Walter3rd makes a valid point. :-) Nonetheless, I still believe the trade-off would be worth it. As it stands now - with cars entering the intersection from 5 different directions - it is often nearly impossible to tell who 'got there first' and to determine who has the right-of-way. This results in many instances of two cars entering the intersection at the same time, or of someone being so hesitant to enter the intersection (or being overly polite) that no one moves at all.

So the problem is that drivers are timid and/or too polite? And a few cases where they don't know who got there first? Let's send them to assertiveness training and aggressive driving school. Then just put up signs that say "YOU MUST YELL 'FIRST!'"

I am all for a Round About, been saying it since the one at the Thru-Way was installed. I live on Fair St. drive thru a lot, but------ have never witnessed actually an accident there. It's just so annoying.

This intersection is crazy. I just wait until no one is left and hold my breath. I dread it everytime I get to it and I have to go through it everyday. maybe some traffic lights would help.

This item would require legislative action. A copy of this issue has been sent to Alderman Fuentes.

This intersection needs a round-about. It is the common sense thing to do. Should have been done years ago.

To FIX WHAT CAN BE:
Let's try to be constructive. Your belittling of the skills or habits of some drivers does not change the facts. Jennifer's comment just goes to show that many drivers are afraid to enter the intersection and wait too long to do so. Just watch the traffic there and you will see this over and over.

To Jennifer:
I sympathize with you; even if you are paying attention it is hard to know who got to the intersection first - and way too many drivers simply do not pay attention. I think the road layout and traffic pattern would make stop-lights impossible, no?

To Ingrid F. and Art P:
While a round-about would be terrific, when we consider the state of municipal governments' budgets, that is simply not going to happen any time soon. Buying some land from property owners to make room for a round-about, plus the cost of construction...

Making that one block of Greenkill Ave. one-way will not completely solve the problem but it would certainly help. While there would be a cost in public hearings and perhaps traffic studies, those would be minor costs by comparison.

Thank you Paul, for your constructive commenting.

Best,

Zak
Community Manager
SeeClickFix

Thank you Paul for your well thought out comment. I have driven in Europe a number of times. They are very fond of round-abouts, especially in residential areas. They do not take up as much room as most people think, Raymond Ave in Poughkeepsie by the college is very similar now. They were installed within the existing road dimensions. The circumference is kept small to keep traffic slow going around, works great. Fender benders are rare. The round-about by the thruway is not a good comparison because is designed for speedier travel through and a double lane.As a bonus round-abouts have no expensive electrical control systems and traffic lights to maintain. A little more cost upfront saves big costs over the long run. I am aware of our current budget problems, the more reason to make wise choices now. Maybe we could use a little more pork from Washington, at least these roads go somewhere.
Art P

To Art P:
Perhaps a round-about would not be as impractical as I imagine; I am not an engineer. I am only trying to suggest a low-cost option, but it would be nice for a city engineer to weigh in on what is or is not practical. I imagine that the city has given this some thought before, and am curious about what their position is on the matter. I have sent the city engineer a link to this page. Does anyone else know of others who we could contact? There are two state routes passing through this intersection, so that could complicate matters. (My suggestion has the benefit of not effecting state routes.)

To Paul Solomon:
I absolutely agree with you Paul. Sending the link was a great idea. They should take a look at what are several good suggestions and would be nice to know their view of the situation. I do know that the Europeans make a lot of use of round-abouts because they are reasonable in cost, easy to maintain, control traffic flow without excessive delays, keep speeds in populated areas slow and reduce accidents. Almost all small towns have one on each end of town to slow and disperse traffic without a lot of stops and traffic lights. It was a pleasure to exchange thoughts and ideas with you. Thanks.
Art P

I have also emailed Aldermen Fuentes and Noble directly, asking them to join this discussion, and requesting their comments and knowledge of any past investigations into this issue.

thank you Paul for your leadership with this issue,
I hope it will lead to something. Interesting discussion, all involved.

Since there are two state routes at this intersection, why doesn't the state get involved with the engineering, design, and construction of a round-about? Larkin? Bonacic? Cahill?

yes put lights back up but make sure only one road at a time comes thru . similar to the one by arby's ,, it works quit well there. in fact all intersections should be done that way.

There was a study of the intersection conducted jointly by the City and County costing approximately $30,000 about 2 years ago. There were several findings including the change of street directions on Wall and Fair and the construction of a roundabout. Two public hearings were held; one at the conclusion and another mid-way through the study. Each hearing drew a crowd of at least 100.
I was informed that the public was adamantly opposed to a roundabout... The study is being forwarded to my mailbox for review. Perhaps another public hearing is in order to discuss the findings of the study? The best piece of news is that although it is a confusing intersection, the actual accidents are relatively low. As the Alderman I will be happy to open the dialog about resolving the issue, but I am a bit confused how to proceed if the changes that are now being suggested were rejected just 2 years ago.

I am currently a resident of the Albany area, but grew up in Kingston, and I think that the Greenkill Ave./Route 32 Boulevard/Wall St. intersection nightmare is a PRIME example of where installation of a roundabout is severely overdue!

The Albany Capital District area has had much success with installing them at key "traffic-snarl" locations, and they have dramatically improved traffic flow and safety at dozens of horrendous intersections throughout the area, bar none.

