Roundabout plan dumped
JANESVILLE — In an about-face move, the Janesville City Council on Monday failed to approve a long-planned roundabout at the corners of Milwaukee Street and Wuthering Hills Drive.
Tom McDonald, Deb Dongarra-Adams and Yuri Rashkin voted against the roundabout, saying it is no longer needed at that location. Sam Liebert, Kathy Voskuil and Russ Steeber voted in favor of the roundabout.
The vote was tied because former council President George Brunner recently resigned, leaving the seventh council seat vacant. The council opted to keep Brunner's seat open until the April election.
The push to build a roundabout began after a fatal accident at the intersection in 2007. The cost to build the roundabout was $615,000, and a safety grant from the state whittled the city's portion of the bill down to $220,000.
Recently, the city reduced the number of lanes on that section of Milwaukee Street to enhance safety for a bike crossing just to the east.
Last month, residents appeared before the council and testified that the improvements had increased safety at the intersection, and that the roundabout was no longer needed.
But city staff disagreed, and Carl Weber, the city's public works director, said roundabouts are safer than traditional intersections because they reduce points of conflict from 16 to four. The roundabouts also reduce fatal accidents by 80 percent, reduce congestion and save fuel, he added.
Weber said improvements to the east have reduced speed only slightly. He did acknowledge that only one accident with no injuries has occurred there in the last four years.
"Is the intersection safer?" he asked. "The perception is it must be safer than before, but really we couldn't prove it," he said.
Weber said the city would be responsible for $78,000 the state already spent on the project and another $27,000 for resurfacing. Work will be done on the street in the near future, and that section could have been improved when the roundabout was built, he said.
Steeber supported roundabouts in general and said people don't like them because they don't like change.
"We spent a lot of money to solve a problem, and past councils said, 'Yeah, that is the direction we're going to go' and suddenly, for whatever reason, we reverse ourselves," he said.
"If we do nothing, the city is essentially wasting $105,000 with no real resolution to the intersection problems," he said.
Liebert agreed, calling roundabouts the future of many controlled intersections. A roundabout at the Milwaukee Street/Wuthering Hills
Drive intersection would help residents learn to navigate them, he said.
"If we can save one more life, the investment is worth it," he said.
The city might have to pay some money to the state, but eliminating the roundabout would save the both the city and state money in the long run, McDonald said. He added that state money is taxpayer money, as well.
Dongarra-Adams said she is not afraid of change, but she doesn't believe a roundabout is needed at the intersection.
Rashkin said he lives near the intersection and has seen the positive changes from nearby roadwork.
All three council members voting in favor of a roundabout expressed disappointment after the vote.
"I'm really struggling," Voskuil said, noting the council seemed to go from being very concerned about the intersection to not being concerned.
Liebert and Steeber predicted the intersection would be a problem in the future, and Steeber admonished the council for reversing what past councils have done.
"Injury accidents can happen anywhere," McDonald said.
McDonald also noted that nearby residents say the problems have been solved, there have been no major accidents and speed has been reduced.
It is not uncommon for council members to change their minds as different information is brought forward, he said.
"Votes can always change," McDonald said. "Everyone should look at the facts of the issue."
Dec 14, 2011 at 9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yuri Rashkin brought up a really good point during the discussion. The intersection of Mt.Zion, Milwaukee, and Wright (by Fagan) is a total mess that would benefit tremendously from a larger-size roundabout. Why don't our city planners address things that really make sense like that?
-
On a side note, why are the lights on Milton Ave. timed to make us stop at EVERY single light on a Tuesday night at 9:00 PM? With gas at over $3/gallon, the City is costing us a lot of waste and money for no reason. The people in charge of how the lights are timed should look for new jobs.
Dec 14, 2011 at 8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the driver of the car that killed that person going 80-90 mph on Milwaukee st.? If that dumba$$ wasn't driving recklessly, this wouldn't have been on anyones rader or the topic of any conversation. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Dec 14, 2011 at 6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Was there something broken that made Gov. Doyle see a need to fix? He made the state broke and now Scott's paying the bills for his robbery of transportation funds... Funds used for this kind of JUNK!!
Dec 14, 2011 at 6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
As for where I'd like to see a roundabout, I think both of the "five points" intersections would be good locations. In particular, the west Five Points would have fewer rail-crossing-related traffic backups if there were a roundabout allowing people to take a detour at the last minute, so to speak. Also, it would be a great place to develop a west gateway to the downtown. It may be harder now that the new car wash was built.
.
We don't have the precise situation that Normal, IL did, but they won an award for a unique downtown roundabout/park:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/awards/sg...
Dec 14, 2011 at 5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
fear, the city probably wanted to get some experience with roundabouts, and also expected future development in the area that now looks remote. In the end, though, it wasn't much of an extra expense when built new.
.
Regarding both Sandhill & Sandstone and bucky12345's suggestion, traffic engineers have found that the more stop signs motorists are confronted with, the more they tend to ignore stop signs (and other traffic controls). In other words, you do that and you actually make the ENTIRE CITY less safe over time.
.
The roundabout works well because it creates an unusual driving condition that requires drivers to slow down. The Dutch have boldly gone so far as to use similar driver psychology and eliminate all signage in a few villages. In the end, things like colored pavement or different surfaces are just as effective as having a lot of signs.
