Anyone who ever tries to get to and from businesses on the east side of Estes Dr. south of Franklin St. knows that it's a treacherous errand, no matter where you're coming from. I've become better than a FedEx driver when it comes to planning right-turn-only routes. While I'm sorry to see Walker's BP station go and have mixed feelings about the possibility of a Walgreens there (esp. since Kerr has left the mall), this does present an opportunity to think hard about the miserable traffic patterns in the area.
I was not at last night's hearing on the subject, but WCHL reports a plan to construct medians in the area, along with some objections to it, albeit in rather general terms: http://www.wchl1360.com/detailswide.html?id=13185 I don't know the details of the length and position of the medians, provisions for U-turns to reach destinations on the left-hand side of the street(s), or the objections beyond a very general argument about whether things will be safer with or without the medians.
I do know that I marvel that there haven't been even more accidents than there already are -- caused by:
1. Drivers turning right from the BP or from the service road just south of it, crossing the right-turn lane to reach either the through lane or, worst of all, the left-turn lane, all in the short distance before the light at Franklin. The truly suicidal loons are the ones who turn left out of the BP, usually with frantic waving, pointing, and miming at nonplussed and often disgusted northbound drivers.
2. Drivers turning left out of any of the driveways on Estes' east side between Franklin and Willow who routinely blast their way through the breakdown/left-turn lane into busy southbound traffic, daring oncoming southbound drivers to hit them.
3. Drivers turning left out of any of the driveways on Estes' east side between Franklin and Willow who routinely scoot across northbound traffic only to camp in the breakdown/left turn lane, waiting to merge into southbound traffic and challenging any arriving left-turn traffic from either direction to a duel of brinksmanship or causing unexpected gridlock.
4. The whole mess created by traffic coming and going at the post office, jockeying for parking spaces, backing up traffic to the Wachovia drive, and queuing up for the dodg'em car rally getting back onto Estes. If only NCDOT, Chapel Hill, and the feds could agree to completely replan parking and traffic flow.
As for patronizing Caribou Coffee opposite the BP station, I never try to get there by turning left across either Estes or Franklin unless I don't see another car for miles; but comments in the WCHL report suggest that some do.
I'm guessing that this is the sort of discussion that sets up screams from the nearby businesses, screams from the pseudo-Nascar drivers with delusions of immortality who think the traffic patterns provide good sport ("I've never had an accident; if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"), and a lot of headaches for the planners and Council members -- not to mention months of huge traffic snarls during construction.
As it is now, however, it's more death-defying excitement than I want just to mail a package, have a cup of coffee, or (with my medical insurer's permission) pick up a prescription. I do say "it's broke," and I hope there will be some sensible proposals to fix it, all of it.
Issues:
Comments
Estes and Franklin and Walgreens
Thank you for this analysis of the traffic situation on Franklin and Estes. The people at Walker's BP are thoughtful, community-minded folks and I am among those sorry to see them go. Walgreens is a hugh chain which makes lots of money providing goods and services which people need. If they want to do that in this spot fine - the Town needs their tax dollars - but they should be stakeholders who are part of the solution and not of the problem which taxpayers have to pay for to solve. If it is legally possible from a zoning point of view, why not tell them no exits/entrances directly onto Franklin or Estes at those corners but only from the two entrances/exits from those streets which currently lead into and out of the restaurant/office area there? Every big business does not have to have its own entrance/exit onto very busy town streets when office/business/restaurant clusters already exist adjacent to it. Tom
It's not legal....
to tell a property owner they can't use their property under certain circumstances. For the record, Walgreens tried to get a shared access to the property to the south of them on S. Estes which would have allowed an easier and safer ingress/egress on S. Estes but the property owners declined to grant them a cross-access. In the plan presented to Town Council Walgreens would be closing the two currently-existing driveways (on E. Franklin and S,. Estes) closest to the intersection. They would also be paying for the cost of the medians on E. Franklin and S. Estes as well as the costs involved in striping a new crosswalk on E. Franklin and optimizing the signal lights to improve traffic flow.Although there doesn't seem to be any better solution than what is proposed and Walgreens would, I believe, be an excellent addition to our business community, there is still one solution which rarely ever surfaces: drivers can simply slow down a little, get off their cellphones, and pay attention to what they are doing. Getting to their destination a minute or two later is not going to kill anyone and, in fact, might save a life or two.
How long are the medians?