At intersections where motorists used to sit dumbfounded at multi-stop sign junctions, or grew impatient waiting at useless, eternal traffic lights, now traffic safely, effortlessly, and efficiently travels through these new roundabouts in almost 1/4 the time it used to take previously.

People who are opposed to roundabouts have no idea what they are talking about, particularly because they do not understand or fully grasp the concept of the newer roundabout designs or how to safely navigate them.

They always base their opinions on Kingston's "Old Traffic Circle", or other such outdated designs. The newer designs are much safer, and, in many cases, take up less of a land footprint than the original intersection.

Three great examples of where the new-style roundabouts have absolutely transformed ease of traffic flow in the Albany Capital District are:

1) The Slingerlands, NY Bypass Project
http://machinecontrolonline.com/content/view/6693/

2) The Malta, NY Route 67 Roundabouts Project

3) The Old Niskayuna/Watervliet Shaker Rd. Roundabout Project (between Northway exits 4 and 5)

Imagine shaving 5-10 minutes off your morning commute! In both directions! Now, multiply that times the number of cars which travel through that intersection daily! Now, multiply that by the added labor productivity of each worker! (See where I'm going with this...?)

KINGSTON: This dream could be YOURS!

INSTALL A ROUNDABOUT AT GREENKILL AVENUE!

I believe this issue should be revisited by the city. It is apparent that the recommendation of a roundabout was not well presented. It is likely correct most people imagine a roundabout like those near interstates which are massive affairs. Anthony's examples are typical of residential roundabouts. They have a small footprint, would easily fit within the current area of this intersection. They do speed up flow through an intersection, slow traffic into residential areas, ease pedestrian crossing (traffic is one way) low maintenance and as a bonus current designs have landscaped islands which add a nice touch to neighborhoods. Whats not to like?
Art P

Alderman Fuentes:

Thank you for adding your comment to this discussion. How can we (the public) view the study you mention? I'm sure that it is part of the public record and could be obtained via some paperwork request, but if you have access to a copy, perhaps you could share it? If you would care to forward a copy to me, I would be happy to post it at a publicly available URL and put a link to it on this discussion page.

I favor the roundabout. Having been part of that study, I do not recall any groundswell opposition. I do recall a few vocal opponents - but with some better public discourse and education I think the public wil be swayed.

What is needed, Jen, is leadership on the issue. That is something that has been sorely missing from many difficult decisions in Kingston. I'll be happy to provide any support you need. I do encourage you to get all perspectives and perhaps you can convince the few opponents to compromise.

Good luck.

To John Garesche:

Did you help to produce the study? Do you know if the idea of making Greenkill Ave one-way for that one block was ever considered?

I am completely supportive of any plan to install a round-about! But as budgets are even tighter than they were two years ago, I still feel that the 'one-way for one block' idea might still be a useful interim solution until a round-about could gain enough support or money to be implemented.

Roundabouts just seem to make the most sense in cases like this, because they eliminate almost half of the chances for collisions:

1) There are no left turns
2) Most traffic is traveling around the same speed
3) Drivers can gauge the speed of other vehicles and enter in the gaps between cars
4) There is virtually no chance for T-bone collisions caused by drivers running stop signs.

Not to mention the elimination of stop-and-go traffic during peak travel hours.

The best example I can give is from the Albany/Latham area where I currently reside. (I grew up in Kingston, so I am fully aware of the Greenkill Ave. nightmare.)

In the area between Exits 4 and 5 of the Adirondack Northway, there is a state road called Route 155. For ages, there was a horrific, triangular intersection at Route 155, Old Wolf Rd. and Old Niskayuna Road.

I used to drive an auto parts delivery truck in that area, and before the roundabout was installed, traffic would back up for 1/2 a mile in all directions because the intersection was only controlled by stop signs.

Now, even at 5:00 PM, traffic moves smoothly throughout the entire intersection.

I did not produce the study - it was done by the Ulster County Planning dept - who hired some consultant. I went to a few hearings and provided input in their surveys.

In looking at the study (which is on the Ulster County Planning website) they DID recommend a roundabout. They also said a traffic light could help the problem, but they certainly seemed to prefer a roundabout.

Here's the report:
http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/uctc/documents/stockade_final.pdf

To Jen Fuentes,
I looked at the study and the picture of the proposed roundabout (Fig. 12) is ideal. NO impact on bordering property, constructed within existing footprint. Would actually beautify the area. The change in direction on Fair and Wall St. would be fine. Traffic flow would not be interrupted even during rush hours. It would be finally a safe intersection. Pedestrians would not face a daunting challenge to cross. Traffic approaching the residential area would be appropriately slowed. Entrance & exit to the local business would not be impacted, likely improved and safer. Because the state route is involved the state should bare some of the cost. Cahill and Hinchey should also be involved in this project.This is a no brainer. The city should most definitely revisit this issue.
Art P

John:

The report you reference (City of Kingston Uptown Stockade Area Transportation Plan) is one in which this intersection is only a small part.

The planning board website also contains this report:
http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/uctc/projects/32_fair/final_report.pdf

This report is older (2006 vs. 2009) but more to the point, being specifically about this intersection.

The 2006 study resulted in an extra stop sign being installed, and a recommendation that additional improvements should also be implemented. Various possibilities are examined, but none was selected and none have been enacted.

The recommendation that further improvements are needed, the informal evidence of this posting, and plain common sense highlight the need for continued attention to this issue so that needed improvements of one kind or another can be made. It seems that the study was undertaken, but only a small part of the resulting recommendations were followed.

