fbpx

Open House Tonight on Future Sheldon & Bradshaw Intersection

This topic contains 29 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Bainc 2 years, 8 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #176977

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    This is something that is very much needed on the east side. The intersection backs up every morning and afternoon. Looks like the options are a signal or a roundabout. I would prefer a signal myself.

    Date and Time
    Jan 14 2016 6:00 PM — 8:00 PM
    Location Pleasant Grove High School
    Description The Public Works Department of the City of Elk Grove invites you to learn about and provide design input on upcoming improvements to the intersection of Sheldon Road and Bradshaw Road. Improvements to the intersection will be made because threshold values for increased traffic have been met, per the process outlined in the Rural Road Improvement Policy and Standards. Based on community input and City Council direction provided at the June 13, 2012 City Council meeting, two options are being considered for the intersection: a signal or a roundabout. Come share your input!

    Open House: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
    Presentation: 6:30pm – 7:00pm

    Location details:
    Pleasant Grove High School
    9531 Bond Road
    Elk Grove, CA 95624

  • #291588

    plasmadrive
    Participant
    • Topics - 88
    • Replies - 885
    • Total Posts - 973

    Round a bout works for medium traffic provided people pay attention.. That is a pretty high traffic spot during certain times of the day.. I think a signal would be the best answer and right hand turn only lanes wouldn’t hurt with a signal there.

  • #291572

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I think they need left turn lanes too so you can have multiple ways of traffic going. Otherwise it’s like how the old Calvine light was and only one direction goes at a time and that takes forever.

  • #291573

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    So I attended the open house tonight. There was some good information and there was some misinformation and I think a lot of people left not very happy.

    I’ll start with the information.
    Currently 11,000 cars use Bradshaw and 7000 use Sheldon every day
    There are two proposals. A signal light and a round about.
    The city will received government funds up to $5.2 million from the state and feds.
    The signal project would cost $6.1 million, or $900,000 for the city.
    The round about will cost $7.9 million or $2.7 million to the city.
    The signal project would have a left turn lane in all directions. That would allow two directions of traffic to flow at one time.
    There would be crosswalks for pedestrians and bikers. The signal project would take away less land from landowners because it uses less space than a roundabout.

    With either project the existing bridge will have to be replaced. To accomplish that, there are two plans.
    Plan A would be to keep traffic open and shift the road way as the bridge is built. That would be more costly and would result in neighbors losing parts of their land to accommodate the shift in the roadway. This would take 4 months.
    Plan B would be the complete closure of the intersection for 6 weeks during the summer when school is out to allow for the bridge to be rebuilt. During this time drivers would use a detour to Waterman or to Bader.
    I think a majority of those in attendance liked that idea better. Some were landowners so I don’t blame them.

    Now comes what I think is the misinformation and where the open turned from an informational meeting to one that was directing the public to choosing the round about.
    They did a 30 minute presentation. The first slide said everyone knows what a signal light is, we use them everyday.
    Then they spent the next 15-20 minutes extolling the virtues of the roundabout, in my opinion disguised as “providing information” about roundabouts.
    The pros were fewer accidents and 100% fatalities. Increased traffic calming, better aesthetics, reduced emissions and less maintenance than a stop light. How that last part was presented was almost funny. The speaker said lights have electrical and a big box and they have to be maintained. The manner in which that was said, it was obvious they are leaning towards a roundabout. It was like, this is why we think a roundabout is best, so bend over and grab your ankles.

    Then came some misinformation. They said currently the delay at that intersection is 224 seconds on average. Just under 4 minutes. That’s irrelevant. For 21 hours of the day, the average wait is probably less than 30 seconds. For the other 3 hours it can be up to 15 minutes. They said with a signal light the delay will be 34 seconds and with a roundabout it will be 16 seconds. Yes, it will be faster with a roundabout when there is no traffic because you won’t need to stop at all. What will it be at 8 am or 5 pm? How will the two proposals fair then? We asked the city staffer and he said he didn’t know and that the delay estimate was based on the average time.

    Once the presentation was over, the city staff didn’t want to take any questions. Instead they wanted people to go to one of 4 stations and ask their questions there. That made the audience angry. People wanted to ask questions and have everyone hear the questions and answers, but the staff would have none of that. I thought that did a disservice to the process.

    Then everyone was given a sticky dot to place on one of the two plans. When I left I would say the vote was about 60/40 in favor of the roundabout. Either project is an improvement

    The next step in the process is the city council will hear the staff report and then vote on it at their next meeting on January 27. I would expect that there will be quite a few speakers that night based on the comments tonight. A lot of people were unhappy with the how the open house went.

