Comments on: Changes on Church Street

By: Martha Veale

Martha Veale — Wed, 12 May 2010 16:33:47 +0000

We have kids that walk from our house on Lucerne to the Glenlake park and pool. My #1 priority is their safety crossing the intersection of Church and Lucerne. If there is a way to stop traffic so they can safely cross, I would be for a round-a-bout and permanent narrowing of Church because round-a-bouts reduce emissions from car idling, and I would like to see bike lines throughout Decatur. Currently there is not a great way to bike from the Clairemont/Great Lakes neighborhood to DHS, Renfroe, or other neighborhoods south of downtown.

Also, I have been looking forward to Church going back to 4 lane because I think all the signage where the lanes narrow is ugly. I would hope that a more permanent solution would take into account aesthetic appeal.

By: Leighton Moore

Leighton Moore — Wed, 12 May 2010 16:09:46 +0000

As a Lucerne Street resident with kids who use Glenlake pool, I’d want the City to make absolutely sure that any changes to the Lucerne Street light would still provide a safe and convenient way for pedestrians to cross Church Street. A roundabout, by itself, wouldn’t accomplish that. During the summer there’s quite a bit of foot traffic, mostly children, from the Great Lakes neighborhood down Lucerne St. to the pool on the other side of Church.

By: Glen Brown

Glen Brown — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:44:12 +0000

Like the roundabouts idea as would be one less stop light/sign to contend with.

Considering narrowing Church St to a permanent basis after the Dept of Transportation graciously widened it to relieve congestion falls ino the category of government run amok.

By: Rod DeRemer

Rod DeRemer — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:32:31 +0000

I love this idea.

By: Cliff Fox

Cliff Fox — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:06:22 +0000

No, no, no no & no !!!

Absolutely against it. Trying to make a left turn out of any of the side streets in the park temporary parking area has become a “take a deep breath and pray before pulling out” experience during the rush hour and lunch time periods. And I can’t count how many times I’ve been almost side-swiped by cars passing me in the right lane who suddenly realize their lane is closed and they need to get over to the left.

I don’t know where you get the idea that this is “working quite well” (you obviously don’t drive this area on a regular basis day & night like me) but only yesterday – before I heard about this blog post – was I thinking to myself “oh thank God all this should soon be gone!!” The sooner we get Church Street back to 4 lanes the safer I’ll feel.

By: Greg Coleson

Greg Coleson — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:52:26 +0000

I like the idea except the roundabouts. I think there would be a problem crossing the street without lights to stop the traffic in front of the pool especially for children. I think the roundabouts would provide good traffic calming and I would like that effect. The ideal would be roundabouts with lights to stop traffic for people crossing the street.

I favor a more asymmetric layout
with a PATH type trail on one side of the street.

Check out this link for a nice example of a bike lane on a street with trees.
http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07_23/Paris_bikelanes.jpg

By: Carl

Carl — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:34:44 +0000

I’m definitely in favor of traffic signal removal and traffic island additions wherever possible and practical. I’d particularly love to see this on Ponce at intersections like PDL Pl, Northern, and N Candler, where consistent traffic volume exiting the side streets rarely seems significant enough to justify signals (particularly ones on old-fashioned timers). The current lights use a significant amount of electricity, whereas traffic islands are inherently more sustainable. With as many power outages as we now have in the City, the fewer the signals, the better. Additionally, pedestrians are heavily penalized by the currently dysfunctional signalization; so this would be a big win for encouraging active living.