- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -


« News Home

Meeting on Mathews/Sheridan roundabout set April 19

Published: Wed, April 11, 2012 @ 12:06 a.m.

By Ashley Luthern



A public meeting on a long-planned roundabout at Mathews and Sheridan roads will be next Thursday.

The Mahoning County Engineer’s Office is sponsoring the event, which will allow residents to ask offi- cials questions from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. April 19 at Heritage Presbyterian Church, 1951 Mathews Road.

A presentation will begin at 5:20 p.m. to explain the circular traffic pattern that will take the place of the traffic light.

“This is the first roundabout in Mahoning County. When it’s the first one in a region, I like to explain what it is, how it will be constructed and how they operate,” said Rob Donham, a county traffic engineer.

The roundabout will have one lane in the circle and a 100-foot diameter, which forces cars to slow down to about 20 mph, he said.

The first part of design for the $1.1 million project is completed, and construction is set to begin in June 2013. The roundabout is being paid for entirely through the Federal Highway Administration’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, Donham said.

“We were able to secure 100 percent funding. Because it’s a roundabout and eliminates congestion, it makes you eligible for that funding,” he said.

Donham said initially the county considered a turning lane, but that approach would have cost more money and used more of the right-of-way.

“It would have pushed the street right up residents’ doorways on Mathews Road” if a turn lane were constructed, and the county only would have had access to matching grants from the federal government, he said.

The corridor of Mathews Road from South Avenue to Sheridan Road had 128 accidents from 2003 to 2005, most occurring at South Avenue, according to a traffic study.

From 2005 to 2007, 23 crashes were reported at the Mathews-Sheridan intersection, according to the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments website. Annual crash data are supplied to Eastgate by the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

Boardman Township Trustee Thomas Costello said he was glad the county scheduled a public meeting.

“A lot of residents have expressed interest and concerns about this project,” he said.

Anyone who wants to make a written statement about the project can submit it at the public meeting or send it to the Mahoning County Engineer’s Office via mail, email or fax.


1dennycrain(22 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

This is one helluva dumbass idea! It almost matches the assinine dead ending of Woodworth Road at a STOP SIGN onto Market Street! Identitfy the idiotic morons who have created these two stupid ideas!! And yes, my name is Rick Berger! hahahahalolololol!!!!

Suggest removal:

2NoBS(2834 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Really? A 100' diameter circle takes up less real estate than two 10' left turn lanes?? And it will cost more money to widen the intersection by 10' on all four sides, than it will to create new approaches and create a 100' diameter circle?

Also, with it being only one lane wide, will any larger vehicles, like, perhaps, fire trucks, fit through the thing?

What a boondoggle.

Suggest removal:

3republicanRick(1736 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

I love when Youngstowners are presented with a new idea, a roundabout, and get hysterical that the thing won't prove effective.

Relax my closed minded, afraid of change friends, these things work in all parts of the country. That is why they are finally being introduced here.

Psychologists should study Youngstowners to see why this group of people is so afraid of change.

RELAX, change can be good.

Suggest removal:

4tadigiacomo(15 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

And why is this an idiotic idea? Modern Roundabouts work very well. They are all over Franklin county. If they modified that intersection to be a larger traditional intersection at a greater expense people would be complaining about that. Not only is it 100% funded, it's less expensive. I have one 600-700 feet from my driveway on a street that sees as much if not more traffic than Mathews road, and there's one a mile or so down from that. In the morning traffic would be backed up past my driveway. It now flows freely and you get to and through the intersection much more quickly. They take getting used to and challenge conventional driving principles but they do work well. People here, especially older folks, didn't buy into them initially and thought they'd never work. They do work, and they work well. The only issue I see with the one they're proposing for Mathews and Sheridan is that it is only one lane, but they probably don't have the room for at that intersection.

Suggest removal:

5UrbanBuckeye(23 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

This sounds like a wonderful idea. I was skeptical at first, but if any of you naysayers have traveled outside of the smelling distance of the Mahoning River, you'd have had an occasion to drive through a roundabout. They ease traffic congestion, reduce idling time and improve air quality. Open your minds to something new and we can all breathe easier.