This study unfortunately does not seem to included a cost comparison of the different 'long-term' improvement options; quite unfortunate. How can that be?

Alderman Fuentes:
Since this is your district, how might you be able to help to see that the major recommendation of the study - the need for further improvements - moves forward? This would certainly benefit your constituents, as well as the many, many others who use this intersection. Any help from you would be appreciated.

Perhaps further public meetings to follow up on the unrealized recommendations of the study would be appropriate?

Can anyone else suggest practical suggestions for moving this issue along?

If anyone has problems accessing the report
http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/uctc/documents/stockade_final.pdf
I can arrange to get you a hard copy. You can call me at 845.332.6600. This issue is important and our next step will be to conduct a public hearing to solicit feedback. I'll get to work setting something up.

Alderman Fuentes:

Thank you very much! Since the 2006 public hearings regarding (and referenced in) the detailed study of problems/solutions for this intersection -

(http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/uctc/projects/32_fair/final_report.pdf) -

The web and social networking have advanced quite a bit! It might now be possible to get many more participants at meetings, if they can be planned and publicized far enough in advance. This issue effects people in your district, certainly, but also people throughout the county who regularly use these roads.

If I can be of any help in publicizing any hearings which you might be able to arrange, I would be more than happy to do so.

I will certainly look forward to your help on this issue! Once I hear back from the Chairman of the Public Safety Committee we can set the date.

Another point of view- I have traveled that intersection every day of the school year for 18 years twice a day. I don't think I have ever witnessed an accident. Sure, people don't understand stop signs, right of way, etc., but it's like that at every 4 way intersection. Maybe a few times I have had to sit for a while because people are impolite, and sometimes I have had to be a bit assertive in order to get my turn, but with the state of the economy, I wonder if money is better spent on other things right now and I am much more concerned about other things in the city. I don't have facts or figures, and maybe this intersection has a history of danger I don't know...I am only speaking from my experience.

Patti -
Your point about tight budgets is well taken. That is why I advocate for the small improvement of making Greenkill Ave. 'One Way' for that single block. It is not as ideal a solution as a roundabout, but it costs almost nothing, and would help to make the intersection less confusing.

This issue was brought before Public Safety and in a meeting with the mayor. If we want to add a traffic circle our first step will be to gather petition signatures from the neighbors and then the mayor agreed to put it on the list for eventual state/federal funding. This will be conducted during July and August. I will also set up an on-line petition and post once I get it together. Anyone who is interested in circulating petitions should call me at 845.332.6600.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ezzycola/petition.html

I think this should work... It would be helpful to include your address under comments as it only collects name and email.

thank you for getting the petition going.

Dear Jen....Remeber, this neighborhood opposes a roundabout. It's the people in this neighborhood that are going to re elect you not the people passing through this intersection. It's not broken....don't fix it. Perhaps a light would pacify the public.

A petition process is a fair assessment of neighborhood sentiment. There are definately people from the ward who are favoring a roundabout. There are also people who are comfortable with the current arrangement. My objective is to give the issue a fair hearing.

Areas in Kingston in far less need have had traffic lights installed in years past. If there is ANY intersection in all of Ulster County that is in dire need of a traffic light, it's this intersection. And yes, I have handled accidents in this intersection in the past.

Yes, I favor a traffic light as well. As of today I have a petition with 35 signatures opposing the roundabout. All but ONE person that I asked DO NOT want a roundabout and were more than eager to sign. These people all live or own businesses on or within a block or two and would be directly affected by the roundabout. So I am not sure who the people in the ward are who are in favor of it. For example, every house on that first block of Fair Street signed the petition except two houses that weren't home at the time.
I would like to see Jen push in favor of a traffic light.....I believe public opinion has spoken for itself!

35 people is certainly a strong indication and I appreciate your efforts. What I am wondering is what seems to be the concern? Is it the disruptive construction phase, the cost, or do people believe it will be harder for pedestrians to cross? What is the basis for the opposition? If properly constructed, a roundabout would ease the traffic confusion and makes it easier for pedestrian crossing. They did a great job in Poughkeepsie on Raymond Ave.

I live a few blocks from this intersection and drive, ride my bike or walk through it every day. I don't think it needs fixing. Tax money should be spent on other things, like addressing crime or potholes.

Everyone saw the blueprints and there are numerous issues that were addressed by the neighborhood at the meeting a couple years ago. We fought it and won. After we all attended several meetings NO ONE liked what we saw and they are the same people that signed the petition now. Everything from how it would affect property, businesses and business property, cost, the school..... There are more issues with this idea than I can type.
They will also need to blast because very few realize this area is all rock (a lot of destruction was done to these houses when the Elm Diner moved out and the current restaurant was built. My grandfather either sued or requested compensation from the contractor for the cracks in his walls and ceilings). What works for Poughkeepsie will not necessarly work for Kingston. They wanted public opinion and they got it.
TheTAXPAYER'S of this neighborhood that live and deal with this intersection on a daily basis feel it needs nothing more than better signs and a traffic light. Thank you Jen for responding so quickly!