Dec 14, 2011 at 3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
(This comment was redirected by the site staff)
Dec 14, 2011 at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
What I am trying to figure out about this ridiculous city, is why ON EARTH is there a roundabout at the intersection of Sandhill and Sandstone? Its literally surrounded by like 4 homes and cornfields? What an unbelievable waste!! Why would you want one of these where you NEED one instead of putting one dang near in the country! UNREAL!!
Hows about complaining of just stupidity in planning, instead of railing against one being placed where its actually NEEDED!!
Dec 14, 2011 at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Roundabouts are cheaper then lights why not make the intersection a 4 way stop with stop signs not lights. Almost no cost and no
roundabout needed or is that too old school for our public works director and counsel members. STOP spending money we don't have for things the city can do without.
Dec 14, 2011 at 12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
roundabouts are a bad idea, waste of money , seems like Janesville is always playing keep up with the jones "Milton" in this case .
Dec 14, 2011 at 12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
How was the fatal accident caused? Driver error? Why should tax payers have to pay for that?
Dec 14, 2011 at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Roundabouts are brilliant. Having just moved to a town that has roundabouts pretty much everywhere, I have to say I love them! Traffic flows so much better. Replace all the stop lights on Milton Ave with roundabouts, it would make it a much less frustrating drive!
Dec 14, 2011 at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Roundabouts are a hassle when your trying to drive drunk!
Dec 14, 2011 at 6:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
ya..one accident at a roundabout and the entire intersection is blocked for hours.
Dec 14, 2011 at 2:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
doc, here is a diagram showing the points of conflict in the two types of intersection:
-
Of the 32 vehicle intersection POCs 28 of them seem to be based off of 2 people who either don't know how to drive, or are paying absolutely no attention to what they are doing........as are 4 of the 8 POCs in a roundabout.
-
Outside of drunk driving (which a roundabout isn't going to fix), I'd be willing to guess most of the accidents at said intersection were because of those 2 problems to begin with.
Dec 14, 2011 at 1:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
doc, here is a diagram showing the points of conflict in the two types of intersection:
http://www.alaskaroundabouts.com/mythfac...
http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/roundabo...
Dec 14, 2011 at 1:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Roundabouts remove the possibility of going stright through or turning left at an intersection. You have to turn right no matter what. This removes the possibility of T-bone crashes completely. Any accident at a roundabout is a glancing blow of two cars bumping fenders. They save lives, and since they don't need lights, they save money, too. If you figure the average time spent getting through busy intersections in roundabouts vs. traffic lights, they save your time on top of it all. THEY WORK!
Dec 13, 2011 at 11:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
crunch_munch, roundabouts will accommodate tractor-trailers. There is a slightly raised, inner ring that the trailers can roll over.
Dec 13, 2011 at 10:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
How can people have problems there? I dont think its the intersection, its the people. Why should we spend money on dumb people? Ive drove through there hundreds of times and never had an issue nor though it was any different than many other intersections in town. 9 out of 10 people i see on the road are on their phone, maybe if people concentrate on driving they wouldnt have problems?
Dec 13, 2011 at 8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
They are cheaper. Cheaper. Isn't this government being frugal? Austerity?
Dec 13, 2011 at 7:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
this is how they justify more $$ for the ice rink
Dec 13, 2011 at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
How hard is it? It is a circle, no stopping required, go around until you want to get off. If you miss, go around again. If you can play duck duck goose, you can use a round a bout. It saves gas because no one has to stop geniuses.
Dec 13, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the city council could get reimbursed for all the studies they have paid for over the years there would be no budget crisis.
Dec 13, 2011 at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
I like roundabouts and I like streetlights - both work fine. But all naysayers of roundabouts are kidding themselves that they are fancy,Euro,expensive, government out-of-control spending. THEY ARE CHEAPER! CHEAPER. No electricity, no wires, no stopping- just more black top that so many conservatives should love and a few trees in the middle. Shouldn't all you negative-ninnies love these?
Dec 13, 2011 at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
With all four directions now being single lanes doesn't that make it four points now as well? I don't understand Mr. Weber's statement; "Roundabouts are safer than traditional intersections because they reduce points of conflict from 16 to four. The roundabouts also reduce fatal accidents by 80 percent, reduce congestion and save fuel, he added", if all directions of traffic are now reduced to only single lanes, how is it 16? Wouldn't each direction have to be two wide to get 16? And further more, how do roundabouts save fuel?? That one has me scratching my head as well. I'll be the first one to admit that while I am not a math major, I am willing to admit tat I don't get the math here, can someone explain it to me? I guess if it's now not going to happen it really doesn't matter, I just would like to know for when the next time it comes up, and as we all know, it will....
Councilman Steeber says that basically here ; ""We spent a lot of money to solve a problem, and past councils said, 'Yeah, that is the direction we're going to go' and suddenly, for whatever reason, we reverse ourselves," he said.
"If we do nothing, the city is essentially wasting $105,000 with no real resolution to the intersection problems," The problem has been solved Mr. Steeber, the traffic has been reduced from four lanes to two now, and for wasting $105,000, who was it that ordered all of those studies to be done in the first place, wasn't it our city council that you are a part of? So it's better to waste $615,000 (The total cost of building the roundabout) for something that is no longer needed (and really wasn't in the first place)Mr. Weber admitted that by saying that only one accident with no injuries has occurred there in the last four years. McDonald is 100% right by reminding everyone that State money that would've been used here is taxpayer money, I think so many times people forget that when we hear that state money is being used for some projects or when doing something like this.
I applaud our council for showing restraint in it's spending at this time of financial hardship for so many here in Janesville, now can we take another look at the skatepark and ice arena??
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.