Let there be light at Line Creek Drive

The Peachtree City Council will soon vote on a resolution to ask the Georgia Department of Transportation to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Line Creek Drive and Ga. Highway 54.

Before the vote is taken, the council likely will be bombarded with anecdotes, some of which may be untrue. (Not calling anyone a liar; it’s just that memory and perception are tricky things.)

Most of the anecdotes will be offered in hopes of stopping the installation of a light. People who are not traffic engineers will claim that there are already too many lights and that the proposed light would be too close to existing lights. People who are not traffic engineers will say that an additional light will slow traffic.

The same people who claim that a cut-through from the Line Creek development into Planterra would kill children, will now claim that the light isn’t needed even though it could reduce accidents and save lives.

There likely will be renewed calls to close the existing median cut at Line Creek Drive — forcing gasoline tankers and scores of cars, each day, to make U-turns at Planterra or McDuff.

Closing that median cut would likely also require extending the protected left-turn times at those intersections, increasing wait times for everyone on Hwy. 54. Turn lanes might have to be extended — a costly project.

None of the objections to the signal or the median cut are substantiated by the many traffic studies that have been done; many are refuted by those studies.

I urge the Council to make their decision based on facts and not fantasy.

Paul Lentz
Peachtree City, Ga.

Theprez
Theprez's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/07/2005
Chevron sale

Not so sure, I know he transferred ownership to his wife late 2013, but stated to me he was not selling the business. But they never renewed the lottery license after the transfer, and lottery is a good draw to get people in. So I do not know what the deal is. Big gas dealers like Racetrack put our local mom and pops out of business quickly because they cannot compete. Oh well when I talk to Jay I will update my post

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Who do this mayor and council represent?

Mike King seems to be omitting one fact. He was elected to represent the people of this city, not a developer and not GDOT. No one in this city wants another traffic light there, so the vote should be no light by council and mayor. Make the vote about what we want and that is NO traffic light.

To say well, it isn't our decision anyway is a cop out. It's called honoring your promise to represent the citizens of this city. Let GDOT and this developer know this city does not want or need a new light there with your no vote. If this council and mayor refuse to do that, then who will? Last I checked that is what elected are voted into office to do.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Mike King has upstaged you, moe, Nuk, Mr. Lenz, et.al.

New councilman King in his Letter to the editor - described briefly by mudcat below, he states very clearly without any political posturing at all what is relevant about this traffic light discussion. Here it is:

" Should we decline to apply for this review we must accept the liability for paying the quarter-million-dollar cost should DOT decide to approve it over our objection."

Well, that is pretty clear. Not a cop out at all - just common sense. Those traffic lights are expensive and the only thing worse than having another light would be the insult of having to pay for it. Given the way we are viewed at the state level (as rank amateurs) due to the antics of mayors Brown and Haddix, I can see GDOT taking advantage of our failure to apply for a review by sticking us with the cost of the unneeded and unwanted light.

Mr. King is indeed representing us all when he provides clarity and brevity along with fiscal responsibility on this very hotly debated issue. Conclusion? Request the review and let the state find out what we already know - a new traffic light won't help and it is too close to the other lights.

I'll even forgive Mr. King's rookie mistake which he made in the same Letter to the editor. It is not city council's place to pass judgement on the quality of tenants in a retail center (or anywhere else). Planning Commission and City Council should concern themselves with site plans, landscaping, parking and traffic issues. There was a time when council banned names of tenants from site plans, then under Brown that little twit developer that promised Parisian's started the whole "quality tenant" ball rolling and Brown's regime did nothing to stop it. Stay out of that. It is not council's place to find or vet tenants. The developer and the market will take care of that. Besides, just because they are "quality" tenants today doesn't mean they won't move out and be replaced with a Dollar Store or a Goodwill collection point.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Wrong, oh dead guy

No upstaging here. We all want what is best for the city. How we go about it is at issue. Unlike Kimmie, Erika and Vanna and now Mikee, and the frenzy they have worked themselves into, there is not one ounce of proof one way or the other of what is going into that development. The fact that Chick fil A pulled out when their contract came up put the developer in a frenzy. Now he is worried that Publix and Michaels and whatever else he claims to be going in there are going to follow suit. So, he is using this same tactic again, that he used before, that the these retailers are demanding the light or else. Same old, same old...