It appears most of the opposition is from local business. The roundabout would not infringe on their property and would make entrance and exit from their businesses easier and safer not mention more attractive. What is there now is frankly an eye sore. The first blocks would have slower traffic past their homes, less worry about kids getting hit. The landscaping would make the whole area more attractive and likely improve property value. Pedestrian traffic is much safer and easier ( why they were installed on Raymond Ave to make it safe for all the college kids walking and crossing the Avenue). I don't understand the need for blasting, it is not mentioned anywhere,this is mostly arranging surface details, an engineer could clarify this, jumping to conclusions isn't helpful to anyone. The school would benefit from slower one way traffic. Original plan showed a landscaped walk to the school which did not impact anyone's property. The engineers recommended a roundabout at this intersection. In other areas everyone benefited drivers, residents, businesses, because of safety,ease of access, pleasing landscaping. The taxpayers are obviously not of one mind on this issue as plainly seen in the comments, rather what seems to be a few who wish to impose their wishes on the rest. I would suggest all those interested educate themselves on residential use of roundabouts and their real impact on the community not just hearsay, I have heard nothing but good about them where they have been used. I believe everyone's concerns should be constructively factually addressed and aired without heated rhetoric. Something needs to be done with the intersection whatever is decided on. As for lights and more signs there would be more clutter, more wires and add to what is already an unsightly intersection which can't be good for business. Sitting in a parking lot of a business waiting for a light to change so i may be able to squeeze into traffic is not likely to encourage my business there.

First of all, I am a home owner that started the petition. Only 5 signatures were from business owners the rest from residents. All of them saw the blueprints a couple years back at GW School after several meetings. Properties WERE impacted.
You condradict yourself in your statement. You claim you "heard nothing but good about them where they have been used" Then you state " I would suggest all those intrested educate themselves on residental use of roundabouts and their real impact on the community not just hearsay"

To Jen Fuentes
Here is a link for anyone wanting education on modern roundabouts, http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/roundabouts.html. It is from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (even has a video explanation). I think people are confused thinking we are talking about the old fashioned traffic circle, this is NOT a traffic circle. There many, many informative links on the internet just type in residential roundabout. I read through a bunch of them, not one noted a negative impact. Residents,Drivers,Pedestrians and Businesses all gained benefits. Its really common sense. I see no need for remarks about voting people out of office, especially if a representative is doing their job by encouraging open dialogue through the process of discussion and open hearing to find the best alternative. Thank you, Jen from the rest of us taxpayers.
Art P

A roundabout at this location would be the best thing to happen to that neighborhood in years. Plus, NYSDOT and other governmental transportation agencies have been installing them around the state to much success for the past 5 years now, and they have had remarkably improved traffic flow and safety because of it. (And they are being installed more quickly with less interruption to area motorists.)

Traffic flow and safety improves, pedestrian/bicycle safety improves, and an attractive, well-designed roundabout at Greenkill Ave/Wall St./Fair St. would dramatically improve the appearance of this poorly designed, neglected intersection.

Red bricks and landscaping can also be added to improve the esthetics of roundabouts, and a wide "truck apron" designed to accomodate larger vehicles which do not have as tight a turning radius as passenger cars.

I have seen small roundabouts installed in just such tight footprints as this one, (even in ones with less traffic volume and fewer "entry roads" than this one), and they completely transform the area into a more efficient, better-looking locale, which benefits the entire area as a whole. Local businesses also benefit because their driveways have a more cohesive appearance, making potential customers feel more comfortable when entering and exiting.

The other main thing that must be done at this intersection is to reverse the direction of the one-ways on both Wall St. and Fair St. to have it make more sense to drivers. This should be done on both streets all the way to North Front St. That way, traffic has the normal "right-left" progression as is what would be expected, rather than traffic coming towards you from the right, which is the illogical situation there now.

Here is what I see:

1> Many, many people still see this as a confusing and dangerous intersection and want it improved. The addition of the stop sign on Fair Street and the related signage was simply not sufficient.

2> A committed group of area residents are strongly and vociferously against a round-about, no matter how sensible that solution may seem from a traffic engineering perspective. This fact, combined with with an historically tight budgetary climate, make it seem obvious - to me at least - that a round-about will not be installed at any time soon.

We need to take a step back from conflicting all-or-nothing view points. A compromise solution is needed. Modest, incremental steps can be taken which would each improve conditions without large costs or major local disruptions. These modest steps would improve the intersection until anticipated increases in traffic and/or a better budgetary climate make a comprehensive solution more appealing and politically feasible.

The planning study of 2006 did not include this incremental approach, nor could it have anticipated our current budget crisis. It does, however, contain many individual elements which could be cherry-picked and implemented in an incremental approach. These fall into three areas:

1 - Addressing the confusion of the Wall St/Fair St confluence at the Fair St side of the intersection.

2 - Narrowing the roadways leading into the intersection, thereby reducing the maximum number of cars which can try to enter the intersection at one time.

3 - Reducing the number of roads entering into the intersection.

Let's look at these one at a time. Please review the 2006 study if you haven't already! (http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/uctc/projects/32_fair/final_report.pdf)

First, regarding the Wall St/Fair St confluence, only one of the options addresses this problem without reversing the traffic direction on Wall and Fair Streets. Reversing the traffic direction seems, again in my opinion, like another pie-in-the-sky prospect; unlikely to be implementable any time soon. One solution, however, does not involve changing traffic directions, yet still solves the wrong-direction problem in the intersection. That solution is shown as part of the "5-Way Intersection" diagram (figure 6) in the study. I believe that a more carefully rendered version of that piece of the puzzle could be made which would have smaller negative impact on the parking for the several houses on Fair Street closest to the intersection. This seems like a realistically "do-able", incremental step, if not the most easy first step to accomplish.

