A little over a week ago, the Journal Star reported that a roundabout is being considered for the intersection of Sheridan, Loucks, and Gift in the “Sheridan Triangle” form district. This was surprising to me. I have nothing against roundabouts, but they’re not the only option or even the best option for every intersection.
You may remember that there was a public meeting back on March 5 to discuss options for improvement of the public space in this form district. Keith Covington was there along with other engineering and street design experts with experience in creating new urban streetscapes.
Everyone I talked to that night — to a person — said that a roundabout was not the best solution to this particular intersection, although they all affirmed they liked roundabouts. The problems here, it was explained to me, were several.
First of all, there wasn’t enough space. Because it’s an intersection of three streets, there’s a minimum radius that’s required to accommodate all the “legs” that would be coming off the roundabout, and that space simply isn’t available at that intersection, I was told.
Secondly, they were concerned with creating dead space in the middle of the roundabout. Going along with that big required radius would be a lot of space in the middle of which pedestrians would get no practical use.
Thirdly, no roundabout was suggested at the charrette for this area. If you look at the drawings that were produced by the neighbors and business owners during the charrette process, the vision then was to have Loucks intersect with Gift before the intersection with Sheridan on the east side (just like Loucks intersects with Forrest Hill before the University intersection), and have Gift intersect with Loucks before the Sheridan intersection on the west side. This would create a four-way intersection at Sheridan instead of a six-way, and a pocket park could even be put in on the southeast corner, which would be usable by pedestrians.
Suffice it to say, there was a compelling case made that night for no roundabout. But now, suddenly, a roundabout is a serious contender for this intersection. It would be interesting to discover how decisions are being made, but the district councilperson is keeping attendance at these meetings under tight control.
For more information on roundabouts in the United States, see the excellent resources at the Transportation Research Board’s site. Hat tip to Beth Akeson on providing the TRB info.
CJ said: “Thirdly, no roundabout was suggested at the charrette for this area.”
Actually, I remember quite a number of drawings with “hearts” over that area and some labeled ’roundabout’. Speaking with Covington we discussed the charm of the roundabout but agreed the engineering and constricted space made it immpossible without significant property aquisition.
The Champion of the Sheridan-Loucks triangle needs to focus on the intimacy that can be created in the couple blocks that make up this district. A roundabout may be a signature engineering piece, but it is not going to add quality to the area the street realignment will.
Boik — Thanks for the info. To clarify: the final charrette report included no drawings with a roundabout for that intersection. I’d link to it, but the City of Peoria has not renewed the domain name for heartofpeoria.com since April 27.
You do realize that you can fill the dead space in the middle. I would have though that you would have liked this small town staple in the middle of a neighborhood.
Cj,
I participated in the Charrettes. There were two plans pitched at that time. One was by the group of neighbors and business leaders that I was in the other was a group of neighbors and business leaders that Van Auken was in. Van Auken’s group came up with the roundabout. The consultants developed five plans, some two with roundabouts, three without. Neighbors and business leaders in and directly surrounding the Triangle met with the consultants to wittle the 5 choices down to two choices. One choice had the roundabout, one didn’t. Interestingly, the one plan that the consultants clearly preferred was not chosen. It didn’t receive a single vote. Pro’s and cons were discussed. One of the pros for both plans was the addition to some green space very much lacking in our area. (you have Bradley park) We also have to directly live with the severe congestion and traffic on both Sheridan and McClure. A listing of suggestions/thoughts from the previous larger forum were primarily dismissed by leadership at this meeting. Anyway, these suggestions were then submitted to another focus group the next day. This group was composed of business leaders and neighborhood/watch leaders again from in and around the Triangle. A few were from the previous night’s group, many were not. I was not at the meeting. Pesky job interferes with my personal life sometimes. My understanding from My association members was that they then again looked at the plans and the choice that the consultants wanted was chosen at that time. Interesting development, and am not speculating w/o the details. The suggestions dismissed by the previous night’s meeting were revisted to a much more receptive audience. Cj, I understand you are chomping at the bit to get in on this. But quite frankly I stand my assessement that the businesse leaders and neighborhoods directly effected must have first dibs at the input level. This is our area, we are actually being given a chance to try to help a very struggling area get a shot at some revitalization. This area does not have the private and substantial public funding interest and mechanisms of yours. I would guess that you have spent little to no time in our area to understand the strengths and weaknesses, the patterns, the residents, etc. We are the experts in this area, let us have our input and some hope that we can help effect some change in our own area. If this project is to be a success it must have buy in and support from those of us who live here. bullying your way in is going to have the opposite effect of what you want to achieve, let the process happen on our time. When we have had our thoughts worked through then it is time to bring in others to make our vision a reality. Thank you.
