Give roundabout a try

Editor:

My hometown in Pennsylvania had a notoriously busy intersection

where three major roads converged to form a five-point intersection, controlled by an array of traffic signals.  

Despite major protests and years of foot dragging… the roundabout was finally constructed. 

Results:  it greatly eased the flow of traffic, as promised.

Citizens of the area are now embracing the roundabout. 

This confirms an earlier article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, stating: 

The insurance institute noted that motorists typically are opposed to construction of roundabouts.  

However, opinions quickly change when drivers become familiar with them.

A 2002 survey in three towns where roundabouts replaced intersections with stop signs found 31 percent in favor before construction, and 63 percent shortly after completion. 

Personally, I think it would be an improvement at 5 Corners. 

Just give it a chance.  Try it, you’ll like it.

John Crawford

Another ‘no roundabout’ reason

Editor:

Many letters have highlighted a variety of very valid reasons for it being unwise to build a roundabout at Five Corners at this time.

In another publication, Ruby Johnson made a point that has not received enough attention, when she wrote the following:

“Since the area is high density with condos on both sides of the hill west of the intersection, how are people going to merge out of those driveways if the traffic flows constantly as cars roll around the intersection?”

During council’s Dec. 20th debate of the roundabout, Council Member Plunkett, who has a condo near Five Corners, mentioned that often it’s only because of cars at the stop sign that he’s able to get out of his driveway onto Main St.

Mr. Plunkett’s comment validates Ms. Johnson's remark.

This is one more reason to scuttle this costly and unneeded project. 

Council members Plunkett and Petso voted against building the roundabout.

Council members Peterson, Buckshnis, and Fraley-Monillas supported building the roundabout.

Contact one of those three if you’d like the issue reconsidered.

You can email them at: counciladmin@ci.edmonds.wa.us.

Ron Wambolt

Roundabout not responsible

Editor:

I am a 21-year-long resident of Edmonds and have enjoyed a membership at Meiko's/ Vision Quest Gym for the past five years. 

I travel by car though 5 corners at least 6 - 8 times per week, all hours of the day and have never experienced long waits to get through the intersection. 

I have also never witnessed any traffic problems, nor confusion as to whose car is supposed to be the next one to move through the intersection.

It is inconceivable to me that Edmonds Council wants to waste dollars to construct a round about to solve a nonexistent problem. 

Did citizens come to the council and ask for the roundabout?

Were there serious accidents, fender benders or reported near misses that exposed auto and pedestrian safety concerns?

I'd suggest that neither Edmonds citizens, nor 5 corners merchants and residents asked  that a roundabout be constructed. 

If they did not ask for it, it should not be built - regardless of the availability of city funds or government grant money.  

PLEASE act responsibly and reconsider the vote to move ahead with this project.

Susan Rogers

Citizens are watching

Editor:

The City of Edmonds knows it has to address the ongoing Medical Benefit expenses of the City staff, and soon for this fiscal year. They have three unions to renegotiate with this year.

Last year they negotiated with one union and promptly gave back the $368,000.00 in savings to the employees as “benefits” instead of putting that money into the City coffers.

The employees of this one union agreed to pay 10 percent towards their excellent plan for themselves and family members, but only from July – December 2011, after that the plan has to be renegotiated again for 2012.

This is not the “norm” for rest of us in Corporate America, as most of us are either self-employed , paying full costs, or if you are employed you have been probably contributing way more than 10 percent towards your benefits for quite some years now.

It has to be difficult for the mayor and council members when the negotiations also means they too, would possibly have to pay more, therefore “penalizing” themselves?

I think the City needs to be made aware that the citizens of Edmonds are watching and waiting to see how pro-active they are in dealing with this cost savings.

Jenny Anttila

More research needed on roundabout

Editor:

The presentation by the Public Works Director on Dec. 20, made use of all the tools that highly successful sales people employ.

We saw skewed data and ambiguous language.

He implied that anyone questioning the project was angst-ridden and afraid of progress.

The word “angst” was actually used.

It was highly effective and left the public (and apparently the City Council) with the impression that the project should move forward despite the valid concerns of informed citizens.

I stated my objections at the meeting, but due to time constraints could not voice my deep concerns regarding pedestrian safety at the intersection.

Currently, the flashing red traffic beacon forces drivers to stop and proceed with caution, observing standard right of way rules.

One of those rules is to yield to pedestrians.

I am aware that some drivers, either inadvertently or selfishly, disregard the rules.

This creates a hazard for pedestrians who can either insist on their right of way or wait patiently until it is safe to cross.

At the hearing, I observed a young lady being coached by several persons before she testified to the hazards of crossing the intersection in order to get to the Jeremiah Center.

When it came to vote, one council member stated that he changed his opinion after listening to her testimony.

Did I miss any information in the presentation that convinced him of the improved safety conditions for pedestrians once the roundabout is installed?

One of the criteria in The Project Benefit/Rationale at the city web site states: A roundabout will improve the LOS and reduce the need for vehicles to stop during low volume periods.

This concerns me very much.

There is a crossing for disabled persons at Bowdoin and 84th Ave. The intersection is also frequented by elementary school children on their way to and from school.

There is a great potential for pedestrian endangerment if drivers are not alerted and forced to stop.

In the absence of a traffic light nothing captures a driver’s attention better than a flashing red beacon combined with a stop sign.

When there are no stop signs, as proposed in the roundabout, pedestrians will still be at the mercy of drivers.

Only now the drivers have the privilege to proceed at 25 miles per hour speed without stopping.

Even though the rules for roundabouts implore drivers to watch out for pedestrians, the hazard remains.

It actually increases, especially for the disabled and children.

None of the data in the presentation or further research into roundabout information shows that pedestrian safety was improved wherever roundabouts were installed.

We owe a duty of care to all citizens - pedestrians as well as drivers.

I would like to see more research and dialog before the city council reaches an informed decision.

Renate Haberpointner