Hillsborough Street - NCSU Area developments

[ChiefJoJo]

^ I still say that Franklin St has just as many vagrants, but they usually have many more pedestrians, so people don't seem to mind so much because of their large numbers. People *feel* safer because of this, whether they actually are or not.

I think this link discusses some of the issues facing the redesign:

The objective is not necessarily to build roundabouts, but to improve pedestrian safety and enhance the pedestrian character of the corridor. There are far too many crashes now that involve a pedestrian and a vehicle. A 1999 study team recommended narrowing Hillsborough Street to one travel lane in each direction instead of the two currently there. Experts told them the traffic would back up at every signalized intersection so the study team suggested that the traffic signals be removed. Fearing bottlenecks would be created every time someone tried to turn left, the study team drew from their experience in other states where roundabouts are a safe, attractive alternative to signalized intersections.

BTW, it looks like the Hillsborough St Partnership has the project info back online, including maps, etc. I suggest checking them out.

[JeffS]

I guess I'm not sure what we're really trying to accomplish here...

Is the goal to make every corner of Raleigh clean an shiny and make the suburbanites feel "safe"? If the homeless are the "problem", how about doing something positive. Spend the money helping the people find housing and jobs instead of policing them into another corner of the city.

Hillsborough has always been in a state of flux. It's not Franklin St. NCSU students are not UNC students, Raleigh residents are not Chapel Hill residents, and the area isn't really suited as a destination. I'm not against the project, as stated by the partnership. It's the desires of the non-locals that leaves me scratching my head.

[RaleighRob]

Is the goal to make every corner of Raleigh clean an shiny and make the suburbanites feel "safe"?

I doubt that's even on the radar when the Urbanites (and students) living right there don't even feel safe on it at night. Forget the suburbanites...they're not even an issue if the locals themselves can't even stand to be there.

[serapis]

Stop calling people vagrants. That's a degrogatory word.

[dmccall]

Stop calling people vagrants. That's a degrogatory word.

How about a suggestion for an alternative?

[MZT]

I think vagrant is an acceptable word. It's not as PC as "homeless person" but it's better than "bum" or "hobo".

"Panhandler" and "beggar" is borderline acceptable, or a little below it... but I use them sometimes. (These people do, after all.... beg!)

Just to keep this sort of on topic, I graduated from State in 1991. At the time, I could tell that Hillsboro st. was beginning to decay, but I thought it was just the recession. I'm a little surprised to hear it never recovered, after this much time.

Edited November 24, 2006 by MZT

[RaleighRob]

Stop calling people vagrants. That's a degrogatory word.

Personally, I used "vagrants" to be more accurate (and "bums" is much more derogatory, I thought).

Because, the issue is certainly NOT homeless people per se--most people who are simply homeless do NOT harrass people on the street begging for money or waddle down the street in a drunken stupor. Therefore, I used the word "vagrants" to talk about those people, and not homeless people as a whole.

Hope that clarifies that.

[ChiefJoJo]

Two stories on Hillsborough St roundabout projects...

WRAL: Counil disagrees on H-St Plan & N&O: Council votes to delay decision on H-St until Jan.

[ChiefJoJo]

BTW, I like to check out the BelowTheBeltline blog from time to time, and they've weighed in on the roundabout debate with a terrific article on the merits of roundabout safety and capacity. I storngly recommend you read it (esp if you doubt the legitimacy of the roundabout concept), as it has tons of links with good factual information, with studies firmly behind them...

A 2001 Institute study of 23 intersections in the United States reported that converting intersections from traffic signals or stop signs to roundabouts reduced injury crashes by 80 percent and all crashes by 40 percent.

The Institute

[DanRNC]

If it makes any sense, Isley is against it.

[rooster8]

If they have doubts about roundabouts, they should come to the parking lot of the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Asheville. There is one there that works well. If we mountain folk can figure it out, I'm sure the urbane Raleighites can too.

[DanRNC]

If they have doubts about roundabouts, they should come to the parking lot of the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Asheville. There is one there that works well. If we mountain folk can figure it out, I'm sure the urbane Raleighites can too.

Or Durham on Duke's campus (Research Drive) or on NC751 and Erwin Road (Duke Forest). Also there is one on Fayetteville Rd. in the New Hope Valley Farms area that all work well.

[orulz]

For an even better example in Asheville, see WT Weaver Blvd near UNCA.

I think the area of trepidation here is that most of these examples in NC are of single roundabouts in isolation, whereas this plan calls for eight of them in rapid succession. Are there even many roads in europe that have so many roundabouts packed so closely together? From my VERY limited experience in London and Stockholm, roundabouts without stoplights to regulate the traffic flow were rare indeed in dense, pedestrian-friendly urban areas; they were much more common in suburban and residential areas.

This may just be a result of the built environment in these cities and a lack of space to reconstruct intersections as roundabouts. But for this reason, to me, roundabouts say "Residential Area" or perhaps "New urban lifestyle center," whereas traffic lights says "City." Perhaps my image just needs to change.