I am doubtful that the space in the center of the roundabout should be considered dead space any more than a pocket park. I drive by at least three pocket parks at different times of the day multiple times a week. Never have I seen one of them used by pedestrians. They are great for beautification of the city, so long as they are kept up, but their usefulness to pedestrians is questionable.
Maybe there would still be room to have someone from Peoria attend the conference in Kansas City…ifo folows:
National Roundabout Conference
Kansas City, Missouri
TRB is sponsoring the National Roundabout Conference on May 18-21, 2008, in Kansas City, Missouri. The conference is designed to provide a forum for the exchange of technical and administrative information concerning aspects of roundabouts with the goal to inform a large audience about the science and application of roundabouts.
Paul, I see that whereas you’re bitter about having been excluded in the past, you’re quite happy to exclude others when it fits your purposes. Your “chance to try to help a very struggling area get a shot at some revitalization” is available precisely because groups like the Heart of Peoria Commission and others advocated for that chance. Your opportunity to have a voice in remaking this intersection came about because everyone got a voice in making the Heart of Peoria Plan and the Land Development Code a reality. Why you’re now threatened by the same kind of public participation that gave you that framework, I’m certain I don’t know. Why you’re standoffish and provincial while simultaneously trying to advocate cooperation through the Neighborhood Alliance is also a strange irony.
We’re all part of one city, Paul. We should all be trying to help each other. If you’re going to write petulant comments telling people to butt out and leave you and your neighborhood alone, don’t be surprised if they all do just that.
I too recall the plans with hearts for roundabouts. In my opinion, the biggest audience support came from the idea of not building a school in Glen Park.
Actually CJ,
I’m not bitter, that’s an assumption based on? As far as petulant comments, that interpretation is based on the mood of the reader, such is the written word. You want to be considered a journalist, but when it doesn’t go your way you attack. This process has not been done in secret, some of your statements in your article are incorrect. I look forward to input when we have decided what we would like in this area. Why can’t we chose, then those who are experts in other areas work to make this a reality? Are you going to shop here? are you going to walk these streets? Are you going to fight the crime here, the bad landlords, vandals, drugs, etc. to make this a project a reality. Are you going to labor to make the area more physically attractive? Contact me and I’ll sign you up, there’s still plenty to do about that. Secondly, no one has said there won’t be more public participation, but as Karrie noted remember Glen Oak and how the actual residents were not included and how everyone complained about the exclusion of the immediate residents of the bluff. THere were significant concerns about not including the area stakeholders. Yet here, the residents’ considerations are being taken into account first. Why are you against this process. There have been two meetings since Columbia School. I have participated in one of them. Additionally, No one was told to butt out, but to wait your turn to be included in the process, unlike the reception of comments and desire for further information that I received from the Walkable West Bluff idea. You’re welcome to come up here and walk the streets with us at anytime and listen to what we have to say and make recommendations. I would recommend a friday night, warm about 10pm so you get the full effect. We have welcomed help and most importantly we above all neighborhoods have helped out all over the city, actually laboring and working with other areas, we have served on committees, given consistent input to our leadership from local to federal. I am sorry your feelings are hurt because you’re not included IN THIS stage of the process. No final decisions have been made, they are only seeking resients and businesses inputs first. Clearly explain the problem with that? Additionally our area has been working to revitalize the area over the past several years, WITHOUT the benefit of city tax dollars for infastructure etc. Since these funds are spent freely in other parts of the district, we don’t have access to them, WE don’t have the big homes or wealth and power, that goes along with the funding. Yet we still get things done with whatever resources and support we can get and we support other areas with whatever resources we can muster. We’re currently have written a grant which if granted will benefit a number of older neighborhoods, businesses, etc, including but not limited to our area. We appreciate the help given when it is given, we appreciate advice when sought, we appreciate labor and funds when donated. If you wish to rip those efforts apart, knock yourself out, it’s your blog.
