Phil and all:

 

Actually Phil you took the words out of my mouth--why not community votes

for unsafe engineering practices and traffic signals are a good place to

start?  Signals are, essentially, illegal in states, provinces and

jurisdictions with "roundabouts first" policies adopted by law and/or

regulation--NY State (outside of New York City),  British Columbia, etc.,

are examples.   Signals would be allowed only where a roundabout are

determined to be unfeasible.  As the mantra goes, signals relative to

roundabouts kill more, injure seriously more, delay all modes more, pollute

more, waste gasoline, promote sprawl, cost more maintenance dollars, and

degrade scenic quality.

 

In view of the U.S. 15,000 deaths in car crashes from fatality rates twice

that of leading nations (U.K., Norway, Ireland, etc) dumping signals seems

like one pretty good law to enact.

 

                      Tony

 

 

 

 

                    Tony

 

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Phil Demosthenes <pdemos@ecentral.com>

wrote:

 

> I think the measure poses a legal problem but it would take time and

> effort to go through the court process.

> 

> 

> 

> While I think those in opposition to a particular road design at a

> particular location in their community can protest and perhaps get the Ci=

ty

> Council to stop the project or select a different alternative, I think

> passing a law that prohibits the use throughout the community of a

> engineering solution for public health and safety steps over the line.

> Furthermore, it cripples the operation of community government, prohibiti=

ng

> elected officials from carrying out their public safety responsibilities.

> What's next? A popular vote for traffic signals?

> 

> 

> 

> Members of the community have a right to demand public safety and the

> application of modern engineering standards for the protection of

> themselves and their family and should not need to seek a popular vote

> every time it is in their best interest of safety to select a certain

> engineering solution.  That is the role of the City Council, to hear the

> various opinions, study the facts, weigh the alternatives and make a

> decision.

> 

> 

> 

> I don't know the cost of a typical popular vote process or time-line in

> Placerville, but I am sure it is not cheap or fast. And like most, the

> winning vote will depend more on money invested and the level of political

> rhetoric not the facts of public safety and community design.  I also thi=

nk

> every member of City Council should vote against the Measure.  Switching

> from a Council  public hearing process to a popular vote process for this

> and whatever is next is not an efficient or democratic process.

> 

> 

> 

> Phil Demosthenes -  303-349-9497 (mobile)

> 

> phil@pdemos.com

> 

> 

> 

> *From:* Roundabout Research [mailto:ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] *On

> Behalf Of *Ken Sides

> *Sent:* Sunday, September 14, 2014 4:04 PM

> *To:* ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU

> *Subject:* Re: Opposing local ballot measure that would kill roundabouts

> 

> 

> 

> That's unfortunate, because modern roundabouts can easily be used to

> reflect and celebrate local values such as the sanctity of the historic

> district or pride in a small town feel.  The central island and

> the periphery of the roundabout sidewalk are available for this purpose, =

as

> well as is the look of the splitter islands, crosswalks, lighting, etc.

> 

> 

> 

> One example that comes to mind is one of the roundabouts in Avon, CA,

> where the central island celebrates the Old West with large bronze horses

> mounted by bronze cowboys and the sidewalk periphery has many columns with

> busts of local luminaries sitting atop them.

> 

> 

> 

> Does anyone have other examples to suggest to John Burnside?

> 

> 

> 

> -Ken

> 

> Ken Sides, PE

> 

> 

> 

> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Rock <Rmiller49@socal.rr.com> wrote:

> 

> Both of these were smaller towns debating roundabouts within their

> historic commercial areas. Couple fear of change with concerns over

> preservation of a small town feel make these difficult to sell to the

> larger population.

> 

> Rock Miller

> 

> Orange CA

> 

> 

> 

> Sent from my iPad

> 

> 

> On Sep 14, 2014, at 1:49 PM, rickperezpe <rickperezpe@MSN.COM> wrote:

> 

> I think this illustrates the danger of aligning with certain causes.  Not

> everyone embraces new urbanism, smart growth, or the current label du jour

> for increased density of development.

> 

> 

> 

> Roundabouts are simply good traffic engineering and can be sold without

> getting drawn into land use planning debates.

> 

> 

> 

> Rick Perez, P.E.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

> 

> 

> 

> -------- Original message --------

> 

> From: Phil Demosthenes

> 

> Date:2014/09/14 11:38 (GMT-08:00)

> 

> To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU

> 

> Subject: Opposing local ballot measure that would kill roundabouts

> 

> 

> 

> *Measure on the November 4, 2014 ballot (El Dorado Co CA)*

> 

> *Measure K =E2=80=93 City of Placerville:  *"Shall the City of Placervill=

e=E2=80=99s

> General Plan be amended to prohibit a roundabout or similar traffic

> features anywhere within the City limits of Placerville without approval =

of

> popular vote?"