Number two, narrowing the roadways, is referred to in the study as "minimize pavement/channelize". At rush hours especially, cars coming from Greenkill and wishing to make sharp right turns pull up in the right lane alongside of Greenkill cars heading more 'straight' though the intersection. Less often, this can also occur on Blvd. This can raise the number of cars trying to enter the intersection at any one time from an already too high 5 to as many as 6, 7 or even 8, making it literally impossible to tell who has the right of way. Channeling the pavement fixes this problem, and also makes for much greater pedestrian safety and is included in every one of the plan's variations. Starting this process on Greenkill with traffic entering from the northeast would seem to give the most 'bang for the buck'.

Number three, reducing the number of roads entering the intersection by implementing one-way stretches, was where I began this discussion. This actually involves two parts, which need not be implemented simultaneously; perhaps only one part of this would prove sufficient if taken incrementally. The two parts detailed in the study are A) making Greenkill one-way out of the intersection towards Washington Ave, either for that entire block or only as far as Stewarts' parking lot. And B) making Boulevard one-way entering into the intersection. Since the goal is to decrease the number of cars entering into the intersection at the same time, part B seems less important, and perhaps we could see if Part A would be sufficient. Part B would only be necessary in order to implement the study's "4-Way Intersection" option (figure 8) which, by this incremental approach, might not be necessary at all.

As a practical matter, part A of number three is the only step which does not involve a state route. It would have the largest single impact in reducing the number of cars entering the intersection simultaneously, and seems like a logical first step. Why not take this one step at a time, taking small steps as needed and as feasible, while enjoying the benefits gained along the way?

It should also be noted that a traffic light is not included in any of the study options, and could not be implemented without both reducing the number of entrances into the intersection and changing the Wall/Fair traffic direction issues first.

The problem with incremental approaches here in New York State, however, is that they always seem to accomplish the first step, then leave it alone for years, figuring it's "good enough", and then the rest of the upgrades planned for future years never get done.

If the City of Kingston ever wants to improve its appeal and attract more business and tourism, it has got to stop this backward, status quo mentality, and learn that the only way it will ever become a destination, rather than just a throughfare, is to significantly improve its crumbling infrastructure, regardless of the costs. An infrastructure improvement for one location is an infrastructure improvement for all locations! The effect is cumulative.

This same mentality can be seen all over New York State, where our roads are literally caving in because they haven't been upgraded in 80 years, and our roads and bridges are completely falling apart because everything was always "good enough" and left to disintegrate because repairs of roads and highways were never given the priority they should have gotten. This intersection is just another example of just that.

I used to live in Kingston, and it will always be my "hometown", but each time I come back and drive through some of its streets, I am absolutely ashamed at the state of disrepair its streets are in, and hope against hope that its citizens and politicians might realize that sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

But I'm afraid with the stonewalling and foot-dragging so prevalent in politics today, that we will still be here 15 years from now, debating this same topic, and nothing whatsoever will have been done to improve this one small corner of our state's historic First Capital.

Reconstructing this intersection, however minimal it may be, is only the first step, but we need to invest in our future, and stop living in the past.

Forget about it. Nothing can be done. Go see your local assessor on grievance day.

must be election year , nothing is getting done again. Who wants to stick out their neck when it's safer to be quiet and do nothing

The city should exercise its "right-of-way" in order to tear down the ice cream store, which doesn't even sell gas anymore, and whatever else is in the way on that triangle of a block. That will eliminate the extra stop sign. "Round-a-bout", is that something to be meant figuratively or literally?
As for the home owners that are going to lose their house and property, you will probably get more from the city than you would ever be able to get on the open market, particularly in these times. Your location is awful, noise is bad, you are at the bottom of a hill where your probably get a lot of water, so you are rotting out and have to run sump pumps day and night. Let the city make you an offer. There are plenty of ice cream stores everywhere, if you want to call that stuff ice cream?

Bon Cur: What are you talking about? No one is going to lose their property, and not even one of the plans that have been discussed entail taking of property in any way.

Re: "The problem with incremental approaches here in New York State, however, is that they always seem to accomplish the first step, then leave it alone for years, figuring it's "good enough", and then the rest of the upgrades planned for future years never get done."

Then isn't it up to us to make sure that the plans move ahead and not languish? Please speak up!

The problem with the last study was that several options were put forward but no decision or even recommendation was made. The study clearly indicted that more needed to be done, however.

Isn't it perfectly clear that A) There is a widespread desire to improve this intersection; and B) There is too much neighborhood opposition and too little money in the budget to install a round-about?

Compromise! We need to take small, realistic steps.

Many people have 'voted' for this idea, but it is not clear if those votes are for the original idea (one block one-way on Greenkill Ave), or for the general need to improve this intersection, or for the round-about (which is not likely to happen).

If you are in favor of the one block one-way idea, please leave a comment saying as much.

I am originating the idea of tearing down the block, the only practical solution to repairing the problem. Poll the property owners and see what they say. In the parlance of our times, it may be classified as a "win-win situation"? The worst that can happen is that the property owners say "no". I'd sell my house for the right price if I was made a bona fide offer today!

Any updates? No discussion on this in four months.