    If you didn’t get a chance to come tonight, I would suggest you write the city council and give them your opinion. If you don’t give any input then you really have no right to complain later about the result.

    Gary Davis gdavis@elkgrovecity.org
    Steve Ly stevely@elkgrovecity.org
    Steve Detrick sdetrick@elkgrovecity.org
    Pat Hume phume@elkgrovecity.org
    Darren Suen dsuen@elkgrovecity.org

  • #291574

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I contacted the city council this morning and asked that they reconsider deciding this at the next council meeting on the 27th. I think they need to hold another open house and let the residents ask more questions and have someone standing up front to answer them. As someone else said to me last night, the residents got sandbagged last night. I live about a 1/2 mile from there. I am ultimately fine with either decision as either is much better than what it is now. In the mornings Bradshaw is backed up past our street so I can’t even turn left on Bradshaw to head north. I would need to turn right and head to Bond and then make a U turn and come back.

    Another thing I thought of this morning is I think Bradshaw is eventually supposed to be widened to at least 4 lanes from Calvine to Grantline, unless that was changed. If that is the case then a traffic circle makes no sense because they have to redo the whole thing or take it out in favor of a light at that point. Can’t see spending the extra $1.8 million on a traffic circle if that is the case.

    I talked to a school board member last night and he said the intersection should have been improved when the high school was opened. I think Plasmadrive mentioned last year that he thought that was in the plans. I don’t think it was, but it should have been. I talked to the neighbors that live on the southeast corner of Sheldon and Bradshaw and they said 10+ years ago the city had surveyors out there and the plan was to widen Bradshaw to 6 lanes, which is what I had heard back then as well. I know things changed because of the rural road standards implemented later and maybe now that is not the case. It should be widened to 4 lanes though. It would affect me, but I would rather it be 4 lanes than 2.

  • #291589

    plasmadrive
    Participant
    • Topics - 88
    • Replies - 885
    • Total Posts - 973

    @EGL Admin 123103 wrote:

    I contacted the city council this morning and asked that they reconsider deciding this at the next council meeting on the 27th. I think they need to hold another open house and let the residents ask more questions and have someone standing up front to answer them. As someone else said to me last night, the residents got sandbagged last night. I live about a 1/2 mile from there. I am ultimately fine with either decision as either is much better than what it is now. In the mornings Bradshaw is backed up past our street so I can’t even turn left on Bradshaw to head north. I would need to turn right and head to Bond and then make a U turn and come back.

    Another thing I thought of this morning is I think Bradshaw is eventually supposed to be widened to at least 4 lanes from Calvine to Grantline, unless that was changed. If that is the case then a traffic circle makes no sense because they have to redo the whole thing or take it out in favor of a light at that point. Can’t see spending the extra $1.8 million on a traffic circle if that is the case.

    I talked to a school board member last night and he said the intersection should have been improved when the high school was opened. I think Plasmadrive mentioned last year that he thought that was in the plans. I don’t think it was, but it should have been. I talked to the neighbors that live on the southeast corner of Sheldon and Bradshaw and they said 10+ years ago the city had surveyors out there and the plan was to widen Bradshaw to 6 lanes, which is what I had heard back then as well. I know things changed because of the rural road standards implemented later and maybe now that is not the case. It should be widened to 4 lanes though. It would affect me, but I would rather it be 4 lanes than 2.

    I brought up the signal issue there because Grouse”s wife told me about it a year or two previously and she was active in trying to get it done I believe. Grouse may have been active in the battle as well. He has the original paperwork from way back then and I seem to recall it being in the paperwork somewhere.

    I agree with you Doc, a round a bout is not the best idea there. They say a signal light will need power and maintenance.. I doubt that over it’s lifetime it will need over a $2mil worth of either, and if they do plan to widen the road, the signal will be put out far enough in the first place to accommodate that change.. at least that is what they usually do.

  • #291575

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Another thing I thought of this morning is what will be the additional costs to convert a traffic circle to a signal light vs converting an existing signal light to an expanded signal light? So we would spend $1.8 million more now on a traffic circle and then spend more later to convert that to a signal intersection? I would think it has to be cheaper to go from a signal to an expanded signal intersection than from a traffic circle to a signal. One of the things touted in the presentation was that a traffic circle is more aesthetically pleasing and they would have some sort of rural character to it. At the Sheldon and Waterman traffic circle they will have windmill. So they would put something similar in here and then have to take it all down in a few years? That all makes no sense to me.

  • #291594

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    As long as a traffic circle can handle the peak demand I think the traffic circle is better but they need to show it can handle it first.

