Click above for full analysis.
The intersection of Spalding Drive with Chamblee-Dunwoody Road, Spender Trace, and Spalding Club Court has some significant challenges. Citizens of both the City of Dunwoody and the City of Sandy Springs have expressed concerns about the safety of the southbound left turn from Spalding Drive onto Chamblee-Dunwoody Road.
This intersection is currently a five-leg signalized intersection. Spalding Drive is the main street and the two neighborhood streets are split phased from one another. Chamblee-Dunwoody Road operates as an exclusive phase. This intersection has no turn lanes or pedestrian facilities.
The intersection operates in a less than optimal fashion. The split phase operation on the neighborhood streets introduces delay which is particularly realized when there are detection failures. The southbound left turn from Spalding Drive to Chamblee-Dunwoody Rd has no left turn lane and tight visibility. Modifications are worth considering for the benefit of both the Cities of Dunwoody and Sandy Springs.
Several alternatives have been evaluated to improve the safety of the intersection. As outlined in the study linked above, diverting the traffic to another intersection and closing Chamblee-Dunwoody Road (as shown in the drawing) should provide the most benefit for the cost. Providing a southbound left turn signal phase (Alternative C in the operational analysis) is the next most cost effective option, but does not fully resolve the southbound left turn concerns.
Nope, don't like it. That idea was floated to the Transportation Planning Committee, I don't think it was well received then either.
ReplyDeleteLindsay
ReplyDeleteI do not recall the Trans committee denouncing this plan. What part don't you like? The part that makes it safer for cars or the part that makes pedestrian friendly, or the addition of a park on this side of town?
The cut-through from Spalding to Chamblee-Dunwoody would be Dunwoody Rd? Are you sure it can handle the traffic?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was just me who wasn't too enthused. I'm with SDOC, Dunwoody Rd can't handle the volume. Actually, that intersection would be a perfect one for a roundabout.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDT & Lindsay
ReplyDeleteWhat opposition? I asked a question. An interrogative statement used to gain knowledge.
Like DT said, I don't live near there, I rarely travel the road and my best view of it came from Google Maps. I never said i was for or against anything.
Decaf. It's what's for breakfast.
Traffic Engineering is a study based on facts, projections, and existing infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteIntuitively, denying Chamblee-Dunwoody throughput decreases overall road capacity and funnels all traffic to a four way, newly signalized intersection.
Improvements should be made to make the intersection less dangerous, but not at the expense of overall throughput.
Rollovers are usually a function of speeding.
What do they plan to do with the section of Chamblee Dunwoody that they close?Would they make it into a park? let it become overgrown? I've seen too many places that the road closes and nothing is done with it.
ReplyDeleteThe Chamblee Dunwoody / Spalding idea received support for conceptual planning (very minor design) in order to verify Sandy Springs participation and then hold a public meeting (joint SS & Dunwoody) to obtain neighborhood reaction to the concept. This concept is still on the table but not moving fast.
ReplyDeleteThe intersection of Vermack and Mt. Vernon received support for fully funding the intersection design and is not faster track for improvements than the possible Spalding project.
John, thanks for the update. Can we get DPD and SSPD to work on the speeding problem at Chamblee Dunwoody/Spalding? That alone could reduce the accidents and bring in some revenue as well.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me folks, I had NOTHING to do with this idea. As an untrained, unlicensed non-engineer / Traffic / Urban Planner, I just posed the thought of roundabouts in general. In August, 2010 I ALSO floated the idea of taking a publically-owned Right-of-Way and converting it into a Linear Park: http://dunwoodynorth.blogspot.com/2010/08/could-dunwoody-become-city-of.html
ReplyDeleteI'm just sayin'...
Joe--
ReplyDeleteI remember that post well as I had a number of questions on it - before you and I met. LOL!
That wasn't a "publicly-owned right of way". That was a Jett Ferry Road - a PUBLIC STREET - that you wanted to close to the detriment of the drive-through establishments that you don't particularly like.
Questions about a roundabout at that location were never answered and may be moot now that a pedestrian island has been poured there.
Just a point of clarification, Public Streets, roads, interstates, etc. are all on publically-owned Right-of-Way. In the alternative on Chamblee-Dunwoody, they are proposing using that right-of-way and turning it into a park.
ReplyDelete"A right-of-way is a strip of land that is granted, through an easement or other mechanism, for transportation purposes, such as for a trail, driveway, rail line or highway.[1] A right-of-way is reserved for the purposes of maintenance or expansion of existing services with the right-of-way. In the case of an easement, it may revert to its original owners if the facility is abandoned."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-of-way_(transportation)
Using Dunwoody Rd as the main connector into Spalding is not the best answer. This small strip of road is already narrow and provides no sidewalks for pedestrians and bikers. It is a late night drag spot as drivers race from end to end and is a frequent toss zone for bottles, fast food bags, etc. It is also unlit and does not have proper drainage to handle big rains. It seems that the larger area surrounding the intersection at Chamblee Dunwoody & Spalding would be a better fit for making a more effective and safe intersection.
ReplyDelete