I want to know where the dedicated bus stop will be?
Paul — This has nothing to do with my feelings (which aren’t hurt, by the way, but thanks for caring). I’m talking about your contribution to your own problems. Your comments are insulting and they drive people away from your neighborhood. That’s the opposite of what I believe you want to accomplish. By inviting people in to help the design, you find out what people in other parts of the city like and would come visit/patronize. You want other people to come to your part of town and shop, not just those who live within walking distance. More successful businesses will mean more services available for the residents who live nearby. It will improve the quality of life and lead to more families seeing that as a good place to buy a house. The more owner-occupied homes, the more eyes on the street, the lower the crime rate.
Your tack is apparently to try to shame people from other parts of the city into helping your neighborhood through reactive measures. Dude, people are not going to come to your neighborhood and help you solve your drug, litter, and other crime problems that way. They’re too busy working on the problems in their own neighborhoods. You can rail on people for not coming to your litter clean-up events all you want (and you have), but that’s not going to change anything. What you can do is, try to involve people in a process, get them excited about it, play up the good things about your neighborhood. Talk about the economic opportunities and the good neighbors and the committed homeowners who live there. I swear, reading you I sometimes wonder why you live there because you sound like you hate it and are jealous of other areas of the west bluff. I’m sure that’s not how you mean to come across, but that’s how it comes across to me.
Paul, I would love to come to a litter clean up on a Saturday but because of my job, Saturday’s off doesn’t happen very often. You do always manage to send me the pictures of everyone working the cleanup. I don’t know if you are keeping me informed or just trying to make me feel guilty.
Like I said on the other post, this round a bout doesn’t fit. Shouldn’t be done.
A roundabout on one of Peoria’s major thoroughfares? Peoria isn’t a quaint English village. What are people thinking, that this is a quaint English village? God, I wish this city could catch up with reality and be happy with what it is. A small city in Illinois.
Educating ourselves on these topics will serve us better in the long run.
These following links will provide you with a better understanding about modern roundabouts. Please watch and listen, you will discover there are many benefits associated with roundabouts- You will learn that safety is the number one reason roundabouts are finally being introduced more broadly in the United States, even in places you would have thought impossible – even for pedestrians- they can offer a safer solution.
After everyone has listened and viewed the series – then come back to the discussion.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_572_module_1_with_narration.ppt
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_572_module_2_with_narration.ppt
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_572_module_3_with_narration.ppt
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_572_module_4_with_narration.ppt
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_572_module_5_with_narration.ppt
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_572_module_6_with_narration.ppt
Paul and C.J.,
I get very nervous when ever I see the word “EXPERT” pop-up in any blog entry. Peoria has been run by these supposed “EXPERTS” for years……..
Lets see:
1.) District 150 [enough said]
2.) A meteor crater downtown
3.) Any word on the new logo?
4.) We are about to sacrifice A. Schock [and
Peoria]on the alter of freedom in
Washington D.C.
5.) However you slice it, we are loosing business
as it floats across the river………
Must I go on? Roundabouts work in the U.K.!
Well, I’m certainly not against roundabouts. My post was really just a question as to how things turned around so dramatically from the public meeting. If it truly is the best solution for that intersection, bring it on. Is it the best solution? That’s the question.
New Voice – An “expert” is just a fancy term for someone who lives more than 50 miles away.
I enjoy reading the discussion about how a roundabout wouldn’t work in the Peoria area. I could’ve sworn that Washington Square in Washington is basically just a roundabout…
“A roundabout on one of Peoria’s major thoroughfares? Peoria isn’t a quaint English village.”
