County engineers will be on hand Wednesday afternoon during a public information session for residents on the .
“We’re pretty sensitive to the neighbors in this project,” said Ralph Shrom, spokesman for Burlington County. “We’re hoping we can quell some fears about this.”
County officials are proposing a modern roundabout similar to the one on Cinnaminson Avenue near . However, this roundabout would be one lane.
It’s slated for the intersection of Riverton Road, Branch Pike and Parry Road, .
“You’re taking three intersections that are tightly compressed and creating a four-spoke roundabout,” Shrom said.
County officials presented the plan to township committee in January but final approval lies with the freeholders; Riverton Road is a county road.
During that presentation, county officials said they’ve been studying the intersection for more than a decade. If the intersection is left as is, they concluded, traffic and accidents there will never improve.
Modern roundabouts, which are not circles, according to county engineers, show a 35 percent reduction in crashes, a reduction in congestion and are more cost-effective over traffic signals.
“This isn’t the Airport Circle reborn,” Shrom said. “Statistically, and realistically, roundabouts, especially small ones like this, create a traffic-calming effect and yet at the same time, help facilitate flow.”
The plan does involve some property acquisition but details were not available. During the January presentation, officials said some sidewalks or driveways in the area may be affected.
Shrom said the design engineer would also be present at Wednesday’s meeting so residents can ask specific questions about the project.
The public information session will be held from 4 to 7 p.m., Wednesday, June 6, at the .
While your researching, can you look into the silly comment about someone is going to get killed if they build a roundabout here? This seems highly unlikely given the low speeds needed to navigate one. Might see some minor fender benders but deaths, come on! I would think there is a much better chance getting killed at an intersection with much higher speeds than in a circle. And hearing from the one resident who lives right here, speed and passing on the right seems to be the main problems so wouldn't a roundabout be a permanant solution? After the meeting tonight, please report back with some FACTS, not people's opinions. Thanks
I agree with Mark. I do not know why the county announced the date of the meeting with little warning. Obviously the decision has already been made. They scheduled the meeting at 4 to 7 pm which they know is the worst possible time for people to attend. They do not want our input. This meeting is just to claim that they sought community input. It would be a lot cheaper and more practical to either close off Parry between Riverton and Branch or close off Branch at Riverton.
Additionally, I don't think any of the residents affected want this.
WHY NOT USE THE FUNDS THAT IT TAKES TO PUT IN A TRAFFIC CIRCLE TO REINSTATE OUR POLICE DISPATCHERS? That would be a win-win for police as well as residents. The only losers are the losers who would not get a kickback from contracts to build another foolish wasteful project. The Rutgers University Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT) states in the opening paragraph of their report on traffic circle safety that “Traffic circles have been used in the United States since 1905. However, their use has been limited since the 1950’s due to the realization that they worked neither efficiently nor safely (NCHRP- WEB Page).
This maintains the open space, does not require "taking and giving of private property", and is much less of our county tax dollars spent. It will be safer for ingress/egress in Wood park tennis courts and local residents on Bergen and Poets Walk can still get to Riverton via Hunterdon, and can still go N/W on Branch. Residents of that section of Branch will have much safer access/egress to their homes. It will also provide space for a speed trap on Riverton Road.
232 Kings Highway East Haddonfield, New Jersey 08003.Email: M_angelastro@yahoo.com Phone: 856-795-9595 John McFadden, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE Safety/Geometric Design Engineer Federal Highway Administration 10 South Howard Street Suite 4000 20 Baltimore, MD 21201 Email: john.mcfadden@dot.gov Yusuf Mehta, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Rowan University 201 Mullica Hill Road 329 Rowan Hall Glassboro, New Jersey 08028 29 Email: mehta@rowan.edu ) One can pick up a good quality traffic light and associated NEMA TS-2 controller for less than 2K. In case the idiots proposing this boondogle are not aware, we don't have all that much excess funding available.
