AURELIUS - As state transportation engineers huddled in the town barn last month, they expected their redesigns of Blanchard Road's intersection with Routes 5 and 20 would be met with constructive criticism, maybe praise.
They had designed six alternatives to stop the flurry of accidents there, some fatal. Some alternatives entailed minor changes, others were more ambitious and required spending nearly $2 million. The idea: Show residents the six designs, have them choose which they like, and go from there.
There was just one problem. "Nobody liked any of those concepts," said Tony Amodei, a civil engineer with the state Department of Transportation. "We were hoping to get a little more definition, and we didn't."
That's left the project in limbo. Amodei said he and a group of engineers will meet to whittle down the options. Then, with fingers crossed, they'll gauge public opinion.
What will the reaction be in round two? "I can't even venture a guess at this time," Amodei said.
And while residents disagree on the best solution to the problem, they agree something needs to be done. Brakes can be heard screeching in the dead of night. And some drivers go out of their way to avoid the intersection.
"The department has monitored the accident history at this location for some time," engineers wrote in their initial report. "Further review of this intersection has revealed the need for additional safety measures."
Unworkable solutions
In September 1999, a 72-year-old woman was killed in a three-car crash. Stephanie Gabak was riding in a car that was hit by another car as it was turning onto Routes 5 and 20 from Blanchard Road.
Police said her husband, George, likely didn't see a vehicle cresting the hill that essentially blinds Blanchard Road drivers. Drivers say it's the poor line of sight that makes the crossing so dangerous. But neighbors say the DOT's alternatives wouldn't prevent Gabak's death from being the last:
€ An alternative to create one or two islands that would help curve traffic onto Routes 5 and 20 from Blanchard Road might further hinder the problem by obstructing what little view drivers have, residents say.
€ Another, to close access to Routes 5 and 20 from Blanchard Road would inconvenience residents who want quick access to the state highway.
€ An alternative to split North and South Blanchard roads would create an awkward traffic pattern, critics say.
€ The only alternative that received mixed reviews calls for realigning Blanchard Road. Carolyn Kassler, who lives near the intersection, said you're solving one problem and creating another.
"All you're doing is making it semi-visible from invisible," she said.
Yet town Supervisor Ed Ide thinks it could work.
"They're the most expensive, but the least intrusive," he said. "You weren't affecting anybody's house, you're affecting an open field, parts of brush."
Iva Tata, who lives on Blanchard Road, said none of the alternatives will make the "very dangerous" intersection safer.
Next step unclear
That illustrates why engineers aren't sure about what to do next. When you're dealt so many conflicting views, it's difficult to form a cohesive next step, Amodei said.
So what did engineers get from the July meeting?
"Not a lot," Amodei said. "We were hoping to get some of those choices narrowed down, but we really didn't get anything out of that. People were saying 'What about doing this or this?' Well, they don't solve anSything."
Installing a regular traffic light isn't being considered because DOT officials don't want to disrupt truck traffic on Routes 5 and 20, they said. Trucks account for about 10 percent of traffic on Routes 5 and 20 between Auburn and Seneca Falls.
Costs range from $100,000 to $1.7 million. And work won't begin anytime soon. Depending on availability of money, nothing is to be done until at least the 2004 construction season.
The next public meeting hasn't been scheduled. That raises the question of whether the project could now make the 2004 construction-season budget.
"I can't give you an answer," Amodei said.
To reach Staff Writer George Spohr, call 253-5311, Ext. 282.
There was just one problem. "Nobody liked any of those concepts," said Tony Amodei, a civil engineer with the state Department of Transportation. "We were hoping to get a little more definition, and we didn't."
That's left the project in limbo. Amodei said he and a group of engineers will meet to whittle down the options. Then, with fingers crossed, they'll gauge public opinion.
What will the reaction be in round two? "I can't even venture a guess at this time," Amodei said.
And while residents disagree on the best solution to the problem, they agree something needs to be done. Brakes can be heard screeching in the dead of night. And some drivers go out of their way to avoid the intersection.
"The department has monitored the accident history at this location for some time," engineers wrote in their initial report. "Further review of this intersection has revealed the need for additional safety measures."
Unworkable solutions
In September 1999, a 72-year-old woman was killed in a three-car crash. Stephanie Gabak was riding in a car that was hit by another car as it was turning onto Routes 5 and 20 from Blanchard Road.
Police said her husband, George, likely didn't see a vehicle cresting the hill that essentially blinds Blanchard Road drivers. Drivers say it's the poor line of sight that makes the crossing so dangerous. But neighbors say the DOT's alternatives wouldn't prevent Gabak's death from being the last:
€ An alternative to create one or two islands that would help curve traffic onto Routes 5 and 20 from Blanchard Road might further hinder the problem by obstructing what little view drivers have, residents say.
€ Another, to close access to Routes 5 and 20 from Blanchard Road would inconvenience residents who want quick access to the state highway.
€ An alternative to split North and South Blanchard roads would create an awkward traffic pattern, critics say.
€ The only alternative that received mixed reviews calls for realigning Blanchard Road. Carolyn Kassler, who lives near the intersection, said you're solving one problem and creating another.
"All you're doing is making it semi-visible from invisible," she said.
Yet town Supervisor Ed Ide thinks it could work.
"They're the most expensive, but the least intrusive," he said. "You weren't affecting anybody's house, you're affecting an open field, parts of brush."
Iva Tata, who lives on Blanchard Road, said none of the alternatives will make the "very dangerous" intersection safer.
Next step unclear
That illustrates why engineers aren't sure about what to do next. When you're dealt so many conflicting views, it's difficult to form a cohesive next step, Amodei said.
So what did engineers get from the July meeting?
"Not a lot," Amodei said. "We were hoping to get some of those choices narrowed down, but we really didn't get anything out of that. People were saying 'What about doing this or this?' Well, they don't solve anSything."
Installing a regular traffic light isn't being considered because DOT officials don't want to disrupt truck traffic on Routes 5 and 20, they said. Trucks account for about 10 percent of traffic on Routes 5 and 20 between Auburn and Seneca Falls.
Costs range from $100,000 to $1.7 million. And work won't begin anytime soon. Depending on availability of money, nothing is to be done until at least the 2004 construction season.
The next public meeting hasn't been scheduled. That raises the question of whether the project could now make the 2004 construction-season budget.
"I can't give you an answer," Amodei said.
To reach Staff Writer George Spohr, call 253-5311, Ext. 282.
The Citizens' Say
There are No comments posted.