Yeah, it's time to get this plan moving again. We've gotta stop wringing our hands and actually DO something in this city! Let's set our sites on getting this crumbling, dangerous intersection completely rebuilt in Spring 2011!! Let's get a roundabout built here-- Even the naysayers will like it once they see how much easier to navigate, and more aesthetically pleasing it will be for that whole neighborhood!!

Just the other day I was heading towards said intersection, and a car came at me head on..on the one-way portion - Fair Street! I beeped, I flashed my lights, and had to veer nearly off the road to avoid a head on collision. I wonder if you can use these public forums as evidence in the case of an accident when it is posted about how dangerous and ill planned it is?

That has been the subject of an Ulster County study...
you can find the work here: www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/uctc/projects/32_fair/final_report.pdf
from 2006.
Ouch. Takes a lot of time, a lot of money.
Peace

@ anonymous, patti:
Thanks for the updates, I have been through there, and I do know it has remained dangerous.
Are there any updates from the city / alderman ? or has anyone ( DPW / DOT ) taken any positive steps lately to improve this intersection?
Posting stories about the ways this is dangerous definitely helps Patti. It might also help them to see some situations they might not be aware of.

cross posting with you again Gerald. sorry
so can we close this one now? Since it had been studied.

Yes, please close.
This will likely surface again. It would be nice to have a map with "problem solved here"...

Issue closed.

I think it is useful to keep this issue open. Talking a bout a problem can only help it. That said, it also seems obvious that there is great neighborhood opposition to making changes here. In our current budget situation, an expensive project which does not have universal support is unlikely to be funded.

Please note that I opened this issue by suggesting small incremental inexpensive steps to improve the intersection, not a large-scale project. And the last time that this was addressed officially, that was the approach that was adopted. Unfortunately, there was no follow-through to determine whether or not the steps taken were sufficient, there was no mechanism built into the proposal to ensure follow-ups, and thus additional incremental steps like those I have proposed and which are contained in the study, are being ignored.

It seems clear enough that this intersection is still one which causes many people a great deal of trepidation. It is still confusing and potentially dangerous. And clearly there could still be small incremental steps which could be taken to improve safety here.

@Paul:

If you would allow me to ask a couple of questions since i am rarely on that side of town:
The report's conclusion stated

"The short-term alternative can provide immediate benefits to the existing intersection and the
City has already begun to implement these improvements with the all-way stop control which
was installed shortly after the first public meeting. The City has also committed to provide
additional pavement striping during the 2006 construction season. The striping will include
extending the island between Fair Street and Wall Street to improve sight distance at this
location. It is recommended that the City pursue the additional traffic control and driver
guidance components contained in the short-term plan. The City should also consider further
pedestrian improvements, specifically completion of the short sidewalk link to Elizabeth Street
along Wall Street, as these would provide additional benefit at the intersection. Removal of the
gas pumps on the Stewart’s Shop parcel would also improve conditions at the intersection."

This was the short term conclusion provided. Did the town meet that?

I believe that at least most of those things were done, but someone more familiar with the area than I may know better.

My point is that after those steps were taken - which, IMHO did help things at the intersection - the intersection still remained problematic, even if less so.

And the report contains other options which could be pulled out of the more extensive plans and implemented step-by-step as warranted. But there has been no follow-up to determine whether the steps that were taken were sufficient or not. (I believe that they were not, as do many others who have commented here, though still others probably disagree with that assessment.)

@Paul
Ok, so what you are simply looking for is for the town to re-evaluate the situation? very similar to what happened in 2006, but with the changes being made, to come up with new solutions?

So I guess what the main thing we want to do is to Find out if the town can put this on the ongoing triage list, to re-evaluate, and see how the changing statistics were and do change the engineered results that were not well received?

Using the existing firm "Creighton Manning Engineering" (518-446-0396), would it be possible for them to shoot us a rough price on refreshing the data in the report. And follow that up by requesting the city to fund this re-investigation?

OR

Give everyone a timeline on one of the long term solutions that were already in the package and that they propose using.

Am I closer to what you are looking for?

I reached out to consultant some time back and we agreed to revisit the issue in the fall in conjunction with some work they were planning with the county. That never happened. I, along with the mayor did receive a petition from neighbors not move forward on a roundabout. I also spoke with the county transportation safety specialist and we both agree that something should be done, however the administration is reluctant to expend resources on an issue that they deem resolved. So it is a tricky problem with neighbors on all sides of the issue. On the positive side a new Complete Streets Council is in formation and this issue fits the scope of their agenda. Perhaps we will see the implementation of some of the study's recommendations, but I am not encouraged that it will happen in the short-term.

Hi again Jen,
Thanks for your help so far.

Im a little slow when it comes to understanding bureaucracy, so bear with me while I attempt to understand this.

With the roundabout off the table, there are other options. Are these off the table as well? or is there a timeline for other options?

And I read that you yourself and the safety specialist understand that something needs to be done.

"The administration is reluctant to expend resources on an issue that they deem resolved."

Why do we need a safety specialist, when the administration will close the door on their opinion? I apologize for that sounding sarcastic. But I hate hearing about how tight the budget is, and the concerns of a safety officer are ignored.
Safety is THE first and foremost concern. isnt it?