I hate saying it again (not necessarily to this particular audience)… Roundabout handle traffic with more efficency than stop lights. The number of severe accidents or injury-accidents is much lower with roundabouts.
The state of Colorado and Arizona is starting to install roundabouts on major roads which carry 15-20k trips per day. These roundabouts are located at freeway interchanges. Where Sterling Avenue has an endless parade of stoplights, it could have two roundabouts to manage the traffic. It works, I’ve driven them.
All that being said, I still perfer a compact intersection in this particular location over a roundabout. The traffic volumes are under 12k trips daily and apprpriately timed/sequenced lights will manage the traffic just fine.
Sheridan is one of Peoria’s major thoroughfares? I don’t think so. At least it’s a lot less major than Main Street, University, Knoxville, Sterling, Allen Rd., War Memorial, Western, Adams, Jefferson, Washington.
I’m thinking Paul should run for City Council with statements like: “I look forward to input when we have decided what we would like in this area.”
Yeah, after the decision is made, we’ll ask for your “input” to bless it but don’t mess up our plans. This is the problem with many issues in Peoria…a small group feel that they can solve the issue and don’t encourage everyone’s participation. We need to remember … it’s OUR City and the problems will only be solved with FULL participation of all citizens. Approaching issues like we have in the past, is a doomed approach.
If the roundabout is built we could call it the “VanAuken-Go-Round”. Another neighborhood monument to egos rather than solutions.
I love roundabouts and agree with Boik that they can handle high volumes of traffic with ease….but it doesn’t fit this area.
CJ: I feel that your ‘initial take’ was incorrect as the roundabouts were talked about at the Charettes held in the Warehouse District. I feel that Paul’s comments are being taken out of context. I understand that the current process is for the immediate neighbors and businesses have the first shot at the input portion of redesigning the Sheridan Triangle — what a rarity. Then additional input and hearings to include other’s input. What is wrong about that?
Usually the immediate residents and businesses are not included. As it looks like there is going to be real money to get the project done, the immediate neighbors and businesses have the best input, especially in Paul’s neighborhood, as they are actually actively trying to improve their neighborhood.
As the process moves along, if a roundabout is not the best solution, then when your turn for input comes, then make your opinion known.
Peoria Proud- I agree with you and CJ.
Paul Wilkinson speaks as if his brain is bifurcated and I don’t mean left brain/right brain. How can he ask for outside help with his neighborhood clean up activities and not welcome outside help with ideas and policy making? Maybe this is how the term “no brainer” was coined…
Ideas and policy making will out pace the value of picking up trash in the big picture. Sorry Paul, with all due respect, you are wrong! (…and I do think you garner respect.)
Please stop fueling vapid politicians like Van Auken, Jacob, Schock, and now Krupa. I have said it before and I will say it again- they are playing you like a fiddle.
Karrie- Call Keith Covington and Geoff Ferrell and ask them why they have said a round about is not the best idea.
Dear George:
I think that you missed the point of my post. Since I do not know where you live or your background, you do have some excellent posts …. my point was that for once the residents were being given a shot at developing their neighborhood — do you live in an older neighborhood in Peoria or elsewhere? If not, welcome to the world of the top down management of we know what is best for you … one only has to think of local Peoria politics to come up with a long laundry list of top down decisions by people who do not live in the neighborhood. I feel that Paul was just asking for the immediate locals to be given a shot at their vision before the next phase of more input from the other locals who will help to foot the bill.
CJ’s post as written above:
“Thirdly, no roundabout was suggested at the charrette for this area.” …. is incorrect. I am willing to admit that I might be wrong yet I recall that there was a roundabout discussed during the charette process. At the recent meetings, I did not attend.
I do not need to call Keith Covington or Geoff Ferrell and ask them anything — I am not discounting their opinions. I feel you missed what I was trying to say about the input process.
Karrie, Yes, that was pointed out in the very first comment, after which I clarified (in the second comment, above) that the final charrette report (the HOP site is back up now) did not include a roundabout at that intersection. The picture that is included in my post shows the artist’s rendering of the Sheridan Triangle intersection — you’ll note that it does not include a roundabout. That’s all I was saying.