  • #291576

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @bainc 123122 wrote:

    As long as a traffic circle can handle the peak demand I think the traffic circle is better but they need to show it can handle it first.

    What about the future widening of Bradshaw? And what about the additional cost of $1.8 million up front extra for a traffic circle? Is that a good idea?

  • #291590

    plasmadrive
    Participant
    • Topics - 88
    • Replies - 885
    • Total Posts - 973

    @EGL Admin 123117 wrote:

    Another thing I thought of this morning is what will be the additional costs to convert a traffic circle to a signal light vs converting an existing signal light to an expanded signal light? So we would spend $1.8 million more now on a traffic circle and then spend more later to convert that to a signal intersection? I would think it has to be cheaper to go from a signal to an expanded signal intersection than from a traffic circle to a signal. One of the things touted in the presentation was that a traffic circle is more aesthetically pleasing and they would have some sort of rural character to it. At the Sheldon and Waterman traffic circle they will have windmill. So they would put something similar in here and then have to take it all down in a few years? That all makes no sense to me.

    Aesthetically pleasing??? Are this idiots on drugs.. there are signal lights just down the street in both directions.. when they widen Bradshaw I don’t think “aesthetically pleasing” will matter a whole bunch. The amount of money it would cost for other than a traffic signal is ridiculous, and will take more land from residences at the corner.

  • #291577

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @plasmadrive 123139 wrote:

    Aesthetically pleasing??? Are this idiots on drugs.. there are signal lights just down the street in both directions.. when they widen Bradshaw I don’t think “aesthetically pleasing” will matter a whole bunch. The amount of money it would cost for other than a traffic signal is ridiculous, and will take more land from residences at the corner.

    Can you send the council an email and voice your opinions?

    I talked to the owners of the parcel at the southeast corner and they wanted a traffic circle because it would be easier for them to get in and out

  • #291591

    plasmadrive
    Participant
    • Topics - 88
    • Replies - 885
    • Total Posts - 973

    @EGL Admin 123141 wrote:

    Can you send the council an email and voice your opinions?

    I talked to the owners of the parcel at the southeast corner and they wanted a traffic circle because it would be easier for them to get in and out

    Yes, I will do it..
    I wonder why they think it would be easier for them to get in and out? Maybe they are thinking of traffic backed up waiting for the light.. I am guessing they have a real issue now when it’s busy..

  • #291595

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    @EGL Admin 123128 wrote:

    What about the future widening of Bradshaw? And what about the additional cost of $1.8 million up front extra for a traffic circle? Is that a good idea?

    Not sure but it could easily be 15 years before Bradshaw is widened between Calvine and Grantline. I’m always inclined to spend less but a well functioning traffic circle keeps speeds down and has overall less wait time. With a stop light you’ll have people gunning it two make it through a stale green and yellow light. Cars will easily go 60+ MPH. With a traffic circle cars are slowed down every time through. I’m not a strong advocate of either one in particular. Both have pros and cons.

  • #291578

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @bainc 123149 wrote:

    Not sure but it could easily be 15 years before Bradshaw is widened between Calvine and Grantline. I’m always inclined to spend less but a well functioning traffic circle keeps speeds down and has overall less wait time. With a stop light you’ll have people gunning it two make it through a stale green and yellow light. Cars will easily go 60+ MPH. With a traffic circle cars are slowed down every time through. I’m not a strong advocate of either one in particular. Both have pros and cons.

    A traffic circle will be better when there is little to no traffic. I am not sure how much faster it will be during commute times. The bulk of the morning traffic is northbound Bradshaw. In the evening it is southbound Bradshaw.

    Bradshaw could be widened in less than 10 years though too. The cost is an huge issue. An extra $1.8 million is a lot.

  • #291579

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    The city has decided to hold another meeting. Sounds like they received a lot of emails from people about it. I’ve been having a pretty good back and forth with some people about the intersection. I added a poll and gave two choices, a traffic circle or traffic signal. With 55 votes in, it’s about 70% in favor of a light.

  • #291587

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    I certainly have no dog in the fight, but having lived through a major expansion of Hazel Ave off 50, and still living through it as the project is moving north, I have some sage advice for you. Choose the plan that you can stand, but not the one that gets traffic flowing the fastest. You do NOT want Bradshaw to go from 2 lanes to 6 lanes; 4 lanes is reasonable. A roundabout will attract fewer people than a signal. I rarely take that route down because of the stops and the construction delays. If it were 6 lanes and signalized, I’d totally take that route down. Do you really want a few thousand people like me added to an arterial close to your house?