George, do you know how long the proposed medians would be - how far back from the corner they would extend - and what configuration? It's a shame that the property owners refused access. And while I wholeheartedly endorse the goal of getting drivers to slow down, hang up, and pay attention, that won't be enough to solve all the rats-nests I described above -- particularly what happens when some idjut entering traffic at that service drive tries to nudge across three lanes of stopped northbound rushhour traffic to make a left turn. At the very least, I'd support the idea of simply disallowing left turns out of drives within about 200 ft. from the intersection in all four directions (ever seen anyone turn left out of the Kangaroo gas station? A breathtaking feat). But I might also suggest that any northbound median include a barriered split so that drivers could only gain access to the northbound left-turn lane on Estes (to get to westbound Franklin) from south of that service drive.
They are ...
Priscilla, They are proposed to be 4-ft wide concrete (to allow room on them for signs without 'scaring' drivers to veer away from them into the adjoining lane). They would extend about 180 feet from the intersection on E. Franklin and about 160 feet from the intersection on S. Estes. There would be about another 75 feet of tapered striping from the end of the median to warn the drivers to move over.The proposal for Walgreens would include right in/right out 'porkchop' barriers on the driveways to discourage left turns out of Walgreens but, as evidenced by the Kangaroo station, drivers don't always abide by these constraints but the medians would, on both streets, extend beyond the driveways.
Result of poor connectivity
This is one more example of the poor connectivity in this town. The amount of traffic at that intersection seems to be heightened by the fact that these two roads are the only through streets in that area. If you could get a street from Willow to E Franklin, and another from E Franklin running behind the park to the bypass, that would greatly relieve the pressure. Can you imagine the outcry though?
Out with the old, in with the new
Walker's is now history, so there is no need to make Walgreens the "boogie man". Before we cast that stone, let's see if Walgreens will be a good fit to Chapel Hill.
18+ months later
Anonymous posted in Jan. 2010: "Before we cast that stone, let's see if Walgreens will be a good fit to Chapel Hill."Is Walgreens a good fit to Chapel Hill? What do people think now, as they drive past the 3-story bombshelter rising at Franklin and Estes (yes, I have an opinion based on what's appeared so far)? It looks like what limited parking space there is will be south and east of the building. Ingress and egress look like cars will only enter/exit going north on Estes or east on Franklin. No sign yet of a "lambchop" on Estes. It's clearer now why it might have been a blessing if Walgreens could have secured the cross-access via the drive to the property to its south (see George's 1/22/10 post above) -- and I would have thought that the property owners would have been grateful for anything to improve circulation to those buildings. On the other hand, perhaps they feared Walgreens parking spillover -- which they'll certainly get anyway, given the traffic patterns (unless they post intimidating "No Walgreen's Parking" signs and enforce towing). Also waiting to see what lighting will be like, but if it's open 24/7, it won't be subtle, I'd guess.
Premature
Isn't it premature to judge the Walgreens before it's even finished? I don't know of any construction zone that is an asset to it's environment, it's what we're left with that matters.
Excellent Suggestion
I can't say for sure that the Chapel Hill populace will approve of the final product but the developers of this Walgreens came before the Community Design Commission (CDC) with at least three (and I think it was four) designs before they even submitted their proposal. They were then asked to come back several times (again, I think it was 3-4) during the CDC approval process for their final elevations to make design changes specifically requested by the CDC. The bottom line is that if Chapel Hill's citizens don't like the final design they shouldn't blame either Walgreens or the developer - they should blame the CDC. And as a member who voted for the final design I'll have to stand up and take my licks if that is the final verdict.
What great accountability!
Kudos George. Most public officials aren't willing to take that kind of stand for their decisions! Thanks for serving with integrity.
Prematurity
I agree that construction sites are never pretty and that we don't have the finished product yet. However, the sketch posted on their "coming soon" billboard isn't encouraging. I now pass the time at the red light there trying to picture murals that might redeem the monolithic aspects seen from the west and north.Mainly, however: the imposing size of the structure is unlikely to be reduced much by even the most attractive cladding, and the situation of the building to the front of the lot, rather than set back from the intersection, is not going to change either.I admire, recognize, and give thanks for your integrity on this, George, but surely there were some things you and the CDC had little control over (e.g., the cut-through drive).In any case, my post of yesterday was not intended to point a finger so much as 1) invite feedback (comments are appearing elsewhere already, and surely it's worth knowing citizen reactions that may inform future decisions) and 2) suggest further questions about the traffic configuration, which is less "set in stone" than the Walgreens building is at this point.