Hazardous Intersection Fixes Proposed

Fairhope, Alabama 

 

Ingleside Dr./ Fairhope Ave.

 

 

Alternative A.

Alternative B.

 

TRAFFIC CONSULTANT'S REPORT

Traffic engineering firm Neel-Schaffer Llc. has completed its study of the tricky Fairhope Avenue/Ingleside Drive intersection.

Recommendations are for either a right-turn-only from Ingleside design (A) -- or a split-intersection (B); more elaborate roundabout designs were included too.

Less-costly alternatives A and B could be done within existing right of ways; alternatives C and D would require acquisition of more right-of-way from adjacent property owners (Alt. D, a  unique double "peanut roundabout" would require less right of way).

Through traffic on Ingleside would be prohibited by alternative A -- but still possible with B.

A traffic signal was not considered at all due to low traffic volume on Ingleside, according to the report.


Conventional roundabout.

"Peanut" roundabout.


Comments

Anonymous said…
I don't see the need for this. I travel through this intersection routinely and have never had a problem.
Anonymous said…
Very dangerous there. Need the roundabout.
Anonymous said…
Definitely something must be done…very dangerous! I vote for option A
Anonymous said…
Option B will not fix the issue for those turning left onto Fairhope Avenue… you can’t see both ways due to the curved road. Alternative A will solve the issue for the least cost b
Anonymous said…
Between the recommendations of A and B, I think A is the better option.
Anonymous said…
Just block off the south intersection of Fairhope/Ingleside. Save money and time, problem solved.
Anonymous said…
Dangerous only if approching on Inglside
Anonymous said…
Even w/roundabouts you see those who race, drive fast to prevent merge. Those who think are entitled to road, safety out window. Fairhope gives its monthly stats on crime. Traffic enforcement is excluded, time to include as we need more.
Anonymous said…
Correct comment about roundabouts. They should have speed humps at each entry to allow merging. Was also interesting that “enforcement” was not included on recent Fairhope traffic survey.




Anonymous said…
PLEASE NO MORE ROUND ABOUTS!!!!! Put a light there!!!!! Round Abouts take up too much space and will never go away!! Will be glad for this City Council to be gone!!!!
Anonymous said…
Are you nuts? Too many traffic lights already!
Anonymous said…
YES I’M NUTS!!!! Do you have a problem with that?
Anonymous said…
Roundabouts work when drivers can read and tell the difference between a yield sign and a stop sign.
anonimouse said…
I may b crazy but i like the peanut one
Anonymous said…
Peeps who like traffic lights must enjoy Hwy 98 drivin to Mobile!
Anonymous said…
The “nuts” are the ones that got us in this mess. You have about two seconds to cross 98 at on104. It has a light. Can you imagine a roundabout there? Only logical fix there is an elevated road overpass or under the road underpass. A mess, indeed.
Anonymous said…
Put a Dunkin Donuts and everyone will stop :)
Anonymous said…
Very Poorly designed intersection. May hav worked for horses and mules at one time.
Anonymous said…
Totally STUPID idea. Does money grow on trees in Fairhope or is Fairhope raising money by increasing our utility bills RIDICULOUSLY High. A simple solution would be to install a traffic light! Much Much Cheaper, not have to buy high real estate & busy street would not be shut down over a year. Also, if police would patrol & actually stop speeders & those running Stop signs & give tickets that would help tremendously! WHO is coming up with these Stupid, Idiotic ideas?? Surely Fairhope did not PAY once again an Outsider to come do “a study” to once again screw up out streets. There is a much better simple solution for this intersection!!
Anonymous said…
Actually the cheapest solution is Alternative A...could be done within a day or two...and with minimal cost. But do totally agree with the speeders and lack of tickets by police comment.
Anonymous said…
The speeding, running lights, not yielding to pedestrians is out of control. Things are going downhill here in a hurry.
Anonymous said…
Welcome to Fairhope! What do all the police do now? No patrolling !
Anonymous said…
Neel Schaffer says insufficient traffic for light. So all must be fine?? If Fairhope needs more consulting drop me a line, I have the answer.
NS said…
Problem here is the blind approaches from Ingleside, due to the unusual S curve there.
Anonymous said…
Wow! Neal! We didn't know what the problem was.....
Anonymous said…
People living here in Fairhope need to respond to this.. Maybe first before you destroy any more land try hiring some people for police force. Not much enforcement within our city limits of people speeding, including police, people not stopping at stop signs, people running red lights, people using their cell phones while driving….on and on….yes too many vehicles here but if there are rules for the roads then maybe those should be enforced. Cyclists also ignoring signs, lights etc. If the police are being paid then that should be part of their job!!!
Anonymous said…
A roundabout would work well here. Nobody's going to take anybody's land. You will be fairly reimbursed.
Anonymous said…
Elections matter vote this fall. It is very easy to see that no traffic enforcement is the rule.
WiseGuy said…
just put a traffic signal there. problem solved!
Anonymous said…
Ha Ha! Nobody's going to vote for anyone promising more traffic tickets!
Common Sence said…
Hazardous Intersection are common in Fairhope it’s not just ingleside



Anonymous said…
tunnel?
Anonymous said…
Nobody will vote for traffic enforcement ?? Out of 33 entries 9 are concerned w/leadership & enforcement. Those are strong numbers for change this election.
Anonymous said…
orchestrated social media mob reactions mean nothing.
Anonymous said…
Responding to an information post here is not orchestrated, social media is the means of comms today. Hardly a mob reaction to voice an alt view. Is a good indicator on how the residents view present just as a choice survey would.
Anonymous said…
Social media a good indicator? Ha ha LOL ...
Anonymous said…
This platform is alt media that you use, informed us on status of intersection. The WHCA has been eliminated at W.H. to ensure alt media have been allowed in. Almost nobody uses MSM for information. Since alt media is user sourced it is most accurate to gauge citizen thoughts. Fairhope itself put out a multi survey for this very reason. So enjoy.
Anonymous said…
We all live in the news desert now since the demise of commercial media. Have to get info where you can these days.
Anonymous said…
Publisher: Has there been any update on which alternative the city plans to go with?
Publisher said…
No more public discussions ... but suspect private ones are going on. Likely it will be one of the no-left-turn options ... in the short run ....