Let us try to be more civil in our rebuttals. Statements such as “Duh! Next time read the whole report..” only inflame and are demeaning in nature. This blog is designed as a forum for opinions and not for personal attacks. Adversity is directly proportional to ignorance. As a point of information I did read the entire report and found nothing that actually endorsed the proposed Cinnaminson traffic circle. The report was, for the most part, an explanation of the methodology used to explain, as the title states Operational Improvements at Traffic Circles. The report limits itself to three traffic circles that are far different than that proposed for Cinnaminson. These circles are Collingwood, Brook lawn, and Asbury. My comments were partial because that was all that was required. In fact, if you read my response, you would have realized I was simply making the point that the traffic circle was a tremendous waste of precious resources. You failed to even address the main point that was in capital letters to which even you should have seen. . Conclusion: That traffic circles in Cinnaminson are a very bad idea. They waste precious resources, have marginal impact, increase accidents, impede traffic flow, antagonize local drivers, embellish the pockets of a chosen few, and breed thoughtless rebuttals from out of town readers.
Currently, the NJDOT does not have a proposed alternative design for Asbury Circle. The simulation analysis of the current design showed that the facility is expected to fail within five years during the afternoon peak periods with an assumed 1.5% increase in traffic growth rate. Brook lawn Circle Therefore, commonly used deterministic roundabout (traffic circles) analysis models such as RODEL, aaSIDRA, HCS are not applicable for modeling of these traffic facilities. (conclusions - Page 81) Consequently, the alternative considered by the NJDOT for Brook lawn Circle is not expected to be financially feasible based on the safety and mobility analysis. (Page 67) Motor vehicle crash reports were collected for a three-year period (1998 – 2000) from the Brook lawn Borough Police Department. In the east circle there were 334 accidents total, and 43 of which were injury accidents. These figures show that most of the accidents were due to the negligence of drivers of the concrete islands that are used for channelization, and due to weaving movements within the circle. (Page 53) Again weaving movements required to go around this abomination placed on a perfectly good road. The same result can be achieved by parking a broken school bus in the intersection of Riverton-Moorestown and Parry Roads.
The issues and concerns of the local officials can be listed as follows: 1 High frequency of accidents in/around the circle. 2 Cut-through traffic adds unwanted traffic to residential streets. 3 Maintaining access to the two undeveloped parcels…for economic viability. 4 Severe afternoon congestion…and morning congestion. (Page 55) Let us look a little deeper at what the report did say. Collingwood Circle It is determined that the travel times of vehicles in the current and proposed designs of the circle do not differ significantly. (Page 39) That is to say there was nothing gained by the use of a traffic circle. In fact, at certain times of the day wait times actually increased. From a traffic flow point of view, severe modeling and extensive data are required. It is my sincere hope that adequate data was reviewed in the design of the Cinnaminson traffic circle proposal. My feeling is that the proposal was political rather than driven by traffic planners that found a genuine problem with documented need for resolution at this location.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0RcTWEBtYM
Improvements will be made to this Cinnaminson intersections and money will be spent either way so why not get the best alternative based on statistical data available which in this case leans to a roundabout. Anyway, I apologize for my condescending “duh” and you were 100% correct to call me out on it. PS: I drive to the office several days a week using this route so even though I live in 08057, that is why I commented. Good Day
You seem awful gung ho about this idea. But isn't this an "08077" matter? What have you got to gain by this circle? Just wondering.
Respectfully, since this county route is on many people’s daily commute including mine, I think this is a little more than just a 08077 issue. I also have firsthand experience of using single lane roundabouts , especially out Midwest so I wanted to offer some perspective on how typical your type of negative response is but how over time, favorability actually sets in. Finally, as a health care professional, I have attended many seminars on vehicular trauma and several on the benefits highway engineering and safety enhancements like single lane roundabouts have on minimizing trauma and injuries to both pedestrians and vehicle occupants. I was just trying to offer some useful knowledge but to answer your question; I personally have nothing to gain if a roundabout goes here or it doesn’t. What we all have to gain is safer roadways.