Being a liason of sorts, is there any way that you can convey to the administration, to drive through the intersection, and alter their opinion that it has been resolved, if not listen to the safety specialist? I am not privy to how your position works, but someone has to shake the "administration" to show them that stuff like the "Short term" patches to the intersection (as per the engineered reports) is not a fix, rather a patch. And that they do not have the required knowledge or experience to decide whether it is in working order or not. That is apparent by driving through this intersection, or through another analysis.

ALSO, is the "Complete Streets Council" elected officials or appointed, or volunteered? Where can we find more information about them, including scope? Is it a paid position?
Also Im confused on why this counsel is forming to handle problems that have been long handled by others in the city? Whose responsibilities are they absorbing?

If you can help me with understanding these things, maybe we can get closer to closing this issue. I personally feel there is more work that can be done here.

"Perhaps we will see the implementation of some of the study's recommendations, but I am not encouraged that it will happen in the short-term."

If I may be a bit harsh, this terminology is a gaping hole. Its political speak for
"please stop complaining, cause nothing will happen until it gets brought up again and loud enough for us to have to deal with it in the future."

People are unhappy with the current state, and would be grateful and more satisfied with something more firm. Can you do some leg work and find us something more firm?

again, Im sorry if I come off harsh, and demanding, but I personally never find the "Not right now, go away" as a FIX that this website attempts to find.

Good luck, and if you need something from us, let us know. Im sure everyone concerned would be happy to help.

My suggestion was to make Greenkill Ave 'one way', for one block only, between this intersection and Washington, to limit the number of cars that may be trying to enter the intersection at any one time. I believe that the biggest part of the problem is that: at busy times, six or more cars can be waiting to enter the intersection at the same time, making it difficult or impossible to know who has the right-of-way.

The study also contains other low-cost methods for limiting the number of cars entering the intersection at the same time. These involve narrowing the streets entering the intersection to a single lane, so that two cars cannot be entering at the same time from, for example, Greekill Ave heading SW towards Washington. Now it is not uncommon at busy times for two cars to be coming into the intersection at the same time from Greenkill, one going straight or onto Boulevard, and a second car next to it to be turning right onto Wall Street.

And while the increased signage installed after the study's completion has helped, people still continue to drive the wrong way onto Fair Street. Perhaps the signs are not large enough, and flashing lights are needed?

I consider the possibility of a round-about DOA at this point in time (unfortunatley), so I hope we can stop discussing that. But other, inexpensive and incremental steps could be put in place with little cost. And as has been noted, all it takes to know that something additional needs to be done is trying to drive through the intersection at rush hour.

The study offered as one option (and not its preferred option) a set of small measures, which were implemented but have proven to be insufficient. The "grander" options (which the study recommended) contain within them several more low-cost options which could be separated from the grand plans and implemented on their own as further small steps.

Thank you Jen, for reaching out to the consultants again, but I think the omission from their original study of steps for evaluating the results of the first stage is what has gotten us to the stalemate we are in now.

"...the administration is reluctant to expend resources on an issue that they deem resolved..." - who, exactly, deemed this resolved? Isn't this page enough to make it clear to anyone that it is not, as if simply driving through the intersection were not enough proof?

The mayor and some neighbors felt that the small steps were sufficient. It becomes complicated when you have a petition from one set of neighbors saying everything is fine - that there is NO safety issue- and then you have other neighbors asking for changes. I do not believe the administration (the mayor and Dept. Heads that report to him) consider this a priority at this point. So while you have some people who would like to move forward, because you have some neighbors claiming they are happy with the incremental steps taken means that it is unlikely to be addressed in the short-term. It is deeply frustrating that there is not a better consensus. So I see the Complete Streets Council just authorized at the last CC meeting as a promising body that can carry the issue forward and build consensus. I'm sorry if that sounds too much like political speak, but I just don't know what else to say?? I can get you a copy of the resolution that authorized complete streets. Just call me at 845.332.6600 or jenbloom@Mac.com.

The traffic safety person works for the County, not the city.

Hi Jen,
Thanks again for continuing to follow this issue; I understand that it is difficult! You wrote:
"I ... spoke with the county transportation safety specialist and we both agree that something should be done..."

Thank you. Unfortunately, the Mayor heard from a small group who feel otherwise, and it sounds like he is happy to have that as an excuse to do nothing. Can't you, as the representative of the district, explain to the Mayor that the issue has NOT been satisfactorily resolved, and that you and the safety officer believe that more should be done? And even better, that there are still small and inexpensive steps which would help improve upon current conditions, short of large or expensive projects which might face opposition?

@ Paul

so mayor, department heads, alderman, are incapable of moving forward.

There are maybe 3 ways to move forward from here:

1. Removing all these guys from office, and replacing them with people that are on the same page as you. (may take a long time)
2. Gathering a petition together that dwarfs the number of people who are satisfied with the intersection. (would also help you to maybe see why others are ok with the intersection, and may help to inform you about how to present a change in a better light)
3. Stand there with a video camera on a sunny day, and shoot numerous cars that approach the intersection, and how they are stumped, and cant make decisions when to go, or go illegally. after getting a number of cars that repeat the same illegal mistakes repeatedly, put together a segment of video showing yourself approaching from those same places from inside the car. And show them the problems.
Get this video on youtube, and start submitting it to local papers to try to get them to write up your story.
see if you can get it submitted to other tv programs, web sites, and any other publicity.

Without a combination of any of these things happening, It might be close to impossible to move Forward with the intersection.