Suggest removal:

6UrbanBuckeye(23 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Look kids!!! Big Ben, Parliament!!

Suggest removal:

7DwightK(1537 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Roundabouts work. The last thing this area needs is another traffic light and left hand turn lane.

Suggest removal:

8NoBS(2834 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Toys, Bucky, and TA, stick your condescension where the sun don't shine. How about addressing what was said, for a change?

Can any of you rocket scientists explain how adding 20 feet of width to an existing 20 foot wide roadway magically takes up more space than installing a 100 foot diameter circle? It cannot possibly be less expensive - the project will use four times more material, and will take up much more property (which the county has to buy at fair market value). It will cost the county less, being 100% funded, but the cost someone pays will be far greater than simply widening the existing roadway.

You also fail to comment on how large vehicles will be able to fit around this single lane miracle circle.

This is nothing more than a case of our politicians finding out they can get something for free, then asking "now, where can we stick it?" Sheridan and Mathews? At morning and evening rush hours, a left turn lane is needed. The other 23 hours of the day, traffic flows just fine. There are intersections that need improvements far more than this one.

These are just some of the reasons I call this project a boondoggle.

Can anybody comment on these or any other pertinent issues, or are we in for more "Duh, Tallmadge and London have roundabouts!" nonsense?

Suggest removal:

9republicanRick(1736 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

NoBS, I assume the engineers on this job are competent and will design the right diameter so that trucks will fit!

And I disagree about the congestion there. I've seen it heavy for many hours of the day on my way into and out of Struthers.

Just relax oldtimer, the roundabout has been in use for decades in other parts of the country and it will work fine here. Go worry about something that needs to be worried about.

Suggest removal:

10TOP_E(6 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

denny, NoBs. Im not a rocket scientist, but i am an engineer. The roundabout has more benefits to it than you are aware. If you google "Roundabouts FHWA". The federal highway administration has very good information on this, as well as the supporting research. Please read and im sure your well taken concerns will be satisfied.
1. Question of large vehicles. The circle is more visual, not insurmountable. It is a rolled curb that can be driven over by larger vehicles such as trucks and fire trucks. They are able to get through and make turns.
2. There is a safety issue. This intersection has a higher amount of accidents than normal. Roundabouts are proven to improve the safety of an intersection.

3. The engineers at ODOT did a good job at Rt 7/Western Reserve/Woodworth Rd. I used to come through there and traffic was backed up to Glenwwod ave. Now, it seems to operate significantly better, like a normal intersection with a few cars waiting. The difference is that the signal now has only two cycles for two routes, instead of the additional one for Woodworth rd.

Suggest removal:

11TOP_E(6 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Im sorry NoBS. You mentioned cost also. The roundabout with more pavement surface area, may not be as more expensive than you think. While im not privy to the exact costs, placing new traffic signals at an intersection, "red lights", is in the $50k range. Then a perpetual cost of electricity and maintenance.

There is a cost/benefit amount that also would be attributed to people waiting less time at the intersection.

Again, a friend of mine in law enforcement once told me that this intersection seems to have a higher rate of running the red light type accidents. Ive learned over the years not to question the additional cost for safety. It might be me, you, my or your child/spouse/parent etc who is spared being in an accident.

Suggest removal:

12UrbanBuckeye(23 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Stay on point??? The article publicizes a PUBLIC meeting were the uninformed can solicit information and offer comments. Those with questions should polish their social skills and venture out for an evening of interaction with humans. There will be a plethora of educated representatives that qualm the fears. You can learn that the new roadway will be placed in the existing right-of-way with no property acquisition. Also, you may learn that minimum lanes widths are actually 12 feet. Tip of the cap to Top.