Read the wording closely, all. Mike says "POTENTIALLY having to pay for a traffic light" (meaning the city)...What does "potentially" mean, Mike? Who said that and when did they say it? Show us the proof that this will happen IF...

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
People who are not traffic engineers

Like you and me and everyone on city council. All the stupid statements and analysis about this traffic light is irrelevant. It has been months, if not years that this debate has continued and until today I have not heard the single most relevant fact that trumps all other discussion. This fact supplied in a Letter to the Editor by none other than new councilman Mike King restates the well-know fact that the light is GDOT's decision and then goes on to say that PTC can either request a review or not, but if they do not request the review and GDOT later decides the light is needed, then PTC will have to pay for it. Presumably by requesting the review, PTC will not be liable for the cost of the traffic light.

Bravo Mike. That's pretty clear and it explains why council's only responsible decision is to vote for and order the review. I strongly believe the light is not needed, too close to the McDuff and Planterra lights and certainly not any kind of solution to the traffic problem. And I sure don't want the taxpayers of PTC or even the State of Georgia to pay for it.

But by stating clearly and honestly what the real issue is about - a review request to GDOT that relieves PTC of the cost of installing said light - Mr. King has shown responsible, unemotional, non-politic leadership. A nice departure from the idiotic discussions of last year's council.

Thank you Mr. King.

Keirku
Keirku's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2006
Seriously?!

You obviously don't live in the area or you would have a completely different opinion on putting a light at this intersection. You also need to update some of your information.

First things first - that Chevron has been sold to the liquor store and is closing so that Line Creek Liquor can expand, so your gas tanker argument is invalid. Second, with the spacing of the lights as they are, and the DOT being complete idiots about the flow of traffic themselves, you are asking for serious back ups and for more accidents to happen along with added congestion on the back road that runs between MacDuff and Wal-Mart. As someone who lives in this area and already has to deal with the headache that is this corridor - you sound like an idiot.

hersch22
hersch22's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2009
Tankers etc.
Keirku wrote:

You obviously don't live in the area or you would have a completely different opinion on putting a light at this intersection. You also need to update some of your information.

First things first - that Chevron has been sold to the liquor store and is closing so that Line Creek Liquor can expand, so your gas tanker argument is invalid. Second, with the spacing of the lights as they are, and the DOT being complete idiots about the flow of traffic themselves, you are asking for serious back ups and for more accidents to happen along with added congestion on the back road that runs between MacDuff and Wal-Mart. As someone who lives in this area and already has to deal with the headache that is this corridor - you sound like an idiot.

I think what he is saying is that if you eliminate the median cut at Line Creek, and the gas station is installed on the south side of 54, gas tankers coming south on 74 to 54 to the gas station will have to make a u turn at Macduff (which is impossible). As someone who also lives in the area, guess where these tankers are going to come from if the Macduff to 74 extension is ever opened? What a mess that is going to make.

Keirku
Keirku's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2006
Mute point

The gas station isn't going to be there much longer, the owner has sold it. Therefore, the gas tankers are a non-issue.

And most of the accident that already happen at that intersection are because these people don't want to sit and wait for the lights. The reason for this is because the way the GDOT has the Hwy 54 lights set up does't allow for the traffic from the side streets to get onto 54 in a timely manner during morning rush hour.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
keirku-fyi

it's moot, not mute. Thanks for the news on the gas station. That's news we need to know, too.

If you think it's tough getting traffic off side streets now onto 54, pay very close attention to this 70K "traffic response study" the mayor has just pushed through. Promise of 3 months for preliminary results and you watch...the only way to get 54 unplugged up is to stop all side streets from being allowed access to it during rush times and making it practically a green light from the Parkway over to Coweta line. 70K will be blown for a stupid report telling us what we already know.

Keirku
Keirku's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2006
Thank you

I caught that after I posted.

Stopping side streets from access will effectively cut off the 3 neighborhoods and the apartments in that area from being able to go, literally, anywhere since 54 is the only way to get off Macduff. If effectively cutting off this area is the only way to relieve traffic then there's a far more serious issue that needs to be worked out. Mainly, that anywhere else in Peachtree City has no less than 2 ways to get to those locations and neighborhoods, but those that are off MacDuff really only have the 1. Fix that 1 and chances are much of the relief will follow since those neighborhoods will no longer have to fully rely on Hwy 54 in order to go anywhere.