  • #291580

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Traffic is already bad, I would rather it flow better to be honest. Bradshaw is 4 lanes all the way to Calvine. I would like to see it be 4 lanes all the way to Grantline. A roundabout will still get a lot of people because it is better than stop light. One of the arguments from roundabout supporters is they are hoping it will force people to choose another route. That’s stupid because a round about will be much better than a stop sign, so if anything traffic will flow better and increase traffic with that too. So their logic is faulty. If you want to keep traffic away then keep it as a stop sign, but they can’t because right now that intersection is rated F for failing. I would say F for something else myself. 🙂 So sometime has to be done according to the city’s own criteria.

  • #291596

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    I may have already mentioned it by I like the circle because it keeps traffic moving and acts at reduce speeds at the same time. Bradshaw north of Calvine is basically freeway speeds.

    As for a traffic circle being able to handle the amount of vehicles here’s some food for thought. The new traffic circles in Galt at 99 & Twin Cities work well and they must get more vehicles. Also, Waterman and Sheldon is getting a traffic circle and more vehicles go through that intersection then Bradshaw and Sheldon. Finally, that’s the heart of the rural area and shouldn’t see large scale developments so if it can handle the traffic now it should also in the future. No?

  • #291581

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    What if they widen Bradshaw? If there are no plans to do that, which we know there are, then that’s fine. The city needs to factor that into any decision. Not to mention the cost. The costs are not even remotely the same. $1.8 million on one intersection is a lot of money.

  • #291597

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    You can still have a traffic circle on a 4 lane road. Twin Cities road east of the 99 traffic circl is 4 lanes.

  • #291582

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Is it all 4 lanes or is it one lane that goes through with a right turn lane? I don’t think it’s 2 lanes all the way around. if they want people to avoid the area then they should do that. I hate that twin Cities intersection.

  • #291598

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    Do a Google image search for 4 lane traffic circle. There are plenty of examples. As for the Galt traffic circles I’ve only been through them a few times but every time it was quick and smooth. I’ve never actually stopped and it has been much faster then the old stop lights.

  • #291583

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    The old stop lights there were not very good, so that’s not a great comparison. I think only one direction went at a time. I think during most of the day a traffic circle would work well.

    As a taxpayer though are you okay with paying $1.8 million more for one intersection. Is the benefit worth it? I can’t justify spending that much on ONE intersection. If it was the same price, then maybe do it, but for $1.8 million? That’s just stupid.

  • #291599

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    I agree, money is a big hang up.

  • #291592

    plasmadrive
    Participant
    • Topics - 88
    • Replies - 885
    • Total Posts - 973

    The biggest problems with traffic circles are 1. Poor drivers that have no clue or are afraid to actually drive. 2. They don’t work well in heavy traffic. 3. See #1

  • #291584

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @plasmadrive 123336 wrote:

    The biggest problems with traffic circles are 1. Poor drivers that have no clue or are afraid to actually drive. 2. They don’t work well in heavy traffic. 3. See #1

    I agree. People generally know how traffic light work. Traffic circles require a lot more driving intelligence, and frankly I don’t think a lot of people have that. I saw a post on Next Door yesterday with a link to an insurance report on traffic circles in New York. It said that there are more accidents with traffic circles, but they are less deadly because the speeds are lower. There will be more accidents because it requires more guessing. Is the car to your left going to keep going or turn? I see that all the time on the ones on EG Blvd.
    In the afternoons on Bradshaw most of the traffic is southbound. There is very little from Sheldon heading west, so the cars going south will be able to enter the round about one after the other without worrying about yielding. So if you’re on Sheldon heading east, you may have to wait awhile for there to be a break to jump in, or you just force yourself in, thus causing more accidents.

    http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2011/06/28/204259.htm

  • #291593

    plasmadrive
    Participant
    • Topics - 88
    • Replies - 885
    • Total Posts - 973

    My point exactly

  • #291600

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    Thought of another example. The Hwy 89 and I-80 intersection in Truckee. Two lanes coming from all directions. I really like that one too. Traffic runs smooth through there.

  • #291585

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I’ve been through that one. It’s a cluster dude. You have to know which lanes to get into when you enter. Way more confusing. We already know that people are crappy drivers. We know many can’t handle a single lane traffic circle. Adding a second one will be much worse.

  • #291601

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    People figure them out pretty quick. I’d be much more concerned with somebody running a light there at 60+MPH and driving that fast through there with all those driveways.

  • #291586

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I set up a poll on Facebook on this issue. Please vote and we will share it with the City Council and staff.

    https://poll.fbapp.io/bradshaw-and-sheldon-intersection?from=user_link&ref_id=9ey1tj

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Privacy Policy