Suggest removal:

13UrbanBuckeye(23 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Round-a-bouts are the type of out of the box thinking the County Engineer needs to address traffic congestion. SR 11, Mill Creek and I-680 are created and natural obstacles to east west traffic on the 224 corridor. People using Mathews road will notice improved traffic flow. I hope the engineer examines using one at the west end of this street. And then Southern Boulevard could be returned to an actual boulevard a la Fairmont Blvd in Beachwood, Shaker and Celveland Heights.

Suggest removal:

14VindyPost(436 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Many counties, cities, and states have positive stats for roundabouts.Safety concerns...Total number of Crashes fall...Total number of Injuries decline......The underlying reason for fewer injuries is the reduction in high-speed collisions...when accidents do occur more likely fender-bender rather than a T-bone.

A roundabout uses circular lanes to carry traffic in the same direction.
Roundabouts slow traffic, but don’t halt it like a traffic signal or stop sign. They maintain traffic flow, which generally results in reduced fuel consumption and less air pollution.
Eliminating traffic lights also reduces electricity use, which can run $1,000 a year at some intersections. Good plan for many intersections throughout the county. Let it roll!

Suggest removal:

15ScottRAB(14 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Modern roundabouts are the safest form of intersection in the world. Search www.iihs.org for FAQs and safety facts. The safety comes from the ‘slow and go’ operation instead of the ‘stop or go fast’ way a stop light works (or the ‘keep going fast’ large traffic circle fantasy). The smaller size of the modern roundabout is what makes them safer and keeps speeds in the 20 mph range. This makes it much easier to avoid a crash or stop for pedestrians. It also means that if a crash happens the likelihood of injury is very low. Safety is the #1 reason there are over 2,400 modern roundabouts in the US today and many more on the way.
Slow and go also means less delay than a stop light, especially the other 20 hours a day people aren’t driving to or from work. Average daily delay at a signal is around 12 seconds per car. At a modern roundabout average delay is less than five seconds. Signals take an hour of demand and restrict it to a half hour, at best only half the traffic gets to go at any one time. At a modern roundabout four drivers entering from four directions can all enter at the same time. Don’t try that with a signalized intersection.
Modern roundabouts are designed for trucks by the use of the truck apron near the center of the circular roadway. For very tight right turns, overrun areas are used or the trucks go around the center island first.

Suggest removal:

16NoBS(2834 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

TOP_E, thanks for the intelligent discussion. Some people here embarrass themselves because they apparently don't know any better.

I am aware of the benefits a roundabout can produce, along the lines of reduced waiting during peak hours, *IF* everybody cooperates, but my questions are regarding the property used, the cost, and whether large vehicles such as fire trucks will be able to navigate it. Your statement that they can simply roll over the curb would be unacceptable to me, if I were one of the property owners on or near that intersection. There are apartment buildings in that immediate area, and I know Boardman has at least one ladder truck with a very long wheelbase. How long until there are muddy ruts around the roundabout?

On the issue of safety, the Vindicator wrote (some months ago) that this roundabout was being put in this intersection because of the high number of accidents at the intersection of South Avenue and Mathews Road, which is probably 1/2 or 3/4 mile away from Sheridan and Mathews. I still don't know if that was sloppy reporting by the Vindy or whether the county really does do things like that. Being a lifelong resident of the area, I'm aware either scenario is likely.

I would offer for consideration that the addition of left turn lanes would also reduce the number of accidents in the Sheridan and Mathews intersection. Traffic backs up during rush hours, because one left turner clogs the whole road. So drivers 'run' the red light out of frustration, impatience, or even a belief that their passage through that intersection is "owed" to them by their protracted wait behind the left turner.

As for cost, widening an existing roadway cannot cost as much as starting from scratch, without even taking the extra material needed for the larger surface into consideration. But the cost of the electricity?? Please - if the county were concerned about that, they'd remove the majority of traffic lights from the entire county - especially down town! The ones they left would be put on "blinker" after about 6 pm, if they were worried about the electricity. One more or one less set of traffic lights against the large number of completely unnecessary traffic lights in this county would not even be noticeable.