Not exactly a fun picture when thinking of emergency situations.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Emergency situations

I would suggest you ask Chief Eiswerth (FD) what the response time is by the FD to a house fire in Centennial on a payday during the 4-6:30PM time frame.

Keirku
Keirku's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2006
Emergency Situations

Already checked - those response times are way longer than anywhere else in the city.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Wait to see what this does

to your homeowners insurance bill when the ISO ratings are done over in a few years. Not just the west side, the whole city.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Chief Eiswerth? LOL

????? You making a funny here?

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
NUK 1-Egad!

As we all agree, there is nothing funny about any of this. GDOT is responsible for this mess and they have conveniently stepped back and let this become a local game of b.s.

Addendum here...I just realized what I wrote above hours ago. My apologies to everyone (except the d-bag I mentioned in error, but never will again, promise) and especially to Chief O'Conor. May my brain just come back to earth and function properly...please forgive me. I thought you were making fun of the new chief and for the life of me figure out why. Not wanting to even know, I did not ask. Sorry. Thanks for catching it and please feel free to spell it out if I ever do something like that again.:(
I can only guess that Kierku talked with ???

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Lentz needs ENLIGHTENment

on traffic lights. I guess living in Tinsley Mill where PTC has to evacuate some folks out of there by boat if it rains too long and too hard hasn't wisened him up any.

"None of the objections to the signal or the median cut are substantiated by the many traffic studies that have been done; many are refuted by those studies."

Name those traffic studies and why GDOT is wrong, or the residents for that matter.

I get the old curmudgeon bit and being a contrarian to anything resembling common sense, but there is no way in hell that area needs another traffic light for a developer's fantasy(that is likely doomed to begin with) or one that GDOT already has 1,000ft. regulations against. Another light there benefits exactly whom?

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
If Lentz lives in a flood zone - he should be banned

from this forum. Anybody who endangers his family by living in a known flood zone is irresponsible and should not be allowed to comment on any issue that involves the children. How would you feel if the flood claimed their lives while you were blogging? Move right away or get some sandbags - or a lifeguard.

Husband and Fat...
Husband and Father of 2's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/23/2012
I stay away from there

Like the plague. Would rather stay home and clean the lint from the drier. I bet a lot of people feel the same.

While I understand more cars equal more business, it also works conversely when travel becomes a headache.

PTC doesn't need to pay for this study. Let the state do it and still ask for guarantees if they recommend a light.

If the developer wants to build on the lot and risk the light, not much we can do if they meet all other criteria. Nothing says welcome like another Dollar Store or Pawn shop to go on both ends of 54.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Could be worse

spend 98.5 million bucks on a streetcar, have it arrive and not fit in the service and storage bay. Took over 2 hours to figure out that screw up.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
MLC, Streetcar and "could be worse"

Yeah, and IT WILL BE WORSE--because I predict the line will be severely under-used. And Rep John Lewis thinks he did the city a great favor by securing all those Federal dollars to build something for which there is no need!

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
AHG-Rumor has it

It will be named Desire.

Of course it will be under-used. If the feds can't waste money, Lewis isn't happy. However, first 3 months, free rides. After that, $1.00 per ride. Such a deal.

12 stops in 2.5 miles. Man, that will be a real people mover at lightening speed for those commuters.

Each of these 4 cars weighs 92,000 pounds...that's before the 200 riders. We can only hope it doesn't have brake failure and end up on top of those fountains at Centennial Park. Yikes.

They should have left it at this, like us:

http://www.atlcruzers.com/tours/electriccartours/

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
MLC & FreeRides

In addition, you get a pre=approved application for SNAP, all you have to do is sign and mail! Damn! Free rides (to somewhere you don't want to go); free food--it just don't get any better!

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Graffiti "taggers" going to have their Super Bowl with this

This ridiculous blimp goes at about 5mph.....and for 2.5miles. Half the cost came from the Feds. Your tax dollars not at work! "Who measured the trolley house??? It don't fit! OH well....let's just take some parts off."

Sometimes the truth is way stupider and stranger than fiction.

Recent Comments