In suburban London in particular, most roundabouts on busy roads that I saw were quite intimidating, and I would be extremely hesitant to attempt to cross the street there as a pedestrian.

[Jones_]

For an even better example in Asheville, see WT Weaver Blvd near UNCA.

I think the area of trepidation here is that most of these examples in NC are of single roundabouts in isolation, whereas this plan calls for eight of them in rapid succession. Are there even many roads in europe that have so many roundabouts packed so closely together? From my VERY limited experience in London and Stockholm, roundabouts without stoplights to regulate the traffic flow were rare indeed in dense, pedestrian-friendly urban areas; they were much more common in suburban and residential areas.

This may just be a result of the built environment in these cities and a lack of space to reconstruct intersections as roundabouts. But for this reason, to me, roundabouts say "Residential Area" or perhaps "New urban lifestyle center," whereas traffic lights says "City." Perhaps my image just needs to change.

In suburban London in particular, most roundabouts on busy roads that I saw were quite intimidating, and I would be extremely hesitant to attempt to cross the street there as a pedestrian.

Sounds like Washington D.C......the big circles have lights, the smaller ones you just rip right around them...

[ncwebguy]

The roundabouts at North Hills and the shopping center on Capitol Blvd north of the 401 split with Target, Lowe's, and Sam's Club show how pedestrians and cars do *not* mix in them. Even with significantly less traffic than Hillsborough Street, these intersections are quite poor for pedestrians.

At North Hills, everyone crosses on the Starbucks "corner" side of the circle as opposed to the Firebirds corner since vehicular traffic does not slow down or yield to pedestrians. When someone is doing a poor job parallel parking next to REI, traffic easily backs up into the circle itself.

The circle near Capitol is pedestrian unfriendly by default. The acres of parking seperating the buildings leaves a long walk for anyone crazy as myself to shop at Lowes and Target without parking twice. Since no one has to stop, pedestrians have to wait till every car has passed before crossing, since vehicles in the circle never give any indication if they will turn or continue to stay in the circle.

The *type* of traffic on Hillsborough is the reason the street is unsafe. Minutes before classes start, "bursts" of pedestrian traffic are created on Hillsborough by students running late for class. Adding roundabouts won't fix the internal clock of thousands of college students. Students won't wait for an opportunity to cross at the roundabout -- someone will create one and dozens of other students will follow. This will cause gridlock at the Horne intersection, which will result in a chain reaction east and west.

Vehicles have the right of way over pedestrians in roundabouts. If signals are put in place for pedestrian crossings, the roundabouts will become gridlocked. A series of roundabouts plus these crossings is a disaster waiting to happen.

All the pro-roundabout studies tout how vehicle on vehicle collisions are reduced but make no mention of "car on pedestrian" or "car on car swerving to avoid pedestrian or bike" collision numbers. For Hillsborough Street, these numbers are important. All the "discussion" has substituted car on car safety for vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle/bus mixed traffic safety. Even the pro-roundabout TN study (prepared by pro-roundabout NC State) linked to in Below The Beltline admits this on page 3:

What professional discussions lack, however, are definitive statistics for pedestrian safety at roundabouts. Indeed, the magnitude of the problem remains undefined, though appreciated.

It substitues "vehicle speed to pedestrian injury severity" for "pedestrian safety near a roundabout." Pedestrain traffic is part of only one simulation software package. How many unsignaled roundabouts have replaced an existing stoplight in a high traffic area? A roundabout built on a formerly lightly trafficed stretch of road or a former green field (or shopping mall) is not a good comparison. There are 300 vehicle on vehicle traffic incidents on Hillsborough Street a year, but there are no stats on how many of these were the result of swerving to avoid pedestrains.

The wiki entry for roundabouts points out why roundabouts are not a good idea for Hillsborough Street:

Roundabouts are statistically safer than both traffic circles and traditional intersections, though they do not cope as well with the traffic on motorways or similar fast roads.

Hillsborough Street shouldn't be a motroway, but it is. Roundabouts make sense for rual crossroads with low traffic volume. "No one has to stop" is a virtue in that situation since a four way stop would force vehicles to stop. Also, you can see approaching traffic in all directions. On Hillsborough Street, vehicles do not have this luxury. Roundabouts are overwhelmingly placed in these rual situations, and therfore the statistics look good on paper. The danger is created in taking something that works in one place and duplicating it elsewhere. The DOT's I-40 paving project is proof of that.

People point to how long the Hillsborough Street area has been down (more than ten years, but people like nice round numbers), but *none* mention the big changes at that time -- 1) parking at night on streets north of Hillsborough was limited to only residents and 2) ABC permits were no longer issued to new businesses 3) NC State students and Raleigh residetns were starting to discover Glenwood South and the rest of downtown. 4) pizza places opened up everywhere, leaving no room for retail variety. The reduced foot traffic made the homeless/panhandling crowd more visible and the rest is history.

