows each motorist the vehicle’s speed as it passes by.

If those don’t show any improvement in the problem, the city engineer can recommend physical deterrents, but they could not be implemented without approval of two-thirds of residents in the study area, according to the ordinance. Also, any physical deterrent must be approved by council, the police chief and the fire chief. Additionally, he homeowners association or person making the complaint must agree to pay for 50 percent of the construction costs.

The first time a physical deterrent is deployed, it shall be on a temporary basis so its effect can be evaluated. If that particular deterrent works, it can be made permanent and if not, other options can be pursued, the ordinance indicates.

According to the ordinance, physical deterrents that can be used include:
• Speed humps
• Traffic circles
• Chokers (which reduce the width of traffic lanes)
• Median barriers; and
• Forced direction dividers (such as forced turns, diagonal diverters and cul-de-sacs).

The criteria established for considering any traffic calming measures is outlined in the ordinance for three different categories: community collector roads, village collector roads and residential streets/neighborhood collectors.

Only one of the six criteria must be violated for non-physical traffic calming measures to be considered, including the total traffic volume, the percentage of cut-through traffic, the 85th percentile speed of vehicles during a study period, the number of auto crashes per year and the percent of average daily traffic which exceeds the speed limit.

For a residential street or neighborhood collector, the threshold is having a traffic volume of more than 1,000 vehicles per day (or 100 vehicles per hour), 25 percent of traffic being “cut through,” having an 85th percentile speed greater than the speed limit, having three auto crashes per year and 25 percent of the average daily traffic exceeding the speed limit.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Wed, 05/31/2006 - 8:13am.

Like others have said, you have traffic for a few 30 minute periods a day. It seems to me that having the Golf Cart crossing actually at the stop sign is safer than having it moved down PTC Parkway. Leave it as it is. Peachtree Parkway is mainly a serene road at this point. I've never had to wait more than 3-5 minutes at the MOST getting through that stop sign even at the busiest times of the day.

If something must be done, why not station a Police Officer there for about 30 minutes twice a day? Actually, I think the 4 way stop sign, the way it is, is the best solution.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Wed, 05/31/2006 - 8:33am.

I agree.

If time demands more, then lights.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Submitted by Gator on Wed, 05/31/2006 - 6:33am.

The study is correct. Congestion is basically for no more than one hour in the morning and afternoon. The golf cart crossing improvement is needed for safety reasons but the roundabout needs to filed in the circular file. It will cost a lot of money, screw up some beautiful property and will not help the traffic flow. Once it's built, we'll be stuck with it forever. A roundabout is not the answer.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Wed, 05/31/2006 - 8:06am.

Even with the alterations the basic roundabout presented at the first meeting was absolutely too small.

I have lived overseas and in the DC area where there are a lot of roundabouts. The size they proposed was a joke. Like comparing a put-put course to a golf course.

The allowed public input time had nothing but negative presensations. An engineer stated it was too small. Others who also lived with roundabouts, in the past, said it was too small.

And come on. We live in a town with many elderly that struggle with stop signs and turn lanes. They will never be able to handle a roundabout in heavier traffic.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.