Do you see any other reasonable options Paul?

@Seriously?
Interesting ideas, and thank you!
Re: #1 (t'row da bums out!) - Sounds impractical, and a disproportionate effort for the desired result. (Though I understand it may be offered tongue in cheek?) Trying to elect officials on the basis of a single narrow issue like this is problematic as well, though I s'pose the idea is to elect *effective* people. :-)
Re: #2 (opposing petition) - Interesting idea; might require a tremendous amount of time and/or effort. S'pose a group effort would need to be organized to pull it off. Probably more effective and/or do-able in warmer weather.
Re: #3 (viral video) - Requires a video camera :-( and again, significant time and effort; uncertain results. I like it though!

Other options? Continue to work with Jen; try to talk directly w/ the mayor; be patient; try to get a group to speak at a public meeting; avoid this intersection; when that's impossible, be overly cautious; wait for a serious accident to occur and push the issue after that; enlist the help of someone who is comfortable and experienced with rabble-rousing?

Other approaches: Try to find anyone who has been in an accident here and enlist them to speak out for this cause.

Difficulties: Trying to find a measured, moderate, incremental, fiscally realistic approach, and working at cross purposes with those who would insist on a round-about.

@ Paul

Id say get it started and give it a shot.

I think that some of the neighbor's that say there isn't a problem are only saying that out of fear of a round-about..maybe some minds will change if they know for sure a round-about isn't an option, and the idea is smaller low cost steps. It seems that all they are hearing is round-about and nothing else.

@A
A round-about is a great idea to some -- and a terrible idea to others, as you say. It has been made very clear - several times - that a round-about is not going to be built here any time soon, if ever. So I am all for exploring any modest improvements that can still be made to improve this intersection which will not adversely effect the neighbors and which will be do-able at a modest cost.

I hope that anyone of like mind will support this idea. I will try to keep this SeeClickFix issue focused on that, and try to keep discussion of a round-about out of it, so we don't all just keep going around in circles.

I don't think this intersection is much of a problem at all anymore. Was worse in the past, now you only get the occasional clown who just runs a stop sign with a cigar in their mouth, but that can happen at any intersection.

ive lived at this intersection for years and it is rare to have an accident in the intersection ive seen 10x the accident in kingstons traffic circle.

I say we do it right the first time around. Using the term "improvements" is in other words saying "waste our money". The use of a roundabout or some type of complete street design is the only answer.

I hope many of you will realize we need a permanent design here. If we don't get one they will be doing "improvements" to this intersection when my great grandchild is born & I'm only 26 years old.

I agree, Robert.

Every project in this state always gets dragged out for years and years and never gets completed! They do study after study after public hearing after discussion group after environmental analysis... It gets VERY tiresome. And after all is said and done, you wind up in the fiscal shambles in which this state is now, because they waste billions of taxpayer dollars doing NOTHING instead of actually working and doing the jobs we PAY them for!!

Wasteful, wasteful, wasteful!

STOP STUDYING and actually FIX our CRUMBLING ROADS NOW, New York!!!!

@Robert,

Have you even read through all of the comments posted here on this issue? Fighting for your idea of an "ideal" solution is a sure way to get nothing at all done. With budget shortfalls and at best mixed neighborhood support, a major project has already been proven to be dead in the water.

If we keep on insisting upon fighting for ideas which have the support of only half of the population, we get gridlock. We should instead be working to find practical low cost solutions - even if they are only partial - which everyone might agree on, so that we can at least be moving in a forward direction, even if slowly.

@Paul: I'd be interested in seeing some solutions. I liked your solution of making part of Greenkilll one way to ease the pressure on that intersection. I think keeping the road paint and signs fresh and oversize would help, too.
While we are planning and waiting for the perfect solution, small steps would be very welcome.
What also might be useful is a different kind of web service where an ongoing design group can work together collaboratively to collect, polish and present such a plan. Several people could work on the plan, anyone might be welcome to see. Would something like google documents serve?

@ Paul: Yes, I've read all the comments. I truly understand people think the "ideal" solution may be wrong because of the monetary issues the city is faces at the moment. But in all reality, the practical low cost route usually ends up being more expensive in the long run. This point has been proven time and time again by trained professionals. If the community is totally against a roundabout we should defiantly use a complete street design. It will improve that intersection tremendously for everyone.

a rondobout would be much worse ! think of the thruway

Wow, I haven't followed this recently. I suppose the bulk of concern has dropped because of decreased traffic due to Washington Ave being closed.

I don't understand the people who are afraid of roundabouts. The Thruway roundabout is a success from an accident perspective. It also moves traffic much more efficiently than a light would.

Honestly, I think what is needed is an education effort in the neighborhood about roundabouts.

We may get another chance to look at this with complete streets and the extension of the Wallkill Valley Rail Trail - which will connect with other Kingston Rail Trails either close to or through this intersection. So if you are interested in effecting a solution - be sure to connect with the complete streets and Kingston Greenline folks.

By the way, a roundabout would be years in the making. It has to first get on the list, then reach priority and then wait in line. So nothing like that is happening quickly. I think the beauty of a roundabout and improved pedestrian access would be well worth the long term investment and direction of federal highway funds.

This issue may rise again when Washington opens back up. I don't have a huge problem with it (and drive through here at least a few times a week), but I do think it is worth a roundabout. I have a feeling things will get worse once Washington opens back up.