As for Western Reserve and Market, eastbound Western Reserve still backs up significantly - at times near to Glenwood. I don't believe the congestion is quite as bad is it was prior to the redesign of that intersection, but it still has a long way to go to be thought of as anything approaching "efficient." Shields/Indianola Road and Market is another one that backs up to a great extent - an intersection such as that would have been a better choice for the county's first roundabout - not a minor, residential intersection that 99% of the county taxpayers have never and will never travel.

Suggest removal:

17ScottRAB(14 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

The first cost of any two choices is a poor way to compare. Life-cycle cost is the best (present value of future costs, a.k.a. net present value). When comparing modern roundabouts to signals for a 20-year life cycle (the standard period), modern roundabouts usually cost us much less. Costs to compare include: first cost (design/land/construction), operation and maintenance (electricity, re-striping, etc.), crash reduction, daily delay (what’s your time worth?), daily fuel consumption, pollution (generated), area insurance rates (this costs more where it is less safe to drive). Each of these things, and others, can be estimated for any two choices and everyone near or using the project area will pay some portion of all of these costs.

Suggest removal:

18TOP_E(6 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Not a prob NoBs. Again, good questions. Its hard to explain in a minimal amount of words. Plus, i took the class a number of years ago, so im remembering as i go along. The inside circle is like a 5 ft tapered sidewalk, so, the outside wheels of the longer trucks will still be on the pavement, but the inside wheels of the middle axles will ride over the inside circular "sidewalk". Again, hard for me to verbalize, but this website seems to describe way better than me, a pictures worth 1000 words.
http:// safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/fhwasa10006/
Check it out, the visual descriptions are pretty good.

Im sure that the public meeting will have an aerial plan view showing how much, or really, how little the circle will encroach on the 4 quadrant propertys. It may surprise you.

Costs. I think Scott makes some valid points, and section 7 Costs on the web link makes some good validating points also.

Suggest removal:

19TOP_E(6 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Western reserve and Market. Well, i came through today at about 5pm, and i guess i hit it right, got the green light at market and just about drove straight through. THEN, of course i got caught up in the gridlock at South ave/ I680..... But, i think they are working on that too....

Suggest removal:

20NoBS(2834 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

Don't get me started on the exit ramps off of 680 onto 224 and onto Western Reserve. The "A-Team" was definitely out to lunch the day both those were designed! And they were done while there was still vacant property to be had, which makes the end product all the more poorly-done.

Scott, you do bring up some good points, however the Vindy and the county officials are presenting the roundabout as cheaper than adding left turn lanes, and they also claim the roundabout will take up less real estate. The Vindicator, as it typical of them, never asked for an explanation as to how increasing a 20-foot or even 24-foot roadway to 40 or 48 feet, will take more land than a 100 foot diameter circle.

See, when I read things like that, red flags go up. This story we're responding to says "The corridor of Mathews Road from South Avenue to Sheridan Road had 128 accidents from 2003 to 2005, most occurring at South Avenue,..." So why aren't they wanting to improve the safety of that unsafe intersection where they admit most of the accidents occurred? South and Mathews? Again, red flags go up. The story goes on to admit that in a 2-year period they recorded 23 accidents at Sheridan and Mathews. That's a bit less than one a month. Does the safety at this intersection really need improved? Is the expenditure of $1.1 million of taxpayer money for increasing safety at this intersection justified? Less than a mile away is an intersection they admit has had exponentially more accidents in the same period. Why not improve that one? Red flags.

I wish I could be at that meeting, but I have a prior commitment that requires my presence.

Suggest removal:

21TGWTG1209(5 comments)posted 4 years, 3 months ago

There are much worse intersections in the area that need improvements. Salt Springs & Four-Mile Run in McDonald comes to mind (that one DESPERATELY needs a light or at the very least a 4-way stop. Also Mahoning Ave & Salt Springs, just south of downtown Warren, you got those three narrow (and I mean NARROW) train trestles to go under, with Salt Springs coming in from out of nowhere right in the middle of them.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes