I’m not the only one who hopes they get this exit straightened out before we have to read in the paper that a tragic “accident” has taken place at the intersection of James St. and Grant Blvd. Call it an accident and it seems the hand of God is in play. But even mere mortals can tell this exit at Walgreens isn’t going to work. Fact is, we knew it back on December 14, 2005, when I first put this on the Walkable Eastwood website:
See the little words “illegal left turn” in there? Yep – been there since 2005. See the arrows in the street that clearly show this is a one-way? It’s one-way for a good reason: you have to circle around the monument park. It’s the only traffic pattern that makes any sense here.
I have to wonder if New York State, owner of James Street, knows that Walgreens has painted arrows that direct traffic to turn left illegally, directly into a pile of traffic turning right from James onto Grant, which here is a one-way block going the other way – to the right. See the truck below? It has just turned from James onto Grant. No wiggle room. What if that were a bicycle ridden by a 12-year-old?
Did you see the new traffic signal and directional signs? Keep them in mind – we’ll see them a little later in this post.
Here’s what you see exiting from Eastwood Rd. onto Grant Blvd, right next to the Walgreens. Same little stretch of Grant. Hmm. One way. Does the new Walgreens exit mean the one-way status of this stretch is going to change? Are we going to have Eastwood Rd. traffic turning left here to get to James Street?
Now any traffic coming from Walgreens that wants to get onto James St. could do what everyone’s been doing at Eastwood Rd. all these years: just circle around the little park. You don’t see this kind of two-way nonsense at Grant and Butternut, do you?
From the intersection of Grant and James on the west end of the park, you have a choice: turn right or left.
But if you’re allowed to turn left out of Walgreens, do you get to turn either right or left onto James? There’s enough of a snarl there right now, dealing with existing traffic coming from Grant on the west side of the park. Do we need the same snarl coming from the intersection at the east side?
And when do pedestrians get to do anything in here? You’ve now got an added layer of wait time. So what does anyone, least of all Walgreens, gain from changing an existing and familiar counter-clockwise movement around the park into a two-way free-for-all?
Here’s the approach coming from downtown, headed east on James St:
How many more distractions – arrows going this way and that, new traffic patterns, new traffic signals – do we need to keep us from seeing the kid on the bike?
Now let’s get back to what should be a simple right turn from James, west-bound, onto Grant:
This shot was not taken from the Walgreens parking lot; it was taken from James Street. But who are those directional signs for? Wait ’til the traffic signals are working. You won’t know who they’re for, either. Actually, you might, but it takes only one person to be confused by them and turn right at the same moment that someone from the parking lot is turning left. Remember: no wiggle room here.
There’s no way I’d want to be a pedestrian in the middle of this. So much for Walkable Eastwood. Folks, keep your kids away from here until it’s done right.
I did not know that Walgreen’s was allowed a curb cut where this one is. What was the city thinking ?? Apparently they were not.
I had thought that with that side street there (I have forgotten the name of it) that the ingress/egress from the parking lot would be off from it and not James/Grant. Is there not another access into the parking lot there as well ??
Most places that I am familiar with no longer, and haven’t for some time, allowed any new curb cuts within 200’ of an intersection.
I can just see the accident statistics now without the illegal left turn, let alone with it, especially rear-enders as people turn right into the parking lot going westbound.
It’s probably bad enough now from just that little side street.
I guess that as per normal, it will take someone getting killed there for them to do away with that curb cut.
It is my opinion that a responsible developer would not have requested such a curb cut, so anything that may happen there I believe should be on the developer.
Further, I think that if the corporate office for Walgreen’s had been aware of the danger this curb cut presents that they would have stricken it from their site plan. It may not be too late to let corporate know about this.
Regards,
Frank Coon
While I understand the concern, there’s also a good reason why that’s a no turn on red intersection – because it’s an exceptionally busy and already poorly designed interchange. Bicyclists are legally obligated to follow those directives as well.
The existing situation is barely walkable, due to the high volume of traffic, excepting those going straight from James to Grant and vice versa; the light controlling the exit will largely prevent that from being a big issue.
You want stupid design – try the free for all that is the other one way piece of Grant, where you’re left to your own devices to try to merge and form turn lanes that don’t actually exist.
It appears being a pedestrian here may be difficult/hazardous. I wonder what allowances they get? A dedicated signal cycle? Crossing buttons? There will need to be an added signal cycle for cars exiting Wlagreen’s. One bottleneck might prove to be just inside the parking lot. At busy times, this could slow entering cars, which might sometimes, momentarily block Grant. Time will tell.
I have a better idea – bulldoze that stupid area/circle – I have seen one too many cars come straight up off of Forest Hill up the wrong way and you are worried about a business causing problems. Maybe we can just bulldoze Eastwood and turn it into a Park and Ride for Centro for people going elsewhere. You say you want to preserve the walk-ability of Eastwood – have you walked it lately ( not talking the the “safe” walks planned weekly)?? The businesses that are being allowed to open hardly encourage a family friendly zone and useful businesses (like Walgreens) have multiple roadblocks thrown at them. Does anyone here have a family and do you really like the fact that if they get sick in the middle of the night you have to go to the Butternut Street area for 24 hour pharmacies ( hope you did not block that for Walgreens also!). The progress of your methods is exemplified at the intersection of James and Midler with that great fenced in hole in the ground that has been there for years and has had a number of projects turned away and now we have that great building imploding where Steak and Sundae used to be and it also has projects being turned away – is that your idea of progress?? Hey Aaron – yes – I am who you think I am but I just had to let my feelings be known here as besides myself MANY of my neighbors are getting disgusted in the backward thinking ( and yes we are all active in community meetings) of this group. I have little doubt that my post will be removed as based on meetings they do not tolerate truth but that doesn’t change the fact that many residents ( of which you are no longer one) of Eastwood are getting disgusted with them. The reality is that thanks to their efforts Eastwood is about as walkable as Downtown Syracuse is.
Ted, wouldn’t the 24 hour Wegmans just down the road be a better selection? It’s not like the Rite Aid on Butternut has a 24 hour pharmacy department, just the store – with Pharmacy hours that nearly match that of the Wegmans just down the street. There’s only one actual 24 hour pharmacy department in Syracuse that I know of, the Kinney Drugs on Electronics Pkwy in Liverpool. The Walgreens in Camillus gave up on their 24 hour operation and has similar hours as well.
What does Forest Hill Drive have to do with this circle, though, sitting three blocks east of it?
Correction – Shotwell Park- not Forest Hill – my bad!
Ted, after I wrote that, that’s what I figured. I posted to the list effectively what I consider a reasonable alternative that is workable and walkable (and less confusing). Diagram at http://www.acknight.com/diagram.jpg; explanation follows: “Eastwood [Rd] would connect straight to Shotwell [Park], and both directions of Grant [Blvd] would use the section alongside the Walgreens parking lot.
Gets rid of the half-blind curve to James, and the lane anarchy that immediately follows it. Alternatively, that connector to Shotwell could be removed entirely, expanding the green space next to the monument and making it substantially more walkable.
Just thoughts. But the present condition of that interchange isn’t very walkable, either. “
First of all let me say that “bulldozing” a monument erected to honor men and women who have served this country is not at all a valid or even thinkable idea. Ted, I understand that you are upset over the Walgreens situation but blasting out at businesses on James St. is not a good way to go about being heard. I own two homes in Eastwood and two businesses on James St, both very family friendly. Scott at Books and Memories also caters to families with a wonderful childrens section. I have not seen any businesses opened lately that are negative to the “walkablility” idea. I moved to Eastwood because of its neighborhood feel and I opened my businesses in Eastwood for the same reason. I know my neighbors, I talk to them and they talk back. I see people out all the time, not just during the planned walks, walking their dogs, children in strollers, etc. Eastwood is a great place to live. The only thing I see that has caused concern for me is that damn Walgreens sign. It pitted ( and still is pitting) neighbor against neighbor & friend against friend. We are a passionate group and that is a good thing, lets not let a ‘sign’ make us forget why we live in Eastwood.
Well Cindy….
I was having a bad day the other day but the sentiments I expressed are what myself and MANY of my neighbors really feel about what we see as obstructionism. As for the monument – that could easily be moved to fix that joke of an intersection ( but many here are blaming Walgreens for an accident waiting to happen where that whole intersection is). As I posted before – I have seen many cars go straight from Shotwell into the one way section but another problem I have seen is cars going West on James. I have seen cars make it through the first light with another car on their tale hit the brakes which could result in a rear end collision . Should they be doing that – nope but the key is at other intersections in the city where there are 2 lights at staggered intersections there is a delay on the 2nd light to allow cars that get throught the first light to make the 2nd one.
As for the businesses on James – well since I have lived in this area many have left and have been replaced by nail salons, tattoo parlors and pawn shops with a few exceptions.Yes – there a some family friendly places but the other places have people hanging around to the point it reminds of the early days of the demise of the Butternut St area.
Finally – the Walgreens sign fiasco – good lord – you won a victory over making it pedestrian friendly only to delay the project over a stupid sign. For the record myself and many of my neighbors thought that monument sign was far superior looking to the 2nd proposal which literally sticks out the side of the building like a sore thumb. Then again look at the fine building where Steak and Sundae was which I understand has been gutted by thieves) and that fine fenced in hole in the ground diagonally across from it – all prime examples of the methods used to”develop” this area. Well – it’s a good thing Eastwood is so driver friendly with easy access to 690 and such so the residents to get to the thriving areas.For the record – I am one of the many who have attended TNT and planning meetings only to give up in disgust-sorry to say but many of us feel you are leading us toward another Butternut Street area- sure you can walk it but would you want to??
“New” Urbansim and Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) are not “old” ideas. They are actually state of the art (combined urban planning, landscape architecture and architectural movements). We have tried to inform the neighborhood that corporate franchises actually do develop to these standards and concepts. Quite frankly, it is the neighborhood residents that support the Walgreens standard prototype development who are behind the curve and hanging on to old ideas of “progress”. A big-box store, single purpose retail chain moving into the suburbs is a recent trend. It is they (the developers of these standard prototypes) who also hold onto outdated and antiquated ways of development and the financial institutions who have set up financing standards to these formats. It would take too much work and cut into their short-term profits to build to the guidelines in their view and so that is they try and push these site plans through without public input. It is not obstructionist to want the guidelines enforced. There is a reason that they are in place. The reason is to prevent the empirically unsustainable development types and their resultant blighting of neighborhoods of which they are a root cause. Frankly, since they are single-purpose, then they cannot be adaptable to another use should the business fail, abandon the building or simply move down the street to another part of town (very common circumstances). I am sorry…but how is this obstructionist again? The building would not have been located up to the street had it not been for our position that the guidelines need to be enforced and complied with to achieve a better urban design. Sorry, I know that the mayor likes to take all of the credit for that and that may well be, but had it not been for us, it likely would not have happened. In fact, the guidelines do not allow curb cuts on James Street. The Developer forced the decision to put it where it is thinking they were getting away with not putting it on James Street. They did get away with it. Walgreens is coming regardless if their small LED reader board isn’t allowed. We already got that confirmation through the Post Standard. They are moving in in August. This is a MultiMillion $ Corporate Franchise…why would they hold out over a couple of thousand dollars in small town Syracuse? They just would not.
Examples of TND and New Urbanism (see what you think…anything is possible anywhere):
http://www.tndtownpaper.com/neighborhoods.htm
http://www.tndtownpaper.com/welcome_to_nu.htm
Actually, this is a better link to New Urbanism type development.
Geepers…if they could have done this on the Walgreens site, I might have stayed in Syracuse and bought my house there instead of in Buffalo.
http://www.cnu.org/