Scenic 30A and 395 Intersection in Seagrove Beach

Com Meadows seems to have come to the same conclusion as many of us on this thread:

At the May 14th meeting, the Commission voted to reject the proposal put forth by Commissioner Meadows deleting the round-a-bout at CR395 & 30A. Pridgen, Commander and Imfeld voted to proceed with the round-a-bout at that intersection, with Chapman absent. Com. Meadows proposed an alternate plan that would have included turn lanes on the east side of CR 30A and would have deleted the round-a-bout. Her plan was voted down. Work on the $1 million plus intersection will most likely proceed after Labor Day.


It has been brought to my attention by Cliff Knauer, P.E., Preble-Rish, that the funds expended on the CR 30A/395 intersection are $30,000; funds which would have to be spent anyway according to Knauer:
None of the funds for the engineering and construction have been expended.
No permits have been submitted.
Ebsco has not signed any agreements to date.


The Sheriff agreed that he could perform traffic control at the intersection (he does so at 331 & 98 at times) In fact, he said they would be willing to help in any way possible.


Based on the above factors we ask the BCC to reconsider the round-a-bout and phase the intersection improvements to include a right turn lane on the east side of 30A and place a traffic officer during peak hours. Cliff Knauer said the round-a-bout plans were conceptual in nature and no final plans have been approved.

You can subscribe to her newsletter at http://eepurl.com/uBVYD

It seems like a turn lane is too simple and too inexpensive and too good of an idea for most of our commission to agree.

Saturday, 9:30 AM - Traffic on 30a - westbound was backed up to Balance with slowing traffic starting at Tom Thumb. Tourists leaving dodge and trying to go north on 395. Why can't county assign a deputy to direct traffic at this intersection on week-ends during the summer? Is this too much much for their little minds to grasp, or more likely they never have to experience this disaster because they do not live here( out of sight out of mind ). Disgusted with their lack of interest in the problems associated with tourists except the money they can collect.

I think they are (rightly) more focused on emergency flooding and washed out roads today.

I think they are (rightly) more focused on emergency flooding and washed out roads today.

So what's their excuse (or yours) for the other 99% of the time? I don't believe they can't spare one person for part of a shift one day a week during high season.

So what's their excuse (or yours) for the other 99% of the time? I don't believe they can't spare one person for part of a shift one day a week during high season.

267-2000, try that, your voice on the other end of the line might be the first step to addressing that problem...

They should add 2 more roads or escape routes thru the park to 98. One in Watercolor & another around Deer Lake Park.
Also change side walks or bike path to the Southside of 30A.This way pedestrians and bikers would not be holding up 395 traffic

No more roads! Keep SoWal Scenic! Take down signs, bury utilities, fix existing stuff.

267-2000, try that, your voice on the other end of the line might be the first step to addressing that problem...

Tried that - no results. In another post I called about the panhandling at 30a/395 last Saturday. Said they would check it out and the officer would call me. No results/call back again. The gov't here, including Sheriff's, don't take residents seriously - only care about tourists and the dollar. Their decision on a roundabout at this intersection is just another example of their tone-deafness.

Tried to attach. See if this works.

Thank you Miznotebook!

First thing I see is that the homes on SE corner actually gain front yard. I assume this is because Stephens/EBSCO owns one of them. In turn they give up a little of their EBSCO property on the NE corner. Maybe this would be OK, after all they will now have more headlights shining into their restaurant.

On the other hand we now know for certain why they aren't moving the bike path to the south side which we know if that isn't done makes this whole thing a cluster.

THE ONLY solution that makes sense is to move the bike path to south side and create a right turn lane on NE corner with yield sign on a gentle curve as shown. PROBLEM SOLVED!

I also suggest adding more roadside parking for V restaurant on the east and especially the west side of 395.

The purpose of a roundabout is to keep the traffic moving. If a pedestrian is trying to cross 395 and a vehicle is in the roundabout trying to go north, the vehicle will have to stop, thus blocking the roundabout (especially if that vehicle is an 18 wheeler). Traffic doesn't keep moving, so that makes the roundabout ineffective. The pedestrian crossovers need to be totally outside the circular center and the triangular separators that make up the roundabout in order to keep traffic moving more continuously.

I agree with James Bentwood on his simpler solution with the bike path on the south and a right turn lane. Move 30A to the north slightly so that the property owners on the south don't lose their space. Put in a bike path crossover from south to north several car lengths from the intersection, say at the west property line of V.

BTW you don't see pedestrian crossings in the photo in Bob's post #175.

Okay, so here's how the roundabouts work in Australia. This is a three-way at a normally very busy intersection in the surfing resort of Torquay, Victoria, AU. I've used it several times. It works.

Color code:
Red: Vehicles must (EDIT) yield to vehicles already in the circle. Pedestrians can't cross here.
Green: Vehicles do not give the right of way to pedestrians in order to keep the traffic flowing.
Magenta: Vehicles should give the right of way to pedestrians, but are not required to.
Blue: Pedestrian crosswalks. Pedestrians can't cross the green areas if a vehicle is coming because that would stop the flow of traffic. Pedestrians can cross the magenta if a vehicle stops for them (which the vehicle should do).

This way the traffic keeps flowing. If you're gonna mix up a roundabout (which again is designed to keep traffic flowing) with pedestrian crosswalks, this is the only way to do it. It works in Australia. I've been at this intersection quite a few times.

Note: They drive on the left side of the road in AU, so things would have to be reversed in the US. Except in one place I know of -- on the bridge at I-285 and Ashford-Dunwoody road, vehicles drive on the left.

