Scenic 30A and 395 Intersection in Seagrove Beach

[Independent Thinker]

I agree with GRS.

Roundabouts in general have their place, but 30-A isn't one of them. The word "cluster" comes to mind.

I think a better term might be "suicide circle"

 

[beasmiester]

I definitly agree with the "nays" on the subject of the round-about. Not only will it bring more accidents and frustration in those coming into or leaving 30A, but the bicylists that don't stop when crossing now, will be the subjects of many runs by the EMTs and the sherriff's office.

 

[Beach Runner]

If people have trouble with a three-way stop, no way they can navigate a roundabout.

We need another outlet to 98 between 395 and S. Watersound Parkway. But the idea of having a right turn lane at 395 for those going westbound is very simple. That's where the traffic backs up the most.

 

[NotDeadYet]

Here is the link to the Neighborvision tape of the BCC meeting on 4-09-13 when the two options, signal or roundabout, were discussed. It starts at the 48 minute mark in part 2, and is well worth listening to. It's hard to see how they chose a roundabout if you listen to this entire discussion.
http://www.neighborvision.com/bcc/130409-BCC-y2-2.html

 

[tsutcli]

Thanks for posting [threads merged].

As has been posted - a roundabout is not a bad idea if you have lots of room. Seems that there is no good solution for such a small space. A wide turn lane with a yield sign on the NE corner seems like the best idea in a bad situation.

You're right Kurt. I grew up going to the Jersey shore almost every week-end from Philly. There are many circles along the way at major intersections in areas which look like 98 ( forested and open with lots of room). Where towns were encountered they used lights with dedicated turn lanes which would have been the best option for us. Theoretically, circles could move more cars/hr., but practically this won't work well in a restricted site like this.

 

[justhavinfun]

I saw a blurb today on Facebook from the Walton Sun that said the County approved the roundabout at last nights meeting but have not been able to confirm. Has anyone seen a confirmation?

 

[miznotebook]

A motion not to change the intersection for the time being got a 2-2, vote, so the decision from some time ago to proceed with the roundabout stood.

 

[tsutcli]

I saw a blurb today on Facebook from the Walton Sun that said the County approved the roundabout at last nights meeting but have not been able to confirm. Has anyone seen a confirmation?

Cindy Meadows post on FB

 

[Kurt]

From WZEP AM 1460:

They are getting around to an intersection, probably with a roundabout. Remember the story about what to do with the 395 and 30A intersection? The discussion has included a roundabout. After meetings with property owners, engineers, staff and commissioner Meadows, a plan has been suggested. Meadows said they could use an officer to help now and work on the project during the off season.


The commissioners had previously decided to use a roundabout, but some say it will take too much room. Another idea is a hybrid signal option improving the intersection, offsetting the lanes to the north slightly, keeping 395 and 30A in tack for the most part and adding turn lanes. The feeling from the group, including the landowner EBSCO, is that a signal should be used. EBSCO would trade property to help with the needs. They also want the multi-use path to remain on the north side.


Commissioner Imfeld said he has talked with the sheriff and they both have concerns about a “traffic cop” at the intersection. Commissioner Comander agreed. The cost for a signal would be an additional $400,000 over the roundabout budget. Meadows said a traffic light should have turn lanes.


Meadows noted the trees and look of Old Seagrove. She said they do not want a traffic circle and they do not think it will work. She said there is no reason to blow out the intersection for 40 feet on each side just for 15 weeks a year. She said the group all agreed and came up with the signal solution.


The idea of a traffic officer was brought back up with some saying they use them in big cities. Major Joe Preston also raised concerns. Imfeld said the sheriff was never consulted. Meadows said she did not think it would be a problem to have someone move traffic around.


Pedestrian movements were also talked about and engineer Cliff Knower said a pedestrian tunnel is actually feasible. He also suggested moving the utilities underground. Meadows made a motion to enter into agreements with EBSCO on the property, bury the utilities, do the lane improvements and move forward with a phased approach.


The roundabout was brought up again. Commissioner Meadows, who lives in the area, said the residents do not want a roundabout. Meadows motion failed. A previous Board action last fall has already funded burying utilities and the roundabout. EBSCO said they are ok with the roundabout, but the county will need more property. Commissioner Comander made a motion to negotiate on the land swap with EBSCO.

 

[Lake View Too]

I just read the above, and Commisioner Comander is quoted as saying "the cost for a signal would cost $400,000 over the roundabout budget". WTF! Either that traffic signal is the most expensive traffic signal in the southeast or the roundabout budget is so incredibly underfunded that it will be a gigantic boondoggle. It blows my mind that these morons are going ahead with a plan that absolutely no one thinks will work. Is it not simply logical to try the least expensive, and least experimental idea first? Even though I don't want it, nor think it will solve the problem, I would be willing to try a signal light before going absolutely full tilt into an experiment that could go horribly wrong. Common sense.