> 

> 

> 

> Placerville is a small town in the California foothills, about 10,000 pop,

> along US 50 between Sacramento and S Lake Tahoe.

> 

> 

> 

> I would guess that even with traffic signals having about 9 times the

> serious injury crash rate there has not been a similar Measure to prohibit

> traffic signals in Placerville without a popular vote.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/16/6633656/placerville-considers-its-rounda=

bout.html

> 

> "Left-leaning residents suspected a motive to exploit traffic improvements

> to urbanize a small town and promote other construction threatening the

> rural environment of the Sierra Nevada foothills. Right-leaning residents

> saw a plot of centralized planning being handed down by the United Nation=

s.

> 

> Sue Taylor, a Camino resident and part of a loose-knit, slow-growth group

> called Save Our County, believes such traffic features are the result of

> political =E2=80=9Ccronyism=E2=80=9D that isn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9Ctranspar=

ent about the end game: Somebody

> is going to benefit with development.=E2=80=9D She sees the city=E2=80=99=

s effort to fund a

> nearby roundabout with =E2=80=9Cmoney from the federal government looking=

 for a

> place to go=E2=80=9D as part of an international planning scheme.  She bl=

asts the

> effort as misguided =E2=80=9Csmart-growth stuff=E2=80=9D handed down by t=

he United Nations

> under a 1992 framework known as Agenda 21. It recommends that nations

> develop sustainably, with urbanized living and minimal environmental

> footprint.

> 

> Placerville architect Charlie Downs,  He sees the roundabout idea =E2=80=

=93 for

> downtown or elsewhere =E2=80=93 as merely a =E2=80=9Ctool in the shed to =

mitigate traffic.=E2=80=9D

> He said the idea of Measure K =E2=80=9Cis like passing a measure so that =

a car

> mechanic can=E2=80=99t use a screwdriver.=E2=80=9D He doesn=E2=80=99t und=

erstand the local backlash

> against the mere idea of a traffic circle.  =E2=80=9CSince the 1970s, we=

=E2=80=99ve been

> talking about these new concepts and a whole language has developed =E2=

=80=93 smart

> growth, walkable communities, community identity,=E2=80=9D Downs said. =

=E2=80=9CAll these

> are tenets for good planning. And yet what has happened in El Dorado Coun=

ty

> is that these phrases have become bad words. There are elements in our

> community who view it as a conspiracy. And it=E2=80=99s just bizarre to m=

e.=E2=80=9D

> 

> It will be very interesting to re-visit Placerville after Nov 4 and see

> how the vote went.

> 

> Phil

> 

> Philip B Demosthenes LLC

> 

> 303-349-9497 (mobile)

> 

> phil@pdemos.com    www.pdemos.com

> 

> 

> 

> *From:* Roundabout Research [mailto:ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU

> <ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU>] *On Behalf Of *John Burnside

> *Sent:* Saturday, September 13, 2014 10:53 PM

> *To:* ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU

> *Subject:* Opposing local ballot measure that would kill roundabouts

> 

> 

> 

> I have been assisting a local community to prevent the passage of a

> measure that would eliminate roundabouts for consideration.  I have sent

> then three things:

> 

> 

> 

> (1)  The Web site of Omni-Means, a Northern California company that

> decided to specialize in roundabouts  and is doing quite well at it.

> roundabouts.omnimeans.com   It includes a video from Wisconsin DOT, "Take

> it Slow."

> 

> 

> 

> (2)  The episode of MythBusters TV show that shows a single-lane

> roundabout is more efficient that a four-way stop.

> http://wimp.com/testroundabout/

> 

> 

> 

> (3)  The 2001 IIHS study proving roundabout safety in the U.S.

> 

> 

> 

> What else could they use in their battle?  Please send you ideas to me and

> I will forward them.  Please be prompt as I'll be out of town starting

> Tuesday and they have a mid-week meeting.  Thanks!

> 

> 

> John Burnside, P.E., T.E.

> Designing roundabouts since 1985

> INs and OUTs of ROUNDABOUTS

> A Catalyst for Well Designed Modern Roundabouts

> 10628 Melody Road

> Big Oak Valley, CA  95977-9537

> 530-432-6526

> 530-575-5007 cell

> 

> "A crash in a roundabout needs a tow truck, not an ambulance."