Funny, I live just off the center of town. Traffic jam? Maybe congestion. Yes, it can take me a few minutes to clear the center of town in the afternoon when there is a train causing things to back up. But in a matter of minutes all is clear. The center of town has always been a problem as many people don't view it as a four way stop. The culprits to this behavior are Riversiders and visitors. A traffic jam is 294 at morning and evening rush or Harlem or 1st Avenue at rush hour.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Time to cul-de-sac Riverside streets ?
(39 posts)-
Posted Friday May 8, 2009 14:03 #
-
culvers and lyons public library 1200 from pj klems for books and dvds that we do not have. the former is irrelevent to cul de sacs since it is on ogden. both are sources of jobs , too, for us, within biking/walking distance from brigadoon.
TS, agreed i 290 , 294, 1st av @ rush are veritable traffic jams and not comparable to what we have here. I'll go with 'congestion', or 'seems like alot of cars'.
Posted Friday May 8, 2009 14:04 # -
Catherine - You supported the RCA who said they will give Riverside "Government on Demand." Go demand your government control speeding on your streets.
Posted Friday May 8, 2009 16:02 # -
Speed Bump Cons include...
Can cause damage to some vehicles;
Can increase traffic noise, especially when large goods vehicles pass by;
Signs, street lighting and white lines are all required and may be visually intrusive;
Can cause discomfort for drivers and passengers; are literally a pain in the *%$
Can cause problems for emergency services and buses.
Drivers are distracted by the bumps, therefore ignoring other hazards such as children;
Bumps can impede or slow emergency vehicle access to areas.
Speed bumps are just a really stupid idea.
I have heard some scuttle / interest about the cul-de-sac concept from parents on Herrick. The idea is gaining momentum.
Posted Friday May 8, 2009 19:54 # -
Commonsense,
I agree on all your points re speed bumps. Before moving to Riverside we lived in Edison Park, and numerous streets had speed bumps to prevent cut throughs. Ugly, annoying and only moderately effective.
Where are people thinking of on Herrick for a cul de sac? I presume Harlem. While this might make the parents of small kids on Herrick happy, I would think that those on Burlington and Addison--2 streets that already receive a lot of traffic--would be less pleased.
Posted Saturday May 9, 2009 07:45 # -
Let me get this straight. The Village is running a deficit. The voters have chosen not to increase property taxes funding the Village. An initiative which will cost millions is proposed with no revenue source. The most important question. Why would anyone waste their time considering this?
Posted Saturday May 9, 2009 16:36 # -
It is free to think about ways that might improve things. Maybe, once the conversation is started, and more thinking is done, there might be a way to address a concern for not as much money as thought. Maybe it might take less than many millions of dollars.
For example, the LTE writers mentioned cul de sacs, but maybe there is another way to address their concerns that might not cost as much. Maybe one or two One Way signs? How much dough for a couple of signs (on Harlem)? Before that, maybe the people in the area can volunteer to count cars in order to compile data for free?
Posted Saturday May 9, 2009 21:21 # -
mrt - you are arguing with people who are not bursting with imagination. They just want to harp. Cutting down on the cut-thru traffic onHerrick or any other street is not brain surgery, nor does it require an act of congress. Of course you can "test" what happens with two simple no entry signs at any street that exits the town. Try it for thirty days and see if it solves the problem - which down there is caused by the cars being backed up cutting in and going to Deleplaine to cross the tracks and then back out. You put two "No Entry" signs in, and the residents and others already in town can continue to simply exit, but have to enter elsewhere. That should take all of about an hour to pound in two signs, and if it doesn't work, or throws too much traffic elsewhere, you pull them out. You don't need some costly consultant study - give it a shot and if it doesn't work, go back to ground zero and consider other options.
Posted Saturday May 9, 2009 22:35 # -
Come on, Don--play the game. Mike initiated this post and asked what people think. No one is harping on anything--just expressing opinions.
The problem, as I see it, with one way streets in Riverside, is that the town is laid out in such a way that changing certain streets to one way could really make it difficult to get from point A to point B--it's not like a grid pattern where one can just cut across to the next block and reverse directions. Maybe that's what we want, but I'm not sure inconveniencing residents is the answer.
It may be that we just have to accept that we live in an inner ring suburb of the 3rd largest city in the country, and we are going to have traffic (which--to take a point from TS, above, is really not that bad). Alternatively, we could all stand on corners and mean mug any car with non-Riverside stickers that drives by...
Posted Sunday May 10, 2009 06:53 # -
Come on John, play the game yourself. I didn't say make the streets one-way - I said you could test the effect of prohibiting entrance into any street that has a connection into Harlem, for example, with two no entry signs, if, for instance, the goal is to curtail cut-thru traffic that happens when the trains block Harlem. The cops can enforce selectively, as they do now at Lionel Road, by not ticketing residents. The problems with traffic are not caused by residents, but by the overload that is caused by cut thru traffic when Harlem is blocked.
Posted Sunday May 10, 2009 08:51 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.