Franklin EDC not ready or willing to leverage smart growth and impending transit options, Part 1

Another multi-part post.

While the federal and state government declares smart growth mandates, regional rail, as well as grant and other funding opportunities for forward-looking transit-oriented development features, know this: The Franklin Economic Development Commission remains snuggled in 1996, ambivalent to the ground shifting beneath our feet.

I have to credit Chairman Skowronski for getting all of my discussion items on the agenda; he knew they would be unpopular but gave them an airing nonetheless.

The gist of what I wanted to do - besides ensure that we have a meeting longer than nine minutes - was take the temperature of the commission members regarding the economic benefits of smart growth policies and transit-ready development. The simple fact is this: The businesses - and families - of the near-future will be looking to locate in communities that are connected and committed to the new transit ideal; in the case of businesses, they will be rewarded by state and federal incentives to do so. That means planning NOW for the approaching shift.

In Franklin's case, that basically means ensuring that we plan for "the last mile" connection between an Oak Creek transit station and us, as well as create better connectivity in new developments.

We met in the Common Council chamber rather than the more discussion-friendly room we generally use so Alderman Steve Olson could use the projector to update the commission on 27th street.

I got my first hint which way the wind was blowing when Olson showed a slide of a roundabout configuration (see above). Alderman Steve Taylor was in attendance and characterized their potential presence as "shoved down our throat by the DOT." Lots of affirmative grunts in the room.

I asked for discussion; Why do we hate roundabouts?

After all,

• If we forgo standard intersections, the 27th Street Commission has estimated a $10 million savings in signage costs.
• Ted Grintjes pointed out that asphalt costs go waaay down because turn lanes are eliminated.
• Economic impact of roundabouts on local business is generally good. For instance, they allow for a direct left turn into a business that would otherwise be accessible only by a "Texas U-Turn" or "Texas Turnaround" (driver bypasses intersection for a left U-turn back to the destination; this is a legal and designed turn configuration that doesn't bode well for businesses nearby).
• The superior safety and lower congestion of roundabouts has long ago passed "theory" into FACT.

- 40% Reduction in All Crash Types Combined
- 80% Reduction in Injury Accidents
- 90% Reduction in Fatalities
- 30% Reduction for Pedestrian and Bicycles
- Up to a 75% Reduction in Delay

Chairman Skowronski, once again, indulged my request. He commented that in his experience "roundabouts are a disaster," citing some specific roundabouts that he'd driven through. However, the gist of what he had to say contradicted the known data (upon which the federal and state DOT's have placed enough confidence that they strongly encourage roundabouts whenever possible): he cited "confusion," "slow-downs," "congestion," etc.

Commission members wondered how pedestrians would know how to cross without a forest of signs; once again, Ted Grintjes brought to bear his experience in Europe (where roundabouts are already common) as he sought to explain an admittedly nonintutive concept: Street architecture such as roundabouts create a safer environment for pedestrians through curb extensions and easy-to-reach crossing islands as well as a design-enforced vigilance on the part of vehicle drivers toward pedestrians that does NOT exist in traditional intersections. A sign can't do that.

As I picked up the thread and explained further, eyes rolled and tongues clucked (one member seemed to be laughing at me).

Silly man: We just want to drive fast and unimpeded.

But no one could explain to me how speeding cars through Franklin at ever faster velocities would help local businesses and attract economic development. They just seemed irritated at roundabouts and how they may slow your progress.

It only gets dicier in part 2 (later today), but ends on a good note in part 3 (tomorrow).

Comments

[Marissa]

My husband and I recently had to go through one of the Moorland at I-43 roundabouts twice because we were in the wrong lane to exit where we needed to go. When I recounted the story to my co-workers, their response was "But wasn't it still faster than having to wait for a light?" I don't think a roundabout is going to change peoples' attitudes about speeding through as quickly as they can.

[John Michlig]

I remember the first roundabout I ever encountered - I think I cursed under my breath as I entered it. Yes, they cause us to slow down and think - but it turns out that that's GOOD. Trading a bit of irritation for safety is a decent deal.

Also, another "revolution" through the roundabout beats a U-turn on a busy road any day, right?