Here's the 30A-395 equivalent. I still think that moving the bike path to the south and adding a right turn lane would be safer. Can you imagine a bunch of big SUVs and kids in golf carts trying to navigate that roundabout together if they've never been on a roundabout?

I agree that the bike path should be on the south side. I doubt any study has been made on the volume of traffic that uses it. (Most of these plans are produced at a computer with ample air-conditioning, if you know what I mean.) But, regardless of that, the pedestrian/bike paths should be located as far away from the circle as possible. I don't see any indication of the four driveways that will also be dumping into the circle...

I agree that the bike path should be on the south side. I doubt any study has been made on the volume of traffic that uses it. (Most of these plans are produced at a computer with ample air-conditioning, if you know what I mean.) But, regardless of that, the pedestrian/bike paths should be located as far away from the circle as possible. I don't see any indication of the four driveways that will also be dumping into the circle...

It's not a perfect analogy. Also there's the issue of the cars that park across 395 from Seagrove Market.

But in a roundabout you need to keep the traffic in the circular section moving, or otherwise there could be a deadlock (in operating system terminology) and no one goes anywhere. There are algorithms that can stop this (the simplest being a traffic cop at peak times).

I'm not a civil engineer, so I am talking outside my field of expertise. I am just giving an example of what I've seen work.

Certainly the county has done the research to determine the best solution from an engineering and a human/vehicle interaction perspective, as well as looking at raw data and analyzing it in a mathematical model using software like MATLAB.

To put it in plumbing terms:

I don't care what kind of pretty pipe you put in place, you can still only get so much water through it. Seagrove needs another pipe.

Well said.

Roundabout or turn lane at 395?

Just noticed yesterday and today, the county is clearing trees, etc on the south side of 30 starting at Whiskey Bravo and heading up to 395. Do you think that means they have discarded the roundabout idea and will actually put in a turn lane, moving the bike path to the south side? Wishful thinking or reality? anybody know for sure?

On a side note, my daughter thought it strange to see a prisoner walking along 30 A with a chainsaw this morning where they are doing the cutting.

To put it in plumbing terms:

I don't care what kind of pretty pipe you put in place, you can still only get so much water through it. Seagrove needs another pipe.

If you look at a map of 30A (and I'm sure you have), it's obvious that there is a long way between 395 and S. Watersound Pkwy. with no outlet to 98.

A new outlet would be nice for my convenience, but the undeveloped land in state parks are so precious here. What would be the environmental impact of putting a road through a state park? These parks are the habitat for many species of animals. I think I'd rather wait at 30A/395. Or drive east to S. Watersound Pkwy. and hop on 98.

There are about 4 months out of the year when the traffic is a big problem. In other months, 30A east of 395 is like a ghost town.

Just noticed yesterday and today, the county is clearing trees, etc on the south side of 30 starting at Whiskey Bravo and heading up to 395. Do you think that means they have discarded the roundabout idea and will actually put in a turn lane, moving the bike path to the south side? Wishful thinking or reality? anybody know for sure?

On a side note, my daughter thought it strange to see a prisoner walking along 30 A with a chainsaw this morning where they are doing the cutting.

The county commission hasn't taken another vote on the intersection since the alternate (non-roundabout) plan failed to pass in May. So, as of now, the plans for the roundabout still stand, although they would not be starting construction until after the end of summer. Don't know about the tree clearing, but I think they were supposed to be putting some power lines underground in preparation for work on the intersection.

If you look at a map of 30A (and I'm sure you have), it's obvious that there is a long way between 395 and S. Watersound Pkwy. with no outlet to 98.

A new outlet would be nice for my convenience, but the undeveloped land in state parks are so precious here. What would be the environmental impact of putting a road through a state park? These parks are the habitat for many species of animals. I think I'd rather wait at 30A/395. Or drive east to S. Watersound Pkwy. and hop on 98.

There are about 4 months out of the year when the traffic is a big problem. In other months, 30A east of 395 is like a ghost town.

I agree. In the early days St. Joe tried to get permission to put a N/S connector through state land and couldn't get it done. If SJ couldn't with all their pull I wouldn't hold my breath, or waste it, wishing for one.

The county commission hasn't taken another vote on the intersection since the alternate (non-roundabout) plan failed to pass in May. So, as of now, the plans for the roundabout still stand, although they would not be starting construction until after the end of summer. Don't know about the tree clearing, but I think they were supposed to be putting some power lines underground in preparation for work on the intersection.

Why did the non-roundabout idea fail? I'd be willing to bet that there will be so many accidents from people like me who are not accustomed to roundabouts making mistakes that traffic will back up even farther.

Roundabouts work in AU because people are so accustomed to them.

Why did the non-roundabout idea fail? I'd be willing to bet that there will be so many accidents from people like me who are not accustomed to roundabouts making mistakes that traffic will back up even farther.

Roundabouts work in AU because people are so accustomed to them.

The short answer is that the alternative plan did not get enough votes. It was 2-2, with Meadows and Pridgen voting for the alternative and Comander and Imfeld voting against. Commissioner Chapman was not present. The tie vote was not enough to overturn the approval of the roundabout, which had taken place in August 2012. Cost may have been a factor. The alternative plan calls for a traffic signal, probably not right away but in future years, and the cost for a signalized intersection was estimated at $400,000 more than for the roundabout.
Like you, I do not have much experience with roundabouts, so I don't know how well people would do with one at that intersection.

The only roundabout I use with any frequency is the one just west of Home Depot in Destin, and it can be very fast and intimidating. I can only imagine how well this one will perform with four driveways adding additional cars (who, most likely, will be trying to back-up into swiftly flowing traffic) to the mix.