You say:
What you’re saying is different from what Paul said. Look at his comments again:
The process he’s describing is one where they make the decisions and then they bring in others to implement those decisions. He’s not talking about them simply having the “first shot,” but rather the only shot. There’s no inclusion of others in the decision-making process, as I read his comments.
I see that process as no different than the process that gave you the school-in-the-park fiasco. In both cases, you have decisions being made by one group of stakeholders without considering the input of all the stakeholders. In both cases you have one group devaluing the opinions and contributions of others.
This intersection doesn’t just affect the immediate neighbors and businesses. It affects everyone who uses Sheridan road. Depending on what decisions are made, it could change traffic patterns that will affect people in other West Bluff neighborhoods. Since it’s one of the first form districts, its success or lack of success is also going to affect future new-urban redevelopment elsewhere in the city.
When the Heart of Peoria Plan and the Land Development Code were created, public charrettes were held that gave everyone a chance to weigh in on what they wanted to see. I believe that process served us well and gave us the very framework from which the Sheridan Triangle residents are now benefiting. Why, after seeing the success of inclusion in the creation of form districts, does this group suddenly fear inclusion?
We should all be working together on making our city a better place to live, not dividing into factions. We can’t look at our neighborhoods as little silos and make decisions as if they only affect our immediate area. We shouldn’t be pitting neighborhoods against other neighborhoods. We’re all one city. We’re all neighbors. Let’s band together instead of pushing each other away or looking at each other with fear and suspicion.
Randall,
I send you pictures of events, only because I thought you might be interested in events going on in other parts of the city. If you don’t want them I will stop.
Cj,
how about instead of interpreting what I say, ask. You have a method of contacting me. Karrie is correct in what I had to say. She asked, as did one of your peers on the HOP commission via a very lengthy phone conversation. I am not trying to exclude anyone just saying that we should have first crack at it and we, I mean the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. Others might drive through, come shop, etc. but we have to live with it everyday. Would you have put in Campustown in your area if you had the first shot at discussion? Again, we know the area best, the residents, the problems, and even the potential solutions. There are people here excited for the first time in a long time. You don’t get how tiring it is to continue to try to stablize this area. It’s not just a few commission meetings, but daily and often several times daily intervention observations, etc by a number of people who live here. Much work has occurred to try to make improvements, slowly, to the area outside the triangle to help with it’s success. CJ, as an HOP commission, you publically come out against an idea, and it this point was only one idea discussed at our level and at the level of the charettes…again, there were two plans submitted during that process. It is very frustrating to our area as it seems that when there are thoughts and ideas for improvements, the first response is “no, we can’t do that” sometimes from staff and sometime from elected officials. You don’t experience that in your area. By your topic, you became one of those people. “it’s not even the best option.” without discussion with us. That cut us out, even though there has been absolutely nothing but ideas being batted around. CJ, one of your commisioner peers has come to one of our association meetings and spoke on a number of things. You have missed an opportunity to be an educator regarding the views of the commission. The roundabout idea had merit and split support among the area’s folk. One thought was this would be an area of open space to make the area unique. Some discussion about what could go into the middle had started, a fountain, a statue, a work of art, or in my own mind was a type of 4 season garden, planned an maintained by the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. This would provide fequent collaboration among these groups on an ongoing project. I hadn’t even brought it up. Other’s had concerns abouta roundabout regarding, children crossing the streets. Kids here, shove each other in and out of traffic, walk out in front of cars, etc. There were other concerns. It’s amusing. I don’t even serve on the CAG for this project. I just wanted to defend the process by which our area was given a first shot at at a project which greatly effects this area and support that excitement before others came in and told us how this and that couldn’t possibly be done…I apologize if you felt slighted. Not the intention.
Paul: No problem. Enjoy the pics. Just felt guilty I couldn’t join and help. I would love to see something like this in my area, but I’m not the guy to organize it. At least not yet. I know this round a bout issue has you on edge, didn’t mean to do the same.