The most sensible quote is the one at the end of the WRAL story:

Jennings said he doesn't know if roundabouts are the answer, but he wants something done in the near future.

[jumboman]

I feel that roundabouts are not the answer as well, but I do not think that 4 way stops are much better.... they really serve almost the same purpose on a busy street such as Hillsborough. 4 way stop intersections are best served at streets with reletively equal amounts of traffic. Also, Hillsbrough is much too wide for pedestrians to have time to cross while a car is stopped at a stop sign (if they stop at all).

I believe that the current structure (2 lanes each way during the day and parking on the NCSU side at night) would work with maybe a 6 foot median for easier crossing for pedestrians (and turn lanes at intersections). Of course that would mean widening Hillsborough St 6 feet into NC State, which would be very tough but do-able maybe?

[Jones_]

Good digging ncwebguy. I would like to again put out my basic aesthetic and safety step one improvements.....Logan, Chamberlin and Horne should be egress only (Logan already is). Boom traffic signals on the entire street with bricked cross walks and medians with crepe myrtles or the like. Spring Garden St through the UNCG campus is similar to this.....through in webguys suggested angled parking and staggered signals for Pogue and Enterprise (and past both of those) and it will slow down, look nicer, and be safer for cars and people alike. cheers.

[dmccall]

webguy eluded to a good point and that is the behavior of college students. Too many of them think they are invincible and create dangerous situations with their impulsive moves as pedestrians. (I used to be one of them).

I don't think the Mini City shopping center or the Pullen Rd. roundabout are decent examples for what H-St would be. Mini City is surrounded by 4 seas of parking and doesn't have college students (these people meander around in Western Blvd traffic, for goodness sakes!). Pullen Rd has very few pedestrians actually.

I think they should put in 1 or 2 roundabouts on H St. and study the behavior of drivers and students before proceeding. My biggest concern is effectively cutting the number of lanes in half. I completely agree that one lane will get to Meredith faster than one lane currently does, but there are two lanes. Traffic on alternate routes will probably get heavier, although I already avoid H St. anyway.

[RaleighRob]

Whatever they do, I hope they do something soon. If anything, at least lower the speed limit and clean up the place and do some landscaping, or whatever. SOMETHING.

It just lost another good business recently: Silvia's Gelato Cafe. I loved that place. Sigh.

[reed]

Whatever they do, I hope they do something soon. If anything, at least lower the speed limit and clean up the place and do some landscaping, or whatever. SOMETHING.

It just lost another good business recently: Silvia's Gelato Cafe. I loved that place. Sigh.

I think a project similar to what happened on Glenwood South a couple of years ago could make a world of difference. Put in some new sidewalks & benches, add some nice lamp posts.... Even if they would just empty the overflowing trash cans every once in a while and do a little trimming & weeding around the trees, and the street would be much, much more inviting.

I know this wouldn't be a silver bullet that would completely reinvigorate the area, but it would be a pretty good start.

[carynative]

If the roundabout idea doesn't fly, then I wonder if the city would consider adding stoplights similar to those on Fayetteville street, that are to the side instead of over the street. I think that could considerably freshen up that area. Or, they could consider installing the short stoplights that are lower to the ground such as in parts of Richmond. I couldn't easily find a photo, but they would not obstruct any vista along the street.

[Spatula]

The city is getting rid of the overhead power lines, right? If so, I imagine they'll upgrade the stoplights, wherever they don't intend to make a roundabout.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

This idea is not new...

[ChiefJoJo]

I disagree with the criticism that the roundabout treatment will not be safe for peds--see from the Insurance Institute site..

If it is necessary for pedestrians to cross the roadway, they cross only one direction of traffic at a time. In addition, crossing distances are relatively short, and traffic speeds are lower than at traditional intersections. Studies in Europe indicate that, on average, converting conventional intersections to roundabouts can reduce pedestrian crashes by about 75 percent.

First, this project will have a 7 foot wide median or ped refuge, where peds can cross from each side of the street. This allows for a very short crossing distance (something on the order of 18 feet each side)--a much smaller one than is currently present (crossing 4-5 lanes in one signal phase, and competing with left turning traffic as well).

Second, the other advantage is that peds will only need to look one way when crossing as there are no left turns allowed, thereby reducing the potential conflict points between cars, bikes, and peds.

Third, and most forgotten, is that the posted speed will be 25 mph, which will allow traffic to move more regulary and consistently, rather than the red-light-running and herky-jerky stop-and-go that is present today. Most through traffic will shift to Western Blvd (I do this already if I want to travel west), which has a 45mph speed limit and much higher auto capacity.

Fourth, it will create additional parking spaces for businesses on the street who complain about not having enough to meet their needs.

I think this project solves two problems on H-St:

(1) revitalization of the street into a destination place

(2) increasing safety for autos, bikes, and peds

[RaleighRob]

I disagree with the criticism that the roundabout treatment will not be safe for peds--see from the Insurance Institute site..

Yeah, I read about that at belowthebeltline.com the other day. Pretty interesting.